Mind-brain (split from I ask recognition from physicalists of at least 1 non-physical dimension where concepts, the inner voice, inner imagery and dreams 'reside'

[Luc Turpin]

Where is mind in the brain? unanswered

How does the mind work through the brain? unanswered

As long as these two questions remain undetermined, we cannot be absolutely certain that mind is brain based.

A minority of neuroscientists are starting to have a look at panpsychism, because the data does not always seem to fit with a brain-based model

Terminal lucidity and near-death experiences may be manifestations of mind outside brains, but the jury is still very much out on these two!

Collective consciousness - Carl Jung

Mind – another dimension or dimensionless (without time nor space)

I do not think that you can query the subjective in the same manner as the objective.

Also, if it exists, then you cannot discard it just because it cannot be measured. You find other ways.

I remain sceptical that mind is outside of brain.

[CharonY]

14 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Where is mind in the brain? unanswered

How does the mind work through the brain? unanswered

As long as these two questions remain undetermined, we cannot be absolutely certain that mind is brain based.

The question is more how you define mind. And if we use the various definitions and concepts of consciousness and cognitive abilities, we do have a good idea where things located in the brain. In part from lesion studies (i.e. parts of the brain that have been damaged and resulting in cognitive changes), but also with animal models and other approaches (e.g. fMRI). These includes functions like memory, reasoning, recognition, emotions, and so on. We also know that these are dynamic processes, more related to activity than just localization. And due to the complexity we have not (afaik) a unified view how these components all work together. But even if I do not know how car works in detail, I can see that it does not work without a motor.

[Luc Turpin]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The question is more how you define mind. And if we use the various definitions and concepts of consciousness and cognitive abilities, we do have a good idea where things located in the brain. In part from lesion studies (i.e. parts of the brain that have been damaged and resulting in cognitive changes), but also with animal models and other approaches (e.g. fMRI). These includes functions like memory, reasoning, recognition, emotions, and so on. We also know that these are dynamic processes, more related to activity than just localization. And due to the complexity we have not (afaik) a unified view how these components all work together. But even if I do not know how car works in detail, I can see that it does not work without a motor.

Then how do you explain terminal lucidity in advanced Alzheimer patients with very severely damaged brains or patients with hearts stopped and brains drained of blood, both having complex thoughts that include memory, recognition, emotions and so on.  In the former, one could expect some form of delusional, but not coherent thoughts, and in the latter, well, nothing at all or maybe synaptic miss-firing with nothing resembling thought processes.

These are traumatic injuries to the brain without apparent consequences on mind.

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Then how do you explain terminal lucidity in advanced Alzheimer patients with very severely damaged brains or patients with hearts stopped and brains drained of blood, both having complex thoughts that include memory, recognition, emotions and so on.  In the former, one could expect some form of delusional, but not coherent thoughts, and in the latter, well, nothing at all or maybe synaptic miss-firing with nothing resembling thought processes.

First, please provide specific cases what you are referring to. I am particularly curious about the patient having a form of consciousness with the brain fully drained of blood.

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, CharonY said:

First, please provide specific cases what you are referring to. I am particularly curious about the patient having a form of consciousness with the brain fully drained of blood.

Dr. Sabom did the operation on Pam Reynolds, but it is not the only case.

Because these are related to near death experiences, nobody even bothers to consider them.

Eben Alexander also had memory, recognition and emotions on a heavily traumatized brain.

Countless "stories" like those.

Venture on the "wild' side and visit NDERF; warning - you will be entering Alice in Wonderland.

To me, it is not about whether NDE's are real or not, but how mind can still express itself within a severely incapacitated or, possibly, absent brain.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Dr. Sabom did the operation on Pam Reynolds, but it is not the only case.

Do you have source or some more detailed description that substantiate your claim. How was the blood fully drained from the brain and how did they ascertain consciousness while it was drained?

[Luc Turpin]

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Do you have source or some more detailed description that substantiate your claim. How was the blood fully drained from the brain and how did they ascertain consciousness while it was drained?

