Mind

[Boltzmannbrain]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Please explain!

Wikipedia says it well in their Quantum Mind page,

Quote

The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that local physical laws and interactions from classical mechanics or connections between neurons alone cannot explain consciousness,^[1] positing instead that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition that cause nonlocalized quantum effects, interacting in smaller features of the brain than cells, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain critical aspects of consciousness.

It's still early, but there have been some interesting progress towards the possibility of QM as a functional part of the brain that correlates to consciousness. 

[Luc Turpin]

9 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Please pardon this late response:

I agree with iNow, you appear to be conflating mind with consciousness as a singular concept; therefore, before I proceed further, let me provide some clarity on how I perceive these distinct qualities.  You've title this discussion thread with "Mind" and have cited research in neuroscience as a basis for your perspective.  If our discussion regards the mind with a basis in neuroscience then this discussion does indeed involve brain function.  Specifically, mind and consciousness does not exist without brain function.  More specifically, consciousness is the progenitor of that quality or attribute we perceive as the mind.  For clarity sake, we should define the relative and basic nature of consciousness in brain function.

Consciousness isn't a quality unique to humans. From my view, consciousness is merely the awareness suggested by an organism's responses to stimuli.  To respond to stimuli, an organism must have an sensory system for the detection of stimuli.  In addition to a sensory detection system, an organism must also have a system that provides recipracol responses to detected stimuli.  In the brain, we have afferent neural pathways for the delivery of sensory into our central nervous system and efferent pathways for the recipracol responses that issue from our central nervous system. The effect of this diametrical system is that the action of one of these systems does not engage without the action of the other--essentially, there is no efferent response from the brain without afferent stimulation.

Consciousness is the efferently expressed behavior that suggests awareness and awareness is the basic progenitor of those processing in the brain that lead to the quality we perceive as having a mind.  To add emphasis, the entirety of this process requires energy and without that energy the system fails.  With brain function--and yes, this is about the brain--failure is not a option. Homeostasis is the process that drives brain function. 

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.

 

8 hours ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Wikipedia says it well in their Quantum Mind page,

It's still early, but there have been some interesting progress towards the possibility of QM as a functional part of the brain that correlates to consciousness. 

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. 

 

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I now understand why iNow (I think) was bringing homeostasis in the discussion.

Credit for that belongs with DrmDoc

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Credit for that belongs with DrmDoc

Noted

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

 

[sethoflagos]

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Consciousness is the efferently expressed behavior that suggests awareness and awareness is the basic progenitor of those processing in the brain that lead to the quality we perceive as having a mind.  To add emphasis, the entirety of this process requires energy and without that energy the system fails.  With brain function--and yes, this is about the brain--failure is not a option. Homeostasis is the process that drives brain function.

By no means do I have any particular expertise in this area. However some years ago I went through a spell of being subject to occasional bouts of sudden neurally mediated syncope: temporary blackouts, a bit like someone hitting the reset button without warning.

The way it was explained to me at the time was that I was experiencing (or rather, not experiencing) a temporary glitch in my ascending reticular activating system (ARAS), also known as the extrathalamic control modulatory system or simply the reticular activating system (RAS). Any partial loss of ARAS functionality tends to produce a corresponding reduction in degree of consciousness ranging from attentional dysregulation to sleep pattern issues through to deep coma. Brainstem features upstream of this structure were broadly sufficient to maintain life without consciousness. Therefore ARAS provided the gateway to all aspects of consciousness in areas of the brain downstream of it.

I do hope I got this right, as it provides some sound constraints on the physical location of consciousness, and the degree of consciousness that may be experienced by other species. Lab experiments in this area seem to involve cats quite frequently. 

 

 

[DrmDoc]

42 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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).

My view of consciousness regards the most basic form of awareness as suggested by an organism's observed behavioral reactions.  Truly, we cannot determine whether an organism has even the smallest measure of consciousness without observable behavioral responses to its environment.  From my perspective, consciousness doesn't necessarily confer intelligence.  Intelligence is a subjective measure based on observable behaviors suggesting a thought process and having a thought process is exclusive to having a mind.  A mind, from my view, is that mental matrix arising from brain function that give rise to behaviors we perceive as thought and intelligent.  Nevertheless, I agree that consciousness in its most basic form is not exclusive to having a brain; however, for human equivalent consciousness, some form of brain or neural function is essential. 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

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. 

