thought?..." - CB
No.
On Apr 28, 5:07 am, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:08 AM, ornamentalmind
> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oh, and CB, rather than just ignore your confusion about one of my
> > comments, I'll readdress it in context:
>
> > "Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are
> > the root causes…" – CB
>
> > "Causes?...of what, thoughts? Is your claim here that somehow what we
> > call a chemical reaction somehow is started prior to a
> > thought?...thus
> > are a thoughts cause? While an interesting notion, the
> > epistemological
> > problems with such an axiom are immense. " – OM
>
> > You only said:
> > "I don't have any idea what this means. " – CB
> > …about my last sentence above. So, what don't you understand? Is it
> > the terms I used?...'notion'?, 'epistemological'?, 'axioms'?...is it
> > how I strung the words together that perplexed you? Is it how I was
> > addressing your argument about 'root causes' with them that was the
> > problem? I'll do my best to clarify if you wish.
>
> > In any case, so far I haven't seen the evidence presented here about
> > neurons and chemicals being the 'root causes' of thinking nor of
> > emotions like love. And, no doubt, you've run across this debate
> > elsewhere and before now, right Chuck?... I don't have a problem with
> > you believing whatever you wish to believe…just that in this case, I'm
> > not so sure you are aware of how much you do take as an assumption
> > from which you draw your conclusion. I'm just attempting to point out
> > your assumption (axiom) is not grounded on anything at all…other than
> > being what you start out assuming to be true with no evidence.
>
> Are you saying that there is no evidence that the brain produces thought? If
> not then what purpose would the brain serve other than sucking up about a
> quarter of the bodies energy?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 8:59 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:38 PM, ornamentalmind
> > > <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > > "Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are
> > > > the root
> > > > causes…" – CB
>
> > > > Causes?...of what, thoughts? Is your claim here that somehow what we
> > > > call a chemical reaction somehow is started prior to a thought?...thus
> > > > are a thoughts cause?
>
> > > When I think about thinking the analogy that comes to mind is a
> > pointillist
> > > painting. If you look very close at the painting all you will see are
> > > thousands upon thousands of colored dots. But, if you back off and view
> > the
> > > painting as a whole what you see is entirely different.
>
> > > IMO (supported by a fair amount of scientific evidence) the human mind
> > > operates in a similar manner. The brain has about 10 billion neurons.
> > Each
> > > of these neurons has about 10,000 connections to other neurons. That
> > means
> > > that the total number of connections in the brain is about 100 trillion.
>
> > > To put it in perspective, my monitor is a 27" with a current resolution
> > of
> > > 1920x1080 which is a little over 2 million pixels. The total viewing area
> > is
> > > about 24"x12". Doing the math the size of a pixel on my screen is about
> > > .01". To make a long story short, if I had a screen with as many pixels
> > as
> > > the brain has neural connections it would be about 3 billion x 3 billion
> > > inches square or a little over 47348 x 47348 miles. I think I'd need a
> > > bigger desk.
>
> > > In addition to the number of connections, a neuron is capable of firing
> > > about once every 10ms. This means that the human brain can completely
> > > reconfigure its neural patterns in fractions of a second.
>
> > > My point (pun intended) is that I'm not talking about a couple of neurons
> > > firing and farting out a well formed thought. I'm talking about trillions
> > of
> > > connections all firing in a coordinated parallel sequence of patterns
> > that
> > > takes the human senses as input and produces a complex interpretation
> > based
> > > on our memories and knowledge.
>
> > > > While an interesting notion, the epistemological
> > > > problems with such an axiom are immense.
>
> > > I don't have any idea what this means.
>
> > > > "…While the whole of the human mind is greater than the sum of it's
> > > > parts, it
> > > > is still rooted in physical phenomena." – CB
>
> > > > Phenomena, perhaps. However, the issue with the very notion of
> > > > something 'physical' is that when thoroughly examined..things
> > > > 'physical' just aren't!
>
> > > So you're saying that the physical world isn't physical?
>
> > > > On Apr 27, 12:35 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are
> > the
> > > > root
> > > > > causes.
>
> > > > > While the whole of the human mind is greater than the sum of it's
> > parts,
> > > > it
> > > > > is still rooted in physical phenomena.
>
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Chuck, while neurons do 'fire' when thought arises and hormones
> > etc.
> > > > > > are released often when one feels what we call 'love', in neither
> > case
> > > > > > is the symptom the thing itself.
>
> > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:21 am, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Thoughts are the organized firing of groups of neurons in the
> > brain
> > > > and
> > > > > > love
> > > > > > > is the release of chemicals in the brain that promote bonding
> > between
> > > > > > > individuals. There is nothing mystical about either.
>
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, ornamentalmind <
> > > > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Perhaps thoughts aren't real then...;-)... same for love etc.
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 12:47 pm, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > To be honest, I really don't want to scan more. I'm not all
> > that
> > > > > > > > interested
> > > > > > > > > in gnosis. I have read enough to convince me that it is a
> > > > spiritual
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > mystical perspective on the universe. While I don't reject
> > the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > there are things we don't understand I lean towards a less
> > > > esoteric
> > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the world.
>
> > > > > > > > > If ya can't see, feel, touch, taste, or smell it then it
> > ain't
> > > > real.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Do a little more scanning, you should find gnosis and many
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > 'spiritual' oriented paths veer far off course with theism
> > in
> > > > many
> > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > > > > Ontological reductions toward archetypal figures aren't
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > (gods),
> > > > > > > > > > interestingly I've found the newer pagan paths to be the
> > most
> > > > > > advanced
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > flexible. In both, /you/ choose, they seem to be acquainted
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > notion
> > > > > > > > > > of many schools, then there's life. Kinda like Taoism's
> > > > syncretism
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > respect I guess. You could speak with any of these for
> > hours
> > > > and
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > are talking about the sciences but seeking hermetic
> > > > constructions
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > angles, with no mention necessary of 'fantastic' stories. I
> > > > think
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > > is 'eclectic pagan'. That is, for /some/, of course..- Hide
> > > > quoted
> > > > > > text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment