Mind

[Luc Turpin]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you imagine having a conversation with some folks and suddenly someone jumps up on the coffee table and spews out a rant like that? That's not discussion, that's a lecture nobody signed up for.

I am just trying to set up the situation where a conversation on firmer grounds can be had. One day you say that I am not referencing enough and the other too much.  Please read; there is a lot to be had. And it is not a rant, but information based on solid evidence.

[Luc Turpin]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

When did this turn into your blog?

You have said in a post that I was too radical in my approach to the mind-brain connection. With the last few entries of mine, I am showing where this radicallness is coming from.....from evidence. I have a few more parts remaining to solidify my position, but with your post and the most recent one by Phi for All, I think that I will limit myself to only one other; mind is all over in the living and nature. The last entry was long, because it was necessary to show complexity. If you feel that it is too long to read, then limit your reading to only one of the three examples provided.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

You have said in a post that I was too radical in my approach to the mind-brain connection. With the last few entries of mine, I am showing where this radicallness is coming from.....from evidence. I have a few more parts remaining to solidify my position, but with your post and the most recent one by Phi for All, I think that I will limit myself to only one other; mind is all over in the living and nature. The last entry was long, because it was necessary to show complexity. If you feel that it is too long to read, then limit your reading to only one of the three examples provided.

The problem is, all the evidence you present does nothing to change mainstream/conventional thinking which thinks you're wrong; this is my last hint mate. 😉

Just for clarity, I mean you need a better argument. 🖖

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, all the evidence you present does nothing to change mainstream/conventional thinking which thinks you're wrong; this is my last hint mate. 😉

Just for clarity, I mean you need a better argument. 🖖

Do you not believe that the insurmountable evidence that is being presented here, does not at the very least soften someone's stance on mainstream/conventional thinking? How can anyone, including I, can be left unperturbed by its implications? I will be posting a final piece on evidence pertaining to why I feel that there is something wrong with our understanding of how the mind works, then I will stop and think of a better argument as you suggest.

Did mention to you that I was hard-headed 😊

Why I find that there is something wrong with our understanding of the mind-brain connection!

Part IV (final)

Mounting evidence points to intelligence being everywhere in nature. Animals, even small ones, plants, microbes and cells appear to show signs of intelligence. Again, there may be more than randomness-reactiveness coming out of nature. In fact, I contend that mind is inherent in nature that mind played a significant role in evolution.

Notes:

1- I had planned to use many various references in Part IV of this series of posts in order to stay away from referencing again Jon Lieff. However, for brevity purposes (post still too long), I will quote him again in his piece titled “Convergent Evolution of Intelligence”. It summarizes very well the state of affairs on matters related to mind in nature.  Please be reminded that Mr. LIeff has extensively researched the topic at hand by reviewing numerous scientific papers. His interpretation of facts is “his”, but based on a whole pile of evidence.

2- You do not have to read it all to get a sense of what I am getting at (please though read the final section of the post for a summary of intent). The rest is for those interested like me in the subject at hand. 

3- This is my final post on arguing why I find that there is something wrong with our understanding of the mind-brain connection! I hope that this will help some of you know better where I am coming from and that I have taken the time to research things before opening my mouth.

“Advanced intelligence has evolved in vastly different types of creatures. Intelligence occurred independently even though these creatures started as small multi cellular organisms and diverged in evolution 500 million years ago. They each used different building blocks, genetic clusters, molecular cascades and signaling. Recent research finds some similarities in brain structures that analyze data across the time and species.”

“Convergent evolution of many different forms of advanced intelligence means that it cannot have been an accident. In fact, in one lineage that separated from others more than 500 million years ago—molluscs—central nervous systems evolved independently four different times with hundreds of millions years of separation. 

Convergent evolution of intelligence can only be explained by evolutionary avenues that increase mental capacities available to all of these creatures. It is consistent with the view that mind in inherent in nature (as a natural aspect along with matter and other forms of energy). Mental activity in the creatures must help move evolution along these lines to higher intelligence through neuroplasticity and specific genetic mechanisms.”

“The following text will attempt to briefly outline the vast topic of convergent evolution of intelligence by discussing the invertebrate octopus and vertebrate insects, lizards, birds and mammals. All of these creatures diverged hundreds of million years ago—many at the time of the Cambrian explosion more than 500 million years ago. Yet, many eons later they all evolved different forms of advanced intelligence with very different brain structures." 

“Some of the brains are large and some very small (insects). Perhaps, octopuses are the most remarkable example. These squishy creatures with no bones or spine have completely upended mammal-based theories of intelligence. This post will discuss genetic and brain differences and similarities for all these creatures.”

“The intelligence of large mammals, such as whales, elephants, dogs, primates and dolphins were assumed to be due to similarities with the large human brain and in particular socializing. Most of these mammals are, also, closely related to humans in evolution, having many genetic and structural similarities.”

“Recently, the advanced intelligence of birds has been documented with very different brains and divergence in evolution for hundreds of millions of years since before the time of the dinosaurs. It is surprising to many that lizards, also, show high intelligence and advanced social behavior, completely at odds with the previous notions of human “reptilian brain regions.”

“Insects are even further removed from humans in evolution and are now documented to have advanced individual intelligence, including bees, ants and termites. The insect brain is extremely small and quite different from the others, but recent research shows great similarity in the analysis of motion in the retinas of flies and mammals”. 

“Perhaps, the furthest removed is the octopus (also cuttlefish and squid). The octopus diverged in evolution from all the other intelligent creatures that have bones and vertebrae more than 500 million years ago. Despite completely separate evolution for half a billion years, the octopus, also, arrived at advanced intelligence. It was probably the first highly intelligent creature on Earth.”

