Luc Turpin

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.

Presented as a general interest piece for those wishing to know more about evolution and its ramifications. Hope that by posting, I am not treating it as a blog! Thank you for the guidance; I am new at it.

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scientists-philosophers-nature-evolutionary-law.html

Read and re-read your post; written with clarity. Again, I basically held the same belief about the mind and brain connection as you, with one being the sole property of the other. However, observation appears not to quite match up with what one would expect from a strict mind-brain connection. To be begin with, consciousness or one of its derivatives is prevalent in the natural kingdom: monera, protista, fungi, plantae, animalia. There is ample evidence for this and, to me, that is quite unexpected from a strict mind-brain connexion. For example, monera, protista, fungi and plantae lack most of what is considered to be normally required for cognition. They have no brains; therefore, no brain structure nor neurons. but still exhibit thinking. The chemistry used in making cognition is similar at times and different at other times, while engendering basically the same kind of cognition. It is also not corelated with brain size and not as strongly correlated to brain complexity as one might expect (from bees to whales). It has "cropped up" many times during evolution and the same basic principles of cognition appear whether it be on land, water or air (agreed that evolution and the environment shape it, but it remains basically the same kind of cognition). There is also overall indifference to brain structure. Cephalopod brains, as they have many, do not resemble very much those of mammalian brains, but still bring about basically the same kind of cognitive skills. As for anthropomorphism, I too thought that humans were subjectively attributing feelings, emotions and cognition to animals, but again a plethora of observations and studies seem to clearly indicate that something is really going on here. Where all of this goes from here, I do not know. However, it would be beneficial for science at this stage to revisit some of the cornerstone hypothesis of the mind brain connexion to see if they are still valid in their current state or in need of modification to concur with evidence. And how brain creates mind (the hard problem) remains entirely unaddressed. A pleasure discussing with you!

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html https://scitechdaily.com/single-cells-are-more-intelligent-than-scientists-previously-thought/ https://phys.org/news/2023-11-silky-ants-aphids-medicine-sick.html https://phys.org/news/2023-11-underground-fungi-forests.html Note: For generalisation, I provided summaries of studies and not individual studies used for these summaries; individual studies can be obtained if required.

I agree that the thalamus is a good candidate for the center of mind in human brains. However, where it breaks down for me is when observing animals with no thalamus (octopus, etc.) showing signs of deep thinking and other living things, even flowers showing signs of going beyond reacting to their environments. Bees, showing altruistic behaviors, bacteria appearing to think. The thalamus may be needed for reptilian and mammalian thinking, but not for others, including amphibians and insects. I will be overstretching the envelope beyond belief and may be perceived as a heretic, but its as if mind adapts to material circumstance instead of the opposite Just an impression that is by no means corroborated with anything. Also, can you substantiate on mental matrix?

First line - when I say that nothing confirmed so far as to the role of some sort of integrated system, its not me that is saying it, but neuroscientists who are testing out these hypotheses on an almost daily basis. They say that nothing is confirmed so far. If it was the case, Christof Kock would have won the bet (see initial post). Second line- I do not have any capability whatsoever of dismissing or not an hypothesis. Seth's hypothesis might be right, but possibly wrong, iNow's hypothesis about the cerebrocerebellum being involved in mind as a whole might be right but possibly wrong and my hypothesis might be right, but most probably wrong. Only evidence and neuroscientist's interpretation of the data will tell. On an additional note, to the cerebrocerebellum playing an execute role in planning motor actions, I do not doubt that this is right, but an execution role in planning motor actions is still far from where (center) or how the 'I" in consciousness is formed in the brain. Again, I am not searching for the center of consciousness in brain, its the scientists that are doing so. And I an not the arbitrator of who is right or who is wrong. I have ideas and you have ideas and none are better or worse than any until proven otherwise.

I also think that some sort of integrated system is at play, but nothing confirmed so far. I am not making the assumption that there is a center, but most-many neuroscientists do, and they want to know this, because it would pin-down where it comes from. please substantiate on multiple leaps that i am making. Part of science is also about making assumptions

Good point on intelligence; I replace it with thinking instead. On neural functions required for higher level of consciousness, you would be surprised as I was of finding out how some lower level living things are aware of their environment. But, agree that it is not in the form of what humans show. I agree with your basic premise in paragraph two that its instinct and thought. I believe that you were asserting that it was only instincts. Third paragraph, please tell me more as this is one of many areas that I need to comprehend much better. Agree a bit on your first statement, but their reasoning is rock solid sound and based on experimentation and applied mathematics. On the third paragraph, I explore panpsychist at times but I am compelled by evidence, and there is no solid evidence for it. Maybe in the future.

One more location that is added to the list of where mind could be in the brain. The RAS is located in the brainstem and I guess that this affects all of the brain. We also lose consciousness when we are in a coma or when we are asleep. Different brain regions being dampepended or activated causing a temporary loss of consciousness. Where is the center of mind or consciousness in the brain remains uncertain. My position at this stage, based on evidence, is that brains are not always needed to produce consciousness, but living matter is required. My position could move backward or forward depending on evidence.

So, my imperfect understanding of it is this: consciousness is not needed to explain quantum mechanics. It, (QM) stands alone not needing consciousness. Its not part of it, so says most physicists. However, Penrose uses quantum mechanics to explain consciousness. I too feel that there might be a role for consciousness in QM, but this statement has not validity, because it is just a hunch and that does not count for anything.

Many, many thanks to you yes, will need time to digest it all

a lot of good information; need to think before responding; will post something this evening,eastern standard time

And so gratefull for it

Noted i go where the evidence goes, and sometimes I go grudgingly!

I am getting better at following your reasoning, which is very sound.

