Luc Turpin

Thank for responding! I believe that there is more than practically no evidence suggesting immateriality of mind; however, neither substantial enough nor convincing enough for a paradigm shift. I tend to concur with you that mind is an immaterial property of the brain. Evidence so far portrays it as mind being produced by brain; how it does so is unresolved. Immaterial mind on its own is not a bad idea; just unsubstantiated. Finally, I am an "epiphenomenalist", but doubt is creeping in a bit because of some evidence (e.g. 55 references provided in initial post of this thread and summary provided in recent post of an article titled "An evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity theory'). As stated before, there is no discovered center for mind in brain, some form of mind appears to be everywhere in nature and we still do not know how brain creates mind. This situation opens up possibilities that would not be there otherwise. Lastly, as I said before, I will go where the evidence goes, and agree with you that the jury is still out on this matter.

So, self-similarity being synonym of scale invariance, both together forming a universal process in nature! correct? Spatial pattern in objects and embedded behaviour in natural evolution! correct? What about living organisms? spatial pattern, embedded behaviour or both?

So, you are saying that an organism in a final bid to save itself, fires off a last burst of energy to maintain metabolic stability. This is a valid hypothesis that I cannot validate or invalidate at this time. However, intuitively it I am leaning towards it being possibly invalid. First, most but not all cases of terminal lucidity are reported in Alzheimer’s patients. Alzheimer's disease is characterized by a breakdown of metabolism. It is a metabolic disease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5368131/). So, how would the organism mount a last metabolic surge in a deficient metabolic system. Second, even if it could mount such a surge, how would that result in lucidity in a brain that is physically ravaged by the disease. Some patients experiencing terminal lucidity recover all of their functions for a while. Also, terminal lucidity occurs in two types: one week before death or hours before death (lost the reference on this one). This makes it a bit more difficult to think that it is mounting a last-ditch effort a week before death. Contrarily, maybe its a burst of coordinated electrical activity that is at the basis of terminal lucidity, for which its implications would be that these bursts of electrical energy can occur without a functional physical brain and nonetheless create lucidity. It might also be worth mentioning that the brain is a complex system and that maximally disturbed systems suddenly change state! Is it that that we are seeing in terminal lucidity? More questions than answers here, but a great discussion that may end up with partial answers as we move along.

As stated, I have very limited knowledge of crystals, so I will let you and exchemist lead the way on this one

Tell me more about 'evidence and lack of evidence pointing to'! Are you talking about the points that I raised, or you have others? 'This subjective conscousness is a property in of itself', but it needs the physical to express itself! Right? So its not onto itself! Right? Or are you saying that its does not need the physical to express itself?

Let me see if I get it right: the microscopic and macroscopic are similar because both are of the physical and share features such as patterning, diversity, complexity, etc., and this similarity of features present at difference size scale is called invariance of scale. For evolution, its a feedback loop feature that makes it similar for natural evolution versus evolution of planets, stars, atoms, etc. Patterning, diversity, complexity and to that effect, invariance of scale does not apply because natural evolution is a theory-idea-concept, and not a thing! Right? This is not an area of interest for me, so I know very little. Searched the net and got these references https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001282529090027S and https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2138/am-2021-7698/pdf I think, maybe wrongly, that they somehow link mineral crystals to fractals.

Understood

I could have asked a better question: second attemps - What is the factor that makes evolution appear in non-living as well as in living form? What is the common denominator? Does invariance of scale have anything to do with it? As for the quote above, are you asking how fractals are applicable to systems as different as a mineral crystal and a living organism? Respectfully, its the fractal shape found in living things (human brains https://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-1-6.html#:~:text=Our brains are full of,connections%2C among these brain cells.) and non-living (coastline: https://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-10-4.html). As for mineral crystal, they seem also to be fractal in nature.

Yes

Will do that In documentation that I read on complexity, there is talk of invariance of scale. For example, shapes are invariant on a small and large scale; as in fractals when you zoom in and out, but still get basically the same shape. taking the fractal example again, there is a pattern of shape, not all shapes look exactly the same, the complexity-richness of pattern. Find a fractal site on the net to visualize the meanings of these terms

Note - naturalist has a different connotation in French. i use materialist as exchangeable with naturalist

If I understood correctly the article and your post, the stripes of Equus grevyi are not different but the same as the stripes of Equis burchelli! And I guess that you are telling me that they are different Similar but still different.

