In response to Pinback's NoMango

[pinback]

Amen, brother.

[Tdarcos]

I'm not sure he's getting it.

I'm not going to "get" anything which requires me to deny my own existence. You want to deny your own, that's fine, but it's going to be real hard for me to be having a conversation with no one.

Have you heard the latest new performance this month of Elvis, Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Janis Joplin, or Buddy Holly? Interesting, aren't they? Oh wait, you haven't and the reason is because those performances do not exist, because they were never created. Because all of those people no longer exist. They created musical performances and new ones ceased to appear once they died. What changed? Their bodies weighed the same and everything else should still be the same, but their performances stopped being made. Why?

Or do you want to deny the existence of music and sound?

Alright, let's try this a different way. Science (you like science, right?)

It's better than the alternative which is opinion. The difference being science is disprovable. I like strawberries. This can't be proven or measured other than subjectively. Science provides for real-world, objective proof or disproof of a hypothesis.

has shown that what we call a "thought", let's say, "I like pork patties", actually consists of millions of synaptic electrical and chemical reactions per second in the brain. I don't know what the actual number is, don't get caught up on that, but let's say, "a lot".

I have no quibble with the argument you are making but I want to pin you down. (Or is it "pin you back"? :) Are you accepting the existence of human brains and of human beings in general? The whole argument you just made in the above quoted paragraph has no validity and is completely irrelevant unless you concede these do exist. Now, I'm not talking about the "content" of those brains, if any, just that in this particular conversation you concede that there are two bodies, one is mine, that I declare to be in a room in University Park, Maryland, and yours, is sitting somewhere west of me, that are typing on keyboards and sending responses here. I'm not arguing about what's going on inside them or how, just that you agree we, as two physical bodies do exist, yes or no?

So, are "you" in there, directing all million per second of these reactions, deciding which synapses to fire and which chemicals to produce and which thoughts to think?

Yes, indirectly.

For the moment let me use a different example. At some point you flew a plane, in which you moved a stick/wheel, which changed the position of that plane, either to make it move along the runway, or to rise up, or to descend, or to bank, is this correct? (I could also use as an example how I move my wheelchair by moving its stick. Or either of us driving a car by turning the wheel or stepping on the gas or brake.)

There's a whole lot more involved in flying that plane, moving that wheelchair or automobile than just the control movements. So let me put it this way, did you ever move a car or a plane while you were inside it? The answer is obviously "no."

What you did was to turn or move control devices such as a wheel, throttle, flaps, or brake, then it, by connecting wire, optical, hydraulic or radio signal, triggered the controls to increase or decrease fuel to the engine, raise or lower flaps, turn the tires or bank the plane, through the connecting mechanisms. But you never move the plane or the car, you send signals through the control devices and they cause the vehicle or aircraft to do the movements.

To the extent my mind sends signals to the neurons in my brain, it's "fly by wire" in which some send a small number of signals in a certain way, causing a cascade, triggering whatever action is necessary.

A great visual example is this. Fill a room with triggered mousetraps where each has a ping-pong ball on it. Toss a ping-pong ball into the room. The one ball strikes a mousetrap, setting it off and throwing its ball into the air, which sets off another and so on. The person only triggers one mousetrap, all the others are indirectly triggered by the result of that mousetrap firing, in a cascade effect.

So you don't move a car by stepping on the gas and turning the wheel, you step on the gas which opens the fuel valve, which causes more fuel to enter the cylinders, which means the spark plugs fire more often, which causes the pistons to move faster, which causes the transmission to make the crankshaft spin faster, which causes the wheels to spin faster, which increases your speed.

And the reverse corresponding effects when the brake pedal is depressed.

But you didn't move those fuel valves, pistons, crankshaft or wheels, you did so indirectly by moving a control device which used its connections to start a cascade of events to cause them to do so.

Where is the one who is deciding to do all of this?

Inside my brain, triggering a small number of neurons, which then automatically send neurochemical transmitters to dozens of locations and trigger hundreds more transmitters and so on, in a cascade effect, the way one ping-pong ball can set off a cascade of ping-pong balls in a room full of loaded mousetraps.

