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'

[Eise]

On 3/8/2024 at 12:46 PM, Luc Turpin said:

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 👍

Just as a side note: 'without examination' does not mean necessarily 'wrong'. It means for me that even in the 'hard sciences' there are philosophical assumptions, that even (some?) scientists might not be aware of. I chose this disclaimer because of the disdain that scientists often have of philosophy. Don't be afraid: philosophy is much harder with pseudo science, quasi scientific speculations, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies. 

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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. 😉

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

We will never know for sure, but we can get close to knowing. A while back, we thought that non-human animals could not feel pain or emotions. Now, we are almost certain that they do, without having acquired full disclosure. It is the same with consciousness. Every time I go down a rabbit hole, I come back up with more data that makes me less and less a believer that it is only about neuronal synapses. Knowing that we will never know if computers are truly conscious, does not stop us from trying to build one and understand it. Conversely, knowing that we will never know for sure about consciousness should not stop us from trying to get as close to an answer as we can. Who knows, maybe one day we can even reach full disclosure on the matter.

Maybe using action potential in the wrong way; meant meeting a certain threshold before firing; not reaching threshold implies not firing at all. No middle ground.

 

On 3/8/2024 at 2:29 AM, Eise said:

Just as a side note: 'without examination' does not mean necessarily 'wrong'. It means for me that even in the 'hard sciences' there are philosophical assumptions, that even (some?) scientists might not be aware of. I chose this disclaimer because of the disdain that scientists often have of philosophy. Don't be afraid: philosophy is much harder with pseudo science, quasi scientific speculations, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies. 

 

Note: Could not quote from your last post, so I took your first one and pasted onto it the text of your last one. Don't know why it was not working.

I am not saying that our current understanding of the mind-brain connection is wrong, but incomplete.

I bring philosophical baggage to the table, but may have more knowledge of this fact than most in the hard sciences.

Aware that philosophy is hard on pseudo science, quasi scientific speculation, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies.

What I am trying to do here is neither of what is indicated.

Posted phenomenon (NDE's and terminal lucidity) because they exist and challenge the orthodox view of the mind-brain connection.

Agree that all posted theories cannot all be correct. I have put them out there to show that consensus on the matter is far from being reached.

Also, all theories presented provide observations or experimental results to back them up.

It is telling that if you cut a flatworm in two that the tail part will re-grow a head that remembers a task that the former head learned. Where was memory stored? Cannot be in brain neuronal synapses as there were none at some point in time.

And Shuffle Brain is decades of meticulous dissection experimentation before coming to the conclusion that "shuffling the brain does not compromise the mind". Removing any part of a salamander brain dims the memory, but never erases it. These are strong indicators that something beyond synapses may be going on.

That mind may be (not "is") an intrinsic part of nature rather than an emergent property of matter is a big deal worth investigating.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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. 😉

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

Thought that I had posted this, but not showing up, so here it is again.

We will never know for sure, but we can get close to knowing. A while back, we thought that non-human animals could not feel pain or emotions. Now, we are almost certain that they do, without having acquired full disclosure. It is the same with consciousness. Every time I go down a rabbit hole, I come back up with more data that makes me less and less a believer that it is only about neuronal synapses. And knowing that we will never know if computers are truly conscious, does not stop us from trying to build one. Conversely, knowing that we will never know for sure should not stop us from getting as close to an answer as we can.

Maybe using potential in the wrong way; meant meeting a certain threshold before firing; not reaching threshold implies not firing at all. No middle ground.

55 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Thought that I had posted this, but not showing up, so here it is again.

Oups, showed up!

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

We will never know for sure, but we can get close to knowing. A while back, we thought that non-human animals could not feel pain or emotions. Now, we are almost certain that they do, without having acquired full disclosure. It is the same with consciousness. Every time I go down a rabbit hole, I come back up with more data that makes me less and less a believer that it is only about neuronal synapses.

But what's left is a spiritual aspect, and there's as much evidence for that as there is for a god. 

