What is the source?
Jerry Patterson
laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
parts of her brain were exposed.
Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
source of her intent?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Michael Bragg
news:7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com:
I'm guessing it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn (may Her hooves never be
shod). The IPU (mHhnbs) is the force behind all intention, the mystic
energy that breathes joy and truth into all living things, and the secret
wet willy that makes soda fizzy.
In fact, the IPU (mHhnbs) was also the probe that made the lady's right
arm move. Such is the power of the IPU (mHhnbs) that she can carry out
her will even when it *directly contradicts* other parts of her very own
will!
All praise to the IPU (mHhnbs)!
--
Michael Bragg
Remove the physicist to e-mail me.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
> parts of her brain were exposed.
>
> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
> source of her intent?
A different part of her brain, the part that had earlier sent messages to
the same motor-control area that they stimulated.
Sorry, but you're not going to find any support for dualism in the
experiments of neuroscience.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Matt Silberstein
<je...@dslextreme.com>:
Other parts of her brain. You don't need to talk about modern
science, about the affect of lithium on Bipolar disorder, of
Prozac on the depressed, of LSD on anyone who takes it, to see
that the "mind" is a physical object subject to physical actions.
Anyone who actually thinks there is a mind/body distinction has
never been hungry, never had too little sleep, never had a
toothache. Discussions of the "independence" of the mind simply
show human arrogance, our insistence that we are so special.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
C. Thompson
> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
> parts of her brain were exposed.
>
> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
> source of her intent?
The Force.
Frank Reichenbacher
"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com...
This is it folks the long-awaited knock-those-materialists dead post from
Jerry:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lnc7lvc84qhi3tn5srjh6h0eotu7c9ubq7%404ax.com
I presume that this the fabulous experiment, for which you do not even
provide the name(s) of the researcher(s) or the citation of a publication,
that is going to show all of us pagan methodological naturalists how
consciousness cannot be a result of the chemical and physical natures of
their constituent components?
High school kids do this stuff with *dead* frogs every day.
I have an experiment for you. Take a hammer in your right hand and stand up
very straight. Tell your self not to blink and then strike yourself in the
forehead very hard.
I'll bet you blink. What do you suppose was the source of your intent?
When I was 12 I broke my left arm above the elbow. It was a pretty bad break
so I had to stay in the hospital overnight, just in case. All night long I
experienced muscle spasms which were very uncomfortable and quite scary for
a 12-year old. I would feel a spasm come on and tell myself not to let it
happen, but to no avail. What was the source of my intent?
Oh, and another thing. Why the heck was this experiment taking place in a
nuclear medicine lab? Radiologists don't normally take people's skulls apart
and stick electrodes in their brain cases.
By the way. The source of her intent was the researchers telling her to not
move her arm.
Frank
R.Schenck
> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
> parts of her brain were exposed.
>
> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
> source of her intent?
You mean what was the source of the intent to not move her arm? The
intent that was never manifested as her arm not moving? Probably some
other part of her brain that was superseded by the part being
stimulated.
What is the source of religious exstatic visions? They have been
reproduced under controlled experiments. What is the source of
stigmata? They have been reproduced under controlled experiments.
AC
Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
> parts of her brain were exposed.
>
> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
> source of her intent?
Why don't you tell us Jerry? Or is this just going to be another one of
your ever-popular he said/she said threads.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Cry
<je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Burnt toast.
(All the Canadians should have gotten that one.)
Cheers,
Cry
Steve the Sauropodman
Hmmmm...while the Invisible Pink Unicorn Hypothesis (IPUH) is a
tantalizing explaination to this question, there is also the more
astronomically remote possibility that the neural bundle controlling
the movement of the arm was involuntarily stimulated by the surgeon.
This is much like having ones petellar reflex tested by a rap on the
soft tissue area between the tibial tuberosity and the lower edge of
patella. However, in light of the vast data describing the IPUH I
must submit that the simplistic comparison of a monosynaptic reflex is
wrong. The odds of a single neural pair capable of lifting an entire
human leg to be astronomical.
Cheers,
"A curse on those geologists. When I read Scripture I can hear the
damned clinking of their infernal hammers in every verse"
- Bishop James Ruskin, 1874
Did that sound convincing? ;)
Frank Pericope
I think Jason Gastrich would say something like:
If all her like-minded Christian friends emailed her in support of her
arm movement, then it was clearly the spirit of God that led it.
- F.
Frank Pericope
I am a 43 year-old (and some would say Christian) man.
I am motivated to try to keep other Christians from jeopardy.
I am no one's teacher.
Richard S. Crawford
> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
> parts of her brain were exposed.
>
> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
> source of her intent?
Her brain.
Richard S. Crawford
Yes, but can you *EXPLAIN* it?
Richard S. Crawford
> Scríobh nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com (R.Schenck):
>
> [snip]
>
>>What is the source of
>>stigmata? They have been reproduced under controlled experiments.
>
>
> Can you give me some further information on this one, I would be
> interested in reading it
>
I'm interested as well. Especially in the stigmata.
Frank Reichenbacher
"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com...
February, 2004, issue of Popular Mechanics.
Duke University has developed a robot that can be controlled by the thoughts
of a monkey. They can do this because thoughts are products of the chemical
and physical constituents of nerve tissues and nothing more.
Obviously, the military is drooling over the potential military
applications: thought-controlled armies of killing machines sweeping across
prostrate foes.
What do you suppose the source of the robot's intent is?
Frank
Von Smith
Hi, Jerry! Have you had a chance to ask that retired chemistry
professor friend of yours about Cello, et al.?
At any rate, on to your post here. Perhaps one could start by
addressing the question that the experiment actually sheds some light
on: We already know from other evidence that one's intentions can be
affected by physiological and chemical changes in the brain. People
under the influence of drugs or medications often form different
intentions than they do when they are not under their influence.
What, for example, is the source of an addict's intent to steal
grandma's silver in order to pay for more drugs?
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Adam Marczyk
> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
> parts of her brain were exposed.
>
> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
> source of her intent?
Other parts of her brain, of course. Something similar happens with some
split-brain patients: to treat some people who have severe epilepsy, the
corpus callosum - the major bridge between the two hemispheres of the
brain - is surgically severed to prevent seizures that begin in one
hemisphere from spreading into the other half. This often works well, but
it can have some bizarre side effects, probably the most bizarre of which
is "alien hand syndrome": the person's left hand does things they don't
want it to do. (The right hemisphere of the brain controls the left side of
the body, and vice versa; however, the left hemisphere alone controls
language, and so is able to express shock and dismay over the irrational
actions of its disconnected partner.)
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#alienhand
--
"I'm materialist | a.a. #2001
Call me a humanist | http://www.ebonmusings.org
I guess I'm full of doubt | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
So I'll gladly have it out with you..." | ICQ: 8777843
--Bad Religion, "Materialist" | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Wostenberg
Féachadóir wrote:
> Scríobh nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com (R.Schenck):
>
> [snip]
>
>>What is the source of
>>stigmata? They have been reproduced under controlled experiments.
>
>
> Can you give me some further information on this one, I would be
> interested in reading it
>
An article from Skpetic Inquirer{1}
"Thurston believed stigmatization was due to the effects of suggestion,
but experimental attempts to duplicate the phenomenon, for example by
using hypnosis, have been unsuccessful." . The Skeptic chalks them up to
fraud, not natural causes.
For the other side of the question, read an article from the old Cathlic
encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm . It puts the
census at 321 Stigmatics, the most famous of which is St Francis, but
another of them is in the news this Lent. Catherine Emmerich is the
inspiraton of several scenes in Gibson's _the passion of the Christ_
{1}http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/4_24/63693003/print.jhtml
386sx
> For the other side of the question, read an article from the old Cathlic
> encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm . It puts the
> census at 321 Stigmatics, the most famous of which is St Francis, but
> another of them is in the news this Lent. Catherine Emmerich is the
> inspiraton of several scenes in Gibson's _the passion of the Christ_
Seems like a very nice lady. She could talk to Jesus and she could diagnose
diseases infallibly and cure them with infallibility. How blessedly
perfectious!
"Their existence is so well established historically that, as a general
thing, they are no longer disputed by unbelievers, who now seek only to
explain them naturally." -- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm
Keep it corporeal,
Anthropomorphism rulez,
386sximus
--
"There are instances of disturbed soil, but I can disturb soil with a
shovel." -- Carl Sagan
Mitchell Coffey
Dr. Wilkins will correct me, as I am undoubtably wrong, but I as I
recall, dualism died with Berkeley.
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
Only nobody told the Hegelians and phenomenologists...
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Jerry Patterson
JP
Is it educational to talk to frogs? Where was the site in the brain
that controls intent?
*****************
Every takeoff is optional. Every landing is mandatory!
*****************
Jerry Patterson
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
JP
The researchers did not locate a site in the brain controlling intent.
Knowledge and resources are much greater today than in 1946. You wrote
that another part of her brain produced her intent; do you know which
brain site provides intents?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
*****************
Jerry Patterson
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read this message from Jerry Patterson
><je...@dslextreme.com>:
>
>>Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>>laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>>parts of her brain were exposed.
>>
>>Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>>physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>>point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>>not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>>and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>>source of her intent?
>>. . .
>
>Other parts of her brain. You don't need to talk about modern
>science, about the affect of lithium on Bipolar disorder, of
>Prozac on the depressed, of LSD on anyone who takes it, to see
>that the "mind" is a physical object subject to physical actions.
>Anyone who actually thinks there is a mind/body distinction has
>never been hungry, never had too little sleep, never had a
>toothache. Discussions of the "independence" of the mind simply
>show human arrogance, our insistence that we are so special.
JP
What is the site in the brain that controls intent?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
*****************
Jerry Patterson
JP
A profundity.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Oh! Where do I find it?
Jerry Patterson
nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com>...
>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>
>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> source of her intent?
>snipsig
>
>You mean what was the source of the intent to not move her arm? The
>intent that was never manifested as her arm not moving? Probably some
>other part of her brain that was superseded by the part being
>stimulated.
