On Oct 3, 8:28 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
> >> Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
> >> momentum? And if not, then how can they have any unexpected effects?
>
> > The
On Oct 3, 11:16 am, Bruno Marchal 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 out.
> If you know for sure what reality is, then I
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 an art form fr
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch 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 un
On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch 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 it makes sense to t
On Oct 3, 8:29 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb 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
On 03 Oct 2011, at 01:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/2/2011 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
cause, since thoughts are not an observable c
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb 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 gambling -
>> and in fact that
>> is what
On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/2/2011 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >> So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
> >> cause, since thoughts are not an observable cause. A neuroscientist
> >> would see
On 10/2/2011 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
cause, since thoughts are not an observable cause. A neuroscientist
would see neurons firing apparently for no reason, violating physic
On Oct 2, 9:28 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> So you do believe that ion channels will open without an observable
> cause, since thoughts are not an observable cause. A neuroscientist
> would see neurons firing apparently for no reason, violating physical
> laws.
Thoughts are observable to t
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Oct 1, 8:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> >> I'm afraid the analogies you use don't help, at least for me. Does an
>> >> ion channel ever open in the absence of an observable
On Oct 2, 5:01 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 01 Oct 2011, at 21:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 10:13 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 01 Oct 2011, at 03:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> The singularity is all the matter that there is, was, and will be,
> >>> but
> >>> it has no exteri
On Oct 1, 8:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> I'm afraid the analogies you use don't help, at least for me. Does an
> >> ion channel ever open in the absence of an observable cause? It's a
> >> simple yes/no question. Whether consciousn
On 01 Oct 2011, at 21:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 1, 10:13 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Oct 2011, at 03:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The singularity is all the matter that there is, was, and will be,
but
it has no exterior - no cracks made of space or time, it's all
interiority. It
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> I'm afraid the analogies you use don't help, at least for me. Does an
>> ion channel ever open in the absence of an observable cause? It's a
>> simple yes/no question. Whether consciousness is associated,
>> supervenient, linked, provided b
On Oct 1, 4:44 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Craig,
> I went through most of your (unmarked) remarks and my mouse forced me
> (against my better judgement) to add some of my own.
> I wll insert in blue - bold Italics.
> John Mikes
Thanks John. I appreciate your comments, although I will have to ta
Dear Craig,
I went through most of your (unmarked) remarks and my mouse forced me
(against my better judgement) to add some of my own.
I wll insert in blue - bold Italics.
John Mikes
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Oct 1, 11:01 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30
On Oct 1, 11:01 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Craig Weinberg
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
> > > >> Craig, do the n
On Oct 1, 10:13 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 01 Oct 2011, at 03:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 4:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 30 Sep 2011, at 01:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 29, 10:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I don't feel this very compell
On Oct 1, 6:14 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> >> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
> >> >> Craig, do the neurons violate
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
> > >> Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
> > >> momentum? And
On 01 Oct 2011, at 03:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 30, 4:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Sep 2011, at 01:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't feel this very compelling.
You have to assume some primitive matter, and notion of
localization.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Jason Resch wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
>> >> Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
>> >> momentum? And if no
On Sep 30, 4:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 01:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 10:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> I don't feel this very compelling.
> >> You have to assume some primitive matter, and notion of localization.
>
> > Why? I think you only have to assum
On Sep 30, 10:16 am, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
> >> Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
> >> momentum? And if not, then how can they have any unexpected effects?
>
> > No. If
On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
momentum? And if not, then how can they have any unexpected effects?
No. If you are wondering whether I think that anything that
con
On Sep 29, 11:14 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
> Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
> momentum? And if not, then how can they have any unexpected effects?
>
No. If you are wondering whether I think that anything that
contradicts established observations of physics, chemistry
On 30 Sep 2011, at 01:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't feel this very compelling.
You have to assume some primitive matter, and notion of localization.
Why? I think you only have to assume the appearance of matter and
localization, which we do alr
Craig, do the neurons violate the conservation of energy and
momentum? And if not, then how can they have any unexpected effects?