To remove a large aneurysm close to the brain stem that was about to burst.  Surgery was not an option due to the position of the aneurysm. A standstill operation (medically induced hypothermic cardiac arrest) was performed. Before the operation, the patient was in a medically-induced near-death state with heart and brain not functioning; body temperature reduced to about 50 degrees, breathing and heartbeat stopped, blood drained from her head, and eyes closed with tape and small ear plugs with speakers placed in her ears to monitor the brain stem and thus ensure that the patient had flatlined. Patient "reported that during the operation, she heard a sound like a natural 'D' that seemed to pull her out of her body and allowed her to "float" above the operating room and watch doctors perform the operation".  Critics say that the patient had anesthesia awareness, because part of the operation was under anesthesia alone. Normaly, you don't "float away" during anesthesia awareness, but remain aware in your body.

I am not claiming anything, but if this is true then there is a problem with our understanding of the mind-brain connection.

Again, many more "stories' of mind functioning under major-major brain duress.  

[Luc Turpin]

Additional details - the patient remembered events that occurred during the flatline state, not during general anesthesia. Critics said she pieced together a “story” of flatlined events based on prior knowledge of the operation and mixed it in with memories she made during general anesthesia. Also to note is that the patient’s recollection of flatlined events concurred pretty much with what had actually happened during that time. To me, the critics story is as incredulous as the story being told by the patient. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Because of limitations, Newtonian physics was replaced by General Relativity; so too may our current understanding of the mind-brain connection be in need of a revision to take into account extreme situations such as near-death experiences.

The brain is not a processor, but maybe a bi-directional transducer – see below.

Ironically, there is more interest in artificial intelligence-consciousness than in human intelligence-consciousness.

Pun aside, mind is all that matters.

Both science and mathematics are mental constructs.

Discussions on this forum are brought to you by mind.

One’s reputation takes a “hit” by bringing up controversial topics, but someone has to do it.

Ignoring it will not make it go away.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The brain is not a processor, but maybe a transducer.

Transducer – a device that converts a signal in one form of energy to a signal in another.

“Transduction is all around us, even in organic processes. Our bodies are completely encased by transducers. Our sense organs — eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin —transduce distinctive properties of electromagnetic radiation, air pressure waves, airborne chemicals, liquid-borne chemicals, textures, pressure, and temperature into distinctive patterns of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. Organic compounds can even be used these days to create new kinds of transducers, such as OECTs: organic electrochemical transistors.”

A must-read article if you want to know where all of this is coming from:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-is-not-a-computer-it-is-a-transducer

On 3/5/2024 at 6:46 PM, CharonY said:

Do you have source or some more detailed description that substantiate your claim. How was the blood fully drained from the brain and how did they ascertain consciousness while it was drained?

This also relates to the "Empty Brain" thread on one of the forums

[CharonY]

In other words, you would like to overturn our entire research on the cognitive role of the brain based on the out of body experience of one person. That is not really scientific, is it? Considering how many people have undergone anaesthesia or induced comas, it is puzzling that there are no regular reports on these events.

[Luc Turpin]

I do not want to overturn anything, but science may or may not do so at a point in time.

 

 

Ag

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In other words, you would like to overturn our entire research on the cognitive role of the brain based on the out of body experience of one person. 

I do not want to overturn anything, but science may or may not do so at a point in time.

Not one out of body expience, but many thousands of NDE's (out of body experience (OBE's) is a singular part of NDE's); 5-10% of the population have or will experience it.

55 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 Considering how many people have undergone anaesthesia or induced comas, it is puzzling that there are no regular reports on these events.

Many cases of NDE"s during anaesthesia; almost sure, but not certain about induced comas.

 

55 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 it is puzzling that there are no regular reports on these events.

I reiterate, type NDERF in your search engine for Alice in Wonderland summaries of hundreds-thousands of such cases

[Eise]

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

A must-read article if you want to know where all of this is coming from:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-is-not-a-computer-it-is-a-transducer

Really?

Quote

In his 2006 book, Life After Death: The Burden of Proof, alternative medicine guru Deepak Chopra says that ancient Hindu texts teach that the material world we know is nothing but a projection from the universal consciousness that fills all space. From this perspective, death is not an end; it is a merging of a relatively pathetic human consciousness with that of the dazzling universal one. To add gravitas to this idea, Chopra does what many recent authors have done: he suggests that modern formulations of quantum physics are consistent with his belief in a universal consciousness.

Bold by me.

If a 'scientific article' cites Deepak Chopra as serious witness, then it is not serious scientific article.