JP
What part and what stimulated it?
>What is the source of religious exstatic visions? They have been
>reproduced under controlled experiments. What is the source of
>stigmata? They have been reproduced under controlled experiments.
JP
Where was a stigmata produced and how?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
*****************
Adam Marczyk
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:59:58 +0000 (UTC), Matt Silberstein
> <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> In talk.origins I read this message from Jerry Patterson
>> <je...@dslextreme.com>:
>>
>>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>>
>>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>>> source of her intent?
>>> . . .
>>
>> Other parts of her brain. You don't need to talk about modern
>> science, about the affect of lithium on Bipolar disorder, of
>> Prozac on the depressed, of LSD on anyone who takes it, to see
>> that the "mind" is a physical object subject to physical actions.
>> Anyone who actually thinks there is a mind/body distinction has
>> never been hungry, never had too little sleep, never had a
>> toothache. Discussions of the "independence" of the mind simply
>> show human arrogance, our insistence that we are so special.
>
> JP
> What is the site in the brain that controls intent?
It's very unlikely that there is a single such site. There is no one
distinct center of consciousness, no "Cartesian Theater" in the brain - no
homunculus watching the input from the eyes on a screen and making the arms
and legs move by pulling levers. Consciousness instead appears to be more
diffuse, an ensemble property of many groups of neurons firing in
synchronized patterns - a property of the entire brain rather than any one
part of the brain.
That being said, however, there is a distinct section of the brain that
appears to be responsible for many of the traits we think of as typically
human, including judgment, motivation, planning and setting goals,
regulating actions, making decisions, and other so-called "executive"
functions. That section is the frontal lobes. Damage to these lobes often
produces dramatic changes in personality, in character, and in intent and
decision-making ability. One of the most celebrated examples of this is the
case of Phineas Gage, a railroad foreman who in 1848 suffered a freak
accident that resulted in an iron bar being blasted through the top of his
skull, damaging his frontal lobes. After he recovered from the injury, he
exhibited striking changes in personality, to the extent that his former
friends said "Gage was no longer Gage".
You can read more about this case here:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#gage
Also, see:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#tumors
(dramatic behavioral alterations caused by a tumor pressing on the frontal
lobes)
and even:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#latah
(a disorder called "latah" that leaves victims literally unable to stop
themselves from acting out any suggestion they're given or sometimes any
action they see)
The evidence suggests that these disorders and many with similar effect are
caused by frontal lobe impairment.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Reichenbacher
They don't talk to frogs, of course. Why would you think that?
It is highly educational to experiment on frogs. Frogs have brains and
nerves jsut like you and I. It is possible to conduct experiments on frogs
that would not be possible on humans.
Where was the site in the brain
> that controls intent?
I'm sorry, Jerry, but that was not what you asked. Your question was,
"...what was the source of her intent?"
I answered that. The source of her intent not to move her arm was the
experimenter, who told her not to.
If your question actually dealt with the actual physical location of the
part of her brain in which her intent not to move her arm originated, then
you need to provide a different experiment, because this one would appear
not to have anything to do with that. The experiment simply showed that an
electrical impulse applied to a portion of the brain could activate an
involuntary response in an extremity.
I assume that want us to acknowledge that there is some creative spark in a
human being which somehow transcends the central nervous system. This thesis
can, of course, be easily disproven by the results of the frontal lobotomy
on a psychotic patient. The lobotomy renders the patient docile and
compliant. In other words, the "source of the intent" of the patient's
various psychotic delusions is removed.
Frontal lobotomies happen to normal people all the time by accident or
disease. It takes away their "intent", rendering them docile and compliant.
Accident or disease in humans can damage any or all of the brain, and the
various effects of these injuries can be traced very easily to the missing
or damaged tissue. Therefore, I would tentatively hypothesize (without
examining the neurological data) that the "source of intent" is somewhere in
the frontal cortex of the brain. It turns out that neuroscientists think so
too. Go here,
http://www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/metzinger/assc/2/mp3_archive.html, to
listen to a 1998 paper by Christof Koch describing the work he and his
associates did on the role of the frontal cortex in consciousness.
Scientific American has a supplemental issue on newsstands right now that
deals with the human brain. A quick check of www.sciam.com shows that two of
the articles deal with human consciousness.
Lately, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) has provided an even more accurate
insight to locations of specific functions in the brain. I am not familiar
enough with this work to provide a summary of conclusions with respect to
your misplaced question, but I am sure that searching PubMed will turn up
all kinds of articles much more recent than 1946. I did find an article in
which the researchers,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/13/6989?terms=awareness&searchqstr=tyear%3A1997!fyear%3A1996!fmonth%3ANov!tmonth%3ANov!tdatedef%3A11+November+1997!fdatedef%3A12+November+1996!hits%3A10!fulltext%3Aawareness!sendit%3ASearch
(http://tinyurl.com/2pdpt) tried to nail down a specific region within the
prefrontal cortex that was responsible for "willed action" but they
couldn't. Instead they hypothesized that willed actions originate in the
prefrontal cortex in the "modality-specific" region determined by the nature
of the action.
It may be that willed actions originate at several or many locations
throughout the frontal cortex and it may not be possible to nail it down to
a specific group of neurons.
So what about my question: Why was this experiment done in a radiological
lab? This question could be easily answered by providing a traceable
citation for the source of your information on this experiment. Until I see
such a citation I will not treat your question seriously.
Frank
AC
Oh I see, so if we can't give you an absolute answer because our knowledge
is imperfect, you can insert whatever bullcrap spiritist explanation you
have adopted as your own. Is that it Jerry? All these short periods of
activity by you on TO followed by long absences boil down to some dull,
tawdry mysticism for which you have no evidence, but feel compelled to
believe because science hasn't completely answered the question.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Matt Silberstein
Nice to see how you ignored the rest of my post. I don't know the
location, I don't know that it has a single discrete location.
What does my current ignorance mean? We know plenty more than we
did 100 years ago. Want to discuss how seretonin levels affect
people intent and internal state?
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
R.Schenck
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:34:30 +0000 (UTC),
> nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com>...
> >> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
> >> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
> >> parts of her brain were exposed.
> >>
> >> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
> >> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
> >> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
> >> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
> >> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
> >> source of her intent?
> >snipsig
> >
> >You mean what was the source of the intent to not move her arm? The
> >intent that was never manifested as her arm not moving? Probably some
> >other part of her brain that was superseded by the part being
> >stimulated.
>
> JP
> What part and what stimulated it?
The author seemed to indicate that the person had free will simply
because they intended to move their arm, even tho that will was
overridden by the experimentors. The idea being, if the 'intent' was
merely an 'afterthought' or something overlain on the action of moving
the arm, that it wouldn't have been there if the arm didn't move. I
was suggesting that -if- the intent/will was merely a brain function,
that there is no reason to think that the intent comes from a portion
of the brain that is under then control of the 'motor' portion that
moves arms or holds arms still.
>
> >What is the source of religious exstatic visions? They have been
> >reproduced under controlled experiments. What is the source of
> >stigmata? They have been reproduced under controlled experiments.
>
> JP
> Where was a stigmata produced and how?
> . . .
> Blessings,
> Jerry
> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
> *****************
> Every takeoff is optional. Every landing is mandatory!
> *****************
via:http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00072.html
"Die-hard Skeptic Bears Stigmata
AMHERST, NY (June 15, 2000)-Joe Nickell, senior research fellow of
the
Committee of the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
(CSICOP), claims that he himself bore stigmata during his research
into these
miraculous wounds for an upcoming TV documentary. He gives a
less-than-miraculous explanation in his "Investigative Files" column
for
July/August 2000 issue of Skeptical Inquirer."
There is also the interesting and related case of the
neuropsychologist (or was he just a psychologist) who, when waiting
for the train one day, supposedly had a full blown religious ecstatic
vision, but, instead of running off to the hills and becomming hermit
or monk or whatever, focused his research on that type of phenomenon.
I don't know if its him or someone else who has a machine that
stimulates the brain in such a way that people under its influence
report varying degrees of religious ecstacy. And supposedly everyone
who comes out of those experiments finds the experience 'profound' and
what not, even if they know the science behind it. Other people just
outright reject that its happeneing because of the machine. But i
don't recall the scientists who are doing this.
Frank Reichenbacher
"R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fcb1069.04032...@posting.google.com...
Robert, the correct response to Patterson's mumblings at this point is to
simply request a traceable citation for the work he quotes. You're just
guessing at answers because you don't have access to the actual publication.
My guess is that Patterson is badly paraphrasing the study.
Jerry, why won't you provide a traceable citation for the experiment? Did
you make the whole thing up? It's a simple request, but you just go on
ignoring it. If you don't have a traceable citation, then please just tell
us where you got this information.
Frank
R.Schenck
hey, good guess.
>the correct response to Patterson's mumblings at this point is to
> simply request a traceable citation for the work he quotes. You're just
> guessing at answers because you don't have access to the actual publication.
I hadn't really even thought abuot whether or not it would make a
difference if there was access to the specific study done, or that the
Other Poster had ever seen the primary material. It had seemed to me
that he was indicating that 'we must have a 'free
spirit/independant/non-corporeal soul' because the experiment in
question, which doesn't seem to controversial, at least not to the
point of whether or not motor functions can be controlled by someone
else 'stimulating' different parts of the brain, demonstrated that
there was a seperation of 'will' and 'action'. IOW, some have posited
that we only -think- we have a free will, that we only assume that our
will is animating our arms or legs, (or even the nuerons responsible
for such movement) but its just, in some instances literally, an
afterthought. It seemd to me that the OP thought his questions got
beyond that or were somehow questioning the validity of that.
But yes of course, with out a statement of some sort on what he is
getting at, I am just guessing at what the intent is. Perhaps I
thought it was a David Ford post.
> My guess is that Patterson is badly paraphrasing the study.
>
> Jerry, why won't you provide a traceable citation for the experiment? Did
> you make the whole thing up? It's a simple request, but you just go on
> ignoring it. If you don't have a traceable citation, then please just tell
> us where you got this information.
