Mind

[Luc Turpin]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

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

Mind-brain theory has a lot of catching up to do with what observation and findings are telling us about it.

A minority still believe that mind  is strictly restricted to brains, and an artifact of it. I am not so sure about this anymore.

[iNow]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Mind-brain theory has a lot of catching up to do with what observation and findings are telling us about it

So says you. I’m challenging this assertion. You’re making broad sweeping and dismissive claims about an entire field of study. 

It’s far more likely that MANY researchers are doing this already and you’re simply unaware of their work. 

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

A minority still believe that mind  is strictly restricted to brains, and an artifact of it.

And I’m sure you have numbers to support the assertion this population makes a minority?

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, iNow said:

So says you. I’m challenging this assertion. You’re making broad sweeping and dismissive claims about an entire field of study. 

It’s far more likely that MANY researchers are doing this already and you’re simply unaware of their work. 

It is helpful for debate to be challenged.

Yes, I am making broad claims because this is a forum and it is good for discussion. I do not pretend that all of my claims are 100% accurate, hence the need for discussion and challenge. And my claims would not make it in the scientific literature , without insurmountable evidence, but again this is a forum.

if I am incorrect in this assertion, forum administrators will advise me and I will make a course correction.

Also, no, I am not dismissive as I consider any objections to my claims as being constructive and in need of consideration.

As for many researchers doing it and me just being unaware, I hope that you are right and I wrong, but I don’t see it as much as it being deserved in the literature that I consult.

Finally, neuroscientists are doing their best at keeping abreast of ever faster new scientific discoveries, hence again the need to pause once in a while to reassess the situation.

 

[iNow]

Not seeing any support for your assertion, just a bunch of waffling. 

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not seeing any support for your assertion, just a bunch of waffling. 

I respectfully beg to differ!

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

if I am incorrect in this assertion, forum administrators will advise me and I will make a course correction.

!

Moderator Note

Staff doesn't judge the correctness of the information you present (the membership is better for this), but rather enforces our rules about supporting the assertions you make. It's frustrating when someone makes an assertion but won't show the evidence that convinced them. 

Opinions are fine as long as we all know they're opinions, but when you make a hard claim, you should link to or present the evidence on which you based it.

 

37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind-brain theory has a lot of catching up to do with what observation and findings are telling us about it.

This, for instance, seems like a specious claim, one that sounds reasonable until you look harder at it. Do you have any articles that also make this claim? What is "a lot of catching up"? There are whole university courses and many graduate students studying this, so how are observation and findings lagging behind so badly? Do you have any evidence that researchers are doing the experiments and getting the measurements but are failing to advance the theory?

[Luc Turpin]

I provided a total of 55 references on where is mind in brain, where is mind in nature and how mind is produced in brain (see original post). I guess that not everyone looked into them.This is my starting basis for claims that I make. Some are more scientific than others. If it is insufficient, I can add more. And this is the evidence that support the claim that we should have a different take on mind-brain connection. 

I can try and find articles for my assertion (your second post), but this was based on comments made by some, not many,  in the neuroscientific field..They also contend that there is a lot of catching up to do.

the assertion that theory does not match evidence is my own with the assistance of evidence found in some of the references provided and assertions made again by some in the neuroscience field.

I can change tack if required.

finally, I knew at the very first posting, that this would be a controversial topic, but a discussion on it is still warranted.

i seek your guidance or can withdraw if asked.

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I provided a total of 55 references on where is mind in brain, where is mind in nature and how mind is produced in brain (see original post). I guess that not everyone looked into them.

Or we did and didn't find anything to support your claims that "Mind-brain theory has a lot of catching up to do with what observation and findings are telling us about it." Can you highlight the reference for this? It's very helpful to provide a link, and even more helpful to call out the particular bits that support you:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929314000048

Quote

Here we extend the distinct predictions made by each theory to the neural level, describe neuroimaging evidence that in principle would be relevant to testing each account, and discuss such evidence where it exists. 

 

[Luc Turpin]

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Staff doesn't judge the correctness of the information you present (the membership is better for this), but rather enforces our rules about supporting the assertions you make. It's frustrating when someone makes an assertion but won't show the evidence that convinced them. 

Opinions are fine as long as we all know they're opinions, but when you make a hard claim, you should link to or present the evidence on which you based it.

 

This, for instance, seems like a specious claim, one that sounds reasonable until you look harder at it. Do you have any articles that also make this claim? What is "a lot of catching up"? There are whole university courses and many graduate students studying this, so how are observation and findings lagging behind so badly? Do you have any evidence that researchers are doing the experiments and getting the measurements but are failing to advance the theory?

