excreationist

In our mother's womb, our brain started working on its own. I don't think it was switched on by our soul. The processes in our brain make it constantly learn about its environment and interact with it. I don't think our soul does this. (Since I don't believe in souls) In the same way, it is like a computer that was "born" from a mother (and father) computer that just followed its programs and learnt things without the intervention of a human user. If you have to have a user, the computer could be said to be the "user" - or perhaps the evolutionary mechanism which developed its programs through reproduction and mutation. Is that logical?

This isn't true for ordinary cars and computers, but you could make an AI controlled car that drives around itself and seeks electricity and has other goals... it would have been designed by humans though, but I'm saying that a similar thing has happened with life, except that it was "designed" through natural evolution. As far as a computer that controls itself goes, it would need to be capable of getting its own energy - so it could be attached to some robotics and it walks around and could extract energy out of its environment. So then it would be self-sufficient. But it would have been created by humans, but I'm saying that in our case we are similar except that we weren't created by humans (or a god).

Well "the computer" like the physical pieces and "the user" involves an activity. Perhaps you could call it a "used computer" or a "self-directed computer"...

Ok, how about the DNA "using" our biological computers in order to reproduce itself? Or our bodies "using" our biological computers to feed itself?

I'm talking about ordinary man-made computers! *Those* computers are programmed by people. But biological "computers" aren't.

Yeah, it's called "panpsychism" I think...

Do you know what you're talking about though? So what is the reason that people can be good philosophers and parrots aren't? Why don't radios, that are made up of matter as well, talk back to us in intelligent ways - they could sense us through air pressures, etc.

Koyaanisqatsi

Again, right there you've leapt over the most salient issue. A brain that starts "working on its own."

This is the focal point that divides materialism and theism (as well as serves for the basis of theism).

It is not legitimate to state that an inanimate object simply "becomes" animate on its own. That would be the equivalent of a rock that suddenly just starts talking; aka, the equivalent of "Goddidit."

Let me put it another way. A light switch cannot switch itself on (and please don't say something like, it can if there is a timer, since then the switch would not be the mechanism turning "itself" on; the timer--aka, external source--would be the mechanism).

Thus, all matter is conscious and can never be said to be inanimate (my theory) or matter is not conscious and must be animated; i.e., Frankenstein's monster/Goddidit/cognitive science.

The second concept just states, "something switches the light on," but when and how can never be discovered.

Is the sperm conscious? Does it "carry" consciousness? Is the ovum? When the two meet, is there are a little jolt of magical electricity that just somehow forms consciousness?

You say that our brains are "switched on" in the womb. Do you mean, then, that consciousness is just some sort of dormant quality; a jelly like substance that hasn't been jump started? Or do you mean by this that consciousness simply "becomes" as a part of a magical aggregate of the whole?

See what I'm getting at? Burrowing down as far into it as possible, there is a central "missing link," which I think is inherent within the prejudice that there is such a state as "nonconsciousness;" that the inanimate, non-self aware blob of cells can just magically become an animate, self aware blob of cells.

Neither do I. I do not believe in a soul as I have attempted to clarify in great detail. The "soul" is what theists call "it," but they are just as misguided as I think strict, emergent qualities materialists are.

According to emergent materialists, in essence, once a computer is turned on somehow and it runs long enough, it will "become" self aware.

That simply is not true. I can leave any computer you can design--even a quantum computer--with all of the processing ability that the human brain has, and it would never be anything more than a processing machine.

And here's where I think it all gets into trouble, because you are no doubt thinking at this moment, "Well, what is a human brain but a processing machine?" This is where Piaget went wrong, too, IMHO, because this is nothing more than analogy; a convenience (conceit) of language, but it isn't fundamentally correct.

Again, "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..." The actual answer to that is, "It is still not a duck."

Normally this is distinction is discarded as being too trivially small, but I think that is nothing more than a matter of inconvenience and not strict science. Keeping in mind, of course, that I'm not a scientist.

A digital camcorder can be said to do the exact same thing. It "learns" about its environment through all of the analogue information it interacts with and translates into its own digital language, storing it as "memory," which can then be played back, transferred to another, more long term memory storage center, etc.

Again, let us dispense with cult terminology. It gives me the creeps

Which can only happen in fiction as a literary tool; such as the travesty that was "A.I.," where the "boy" robot served the same literary, poetic purpose as Pinocchio.