We all agree on supernaturalism. I also partially agree with your untestable comment. However, I venture that it is at the limit of materiality that, if supernaturalism existed, one might find or not clues about it. For example, and if credible, terminal lucidity at death's door evoked in one of my earlier post is troubling for a materialist like me. How can someone have lucid thinking with a brain that is essentially broken? What is the mechanism explaining how this temporary reversal of fate occurs without a functional brain? Also, for a materialist like me, it would be more comforting that we could find a place in the brain for consciousness, that we could see that it is not in varying degrees in all living things, and that we understood how brain creates mind. Then, there would not be any lingering doubts. Without these three unconfirmed statements of facts, we are left with possibilities of having to look elsewhere for answers. And I will follow evidence wherever it lead's me, even if I have to do so grudgingly

Correct! Need to be more specific. Invariance of scale is not mentioned in the article. I am asking if it has anything to do with the fact that we can supposedly find (evolutionary process) in inorganic systems as well as organic. Not necessarily the degree of complexity, but invariance of scale as one found more broadly from the microscopic to the macroscopic . I am using the complexity definition of invariance of scale as I think that the mathematical-physics version might be different. e.g. Patterning, diversity and complexity supposedly found in inorganic and organic have a relationship (are due to, caused by) the invariance scale concept. Is this statement valid?

I wish to talk about invariance of scale. The complexity theory version of invariance of scale. This phenomenon is intriguing, and I believe that this might be an example of it. Am-i right in my assessment? I also would like to know if there are similarities between the physics and complexity sense of invariance of scale? Hope that I am doing it correctly this time!

Well noted! Science is about being objective, open minded, but critical. I do not believe in supernaturalism, but I will go where the evidence brings me! Personally, I would have avoided using of the word "horseshit"!

The author used cognitive behavior; as it was a summary, I reduced it to cognition; my mistake 'Research in plant biology demonstrates how vegetal and cellular life shows elements of cognitive behavior that were not suspected or were simply considered impossible without a brain.'

I agree on the three main points of your post: 1-responses to stimuli based on a comparative assessment; 2- brain energy requirements; 3- need of a physical entity for brain. And to provide us with more matter (pardon the pun) for discussion, I am providing key information that I obtained from the article that I referenced earlier. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150605/full. Some elements of the article also validate some of the claims that I made earlier in our discussion. No evidence of a single brain region, area, organ, anatomical feature; From single brain region, to compartmentalized to a network system for consciousness without consensus; No brain region does only one thing; no neurons have only one function. Corpus callosotomy does not create two consciousnesses; patients denied being different; Hemispherectomy - one could not tell the difference between humans having a whole brain or only half of one. Only a thin sheet of actual brain tissue in man with 75/100 iq with a job, family and normal life; Children with almost no cortical tissue in vegetative state developing signs of perception Brain size does not matter (mouse lemurs, brains 1/200th the size of monkeys’ but perform equally well on a primate intelligence test; Brain complexity - information transfer through the neural network in human comparable to mouse; Neocortex only in humans and other mammals, but not in birds, fish, octopuses, amphibians and reptiles. However, example a birds performing cognitive feats despite forebrains consisting of lumps of gray cells; cephalopods and crustaceans are sentient Loss of memory due to injury regained after years; Credible reports of terminal lucidity; whereby severely diseased dementia patients with ravaged brains recover full cognition for a short period of time before death Intensity of metabolic activity does not play role in generating conscious experience; Memory is not stored in a specific brain area like a digital computer; Information does not scale with brain size; Flatworm cut in two, regenerate and both keep conditioned memory; Synaptic connectivity is challenged for long-time memory; Plants, multicellular and single-celled lifeforms, without any neural substrate have cognition Finally, here is a table that summarizes the summary No worries, as I make mistakes all of the time.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150605/full This summarizes my position. Please read it to understand where I and some scientists are coming from! On cerebellum – from the article link above – ‘For example, the cerebellum is almost exclusively dedicated to motor control functions, and its impairment leads to equilibrium and movement disorders. However, it does not affect one’s state of consciousness. Its role in ‘generating’ experience seems to be marginal, if any. There are also rare cases of people who live without a cerebellum (‘cerebellar agenesis’) and have only mild or moderate motor deficits or other types of disorders (Feng et al., 2015). This is a fact that seemingly confirms the brain’s proverbial neuro-plasticity, which we will see next through other extraordinary examples.’ On thalamus – from the article link above ‘The thalamus is responsible for sensory information processing. It is known that its main job is to function as a relay and feedback station between sensory brain areas and the cerebral cortex. For example, it functions as a hub between the optical nerves that transport the visual information coming from our retinas to the visual cortex. Even if one remained conscious by turning down the functionality of the thalamus, one would no longer see anything because the neural pathways between the retina and the visual cortex are interrupted. From that, however, nobody would conclude that the thalamus is the seat of the visual experience for which the visual cortex is responsible, as we know that it is a ‘hub,’ a ‘transducer’ or a ‘filter.’ From this perspective, the thalamus’ function is to ‘integrate’ the information flow of the several brain areas; if this is disrupted, it leads to a ‘loss’ of consciousness. Thus, these findings do not tell us much about the generation of conscious experience. However, if there is not one single ‘seat of consciousness,’ could it be that the combination and activity of some or all of the different brain areas do ‘produce’ the subjective experience?’ Both topics covered in the Mind thread! Still looking for an article stating that new findings are not yet integrated into theory. However, I still hold the claim that through the numerous readings that I did, it appears to be the case – my statement. From now on, I will not take for granted that initial references in first post were consulted. Got it 'While these (mostly ignored) findings", From summary of same article referenced above.