Thought, in my view, arises from a matrix of biological processes within the brain involving a recipracol metabolic system of checks and balances (homeostasis).  I would prefer not to speak too much about this system as it's basic implications are most unsettling.  However, if we agree that basic consciousness is the progenitor of the mind and the mind the progenitor of thought, then none of these are observable without responses to stimuli. Indeed, there are responses to stimuli that appear mindless, which we confer as instinct; however, mindful responses confer a thought process, which is a quality that appears contrary to instinctive and reactive behaviors.  If the behaviors we observe in other living things are contrary to those we confer as instinctive, then it's most likely that their behaviors doesn't confer thinking.  But most living things are complex and function through a combination of instinct and thought.  A bird, for example, may be instinctively driven to build a nest while its seemingly thoughtful behaviors in choosing the materials to build that nest suggest otherwise--indeed, there is more than mindless reactiveness occurring.

29 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

By no means do I have any particular expertise in this area. However some years ago I went through a spell of being subject to occasional bouts of sudden neurally mediated syncope: temporary blackouts, a bit like someone hitting the reset button without warning.

The way it was explained to me at the time was that I was experiencing (or rather, not experiencing) a temporary glitch in my ascending reticular activating system (ARAS), also known as the extrathalamic control modulatory system or simply the reticular activating system (RAS). Any partial loss of ARAS functionality tends to produce a corresponding reduction in degree of consciousness ranging from attentional dysregulation to sleep pattern issues through to deep coma. Brainstem features upstream of this structure were broadly sufficient to maintain life without consciousness. Therefore ARAS provided the gateway to all aspects of consciousness in areas of the brain downstream of it.

I do hope I got this right, as it provides some sound constraints on the physical location of consciousness, and the degree of consciousness that may be experienced by other species. Lab experiments in this area seem to involve cats quite frequently. 

In the early days of my study of the dreaming brain, the RAS was a focal in understanding of the sleep process and its association with atonia amid that process.  IMO, there's so little regards given in science to the brainstem and particularly its crown, the thalamus.  There is more than considerable research suggesting that thalamic function is sufficient to viably sustain life in the absence of major cortical structures.

[Luc Turpin]

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

[Boltzmannbrain]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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. 

 

I don't know what you mean when you say that it is not "part of it". 

 

 

[Luc Turpin]

46 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I don't know what you mean when you say that it is not "part of it". 

 

 

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.

 

[Boltzmannbrain]

2 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

My view of consciousness regards the most basic form of awareness as suggested by an organism's observed behavioral reactions.  Truly, we cannot determine whether an organism has even the smallest measure of consciousness without observable behavioral responses to its environment.  From my perspective, consciousness doesn't necessarily confer intelligence.  Intelligence is a subjective measure based on observable behaviors suggesting a thought process and having a thought process is exclusive to having a mind.  A mind, from my view, is that mental matrix arising from brain function that give rise to behaviors we perceive as thought and intelligent.  Nevertheless, I agree that consciousness in its most basic form is not exclusive to having a brain; however, for human equivalent consciousness, some form of brain or neural function is essential. 

Thought, in my view, arises from a matrix of biological processes within the brain involving a recipracol metabolic system of checks and balances (homeostasis).  I would prefer not to speak too much about this system as it's basic implications are most unsettling.  However, if we agree that basic consciousness is the progenitor of the mind and the mind the progenitor of thought, then none of these are observable without responses to stimuli. Indeed, there are responses to stimuli that appear mindless, which we confer as instinct; however, mindful responses confer a thought process, which is a quality that appears contrary to instinctive and reactive behaviors.  If the behaviors we observe in other living things are contrary to those we confer as instinctive, then it's most likely that their behaviors doesn't confer thinking.  But most living things are complex and function through a combination of instinct and thought.  A bird, for example, may be instinctively driven to build a nest while its seemingly thoughtful behaviors in choosing the materials to build that nest suggest otherwise--indeed, there is more than mindless reactiveness occurring.

In the early days of my study of the dreaming brain, the RAS was a focal in understanding of the sleep process and its association with atonia amid that process.  IMO, there's so little regards given in science to the brainstem and particularly its crown, the thalamus.  There is more than considerable research suggesting that thalamic function is sufficient to viably sustain life in the absence of major cortical structures.

You seem well versed on this subject.  I am interested to know if you are a epiphenomenalist (just means that the mind is only a property of brain functions and has no influence at all) or something else.   