 

•  
• Senior Members
• •  4
  •  107

• Author

Posted just now

I provided a total of 55 references on where is mind in brain, where is mind in nature and how mind is produced in brain (see original post). I guess that not everyone looked into them.This is my starting basis for claims that I make. Some are more scientific than others. If it is insufficient, I can add more. And this is the evidence that support the claim that we should have a different take on mind-brain connection. 

I can try and find articles for my assertion (your second post), but this was based on comments made by some, not many,  in the neuroscientific field..They also contend that there is a lot of catching up to do.

the assertion that theory does not match evidence is my own with the assistance of evidence found in some of the references provided and assertions made again by some in the neuroscience field.

I can change tack if required.

finally, I knew at the very first posting, that this would be a controversial topic, but a discussion on it is still warranted.

i seek your guidance or can withdraw if asked.

Apologies for submitting by error the same post twice.

Also, I am French and this is not my preferred writing language.

I do not wish to be right, or defensive,  but to explain only 

the 55 references that I posted were to back my claims on where is mind in brain, where is mind in nature and how does mind work through brains, not on my claim that science has a lot of catching up to do. This is mine and some neuroscientists point of view, and stand behind it and assume responsibility for it. But, I am open to the possibility that I was wrong in claiming this without providing direct evidence. However,  I have been following other threads and have seen circumstances where claims are made without background..

my original intention in posting on mind was to offer some evidence on a controversial issue (consciousness), have a fruitful discussion as I am having with some members and change someone and myself stance on the subject matter based on discussion and evidence.

I am now pondering what to do next or how to proceed moving forward.

Looking at the references and thread could be helpful.

 

 

 

Please read only second part of post as first part is a repeat.

[Luc Turpin]

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929314000048

 

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

also, read only second part of my last post as the first part is a repeat.

did not want to be such a bother

[Luc Turpin]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150605/full

 

This summarizes my position. Please read it to understand where I and some scientists are coming from!

 

On cerebellum – from the article link above –

 

‘For example, the cerebellum is almost exclusively dedicated to motor control functions, and its impairment leads to equilibrium and movement disorders. However, it does not affect one’s state of consciousness. Its role in ‘generating’ experience seems to be marginal, if any. There are also rare cases of people who live without a cerebellum (‘cerebellar agenesis’) and have only mild or moderate motor deficits or other types of disorders (Feng et al., 2015). This is a fact that seemingly confirms the brain’s proverbial neuro-plasticity, which we will see next through other extraordinary examples.’

 

On thalamus – from the article link above

 

‘The thalamus is responsible for sensory information processing. It is known that its main job is to function as a relay and feedback station between sensory brain areas and the cerebral cortex. For example, it functions as a hub between the optical nerves that transport the visual information coming from our retinas to the visual cortex. Even if one remained conscious by turning down the functionality of the thalamus, one would no longer see anything because the neural pathways between the retina and the visual cortex are interrupted. From that, however, nobody would conclude that the thalamus is the seat of the visual experience for which the visual cortex is responsible, as we know that it is a ‘hub,’ a ‘transducer’ or a ‘filter.’ From this perspective, the thalamus’ function is to ‘integrate’ the information flow of the several brain areas; if this is disrupted, it leads to a ‘loss’ of consciousness.

Thus, these findings do not tell us much about the generation of conscious experience. However, if there is not one single ‘seat of consciousness,’ could it be that the combination and activity of some or all of the different brain areas do ‘produce’ the subjective experience?’

 

Both topics covered in the Mind thread!

Still looking for an article stating that new findings are not yet integrated into theory. However, I still hold the claim that through the numerous readings that I did, it appears to be the case – my statement.

From now on, I will not take for granted that initial references in first post were consulted.

 

 

Got it

'While these (mostly ignored) findings",

From summary of same article referenced above.

[iNow]

Well, this sure is a fun and enriching way to spend my time. 

[DrmDoc]

9 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

   

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!

How our brain creates mind involves its capacity to generate responses to stimuli based on a caparative assessment of that stimuli.  For example, we may instinctively react to an unexpected loud pop while our back is turned; however, if we are able see the source of this loud pop before it occurs, we can mediate how we react to that sound.  The ability to mediated our responses is what having a mind does.  This mediation involves a subtle caparative assessment between the sight and sound of our experiences coupled with memory of prior experiences.  This is a simple example of the thought processes our brain engages unconsciously as a reflex to sensory intake. 

On a metabolic level, the delivery of sensory stimuli into to our central nervous system, and the brain in particular, requires energy.  Our brain's responses to that stimuli also requires energy.  Our brain will keep generating energetic neural responses to that energy depleting stimuli until the impact of that stimuli is mediated.  Essentially, thought processes for our brain is a metabolic process involving the mediation of sensory stimuli.  This process explains why at just about 5% of our body mass, our brain consumes about 20% of our total energy uptake.