No, I think not. Again, if all matter is not conscious as an inherent, primary quality, then a pile of rocks will never "form" into Shakespeare for all eternity.

No matter how sophisticated the circuitry, the machine would do nothing more than mimic consciousness no matter how long you left it on.

Now, again, in popular fiction and, if I'm not mistaken, in Piaget's constructs, the question always comes back to, "So what? If you can't tell the difference, then what's the difference?"

A valid response, certainly, but for somebody like myself who is not interested in, ultimately, a really good sham, but instead the "truth" I can only state, "the difference is, I know it's not equivalent."

Even if they could make a "replicant" to be identical to Darryl Hannah in Bladerunner, after the novelty/kink factor wore off, at the end of the day, it would still be nothing more than a toaster programmed to imitate a human and as fascinating as that may be for a literary tool and an existential question in popular fiction, the reality of it is what interests me and it is that reality that always destroys the fantasy.

And it would appear to everyone else to be very similar to and other qualifiers, but it will never actually be.

Piaget, in essence, avoided this by saying, "what's the difference?"

Not good enough for me, is my response.

I get where you're going and it's valid, of course, but it still does not burrow down deep enough to explain how the "zero" turns into a "one."

I contend, there never was a "zero" by positing, in essence, zero-one.

Let me repeat, it ain't complete, but it seeks to determine that which Piaget (and theists) are comfortable with dismissing as trivially important.

Yes, I see your distinction, that "we" weren't created, we were formed and thus the "emergent quality" theory explains that consciousness came as a result of this evolution and I grant it's a sound theory until one burrows down to the Planck constant and asks, "what about the missing link?"

According to emergent theory, at some nexus point, the "zero" (if you will) becomes a "one."

It is the verb "becomes" that sticks in my craw and I can't shake, because that is nothing more than magical, mystical terminology. It just "becomes" that way.

Well...how?
Over years and years and years.
Yes, I know that part, but "how?" How does it just "become"?
I told you. Over years and years and years.

See what I mean?

At that nexus point, emergent theory is identical to "goddidit" and that's not acceptable (to me).

Perhaps, but that doesn't get at (what I see as) the necessary paradox that must be solved; the notion that two distinct and seemingly disparate constructs can become one while remaining two.

Mind and Matter thus become mindmatter in exactly the same way that Einstein gave us spacetime.

BTW, I do not consider myself in any way shape or form an "Einstein," just to make that clear. I'm simply stealing from his cookie jar. Same goes with Piaget, Freud and Jung. I'm just trying to put all of the different pieces together to form a viable hypothesis that, again, seeks to reconcile belief with scientific discovery.

I think "mindmatter" does it, I just don't know exactly how, other than the first step, which is that it avoids Piaget's avoidance and allows us to not have to dismiss the nexus as being (in our minds) trivially unimportant.

It allows us to see that the pile of rocks will never become Shakespeare, because, in essence, they already are Shakespeare, in their own "rocky" way.

Thus, it makes perfect, logical sense that a computer--no matter how well it is designed--will never be anything but a computer, because that is what it is supposed to be; that is it's function and therefore agreed upon by the consciousness of the matter "it" uses to form itself and can indeed be said to be using itself, by remaining as it is.

In other words, the computer you are using right now, IS conscious; just not interactively conscious (with us) in the same manner that we are interactively conscious. Toads are conscious, rocks are conscious, neutrons, etc., etc., etc.

And yes, I am well aware this sound like what theists say all the time about "God" being in everything and everywhere. That's the whole point.

I'm also well aware that I'm not the first person to ever have this theory and that there are whole schools of Eastern thought regarding just this concept.

Again, what I'm attempting to do is bridge the gap between science and religion from the only way possible; the science side, because science is the only thing that is and seeks the "truth." Religion only seeks to use the truth in order to control.

Then you're arguing for DNA consciousness and we're back at how does DNA "zero" magically become DNA "one?"

Trust me, it's an infinite regress unless all matter is conscious and there is no such thing as mind vs. matter.

Again, the use of the word "itself" betrays a logical paradox, unless, as I contend, we remove the paradox just as Einstein did with space and time.

