On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:08 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote:
> Oh, and CB, rather than just ignore your confusion about one of my > comments, I’ll readdress it in context: > > “Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are > the root causes…” – CB > > “Causes?...of what, thoughts? Is your claim here that somehow what we > call a chemical reaction somehow is started prior to a > thought?...thus > are a thoughts cause? While an interesting notion, the > epistemological > problems with such an axiom are immense. “ – OM > > You only said: > “I don't have any idea what this means. “ – CB > …about my last sentence above. So, what don’t you understand? Is it > the terms I used?...’notion’?, ‘epistemological’?, ‘axioms’?...is it > how I strung the words together that perplexed you? Is it how I was > addressing your argument about ‘root causes’ with them that was the > problem? I’ll do my best to clarify if you wish. > > In any case, so far I haven’t seen the evidence presented here about > neurons and chemicals being the ‘root causes’ of thinking nor of > emotions like love. And, no doubt, you’ve run across this debate > elsewhere and before now, right Chuck?... I don’t have a problem with > you believing whatever you wish to believe…just that in this case, I’m > not so sure you are aware of how much you do take as an assumption > from which you draw your conclusion. I’m just attempting to point out > your assumption (axiom) is not grounded on anything at all…other than > being what you start out assuming to be true with no evidence. > Are you saying that there is no evidence that the brain produces thought? If not then what purpose would the brain serve other than sucking up about a quarter of the bodies energy? > On Apr 27, 8:59 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:38 PM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > “Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are > > > the root > > > causes…” – CB > > > > > Causes?...of what, thoughts? Is your claim here that somehow what we > > > call a chemical reaction somehow is started prior to a thought?...thus > > > are a thoughts cause? > > > > When I think about thinking the analogy that comes to mind is a > pointillist > > painting. If you look very close at the painting all you will see are > > thousands upon thousands of colored dots. But, if you back off and view > the > > painting as a whole what you see is entirely different. > > > > IMO (supported by a fair amount of scientific evidence) the human mind > > operates in a similar manner. The brain has about 10 billion neurons. > Each > > of these neurons has about 10,000 connections to other neurons. That > means > > that the total number of connections in the brain is about 100 trillion. > > > > To put it in perspective, my monitor is a 27" with a current resolution > of > > 1920x1080 which is a little over 2 million pixels. The total viewing area > is > > about 24"x12". Doing the math the size of a pixel on my screen is about > > .01". To make a long story short, if I had a screen with as many pixels > as > > the brain has neural connections it would be about 3 billion x 3 billion > > inches square or a little over 47348 x 47348 miles. I think I'd need a > > bigger desk. > > > > In addition to the number of connections, a neuron is capable of firing > > about once every 10ms. This means that the human brain can completely > > reconfigure its neural patterns in fractions of a second. > > > > My point (pun intended) is that I'm not talking about a couple of neurons > > firing and farting out a well formed thought. I'm talking about trillions > of > > connections all firing in a coordinated parallel sequence of patterns > that > > takes the human senses as input and produces a complex interpretation > based > > on our memories and knowledge. > > > > > While an interesting notion, the epistemological > > > problems with such an axiom are immense. > > > > I don't have any idea what this means. > > > > > “…While the whole of the human mind is greater than the sum of it's > > > parts, it > > > is still rooted in physical phenomena.” – CB > > > > > Phenomena, perhaps. However, the issue with the very notion of > > > something ‘physical’ is that when thoroughly examined..things > > > ‘physical’ just aren’t! > > > > So you're saying that the physical world isn't physical? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:35 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are > the > > > root > > > > causes. > > > > > > While the whole of the human mind is greater than the sum of it's > parts, > > > it > > > > is still rooted in physical phenomena. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM, ornamentalmind < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Chuck, while neurons do 'fire' when thought arises and hormones > etc. > > > > > are released often when one feels what we call 'love', in neither > case > > > > > is the symptom the thing itself. > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:21 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Thoughts are the organized firing of groups of neurons in the > brain > > > and > > > > > love > > > > > > is the release of chemicals in the brain that promote bonding > between > > > > > > individuals. There is nothing mystical about either. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps thoughts aren't real then...;-)... same for love etc. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 12:47 pm, Chuck Bowling < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > To be honest, I really don't want to scan more. I'm not all > that > > > > > > > interested > > > > > > > > in gnosis. I have read enough to convince me that it is a > > > spiritual > > > > > or > > > > > > > > mystical perspective on the universe. While I don't reject > the > > > idea > > > > > that > > > > > > > > there are things we don't understand I lean towards a less > > > esoteric > > > > > view > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the world. > > > > > > > > > > If ya can't see, feel, touch, taste, or smell it then it > ain't > > > real. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ash <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do a little more scanning, you should find gnosis and many > > > other > > > > > > > > > 'spiritual' oriented paths veer far off course with theism > in > > > many > > > > > > > ways. > > > > > > > > > Ontological reductions toward archetypal figures aren't > > > necessary > > > > > > > (gods), > > > > > > > > > interestingly I've found the newer pagan paths to be the > most > > > > > advanced > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > flexible. In both, /you/ choose, they seem to be acquainted > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > notion > > > > > > > > > of many schools, then there's life. Kinda like Taoism's > > > syncretism > > > > > in > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > respect I guess. You could speak with any of these for > hours > > > and > > > > > know > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > are talking about the sciences but seeking hermetic > > > constructions > > > > > in > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > angles, with no mention necessary of 'fantastic' stories. I > > > think > > > > > the > > > > > > > term > > > > > > > > > is 'eclectic pagan'. That is, for /some/, of course..- Hide > > > quoted > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - >
