Page 1 of 3

Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
by bahman
How thought which is the result of neurons activities could have casual power? Why should thought emerge from neuron activity when neuron itself has causal power?

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:49 pm
by Eodnhoj7
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
How thought which is the result of neurons activities could have casual power? Why should thought emerge from neuron activity when neuron itself has causal power?
And which neuron, or group of neurons, is responsible for thought?

As far as I understanding, and you can correct me if I read something falsely, most neurons exist through a looping form and function. Is the loop, or circle formed from the neutrons or do the neutrons form the loop?

My point is that this division of starting point, which causes the other, requires a choice between multiple premise points of observation where the choice itself is inserable from a loop in the respect it reflects itself through itself as itself.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:10 am
by Arising_uk
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
How thought which is the result of neurons activities could have casual power? Why should thought emerge from neuron activity when neuron itself has causal power?
'self'-referential feeback loops. Think about this this way(although it can be a stretched analogy), we know from computational neural nets(which are artifical models of neurons) that they can pattern recognise, learn, and do logic if required, then think about the oft stated claim that there are as many or more neuronal connections as there are stars in the sky, then that the CNS seems to have clusters of neural nets and that it is a massively parallel processor, then that the rest of the body's systems are 'plugged' into the CNS, then it's not such a stretch to think that 'commands' can 'come back out' to cause changes in the actual causal systems, something like flash programmable firmware. :)

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:40 am
by bahman
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
How thought which is the result of neurons activities could have casual power? Why should thought emerge from neuron activity when neuron itself has causal power?
As far as I understanding, and you can correct me if I read something falsely, most neurons exist through a looping form and function. Is the loop, or circle formed from the neutrons or do the neutrons form the loop?
I don't know what give rise to thought, electron motion or nuclei or both.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:43 am
by bahman
Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:10 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
How thought which is the result of neurons activities could have casual power? Why should thought emerge from neuron activity when neuron itself has causal power?
'self'-referential feeback loops. Think about this this way(although it can be a stretched analogy), we know from computational neural nets(which are artifical models of neurons) that they can pattern recognise, learn, and do logic if required, then think about the oft stated claim that there are as many or more neuronal connections as there are stars in the sky, then that the CNS seems to have clusters of neural nets and that it is a massively parallel processor, then that the rest of the body's systems are 'plugged' into the CNS, then it's not such a stretch to think that 'commands' can 'come back out' to cause changes in the actual causal systems, something like flash programmable firmware. :)
I understand that but artificial computational neural nets doesn't have thought. You also didn't answer the second question.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:12 pm
by Eodnhoj7
bahman wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
How thought which is the result of neurons activities could have casual power? Why should thought emerge from neuron activity when neuron itself has causal power?
As far as I understanding, and you can correct me if I read something falsely, most neurons exist through a looping form and function. Is the loop, or circle formed from the neutrons or do the neutrons form the loop?
I don't know what give rise to thought, electron motion or nuclei or both.
So "electron motion or nuclei or both" are the three options which "possibly" are the only options which give rise to thought...why these three options only? What led to them?

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:33 pm
by Dontaskme
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
How thought which is the result of neurons activities could have casual power?
This statement is a thought. It is neuron activity, not a result of it, it is it. The result is in the knowing of the thought as this causeless cause, the only power there is.

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
Why should thought emerge from neuron activity when neuron itself has causal power?
Thought doesn't emerge from neuron activity, it is the neuron activity. Thought is the causeless causer of the unknown known..aka knowledge.

.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:01 pm
by bahman
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:12 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:49 pm

As far as I understanding, and you can correct me if I read something falsely, most neurons exist through a looping form and function. Is the loop, or circle formed from the neutrons or do the neutrons form the loop?
I don't know what give rise to thought, electron motion or nuclei or both.
So "electron motion or nuclei or both" are the three options which "possibly" are the only options which give rise to thought...why these three options only?
These seems to be the only option which materialists provide.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:12 pm
What led to them?
Electron, quark, etc. seems to be elementary.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:06 pm
by bahman
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
How thought which is the result of neurons activities could have casual power?
This statement is a thought. It is neuron activity, not a result of it, it is it. The result is in the knowing of the thought as this causeless cause, the only power there is.
So you mean that a cue ball also has some sort of thought?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:33 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:43 pm
Why should thought emerge from neuron activity when neuron itself has causal power?
Thought doesn't emerge from neuron activity, it is the neuron activity. Thought is the causeless causer of the unknown known..aka knowledge.
.
You are not always awake. Are you? Therefore any mental state is the result of neuron activity, in another word any mental state emerges.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:31 pm
by Eodnhoj7
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:01 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:12 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:40 am

I don't know what give rise to thought, electron motion or nuclei or both.
So "electron motion or nuclei or both" are the three options which "possibly" are the only options which give rise to thought...why these three options only?
These seems to be the only option which materialists provide.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:12 pm
What led to them?
Electron, quark, etc. seems to be elementary.
And what happens if and when further elements are found within the context of time? Time is an element of all proofs and a further expansion is inevitable.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:12 pm
by bahman
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:01 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:12 pm


So "electron motion or nuclei or both" are the three options which "possibly" are the only options which give rise to thought...why these three options only?
These seems to be the only option which materialists provide.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:12 pm
What led to them?
Electron, quark, etc. seems to be elementary.
And what happens if and when further elements are found within the context of time? Time is an element of all proofs and a further expansion is inevitable.
It could be that electron also does have structure. What I said was based on standard model which is not anomaly free though.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:13 pm
by Eodnhoj7
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:01 pm

These seems to be the only option which materialists provide.

Electron, quark, etc. seems to be elementary.
And what happens if and when further elements are found within the context of time? Time is an element of all proofs and a further expansion is inevitable.
It could be that electron also does have structure. What I said was based on standard model which is not anomaly free though.
Is the standard model composed of electrons considering the standard model is an idea, but ideas are formed from electrons?

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:19 pm
by bahman
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:13 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:31 pm

And what happens if and when further elements are found within the context of time? Time is an element of all proofs and a further expansion is inevitable.
It could be that electron also does have structure. What I said was based on standard model which is not anomaly free though.
Is the standard model composed of electrons considering the standard model is an idea, but ideas are formed from electrons?
Standard model is a formalism which takes, electron, quark and other particles into account. Ideas seems to me that are emergent phenomena. They are manifestation of how neurons inside our brain fire.

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:28 pm
by Eodnhoj7
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:13 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:12 pm

It could be that electron also does have structure. What I said was based on standard model which is not anomaly free though.
Is the standard model composed of electrons considering the standard model is an idea, but ideas are formed from electrons?
Standard model is a formalism which takes, electron, quark and other particles into account. Ideas seems to me that are emergent phenomena. They are manifestation of how neurons inside our brain fire.
Then the model itself is a result of electrons (etc.) cycling through themselves?

Re: Are we self-deriving ideas?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:32 pm
by bahman
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:28 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:13 pm


Is the standard model composed of electrons considering the standard model is an idea, but ideas are formed from electrons?
Standard model is a formalism which takes, electron, quark and other particles into account. Ideas seems to me that are emergent phenomena. They are manifestation of how neurons inside our brain fire.
Then the model itself is a result of electrons (etc.) cycling through themselves?
It seems so.