I had this in my original listing of references, but removed it because it was not current enough (2014). This is one of only a few that says that we are doing so. And much has happened since 2014 that has not gotten into theory.Science is moving so fast these days that what you learn in your first year university studies is perennial by the fourth year of graduate studies. also, read only second part of my last post as the first part is a repeat. did not want to be such a bother

Senior Members 4 107 Author Posted just now I provided a total of 55 references on where is mind in brain, where is mind in nature and how mind is produced in brain (see original post). I guess that not everyone looked into them.This is my starting basis for claims that I make. Some are more scientific than others. If it is insufficient, I can add more. And this is the evidence that support the claim that we should have a different take on mind-brain connection. I can try and find articles for my assertion (your second post), but this was based on comments made by some, not many, in the neuroscientific field..They also contend that there is a lot of catching up to do. the assertion that theory does not match evidence is my own with the assistance of evidence found in some of the references provided and assertions made again by some in the neuroscience field. I can change tack if required. finally, I knew at the very first posting, that this would be a controversial topic, but a discussion on it is still warranted. i seek your guidance or can withdraw if asked. Apologies for submitting by error the same post twice. Also, I am French and this is not my preferred writing language. I do not wish to be right, or defensive, but to explain only the 55 references that I posted were to back my claims on where is mind in brain, where is mind in nature and how does mind work through brains, not on my claim that science has a lot of catching up to do. This is mine and some neuroscientists point of view, and stand behind it and assume responsibility for it. But, I am open to the possibility that I was wrong in claiming this without providing direct evidence. However, I have been following other threads and have seen circumstances where claims are made without background.. my original intention in posting on mind was to offer some evidence on a controversial issue (consciousness), have a fruitful discussion as I am having with some members and change someone and myself stance on the subject matter based on discussion and evidence. I am now pondering what to do next or how to proceed moving forward. Looking at the references and thread could be helpful. Please read only second part of post as first part is a repeat.

I provided a total of 55 references on where is mind in brain, where is mind in nature and how mind is produced in brain (see original post). I guess that not everyone looked into them.This is my starting basis for claims that I make. Some are more scientific than others. If it is insufficient, I can add more. And this is the evidence that support the claim that we should have a different take on mind-brain connection. I can try and find articles for my assertion (your second post), but this was based on comments made by some, not many, in the neuroscientific field..They also contend that there is a lot of catching up to do. the assertion that theory does not match evidence is my own with the assistance of evidence found in some of the references provided and assertions made again by some in the neuroscience field. I can change tack if required. finally, I knew at the very first posting, that this would be a controversial topic, but a discussion on it is still warranted. i seek your guidance or can withdraw if asked.

I respectfully beg to differ!

It is helpful for debate to be challenged. Yes, I am making broad claims because this is a forum and it is good for discussion. I do not pretend that all of my claims are 100% accurate, hence the need for discussion and challenge. And my claims would not make it in the scientific literature , without insurmountable evidence, but again this is a forum. if I am incorrect in this assertion, forum administrators will advise me and I will make a course correction. Also, no, I am not dismissive as I consider any objections to my claims as being constructive and in need of consideration. As for many researchers doing it and me just being unaware, I hope that you are right and I wrong, but I don’t see it as much as it being deserved in the literature that I consult. Finally, neuroscientists are doing their best at keeping abreast of ever faster new scientific discoveries, hence again the need to pause once in a while to reassess the situation.

Mind-brain theory has a lot of catching up to do with what observation and findings are telling us about it. A minority still believe that mind is strictly restricted to brains, and an artifact of it. I am not so sure about this anymore.