On Oct 20, 1:51 am, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Craig,
Sorry for not answering sooner. I am very busy at the moment and
realistically I cannot participate to the degree I'd like to. So this
may be my last reply... I will try to keep it short.
No problem, I understand.
On Oct 20, 1:51 am, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Craig,
Sorry for not answering sooner. I am very busy at the moment and
realistically I cannot participate to the degree I'd like to. So this
may be my last reply... I will try to keep it short.
No problem, I understand.
Hey Craig,
Sorry for not answering sooner. I am very busy at the moment and
realistically I cannot participate to the degree I'd like to. So this
may be my last reply... I will try to keep it short.
On Oct 16, 2:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Emergent properties of
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
We are on the exact same page. This is why I keep barking in Stathis
direction - his view is that there are no emergent properties because
everything that exists must be reducible to a molecular level or else
it's
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Oct 2011, at 04:22, Terren Suydam wrote (answering Craig):
Exactly. I think that it can be better understood as a phenomenon
which is not only an emergent property
On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2011 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2011 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Emergent properties of electromagnetism are also electromagnetic, are
they not?
On Oct 17, 6:50 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well I'm going to stop guessing about what Stathis thinks and let him
chime in if he wants to.
There is no downward causation from high
level
On Oct 17, 7:02 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose I decide to arrange three stones in a triangle. Do the stones
create the triangle (upward causation), or does the triangle
constrain the stones (downward causation)?
The triangle does not exist. If anything, it
On 10/17/2011 4:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2011 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
On 10/16/2011 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Emergent properties of
On Oct 17, 12:19 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There is a mapping between the image and thing imaged (which could be noise).
Only if you can see and make sense out of what you are looking at.
That is the only mapping going on.
If there existed nothing in
the universe who could
On 17 Oct 2011, at 12:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
We are on the exact same page. This is why I keep barking in Stathis
direction - his view is that there are no emergent properties
because
everything that
On 16 Oct 2011, at 04:22, Terren Suydam wrote (answering Craig):
Exactly. I think that it can be better understood as a phenomenon
which is not only an emergent property of ensembles of neurons, but
granular properties in the moment of an individual entity's behavior
over time. It has to go
2011/10/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Oct 2011, at 04:22, Terren Suydam wrote (answering Craig):
Exactly. I think that it can be better understood as a phenomenon
which is not only an emergent property of ensembles of neurons, but
granular properties in the moment of an
On Oct 15, 10:22 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we are talking past each other. There is the behavior of
neurons at the single-neuron level. That is fairly well understood.
Nothing about
On Oct 16, 1:37 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I wanted to explain to craig... when you run a program on a
computer... the low level of the computer (the transistors of the cpu) are
constraint by the program, it is the high level (the program) that drives
the
On 10/16/2011 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Emergent properties of electromagnetism are also electromagnetic, are
they not?
No. Forming images is an emergent property of electromagnetic waves which in turn are an
emergent phenomena of Maxwell's electromagnetism.
Electromagnetism is
On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2011 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Emergent properties of electromagnetism are also electromagnetic, are
they not?
No. Forming images is an emergent property of electromagnetic waves which in
turn are an
emergent
On 10/16/2011 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2011 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Emergent properties of electromagnetism are also electromagnetic, are
they not?
No. Forming images is an emergent property of electromagnetic
On 10/14/2011 8:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 14, 10:46 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
On 10/14/2011 5:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You already noted that diurnal cycles
Dear Craig,
where did you take it from that *WILL* does exist indeed? We experience a
*decision* - sometimes with the 'urge(?)' to fulfill
it, based on comparing partially conscious circumstances (anticipatory
included) and getting into some 'evaluation'(?) of what
seems to be advantageous and
On Oct 14, 11:48 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I have said many times already, if you think that I am talking about
something thay contradicts physics then you don't understand what I'm
talking
On Oct 15, 3:02 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011 8:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 14, 10:46 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011
On Oct 15, 10:59 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Craig,
where did you take it from that *WILL* does exist indeed?
Technically I think that will could be said to 'insist' rather than
exist, and as such a subjective experiential phenomenon, it is nothing
like a discrete object or
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we are talking past each other. There is the behavior of
neurons at the single-neuron level. That is fairly well understood.
Nothing about the spontaneous activity you referenced really
challenges anything
On Oct 13, 11:21 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Craig,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You have
misunderstood what spontaneous neural activity means.
There is no misunderstanding. It's not even controversial, you're just
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, Stathis's interpretation is the one shared by most of the
neuroscientific community. By and large most scientists do not take
seriously the idea that the behavior of neurons and other cells is
explainable in
On 10/14/2011 12:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I think spontaneous in the context of the video and papers you linked
means, unexplainable activity in terms of what you would expect
neural circuits to be doing when the organism doesn't appear to be
doing anything. But it certainly does not mean
On Oct 14, 3:40 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, Stathis's interpretation is the one shared by most of the
neuroscientific community. By and large most scientists do not take
seriously
On Oct 14, 3:58 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011 12:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I think spontaneous in the context of the video and papers you linked
means, unexplainable activity in terms of what you would expect
neural circuits to be doing when the organism doesn't
On 10/14/2011 5:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
We all have many clocks that we can turn to to help us arrange our
activities. Sometimes what we see when we look at the clock makes us
do something that we would rather have waited longer to do. In that
sense, a clock on the wall is 'providing some
On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011 5:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You already noted that diurnal cycles get synced by light/dark cycles. The
point is that
you don't will these cycles, yet you rely on them: to wake up on time, to
remember
appointments,
On 10/14/2011 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011 5:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You already noted that diurnal cycles get synced by light/dark cycles. The
point is that
you don't will these cycles, yet you rely on them: to
On Oct 14, 10:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2011 5:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You already noted that diurnal cycles get synced by light/dark cycles.
The point
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I have said many times already, if you think that I am talking about
something thay contradicts physics then you don't understand what I'm
talking about. Some people do, but you don't. Thats ok, not everyone
is
On Oct 13, 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The model of a neuron does not include the inputs. A
larger model of a network of neurons includes inputs and outputs from
all the neurons in the
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The external inputs themselves are not modelled, they are provided by
the environment.
What is an 'external input' made of? Are you saying that there are
physical pieces of the outside world stuck inside of your
Hey Craig,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You have
misunderstood what spontaneous neural activity means.
There is no misunderstanding. It's not even controversial, you're just
plain denying the uncontested facts. Don't you think that if there
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The model of a neuron does not include the inputs. A
larger model of a network of neurons includes inputs and outputs from
all the neurons in the network but does not include external inputs.
Without any external
2011/10/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 10, 10:32 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
No. Your claim is that all inputs must also be neurological.
He *never* said that. What he said is this : If you know the
On Oct 11, 2:52 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 10, 10:32 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
No. Your claim is that all inputs must also be
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you simulate a neuron, then you predict what the neuron will do
given certain inputs. The model of the neuron does not include the
inputs.
No. Your claim is that all inputs must also be neurological. You say
On Oct 11, 8:45 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you simulate a neuron, then you predict what the neuron will do
given certain inputs. The model of the neuron does not include the
inputs.
No.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat,
On Oct 10, 7:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
A simple model of a car's steering would involve knowing the gear
ratio between the steering wheel and the front wheels. You could then
predict which way the car will turn given the driver's input.
The same is true of a
2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 10, 7:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
A simple model of a car's steering would involve knowing the gear
ratio between the steering wheel and the front wheels. You could then
predict which way the car will turn
On Oct 10, 10:32 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
No. Your claim is that all inputs must also be neurological.
He *never* said that. What he said is this : If you know the input + the
working of a neuron, you can predict the
On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
momentum? And if not, then how can they have any unexpected effects?
Here's a post I did today that hopefully helps clarify how I think it
works:
On Oct 9, 12:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of
On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/8 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of course all the parts of
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course all the parts of the car determine how it will move! You can
predict exactly what the car will do if you know how it works and you
have the
2011/10/8 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Of course all the parts of the car determine how it will move! You can
predict exactly what the
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course all the parts of the car determine how it will move! You can
On Oct 6, 10:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The mind may not be understandable in terms of biochemical events but
the observable behaviour of the brain can be.
Yes, the 3-p physical behaviors
2011/10/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 6, 10:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
The mind may not be understandable in terms of biochemical events but
the observable behaviour of
On Oct 7, 10:28 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 6, 10:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
The mind may not be
If you have the prediction and not the model... then you don't have the same
external input.
The internal stimuli are modeled by the model, that's the all point of the
model.
If it's not the case, then simply the model is wrong.
2011/10/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 7, 10:28
On 08/10/2011, at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
it is something-it-is-like to be a
leaf, and the qualia may differ depending on whether the leaf goes
left or right. As with a brain, the leaf does not break any physical
laws and its behaviour can be completely
On Oct 7, 12:38 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have the prediction and not the model... then you don't have the same
external input.
The internal stimuli are modeled by the model, that's the all point of the
model.
Subjective internal, not medical internal.
If it's
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If a motor neuron involved in voluntary activity fires where you would not
predict it would fire given its internal state and the inputs then it is *by
definition* acting contrary to physical law.