“In the human brain, use of the mind builds neuronal connections and circuits through neuroplasticity. Mental activity affects circuits, synapses, genetic networks and molecules to build and prune brain circuits. Therefore, it is reasonable that the intensions and desires of the small evolving creatures influence specific cellular and genetic pathways for increasing brain structures that can receive and utilize more advanced intelligence in the animal. More discussion of mind’s influence is presented after details about octopuses, birds, lizards, insects, dogs and electric fish.”

“With a separation of 500 million years in evolution, advanced cognitive traits started in the octopus hundreds of million years ago, much earlier than mammals. Octopus ancestors are, perhaps, the first intelligent beings on Earth, appearing before the first fish.”

“Octopuses learn rapidly, solve advanced problems and mazes and make tools as well as crows. They are very curious and interactive. They spread cultural information, mimic fish and communicate using colors, patterns and flashing. They pick up coconut shell halves and sea shells, carry them along and if threatened flip them over their head to conceal themselves. Covered with two shells, they can see through a small opening slit between the two halves. Their intelligence does not appear to be related to complex social groups (as had been assumptions of intelligence in mammals.)”

“Since they have no claws or jaws, they defend themselves by changing their appearance with elaborate camouflage based on three unique evolutionary inventions. They can hide in plain sight and can mimic other fish. With their eight arms, they manipulate objects as well as the human hand.”

“The octopus brain is relatively larger than reptiles and fish, smaller than mammals and birds. It has 500 million neurons, similar to a dog, six times more than a mouse. The brain is divided into three parts each with a hierarchy. Their Vertical Lobe (VL) is organized like the human hippocampus using a large amount of connections, which converges in fewer outputs to the peduncle controlling movement like the cerebellum. They do not use myelin but rather have very connected hubs near each other and very small neurons that are close together for advanced processing.”

“The brain is distributed, with 50 million neurons in the central nervous system, 150 million with their eyes (outside the CNS) and 300 million in eight arms that can think somewhat independently. It looks like a mammal brain with 40 lobes with outer cell bodies (grey matter) and inner axons (white matter).”

“The VL learning center is more specific to memory and learning than mammal centers. Without the VL, everything functions except memory.”

“The types of neurotransmitters, cell structure, and membranes are different, but the network hierarchy, wiring and neuroplasticity are somewhat similar.”

“Octopuses have the most genes of any invertebrate (2.7 billion bases) and more protein coding genes (33,000) than humans (20,000). Their genome is unusual and is six times larger than any other invertebrate. Several gene clusters expanded both in octopuses and in humans to build different large intelligent brains. Octopus used the action of jumping genes and alteration of messenger RNA and humans used massive alternative RNA splicing, not gene duplication as was supposed.”

“Octopuses had a very rapid expansion of critical gene families through the action of jumping genes. A rapid expansion of protocadherin neuronal adhesion molecules (similar but different to humans) allowed the advanced brain development. The way the octopus brain was built emphasized regulating short-range circuits, using the many different new protocadherin genes. This is based on 168 new gene clusters, altered by jumping genes and RNA editing.

“Other expansions occurred in critical genes for neuronal signaling, vesicle signaling, and the unique skin, arms and suckers, jet propulsion system, camera like eyes and three hearts. These occurred through RNA splicing and jumping genes. Recently, it was found that octopuses currently have the most extreme version of RNA editing of any animal and rapidly create new proteins related to adaptation to different ocean temperatures by altering potassium channels. This editing, also, helps adaptation to cold, heat stress and starvation. It allows them to swim in Antarctica.”

“Camouflage genes (hundreds) are completely new and unique. The system uses photosensitive cells (opsins) in the skin to determine local color, chromatophore changeable sacs with different color pigments, irrdophore light reflectors to create similarity and leucophores to provide white background. Their unique muscles make different textures.”

“Birds and humans are separated by three hundred million years in evolution. Previous posts have documented very advanced intelligence in birds, with the crow, perhaps, the most intelligent. They remember people, cars and incidents for years; have metacognition, counting, use of analogies; understand the Archimedes principle of water displacement; and have the ability to rapidly perform multi step complex puzzles and tasks. They upgrade tools, molding them into a hook and save them for later use. They understand concepts and arithmetic. They have vocal learning and can invent new words. They mourn fallen comrades for days. Some have extremely accurate vision and communicate with gaze and gesture.”

“Songbirds know sounds, names and syntax and learn specific songs from mentors; they practice them and alter them. Their given name is used their entire life. Whales, dolphins, elephants and other primates can learn new sounds with meaning. Also, elephants, bats, seal lions and seals have some vocal learning. But, songbirds are quite advanced compared to humans.”

“The birdbrain is unique and different from humans. They have a region (DVR) that serves some of the function of the cortex, which has neurons similar to the human cortex. The DVR has cells equivalent to the human cortex layer 4 that inputs data, and layer 5 that outputs data. This arrangement is somewhat better in efficiency to humans. Unlike humans, birds have specialized complex nuclei for vocalization.”

“Songbirds, with advanced vocal learning like humans, have columns clustered for hearing, motor and touch.”

“Epigenetic acetyl tags on histones (protecting DNA) are marked before singing to determine, which genes will be used for a song. Specific regions are used for different tasks involved in the complex process of singing. A large number of different proteins in four nuclei regulate this complex process through these epigenetic tags.”