[pinback]

Can a brotha get a ten-line limit up in this piece!?!

Where is the one who is deciding to do all of this?

Inside my brain, triggering a small number of neurons, which then automatically send neurochemical transmitters to dozens of locations and trigger hundreds more transmitters and so on, in a cascade effect, the way one ping-pong ball can set off a cascade of ping-pong balls in a room full of loaded mousetraps.

Yeah, except you're making all of this up. Unless you can show me on a diagram of a brain where the "you" is who's starting this cascade of ping-pong balls, and which particular "small number of neurons" "you" are deciding to trigger, then you are just making this up. There is no such thing. Again, unless you have some religious belief in a "soul" or some such nonsense.

So, show me. Where is the thing called "Paul" which makes the decision and starts firing the neurons?

What is really happening, and of course you won't believe me, is that the thought occurs by itself, the action occurs by itself, and then the mind creates a conceptual story about it, in the form of "I decided to do this!" And it does this, all by itself, leaving us with the illusion that there is someone there making decisions.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Paul, we're getting to the point where you might need a break for the summer, pal.

[Molly Muffsweet]

Can a brotha get a ten-line limit up in this piece!?!

Kiss him already.


Only the Sweetest,

Molly Muffsweet.

[Tdarcos]

Unless you can show me on a diagram of a brain where the "you" is who's starting this

I don't have to. I present the following evidence: I am here, I exist and I respond. Now, you still have not qualified what represents evidence and as such there would basically be nothing you would accept as evidence, therefore you'd probably just reject anything I did say.

I don't have to cut open an engine to prove the car moves nor do I have to cut open a radio to prove it makes sound. How about you show me in your computer where the web browser is. Your demand is about on the level of asking me where Firefox is in my computer. Examine it and you won't find any of the displays of websites I claim to see on my monitor. Cut my computer apart and you still won't find the websites I view.

So, show me. Where is the thing called "Paul" which makes the decision and starts firing the neurons?

I can actually answer your question. I will be happy to show you exactly in my brain where "I" am as soon as you come up with the roughly $5,000 for a pet scan, cat scan, EEG, MRI and Computerized Tomography map of my brain where it will show the activity taking place through thought

I don't need to see it, I am here and this proves it. You want evidence beyond that, you can pay for it.

What is really happening, and of course you won't believe me, is that the thought occurs by itself, the action occurs by itself, and then the mind creates a conceptual story about it, in the form of "I decided to do this!" And it does this, all by itself, leaving us with the illusion that there is someone there making decisions.

Oh, why didn't you say so. That's very simple and easy to understand. I didn't know you believe in the religious concept of predestination.

Now since you claim this, please proceed to explain what evidence you have to prove this, since you demand it as such in my case. Please excuse me while I go grab a bag of popcorn, I expect this to be very entertaining.

[pinback]

Alright, let's try this yet another way. Surely one of these is going to make something click, yes?

A seed is planted, and grows into a tree. Is there someone in the seed making the decision to do this, or does it just happen?

[Molly Muffsweet]

We learn, we laugh, we bond. Oh, how I've missed this place.


Only the Sweetest,

Molly Muffsweet.

[pinback]

Bitch!

[Tdarcos]

Alright, let's try this yet another way. Surely one of these is going to make something click, yes?

A seed is planted, and grows into a tree. Is there someone in the seed making the decision to do this, or does it just happen?

You are confusing - possibly intentionally - the biological process of reproduction of an asexually reproduced plant with the systemic process of communication of the sexually reproduced single sentient species on earth and near-sentient animals.

Let's look at the situation. With humans the male and female each release 23 chromosomes, producing an offspring containing 46 chromosomes, as opposed to about 24 total in a mighty oak tree. This provides for potentially trillions of additional capabilities because of additional genetic material.

That isn't the whole answer or the 76 chromosome maple tree would be the dominant species of this planet instead of us. It is that we have the capacity to have many traits which plants usually don't have including ability to move and sentience, among others.

