Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?

[Gill]

Every aspect of our society is geared around the idea that we HAVE free will.........every aspect of the world persistently and continuously reinforces, from birth to death, the idea that we have free will, that we have choice....despite all logic and argument making it clear that we do not.

I didn't need anyone to tell me I had free will when I was young in order to believe it. It was an intuitive sense. Your stance seems to be that an intuitve sense should be ignored as giving any information if it doesn't fit with a logical premise, which may not even apply to it.

and your answer is wrong, the old "the brain is just a receiver" crap.  Just look at brain damange victims, look at hydrocephalics.  remove enough brain and yep, you do lose consciousness.  Ignoring reality doesn't make your "answers" true in the least

But the main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals, unless of course the signal reaches a strong enough intensity.  Sounds like a filter to me.

[velkyn]

and your answer is wrong, the old "the brain is just a receiver" crap.  Just look at brain damange victims, look at hydrocephalics.  remove enough brain and yep, you do lose consciousness.  Ignoring reality doesn't make your "answers" true in the least

But the main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals, unless of course the signal reaches a strong enough intensity.  Sounds like a filter to me.

Come again? The main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals?   No.  Their main purpose is transmission, not inhibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron and many other websites)   No idea where you pulled this from.

[Gill]

and your answer is wrong, the old "the brain is just a receiver" crap.  Just look at brain damange victims, look at hydrocephalics.  remove enough brain and yep, you do lose consciousness.  Ignoring reality doesn't make your "answers" true in the least

But the main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals, unless of course the signal reaches a strong enough intensity.  Sounds like a filter to me.

Come again? The main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals?   No.  Their main purpose is transmission, not inhibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron and many other websites)   No idea where you pulled this from.

I base this on the fact that the majority of neurons aren't transmitting all at the same time,  since, any excess synchronicity of firings leads to a seizure.

[velkyn]

and your answer is wrong, the old "the brain is just a receiver" crap.  Just look at brain damange victims, look at hydrocephalics.  remove enough brain and yep, you do lose consciousness.  Ignoring reality doesn't make your "answers" true in the least

But the main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals, unless of course the signal reaches a strong enough intensity.  Sounds like a filter to me.

Come again? The main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals?   No.  Their main purpose is transmission, not inhibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron and many other websites)   No idea where you pulled this from.

I base this on the fact that the majority of neurons aren't transmitting all at the same time,  since, any excess synchronicity of firings leads to a seizure.

Wow, so you've decided that neurons do something they don't do since the supposed "majority" aren't firing at the same time.  Again, where does this say that neurons inhibit the flow of signals as you said.  Not firing at the same time doesn't mean inhibit.  You really should actually read about what you claim to know.   

[Gill]

and your answer is wrong, the old "the brain is just a receiver" crap.  Just look at brain damange victims, look at hydrocephalics.  remove enough brain and yep, you do lose consciousness.  Ignoring reality doesn't make your "answers" true in the least

But the main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals, unless of course the signal reaches a strong enough intensity.  Sounds like a filter to me.

Come again? The main purpose of neurons is to inhibit the flow of signals?   No.  Their main purpose is transmission, not inhibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron and many other websites)   No idea where you pulled this from.

I base this on the fact that the majority of neurons aren't transmitting all at the same time,  since, any excess synchronicity of firings leads to a seizure.

Wow, so you've decided that neurons do something they don't do since the supposed "majority" aren't firing at the same time.  Again, where does this say that neurons inhibit the flow of signals as you said.  Not firing at the same time doesn't mean inhibit.  You really should actually read about what you claim to know.

Neurons must reach an action potential before they pass their signal, right?  So then, I'm saying they primarily inhibit the transmission of all signals, until the energy has surpassed this potential.   And, since the majority of neurons are not transmitting simultaneously, then the majority are blocking energy flow in any one instant of time.

[Gill]

Makes sense from a chemical point-of-view.  But could I just ask:  when you do something you sense is your doing, and someone asks you if you did that thing, and you acknowledge, and say something as to the effect of "yes, I did that",  where is this "I" located in those nerves and chemicals?

How many brain cells and chemicals create the "I"?   