Substantive response. Needed to think before responding For me and some neuroscientists, mind is on top and consciousness, intelligence, subjective experience all come from mind; while others talk about consciousness only (without mentioning mind), but with some sense of interchangeability with mind. If for the sake of clarity, we use consciousness only in that sense then this is good with me. But, I am in agreement with your statement that consciousness is the progenitor of that quality or attribute we perceive as mind. As for consciousness requiring brain functions, there are many examples of at least intelligence occurring without brains in living things (see second reference section of my original post). Where I think we differ substantially is when discussing where mind or consciousness comes from. Your point of view, if I understood it correctly (not because of the text, which is well written) is that its a result of stimulus-response or reacting to the environment in which the organism lives. I have to say that my former position on this matter was the same as yours a few years ago. But, mounting evidence appears to show that there is thinking being done and decision-making going on in living things. When first confronted with these findings (and they are not conclusive, I affirm), I was first baffled and then denied their implications. But, with so much findings pointing toward some form of thinking in almost all living things, one needs at the very least to start considering that there might be more than mindless reactiveness going on. Also, your description of how consciousness comes from or is derived by brain appears sound. I now understand why iNow (I think) was bringing homeostasis in the discussion. But the hardware problem (how the brain works) is easier than the software problem. How do you get flesh to create such a deep and profound subjective experience; that is unanswered (see original post). Finaly, I understand that I have a divergent point from most of you, and that is very healthy for discussion purposes. I too sense (not very scientific) that QM may have something to do about it, but, again, most physicists, I believe, do not. Most that do appear to be on the fringe of QM. One noted exception is Roger Penrose a mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate. He does not involve consciousness to explain quantum mechanics, but rather tries to involve quantum mechanics to explain consciousness. E.g. uses the theory to explain consciousness, but does not say that it is part of it.

Please explain!

Meant electrons not atoms for orbital bond; was not paying attention Understanding is much better; implications and what relates to what will take time. Yes, two constants one for each nuclues and therefore each wavefunction; got it! Need to put into practice what I learnt to get more acquainted with it.

First article is interesting as it shows how to measure consciousness complexity, and speaks to iNow's post on how to measure consciousness. Said article provides a few examples of how it could be done. Good! Second article shows strong rival theories, which can be added to numerous other ones. The issue for neuroscientists is that they have too many theories, with none so far being able to account for all various aspects of consciousness. As for an emergent process, I tend to shy away from this, because, for me at least, it seems to show that we do not understand, so we say it is emergent. Finally, many theories and none prevailing, may also be an indication that we need to look elswhere for a suitable theory of mind" Good point! nothing better than a 'disruptive" technology for people to start talking about intelligence and what it means.

Understood! Meaning no energy is lost just shared; Hesitant, but does this have anything to do with the law of conservation of energy? A linear combination (superposition) of both slit one and slit 2????? Here is my understanding of the above Superposition - everywhere A affect-influence B electronics - current superposition is linear Beam - Total deflection (concentrated, center deflection) is non linear QM - LCAO is linear Schrodinger Equation applicable to atoms Each electron has a wavefunction Wave functions describe orbitals with 0, 1, or 2 atoms two atoms with one atom orbital each bond, creating a molecule and new bonding orbital; new orbital different from either two A linear combination is used to calculate new bonding orbital? adding a constant coefficient when nucleis are of different elements

Thanks for the response; I need to know more about integrated information theory. My colleages in the physics forum would not agree to your statement that its part of QM. It is not through the "Observer Effect" as what is really intended there is not the observer per say, but the observation by an aparatus or object. About a few hundred thousand neuroscientists are talking about it and they do not all agree with Tononi 😄 We are far from panpsychism! I am looking for a discussion, not a conflict; its about learning, not necessarily being right. "Substrate", can be used in other applications than construction 'Most consciousness chats on a science forum just waste time"; then don't participate and there will be less pages. Disapointed with the level of discussion.

The mind can be indirectly measured with scanning devices (MRI). Wilder Penfield used electric prods to tease out information; experiments such as those indicated in the second portion of the reference section of the first post, observation on the living can be undertaken, etc. As for the baseline state, I need to think about that. 900- key points are that there is no center for mind in brain; it is all over; mind is also all over in nature; and we cannot explain how a kg or so of living tissue creates consciousness. To me, this means that we might have to entertain other ideas to progress in learning about consciousness See first part of the reference section of the first post: mind is in the cerebral cortex, deep grey matter, motor cortex, somato-cognitive action network, neurons for complex social thinking, white matter, right and left parietal junction; posterior cingulate, cortical midline, mirror neuron system, dorsomedial subsystem (at least for part of it), medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate, bilateral temporoparietal junction, posterior superior temporal sulcus, and now the hippocampus; I remain on my position that there is no center of mind in the brain. You are right that there are multiple layers of intelligence; but my definition of intelligence is that it is a substrate of mind, and we are talking about mind. Mind in nature tells us that it is not constricted to us and other higher state animals; that it is in, maybe, all living things; this tells us something important; and we need to figure that one out (scientists). If its in all living things, then can we say that it is essential to life? I do not know! As for being an important man, I am not. No on the algorithm question, but I am very interested in findings out; will do a search. Agree with you on having different levels of consciousness; on putting them into equation, I need to inverstigate.

Got that, we do not know the trajectory and interferes with itself, but did I not read in the thread above that in a superposition of state, there is no energy, but a single quanta of energy has, well, energy. Where did I go wrong. That's why I was talkiing about a single photon being emitted. Great! great! need to assimilate all of this info! I will get back to you sometime today. Great also on "linear combination"; think I got that. Again, appreciated! learning a lot! still confused on certain things, and misinterpreting things, but staying focused

Well said will not!