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

By no means do I have any particular expertise in this area. However some years ago I went through a spell of being subject to occasional bouts of sudden neurally mediated syncope: temporary blackouts, a bit like someone hitting the reset button without warning.

The way it was explained to me at the time was that I was experiencing (or rather, not experiencing) a temporary glitch in my ascending reticular activating system (ARAS), also known as the extrathalamic control modulatory system or simply the reticular activating system (RAS). Any partial loss of ARAS functionality tends to produce a corresponding reduction in degree of consciousness ranging from attentional dysregulation to sleep pattern issues through to deep coma. Brainstem features upstream of this structure were broadly sufficient to maintain life without consciousness. Therefore ARAS provided the gateway to all aspects of consciousness in areas of the brain downstream of it.

I do hope I got this right, as it provides some sound constraints on the physical location of consciousness, and the degree of consciousness that may be experienced by other species. Lab experiments in this area seem to involve cats quite frequently. 

 

 

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.

6 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

You seem well versed on this subject.  I am interested to know if you are a epiphenomenalist (just means that the mind is only a property of brain functions and has no influence at all) or something else.   

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.

[Boltzmannbrain]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

 

Okay, I understand now.  Physicists can be a funny bunch (they are very smart; don't get me wrong).  But they seem to automatically take on a hardcore physicalism approach - at first!  I notice that the physicists that are well versed in philosophy too, have a much much more "open" approach to mind-body possibilities.  

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Well that seems like a very reasonable position. 

My position takes it a step further which is just based on my reasoning.  I think that it is more likely than not that the consciousness is more fundamental to matter than a living organism (yes I am a *type* panpsychist).  Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever be able to gather evidence of whether or not something is consciousness (has a mind).  I just don't see how we could detect something so evasive like a conscious mind.

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

My view of consciousness regards the most basic form of awareness as suggested by an organism's observed behavioral reactions.  Truly, we cannot determine whether an organism has even the smallest measure of consciousness without observable behavioral responses to its environment.  From my perspective, consciousness doesn't necessarily confer intelligence.  Intelligence is a subjective measure based on observable behaviors suggesting a thought process and having a thought process is exclusive to having a mind.  A mind, from my view, is that mental matrix arising from brain function that give rise to behaviors we perceive as thought and intelligent.  Nevertheless, I agree that consciousness in its most basic form is not exclusive to having a brain; however, for human equivalent consciousness, some form of brain or neural function is essential. 

Thought, in my view, arises from a matrix of biological processes within the brain involving a recipracol metabolic system of checks and balances (homeostasis).  I would prefer not to speak too much about this system as it's basic implications are most unsettling.  However, if we agree that basic consciousness is the progenitor of the mind and the mind the progenitor of thought, then none of these are observable without responses to stimuli. Indeed, there are responses to stimuli that appear mindless, which we confer as instinct; however, mindful responses confer a thought process, which is a quality that appears contrary to instinctive and reactive behaviors.  If the behaviors we observe in other living things are contrary to those we confer as instinctive, then it's most likely that their behaviors doesn't confer thinking.  But most living things are complex and function through a combination of instinct and thought.  A bird, for example, may be instinctively driven to build a nest while its seemingly thoughtful behaviors in choosing the materials to build that nest suggest otherwise--indeed, there is more than mindless reactiveness occurring.

In the early days of my study of the dreaming brain, the RAS was a focal in understanding of the sleep process and its association with atonia amid that process.  IMO, there's so little regards given in science to the brainstem and particularly its crown, the thalamus.  There is more than considerable research suggesting that thalamic function is sufficient to viably sustain life in the absence of major cortical structures.

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.

13 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Okay, I understand now.  Physicists can be a funny bunch (they are very smart; don't get me wrong).  But they seem to automatically take on a hardcore physicalism approach - at first!  I notice that the physicists that are well versed in philosophy too, have a much much more "open" approach to mind-body possibilities.  

Well that seems like a very reasonable position. 

My position takes it a step further which is just based on my reasoning.  I think that it is more likely than not that the consciousness is more fundamental to matter than a living organism (yes I am a *type* panpsychist).  Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever be able to gather evidence of whether or not something is consciousness (has a mind).  I just don't see how we could detect something so evasive like a conscious mind.

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.

[sethoflagos]

43 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Specifically, it links the midbrain and pons to the cerebral cortex.

43 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

These conditions are specifically linked to ARAS.

43 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Where is the center of mind or consciousness in the brain remains uncertain.