“Neuronal signals activate vast genetic networks that are involved in this complex singing behavior. The genetic tags are present to activate the correct behavior with the exact genes. All of this occurs in an instant. Gene regulation of singing involves thousands of different genes and proteins. The more a bird sings, the more genes are stimulated including thousands of genes making 24,000 different proteins. Before the singing starts, five thousand messenger RNAs trigger 3000 genes in the 4 nuclei. When singing begins, 25,000 different messenger RNA use 1800 genes.”

“Twenty-two genes that are very active in making new neurons for many activities appear critical for different styles of singing. Specific gene clusters are active for particular sounds like phonemes triggered by factors and epigenetic tags.”

“Lizards are much smarter and more social than previously understood. They show bonding, care of family and other advanced social behavior. They have social learning, play and cooperation. The have advanced counting, learning and problem solving. They learned even faster than crows in puzzles and invented new techniques not used in the wild. They remembered their techniques for many days. They use multiple strategies and unlearn very rapidly (better than mammals).”

“Despite previous outmoded brain theories, the human midbrain (“reptilian brain”) is not associated with reptile awareness. In humans, it is now known that the basal ganglia, along with cortex, amygdala and hippocampus, are involved in unconscious motor learning and are critical to human higher function. 

“Insects separated in evolution hundreds of millions of years from all the other groups. Although individual intelligence has been demonstrated in a variety of insects, the bee brain is the most studied and perhaps the most advanced.  

With surprising intelligence, insects use their smaller brains more efficiently. Insects have very evolved motor systems, very elaborate social systems, and advanced cognition (numbers, abstractions, focused attention, learning) with tiny brains. Perhaps, big animals need larger brains for control of their large bodies, not cognition. Larger brains do have more details and storage. But, the types of connections might be most important.”

“A very recent study of the mammal retina and the insect optic lobe shows dramatic similarities in the way that they analyze motion data.”

“With tiny brains, individual bees have remarkable capacities. They use and understand complex symbolic language, sharing details of locations, angles of the sun, travelling routes, and qualities of locations. They forage for information and count scenes. They understand mazes and abstract concepts (above/below and difference).”

“Bees self medicate by mixing appropriate medicines and build the most complex efficient honeycomb. The have kaleidoscopic memory for miles and solve the advanced mathematical problem (traveling salesman problem) of the most efficient routes between many different qualities and objects. Individual bees learn from wise elders and understand rewards. They are flexible and communicative with complex social behavior. They have emotions and personalities.”

“Bees remember short cuts to many different places from the waggle dance without previously knowing the landscape. Bees can abstract information from multiple senses, including many different environmental characteristics, social behavior, location, and the angle of the sun. They rapidly learn from many modalities such as touch, taste, smell and vision.”

“The bee brain has 
one million neurons, with forty different types. The mushroom
body (20% of their brain) is the region that integrates multiple senses. It sends value-based
 information to other parts of the brain with 100,000 neurons connected to 100
neurons that code multi sensory learned stimuli.”

“A particular neuron appears to be similar to the dopamine reward center in humans. Bee brains have advanced neuroplasticity for learning and rewards with dendrite changes similar to humans. This occurs in integrated circuits of the olfactory system and very sophisticated visual systems that are far more advanced than humans (kaleidoscopic visual olfactory memory).”

“Bees use epigenetic tagging of histones (acetylation) and DNA (methylation) for memory. Similar neurochemicals as humans are involved in bees, such as dopamine, serotonin and octopamine.”

“Termites had elaborate societies 200 million years ago—50 million years before ants and bees. They began fungus-farming agriculture long before ants. Individual termites, like ants and bees, are intelligent.  As a group, they somehow build an engineering marvel that even humans currently can not.”

“The mound structure allows it to breathe (eliminating CO2 and water and taking in oxygen) keeping the society moist (90% humidity) and at the exact temperatures they need to survive. They use solar energy, wind, magnetism positioning and very complex engineering. It is the complex shape of the tunnels that allow the breathing mechanism. It is, also, an oasis helping the environment even more than beavers.”

“When damaged, they guard the damaged spot and groups of termites repair it exactly as it was before. The comparative size of the mounds in human terms is a very large skyscraper. The nest is a small part of the structure along with rooms for farming. Most of the mound consists of large complex mazes of ducts to maintain the environment.”

“Individual ants are intelligent, not a mysterious “hive” mentality that no one can define. Individual ants are able to learn new ways to navigate and are able to integrate these with multiple other techniques such as number of steps, direction travelled, landmarks, wind, sun angles, visual and smell memories.”

“Ants take direction from others, especially wise elders. Ants take care of their family like mammals. They communicate and make group decisions, led by the smartest in the hive. They will help stuck comrades with great effort and personal risk. They are responsive and flexible in new situations. If the nest is damaged, a group immediately goes to gather materials and others start fixing it. They cooperate and take directions from others in difficult situations.”

“Recent research shows that dogs and humans have lived symbiotically together since the beginning of Homo sapiens 50,000 years ago. Symbiosis between dogs and humans may be the reason for the homo conquest of Neanderthals in Europe.”

“Both humans and dogs are familiar with the same sounds and environments. Dogs understand human emotions—when we are distressed and when we want to play. Recently, researchers were surprised to learn that the same brain center in dogs and humans processes emotions related to the human speech—the non-primary auditory region in the most anterior region near the temporal pole (Brodmann area 38). Dogs can understand hundreds of human words (recently, a dog understood 1000).”

“A recent study of electric fish evolution is instructive. When the innovation of use of electricity occurred, fish developed new ways to use electric signals. They needed to evolve larger brain centers for this purpose. Over time, the brains became larger as use occurred of the electric behavior in individuals. Also, as the brains grew, many new species developed that could better sense electrical signals and utilize them in different ways.”