Maybe you should read Susan Blackmore: in her student days she had an OBE, and she started a career as 'believing' parapsychologist. But her serious empirical investigations turned her into the end being a sceptic, and leaving the field of parapsychology. I can highly recommend Dying to Live: Science and the Near-death Experience and The Adventures of a Parapsychologist.

From the Wikipedia article:

Quote

It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena—only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a sceptic.

 

Edited March 8 by Eise

[Luc Turpin]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Really?

Bold by me.

If a 'scientific article' cites Deepak Chopra as serious witness, then it is not serious scientific article.

Maybe you should read Susan Blackmore: in her student days she had an OBE, and she started a career as 'believing' parapsychologist. But her serious empirical investigations turned her into the end being a sceptic, and leaving the field of parapsychology. I can highly recommend Dying to Live: Science and the Near-death Experience and The Adventures of a Parapsychologist.

From the Wikipedia article:

 

Thanks for responding, and more so for reading beyond the first few lines of a post, and, for not downright discarding me.

Yep, really, the transducer model of the brain is one of many out there trying to replace the brain as a processor model, which is definitely not making grounds anymore. And, what about this one by Robert Epstein and the Empty Brain model, which is much more-timid than the transducer model in its' contention, but still steering away from the processor model. Taken from a thread in Science Forums. Having to take the environment (life history, social context) into the mind context; again, shy in its' contention, but getting there.

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

Quoting Deepak does not make everything else irrelevant; I do not especially care about Deepak. 

Susan Blackmore is a relevant source of information for NDE's; so is Bruce Greyson - After

I reiterate, my line of inquiry is not whether NDE's are real or not, but how mind still operates in a very broken brain; even if phantasmagoric stories are being reported by near death experiencers, they still include thoughts like memory, recognition, emotions and so on.

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

Daniel Dennet, Darwin's dangerous idea - like that 👍

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Yep, really, the transducer model of the brain is one of many out there trying to replace the brain as a processor model, which is definitely not making grounds anymore. And, what about this one by Robert Epstein and the Empty Brain model, which is much more-timid than the transducer model in its' contention, but still steering away from the processor model. Taken from a thread in Science Forums. Having to take the environment (life history, social context) into the mind context; again, shy in its' contention, but getting there.

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

A neuron still works very much like a transistor, that doesn't mean the brain is a computer, but it does mean the brain is copyable given enough transistor's wired in the right order.

You should read this (or whatch the film):

Quote

Do robots dream of electric sheep is a question posed by the title of a 1968 novel by Philip K. Dick, which was later adapted into the film Blade Runner. The question challenges the conventional view of robots as emotionless and rational machines, and explores the possibility of robots having consciousness, feelings, and dreams. The question also reflects the impact of robots on human society and culture, and how humans relate to their artificial counterparts.

What would an NDE look like for a computer?

[Luc Turpin]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A neuron still works very much like a transistor, that doesn't mean the brain is a computer, but it does mean the brain is copyable given enough transistor's wired in the right order.

You should read this (or whatch the film):

What would an NDE look like for a computer?

We are still discovering how neurons work and it appears to be more complex then anticipated. For example, neurons found to use many types of vesicles to communicate with other cells, not at the synapse. As for neurons being transistors, they appear to be much more than this. And as for your copyable contention, you know more than me, However, as the empty brain articles indicates, we are not quite sure where or if the information is stored in the brain, so how or could we copy it, remains unanswered.

Also, I am unconvinced at this moment that AI or robots will one day be conscious. If it was the case, would we, like in lower life-forms that preceded us, have already begun to see inklings of consciousness in our machines? There may be a fine line separating non-living matter and living matter.The film is superb. 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We are still discovering how neurons work and it appears to be more complex then anticipated. For example, neurons found to use many types of vesicles to communicate with other cells, not at the synapse. As for neurons being transistors, they appear to be much more than this.

The complexity is the wiring not the neuron, it either fires or it doesnt as does a transistor.

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Also, I am unconvinced at this moment that AI or robots will one day be conscious. If it was the case, would we, like in lower life-forms that preceded us, have already begun to see inklings of consciousness in our machines?

We don't even know if our dog's are conscious and they are basically the same way as us; AI is but a child, we can't possibly know what it will grow up to be...

[Luc Turpin]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The complexity is the wiring not the neuron, it either fires or it doesnt as does a transistor.