My answer is zero.   Consciousness is indefinite.  There's no number of cells or chemicals that can define it.  Brain cells and chemicals filter and direct consciousness, they don't create it.*   So then there is no cause-effect dilemma,  it only occurs if you look at the physical/chemical aspects of things.

What does create consciousness if the brain doesn't? Can you answer the question without resorting to god/supernatural agencies?

I'd have to resort to philosophical ideas,  since it's kind of like asking what created matter or energy.   

[monkeymind]

Neurons are "pulled" across the synapses by the neurotranmitter glutamate and "held back" by Gaba. When I received a head injury, I started having myclonic (night time) seizures. The neurologist gave me gabapentin since I had more glutamate receptors  being activated than gaba receptors.

If you are prone to seizures, eat a lot of MSG (monosodium glutamate) an excitotoxin, and see what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitotoxicity

Excitotoxicity is the pathological process by which nerve cells are damaged and killed by excessive stimulation by neurotransmitters such as glutamate and similar substances. This occurs when receptors for the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate (glutamate receptors) such as the NMDA receptor and AMPA receptor are overactivated.

Or in my case nerve damage from traumatic ingury.

[JeffPT]

Neurons must reach an action potential before they pass their signal, right?  So then, I'm saying they primarily inhibit the transmission of all signals, until the energy has surpassed this potential.   And, since the majority of neurons are not transmitting simultaneously, then the majority are blocking energy flow in any one instant of time.

No Gill. 

A nerve doesn't 'reach' an action potential.  The action potential is the term we use for what happens along the axon.  The action potential is an exchange of positive negative ions through channels along the axon that propagates like electricity through a wire.  In gray matter (mostly brain and central spinal cord areas) the action potentials travel a bit slower than in the periphery, because in the peripheral nervous system, we have white matter, which is basically gray matter covered in a protective sheath called myelin.  The myelin allows the action potential to propagate faster by causing it to jump distances between channels. 

Nerves have 'thresholds' which can be reached by the application of enough stimulus to the nerve endings.  Be them light touch, pain, temperature, proprioceptive endings, or whatever, they all fire when enough of the right stimulus is applied.  When a threshold is reached,  an action potential is created (think of it like a gun trigger.  If you press very lightly, it won't fire.  If you press just hard enough, bang).  Neurons are not inhibiting the transmission of signals any more than a trigger is inhibiting a gun from firing... they are simply waiting to propagate a signal when enough stimulus is applied.  They aren't blocking anything.  You make it sound like they are actively working to stop something.  That's absolutely ridiculous. 

Considering what happens when a nerve is connected with another nerve... When an action potential reaches the end of the axon (the synapse), it releases a neurotransmitter (chemical) which crosses the tiny space between the axons and attaches to receptors on the next nerve.  If enough neurotransmitter is released to reach the 'threshold' of firing, the action potential will continue along the next axon.  If not, then it won't continue it.  Oftentimes, a lack of specific neurotransmitters in the brain, or lack of, or damaged receptors will lead to all sorts of problems, and it is easy to imagine why... because if an action potential normally releases X amount of neurotransmitter, and that neurotransmitter is lacking or not taken up, the 'normal' result of a continued action potential will be inhibited.  This explains why medications effecting neurotransmitters can have dramatic effects on people with conditions such as depression or other psych issues. 

At least... that's how it all worked when I went to school 15 years ago lol.     

[Gill]

There would also be no cause - effect dilemma if we postulated that Zeus came down from Mt. Olympus and punched all of us in the face inside the womb to kick start our indefinite consciousness.  That doesn't make it correct.  But your theory opens up all sorts of other questions which mine answers quite well, such as:

Where does this consciousness reside?

 
Everywhere.

How do you know where it resides? 

Well if it's an indefinite substance, then it must be all places simultaneously.  Like gravity.

Is it prone to errors when the filtering mechanisms become faulty?

Awareness is prone to errors if the brain is in dysfunction.  But consciousness is not right or wrong.

  What is this consciousness made of?

Nothing. It's an immaterial substance.

All of the answers you can come up with here are going to be made up answers with no facts to back it up.  That type of thing doesn't sit well with me because it's so often completely wrong.

My answers are all rational deductions from my original premise that consciousness is immaterial and indefinite.   If you think rationalism is just 'making things up', then you should discount all of mathematics.

[Gill]

Neurons must reach an action potential before they pass their signal, right?  So then, I'm saying they primarily inhibit the transmission of all signals, until the energy has surpassed this potential.   And, since the majority of neurons are not transmitting simultaneously, then the majority are blocking energy flow in any one instant of time.

No Gill. 

Nerves have 'thresholds' which can be reached by the application of enough stimulus to the nerve endings.  ...They aren't blocking anything.  You make it sound like they are actively working to stop something.  That's absolutely ridiculous. 
 

Huh?  You admit there's a threshold potential the neuron must reach to pass the signal.  This implies there is a minimum voltage to be attained before firing.  So then every voltage before that threshold would not be passing the signal, ergo, inhibiting....

[monkeymind]

Don't forget the chemical component Gill.

[velkyn]

Neurons must reach an action potential before they pass their signal, right?  So then, I'm saying they primarily inhibit the transmission of all signals, until the energy has surpassed this potential.   And, since the majority of neurons are not transmitting simultaneously, then the majority are blocking energy flow in any one instant of time.

again, the neurons do not inhibit anything.  If it does this, which part is doing the inhibiting?  For instance where is the resistor?

[Gill]

Don't forget the chemical component Gill.

I just see the chemicals as altering the voltages,  not being the 'creators' so-to-speak of the nerve signal, but simply directing the flow of things.

[monkeymind]

The thing is, we can observe the firing of neurons and see the chemical reactions, but we can't see or detect the immaterial, therefore it has no explanatory power here.

Best leave this to neuro scientists.

[velkyn]

Everywhere.

wow, baseless claim bonanza.


as I have asked elsewhere, if the brain is working by physical means, how does it pick up this nonsense you claim?  Why don't similar things also pick up this nonsense?

Now commence the hand waving.    As always, the pure ignorance of theists in science always shoots them in their face. 

[Gill]

Neurons must reach an action potential before they pass their signal, right?  So then, I'm saying they primarily inhibit the transmission of all signals, until the energy has surpassed this potential.   And, since the majority of neurons are not transmitting simultaneously, then the majority are blocking energy flow in any one instant of time.

again, the neurons do not inhibit anything.  If it does this, which part is doing the inhibiting?  For instance where is the resistor?

I guess you could look at it two ways.  The neurotransmitters could be looked at as the inhibitory mechanism.  But, I interpret the neuron having a 'threshold potential', as Jeff said, to be an indication of a intrinsic inhibitory nature, until acted upon by chemicals which reduce this.

[velkyn]

I guess you could look at it two ways.  The neurotransmitters could be looked at as the inhibitory mechanism.  But, I interpret the neuron having a 'threshold potential', as Jeff said, to be an indication of a intrinsic inhibitory nature, until acted upon by chemicals which reduce this.

and you are wrong.  Funny how "interpreting" things gets you into trouble.

[Avatar Of Belial]

Everywhere.

If it were everywhere, than anything that could pick it up, would.

This means constant interference, the potential for a single consciousness to control multiple bodies, or multiple consciousnesses to fight over a single body. At least, this is what you would have to deal with if you want to hold the brain as a receiver.

[Gill]

I guess you could look at it two ways.  The neurotransmitters could be looked at as the inhibitory mechanism.  But, I interpret the neuron having a 'threshold potential', as Jeff said, to be an indication of a intrinsic inhibitory nature, until acted upon by chemicals which reduce this.

and you are wrong.  Funny how "interpreting" things gets you into trouble.

No, I'm not wrong.  There would be no threshold potential a neuron must reach to pass the signal if the primary purpose wasn't to block a signal until it reaches a significant energy level.   

[monkeymind]

I remember building a battery out of a potato in science class. An electrochemical reaction. Was that caused by consciousness or a difference in potential?

[Avatar Of Belial]

No, I'm not wrong.  There would be no threshold potential a neuron must reach to pass the signal if the primary purpose wasn't to block a signal until it reaches a significant energy level.   

Is a Gun trigger's primary purpose to stop the gun from firing? That is what your logic says.

[Gill]

Everywhere.

If it were everywhere, than anything that could pick it up, would.