“This same expansion of the brain is documented for mammals related to smell and tactile sense. Expanded smell and tactile brain centers in a larger brain allowed a tiny mammal to be successful 190 million years ago.

Both demonstrate a bidirectional alteration that occurs, where more analysis of the new types of signals grows the brain and increases the utility of the new sense or signaling information.”

“Understanding how the human brain uses experience to model the brain can help explain how a new sense can stimulate more neurons, larger brains and new species. In the human brain, use of particular thought patterns and behaviors actually create new circuits through neuroplasticity and pruning of synapses. This is seen in babies, when there is overgrowth of neurons and then the actual use of mental functions maintains those circuits that are utilized or prunes those that are not.”

“In the elderly, neuroplasticity creates many new circuits because of how the mind uses the brain. See the post summarizing recent research in the elderly that shows many new circuits in right-left brain connections and more connections to the frontal lobes for elders that are mentally active. Neuroplasticity changes circuits based on new learning and behavior. This can occur consciously through meditation (see post) or unconsciously through habit learning. This, also, occurs with stem cell therapies where if they are used they survive as a permanent part of the brain.”

“This same mechanism must operate in evolution, where mental activity influences and builds neurons and circuits. While it is not clear how mental activity can instantaneously affect many different genetic networks throughout a circuit, it does. There are direct effects of mental activity on neurons, organelles, vesicles, and molecules through genetic networks.”

“New capacities from neuroplasticity utilize genetic mechanisms making new protein structures. (see post on Fantastic Array of Neuroplasticity Mechanisms.) Expanded gene clusters and completely new types of genes are based on alterations in the coding of DNA or messenger RNA. New and altered genes caused larger brains in evolution. Mental events occurred at the same time causing neuroplasticity. Genetic alterations occurred through jumping gene effects, cellular editing of messenger of RNA, different ways, duplication of genes that are altered, alterations of enhances and suppressors and epigenetic marks on histones or DNA. Mental events and conscious activity alters synapses through changes in proteins.”

“All of these mechanisms alter the sequence of amino acids in the proteins. This altered sequence creates a new shape of the protein and hence a new function. (see post on Protein Folding and the Mind) Function occurs through very exact protein shapes that interlock and interact with thousands of other proteins. The slightest difference from the wrong mutation completely changes the shape and function and can cause disease.”

“But, how can a cell know exactly what shape the protein will become to be able to accurately edit the messenger RNA. This is a particularly difficult question since the folding of a protein is extremely complex.  A recent article in Science described how we cannot predict the shape of amino acids and because of the many different 3D shapes of the twenty amino acids used, current science cannot determine how a protein will fold. However, in real life, they fold with the help of other chaperone molecules in a millisecond.”

“Somehow, the cell knows how the new proteins will fold based on its sophisticated editing of parts of messenger RNAs. Cellular editing must be able to determine what the ultimate folded shape will be and use one of the many genetic mechanisms to alter the sequence in the DNA or RNA.”

“In human brain evolution, alternative RNA splicing has been extensive and critical. This complex orchestrated process picks and chooses sections of messenger RNA to make the protein. How it knows how to do this is not at all clear, but this process built the unique human large brain. In octopuses, jumping genes and editing of RNA made the new genes to build the large brain. In other creatures duplications of gene sections with later alterations were used.”

“Based on conscious and unconscious mental activity, brains reorganize themselves with a vast array of different neuroplasticity mechanisms in large brain circuits. This can happen in milliseconds and involves elaborate restructuring and rebuilding of cellular scaffolding, dendrite spines, creation of new circuits, creation of new neurons, and strengthening of the synapses in many ways. These changes augment the expansion of DNA clusters, the incorporation of jumping gene strands, and the editing of messenger RNA to create new proteins.”

“It cannot be an accident for all of these extremely different evolutionary paths to arrive at advanced intelligence after starting with small multi cellular creatures hundreds of millions of years ago. Each evolutionary pathway advanced along a different course, using different building blocks, different expanded genes and different proteins. But, they have some similarities in the organization of the neuronal networks. This implies that specific architectural structures are needed to mediate advanced intelligence—to receive this already available advanced intelligence into the body of the creature.”

“Clearly, the mind of the creatures has had influence in these processes, just as it does now in human brains with the constantly changing brain neuroplasticity.

How can any reasonable person think that advanced intelligence can just appear many times in different evolution lines without mind being an integral aspect of nature in every creature as it evolves?”   

[TheVat]

Did I see Hameroff's theory of quantum computing in microtubules pop up here?  Not really much there but conjecture and pixie dust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff

Hameroff and Penrose's model has been met with skepticism from many disciplines.  Rick Grush and Patricia Churchland, argued that "physiological evidence indicates that consciousness does not directly depend on microtubule properties in any case".

In 2000, physicist Max Tegmark calculated that quantum states in microtubules would survive for only 10−13 seconds, too brief to be of any significance for neural processes...

 Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp also agreed that quantum coherence does not play, or does not need to play any major role in neurophysiology.  Koch and Hepp concluded that "the empirical demonstration of slowly decoherent and controllable quantum bits in neurons connected by electrical or chemical synapses, or the discovery of an efficient quantum algorithm for computations performed by the brain, would do much to bring these speculations from the 'far-out' to the mere 'very unlikely'."  In 2022, a group of Italian physicists conducted several experiments that failed to provide evidence in support of a gravity-related quantum collapse model of consciousness, weakening the possibility of a quantum explanation for consciousness....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

While more generally accepted theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases, Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules....

