On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:08 AM, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com> wrote:
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?
Oh, and CB, rather than just ignore your confusion about one of my
comments, I'll readdress it in context:
are a thoughts cause? While an interesting notion, the
"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
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