Every firing of
On Oct 7, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If a motor neuron involved in voluntary activity fires where you would not
predict it would fire given its internal state and the inputs then it is
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If a motor neuron involved in voluntary activity fires where you would
On Oct 7, 8:23 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
If a
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course all the parts of the car determine how it will move! You can
predict exactly what the car will do if you know how it works and you
have the inputs.
What you are talking about is either tautological and
On Oct 5, 10:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are right then there would be a violation of physical law in
the brain. You have said as much, then denied it. You have said that
neurons
On Oct 5, 10:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are right then there would be a violation of physical law in
the brain. You have said as much, then denied it. You have said that
neurons
2011/10/6 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 5, 10:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you are right then there would be a violation of physical law in
the brain. You have said as
On Oct 6, 9:14 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/6 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
Likewise for a program running on a computer... The physical attributes of
the cpu are modified by the program..
Sort of, but not exactly. The program exists in the minds of the
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The mind may not be understandable in terms of biochemical events but
the observable behaviour of the brain can be.
Yes, the 3-p physical behaviors that can be observed with our
contemporary instruments can be
Hi,
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable
On Oct 5, 12:23 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 8:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal
On Oct 5, 12:27 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
According to Craig, the 1-p
influence (which is equivalent to an immaterial soul) is ubiquitous in
living things, and possibly in other things as well.
But he doesn't say what effect is has. It could be anything and hence could
On Oct 5, 2:54 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
Consciousness happens. Physics has nothing to say about what the
content of any particular brain's thoughts should be. If give you a
book about Marxism then you will have
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 5, 2:54 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
Consciousness happens. Physics has nothing to say about what the
content of any particular brain's thoughts should be. If
On 04 Oct 2011, at 02:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:16 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there are any arithmetical beings.
In which theory?
In reality.
That type of assertion is equivalent with because God say so.
Reality is what we try to figure
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain fed
with the same inputs as a real brain will act as the real brain... if it was
not the case, the model would be wrong so you could not label it as a model
of
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain
fed
with the same inputs as a real brain will act as the real brain... if it
was
not the case, the model
On Oct 5, 11:54 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain
fed
with the same inputs as a real brain
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, Craig himself
denies that his theory would manifest as violation of physical law,
and is therefore inconsistent.
There is no inconsistency. You're just not understanding what I'm
saying because you are only
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain fed
with the same inputs as a real brain will act as the real brain... if it was
not
On Oct 5, 6:40 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, Craig himself
denies that his theory would manifest as violation of physical law,
and is therefore inconsistent.
There is no
On Oct 5, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain fed
with the
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are right then there would be a violation of physical law in
the brain. You have said as much, then denied it. You have said that
neurons firing in the brain can't be just due to a chain of
biochemical events.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The neurons are firing in my brain as I'm thinking, but if you could
go down to the microscopic level you would see that they are firing
due to the various physical factors that make neurons fire, eg. fluxes
of
On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The ion channel only opens when the ligand binds. The ligand only
binds if it is present in the synapse. It is only present in the
synapse when the presynaptic neuron fires. And so on.
It's the 'and so on' where your
2011/10/4 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The ion channel only opens when the ligand binds. The ligand only
binds if it is present in the synapse. It is only present in the
synapse when the presynaptic neuron fires.
On Oct 4, 8:54 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/4 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The ion channel only opens when the ligand binds. The ligand only
binds if it is present in the synapse. It is
On 04 Oct 2011, at 02:29, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I agree with Craig, although the way he presents it might seems a bit
uncomputationalist, (if I can say(*)).
Thoughts act on matter all the time. It is a selection
On 10/3/2011 11:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The neurons are firing in my brain as I'm thinking, but if you could
go down to the microscopic level you would see that they are firing
due to the various physical
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p observable
state at t
is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig wants add to this that
there is
additional information which is not 3-p observable and which
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p observable
state at t
is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig wants add to this that there
is
additional information
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable state at t is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig
wants add to this that there is additional information which is not 3-p
observable and
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable state at t
is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt.
On Oct 4, 9:32 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable state at t is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig
wants add to this
On 10/4/2011 8:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p observable
state at t
is
On 10/4/2011 6:32 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable state at t is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig
wants add to this that there is
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If they are part of the same thing, then it is presumptuous to say one
causes the other.
One might at well say the neurons firing caused the thought of
On 03 Oct 2011, at 01:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/2/2011 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
cause,
On Oct 3, 8:29 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If they are part of the same thing, then it is presumptuous to say one
causes the other.
On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
momentum? And if not, then how can they have any unexpected effects?
They don't have any unexpected effects, they just have unscheduled
effects. I don't understand why
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree with Craig, although the way he presents it might seems a bit
uncomputationalist, (if I can say(*)).
Thoughts act on matter all the time. It is a selection of histories + a
sharing. Like when a sculptor isolates
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
