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 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 > > > delusional. if I send you the owner's manual of my car, you can tell > > > me where I'm going to drive it tomorrow? So what are you talking > > > about? That if you observe a car turning, you can tell which way it's > > > turning or something? > > > > If you send me the plans of your car and the inputs - which way you > > intend to steer and so on - > > *which > way > you > intend > to steer* > > WHAAAAT????? > > Did you think you were just going to slip that in and I wouldn't > notice? > > You were talking about cars not about you.
If you want a model about brain + car just say so. > So cool, as long as I give you the schematics of my car and tell you > where I'm going to drive to, you will be able to deduce where I'm > going to drive to? Wow, that's almost better than nothing at all. > There is no way that you are serious. You are trolling me, brother. > > > then yes, I can work out exactly where > > you're going. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>A model of the car, such as a car racing computer > > >> game, does not include the driver and the whole universe, as you seem > > >> to think, just the car. > > > > > A car racing computer game is not a model of a car unless it is played > > > by a user who is familiar with cars. A horse does not confuse the game > > > with an automobile. It's a red herring anyways. You still can't tell > > > where a real car is going to go unless you know where the driver is > > > going to steer it, and that is something which cannot be determined by > > > modeling the car or the driver's body, brain, neurons, ion channels, > > > or molecules. The same brain in the same body with the same neurons, > > > ion channels, or molecules can drive to the beach one day or the > > > mountains the next depending upon nothing but how they feel. You could > > > say that how they feel is a complex chain of events, but they would > > > not be only microcosmic events which could be modeled, any butterfly > > > wing in some part of the world could set off a chain of unpredictable > > > happenstance that ends up in the driver deciding to go somewhere > > > completely unexpected. > > > > The real car and the real neuron don't know what inputs they are going > > to receive next, so why do you expect that the model will? > > I'm not the one saying that the brain could be modeled physically and > make predictions from it. That's your position, remember? > > > > > >> So a neuron fires in those regions of the brain associated with > > >> subjectivity where the biochemistry suggests it would not fire. > > > > > How many times do you need me to tell you that biochemistry does not > > > suggest whether such a neuron would fire? If I decide to move my arm, > > > whatever it is that is deciding *is* the firing of some group of > > > neurons. Biochemistry doesn't give you any insight as to whether your > > > ion channels are about to speak Chinese or English with a New Jersey > > > dialect. It's so wrong, it's not even wrong, it's just blanket denial > > > of ordinary reality. There's nothing I can say to you because you're > > > not listening or understanding what I mean at all. > > > > But the neurons that fire when you decide to move your arm do so > > because of the various internal and external factors I have listed. > > Yes, they do, but so what? You could have those factors without any > kind of decision to move your arm. You can electrocute a severed frog > leg but there is no decision there by the frog. The physiological- > electromagnetic factors alone do not replace the subjective decision, > nor does the subjective intention replace the biology. They are one > and the same phenomenon but because we are stuck on the back end of > it, we see the front end as a different thing. From a truly objective > point of view, however, there is no reason to presume that my > imagining Bugs Bunny eating a carrot is any less a part of the > universe than ligands and ion channels. It's all real, it just has > very different characteristics on opposite sides of the process. > > > Ion channels open in response to either a ligand or a votage across > > the membrane, causing further changes in the voltage across the > > membrane, causing more voltage activated ion channels to open, causing > > an action potential which propagates down the axon. If you look at > > *any* given neuron and observe all the relevant factors you can, if > > your model is good enough, tell if it's going to fire. If it does > > something other than this then it is contrary to physical laws. > > 8. No, you are wrong and you know it. You just got finished admitting > that you need me to tell you how I am going to turn my steering wheel > for you to tell where I'm going to drive, so where are you pulling > this out of? Repeat after me: Some neural activity is spontaneous. It > may not be predictable by any model but rather is determined > dynamically through subjective intent. Physical laws do not tell the > future of subjective intentions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Ligand-activated ion channels open without any ligand present, > > > > > No, the ligand will always be present, because the electromagnetic > > > conditions change to attract, repel, bind, etc. The electromagnetic > > > conditions are the 3-p view of the 1-p sensorimotive intentions. They > > > are the same thing. Just as you have an interior world which others do > > > not experience directly when they look at the outside of your head, > > > but when you smile it's a consequence of a human feeling, which they > > > can make sense of in terms of their own feeling, and they may smile > > > back. In your view, the only possibility is that the mouth movements > > > of one person must cause the other person's mouth to move. It's a > > > catastrophic mechanization of the reality - which is a sensorimotive > > > semantic exchange through the natural language of human expression. > > > The material monism view disqualifies this simple truth a priori and > > > sticks it's head up it's theoretical ass to find some a-signifying > > > stupidity to justify it. > > > > "The ligand will always be present"?? Then what's the point of neurons > > releasing neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft? > > That is the point, the neurons release the neurotransmitters so that > they will be where they need to be for the other neurons, so that your > will can be executed through the system, or so your perceptions can > change in the appropriate way. > > > > > >>or > > >> perhaps an action potential propagates down the axon without any > > >> change in ion concentrations. > > > > > Again, not what I'm saying. The ion concentrations change because the > > > electromagnetic conditions of the ions change spontaneously. > > > Spontaneously. Spontaneously. > > > > What does that mean? An ion is an ion. Depolarisation occurs when > > sodium channels open allowing sodium into the cell and making the > > interior more positive with respect to the exterior. The sodium > > channels in a particular neuron may open in response to a > > neurotransmitter. At a certain threshold this then causes > > voltage-activated sodium channels to open, causing positive feedback > > and resulting in a voltage spike, the action potential. Repolarisation > > occurs when voltage-activated potassium channels open. This is a > > well-understood process that happens in every neuron. The neuron can't > > fire unless these processes occur. > > Yes, depolarization will occur when a neurotransmitter changes the > charge of the membrane, but a subjective intention is a spontaneous > change to the charge of many neuron membranes at once. It goes both > ways. Electromagnetism is sensorimotive. If electromagnetism doesn't > think and feel, then what do you think all that stuff is on the > fMRI's? Your thoughts *are* an electromagnetic change in the tissue of > your brain. You direct that change consciously in many cases. > > The neurological consequences follow from that - teleologically, down > the spine, to my fingertips, then the keyboard, then the computer, > internet, your computer, your screen, your eyeballs, your visual > cortex, where your subjective interiority; the sum total of all of > your experiences as yourself, imitates the sense your eyes make of the > characters on the screen so that your version of what I'm saying makes > sense to you in natural language. We are directing our nervous system > to do these things for our personal semantic reasons, not to satisfy a > biochemical regimen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>That is what I call "contrary to > > >> physical laws". > > > > > You would be incorrect. Just Google it. > > > > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/10/human-behavior-linked-to-. > .. > > > > > "these results show that spontaneous brain activity is more than > > > simply a physiological artifact; it helps account for some of the > > > variability in human behavior. In that sense, they argue for a greater > > > acceptance of the view that our brain may have some intrinsic activity > > > that's somewhat independent of sensory input. " > > > > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17704812 > > > > > "The majority of functional neuroscience studies have focused on the > > > brain's response to a task or stimulus. However, the brain is very > > > active even in the absence of explicit input or output." > > > > >http://bit.ly/nShjUI > > > "On a more cellular level, MacLean and colleagues (2005) have > > > demonstrated the existence of spontaneous activity patterns that mimic > > > patterns evoked by thalamic stimulation." > > > > >http://www.neuralwiki.org/index.php?title=Spontaneous_activity > > > "Spontaneous activity is widely seen in cultured neural networks. > > > However, the the exact mechanisms behind such activity is still > > > relatively unknown. " > > > > >http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/psychology/organisation/news/ser. > .. > > > The brain is buzzing 24/7 with spontaneous, fluctuating activity > > > > >http://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17558.long > > > "The brain is not a passive sensory-motor analyzer driven by > > > environmental stimuli, but actively maintains ongoing representations > > > that may be involved in the coding of expected sensory stimuli, > > > prospective motor responses, and prior experience. Spontaneous > > > cortical activity has been proposed to play an important part in > > > maintaining these ongoing, internal representations, although its > > > functional role is not well understood." > > > > >http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/mali-sff051611.php > > > "Ongoing, intrinsic brain activity that is not task-related accounts > > > for the majority of energy used by the human brain." > > > > > These are just the low hanging fruit of a two Google searches. Can you > > > find even one contemporary citation of article suggesting that these > > > spontaneous electrochemical events are actually not spontaneous? That > > > they are predicted by passive, leaf falling, chemotactic gradient > > > following inevitables? If you can't, you are obligated to say > > > something to the effect of "I stand corrected". > > > > You misunderstand the meaning of "spontaneous" in these articles. > > ROFL. I knew you were going to say that and I almost added my > prediction at the bottom. I knew that you were going to claim that by > "spontaneous" they really mean "utterly non-spontaneous and > predictable". > > >A > > spontaneously excitable cell, the best known example being the > > pacemaker cells in the heart, still only follows its biochemistry. > > There is spontaneous depolarisation and repolarisation due to the > > activity of the ion channels, which respond cyclically to the > > transmembrane voltages. > > And the transmembrane voltages respond to.... NOTHING. That is why > they are spontaneous. Not cyclically. Spontaneously. > > > There is a clear physical cause, and if you > > know the state of the cell you can predict exactly when it will fire. > > If the ion channels open without any cause that would be magic. > > 7. You are the magician, not me. I explain how our ordinary experience > of talking and thinking is a natural process, why it seems unnatural > (because we are only seeing half of it first hand), and how it relates > specifically to neurological function, electromagnetism, physics, and > cosmology. You are the one pulling the epiphenomenal rabbit of > consciousness out of the deterministic hat - with no theory, not hint > of explanation, just the bold and robotic re-assertion that > consciousness, will, and indeed biological life can only be magical. > You are actually very close to understanding the truth - that's what's > so frustrating. All you have to do is take your understanding of how > this works and run it in reverse. > > Start from the subjective and move out. Forget all that crap about > ions and neurotranmitters - which may as well be ghosts and goblins > since you know absolutely nothing about them first hand, just set that > aside for a second and look at what it is actually like to be. Take a > walk outside. That is the universe. You seeing that is what the > universe is doing. That's what your brain is there to do, not just to > survive like a goddam slime mold. Wake up, man! You exist. > > Craig > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