It does not only fire or not, but apparently does much more; like share chemical information vesicles with other cells or use electromagnetism to communicate. Neurons, wiring, the whole brain and how it works is much more complicated than we thought.

 

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We don't even know if our dog's are conscious and they are basically the same way as us

I believe that they are conscious only because they appear to dream and this consciousness is lower but similar to us as they are using basically the same hardware to do so.

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 AI is but a child, we can't possibly know what it will grow up to be...

You are correct on this statement; we can’t possibly know for sure what it will grow up to be and we might be all surprised when we find out. That is why I said "at the moment".

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

It does not only fire or not,

Yes it does...

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

but apparently does much more; like share chemical information vesicles with other cells or use electromagnetism to communicate.

That's the wiring, or do you think a neuron can see electromagnetism?

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Yes it does...

That's the wiring, or do you think a neuron can see electromagnetism?

Yes it does........not so simple

Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate:

·         Secreted chemicals - action potential when occurring at the synapse

·         Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions - don't think its' action potential

·         Electric currents - electrical current not action potential (wiring), but neuron firing is action potential

·         Electromagnetic waves - field generation not action potential, but firing is

·         Physical contact by cells - guess not action potential

·         Biological nanotubes between cells - not sure; could not get the info

There is also talk of overall brain electromagnetic waves being used for communication, which should not be action potential. The debate as I see it is whether or not neurons solely communicate by synaptic potential or are there other means. Recent evidence tends to favour the latter.

And if all modes of communication use the action potential function.

For a general outline of vescicle complexity here is a link https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extra-cellular-vesicles-brain

 

[Luc Turpin]

I will be offline for the weekend!

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Yes it does........not so simple

It never is, nevertheless that is what it does when we think about thing's.

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate:

·         Secreted chemicals - action potential when occurring at the synapse

·         Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions - don't think its' action potential

·         Electric currents - electrical current not action potential (wiring), but neuron firing is action potential

·         Electromagnetic waves - field generation not action potential, but firing is

·         Physical contact by cells - guess not action potential

·         Biological nanotubes between cells - not sure; could not get the info

I'm no neurologist, but that all just seems like the type of wiring needed for a neuron to do it's job.

 

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

There is also talk of overall brain electromagnetic waves being used for communication, which should not be action potential.

That's the spark they send (when they fire) down the wire, if you mean they have inbuilt wifi, I'm going to disagree...

[Luc Turpin]

On 3/9/2024 at 7:43 AM, dimreepr said:

It never is, nevertheless that is what it does when we think about thing's.

I'm no neurologist, but that all just seems like the type of wiring needed for a neuron to do it's job.

That's the spark they send (when they fire) down the wire, if you mean they have inbuilt wifi, I'm going to disagree...

I thought long and hard about thinking coming solely from synaptic action reaction and was getting to agree with your position until, by chance, I stumbled on the following article.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-required-when-it-comes-to-thinking-and-solving-problems-simple-cells-can-do-it/

What if all cells, not only neurons, can process information? Would they still do it by action potential, I am not sure! They talk about transistors, but not sure if it only applies to neurons.

The article also reaffirms some of my assumptions that cognition is a bottom-up process and is everywhere in nature.

It also has sections on robotics and AI that I did not quite understand, but seem to navigate towards your contention on this matter.

A must read and here are some of the highlights:

• Brains not required when it comes to thinking and solving problems;
  • Planarians (flatworms) that have learned a skill are cut in half; the tail end of a planarian re-grows a head that remembers the task;
  • Regular cells have the ability to store information and act on it;
  • Difference between cell clumps and brains as ones of degree, not kind;
  • No brain required for intelligence;
  • Intelligence is all over the life kingdom 
  • "The orthodox view of memory is that it is stored as a stable network of synaptic connections among neurons in a brain. “That view is clearly cracking,”  
  • Perhaps memory capability is bioelectric not biochemical (convincing experiments in the article - messed up frog face "Fused into a hive mind through bioelectricity, the cells achieved feats of bioengineering well beyond those of our best gene jockeys);
  • "Indeed the very act of living is by default a cognitive state". "Every cell needs to be constantly evaluating its surroundings, making decisions about what to let in and what to keep out and planning next steps. "Cognition didn't arrive later in evolution; it's what made life possible."