Thats certainly a reasonable request. If he read it in a newspaper or
saw it in a documentary that wouldn't mean that his claims were bs.
One of those two probably is the source since he doesn't seem to be
telling. I am sure if it was some neurophysiological journal it
would've been answered quickly.
snip
Frank Reichenbacher
"George Tirebiter" <Tireb...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Tirebiter7-61BF0...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <8fcb1069.04032...@posting.google.com>,
> nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) wrote:
>
> > "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bIednR0iOov...@speakeasy.net>...
>
Did
> > > you make the whole thing up? It's a simple request, but you just go on
> > > ignoring it. If you don't have a traceable citation, then please just
tell
> > > us where you got this information.
> >
> > Thats certainly a reasonable request. If he read it in a newspaper or
> > saw it in a documentary that wouldn't mean that his claims were bs.
> > One of those two probably is the source since he doesn't seem to be
> > telling. I am sure if it was some neurophysiological journal it
> > would've been answered quickly.
>
> Penfield at the Montreal Neurological Institute. These studies (done on
> patients who were undergoing neurosurgery for epilepsy) were part of the
> identification of the sensory and motor maps of the body in the brain.
> Maybe you've seen the pictures of the humunculus: a funny looking human
> body superimposed on the cerebral cortex. This came from Penfield and
> Rasmussen's famous book, The Cerbral Cortex of Man, 1950.
>
> The experiments (completely misunderstood by the biblethumper) were
> described in that book and in the following:
>
> Penfield W, (1947). Some Observations on the Cerebral cortex of Man.
> Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B: Biological Sciences, 134 :
> 329 347
>
> Penfield W, Boldrey E, (1937). Somatic Motor and Sensory Representation
in
> the Cerebral Cortex of Man as Studied by Electrical Stimulation. Brain 60
> : 389 443,
>
> Penfield W, Erickson TC, (1941). Epilepsy and Cerebral Localisation.
> Ballière, Tindall and Cox, London
>
> Penfield W, Jasper H, (1954). Epilepsy and the Functional Anatomy of the
> Human Brain. Churchill, London
Well done, George. Patterson mentioned that he was going to do this back in
September or August. It's been gnawing at me ever since.
By the way, I'm partial to Michelins myself. You?
Frank
Eros
Why not? Jesus spoke to a fig tree... even if it was only to curse it
for not bearing fruit in the off-season.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will
believe whatever the Church teaches." -- Thomas Aquinas, ‘Summa
Theologica'.
Mitchell Coffey
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Mitchell Coffey <m.coffe...@starpowerremove.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:33:02 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:55:16 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>> >
>> >> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> >> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> >> parts of her brain were exposed.
>> >>
>> >> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> >> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> >> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> >> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> >> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> >> source of her intent?
>> >
>> >A different part of her brain, the part that had earlier sent messages to
>> >the same motor-control area that they stimulated.
>> >
>> >Sorry, but you're not going to find any support for dualism in the
>> >experiments of neuroscience.
>>
>> Dr. Wilkins will correct me, as I am undoubtably wrong, but I as I
>> recall, dualism died with Berkeley.
>>
>Only nobody told the Hegelians and phenomenologists...
Well, Searle said something to the effect that Berkeley wasn't a total
loss, at least he pretty much killed off Cartesian dualism. [1]
Mitchell Coffey
[1] Personal communication.
Mitchell Coffey
<je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:33:02 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
><bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:55:16 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>>
>>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>>
>>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>>> source of her intent?
>>
>>A different part of her brain, the part that had earlier sent messages to
>>the same motor-control area that they stimulated.
>>
>>Sorry, but you're not going to find any support for dualism in the
>>experiments of neuroscience.
>
>JP
>The researchers did not locate a site in the brain controlling intent.
>Knowledge and resources are much greater today than in 1946. You wrote
>that another part of her brain produced her intent; do you know which
>brain site provides intents?
I can't give you specifics, but intents are localized, but not all
intents arize from the same location.
Mitchell Coffey
Frank Reichenbacher
> In article <DEWdnU9lc8W...@speakeasy.net>,
<snip>
>
> > By the way, I'm partial to Michelins myself. You?
>
> Oh, these days I mostly just gnaw on a groat cluster or two.
That sounds extremely painful. You should see a dentist right away.
Frank
Adam Marczyk
news:YOl7c.266$%J6....@news01.roc.ny...
I should add an addendum - there's another condition resulting from frontal
lobe injury that is extremely relevant to the question of what the source
of intent is. I should have mentioned it earlier - it was silly of me to
omit it.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#akinesia
"Paralysis is the simple inability to move, but there exists a far stranger
condition called akinesia, the unwillingness to move. In this condition,
there is no physiological reason why the person cannot perform tasks;
instead, what is missing is the ability to self-initiate movement. Unless
strongly encouraged by others, and sometimes not even then, patients with
akinesia will sit passively by and do absolutely nothing, except to attend
to the most immediate short-term needs."
In one case I discuss on my website, a Baptist minister began to suffer
from akinesia after a benign tumor started to press on his left and right
frontal lobes. Though he had previously been a hard-working and independent
man, the last few weeks he preached at his church, he gave the same sermon
three times in a row, and then just stopped showing up. As the condition
grew worse, he stopped keeping his appointments, then stopped leaving the
house, then stopped getting up on his own, then stopped speaking on his
own. By two years into the condition, his akinesia was so severe that he
often urinated in his pants rather than get up to relieve himself. When a
neurological examination detected and removed the tumor, his recovery was
complete and almost immediate.
Comments, Jerry?
Jerry Patterson
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
JP
It was not my intent to ignore anything. If one does not know the
site, how does one know the source was in the brain?
Jerry Patterson
JP
It does appear diffuse. If the group theory is true, it seems that a
"manager" must exist.
>That being said, however, there is a distinct section of the brain that
>appears to be responsible for many of the traits we think of as typically
>human, including judgment, motivation, planning and setting goals,
>regulating actions, making decisions, and other so-called "executive"
>functions. That section is the frontal lobes. Damage to these lobes often
>produces dramatic changes in personality, in character, and in intent and
>decision-making ability. One of the most celebrated examples of this is the
>case of Phineas Gage, a railroad foreman who in 1848 suffered a freak
>accident that resulted in an iron bar being blasted through the top of his
>skull, damaging his frontal lobes. After he recovered from the injury, he
>exhibited striking changes in personality, to the extent that his former
>friends said "Gage was no longer Gage".
JP
Would you say this effect is of the sensible?
>You can read more about this case here:
>http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#gage
>
>Also, see:
>http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#tumors
>(dramatic behavioral alterations caused by a tumor pressing on the frontal
>lobes)
>
>and even:
>http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#latah
>(a disorder called "latah" that leaves victims literally unable to stop
>themselves from acting out any suggestion they're given or sometimes any
>action they see)
>
>The evidence suggests that these disorders and many with similar effect are
>caused by frontal lobe impairment.
JP
It seems to be the case. What of the abstract?
Jerry Patterson
JP
Facetiousness.
>It is highly educational to experiment on frogs. Frogs have brains and
>nerves jsut like you and I. It is possible to conduct experiments on frogs
>that would not be possible on humans.
>
>
>Where was the site in the brain
>> that controls intent?
>
>I'm sorry, Jerry, but that was not what you asked. Your question was,
>"...what was the source of her intent?"
JP
What distinction are you making?
>I answered that. The source of her intent not to move her arm was the
>experimenter, who told her not to.
JP
Since she experienced an internal conflict, I referred to that which
was within her.
>If your question actually dealt with the actual physical location of the
>part of her brain in which her intent not to move her arm originated, then
>you need to provide a different experiment, because this one would appear
>not to have anything to do with that. The experiment simply showed that an
>electrical impulse applied to a portion of the brain could activate an
>involuntary response in an extremity.
JP
Yes, but what was the source within her of her intent? Was it in her
brain.
>I assume that want us to acknowledge that there is some creative spark in a
>human being which somehow transcends the central nervous system. This thesis
>can, of course, be easily disproven by the results of the frontal lobotomy
>on a psychotic patient. The lobotomy renders the patient docile and
>compliant. In other words, the "source of the intent" of the patient's
>various psychotic delusions is removed.
JP
I was under the impression I was communicating with you. Who are the
we? Are you saying that the source of intent is associated with
psychotic delusions?
>Frontal lobotomies happen to normal people all the time by accident or
>disease. It takes away their "intent", rendering them docile and compliant.
>Accident or disease in humans can damage any or all of the brain, and the
>various effects of these injuries can be traced very easily to the missing
>or damaged tissue. Therefore, I would tentatively hypothesize (without
>examining the neurological data) that the "source of intent" is somewhere in
>the frontal cortex of the brain. It turns out that neuroscientists think so
>too. Go here,
>http://www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/metzinger/assc/2/mp3_archive.html, to
>listen to a 1998 paper by Christof Koch describing the work he and his
>associates did on the role of the frontal cortex in consciousness.
JP
Hypothesis is appropriate. I salute that.
>Scientific American has a supplemental issue on newsstands right now that
>deals with the human brain. A quick check of www.sciam.com shows that two of
>the articles deal with human consciousness.
>
>Lately, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) has provided an even more accurate
>insight to locations of specific functions in the brain. I am not familiar
>enough with this work to provide a summary of conclusions with respect to
>your misplaced question, but I am sure that searching PubMed will turn up
>all kinds of articles much more recent than 1946. I did find an article in
>which the researchers,
>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/13/6989?terms=awareness&searchqstr=tyear%3A1997!fyear%3A1996!fmonth%3ANov!tmonth%3ANov!tdatedef%3A11+November+1997!fdatedef%3A12+November+1996!hits%3A10!fulltext%3Aawareness!sendit%3ASearch
>(http://tinyurl.com/2pdpt) tried to nail down a specific region within the
>prefrontal cortex that was responsible for "willed action" but they
>couldn't. Instead they hypothesized that willed actions originate in the
>prefrontal cortex in the "modality-specific" region determined by the nature
>of the action.
