‚ \ / ‚
\_____/
ornamentalmind 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.
>
>
>
> 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