How does the neural correlate = qualia ?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:

How would you propose "thought" (mental) reprograms brain (physical)?

By being a physical process, not a nonphyiscal process as you are assuming it is.

Hawking is apparently fairly adept at thinking about hard problems without writing anything down. Do you believe that none of his thinking ends up forming physical memories?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Uh , who said that thought does not change the neural firing patterns,

Materialists do. Thought can't if it is the very same thing as neural firing patterns!

 

[Dancing David]

Materialists do. Thought can't if it is the very same thing as neural firing patterns!

Out of left field, excuse me but ... what?

I am a materialist and I maintain that thought can change neural firing patterns, yes neyral patterns can change neural firing patterns, isn't that cool. Otherwise we have no memories of what we think.

 

[hammegk]

I know you have that view and I respect you for it.

Thanks.

As far as how thought reprograms the brain, neurons are not switches, they change in thier sensitivity to other neurons, that is why we obtain new memories.

I'd agree but with the comment that neurons may be complex switches. The question materialists must answer is "what" is responsible for inducing the changes. Idealism's axiom of "all-is-mind", or more correctly perhaps "all-is-sentient" starts by providing a mechanism that works in a purposeful way. It's the "why" -- in spite of 2nd Law statement of tendency to disorder -- that everywhere we look what we see consists of combined energy providing more complexity rather than less. And again, is the universe open, or closed?

As far as what is meditation, for me it is either: learning to focus on one thing or it can be learning to live without thought.( I practise both), oh I forgot the other mindful one where you match your thoughts to your body.

Agreed; but what is learning & focusing? Is not *I* always there?

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
By being a physical process, not a nonphyiscal process as you are assuming it is.

Yes I understand you postulate "you exist therefore you think", ignoring the only data point your *I* actually has. A quark is said to "exist"; does it think? How do you know?

Hawking is apparently fairly adept at thinking about hard problems without writing anything down. Do you believe that none of his thinking ends up forming physical memories?

I agree completely that brain reprogramming and memory are occuring in the perceived-as-physical brain of *me* ( & *you*).

 

[PixyMisa]

Materialists do. Thought can't if it is the very same thing as neural firing patterns!

Thought is neurons firing and sending signals to other neurons. This process reprograms (or, technically, "trains") the neurons involved. So not only can a materialist say that thought reprograms the brain, a materialist can say that though necessarily reprograms the brain.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'd agree but with the comment that neurons may be complex switches.

Yes.

The question materialists must answer is "what" is responsible for inducing the changes.

We know what. We're working on how.

Idealism's axiom of "all-is-mind", or more correctly perhaps "all-is-sentient" starts by providing a mechanism that works in a purposeful way. It's the "why" -- in spite of 2nd Law statement of tendency to disorder -- that everywhere we look what we see consists of combined energy providing more complexity rather than less.

That's complete baloney. You clearly have no idea what the second law actually means.

And again, is the universe open, or closed?

Don't know. Is it relevant?

Yes I understand you postulate "you exist therefore you think", ignoring the only data point your *I* actually has. A quark is said to "exist"; does it think? How do you know?

We know the propeties of quarks; there is nothing there that can possibly think.

 

[hammegk]

Thought is neurons firing and sending signals to other neurons. This process reprograms (or, technically, "trains") the neurons involved. So not only can a materialist say that thought reprograms the brain, a materialist can say that though necessarily reprograms the brain.

Sure a materialist can, if one likes chicken-egg conundrums. Is your free-will random? If not what provides the initial "nudge" to start the reprogramming?

"Thought=*I*" reprogramming "thought=*me* could avoid this problem, allthough I agree only if *I* does actually have "free will". If The Laws Of Mind are equally deterministic as TLOP, the free will bet is still off. However *I* still think!

 

[hammegk]

....You clearly have no idea what the second law actually means.


Don't know.

I'd say you don't understand the ramifications of 2nd Law: but I already knew that. Maybe WillyNilly can illuminate us on this point once he decides the open vs. closed consideration.

We know the propeties of quarks; there is nothing there that can possibly think.