JP
Is there a distinction to be made as what is sensible and what is not
sensible? Is there no such reality as the non sensible?
>It may be that willed actions originate at several or many locations
>throughout the frontal cortex and it may not be possible to nail it down to
>a specific group of neurons.
>
>So what about my question: Why was this experiment done in a radiological
>lab? This question could be easily answered by providing a traceable
>citation for the source of your information on this experiment. Until I see
>such a citation I will not treat your question seriously.
JP
If you want the details I am sure that the McGill School of Medicine
can provide them. Since I deal with these issues primarily on a
philosophical basis, those details were not important to me. I do not
assume that the brain is the source for such activity. So, I suppose
you don't take my question seriously. Thank you for your comments.
>Frank
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
*****************
Jerry Patterson
<ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com...
>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>
>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> source of her intent?
>
>Other parts of her brain, of course. Something similar happens with some
>split-brain patients: to treat some people who have severe epilepsy, the
>corpus callosum - the major bridge between the two hemispheres of the
>brain - is surgically severed to prevent seizures that begin in one
>hemisphere from spreading into the other half. This often works well, but
>it can have some bizarre side effects, probably the most bizarre of which
>is "alien hand syndrome": the person's left hand does things they don't
>want it to do. (The right hemisphere of the brain controls the left side of
>the body, and vice versa; however, the left hemisphere alone controls
>language, and so is able to express shock and dismay over the irrational
>actions of its disconnected partner.)
>
>http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#alienhand
JP
Interesting. I agree that the reality transcends more than the mere
sensible.
Jerry Patterson
<vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com...
>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>
>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> source of her intent?
>> . . .
>> Blessings,
>> Jerry
>> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>>
>
>
>February, 2004, issue of Popular Mechanics.
>
>Duke University has developed a robot that can be controlled by the thoughts
>of a monkey. They can do this because thoughts are products of the chemical
>and physical constituents of nerve tissues and nothing more.
>
>Obviously, the military is drooling over the potential military
>applications: thought-controlled armies of killing machines sweeping across
>prostrate foes.
>
>What do you suppose the source of the robot's intent is?
>
>Frank
JP
Monkey business. The military is not drooling. They aren't giddy.
Jerry Patterson
nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) wrote:
JP
That seems reasonable.
JP
Thank you. I will visit the site.
Jerry Patterson
<rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>Jerry Patterson wrote:
>
>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>
>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> source of her intent?
>
>Her brain.
JP
What part?
Jerry Patterson
JP
I heard of this experiment many years ago in school. Since I deal with
such questions in philosophical terms, I had no reason to examine the
medical details. I am confident you can get details from McGill
University in Ontario.
JP
I visited the site and concluded that any investigation was rather
superficial. Padre Pio exhibited, among others, totally unnatural
wounds. There is much documentation and it can be obtained, if you are
interested, from the files advocating his beatification and sainthood.
I don't know where they are located, but I think search of his name
would be an excellent starting point.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Who are "we?"
Who has no evidenced. Your language indicates that your language
results from emotional holdings. My absences. I have a life and
responsibilities other than newsgroups.
Again, you have made it clear that you and I are not able to dialogue.
I wish you fulfillment.
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
<mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:55:16 +0000 (UTC),
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>
>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> source of her intent?
>
>Why don't you tell us Jerry? Or is this just going to be another one of
>your ever-popular he said/she said threads.
JP
Does this mean you don't know?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
*****************
Jerry Patterson
Smith) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com>...
>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>
>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> source of her intent?
>> . . .
>> Blessings,
>> Jerry
>> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>
>Hi, Jerry! Have you had a chance to ask that retired chemistry
>professor friend of yours about Cello, et al.?
JP
Yes, I have indeed. They finished the renovation last week. We
discussed the topic and his primary comment was that the topic
engenders much controversy. My experience with viruses surviving for
extended time periods at the electrodes of guns used to remove warts
suggests to me that the virus is essentially chemical. In other
instances, they do seem to exhibit some characteristics of life. Of
course chemical reactions can too.
>At any rate, on to your post here. Perhaps one could start by
>addressing the question that the experiment actually sheds some light
>on: We already know from other evidence that one's intentions can be
>affected by physiological and chemical changes in the brain. People
>under the influence of drugs or medications often form different
>intentions than they do when they are not under their influence.
>What, for example, is the source of an addict's intent to steal
>grandma's silver in order to pay for more drugs?
>
>Von Smith
>Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
JP
If the source is sensible, then I would say the answer lies in damaged
brain parts; if the source is not sensible, then I would also say the
answer lies in damaged brain parts.
AC
So you're saying you're not trying to peddle cheap net-kook mysticism Jerry?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Von Smith
Well, OK, I'm glad we agree on that.
>
> >At any rate, on to your post here. Perhaps one could start by
> >addressing the question that the experiment actually sheds some light
> >on: We already know from other evidence that one's intentions can be
> >affected by physiological and chemical changes in the brain. People
> >under the influence of drugs or medications often form different
> >intentions than they do when they are not under their influence.
>
> >What, for example, is the source of an addict's intent to steal
> >grandma's silver in order to pay for more drugs?
> >
> >Von Smith
> >Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
>
> JP
> If the source is sensible, then I would say the answer lies in damaged
> brain parts; if the source is not sensible, then I would also say the
> answer lies in damaged brain parts.
OK, so, if we concede that changes to certain parts of the brain cause
us to form intentions we would not otherwise form, would it not be
fair to say that these parts of our brain probably play at least some
role in the formation of our intentions when they are "normal"?
Frank Reichenbacher
Oh really? Then why did the Defense Research Projects Agency fork over $24
million to fund the work?
I ask you again -- what is the source of the robot's intent?
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
The brain isn't a "site"? How precise does the location have to be to
satisfy you? Why would a precise location within the brain matter to your
philosophical point, whatever that is, so long as it has been confirmed that
the source is within the brain?
You present a study that you vaguely recall from a lecture years ago. You
fail to provide all but the most meager details and then you have the nerve
to intimate that Matt's suggestion is too imprecise?
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
<snip>
> >>
> >> JP
> >> Is it educational to talk to frogs?
> >
> >They don't talk to frogs, of course. Why would you think that?
>
> JP
> Facetiousness.
That's why people use emoticons :)
>
> >It is highly educational to experiment on frogs. Frogs have brains and
> >nerves jsut like you and I. It is possible to conduct experiments on
frogs
> >that would not be possible on humans.
> >
> >
> >Where was the site in the brain
> >> that controls intent?
> >
> >I'm sorry, Jerry, but that was not what you asked. Your question was,
> >"...what was the source of her intent?"
>
> JP
> What distinction are you making?
How was that a "distinction"? You asked a question, I answered it, but your
response indicated that perhaps I misinterpreted the question, or the
question was poorly phrased, or you did not ask a question that would
produce the answers you thought you wanted. So I said so. How was I making a
"distinction".
>
> >I answered that. The source of her intent not to move her arm was the
> >experimenter, who told her not to.
>
> JP
> Since she experienced an internal conflict, I referred to that which
> was within her.
Best to ask the question that you want answered. Asking other questions is
generally not productive.
That which is within her is a brain. And neurons that carry signals to and
from the brain and her extremities. The electrical impulse apparently
suppressed or overrode her ability to control her extremity.
>
> >If your question actually dealt with the actual physical location of the
> >part of her brain in which her intent not to move her arm originated,
then
> >you need to provide a different experiment, because this one would appear
> >not to have anything to do with that. The experiment simply showed that
an
> >electrical impulse applied to a portion of the brain could activate an
> >involuntary response in an extremity.
>
> JP
> Yes, but what was the source within her of her intent? Was it in her
> brain.
Yes. As the several studies and other data sources that I and others cited
in our responses to your question, there is no doubt but that a "willed
action" originates within the neural pathways of the brain and nowhere else.
>
> >I assume that want us to acknowledge that there is some creative spark in
a
> >human being which somehow transcends the central nervous system. This
thesis
> >can, of course, be easily disproven by the results of the frontal
lobotomy
> >on a psychotic patient. The lobotomy renders the patient docile and
> >compliant. In other words, the "source of the intent" of the patient's
> >various psychotic delusions is removed.
>
> JP
> I was under the impression I was communicating with you. Who are the
> we?
You posed your question to the TO group, which is comprised of many
contributors. Hence "we".
Are you saying that the source of intent is associated with
> psychotic delusions?
Of course not.
If it is not sensible, how would we know anything about it?
>
> >It may be that willed actions originate at several or many locations
> >throughout the frontal cortex and it may not be possible to nail it down
to
> >a specific group of neurons.
> >
> >So what about my question: Why was this experiment done in a radiological
> >lab? This question could be easily answered by providing a traceable
> >citation for the source of your information on this experiment. Until I
see
> >such a citation I will not treat your question seriously.
>
> JP
> If you want the details I am sure that the McGill School of Medicine
> can provide them. Since I deal with these issues primarily on a
> philosophical basis, those details were not important to me. I do not
> assume that the brain is the source for such activity.
The experiments and various studies that I and others cited strongly
indicate otherwise.
So, I suppose
> you don't take my question seriously.
If you don't take the subject seriously enough to provide a simple
reference, why would I take it seriously?
Frank
Matt Silberstein
Because physical changes to the brain affect the mind. As I had
said:
You don't need to talk about modern
science, about the affect of lithium on Bipolar disorder, of
Prozac on the depressed, of LSD on anyone who takes it, to see
that the "mind" is a physical object subject to physical actions.
Anyone who actually thinks there is a mind/body distinction has
never been hungry, never had too little sleep, never had a
toothache. Discussions of the "independence" of the mind simply
show human arrogance, our insistence that we are so special.
What do you have that suggests otherwise?
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
Adam Marczyk
[...]