I knew what you were getting at and my response still stands (I think). Biological "computers" would still need an external user to flip that switch. A switch simply cannot flip itself; that is an absolute fact of our reality just as we know that switches flip "themselves" all the time on the quantum level, which, I contend, must be evidence that all matter is conscious so that there actually is a "selfness" to all matter on all levels at all times.

Really? I've never heard of that. Transcendental something or other? I'll check into it.

Sort of, as my grasping, largely incoherent linking of one thing onto another probably betrays.

Precisely the question I seek to answer that emergent theory does not, IMO. If emergent theory is correct, a sufficiently "complex" system should "become" self-aware, right? Homocentrism, I think, has answered the question of "what is a sufficiently complex system" and I don't think that's justifiable.

Radios should talk back to us; Parrots should be wonderful dinner guests; a pile of rocks should form into Shakespeare, etc., but they do not, yet a very good argument can be made that they are every bit as complex as humans, only in qualitatively different ways that homocentrism blinds us to, IMO.

We think, therefore, we are the model for thinking. Understandable, certainly scientifically justifiable, but it does not address why a radio doesn't talk back and how a "zero" switches itself to a "one," before there is a "self" to switch it.

In my (whatever this is) a radio doesn't speak back to us precisely because it is "self-aware." It is conscious and what it consciously "wants" is to be a radio. That is its goal and that is what it seeks to fulfill.

Holy shit, I sound like a Kung Fu episode.

I don't know. All I'm trying to do is address the paradox that I see in saying something turns itself on.

Koyaanisqatsi

At this point, my dear, my brain's fried and nothing fits .

The analogy of the computer. A computer must have a user as part and parcel to it being used as an analogy and that user is necessarily external; same with a car analogy, the driver is necessarily external.

The problem I find with theories that rely upon emergent qualities as a necessary explanation for consciousness is that they all miss the mark. Granted, they miss it by .00000001 variable, but, for me, in that seemingly trivially small number lies the downfuall of the whole thing.

I can't necessarily explain why--other than to say it feels too much like "just have faith" that the variance is trivially important--but that's what I meant by "it just doesn't fit."

Clearer now, or are you and excreationist fitting me for a straightjacket as we speak?

Are you there God, it's me, Koyaanisqatsi...

Koyaanisqatsi

By the way, I was also seeking to answer the question of where does free will lurk?

It "lurks" in the tenth dimension....cure Theremin...

soulofdarwin

Where does "freewill" lurk? I assume that the question is rhetorical, as, clearly, free will lurks only in the dimly lit recesses of the so-called minds of mystics.

"FREE WILL" is a quality of being that, other than in our own egocentric imaginings, simply does not exist. In reality, we are automatons, heuristic systems that exist in varied states, the sum of our instantaneous system requirements, our instantaneous system capability, and the external forces that bear upon us at every instant in time. Hence, what we do, think, and feel at every instant in time we could not do, think, or feel otherwise. Of course, because we are heuristic systems, our motivations can change over time, but only with new data and new evaluation of that data. The chemical and electrical processes that give rise to our concious being occur at speeds that make our awareness of those processes impossible. We are left with a fuzzy awareness of "self" and "will" of which we suppose ourselves master. The realities of our physiology, which we are only now beginning to understand, will show otherwise, and, once more, mysticism will retreat before the sword of truth. In brief, we, just as everything else in this universe, are a random walk through space and time.

I believe that, with regard to the universe and its laws, nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman said it best with this understatement of the century: " . . . the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."

For a discussion of the logical extension of this idea, I invite all interested parties to critique my thread "General Theorem of Existence" posted 9/29/00 (Existence of God - 4Q - 2000).]

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: soulofdarwin ]</p>

luvluv

Koy:

"Why would he? He's the one explaining what it is, i.e., instigating the concept.

For example, I would be the "man of learning" who came along to explain what everyone else called a "soul."

I wouldn't use the word "soul" to say what a "soul" actually is. That would be ludicrous, since all I would be saying is, "A soul is a soul." "

Okay, would you like to go to a rural country church where the congregation, on average, is probably on a 9th or 10th grade reading level, and try to explain your theory to them? Do you think it would do them any good? And consider, the people to whom most prophets were speaking were not educated AT ALL. They were not even literate. So even if Moses or Jesus or Buddha or Krishna or whoever actually understood String Theory and all it's implications and discovered your concept of the soul to be a true one, why would he try to explain it to people who simply weren't prepared to understand it?

