Attila wrote:May I reiterate that I am not trying to take anything away from science, just to clarify as to what is physics and metaphysics here.
OK. Personally I don't find speculative metaphysics to be a meaningful or useful avenue of exploration. Mostly because it's usually just a more academically acceptable term for the supernatural. As such, people can say pretty much anything they want to say and define things however they wish, without any regard for establishing evidence or achieving mutual understanding. In order to have a conversation about metaphysics, it seems to me, one has to accept the other's particular suppositions and categories from the get-go. I think this renders any meaningful or productive conversation impossible.
FYI, a neuron bundle (more precisely, a bundle of peripheral axons) is simply what's more commonly called a nerve. It's odd, fairly inaccurate, and not at all descriptive to define it as a "bio-electromagnetic matrix."
I am only repeating what I read in a paper, and the guy was trying to explain it in the simplest of terms before moving on to more complex issues.
I think "nerve" is a simpler (and far more accurate) term than "bio-electromagnetic matrix," which is itself descriptive of nothing.
In fact I don’t see it as info et al. the ‘ordered sequence of material that transmits or records a message’ is to me simply objects or frequencies changing shape relative to one another.
Yep. That's information.
Right so this is where the mix up occurs, they use the term ‘communication’ [weather it is direct or indirect doesn’t matter here] when they mean interaction.
I think they mean communication.
Perhaps you could show me how it is not mechanistic and that somehow em fields produce informations ~ that is after you have explained what information is aside from a metaphysical aspect of the world?
But I think I've already given the standard definition of information. You reject it because it's not metaphysical (and thus must be "mechanistic" according to your dualistic worldview) and then ask me to explain how information is not metaphysical. But I'm not aware of any information that is metaphysical. All information (from codons, to words, to musical notes, to scents, to what have you) is physical and is created physically, transmitted physically, apprehended physically, recorded physically and interpreted physically.
Here’s something similar what I was reading;
From that link;
“At the beginning it was thought that neurons work as switches. They may be in two states: "on" or "off". If a neuron is "on", it sends signals to the other neurons. When a neuron is "off", it does not send signals. Later, it was discovered that neuron is a very sophisticated system“.
“When positive K+ ions leave the cell, it becomes negative inside“.
Exactly. Earlier you wrote:
it’s a little bit like a computer processor is mostly a collection of transistors, each one is switched either on or off or the gate is closed/open, the collection denotes what the processor does ~ the calculations it makes etc.
Having read what you quoted above, how do you feel now about your previous statement?
Essentially we are seeing a set of electrical charges which change and interact ~ which is what I was saying.
No, that's like describing two humans speaking to each other as essentially communication between two masses of air since it's the air in their lungs that makes speech possible. Neurons are not electrical charges, they are living cells. A neuron is not composed of electricity any more than a myocyte or a luekocyte is. And most neurons signal and connect to each other via chemical synapses in which neurotransmitter molecules (matter) are exchanged.
Yes I know all of that and I don’t doubt that much is being achieved. I maintain that the brain does not ‘know’ what any of these things are, that is to say; not in the way the consciousness does.
Consciousness is precisely the process by which the brain "knows." We are
our bodies. We are not ethereal passengers or drivers living or contained "inside" the body somehow.
It all remains a big set of electrically charged particles which inform the consciousness I.e. what the consciousness can ‘read‘.
I don't understand what this means.
can you look inside the brain and see colour like a tiny copy of the world the subjective mind is creating, no that would be absurd right,
IBM is ready to go:
All of those things you describe are experienced in the mind subjectively as quale, and in the brain as a neuronal matrix. For well accepted and respected philosophers like Daniel Dennett it is ok to use terms like ‘neuronal matrix’ and yet I suppose for me it is not, I am expected to describe the whole of neuroscience *gasp*.
Nobody can describe the whole of neuroscience (or of botany, or of music). But it's definitely helpful when we understand what terms like "neuronal matrix" actually mean before we go throwing them around or trying to use them to prove a point about something. I'm sure you agree.
So in response to this:
I think the difference is you're interested in some "argument" which you think is proven by deductive reasoning, equations, and ever-increasing abstraction. I'm interested in what is.
You write this:
Not at all, I am also interested in ‘what is’! I brought it down to the simplest things which are; Object > info > Qualia < > info < > consciousness < > mind. So now you describe why any of these are not ‘what is’?!!!
Isn't this exactly what I was talking about? Equations and abstraction? I honestly don't understand it at all and find it simply confusing. Maybe I'm just too thick.