Orchestrated objective reduction has been criticized from its inception by mathematicians, philosophers, and scientists.  The criticism concentrated on three issues: Penrose's interpretation of Gödel's theorem; Penrose's abductive reasoning linking non-computability to quantum events; and the brain's unsuitability to host the quantum phenomena required by the theory, since it is considered too "warm, wet and noisy" to avoid decoherence.

Edited June 25 by TheVat

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Do you not believe that the insurmountable evidence that is being presented here,

I believe a lot of things, almost always bc the argument is persuasive... 🙄

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am just trying to set up the situation where a conversation on firmer grounds can be had.

All you're doing is cherry picking bits you find on the web that you think support your claims that we don't know enough about the mind. This isn't "firmer ground", it's been artificially filled in by you. YOU don't know enough about the mind, and you're projecting that onto everyone else. Why don't you just take some mainstream classes and learn what you don't know??? Your own ignorance is causing you to see it everywhere! Fix it!

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

One day you say that I am not referencing enough and the other too much.

You don't reference the claims you make. You reference things that are adjacent and then hope we make the same wild leaps you do. That's not mainstream science. And all these references should show you that there are indeed people working hard to understand the mind. They just know a LOT more than you or I, and their work isn't super accessible by those who haven't studied it.

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Please read; there is a lot to be had. And it is not a rant, but information based on solid evidence.

None of it supports the claim you've made that we're all wrong about the mind, in fact it shows that the scientific method works, and works well. Our best explanations change over time as they're tested and challenged. Reptile brain gets replaced by something closer to what we observe, or a current explanation is drilled into to find its spectrum of influence. And yes, electric fish adapt to their abilities like every other species.

You're like so many before you, thinking you can think outside the box without learning to use the tools inside first.

 

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Did I see Hameroff's theory of quantum computing in microtubules pop up here?  Not really much there but conjecture and pixie dust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff

Hameroff and Penrose's model has been met with skepticism from many disciplines.  Rick Grush and Patricia Churchland, argued that "physiological evidence indicates that consciousness does not directly depend on microtubule properties in any case".

In 2000, physicist Max Tegmark calculated that quantum states in microtubules would survive for only 10−13 seconds, too brief to be of any significance for neural processes...

 Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp also agreed that quantum coherence does not play, or does not need to play any major role in neurophysiology.  Koch and Hepp concluded that "the empirical demonstration of slowly decoherent and controllable quantum bits in neurons connected by electrical or chemical synapses, or the discovery of an efficient quantum algorithm for computations performed by the brain, would do much to bring these speculations from the 'far-out' to the mere 'very unlikely'."  In 2022, a group of Italian physicists conducted several experiments that failed to provide evidence in support of a gravity-related quantum collapse model of consciousness, weakening the possibility of a quantum explanation for consciousness....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

While more generally accepted theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases, Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules....

Orchestrated objective reduction has been criticized from its inception by mathematicians, philosophers, and scientists.  The criticism concentrated on three issues: Penrose's interpretation of Gödel's theorem; Penrose's abductive reasoning linking non-computability to quantum events; and the brain's unsuitability to host the quantum phenomena required by the theory, since it is considered too "warm, wet and noisy" to avoid decoherence.

I share your and others scepticism about quantum in microtubules, but the question is what is orchestrating all of this? That to me is the main question! Quantum computing has nothing to do with this. However, the author (Lieff) just states that the described grand ordering in microtubules was what got people thinking that it was quantum computing doing this. He did not indicate that he was in agreement or disagreement with this. And what about the rest of the stuff that seems to show that something more than randomness is going on in nature?

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

All you're doing is cherry picking bits you find on the web that you think support your claims that we don't know enough about the mind. This isn't "firmer ground", it's been artificially filled in by you. YOU don't know enough about the mind, and you're projecting that onto everyone else. Why don't you just take some mainstream classes and learn what you don't know??? Your own ignorance is causing you to see it everywhere! Fix it!

You don't reference the claims you make. You reference things that are adjacent and then hope we make the same wild leaps you do. That's not mainstream science. And all these references should show you that there are indeed people working hard to understand the mind. They just know a LOT more than you or I, and their work isn't super accessible by those who haven't studied it.

None of it supports the claim you've made that we're all wrong about the mind, in fact it shows that the scientific method works, and works well. Our best explanations change over time as they're tested and challenged. Reptile brain gets replaced by something closer to what we observe, or a current explanation is drilled into to find its spectrum of influence. And yes, electric fish adapt to their abilities like every other species.

You're like so many before you, thinking you can think outside the box without learning to use the tools inside first.

 

I vehemently object to your statement that I am cherry picking. If I am doing so, its from an entire forest of cherry trees. A process is a process; there is only so many ways of building a brain and it is very well described by Lieff. How can you cherry pick that? The complexity of the task is formidable and I and many others are starting to believe that something else than randomness is at play. What is wrong with the idea of having a different idea about things? How about you discussing that instead of calling me ignorant. If I gave you all of the references to what I posted, they would be in the hundreds and you would be complaining about the length of posts or picking on something else. I doubt that you really thoroughly read what I have posted. If you had, it would probably be more difficult to say that I am cherry picking or at least have a feeling that something more is going on here. There is a lot of hard working scientists doing the work, but most of the time, no one is putting all of the pieces together to see the big picture of things. LIeff is doing that and you can disagree with his interpretation of evidence, but cannot call him out on lack of evidence. And thinking outside of the box is important because the inside of the box oftentimes becomes a prison. If I am like so many before me, then why do you even bother with me. Finaly, if I am cherry picking, then so be it; put my information along with all of the rest and then you will have a better picture of reality. Discarding all that I have posted would be biasness.

Postscript: I believe in science, not all scientists. 