The important fact about a soul is not what "IT" is, but what one does with it. Most people are aware of a soul, or a self, as a self-evident proposition in need of no explanation. They would not be helped at all in learning how to live (which is, after all, one of the main points of religion) by your explanation, even in the unlikely event that they a) understand it and b) agree with it.

In short not many people can follow that theory, most of the people who could follow it would have no earthly reason to believe in it (as it is pure conjecture) and even if they understood it and accepted it, it would do them no good in their daily lives. So why would a prophet use convoluted explanations to explain things which are much more readily translatable in common parlance?

"You're not making any sense. Are you saying that the audience has already been indoctrinated with the "soul" concept, in which case the "man of learning" (MOL) would be correcting their false indoctrination?"

Well, firstly, you would have to KNOW it was the truth to be correcting anything. What you are in fact doing is just proposing an alternate myth which is just as much a deception as you claim the concept of the soul to be. But what I am suggesting is that the term "soul" is a useful short hand for the thing that your explanation is trying to get at. The soul IS THE SAME THING that you are trying to explain. Therefore the MOL was not lying he was telling the truth in the only form that his audience could understand. If your 3 year old daughter asks where babies come from, do you try to explain mitosis to her? Or would you give tell her the truth in a method she was able to understand. Basically, all you are talking about are possible details of what a soul really is. If I pointed at a four-wheeled object and called it a "car" and you said "It's not a car, its a four- wheeled metal frame with an internal combustion engine" neither of us would be lying. You would simply be being more descriptive.

Furthermore, you are wrong to say that the prophets were lying to the people in saying there was a soul. To be lying, the person would have to be saying something that he himself believed to be false. He could be WRONG about the existence of a soul, but if he himself believed in a soul then obviously there can be no intent to deceive involved in his promoting the belief in the existence of a soul. Also, folks like Plato, Kant, Rosseau, Descartes, Socrates, and most of the ancient philosophers believed in a soul. So are they "snake oil" salesmen too? And your theory is just as much a product of your imagination as that of the prophets, so does that make YOU a snake oil salesman?

"People are afraid, insecure and hopeles because their beliefs force them to be afraid of god, insecure about being born in original sin and hopeless because there's no salvation in this life; wait until the after life for your reward!"

Strawman. Find me a Christian who fits the description you've described above.

I've told you before that Christian beliefs tell people to RESPECT and HONOR God, not be terrified of Him. I myself am sufficient to disprove your argument. I have a relationship with God and while I respect his Authority as an earthly child would respect the authority of his father, I am no more physically terrified of God than I am of my dad. Secondly, I don't believe in original sin and there is a large part of the Christian community which does not. At any rate, that would not explain the insecurity of the people of all the other faiths other than Christianity that do not even have the concept of original sin. Lastly, there is salvation on this earth. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is in you, Eternal Life is not a matter of quantity it is a matter of quality. It is a matter of the quality of life that comes from having the ability to let go of anger, let go of fear, and love people freely without worrying about being loved in return.

""First of all, religion causes these feelings and preys upon them in order to maintain their cult."

a) That's actually not true. Religions do not cause deaths in the family, terminal illness, the deaths of children, earthquakes, hurricanes, unintended pregnancy, the loss of a job, poverty, famine, etc. However, for those people who suffer these problems, religions do offer, for BILLIONS of people, solace, comfort, and the strength to go on living. Most people don't run to the science teacher when the stuff hits the fan. You may say that the religions people turn to are lying to them, but that does not change the fact that the people ARE comforted by religion, that people NEED comfort, and that science cannot provide comfort.

b) Most of your objections to religion seem to center in around the social structure of religion. Most of your objections crumble if confronted with individual expressions of religion or ascetic relgious orders like those of the Shaolin or Catholic monks. They do not seek to impose any order on society they completely withdraw from it in order to be closer to God. Many religions do not seek to convert and maintain no "community" other than the very limited set of believers who commit themselves to similar pursuits. I myself do not go to church and am not a member of any relgious organization. My faith is personal and is maintained through friendships, reading, and prayer. I don't seek to impose anything on anyone nor do I use my beliefs as a method of control. You probably wouldn't even know I was a Christian unless you asked me (but hopefull you would notice what a nice guy I was). I would wager there are MILLIONS of people like me who believe in God and are committed in their hearts but do not actively participate by any large organized religious structure. All religious expression is not a matter of socialized control and a very preliminary investigation into the actual people who claim to be Christians would find that out.