>> That being said, however, there is a distinct section of the brain that
>> appears to be responsible for many of the traits we think of as
>> typically human, including judgment, motivation, planning and setting
>> goals, regulating actions, making decisions, and other so-called
>> "executive" functions. That section is the frontal lobes. Damage to
>> these lobes often produces dramatic changes in personality, in
>> character, and in intent and decision-making ability. One of the most
>> celebrated examples of this is the case of Phineas Gage, a railroad
>> foreman who in 1848 suffered a freak accident that resulted in an iron
>> bar being blasted through the top of his skull, damaging his frontal
>> lobes. After he recovered from the injury, he exhibited striking
>> changes in personality, to the extent that his former friends said
>> "Gage was no longer Gage".
>
> JP
> Would you say this effect is of the sensible?
I have no idea what this means.
>> You can read more about this case here:
>> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#gage
>>
>> Also, see:
>> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#tumors
>> (dramatic behavioral alterations caused by a tumor pressing on the
>> frontal lobes)
>>
>> and even:
>> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#latah
>> (a disorder called "latah" that leaves victims literally unable to stop
>> themselves from acting out any suggestion they're given or sometimes any
>> action they see)
>>
>> The evidence suggests that these disorders and many with similar effect
>> are caused by frontal lobe impairment.
>
> JP
> It seems to be the case. What of the abstract?
I'm afraid I don't understand this either. Can you please clarify what
you're asking?
Von Smith
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), Matt Silberstein
> <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> >Nice to see how you ignored the rest of my post. I don't know the
> >location, I don't know that it has a single discrete location.
> >What does my current ignorance mean? We know plenty more than we
> >did 100 years ago. Want to discuss how seretonin levels affect
> >people intent and internal state?
>
> JP
> It was not my intent to ignore anything. If one does not know the
> site, how does one know the source was in the brain?
The same way it is possible to know that coelacanths live in the ocean
without knowing exactly where their colonies are. Plus, as Matt
indicated, intent may well be a complex state that involves
interactions among numerous areas of the brain, rather than have *a*
site. So why insist on a question that could well proceed from a
false premise?
Jerry Patterson
JP
Perhaps you would prefer the word "location?" I am a bit surprised
that you question my satisfaction. I would have suspected that your
satisfaction is more important. "Electro-chemical" activity is
confirmed.
>You present a study that you vaguely recall from a lecture years ago. You
>fail to provide all but the most meager details and then you have the nerve
>to intimate that Matt's suggestion is too imprecise?
>
>Frank
JP
I am puzzled that you need more details. If you want them I am
confident that they can be obtained from the medical department of
McGill University.
It seems reasonable that if one claims that something exists within a
broad volume that it is important to confirm that by location within
that volume. There may be reasons why the location cannot be precisely
located. For instance, only effects of the intent may have been
observed. Knowing the location would permit investigation.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
************
Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous.
************
Jerry Patterson
JP
I certainly agree, Adam, that a healthy brain is necessary for
"normal" behavior. It seems to me that intents need not find their
origin in the brain. As I recall, you mentioned on another post
something that prompted me to ask if you distinguished between the
sensible and the non sensible. We can pursue that there.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
************
Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous.
************
. . .
Kindest personal regards,
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
JP
It seems the analogy is off the mark.
It seems reasonable that if one claims that something exists within a
broad volume that it is important to confirm that by location within
that volume. There may be reasons why the location cannot be precisely
located. For instance, only effects of the intent may have been
observed. Knowing the location would permit investigation.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
************
Jerry Patterson
eros_tal...@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<tvmp50h12htapl9oj...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:12:44 +0000 (UTC), "Frank Reichenbacher"
>> <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jerry Patterson" <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7hl9501r4s8pnklcv...@4ax.com...
>> >> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> >> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> >> parts of her brain were exposed.
>> >>
>> >> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> >> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> >> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> >> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> >> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> >> source of her intent?
>> >> . . .
>> >> Blessings,
>> >> Jerry
>> >> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> JP
>> Is it educational to talk to frogs?
>
>Why not? Jesus spoke to a fig tree... even if it was only to curse it
>for not bearing fruit in the off-season.
>
>EROS.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will
>believe whatever the Church teaches." -- Thomas Aquinas, ‘Summa
>Theologica'.
JP
I don't recognize that as Aquinas phraseology. What book, part,
article, and question?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Jerry Patterson
<m.coffe...@starpowerremove.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:17:18 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Patterson
><je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:33:02 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>><bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:55:16 +0000, Jerry Patterson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>>>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>>>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>>>>
>>>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>>>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>>>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>>>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>>>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>>>> source of her intent?
>>>
>>>A different part of her brain, the part that had earlier sent messages to
>>>the same motor-control area that they stimulated.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but you're not going to find any support for dualism in the
>>>experiments of neuroscience.
>>
>>JP
>>The researchers did not locate a site in the brain controlling intent.
>>Knowledge and resources are much greater today than in 1946. You wrote
>>that another part of her brain produced her intent; do you know which
>>brain site provides intents?
>
>I can't give you specifics, but intents are localized, but not all
>intents arize from the same location.
>
>Mitchell Coffey
Thank you.
Jerry Patterson
<ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:9he6605bofqmdph7l...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:04:29 +0000 (UTC), "Adam Marczyk"
>> <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> That being said, however, there is a distinct section of the brain that
>>> appears to be responsible for many of the traits we think of as
>>> typically human, including judgment, motivation, planning and setting
>>> goals, regulating actions, making decisions, and other so-called
>>> "executive" functions. That section is the frontal lobes. Damage to
>>> these lobes often produces dramatic changes in personality, in
>>> character, and in intent and decision-making ability. One of the most
>>> celebrated examples of this is the case of Phineas Gage, a railroad
>>> foreman who in 1848 suffered a freak accident that resulted in an iron
>>> bar being blasted through the top of his skull, damaging his frontal
>>> lobes. After he recovered from the injury, he exhibited striking
>>> changes in personality, to the extent that his former friends said
>>> "Gage was no longer Gage".
>>
>> JP
>> Would you say this effect is of the sensible?
>
>I have no idea what this means.
JP
By sensible I mean that which is capable of being perceived by the
senses.
>>> You can read more about this case here:
>>> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#gage
>>>
>>> Also, see:
>>> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#tumors
>>> (dramatic behavioral alterations caused by a tumor pressing on the
>>> frontal lobes)
>>>
>>> and even:
>>> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#latah
>>> (a disorder called "latah" that leaves victims literally unable to stop
>>> themselves from acting out any suggestion they're given or sometimes any
>>> action they see)
>>>
>>> The evidence suggests that these disorders and many with similar effect
>>> are caused by frontal lobe impairment.
>>
>> JP
>> It seems to be the case. What of the abstract?
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand this either. Can you please clarify what
>you're asking?
JP
I think there are reasons to distinguish between what is perceived by
the senses and what is the product of the intellect, which I think is
not of the sensible.
By abstract I mean, briefly, a mental separation of something not, or
at least not necessarily, separated in the external. An example would
be a person viewing a triangle several yards distant and then
reasoning, concluding that the sum of the interior angles is always
180 degrees. That quality exists in the triangle, but was not
sensible. It existed as a property of the triangle in the viewers mind
resulting from reason.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
************
Jerry Patterson
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
JP
I am uncertain of your meaning. How do you distinguish between the
"brain" and the "mind?"
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
************
Jerry Patterson
JP
You wrote:
************
>> >
>> >By the way. The source of her intent was the researchers telling her to
>not
>> >move her arm.
>> >
************
Her intent was certainly internal to herself. The researchers might
tell her something, but that seems to be different from her intent. I
did not understand how the voice of another could be the source of her
intent. Her intent was a response and it seemed you made a
distinction, and properly so, but the researchers could not be the
cause or source of her intent which was internal to her.
>>
>> >I answered that. The source of her intent not to move her arm was the
>> >experimenter, who told her not to.
>>
>> JP
>> Since she experienced an internal conflict, I referred to that which
>> was within her.
>
>Best to ask the question that you want answered. Asking other questions is
>generally not productive.
>
>That which is within her is a brain. And neurons that carry signals to and
>from the brain and her extremities. The electrical impulse apparently
>suppressed or overrode her ability to control her extremity.
JP
I agree with that. What makes you think that her impulses (of her
intent) were not simply representational and not the intent itself?
How is it that atomic and sub-atomic particles can abstract the
meaning of the researchers? After all, the researchers retained their
intent?
>
>>
>> >If your question actually dealt with the actual physical location of the
>> >part of her brain in which her intent not to move her arm originated,
>then
>> >you need to provide a different experiment, because this one would appear
>> >not to have anything to do with that. The experiment simply showed that
>an
>> >electrical impulse applied to a portion of the brain could activate an
>> >involuntary response in an extremity.
>>
>> JP
>> Yes, but what was the source within her of her intent? Was it in her
>> brain.
>
>Yes. As the several studies and other data sources that I and others cited
>in our responses to your question, there is no doubt but that a "willed
>action" originates within the neural pathways of the brain and nowhere else.
JP
The notion of origination here is what is to be demonstrated. We
cannot examine the impulses and "retrieve" the intent. It seems that
what is observed is the effect of her intent. Again, how can particles
form intent?
>> >I assume that want us to acknowledge that there is some creative spark in
>a
>> >human being which somehow transcends the central nervous system. This
>thesis
>> >can, of course, be easily disproven by the results of the frontal
>lobotomy
>> >on a psychotic patient. The lobotomy renders the patient docile and
>> >compliant. In other words, the "source of the intent" of the patient's
>> >various psychotic delusions is removed.
>>
>> JP
>> I was under the impression I was communicating with you. Who are the
>> we?
>
>You posed your question to the TO group, which is comprised of many
>contributors. Hence "we".
JP
Individuals of the group answer. It seems you used the editorial we.
JP
We would know in the same way we abstract from what is external to
self. You get an idea, you communicate it to me using sensory data
(voice); I process the data in such a way that I now possess what you
still have in your possession (idea). I have abstracted from you and
you still possess what I now know. Part of you has been copied to me.
You seem to be saying that the processes so briefly summed above are
totally comprised of atomic and sub-atomic material. Now what
characteristic(s) of that material suggests that the capability of
such abstractions?