But, you still haven't accounted for the differences in people; to argue all thought is spontaneous and lacking volition should therefore produce little or no variance in said thoughts.

The funny thing is usually those arguing predestination are arguing in favor of a belief in God. I find it very strange for an atheist such as yourself to have such an opinion.

Oh, and skip the bullshit that you don't have opinions. When you express a consideration over a vnon-provable subject, that's an opinion. It may well be possible you are correct, but as to whether thoughts are externally generated (from some other means), or that we do our own thinking, it's a metaphysical question which cannot br proven.

If you want to argue that people are basically automatons you ignore the need to respond to the conditions of reality, which randomly generated thoughts without conscious direction will not provide. Rolling dice will not provide new answers.

[pinback]

I didn't understand any of that, but I think I won this one.

[Molly Muffsweet]

I didn't understand any of that, but I think I won this one.

Time to hand out a few nomango beer koozies and call it a thread.


Only the Sweetest,

Molly Muffsweet.

[Tdarcos]

I didn't understand any of that, but I think I won this one.

The fact you admit you do not understand it indicates you shouldn't have tried to raise the issue and clearly don't know what you are doing. It strongly argues you are clearly wrong and quite likely you didn't even think about the issue.

But let me try to make it simple for you, and I'll even try to make it short. You're saying that what people do as the result of thinking is randomly generated and is not part of the conscious effort of the person, more-or-less because the person does not have a consciousness to produce that effort, the person can't really think because there is no true "person" there.

That is what you are claiming and you're wrong for one simple reason. Random thoughts without comprehension might work - maybe - in a 14th century situation where peasants don't do much more thinking than that needed to work fields 18 hours a day. It certainly will not work in a high-complexity, high technology civilization we exist within now.

Such a concept as you're claiming fails against the extreme precision and complexity needed for brain surgery, legal defense in a capital murder case, or some complicated software applications (as a few examples among thousands of complicated occupations). There are many things that require expert, professional work requiring extreme competence, and you won't get that without intelligent, precise thinking.

That is what I mean by "rolling dice won't provide new answers." The proper thinking in highly technical fields requires directed thought, mere accidental thought impulses as you claim are what thought in people's heads, won't cut it.

[pinback]

I guess you're right. I'll take the website down. :(

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Paul.

You're at a 10 line limit or I am going to have to disable your account for a few weeks.

Come the fuck on, we agreed to this over a year ago.

[Tdarcos]

Paul.

You're at a 10 line limit or I am going to have to disable your account for a few weeks.

Come the fuck on, we agreed to this over a year ago.

Hey, cut this shit out right now. You did no such thing and you told me you were not imposing that requirement any more.

If you want to change the rules, again, fine, it's your place. But don't proceed to tell me I'm breaking a rule you removed. If you had left that rule in place before I would have complied. Okay, fine.

[AArdvark]

Why not just write less and make it mean more?



THE
READERS DIGEST
AARDVARK

[Flack]

Or just a little less, and make it mean... anything?

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Paul, why not just write less?

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Paul.

You're at a 10 line limit or I am going to have to disable your account for a few weeks.

Come the fuck on, we agreed to this over a year ago.

Hey, cut this shit out right now. You did no such thing and you told me you were not imposing that requirement any more.

If you want to change the rules, again, fine, it's your place. But don't proceed to tell me I'm breaking a rule you removed. If you had left that rule in place before I would have complied. Okay, fine.

No, asshole, you cut this shit out, you piece of garbage.

I've officially reached the point where your attitude and posting needs to change, NOW or you're out of here forever. I am the only person that's ever decent to you, and you're such a hate-filled, entitled shitbag you are incapable of the slightest amount of respect.

I haven't run this place for almost 20 years to have your dumbass shit infecting every single thread. You're done. Just because we didn't SPECIFICALLY give you the rules on how to not post like a bore, it doesn't mean you can blather your nonsense for pages and pages at a time.

When you develop enough social intelligence to not ruin this community then you still can't come back because it never works. Jesus.

"I'm not Jesus, I'm Paul"! -- YOU