I agree, having a brain is not essential to behaviors that infer consciousness (awareness).  Further, I agree that a brain is not essential to the production of behaviors that infer a mind; however, having physical, internal or systemic structures capable of producing behaviors suggestive of either or both is indeed essential.  For organisms other than human, a brain may not be necessary to produce behaviors suggestive of awareness or a thought process, but it is necessary that these organisms have a physiology or the structures capable of generating those behaviors that suggest awareness and/or a thought process. 

Indeed, the pleasure of our discussion was all mine!

[DrmDoc]

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

How our brain creates mind involves its capacity to generate responses to stimuli based on a caparative assessment of that stimuli.  For example, we may instinctively react to an unexpected loud pop while our back is turned; however, if we are able see the source of this loud pop before it occurs, we can mediate how we react to that sound.  The ability to mediated our responses is what having a mind does.  This mediation involves a subtle caparative assessment between the sight and sound of our experiences coupled with memory of prior experiences.  This is a simple example of the thought processes our brain engages unconsciously as a reflex to sensory intake. 

 

I have a habit of re-reading my comments and I often cringe at minor mistakes I make in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.  I will leave minor errors in place when they do not significantly distract from my conveyance of meaning; however, caparative is not the word I intended here. In the above paragraph, the word should have been comparative as I meant a process of evaluating similar and dissimilar qualities.  My apologies for the confusion.

[Luc Turpin]

12 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

How our brain creates mind involves its capacity to generate responses to stimuli based on a caparative assessment of that stimuli.  For example, we may instinctively react to an unexpected loud pop while our back is turned; however, if we are able see the source of this loud pop before it occurs, we can mediate how we react to that sound.  The ability to mediated our responses is what having a mind does.  This mediation involves a subtle caparative assessment between the sight and sound of our experiences coupled with memory of prior experiences.  This is a simple example of the thought processes our brain engages unconsciously as a reflex to sensory intake. 

On a metabolic level, the delivery of sensory stimuli into to our central nervous system, and the brain in particular, requires energy.  Our brain's responses to that stimuli also requires energy.  Our brain will keep generating energetic neural responses to that energy depleting stimuli until the impact of that stimuli is mediated.  Essentially, thought processes for our brain is a metabolic process involving the mediation of sensory stimuli.  This process explains why at just about 5% of our body mass, our brain consumes about 20% of our total energy uptake.

I agree, having a brain is not essential to behaviors that infer consciousness (awareness).  Further, I agree that a brain is not essential to the production of behaviors that infer a mind; however, having physical, internal or systemic structures capable of producing behaviors suggestive of either or both is indeed essential.  For organisms other than human, a brain may not be necessary to produce behaviors suggestive of awareness or a thought process, but it is necessary that these organisms have a physiology or the structures capable of generating those behaviors that suggest awareness and/or a thought process. 

Indeed, the pleasure of our discussion was all mine!

I agree on the three main points of your post: 1-responses to stimuli based on a comparative assessment; 2- brain energy requirements; 3- need of a physical entity for brain.

And to provide us with more matter (pardon the pun) for discussion, I am providing key information that I obtained from the article that I referenced earlier.  https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150605/full. Some elements of the article also validate some of the claims that I made earlier in our discussion.

• No evidence of a single brain region, area, organ, anatomical feature;
• From single brain region, to compartmentalized to a network system for consciousness without consensus;

• No brain region does only one thing; no neurons have only one function.
• Corpus callosotomy does not create two consciousnesses; patients denied being different;
• Hemispherectomy - one could not tell the difference between humans having a whole brain or only half of one.
• Only a thin sheet of actual brain tissue in man with 75/100 iq with a job, family and normal life;
• Children with almost no cortical tissue in vegetative state developing signs of perception
• Brain size does not matter (mouse lemurs, brains 1/200th the size of monkeys’ but perform equally well on a primate intelligence test;
• Brain complexity - information transfer through the neural network in human comparable to mouse;
• Neocortex only in humans and other mammals, but not in birds, fish, octopuses, amphibians and reptiles. However, example a birds performing cognitive feats despite forebrains consisting of lumps of gray cells; cephalopods and crustaceans are sentient
• Loss of memory due to injury regained after years; 
• Credible reports of terminal lucidity; whereby severely diseased dementia patients with ravaged brains recover full cognition for a short period of time before death
• Intensity of metabolic activity does not play role in generating conscious experience;
• Memory is not stored in a specific brain area like a digital computer; 
• Information does not scale with brain size;
• Flatworm cut in two, regenerate and both keep conditioned memory;
• Synaptic connectivity is challenged for long-time memory;
• Plants, multicellular and single-celled lifeforms, without any neural substrate have cognition

Finally, here is a table that summarizes the summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I have a habit of re-reading my comments and I often cringe at minor mistakes I make in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.  I will leave minor errors in place when they do not significantly distract from my conveyance of meaning; however, caparative is not the word I intended here. In the above paragraph, the word should have been comparative as I meant a process of evaluating similar and dissimilar qualities.  My apologies for the confusion.