>
>>
>> >It may be that willed actions originate at several or many locations
>> >throughout the frontal cortex and it may not be possible to nail it down
>to
>> >a specific group of neurons.
>> >
>> >So what about my question: Why was this experiment done in a radiological
>> >lab? This question could be easily answered by providing a traceable
>> >citation for the source of your information on this experiment. Until I
>see
>> >such a citation I will not treat your question seriously.
>>
>> JP
>> If you want the details I am sure that the McGill School of Medicine
>> can provide them. Since I deal with these issues primarily on a
>> philosophical basis, those details were not important to me. I do not
>> assume that the brain is the source for such activity.
>
>The experiments and various studies that I and others cited strongly
>indicate otherwise.
>
>
> So, I suppose
>> you don't take my question seriously.
>
>If you don't take the subject seriously enough to provide a simple
>reference, why would I take it seriously?
>
>Frank
JP
Of course I take your question seriously. I don't require that detail;
you want that detail. It seems that you want the detail so you can
speculate on how the material may work in general terms. That is fine
with me.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
************
Jerry Patterson
<vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
JP
If what you say is true, then the source of the robot's intent was the
program installed. Does this mean you think you have been programmed?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
************
Jerry Patterson
Smith) wrote:
JP
I would not express it that way. I think the evidence shows we form
intent that is transmitted sensibly. If the "transmitter" is damaged,
the intent is not evidenced faithfully. A damaged "transmitter" may
not require intent as it can function without control (chemically).
The brain performs an absolutely essential role providing social
structure and understanding.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
************
AC
George Tirebiter <Tireb...@netscape.net> wrote:
> In article <3rme60por1ihuf23p...@4ax.com>,
> Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I certainly agree, Adam, that a healthy brain is necessary for
>> "normal" behavior. It seems to me that intents need not find their
>> origin in the brain.
>
> This comment could only come from someone who has no idea what he is
> talking about. Other than the brain, where would you think intentions could
> possibly come from?
I think we all know what Jerry is saying, though Jerry is oddly shy about
saying it. He believes in some sort of spirit/soul/outside force. He is
the ultimate example of someone who thinks that a god-of-the-gaps argument
is completely valid.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Matt Silberstein
<je...@dslextreme.com>:
[snip]
>Perhaps you would prefer the word "location?" I am a bit surprised
>that you question my satisfaction. I would have suspected that your
>satisfaction is more important. "Electro-chemical" activity is
>confirmed.
>
>>You present a study that you vaguely recall from a lecture years ago. You
>>fail to provide all but the most meager details and then you have the nerve
>>to intimate that Matt's suggestion is too imprecise?
>>
>>Frank
>
>JP
>I am puzzled that you need more details. If you want them I am
>confident that they can be obtained from the medical department of
>McGill University.
>
>It seems reasonable that if one claims that something exists within a
>broad volume that it is important to confirm that by location within
>that volume. There may be reasons why the location cannot be precisely
>located. For instance, only effects of the intent may have been
>observed. Knowing the location would permit investigation.
Let's try a simpler case, where does the signal for the heartbeat
come from?
Matt Silberstein
Mind is what people perceive from the inside, brain is what we
see. AFAWCT the mind come from the brain. Now did you not
understand the rest of my point? You have asked how we know that
"intent" (a mind property) comes from the brain? I pointed to a
host of ways we determine this. If you reject this what do you
propose? Why do you reject it?
Adam Marczyk
I'm afraid I don't see what this has to do with your question regarding the
source of intent in the brain.
Adam Marczyk
[...]
It's true that they "need not" in the sense that you can always add extra
propositions onto any given hypothesis which are not falsifiable and don't
add to its explanatory power. But neither is there any evidence for those
extra propositions. I prefer to go by Occam's Razor in situations such as
this.
> As I recall, you mentioned on another post
> something that prompted me to ask if you distinguished between the
> sensible and the non sensible. We can pursue that there.
Are you asking if I believe there are things which cannot be directly
perceived by the senses? Of course there are. But our senses are the only
means we have for gaining knowledge about the physical, external world.
Von Smith
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:32 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<jhf660die8o8q7uh1...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), Matt Silberstein
> >> <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
> >>
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Nice to see how you ignored the rest of my post. I don't know the
> >> >location, I don't know that it has a single discrete location.
> >> >What does my current ignorance mean? We know plenty more than we
> >> >did 100 years ago. Want to discuss how seretonin levels affect
> >> >people intent and internal state?
> >>
> >> JP
> >> It was not my intent to ignore anything. If one does not know the
> >> site, how does one know the source was in the brain?
> >
> >The same way it is possible to know that coelacanths live in the ocean
> >without knowing exactly where their colonies are. Plus, as Matt
> >indicated, intent may well be a complex state that involves
> >interactions among numerous areas of the brain, rather than have *a*
> >site. So why insist on a question that could well proceed from a
> >false premise?
> >
> >Von Smith
>
> >Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
>
> JP
> It seems the analogy is off the mark.
How so?
>
> It seems reasonable that if one claims that something exists within a
> broad volume that it is important to confirm that by location within
> that volume.
Which nicely demonstrates how my coelacanth example is exactly on
point. It is *not* important to the claim that coelacanths live in
the ocean (a broad volume) to confim their location within that ocean.
> There may be reasons why the location cannot be precisely
> located. For instance, only effects of the intent may have been
> observed. Knowing the location would permit investigation.
What operational criteria do you propose that we use to distinguish a
"real" intent from its mere effects just by looking at the evidence?
At any rate, you completely failed to address the most important
question: why assume that "intent" is a simple thing with a single
point of origin? How do you know it isn't a complex ensemble of brain
activity, the properties of which depend on a variety of inputs?
This is an important issue. There are many perfectly natural
phenomena that do not have a single "source". What, for example would
the precise location of the source of atmospheric pressure? Where is
the source of the orbits of short-period comets? In both cases, we
can identify fairly well the "broad range" within which the inputs
needed for these phenomena are located; to do so, it is not only not
necessary to identify an exact location of their "source", it is
meaningless to attempt it.
Von Smith
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:41:36 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<69n6605fuac2gk0st...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:58:42 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> >> Smith) wrote:
> >>
<snip>
It is unclear to me what you mean here. You just stated in an earlier
message -in answer to the question: What is the source of an addict's
intent to steal grandma's silver to pay for more drugs?- that the
answer lay in damaged brain parts. That bears the interpretation that
you think damaged brain parts are the source of the intent. Then in
the next message you say that that's not how you would express it and
talk about damaged transmitters. Do you think the evidence supports
the idea that the physical brain can be and sometimes is a source of
intent, or not?
Also, I don't find the description of pathological intents proposed
immediately above to be particularly plausible. Stealing and fencing
family heirlooms to pay for drugs seems to me an act (in fact, a whole
connected series of acts) that requires a clear intent, and even
careful prior planning; it is not an automatic action that can
reasonably be said to "function without control". Likewise,
converting to Catholicism is hardly an action an intelligent adult is
likely to perform unintentionally. But both of these are actions
known to have been performed in response to "damaged 'transmitters'".
These actions may be atypical of the subject's earlier behavior, may
be irrational, and may or may not be regretted by the individual even
as they are planning and performing them, but that does not make them
any less intentional.
Finally, I fail to see how the available evidence actually *supports*
the suggestion that the brain is merely a conduit for intents, which
you presumably believe to emanate from some invisible black-box you
might think of as "spirit" or "soul", even though you seem reluctant
to come right out and name it thus on usenet. One could with equal
justice claim that gravity or atmospheric pressure are "really" caused
by invisible choirs of angels, and that the physical entities and
phenomena associated with them merely "transmit" their effects.
Richard S. Crawford
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:43:03 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Patterson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>>>laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>>>parts of her brain were exposed.
>>>
>>>Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>>>physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>>>point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>>>not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>>>and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>>>source of her intent?
>>
>>Her brain.
>
>
> JP
> What part?
Hard to say. As I understand it, the older model of the brain (that
distinct structures have responsibility over distinct functions), while
grossly true, is apparently not as rigid as was previously thought. A
more holographic view, where some functions such as reason seem to be
spread throughout the brain, seems to be prevailing.
Not being a neuropsychologist, however, I can't say for sure.
God bless,
Richard
Eros
Actually, after looking it up myself, I see that it's paraphrased from
'Summa Theologica', Part 2, Question 5, Article 3. (Aquin.: SMT SS
Q[5] A[3] Body Para. 2/2)
The full text is;-
"Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church,
as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches;
otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he
chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer
adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to
his own will."
However, the paraphrased shortened quote I used is, I believe, a true
and accurate representation of the meaning of the text above.
Don't you agree that a person who accepts the Church as an infallible
guide WILL believe whatever the Church teaches?
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
For what?
> . . .
> Blessings,
> Jerry
And may your god not smite you too severely...
Now perhaps you'll answer my original question about why Jesus spoke
to a fig tree... even if it was only to curse it for having the
audacity to refuse to bear fruit in the off-season.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it
from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal, "Pensees"
Mitchell Coffey
> >
> >Mitchell Coffey
>
> Thank you.
You're welcome. I was joking. You need to define "intent." I'm
willing to bet the researchers in question did not in fact look for
the location a site in the brain controlling intent.
Mitchell Coffey
Jerry Patterson
<ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
JP
The brain is comprised of small particles which are material. How can
material particles provide the reasoning which reasons to the truth
about the sum of the interior angles of the triangle?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
The ONLY time you have to much fuel to continue the
mission is when your aircraft is on fire!
***************
Jerry Patterson
Smith) wrote:
JP
If you have been unable to investigate them because you don't know
where to find them in the ocean, then the analogy is OK. On the other
hand, if you investigated them and found that they aren't what you
thought they were, that is another story. We clearly know that the
representations of, say, abstractions, are in the brain. Since we have
not located those effects and investigated them, we don't know if they
are effects of thought(s) or the thought(s) themselves.
>> There may be reasons why the location cannot be precisely
>> located. For instance, only effects of the intent may have been
>> observed. Knowing the location would permit investigation.
