Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-20 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 20, 1:51 am, Terren Suydam 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. > > Emergent propert

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-20 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 20, 1:51 am, Terren Suydam 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. > > Emergent propert

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-19 Thread Terren Suydam
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 wrote: > Emergent properties of electromagnetism are also elec

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Oct 2011, at 12:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terren Suydam > 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-17 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 17, 12:19 pm, meekerdb 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 see, there woul

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-17 Thread meekerdb
On 10/17/2011 4:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2011 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, meekerdbwrote: On 10/16/2011 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Emergent properties of electromagnetism are also electromagnetic, are they not?

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-17 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 17, 7:02 am, Stathis Papaioannou 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 'insists'. The stone

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-17 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 17, 6:50 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terren Suydam > 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 to low level, since that would look

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-17 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 16, 10:59 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/16/2011 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 10/16/2011 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> Emergent properties of electromagnetism are also electromagnetic, are > >>> they not? > >> No.  Forming images i

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-17 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2011/10/16 Bruno Marchal >> >> 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 neuron

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-17 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terren Suydam 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 magic. > > Well I

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-16 Thread meekerdb
On 10/16/2011 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, meekerdb 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 a

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-16 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, meekerdb 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 phenomena of Max

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-16 Thread meekerdb
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 inten

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-16 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 16, 1:37 pm, Quentin Anciaux 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 physical states of

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-16 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 15, 10:22 pm, Terren Suydam wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 referen

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/16 Bruno Marchal > > 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 en

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 b

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-15 Thread Terren Suydam
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 about our underst

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-15 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 15, 10:59 am, John Mikes 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 mechanism. What

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-15 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 15, 3:02 am, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/14/2011 8:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 14, 10:46 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 10/14/2011 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdb    wrote: > On 10/14/2011 5:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-15 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 14, 11:48 pm, Terren Suydam wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Craig Weinberg 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. T

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-15 Thread John Mikes
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 w

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-15 Thread meekerdb
On 10/14/2011 8:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 14, 10:46 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 10/14/2011 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdbwrote: On 10/14/2011 5:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: You already noted that diurnal cycles get synced by light/dark cycles. The poin

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread Terren Suydam
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 interested enough to try

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 14, 10:46 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/14/2011 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdb  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 wil

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread meekerdb
On 10/14/2011 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdb 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 re

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 14, 9:00 pm, meekerdb 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, etc. We do wi

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread meekerdb
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 ti

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 14, 3:58 pm, meekerdb 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 appear to be

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 14, 3:40 pm, Terren Suydam wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread meekerdb
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 (

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread Terren Suydam
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 terms of anyt

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 13, 11:21 pm, Terren Suydam wrote: > Hey Craig, > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-13 Thread Terren Suydam
Hey Craig, On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 > were any other t

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 brain? The outsid

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-13 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 13, 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 ext

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 inputs, and witho

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-11 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 11, 8:45 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 inp

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:33 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? > > > Here's a post I did today that hopefully helps clarify h

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 > over and over th

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-11 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 11, 2:52 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/10/11 Craig Weinberg > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 10:32 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg > > > > > No. Your claim is that all inputs must also be neurological. > > > > He *never* said that. What he said is this : "I

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-11 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/11 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 10, 10:32 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg > > > > > 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-10 Thread Craig Weinberg
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? Here's a post I did today that hopefully helps clarify how I think it works: http://s33light.org/post/11288327147 but

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-10 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 10, 10:32 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg > > > 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 output (fire or not fire), the > inpu

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/10 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 10, 7:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou 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. > > T

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-10 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 10, 7:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou 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 neuron. If you know t

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Oct 9, 12:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> > On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Of co

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-09 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/10/8 Craig Weinberg > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > >> Of course all the parts of the car determine how it will move! You can > > > >> pred

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-09 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 9, 12:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg > >> wrote: > >> >> Of course all the parts of the car determine how it will move! You c

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-08 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/8 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg > 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 > > >>

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-08 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 8, 12:12 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 ta

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 obvious or > delus

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 7, 8:23 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Oct 7, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg > >> wrote: > >> >> If a motor neuron involved in voluntary activity fires where you woul

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Oct 7, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> If a motor neuron involved in voluntary activity fires where you would >> >> not predict it would fire given its internal state a

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 7, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 contrar

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 motor neurons i

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 7, 1:15 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 08/10/2011, at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 > >> la

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
>On Oct 7, 12:38 pm, Quentin Anciaux 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 not the cas

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 08/10/2011, at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 described in ter

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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 > >On Oct 7, 10:28 am, Quentin Anciaux

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
>On Oct 7, 10:28 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/10/7 Craig Weinberg > > > > > > > On Oct 6, 10:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > >> The mind may not be understandable in terms of biochemical events but > > > >> the observ

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/7 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 6, 10:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg > 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 physica

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 6, 10:24 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 understood in terms

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-06 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 6, 9:14 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/10/6 Craig Weinberg > > 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 programmers, not as an independent entity.

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-06 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/6 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 5, 10:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg > 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 > > >> ne

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-06 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 10:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-06 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 10:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg 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. > > They can

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 6:40 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 understan

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux 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 wr

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 willing to t

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 11:54 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg > > > On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux 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 > >

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux 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 the brain. Tha

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Oct 2011, at 02:51, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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 kno

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 5, 2:54 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg > > > > 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 2:54 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Hi, > > 2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg > > 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 thoughts about Marxism - not > > abo

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 12:27 am, meekerdb 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 > explain any

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 5, 12:23 am, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/4/2011 8:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdb wrote: > This goes by the name "causal completeness"; the idea that the 3-p > >>>

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hi, 2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > > > >> This goes by the name "causal completeness"; the idea that the 3-p > observable state at t > > >> is sufficient to predict t

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread meekerdb
On 10/4/2011 6:32 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb 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 wh

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread meekerdb
On 10/4/2011 8:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdb 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 4, 9:32 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb 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 inform

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdb 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb 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 makes a

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread meekerdb
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdb 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 o

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdb 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 makes a > diff

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread meekerdb
On 10/3/2011 11:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Oct 2011, at 02:29, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 4, 8:54 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/10/4 Craig Weinberg > > > On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou 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 presyna

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/10/4 Craig Weinberg > On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou 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

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou 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 explanation breaks down.

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-03 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 calcium and potassiu

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 3, 9:22 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > We do see neurons firing in response to no other stimulation other > > than the subjects conscious attention and intention. It's not magic, > > it's how it actually works. It's how you are m

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-03 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > We do see neurons firing in response to no other stimulation other > than the subjects conscious attention and intention. It's not magic, > it's how it actually works. It's how you are making sense of these > words right now. You can have y

Re: Bruno List continued

2011-10-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 3, 8:29 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 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 >

  1   2   >