Taking in to account this and the two other articles that I posted in this thread, and knowing that there are other theories around mind, who can pretend that the issue of how mind work is settled?

 

 

 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I thought long and hard about thinking coming solely from synaptic action reaction and was getting to agree with your position until, by chance, I stumbled on the following article.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-required-when-it-comes-to-thinking-and-solving-problems-simple-cells-can-do-it/

What if all cells, not only neurons, can process information? Would they still do it by action potential, I am not sure! They talk about transistors, but not sure if it only applies to neurons.

That's just diving down a rabbit hole, that we don't need to explore; for instance, an ant can do some very clever thing's in real estate but it's no architect, it never thinks (as we understand it) it just processes very simple data according to a relatively simple algorithm.

18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The article also reaffirms some of my assumptions that cognition is a bottom-up process and is everywhere in nature.

Trees communicate, but they never think about why... 😉 

[CharonY]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

What if all cells, not only neurons, can process information? Would they still do it by action potential, I am not sure! They talk about transistors, but not sure if it only applies to neurons.

The issue here is that we have to distinguish the level of complexity here. Cells and arguably protein complexes are capable of sensing and processing information. But what they are able to do is limited. More proteins can sense and act on more cues and with a cell surrounding them can process signals of larger complexity. Multiple cells then can further specialize and become better at processing and so on. 

The question here is really how you define mind. If it is really just sensing something, molecules could have a mind. But it is really different to what is used in common (or even scientific language). It is like equating a transistor with a supercomputer. Both have similar principles, but what they can do is very different.

Also I have the feeling that you are a bit confused what action potentials are and their role (which is primarily transmitting signal over longer distances without loss).

 

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's just diving down a rabbit hole, that we don't need to explore

Chasing data rather than a rabbit down a hole

 Can't help myself!

Here is another data hole - Shuffle Brain – The Quest for the Hologramic Mind by Paul Pietsch. Very rigorous experimentation on salamander larvae done in the 80’s, but completely ignored by the scientific community. "Shuffling the brain does not scramble the mind. How does the brain store memory? Many theories located memory in a specific area of the brain – until the development of the hologram……” “Holograms can be made to mimic many brain activities, suggesting that the brain ‘encodes” memory in a similar way. Memory thus may depend on wave-phase relationships rather than on specific parts of the brain. Punky, Julius and Cyclops (salamander larvae) have demonstrated that parts of a brain may be reshuffled without scrambling the meaning of the information it stores.”

Again, another theory of mind.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

........that we don't need to explore; for instance, an ant can do some very clever thing's in real estate but it's no architect, it never thinks (as we understand it) it just processes very simple data according to a relatively simple algorithm.

Apparently, it processes more that simple data and if it thinks as we understand it, we will never know as in the dog example.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Trees communicate, but they never think about why... 😉 

Good point. Got to think about that one!

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The issue here is that we have to distinguish the level of complexity here. Cells and arguably protein complexes are capable of sensing and processing information. But what they are able to do is limited. More proteins can sense and act on more cues and with a cell surrounding them can process signals of larger complexity. Multiple cells then can further specialize and become better at processing and so on. 

The question here is really how you define mind. If it is really just sensing something, molecules could have a mind. But it is really different to what is used in common (or even scientific language). It is like equating a transistor with a supercomputer. Both have similar principles, but what they can do is very different.

Also I have the feeling that you are a bit confused what action potentials are and their role (which is primarily transmitting signal over longer distances without loss).

 

I am in general aggrement with statements made in paragraphs 1 and 2; In cells and proteins, it's a precursor to mind, maybe not mind itself. But, clumps of cells generating primitive cognition brings a lot more entities around the dinner table. And, you will disagree with this statement, makes mind or its precursor play a more prominent role in the game of life and evolution.

As for paragraph 3, some articles that I consulted used action potential as a "go" or "not go" potential. Maybe I mixed things up!

Meant "go" or "no go"; sorry!

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Apparently, it processes more that simple data and if it thinks as we understand it, we will never know as in the dog example.

And we circle back to my point, even if a computer is conscious we will never know. That's the thing about rabbit holes, they're a warren of unknowns. 😉

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

As for paragraph 3, some articles that I consulted used action potential as a "go" or "not go" potential. Maybe I mixed things up!

I think the word potential is confusing you, think of it in terms of the wiring rather than the thinking.