[Luc Turpin]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I believe a lot of things, almost always bc the argument is persuasive... 🙄

How can I be more persuasive than that; having posted so much information on the matter.

What I propose is going on here is more about my suggestion that something might be wrong about how we see the mind-brain connection than the actual argumentation itself.

Again, I did not wake up one day and say how about me telling the world that something is wrong with the conventional interpretation of mind-brain. It is after years of peering into studies and articles and documents that I came to the conclusion that there might be something more to this than what currently science has to offer as an explanation.

I might be incorrect in my assessment that something is wrong with conventional thinking, but I am firmer convinced that some evidence is not being taken into consideration in this interpretation.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Again, I did not wake up one day and say how about me telling the world that something is wrong with the conventional interpretation of mind-brain. It is after years of peering into studies and articles and documents that I came to the conclusion that there might be something more to this than what currently science has to offer as an explanation.

It does not really matter whether you looked at the matter for a long or short time. What is lacking is a true synthesis that a) highlights short-comings (which is the easy part) but also b) find evidence how a different viewpoint, in practice provides a better understanding of the matter. 

A big issue is that the links you provided are a bit disjointed and at times contradictory. A secondary issue is that often the language is vague, e.g. mixing up philosophic criticism on materialism with specific research questions.

Most importantly though, most offer a criticism of current thinking at best, but provide basically not information on how things would improve by taking another approach. Most importantly, while imperfect, the assumption of the brain has the center for cognitive processes is well supported. It is consistent with common and a wide range of observation (e.g. related to intoxication, things affecting memory, brain activity measurements, lesions, and so on). Science is never perfect, nor does it claim to be so. But in all the links there was virtually only one (shaky) report on one near-death experience that might contradict it. So we have huge body of evidence on the one side, and basically one narrative (with virtually no consistent replication) on the other. Thus looking at all the evidence holistically the preponderance of evidence clearly points to the relevance of the brain. 

So far, none of the various linke really provided even a bit of the explanatory power that modern neurobiology has provided. Questioning or criticizing limits of knowledge is the easy part. Building up useful knowledge is where the real challenge is.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Questioning or criticizing limits of knowledge is the easy part. Building up useful knowledge is where the real challenge is.

Any fool can knock down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one up. 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Any fool can knock down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one up. 

I am a lot of things, but a fool I am not. The science of the brain is sound; the science of the mind is questionnable. What I contest is not the hard science that has been going on, its the conclusions. I have read so many studies on the matter and said to myself how this or that experiment was clever or well done or detailed, etc. I do not want to demolish the fondation nor the structure. In fact, I do not want to demolish anything, but you look at it and say its a barn while I see a castle.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

It does not really matter whether you looked at the matter for a long or short time. What is lacking is a true synthesis that a) highlights short-comings (which is the easy part) but also b) find evidence how a different viewpoint, in practice provides a better understanding of the matter. 

A big issue is that the links you provided are a bit disjointed and at times contradictory. A secondary issue is that often the language is vague, e.g. mixing up philosophic criticism on materialism with specific research questions.

Most importantly though, most offer a criticism of current thinking at best, but provide basically not information on how things would improve by taking another approach. Most importantly, while imperfect, the assumption of the brain has the center for cognitive processes is well supported. It is consistent with common and a wide range of observation (e.g. related to intoxication, things affecting memory, brain activity measurements, lesions, and so on). Science is never perfect, nor does it claim to be so. But in all the links there was virtually only one (shaky) report on one near-death experience that might contradict it. So we have huge body of evidence on the one side, and basically one narrative (with virtually no consistent replication) on the other. Thus looking at all the evidence holistically the preponderance of evidence clearly points to the relevance of the brain. 

So far, none of the various linke really provided even a bit of the explanatory power that modern neurobiology has provided. Questioning or criticizing limits of knowledge is the easy part. Building up useful knowledge is where the real challenge is.

Thank you for the positive feedback. I need to think about your comments before moving to discussing them.

[Luc Turpin]

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

What is lacking is a true synthesis that a) highlights short-comings (which is the easy part) but also b) find evidence how a different viewpoint, in practice provides a better understanding of the matter. 

Questions: 1- that highlight the short-comings of my position? 2- find evidence of my viewpoint that provides a better understranding of the matter?

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

A big issue is that the links you provided are a bit disjointed and at times contradictory. A secondary issue is that often the language is vague, e.g. mixing up philosophic criticism on materialism with specific research questions.

If I may, please give an example?

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

Most importantly, while imperfect, the assumption of the brain has the center for cognitive processes is well supported. It is consistent with common and a wide range of observation (e.g. related to intoxication, things affecting memory, brain activity measurements, lesions, and so on.

When the radio is turned off or a part of the radio is broken, does the music still play, or play correctly? Does the radio wave disapears? Mind needs living matter to express itself; matter does not create mind; that is the hypothesis! And only experimental sutilties can differentiate from one or the other.

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

But in all the links there was virtually only one (shaky) report on one near-death experience that might contradict it. So we have huge body of evidence on the one side, and basically one narrative (with virtually no consistent replication) on the other. Thus looking at all the evidence holistically the preponderance of evidence clearly points to the relevance of the brain. 

 

I provided more than one report that seems to not contradict the mind from brain contention, but open up an avenue that it is not? And I believe that this avenue is worth being explored by contemporary neuroscience.

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

So far, none of the various linke really provided even a bit of the explanatory power that modern neurobiology has provided. Questioning or criticizing limits of knowledge is the easy part. Building up useful knowledge is where the real challenge is.

A work in progress by me, but mostly by others more capable than me.

 

[Luc Turpin]

Questions raised from my three-part segments of posts!