My money is on an emergence from the sum of all activity in the cerebral cortex with ARAS acting as a kind of switchboard/fusebox. The Fat Controller must have an office very nearby I think. As an engineer, that's where I'd put him.

Edited December 16, 2023 by sethoflagos

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Where is the center of mind or consciousness in the brain remains uncertain.

What makes you think there’s any “center” at all? Why couldn’t it be like the universe itself which has no center? 

You keep claiming that you are compelled by evidence wherever it may lead, but you also appear to make multiple logical leaps and unfounded assumptions regarding spaces where there simply isn’t any. 

Anyway, why assume there’s a “center” we can point to and call it a mind? Why wouldn’t it be more like highway traffic that involves lots of cars and different movements of them?

Have you already dismissed my recommendation of the cerebellum as the mostly likely answer if there is a center?

Edited December 16, 2023 by iNow

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

My money is on an emergence from the sum of all activity in the cerebral cortex with ARAS acting as a kind of switchboard/fusebox. The Fat Controller must have an office very nearby I think. As an engineer, that's where I'd put him.

I also think that some sort of integrated system is at play, but nothing confirmed so far.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

What makes you think there’s any “center” at all? Why couldn’t it be like the universe itself which has no center? 

You keep claiming that you are compelled by evidence wherever it may lead, but you also appear to make multiple logical leaps and unfounded assumptions regarding spaces where there simply isn’t any. 

Anyway, who assume there’s a “center” we can point to and call it a mind? Why wouldn’t it be more like highway traffic that involves lots of cars and different movements of them?

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 

 

[sethoflagos]

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

also think that some sort of integrated system is at play, but nothing confirmed so far.

Nothing is a strong word. @iNow's comment is not to be dismissed lightly:

51 minutes ago, iNow said:

Have you already dismissed my recommendation of the cerebellum as the mostly likely answer if there is a center?

There is considerable evidence of the cerebrocerebellum playing an executive role in the planning of motor actions. It may be far from the whole picture, but it certainly appears to be apart of it. 

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Nothing is a strong word. @iNow's comment is not to be dismissed lightly:

There is considerable evidence of the cerebrocerebellum playing an executive role in the planning of motor actions. It may be far from the whole picture, but it certainly appears to be apart of it. 

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.

[DrmDoc]

5 hours ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

You seem well versed on this subject.  I am interested to know if you are a epiphenomenalist (just means that the mind is only a property of brain functions and has no influence at all) or something else.   

Indeed, in sense, I am.  I perceived the mind as only a property of brain function but this doesn't suggest that it has no influence.  This influence of the mind is conveyed by the thoughtful behaviors its activity produces.  From the outset of any cogent perspective, we cannot assess an organism as having a mind without observable behaviors suggesting that indeed it does.  From a human perspective, the behaviors most indicative of a mind are those that suggest a thought process as opposed those that are clearly reflexive; i.e., instinctive, preprogrammed responses. For example, it's instinctive to have fear, but with a mind we are able to mediate our responses to fear.  A mind is necessarily a property of a complex central nervous system that, for humans, requires a brain.

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

There are organisms that react to their environment, but their actions do not necessarily suggest they posess a mind.  A flower, for example, may open its petals to sunlight but this action alone doesn't suggest that flower has a mind. What this action do suggest is the flower's awareness of its sunny environment.

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Third paragraph, please tell me more as this is one of many areas that I need to comprehend much better.

 We were discussing an aspect of the brainstem and its association with wakeful behavior, but as the origin of the property we call mind, it's contributes to the confluence of neural activity that produces a mind but is not the source of the mind. Mind, as I've frequently opined, is a matrix.  From my perspective, the capacity to produce a mental matrix didn't evolve until the emergence of the thalamus.  The thalamus is where all our sensory information, except olfactory, arrives in the brain before reaching the cortex.  Research has shown no activity occurs in the cortex without a neural connection to the thalamus and damage to the thalamus is deadly; whereas, significat cortical damage isn't necessarily fatal.

[iNow]

One of my professors used to say that all roads lead to thalamus. She obviously didn’t have a taste for the powers of the nose to smell out a shortcut. 

[Luc Turpin]

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

 We were discussing an aspect of the brainstem and its association with wakeful behavior, but as the origin of the property we call mind, it's contributes to the confluence of neural activity that produces a mind but is not the source of the mind. Mind, as I've frequently opined, is a matrix.  From my perspective, the capacity to produce a mental matrix didn't evolve until the emergence of the thalamus.  The thalamus is where all our sensory information, except olfactory, arrives in the brain before reaching the cortex.  Research has shown no activity occurs in the cortex without a neural connection to the thalamus and damage to the thalamus is deadly; whereas, significat cortical damage isn't necessarily fatal.

