That's like saying "We can't change the channel on the TV, or we would see some new colors of pixels that are not RGB.". In order to understand why my interpretation of spontaneous neural activity is the more correct interpretation, you would have to consider the possibility of top-down control to begin with. If you insist upon a flat picture of physics, where the TV actors and the audience at home must all live inside the patterns of the TV screen then you will not be able to find any significant truths about consciousness. You have to get out of the box, and right now, you are so far into the cardboard, you can't even find the box you're in. The term "spontaneous neural activity" is not a mistake, nor is it exotic or subtle, even if some of the scientists who use it are not aware of the implications for its erosion of determinism. Just because neural activity on one level is also caused by sub-neural activity on another, does not mean that it is not also causing its own activity, or serving the causes of the total intention of the person whose brain and body it is. > > >> We can change each others neurochemistry intentionally. That aside, >> certainly ordinary animal consciousness correlates to neurochemistry, so >> that conscious states would be *represented* publicly as different >> neurochemical patterns (and also different facial expressions, body >> language, vocal intonation, smells that dogs can detect, etc...lots of >> expressions beyond just microphysical containment). Changing the brain >> chemistry changes consciousness, but this study shows that the brain >> chemistry fights back. Being conscious is to resist noise being introduced >> from the microphysical level. It is top-down as well as bottom up. We are >> not mere puppets of neurochemistry, neurochemistry is also our puppet show. >> >> >> >>> Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change >>> in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would >>> be evidence of supernatural processes. >>> >> >> This study alone should convince you that this iron law you have adopted >> is obsolete. The fact that it does not only shows that you are not looking >> at evidence, but ideology. This experiment shoes conclusively a change in >> the microphysical public brain which is actively ignored by the top down, >> macrophenomena of private physics. >> > > I can't see how you would think the article shows what you think it shows. > That makes makes sense. Yet you think that I am the one who doesn't understand. > It claims that there must be something different about the brain when it > is processing information consciously, which is what you would expect if > consciousness does, in fact, supervene on neurochemistry. What you need to > support your case is the opposite effect: consciousness is different while > the brain is the same. > This is that effect. The brain behavior is staying the same in the regions which coincide with conscious attention, despite introduced noise. The brain behavior is staying "the same" in regions which coincide with inattention, in that they succumb mechanically to introduced noise. Consciousness is not difference, consciousness is MAKING the difference between difference and indifference. It's not metaphysical, it is meta-ontological. Absolutely primordial. Infinitely greater than God and Physics put together. Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.