I'd agree it's a stretch to postulate that current mathematical representations of the "properties" of quarks "think" ( or are sentient ) although it appeared to me UCE was heading in this direction.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure a materialist can, if one likes chicken-egg conundrums. Is your free-will random? If not what provides the initial "nudge" to start the reprogramming?

Yes, it's just like the chicken & egg question - a non-problem.

Eggs are produced by all sorts of things other than chickens. The first chicken was born from an egg laid by a non-chicken. The first egg was just a slightly odd cell produced by something that didn't originate from an egg at all.

Similarly, the initial state of the brain is determined by the physical structure of the brain (which is determined by genetics, which is determined by evolution) and raw sensory input. Thought is brain processes. If you have an live brain, it is thinking, and it is reprogramming itself.

"Thought=*I*" reprogramming "thought=*me* could avoid this problem, allthough I agree only if *I* does actually have "free will".

That wasn't even coherent.

If The Laws Of Mind are equally deterministic as TLOP, the free will bet is still off.

You are aware that the laws of physics are not deterministic, yes?

However *I* still think!

If you say so.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'd say you don't understand the ramifications of 2nd Law: but I already knew that.

The <strike>first</strike> second law says this: Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body. That's it. That's all.

All of your examples are simply examples of the second law in action.

I'd agree it's a stretch to postulate that current mathematical representations of the "properties" of quarks "think" ( or are sentient ) although it appeared to me UCE was heading in this direction.

Yes, and Franko claimed that gravitons were sentient and that their charge (or sometimes their spin) determined whether they were good or evil. Such suggestions are without any merit whatsoever.

edited to hide the evidence of my saying "first law" when I meant "second law"

 

[Dancing David]

I might understand the argument that a system of neural reverberations should not be able to reprogram itself. I can see where it doesn't make surface sense.

Potentiation is the process that leads to semi-persistance in the neural network, a single neural cell that is activated/repressed by another neuron is morelikely to be activated/repressed by another neuron in the future. So over time the neuron forms a relationship, IE generally not activated or repressed, generaly activated, generaly repressed. Then ther is the fact that nerons can actualy grow and create new conections or attenuate and remove corrections.

So fortunately the whole system is very sloppy, and there are very likely many many circuts needed to be in agreement for the process to occur at all.

Where does free will come from,? From the fact that I can choose to act or not to act. Unless of course I am off my medication, then I have obsesive compulsions, and I do loose free will to some extent.

I posit a chacter named WillyBilly to counteract your WillyNillY, very funny!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:

I agree completely that brain reprogramming and memory are occuring in the perceived-as-physical brain of *me* ( & *you*).

So what we seem to have here is an ideal mind that is conjuring up everything we think of as physical. Except all the physical stuff is a puppet of the mind. For example, my mind is fooling me into believing that I have physical memory, when actually all the memories are in the mind. (Contrary to what some were saying in the previous endless qualia thread, where the mind had no memory. I think that was Win.)

How does this model solve all the hard problems, other than with just-so stories? In particular, how does it solve the HPC other than by declaring it solved by definition?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

So what we seem to have here is an ideal mind that is conjuring up everything we think of as physical.

In the sense that *you* & *I* are each an infinitesmal part of "mind", ok. Conjuring? I'd postulate "energetic interactions" assume the form we perceive as physical.

Except all the physical stuff is a puppet of the mind. For example, my mind is fooling me into believing that I have physical memory, when actually all the memories are in the mind. (Contrary to what some were saying in the previous endless qualia thread, where the mind had no memory. I think that was Win.)

Er, why fooling? You do have a "perceived physical mind" as part of your meat-machine. *I* call that *me*.

How does this model solve all the hard problems, other than with just-so stories? In particular, how does it solve the HPC other than by declaring it solved by definition?

Nothing gets "solved". What idealism does is provide "possibly logical" answers to questions of "why" that materialism does not. Think first about the "life"/"non-life" interface; does it exist? Umm, there; Why do you think so?

I'd currently agree "just so" is it, just as it is with materialism/atheism.

 

[hammegk]

Yes, it's just like the chicken & egg question - a non-problem.