Did you ever actually TALK to a Christian about why they adopted their faith? Otherwise, your assumptions about what makes them believe what they believe are very unscientific.

"No, it is not. They believe in a bodily resurrection and then only of Jesus because they are programmed sheep who read the GJohn and swallowed whole the crap therein."

Um, no. We Christians believe in a physical ressurection of all who ever lived. That's why Jesus is often refered to as the "first fruits" of the ressurection. That's actually a pretty basic article of faith. Many churches actually make new converts recite this concept as a pre-requisite of membership in their church (and I believe it's in the Nicean Creed, though I might be mistaken).

"Please keep this straight: cult mentality and words like "soul" in the context that you are using them are the antithesis to my thesis, not merely analogous, because they are, IMO .0001 percent "the truth" and .9999 deliberate lies forced upon you (aka, innocent, ignorant, whatever people) as a means to fool you into following an agenda you normally would never have followed in a million years, had it not been for the hook (usually at an early, impressionable age) of that .0001 percent "truth." "

How is that any different from your theory. If the Christian concept of the soul is a myth, your concept is merely science fiction and no more worthy of belief. It's just a big, fat, guess loosely based in a largely unproven theory. It would be at least as dishonest for you to promote your theory of the soul than it would be for the prophets to promote their theory. How would you be any different from the "snake oil salesmen" if you were to promote this fictional concept of the soul?

luvluv

Maybe we should move this portion of the discussion over to another thread so that we may not cloud up this discussion?

excreationist

Koyaanisqatsi:
"In our mother's womb, our brain started working on its own."

Again, right there you've leapt over the most salient issue. A brain that starts "working on its own."

This is the focal point that divides materialism and theism (as well as serves for the basis of theism).

It is not legitimate to state that an inanimate object simply "becomes" animate on its own. That would be the equivalent of a rock that suddenly just starts talking; aka, the equivalent of "Goddidit."

Let me put it another way. A light switch cannot switch itself on (and please don't say something like, it can if there is a timer, since then the switch would not be the mechanism turning "itself" on; the timer--aka, external source--would be the mechanism).

Thus, all matter is conscious and can never be said to be inanimate (my theory) or matter is not conscious and must be animated; i.e., Frankenstein's monster/Goddidit/cognitive science.

The second concept just states, "something switches the light on," but when and how can never be discovered.

Is the sperm conscious? Does it "carry" consciousness? Is the ovum? When the two meet, is there are a little jolt of magical electricity that just somehow forms consciousness?

You say that our brains are "switched on" in the womb. Do you mean, then, that consciousness is just some sort of dormant quality; a jelly like substance that hasn't been jump started? Or do you mean by this that consciousness simply "becomes" as a part of a magical aggregate of the whole?

See what I'm getting at? Burrowing down as far into it as possible, there is a central "missing link," which I think is inherent within the prejudice that there is such a state as "nonconsciousness;" that the inanimate, non-self aware blob of cells can just magically become an animate, self aware blob of cells.

Well having the nervous system start on its own is similar to life starting on its own. e.g. say a cell divided or a special cell like a sperm cell was created in the body. This cell would be living... I would say that the processes that manufactured it would set it in motion. (And if it was a fertilized egg, its hormones, etc, would probably start the nervous system [brain] going)
So what do you think gets life going? Is all matter alive?

excreationist

Koyaanisqatsi:
According to emergent materialists, in essence, once a computer is turned on somehow and it runs long enough, it will "become" self aware.
Well not according to be... our brains don't become aware (reach a high stage of cognitive development) just by being old enough... they have to LEARN to develop a good understanding about how the world works.

And here's where I think it all gets into trouble, because you are no doubt thinking at this moment, "Well, what is a human brain but a processing machine?"
No I've said that we're more advanced than that... we are self-motivated and we actively learn new problem-solving behaviours (that aren't preprogrammed in).