Jason
On Sep 29, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:31 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
There *is* a strictly neurological reason for the
On Sep 29, 10:31 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> There *is* a strictly neurological reason for the 3-P observable
> behaviour. If we limit ourselves to talking about that, do you agree?
I would say no, because I would not describe something like 'gambling'
as strictly neurological reason in the
On Sep 29, 10:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I don't feel this very compelling.
> You have to assume some primitive matter, and notion of localization.
Why? I think you only have to assume the appearance of matter and
localization, which we do already.
> This is the kind of strong metaphysical
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> The neural processes and the thoughts are different views of the same
> thing. In the case of voluntarily imagining something, it is the
> subjective content of the experiences being imagined which makes sense
> and the neurological process
On 29 Sep 2011, at 14:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Sep 2011, at 17:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:26 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Sep 2011, at 22:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
N
On Sep 29, 3:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2011, at 17:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 10:26 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 27 Sep 2011, at 22:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >>> N. Millions of neurons
On 28 Sep 2011, at 17:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:26 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Sep 2011, at 22:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
N. Millions of neurons fire simultaneously in separate regions
of
the brain. Your assumptions abou
On Sep 28, 10:26 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2011, at 22:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > N. Millions of neurons fire simultaneously in separate regions of
> > the brain. Your assumptions about chain reactions being the only way
> > t
On Sep 28, 9:43 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> Do you agree that if a
> >> non-observable causes a change in an observable, that would be like
> >> magic from the point of view of a scientist?
>
> > Not at all. We observe 3-p changes c
On 27 Sep 2011, at 22:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
N. Millions of neurons fire simultaneously in separate regions of
the brain. Your assumptions about chain reactions being the only way
that neurons fire is not correct. You owe the brain an apolo
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Do you agree that if a
>> non-observable causes a change in an observable, that would be like
>> magic from the point of view of a scientist?
>
> Not at all. We observe 3-p changes caused by 1-p intentionality
> routinely. There is a study
On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> OK, so you agree that the *observable* behaviour of neurons can be
> >> adequately explained in terms of a chain of physical events. The
> >> neurons won't do anything that is apparently m
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> OK, so you agree that the *observable* behaviour of neurons can be
>> adequately explained in terms of a chain of physical events. The
>> neurons won't do anything that is apparently magical, right?
>
> Are not all of our observations obse
On Sep 25, 7:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >> But if thoughts influence behaviour and thoughts are not observed,
> >> then observation of a brain would show things happening contrary to
> >> physical laws,
This image illustrates how bottom-up and top-down processing co-exist:
http://24.med
On Sep 25, 7:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> Do you agree or don't you that the observable (or public, or third
> >> person) behaviour of neurons can be entirely explained in terms of a
> >> chain of physical events?
>
> > No, nothin
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Do you agree or don't you that the observable (or public, or third
>> person) behaviour of neurons can be entirely explained in terms of a
>> chain of physical events?
>
> No, nothing can be *entirely* explained in terms of a chain of
> phy
final part
On Sep 23, 3:17 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2011, at 02:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> > We are machines and we can
> > feel, therefore machines can feel. Jet engines are machines they
> > can
> > fly at 30,000 feet, therefore we can fly at 30,000 feet.
>
(next installment)
On Sep 23, 3:17 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2011, at 02:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > It is a comparison made by a third
> > person observer of a human presentation against their expectations of
> > said human presentation. Substitution 'level' similarly implies th
On Sep 23, 3:17 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2011, at 02:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> > My assumption is that the experience of thinking of quantities in a
> > series, like 1, 2, 3, 4 is an example of counting.
>
> This is fuzzy. Now, even if you succeed in making explicit assumptions
On Sep 23, 11:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
> >>You claim
> >> that ion channels can open and neurons fire in response to thoughts
> >> rather than a chain of physical events.
>
> > No, I observe that ion channels do in fact open a
101 - 149 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