No worries, as I make mistakes all of the time. 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Plants, multicellular and single-celled lifeforms, without any neural substrate have cognition

You seem to be using a rather fast and loose definition of cognition

[studiot]

31 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I have a habit of re-reading my comments and I often cringe at minor mistakes I make in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.  I will leave minor errors in place when they do not significantly distract from my conveyance of meaning; however, caparative is not the word I intended here. In the above paragraph, the word should have been comparative as I meant a process of evaluating similar and dissimilar qualities.  My apologies for the confusion.

That's nowhere near the standard of silly mistakes I make.

+1

[Luc Turpin]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to be using a rather fast and loose definition of cognition

The author used cognitive behavior; as it was a summary, I reduced it to cognition; my mistake

'Research in plant biology demonstrates how vegetal and cellular life shows elements of cognitive behavior that were not suspected or were simply considered impossible without a brain.'

[iNow]

Like I said, fast and loose. “Seems to show some elements of cognitive behavior” ≠ cognition

The worst part is I tend to agree with the thrust of your position but I hate sloppiness like this. 

Like in this most recent article you cite… they explicitly state naturalism isn’t sufficient to understand our mind. Horseshit, because the only thing left then is supernaturalism and that’s a nonstarter. They conclude by acknowledging this is an argument against materialism… so woo woo wish thinking it is.

Edited December 19, 2023 by iNow

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Like I said, fast and loose. “Seems to show some elements of cognitive behavior” ≠ cognition

The worst part is I tend to agree with the thrust of your position but I hate sloppiness like this. 

Well noted!

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Like in this most recent article you cite… they explicitly state naturalism isn’t sufficient to understand our mind. Horseshit, because the only thing left then is supernaturalism and that’s a nonstarter. They conclude by acknowledging this is an argument against materialism… so woo woo wish thinking it is.

Science is about being objective, open minded, but critical. I do not believe in supernaturalism, but I will go where the evidence brings me!

Personally, I would have avoided using of the word "horseshit"!

[DrmDoc]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Science is about being objective, open minded, but critical. I do not believe in supernaturalism, but I will go where the evidence brings me!

I consider myself open minded as well; however, I agree with iNow, supernaturalism is a nonstarter.  Immaterial sources of consciousness and mind are unprovable as both may only be proven by our investigation of materially testable sources.  In every instance of the behavioral expressions of awareness and thought that we are able to indentify among various lifeforms, we are also able to indentify a probable source within their physiology for the production of those behaviors.  To believe that properties of basic awareness and mind could exist without a physiology or material nature is essentially religion not science.

[Luc Turpin]

21 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I consider myself open minded as well; however, I agree with iNow, supernaturalism is a nonstarter.  Immaterial sources of consciousness and mind are unprovable as both may only be proven by our investigation of materially testable sources.  In every instance of the behavioral expressions of awareness and thought that we are able to indentify among various lifeforms, we are also able to indentify a probable source within their physiology for the production of those behaviors.  To believe that properties of basic awareness and mind could exist without a physiology or material nature is essentially religion not science.

We all agree on supernaturalism.

I also partially agree with your untestable comment. However, I venture that it is at the limit of materiality that, if supernaturalism existed, one might find or not clues about it. For example, and if credible, terminal lucidity at death's door evoked in one of my earlier post is troubling for a materialist like me. How can someone have lucid thinking with a brain that is essentially broken? What is the mechanism explaining how this temporary reversal of fate occurs without a functional brain?

Also, for a materialist like me, it would be more comforting that we could find a place in the brain for consciousness, that we could see that it is not in varying degrees in all living things, and that we understood how brain creates mind. Then, there would not be any lingering doubts. Without these three unconfirmed statements of facts, we are left with possibilities of having to look elsewhere for answers. 

And I will follow evidence wherever it lead's me, even if I have to do so grudgingly

[Luc Turpin]

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

[iNow]

45 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Note - naturalist has a different connotation in French. 

Is that because of your nude beaches? 

“Ooh la la… une naturaliste!! Va va voom, enchante m’amore.”

[Luc Turpin]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is that because of your nude beaches? 

“Ooh la la… une naturaliste!! Va va voom, enchante m’amore.”

Yes