• Why have we not found the seat of consciousness in the brain?
• Why have we not determined how the brain creates consciousness?
• Why is there so much complexity in brain processes and in nature as a whole? Can this really be explained only through random processes and mechanistic principles? May there be something else at play?
• Why is consciousness always and independently popping up in nature?

Until such time as these questions remain unanswered, we cannot assuredly contend that mind indubitably comes from brain.

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Questions raised from my three-part segments of posts!

• Why have we not found the seat of consciousness in the brain?
• Why have we not determined how the brain creates consciousness?
• Why is there so much complexity in brain processes and in nature as a whole? Can this really be explained only through random processes and mechanistic principles? May there be something else at play?
• Why is consciousness always and independently popping up in nature?

Until such time as these questions remain unanswered, we cannot assuredly contend that mind indubitably comes from brain.

Why not?

• Quote

   

  • Why have we not found the seat of consciousness in the brain?
  • Why have we not determined how the brain creates consciousness?

   

  That's like asking, why isn't my foot just as likely to think for itself.

• Quote

  Why is there so much complexity in brain processes and in nature as a whole? 

  Because that's what it takes to make things work.

• Quote

  Can this really be explained only through random processes and mechanistic principles?

  Yes.

  Quote

   

  • May there be something else at play?

   

  Maybe, the anthill is conscious, it's like it built itself.

• Quote

  Why is consciousness always and independently popping up in nature?

  Mostly bc they have brain's, don't be confused by the apparent intelligence from those that don't... 🙄

 

 

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The science of the brain is sound; the science of the mind is questionnable

That distinction, between brain and mind, is an assumption you are making.  Your bias is towards dualism, so your phrasing implies that brain and mind are somehow different and should have different lines of inquiry.  As far as I can tell, the science of the brain IS the science of the mind, because mind is just an umbrella term for brain processes.  When the brain stops getting oxygen and nutrients, or when amyloid protein plaques wrap themselves around neurons,  these processes stop.  No intentions, volitions, memories, qualia, awareness...nothing.  The day that severe Alzheimer's patients start to miraculously wake up with their memories and personalities restored will be the day that there is an empirical basis for questioning brain-as-mind.  

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why not!

Let me rephrase; mind from brain can be in contention, but cannot be the only hypothesis, because it has not answered these questions

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's like asking, why isn't my foot just as likely to think for itself.

If we had found the seat of consciousness in the brain and understood how it does so, then it would be lights out for mind through brain. Its not in the foot, its either in the brain or maybe all over.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because that's what it takes to make things work.

And I contend that randomness is insufficient to make things work. For example, all of our thoughts almost instantaneously change the physical architecture of our brains. Are our thoughts all random? Is the physical architecture change of one's brain random? I think not!

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Maybe, the anthill is conscious, it's like it built itself

The anthill is not conscious, but the ants building the anthill are:

"Ants take direction from others, especially wise elders. Ants take care of their family like mammals. They communicate and make group decisions, led by the smartest in the hive. They will help stuck comrades with great effort and personal risk. They are responsive and flexible in new situations. If the nest is damaged, a group immediately goes to gather materials and others start fixing it. They cooperate and take directions from others in difficult situations.”

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

That distinction, between brain and mind, is an assumption you are making.  Your bias is towards dualism, so your phrasing implies that brain and mind are somehow different and should have different lines of inquiry.  As far as I can tell, the science of the brain IS the science of the mind, because mind is just an umbrella term for brain processes.  

The distinction that I am making is not two seperate entities but one is the hardware while the other is the software of the same thing. We have been very good at explaining the former, but not so much the latter; that is my contention. No need for dualism here. 

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

 When the brain stops getting oxygen and nutrients, or when amyloid protein plaques wrap themselves around neurons,  these processes stop.  No intentions, volitions, memories, qualia, awareness...nothing.  

When the radio is turned off, does music play? And does the radio signal disapear?

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

 The day that severe Alzheimer's patients start to miraculously wake up with their memories and personalities restored will be the day that there is an empirical basis for questioning brain-as-mind.  

You should investigate "terminal lucidity" in Alzheimer's patients

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/23/the-clouds-cleared-what-terminal-lucidity-teaches-us-about-life-death-and-dementia

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

If we had found the seat of consciousness in the brain and understood how it does so, then it would be lights out for mind through brain. Its not in the foot, its either in the brain or maybe all over.

I should add that this is not how the current line of though is on that subject. What I hear more frequently is that consciousness (to put a more specific term than mind to it), arises from distributed activities, which are predominantly neural in nature. This is not limited to the brain, but that is where signal across the body accumulates. There are multiple hypotheses regarding how the integration of these signals might arise in consciousness. A problem goes back to the definition of consciousness and how we can empirically measure them to test predictions. Competing theories focus on slightly different aspects, but there is now increasing calls to either unify them and/or test exactly where their predictions diverge. But in order for that to work they need to be measurable outcomes (e.g. brain activities and predictions on which areas should be active upon a given stimulus and for how long given the context).

Thus, the strength of all these hypotheses, as opposed to a vague distinction, is that we can actually predict what should happen, design an experiment where the conditions should be valid and then test if it happens. If we claim that there is an unmeasurable metaphysical component, it is akin to stating that we can only keep speculating but never figure it out. 