>
>What operational criteria do you propose that we use to distinguish a
>"real" intent from its mere effects just by looking at the evidence?
JP
Locate the brain changes and assess their constituents in terms of
understanding intent.
>At any rate, you completely failed to address the most important
>question: why assume that "intent" is a simple thing with a single
>point of origin? How do you know it isn't a complex ensemble of brain
>activity, the properties of which depend on a variety of inputs?
JP
I think they are, indeed, very complex. But, the brain is comprised of
small particles and do you know how that material can produce
abstractions?
>This is an important issue. There are many perfectly natural
>phenomena that do not have a single "source". What, for example would
>the precise location of the source of atmospheric pressure? Where is
>the source of the orbits of short-period comets? In both cases, we
>can identify fairly well the "broad range" within which the inputs
>needed for these phenomena are located; to do so, it is not only not
>necessary to identify an exact location of their "source", it is
>meaningless to attempt it.
>
>Von Smith
>Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
JP
The only need in this example for location is to permit the assessment
of the composition of intent.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
The ONLY time you have too much fuel to continue the
Jerry Patterson
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
JP
It seems to me that you pointed out that if there is damage to the
brain things don't function properly. I certainly agree with that.
How did I not understand your point? Many think that the mind is
distinct from the brain and I wanted to be clear about your opinion.
Since you think that both the mind and the brain are of material, what
property of material (atomic and sub-atomic particles) enable that
material to produce abstractions?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
Jerry Patterson
<Tireb...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <rdqe60507bmn6jj02...@4ax.com>,
> Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It seems reasonable that if one claims that something exists within a
>> broad volume that it is important to confirm that by location within
>> that volume. There may be reasons why the location cannot be precisely
>> located. For instance, only effects of the intent may have been
>> observed. Knowing the location would permit investigation.
>
>The location IS known. Maybe not to you, but neurologists are well aware of
>the source of movement intentions in the brain. You could find this by a
>visit to any decent library.
JP
Have you done that? Are all locations of all intents different or the
same? Are these locations also responsible for abstractions?
What part "decoded," within her, the sounds of the instructions of the
researchers? How are small material particles capable of that
decoding?
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
The ONLY time you have to much fuel to continue the
Jerry Patterson
<rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
JP
I certainly agree. A good place to start the analysis is the
assessment of the capabilities of material particles. This can save
decades of cruising cul de sacs.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
The ONLY time you have too much fuel to continue the
Jerry Patterson
<ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
JP
I would not express things that way. Our senses are the only way we
get sensible information. They don't participate in the reasoning that
the sum of the internal angles of the triangle we see is always 180
degrees.
The notion of knowledge transcends the information supplied by sensory
perception.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
The ONLY time you have to much fuel to continue the
Jerry Patterson
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read this message from Jerry Patterson
><je...@dslextreme.com>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Perhaps you would prefer the word "location?" I am a bit surprised
>>that you question my satisfaction. I would have suspected that your
>>satisfaction is more important. "Electro-chemical" activity is
>>confirmed.
>>
>>>You present a study that you vaguely recall from a lecture years ago. You
>>>fail to provide all but the most meager details and then you have the nerve
>>>to intimate that Matt's suggestion is too imprecise?
>>>
>>>Frank
>>
>>JP
>>I am puzzled that you need more details. If you want them I am
>>confident that they can be obtained from the medical department of
>>McGill University.
>>
>>It seems reasonable that if one claims that something exists within a
>>broad volume that it is important to confirm that by location within
>>that volume. There may be reasons why the location cannot be precisely
>>located. For instance, only effects of the intent may have been
>>observed. Knowing the location would permit investigation.
>
>Let's try a simpler case, where does the signal for the heartbeat
>come from?
JP
It seems that the almost infinite number of complicated body functions
must be managed so they work without conflict in a body. The question
then appears to be how can material particles (atomic and subatomic)
provide that management? Whatever that source is provides the answer
to your question.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
The ONLY time you have too much fuel to continue the
Jerry Patterson
Smith) wrote:
JP
I don't think that the brain parts are the source of intent. Perhaps
they can be considered as secondary sources, but not the initial
source. Intent resulting from another's instruction is an abstraction
and I don't know how material particles can be the cause of
abstractions.
>Also, I don't find the description of pathological intents proposed
>immediately above to be particularly plausible. Stealing and fencing
>family heirlooms to pay for drugs seems to me an act (in fact, a whole
>connected series of acts) that requires a clear intent, and even
>careful prior planning; it is not an automatic action that can
>reasonably be said to "function without control". Likewise,
>converting to Catholicism is hardly an action an intelligent adult is
>likely to perform unintentionally. But both of these are actions
>known to have been performed in response to "damaged 'transmitters'".
>These actions may be atypical of the subject's earlier behavior, may
>be irrational, and may or may not be regretted by the individual even
>as they are planning and performing them, but that does not make them
>any less intentional.
JP
No, it does not make them less intentional. However, culpability is
another matter.
>Finally, I fail to see how the available evidence actually *supports*
>the suggestion that the brain is merely a conduit for intents, which
>you presumably believe to emanate from some invisible black-box you
>might think of as "spirit" or "soul", even though you seem reluctant
>to come right out and name it thus on usenet. One could with equal
>justice claim that gravity or atmospheric pressure are "really" caused
>by invisible choirs of angels, and that the physical entities and
>phenomena associated with them merely "transmit" their effects.
>
>Von Smith
>Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
JP
I am deliberately avoiding any theological considerations here. That
does not mean that philosophical considerations are proscribed from
considerations of what Aristotle called the "soul." As far as I know
he was a pagan.
These commitments to assign material causes to intellectual activity
is a sort of a religion. While most people who make such assignments
likely would disagree with that, I think it is more true than false.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
Jerry Patterson
<Tireb...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <3rme60por1ihuf23p...@4ax.com>,
> Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:48:42 +0000 (UTC), "Adam Marczyk"
>> <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Adam Marczyk <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:YOl7c.266$%J6....@news01.roc.ny...
>> >> Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:mnmp505b7fqu5lh3r...@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:59:58 +0000 (UTC), Matt Silberstein
>> >>> <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In talk.origins I read this message from Jerry Patterson
>> >>>> <je...@dslextreme.com>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Circa 1946, a woman was lying on a table in the nuclear medicine
>> >>>>> laboratory at McGill University in Canada. She was fully conscious and
>> >>>>> parts of her brain were exposed.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Researchers would probe parts of her brain to produce repeatable
>> >>>>> physical movements of her body. She was told to move her right arm and
>> >>>>> point to the ceiling. She did so. She was then told to concentrate on
>> >>>>> not moving her right arm. The appropriate part of her brain was probed
>> >>>>> and her right arm rose in spite of her intent. Question: what was the
>> >>>>> source of her intent?
>> >>>>> . . .
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Other parts of her brain. You don't need to talk about modern
>> >>>> science, about the affect of lithium on Bipolar disorder, of
>> >>>> Prozac on the depressed, of LSD on anyone who takes it, to see
>> >>>> that the "mind" is a physical object subject to physical actions.
>> >>>> Anyone who actually thinks there is a mind/body distinction has
>> >>>> never been hungry, never had too little sleep, never had a
>> >>>> toothache. Discussions of the "independence" of the mind simply
>> >>>> show human arrogance, our insistence that we are so special.
>> >>>
>> >>> JP
>> >>> What is the site in the brain that controls intent?
>> >>
>> >> It's very unlikely that there is a single such site. There is no one
>> >> distinct center of consciousness, no "Cartesian Theater" in the brain -
>> >> no homunculus watching the input from the eyes on a screen and making
>> >> the arms and legs move by pulling levers. Consciousness instead appears
>> >> to be more diffuse, an ensemble property of many groups of neurons
>> >> firing in synchronized patterns - a property of the entire brain rather
>> >> than any one part of the brain.
>> >>
>> >> That being said, however, there is a distinct section of the brain that
>> >> appears to be responsible for many of the traits we think of as typically
>> >> human, including judgment, motivation, planning and setting goals,
>> >> regulating actions, making decisions, and other so-called "executive"
>> >> functions. That section is the frontal lobes. Damage to these lobes often
>> >> produces dramatic changes in personality, in character, and in intent and
>> >> decision-making ability. One of the most celebrated examples of this is
>> >> the case of Phineas Gage, a railroad foreman who in 1848 suffered a freak
>> >> accident that resulted in an iron bar being blasted through the top of
>> >> his skull, damaging his frontal lobes. After he recovered from the
>> >> injury, he exhibited striking changes in personality, to the extent that
>> >> his former friends said "Gage was no longer Gage".
>> >>
>> >> You can read more about this case here:
>> >> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#gage
>> >>
>> >> Also, see:
>> >> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#tumors
>> >> (dramatic behavioral alterations caused by a tumor pressing on the
>> >> frontal lobes)
>> >>
>> >> and even:
>> >> http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#latah
>> >> (a disorder called "latah" that leaves victims literally unable to stop
>> >> themselves from acting out any suggestion they're given or sometimes any
>> >> action they see)
>> >>
>> >> The evidence suggests that these disorders and many with similar effect
>> >> are caused by frontal lobe impairment.
>> >
>This comment could only come from someone who has no idea what he is
>talking about. Other than the brain, where would you think intentions could
>possibly come from?
JP
That is an excellent question! To start the search it is helpful to
describe how material particles (atoms and subatomic particles) can
produce abstractions.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
The ONLY time you have to much fuel to continue the
Jerry Patterson
eros_tal...@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote:
JP
I agree, but I still did not recognize the phraseology.
>Don't you agree that a person who accepts the Church as an infallible
>guide WILL believe whatever the Church teaches?
JP
Yes, when the teaching is considered to be of an infallible nature.
That is big subject.
>> You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
>
>For what?
JP
For paraphrasing Aquinas from a voluminous work without citation. This
results in uncertainty.
>And may your god not smite you too severely...
JP
I have no god! Do you?
>
>Now perhaps you'll answer my original question about why Jesus spoke
>to a fig tree... even if it was only to curse it for having the
>audacity to refuse to bear fruit in the off-season.