Eggs are produced by all sorts of things other than chickens. The first chicken was born from an egg laid by a non-chicken. The first egg was just a slightly odd cell produced by something that didn't originate from an egg at all. Similarly, the initial state of the brain is determined by the physical structure of the brain (which is determined by genetics, which is determined by evolution) and raw sensory input. Thought is brain processes. If you have an live brain, it is thinking, and it is reprogramming itself.

Well, you sound a lot like a hen in a fluster-cluck; I give you that.

That wasn't even coherent.

I bet you say that a lot.

You are aware that the laws of physics are not deterministic, yes?

As evidenced by most of your thinking, sounds true to me. Do you often run red lights when you don't want to?

The first law says this: Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body. That's it. That's all.

Or that energy is neither created nor destroyed....

Re 2nd Law; http://www.2ndlaw.com/ has a fair amount of info.

Originally posted by Dancing David
I might understand the argument that a system of neural reverberations should not be able to reprogram itself. I can see where it doesn't make surface sense.

Yup, we agree that that is one of the sticking points materialists need to think through. IMO, it makes --zero-- sense at any level. BTW, consider "life" first.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't understand why the brain should have any more trouble modifying its own memories than a computer does.

~~ Paul

 

[Dancing David]

Yup, we agree that that is one of the sticking points materialists need to think through. IMO, it makes --zero-- sense at any level. BTW, consider "life" first.

Uh, I think that is the sticking point for the imaterialists, doesn't bother me at all.

If neural cells can potentiate and attenuate thier influence on each other than there is potential for change in those relationships, so it's not a problem for me at all.

So is the *I* more than the *me* in the meat machine? I am very comfortable with just being the meat machine, again I think there is enough complexity in the mechanistic brain to allow for all the coool stuff.

 

[hammegk]

I don't understand why the brain should have any more trouble modifying its own memories than a computer does.

~~ Paul

I'd agree as soon as I was comfortable with the concept of non-life coding itself to be selfcoding life...

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, you sound a lot like a hen in a fluster-cluck; I give you that.

Yes, that's the level of reasoning I've come to expect from you.

I bet you say that a lot.

Well, since you choose so often to be incoherent. Or simply abusive.

As evidenced by most of your thinking, sounds true to me. Do you often run red lights when you don't want to?

Are you aware that the laws of physics are not deterministic? That your precious second law only applies statistically?

Or that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

That's the first law.

Re 2nd Law; http://www.2ndlaw.com/ has a fair amount of info.

Indeed it does. It points at that your statements about the second law are pure baloney, and it explains why.

Yup, we agree that that is one of the sticking points materialists need to think through. IMO, it makes --zero-- sense at any level. BTW, consider "life" first.

It's not a sticking point at all. It's quite clear that thoughts are brain processes and involve the brain reprogramming itself. This is completely consistent with materialism, and given what we know about the mind, anything else would make no sense.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'd agree as soon as I was comfortable with the concept of non-life coding itself to be selfcoding life...

The relevance of this is... what, exactly?

 

[hammegk]

The relevance of this is... what, exactly?

To you obviously nothing. No, that doesn't surprise me.

Yes, that's the level of reasoning I've come to expect from you.

As opposed to the drivel you provide?

Well, since you choose so often to be incoherent. Or simply abusive.

Yeah, when one tries to communicate with a jackass, sometimes a 2x4 to the head at least gets their attention. I note nothing works for you.

Are you aware that the laws of physics are not deterministic? That your precious second law only applies statistically?

I'm becoming aware that to expect a rational response from you is waste of time.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the first law.

Try paying attention. You brought up 1st Law, not me.

Indeed it does. It points at that your statements about the second law are pure baloney, and it explains why.

Well here is your chance to demonstrate why you feel so. As usual your response brings nothing to the discussion.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, we agree that that is one of the sticking points materialists need to think through. IMO, it makes --zero-- sense at any level. BTW, consider "life" first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not a sticking point at all. It's quite clear that thoughts are brain processes and involve the brain reprogramming itself. This is completely consistent with materialism, and given what we know about the mind, anything else would make no sense.

Please advise where you draw the non-life/life boundary, and what makes you believe that. What is clear is that you don't show much comprehension of the topics under discussion here. A parrot could provide equally valid comments.