Here is a nice perspective paper that provides suggestions how to systematically evaluate competing theories on that matter: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3259

 

[Luc Turpin]

40 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I should add that this is not how the current line of though is on that subject. What I hear more frequently is that consciousness (to put a more specific term than mind to it), arises from distributed activities, which are predominantly neural in nature. This is not limited to the brain, but that is where signal across the body accumulates. There are multiple hypotheses regarding how the integration of these signals might arise in consciousness. A problem goes back to the definition of consciousness and how we can empirically measure them to test predictions. Competing theories focus on slightly different aspects, but there is now increasing calls to either unify them and/or test exactly where their predictions diverge. But in order for that to work they need to be measurable outcomes (e.g. brain activities and predictions on which areas should be active upon a given stimulus and for how long given the context).

Thus, the strength of all these hypotheses, as opposed to a vague distinction, is that we can actually predict what should happen, design an experiment where the conditions should be valid and then test if it happens. If we claim that there is an unmeasurable metaphysical component, it is akin to stating that we can only keep speculating but never figure it out. 

Here is a nice perspective paper that provides suggestions how to systematically evaluate competing theories on that matter: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3259

 

A very good summary of the situation. +1

Let me meditate on this before replying any further.

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

When the radio is turned off, does music play? And does the radio signal disapear?

It's intriguing, the radio signal hypothesis, but why should one appeal to a metaphysical conjecture at all?  

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

You should investigate "terminal lucidity" in Alzheimer's patients

Thanks, I am familiar with the phenomenon.  But the current research tends to reinforce my point that it just makes more sense to look at neurological correlates to these temporary "awakenings " than to appeal to metaphysical conjectures of brains-as-dualistic-radios.  

In 2021, a hypothesis was proposed that near-death discharges of neurotransmitters and corticotropin-releasing peptides act upon preserved circuits of the medial prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, promoting memory retrieval and mental clarity.   These would not be a genuine reversal of dementia but rather a period of unusual neural activity shortly preceding death.  Here is the paper..

https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/alz.12162

It may be hard to test such hypothesis, given the sensitivity to approaching patients and families during final days, but it is at least in principle a path to a scientific understanding.  (if this led to some treatment for dementia, no one would be happier than I to abandon the orthodox view of irreversibility)

 

 

 

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Thus, the strength of all these hypotheses, as opposed to a vague distinction, is that we can actually predict what should happen, design an experiment where the conditions should be valid and then test if it happens. If we claim that there is an unmeasurable metaphysical component, it is akin to stating that we can only keep speculating but never figure it out. 

Yes, well said.  There may be paths to metaphysical insight, but they seem to lie outside of science and very elusive in terms of reproducible results among people from different cultures.

[Luc Turpin]

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's intriguing, the radio signal hypothesis, but why should one appeal to a metaphysical conjecture at all?  

Never appealed to a metaphysical conjecture! Some forum members did this on my behalf. Mind through brain, whatever it is, a force, a field, might be better at explaining why we have not found the seat of consciousness in the brain, why we do not know how mind produces brain, what is driving the complexity in nature, why mind is popping up everywhere and independently from one event to another in nature, or better explain terminal lucidity or NDE's or death bed visions. Maybe, just maybe, but the avenue has potential.

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

Thanks, I am familiar with the phenomenon.  But the current research tends to reinforce my point that it just makes more sense to look at neurological correlates to these temporary "awakenings " than to appeal to metaphysical conjectures of brains-as-dualistic-radios.  

 

My reading of current research is that it could be either one, with the jury still out.

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

In 2021, a hypothesis was proposed that near-death discharges of neurotransmitters and corticotropin-releasing peptides act upon preserved circuits of the medial prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, promoting memory retrieval and mental clarity.   These would not be a genuine reversal of dementia but rather a period of unusual neural activity shortly preceding death.  Here is the paper...

 

An unproven hypothesis as you indicate. No amount of neurotransmitters and corticotropin-releasing peptides can do much when the brain, including the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus are on fire as it is the case in late stage alzheimer's disease. Where would the neurotransmitters go if connections are severed? If it was indeed an upsurge in chemicals in a damaged brain, some but not all functions would come back online. However, some cases of terminal lucidity describe individuals coming back to life as they were before (e.g. personality intact). 

 

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

If we claim that there is an unmeasurable metaphysical component, it is akin to stating that we can only keep speculating but never figure it out.

 

I claim that mind can be inderctly measured, which would contribute in figuring out more than just ignoring it's subjective nature as we are doing right now. We cannot see nor touch gravity, but we have been studying and have a very good understanding of it.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Maybe, just maybe, but the avenue has potential.

You can't claim this without being able to point to success this approach has had somewhere. Anywhere.

Quote

we do not know how mind produces brain

Wait, what?

Does anyone think mind produces brain?

 

Back on page 1 you were asked to clarify what you were talking about. Did you ever actually define what you mean by "mind"? You said it was not just consciousness, but we know where in the brain the areas for speech and memory are, along with judgment, thinking and reasoning, problem-solving, emotions and learning. Surely these are aspects of "mind"

 

[Luc Turpin]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can't claim this without being able to point to success this approach has had somewhere. Anywhere.

Wait, what?

Does anyone think mind produces brain?

 

Back on page 1 you were asked to clarify what you were talking about. Did you ever actually define what you mean by "mind"? You said it was not just consciousness, but we know where in the brain the areas for speech and memory are, along with judgment, thinking and reasoning, problem-solving, emotions and learning. Surely these are aspects of "mind"

 

1- You are right; need to ponder that one!

2- Got it wrong; meant how brain produces mind. 

3- Mind is being conscious, being able to think, being able to reason, to learn to feel; all the subjective good stuff that brain produces or that mind is able to produce through brain.

It's also the "I" in the machine!

[Luc Turpin]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

You can't claim this without being able to point to success this approach has had somewhere. Anywhere.

After thinking about it and some research I will change my statement "Maybe, just maybe, but the avenue may very well show potential in the future.