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?

[Luc Turpin]

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.

 

[DrmDoc]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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?

From my perspective, the mind is not a property that's separate from the organism that produces it.  Different species may have difference neural or sensory structures that operate similar to those that produce a mind in humans; therefore, we cannot always expect to find the structures in other animals like those structures that produces a mind for humans.  What we are only able to do is examine other species behaviors then investigate their anatomy for the structures and developments that produce those behaviors.

The only evidence that an organism produces a mind is suggested by our subjective assessment of its behaviors.  If we agree that for humans a mind is indicative of behaviors that suggest a thought process, we only need to examine the neurological components of our central nervous system that may contribute to those behaviors.  Understanding the mental matrix that originates thought processes cannot be simply explained in just a few words here; however, all roads to that understanding begins with a perspective on how the human brain likely evolved.

When we examine our central nervous system, we see that it comprises components we consider primitive and those we consider more recent in its development.  If we trace these components by their functional contributions from recent to primitive, we get a sense of the stages of brain development leading to the emergence of a mind.  Advisedly, this is not a suggestion that our brains structure and development involved a linear path of evolution, but they do identify prominent stages in its development that had to be in place before others could emerge.  The functions of each of these developments comprises a matrix of brain activity that eventually evolved to produce a mind.  It would require more time than I have here to explore each of the prominent functional stages in brain evolution leading to mind production, so I'll skip ahead just a bit.

By the time our central nervous system arrived at the stage of thalamic development, evolution had produced a structure capable of merging diverse sensory experiences and initiating responses to those experiences.  However, it is likely that the thalamus was incapable of producing the thought-driven behaviors suggestive of mind production.  Mind production, from my perspective of brain evolution, began with the emergence and merging of visual sensory and then components of the brain associated with memory.  Visual sensory was key because it gave an organism the ability to assess the necessity of its reactions to tactile stimuli.  This was important because up to the stage of visual sensory detection all other forms of sensory detection was tactile.  To the brain evolution of humans, no other stage was more important to the emergence of mind production than sight.  

Edited December 17, 2023 by DrmDoc
Removed posting error

[Luc Turpin]

19 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

From my perspective, the mind is not a property that's separate from the organism that produces it.  Different species may have difference neural or sensory structures that operate similar to those that produce a mind in humans; therefore, we cannot always expect to find the structures in other animals like those structures that produces a mind for humans.  What we are only able to do is examine other species behaviors then investigate their anatomy for the structures and developments that produce those behaviors.

The only evidence that an organism produces a mind is suggested by our subjective assessment of its behaviors.  If we agree that for humans a mind is indicative of behaviors that suggest a thought process, we only need to examine the neurological components of our central nervous system that may contribute to those behaviors.  Understanding the mental matrix that originates thought processes cannot be simply explained in just a few words here; however, all roads to that understanding begins with a perspective on how the human brain likely evolved.

When we examine our central nervous system, we see that it comprises components we consider primitive and those we consider more recent in its development.  If we trace these components by their functional contributions from recent to primitive, we get a sense of the stages of brain development leading to the emergence of a mind.  Advisedly, this is not a suggestion that our brains structure and development involved a linear path of evolution, but they do identify prominent stages in its development that had to be in place before others could emerge.  The functions of each of these developments comprises a matrix of brain activity that eventually evolved to produce a mind.  It would require more time than I have here to explore each of the prominent functional stages in brain evolution leading to mind production, so I'll skip ahead just a bit.

By the time our central nervous system arrived at the stage of thalamic development, evolution had produced a structure capable of merging diverse sensory experiences and initiating responses to those experiences.  However, it is likely that the thalamus was incapable of producing the thought-driven behaviors suggestive of mind production.  Mind production, from my perspective of brain evolution, began with the emergence and merging of visual sensory and then components of the brain associated with memory.  Visual sensory was key because it gave an organism the ability to assess the necessity of its reactions to tactile stimuli.  This was important because up to the stage of visual sensory detection all other forms of sensory detection was tactile.  To the brain evolution of humans, no other stage was more important to the emergence of mind production than sight.  

   

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!

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Why assume they are not already doing this, or have not already been doing exactly this for decades?

Edited December 18, 2023 by iNow