JP
As you wrote, he was not speaking to the tree. The tree was used to
show the lack of fruit resulting from the absence of good behavior in
all seasons.
>
>EROS.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it
>from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal, "Pensees"
JP
As you know full well, such men act contrary to the teachings of their
religions. Man easily manipulates himself and that shows the
essentiality of the formation of a conscience.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
***************
The ONLY time you have too much fuel to continue the
Matt Silberstein
<je...@dslextreme.com>:
[snip]
>That is an excellent question! To start the search it is helpful to
>describe how material particles (atoms and subatomic particles) can
>produce abstractions.
That's actually easy. Abstractions don't actually exist. Humans
create words to refer to ideas, but ideas only exist in so far as
we think them. Just because we have words for things does not
mean the thing named has independent existence.
Matt Silberstein
I notice you made no attempt to answer my question or, I suspect,
even think about it. I did not pick those words at random, I had
a reason for mentioning the heart. There used to be this notion
that the heart had some kind of command device, something that
told it when to beat. And that notion is false. Each simple fiber
takes a look at its immediate neighbors and beats when the
neighbor is in a particular state. No planner, not controller,
just some muscles reacting to various chemicals. We did not know
this at all 100 years ago, we know it pretty well know. Now what
point did you have regarding current ignorance over some issues
or the need for some management?
Matt Silberstein
I pointed out more than that. I pointed out a host of ways
physical affects change thinking. Lithium "corrects* (some)
bipolar, not damages.
>How did I not understand your point? Many think that the mind is
>distinct from the brain and I wanted to be clear about your opinion.
>
>Since you think that both the mind and the brain are of material, what
>property of material (atomic and sub-atomic particles) enable that
>material to produce abstractions?
Abstractions don't have independent existence. To the extent that
abstractions are actually something, they are physical states of
the brain. That said, what is this nonsense regarding "what
property .."? Do you really have such a simplistic notion of the
world that you expect some single property of something to give
rise to some specific result way down the line? We know lots and
lots about how the physical brain gives rise to mental states,
lots. If you think there is some aspect that is not merely
current ignorance but an impossible physical step tell us about
it. Don't just hand wave because you don't happen to know these
things. You are asking questions that had philosophical solutions
hundreds of years ago and have biological solutions now. All you
have left is theology, so make your claims and be done with it.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Jerry Patterson wrote:
> JP
> That is an excellent question! To start the search it is helpful to
> describe how material particles (atoms and subatomic particles) can
> produce abstractions.
Uh, the same way that non-moving metal parts can produce "go" in a car.
<shrug>
Still singing the same offkey tune, eh Jerry?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Jerry Patterson wrote:
> JP
> I certainly agree. A good place to start the analysis is the
> assessment of the capabilities of material particles. This can save
> decades of cruising cul de sacs.
Hey Jerry, have you managed to come up with a scientific theory of
creation sicne the last time we talked? Or still no luck yet.
Adam Marczyk
This question is simply a non sequitur. How does an immaterial soul do the
same thing?
Von Smith
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:21:21 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<rare60dco8qq0srio...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:32 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> >> Smith) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<jhf660die8o8q7uh1...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), Matt Silberstein
> >> >> <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
<snip>
>
> JP
> If you have been unable to investigate them because you don't know
> where to find them in the ocean, then the analogy is OK. On the other
> hand, if you investigated them and found that they aren't what you
> thought they were, that is another story. We clearly know that the
> representations of, say, abstractions, are in the brain. Since we have
> not located those effects and investigated them, we don't know if they
> are effects of thought(s) or the thought(s) themselves.
It sounds to me as if you are conceding that my analogy is valid,
then, since the situation in neurology is closer to the former
situation (we are still in the process of finding out how the brain
works and how these functions are arranged anatomically). We aren't
staring at a black box scratching our heads after having apparently
dragnetted and inventoried everything there is to find.
>
> >> There may be reasons why the location cannot be precisely
> >> located. For instance, only effects of the intent may have been
> >> observed. Knowing the location would permit investigation.
> >
> >What operational criteria do you propose that we use to distinguish a
> >"real" intent from its mere effects just by looking at the evidence?
>
> JP
> Locate the brain changes and assess their constituents in terms of
> understanding intent.
As far as I can parse this response, it doesn't answer the question.
Could you please describe the *observable* traits that would enable us
to distinguish between intents and their effects just by looking at
them?
>
> >At any rate, you completely failed to address the most important
> >question: why assume that "intent" is a simple thing with a single
> >point of origin? How do you know it isn't a complex ensemble of brain
> >activity, the properties of which depend on a variety of inputs?
>
> JP
> I think they are, indeed, very complex. But, the brain is comprised of
> small particles and do you know how that material can produce
> abstractions?
Just about everything is comprised of small particles. That does not
make those small particles the only level of organization. The solar
system is comprised of small particles. It is also comprised of
considerably larger elements such as the sun and planets. It is also
comprised of dynamic interactions among these elements.
>
> >This is an important issue. There are many perfectly natural
> >phenomena that do not have a single "source". What, for example would
> >the precise location of the source of atmospheric pressure? Where is
> >the source of the orbits of short-period comets? In both cases, we
> >can identify fairly well the "broad range" within which the inputs
> >needed for these phenomena are located; to do so, it is not only not
> >necessary to identify an exact location of their "source", it is
> >meaningless to attempt it.
>
> JP
> The only need in this example for location is to permit the assessment
> of the composition of intent.
Huh? I can't parse this, sorry.
Von Smith
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:18:11 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<4h6f60dhgimt0cfq5...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:41:36 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> >> Smith) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<69n6605fuac2gk0st...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:58:42 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> >> >> Smith) wrote:
<snip>
> >>
> >> JP
> >> I would not express it that way. I think the evidence shows we form
> >> intent that is transmitted sensibly. If the "transmitter" is damaged,
> >> the intent is not evidenced faithfully. A damaged "transmitter" may
> >> not require intent as it can function without control (chemically).
> >
> >It is unclear to me what you mean here. You just stated in an earlier
> >message -in answer to the question: What is the source of an addict's
> >intent to steal grandma's silver to pay for more drugs?- that the
> >answer lay in damaged brain parts. That bears the interpretation that
> >you think damaged brain parts are the source of the intent. Then in
> >the next message you say that that's not how you would express it and
> >talk about damaged transmitters. Do you think the evidence supports
> >the idea that the physical brain can be and sometimes is a source of
> >intent, or not?
>
> JP
> I don't think that the brain parts are the source of intent. Perhaps
> they can be considered as secondary sources, but not the initial
> source. Intent resulting from another's instruction is an abstraction
> and I don't know how material particles can be the cause of
> abstractions.
But I am not asking you about intents resulting from another's
instruction. I am asking about a drug addict who decides all on his
own to steal grandma's silver, or a brain damage victim who decides
(apparently) all on her own to abandon her lifelong religious or
political beliefs in favor of others. What is the origin of such
intents? How does your "damaged transmitter" hypothesis adequately
explain them?
>
> >Also, I don't find the description of pathological intents proposed
> >immediately above to be particularly plausible. Stealing and fencing
> >family heirlooms to pay for drugs seems to me an act (in fact, a whole
> >connected series of acts) that requires a clear intent, and even
> >careful prior planning; it is not an automatic action that can
> >reasonably be said to "function without control". Likewise,
> >converting to Catholicism is hardly an action an intelligent adult is
> >likely to perform unintentionally. But both of these are actions
> >known to have been performed in response to "damaged 'transmitters'".
> >These actions may be atypical of the subject's earlier behavior, may
> >be irrational, and may or may not be regretted by the individual even
> >as they are planning and performing them, but that does not make them
> >any less intentional.
>
> JP
> No, it does not make them less intentional. However, culpability is
> another matter.
Indeed, it is another matter. So why are you bringing it up rather
than addressing the issue of intention?
>
> >Finally, I fail to see how the available evidence actually *supports*
> >the suggestion that the brain is merely a conduit for intents, which
> >you presumably believe to emanate from some invisible black-box you
> >might think of as "spirit" or "soul", even though you seem reluctant
> >to come right out and name it thus on usenet. One could with equal
> >justice claim that gravity or atmospheric pressure are "really" caused
> >by invisible choirs of angels, and that the physical entities and
> >phenomena associated with them merely "transmit" their effects.
>
> JP
> I am deliberately avoiding any theological considerations here. That
> does not mean that philosophical considerations are proscribed from
> considerations of what Aristotle called the "soul." As far as I know
> he was a pagan.
>
> These commitments to assign material causes to intellectual activity
> is a sort of a religion. While most people who make such assignments
> likely would disagree with that, I think it is more true than false.
That is an interesting opinion. Can you defend it with evidence and
reasoned argument?
Von Smith
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:21:21 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<rare60dco8qq0srio...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:32 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
> >> Smith) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<jhf660die8o8q7uh1...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), Matt Silberstein
> >> >> <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
<snip>
>
> JP
> I think they are, indeed, very complex. But, the brain is comprised of
> small particles and do you know how that material can produce
> abstractions?
I missed this question in my last response, so I will address it now.
I know you dislike multiple responses to single posts, but this
requires attention.
I would submit that every execution of any computer program is an
abstraction produced by matter. In fact, computers are arguably
better at handling some abstractions than are we; it is with the
concrete, with real-world context and the accidents of historical
instances that computers seem to have the most problems.
Jerry Patterson
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
JP
You are right, I did not, since the answer is ultimately that which
manages these body functions in such a way as to avoid conflict. What
causes each fiber looks at its neighbor?
The issue of knowing how each body particle acts without conflict with
other parts is not addressed. Now, I doubt that you think body
particles "think" how to act is such a way as to complement other
parts, so then there must some quality of material that can perform an
equivalent function. What is that quality or resource of material?
Jerry Patterson
JP
I think they were very neglectful if they made no such attempt.
It seems to me that intent means purpose or design. The state of mind
or mental attitude from which an act is done.
What do you think intent means?
What resource of small material particles can produce intent or an
abstraction?