A digital camcorder can be said to do the exact same thing. It "learns" about its environment through all of the analogue information it interacts with and translates into its own digital language, storing it as "memory," which can then be played back, transferred to another, more long term memory storage center, etc.
A human can learn to be autonomous and interact intelligently with their environment for many years. A camcorder will run out of batteries after a while or video tape. It doesn't learn new behaviours and problem solving strategies... that is the point of learning about the world. It just does the same old thing - record video.

No, I think not. Again, if all matter is not conscious as an inherent, primary quality, then a pile of rocks will never "form" into Shakespeare for all eternity.
So you're saying that Shakespeare couldn't have evolved naturally - there must have been some mysterious forces at work.
More later...

excreationist

Koyaanisqatsi:
...Even if they could make a "replicant" to be identical to Darryl Hannah in Bladerunner, after the novelty/kink factor wore off, at the end of the day, it would still be nothing more than a toaster programmed to imitate a human...
This is about "zombies". (Things that supposedly behave like they are concious, but are not) You could start a topic in the Philosophy forum about it. It is quite a complex topic in itself - this discussion is already big enough.

"it would have been designed by humans though, but I'm saying that a similar thing has happened with life, except that it was "designed" through natural evolution."

I get where you're going and it's valid, of course, but it still does not burrow down deep enough to explain how the "zero" turns into a "one."
It's just like how first some animals lived in the sea - then they lived in the land. Or how some animals couldn't fly, then they could. Or how humans have the potential to learn to be very intelligent while our distant ancestors didn't.

I contend, there never was a "zero" by positing, in essence, zero-one.
Do you mean that there is a continuum and all things have some amount of consciousness?

According to emergent theory, at some nexus point, the "zero" (if you will) becomes a "one."
And in the definitions I gave earlier, of aware systems and Piaget's stages, I described how this happens.

It is the verb "becomes" that sticks in my craw and I can't shake, because that is nothing more than magical, mystical terminology. It just "becomes" that way.

Well...how?
Over years and years and years.
Yes, I know that part, but "how?" How does it just "become"?
I told you. Over years and years and years.

See what I mean?
LEARNING is involved to reach high stages of cognitive development and also desires and goals - they motivate the learning of new problem-solving behaviours so that it seeks and avoid things through inference.
In that previous quote of yours you are saying that "years and years" is the only thing involved.

It allows us to see that the pile of rocks will never become Shakespeare,
What do you mean? Are you saying that the early earth couldn't have spawned Shakespeare due to ordinary physical processes?

because, in essence, they already are Shakespeare, in their own "rocky" way.
What?

"Ok, how about the DNA "using" our biological computers in order to reproduce itself?"

Then you're arguing for DNA consciousness and we're back at how does DNA "zero" magically become DNA "one?"
No, the DNA had no grand plan, all it does is get copied (and mutated) depending how good the lifeform the DNA built is at reproducing... the brain is involved in our DNA's copying life-cycle.

"Or our bodies "using" our biological computers to feed itself?"

Again, the use of the word "itself" betrays a logical paradox, unless, as I contend, we remove the paradox just as Einstein did with space and time.
How about "our bodies "using" our biological computers to feed our bodies"? By "itself" I meant the body (and the brain is part of the body which needs to be fed)

I knew what you were getting at and my response still stands (I think). Biological "computers" would still need an external user to flip that switch. A switch simply cannot flip itself;...
So what do you think starts brain activity in a foetus/embryo? I think it is some hormones or something. Do you think "the universe" just decides to turn that foetus's brain on?

Precisely the question I seek to answer that emergent theory does not, IMO. If emergent theory is correct, a sufficiently "complex" system should "become" self-aware, right?
Not according to me. I don't talk about "just having enough complexity". It has to be functionally organised - having motivations/drives and the ability to learn new behaviour patterns. And it needs to test out some of its beliefs by *interacting* with the world. Rocks, etc, don't function in that way...

In my (whatever this is) a radio doesn't speak back to us precisely because it is "self-aware." It is conscious and what it consciously "wants" is to be a radio. That is its goal and that is what it seeks to fulfill.
But do you think it is possible that one day a radio might get bored of the radio stations and just make up their own sounds...?

I don't know. All I'm trying to do is address the paradox that I see in saying something turns itself on.
I think the question about life getting started when new cells are created is practically the same. It gets put "in motion". I haven't formally studied any biology so I don't know the answer.