This means constant interference, the potential for a single consciousness to control multiple bodies, or multiple consciousnesses to fight over a single body. At least, this is what you would have to deal with if you want to hold the brain as a receiver.

Now that's a trippy thought, hehe.   Probably not everywhere in terms of space-time.  But, everywhere in terms that it could not be quantified.  It would surely have it's limitation on what it could effect.

[Gill]

No, I'm not wrong.  There would be no threshold potential a neuron must reach to pass the signal if the primary purpose wasn't to block a signal until it reaches a significant energy level.   

Is a Gun trigger's primary purpose to stop the gun from firing? That is what your logic says.

No, but the trigger is certainly a force pushing back against your finger force, inhibiting the firing of the gun until enough finger force is applied.  So, the neuron, 'pushes back' so-to-speak, on the force of energy building up against it, until it reaches it's limit, then passes the signal forward.  And since the majority of neurons aren't firing simultaneously, the majority then are 'pushing back' at any one instant.  So for me to say that the primary force is inhibition, I don't see how that's controversial.

[velkyn]

I guess you could look at it two ways.  The neurotransmitters could be looked at as the inhibitory mechanism.  But, I interpret the neuron having a 'threshold potential', as Jeff said, to be an indication of a intrinsic inhibitory nature, until acted upon by chemicals which reduce this.

and you are wrong.  Funny how "interpreting" things gets you into trouble.

No, I'm not wrong.  There would be no threshold potential a neuron must reach to pass the signal if the primary purpose wasn't to block a signal until it reaches a significant energy level.   

Wow.  per your claims, neurons have a "primary purpose" to inhibit signals.   Funny how NO one who knows what they are talking about e.g. neurologists, etc. agree with you.   AS has been said, better to go wtih people who are educated and not an ignorant man looking to prove some baseless nonsense is true. 

[Avatar Of Belial]

No, but the trigger is certainly a force pushing back against your finger force, inhibiting the firing of the gun until enough finger force is applied.  So, the neuron, 'pushes back' so-to-speak, on the force of energy building up against it, until it reaches it's limit, then passes the signal forward.  And since the majority of neurons aren't firing simultaneously, the majority then are 'pushing back' at any one instant.  So for me to say that the primary force is inhibition, I don't see how that's controversial.

First off, keep your terminology consistant. An object's force is not synonomous with its purpose.

Second, consider that most neurons aren't firing because they have nothing to 'shoot'. A trigger is useless if the gun isn't loaded.

[monkeymind]

If you are looking for the source of the electrical energy....

As I stated previously it's about a difference in potential.
In the body it is the difference in potential between the interior and exterior of a cell. Potassium and sodium ratios have something to do with this. Just use up too much potassium from thinking about free will and spirit and you will get a headache from the resulting misfiring of neurons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential

Nearly all cells from animals, plants and fungi function as batteries, in the sense that they maintain a voltage difference between the interior and the exterior of the cell, with the interior being the negative pole of the battery.

Hence the potato battery...

[monkeymind]

Electrical energy can come from other than chemical reactions. It can come from radiation and from (gawrsh!) light!

Oh noes, now I've gone and done it!

[monkeymind]

...and heat.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/device-generates-electricity-from-heat-and-light.html

[Gill]

I guess you could look at it two ways.  The neurotransmitters could be looked at as the inhibitory mechanism.  But, I interpret the neuron having a 'threshold potential', as Jeff said, to be an indication of a intrinsic inhibitory nature, until acted upon by chemicals which reduce this.

and you are wrong.  Funny how "interpreting" things gets you into trouble.

No, I'm not wrong.  There would be no threshold potential a neuron must reach to pass the signal if the primary purpose wasn't to block a signal until it reaches a significant energy level.   

Wow.  per your claims, neurons have a "primary purpose" to inhibit signals.   Funny how NO one who knows what they are talking about e.g. neurologists, etc. agree with you.   AS has been said, better to go wtih people who are educated and not an ignorant man looking to prove some baseless nonsense is true.

Yes, everyone should at first at least read how neurologists define the only purpose of some neurons to be inhibitory, hence the name 'inhibitory interneuron', before they consider such unimaginable ideas such as about how the vast majority of neurons aren't firing in synchrony, therefore inhibiting the flow of a signal.

Yes, that's a good idea.  http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_inhibition