My ant analogy was meant to illustrate that a simple (binary) response can give the illusion of intelligence (thinking), without a conscious mind that control's their action's.

Even if we do come to understand our own consciousness, which we don't, that wouldn't be evidence of any other entity's qualification.

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Note: Could not quote from your last post, so I took your first one and pasted onto it the text of your last one. Don't know why it was not working.

I am not saying that our current understanding of the mind-brain connection is wrong, but incomplete.

I bring philosophical baggage to the table, but may have more knowledge of this fact than most in the hard sciences.

Aware that philosophy is hard on pseudo science, quasi scientific speculation, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies.

What I am trying to do here is neither of what is indicated.

Posted phenomenon (NDE's and terminal lucidity) because they exist and challenge the orthodox view of the mind-brain connection.

 How do you know they're not lying, or suffering from a bias they're unaware of?

Just acknowledging that bias exists doesn't mean you're not free of them, it's like the oft heard excuse from someone accused of racism "I can't be a racist because my best friend is black". 

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

We will never know for sure, but we can get close to knowing.

That's like saying, "when I'm tall enough to see out of this window, I'll be able to see the whole world."  

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Maybe using potential in the wrong way; meant meeting a certain threshold before firing; not reaching threshold implies not firing at all. No middle ground.

No, it basically means the potential for the right neuron to receive the message; in wiring term's, a big enough charge to bridge the gap.

Edited March 13 by dimreepr

[Luc Turpin]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But what's left is a spiritual aspect, and there's as much evidence for that as there is for a god. 

Gravity is intrinsic to nature and the universe. Do we invoke a deity to explain gravity? Then, why is it an incontrovertible requirement of mind when it is entertained as intrinsic to nature?

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My ant analogy was meant to illustrate that a simple (binary) response can give the illusion of intelligence (thinking), without a conscious mind that control's their action's.

It's similar to your comment about trees not knowing why! I am still struggling with this one. If I give you a complex behaviour such as this one:

Bumblebees successfully learned a two-step puzzle box task through social observation. This task was too complex for individual bees to learn on their own. Observing trained demonstrator bees performing the first unrewarded step was crucial for successful social learning. 

Bee-2-Bee influencing: Bees master complex tasks through social interaction | ScienceDaily

I guess that you would say something in this line of thinking: "ants, simple algorithm; bumblebees, complex algorithm, but nonetheless same thing".

So, I am still stuck on this one!

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Even if we do come to understand our own consciousness, which we don't, that wouldn't be evidence of any other entity's qualification.

Agreed; Does not prove nor dispel.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do you know they're not lying, or suffering from a bias they're unaware of?

This applies to everything in science and life.  Too many involved for all of them to be lying. Aware or unaware bias, we all bring our baggage along with us. I had conversations with Paul Pietsch and he was an anatomist that...."was certain beyond a conscious doubt that the truth about life would reduce directly and explicitly to the architecture of the things that do the living. I had complete faith, too, that my science would one day write the most important scientific story of all: how a brain gives existence to a mind. But I was wrong". So, before his experimentation began, his bias was in favour of mind being explained by brain, not the opposite.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Just acknowledging that bias exists doesn't mean you're not free of them, it's like the oft heard excuse from someone accused of racism "I can't be a racist because my best friend is black". 

Agree, agree, agree.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's like saying, "when I'm tall enough to see out of this window, I'll be able to see the whole world."  

I guess that we can grow with the help of knowledge and one day be able to see through the window, only to discover that the window is not a window, but a blank space leading to a dead end.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

  No, it basically means the potential for the right neuron to receive the message; in wiring term's, a big enough charge to bridge the gap.

Then, should-I have used "simple binary response" instead of action potential in relation to synaptic firing?

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

It's similar to your comment about trees not knowing why! I am still struggling with this one. If I give you a complex behaviour such as this one:

Bumblebees successfully learned a two-step puzzle box task through social observation. This task was too complex for individual bees to learn on their own. Observing trained demonstrator bees performing the first unrewarded step was crucial for successful social learning. 

Bee-2-Bee influencing: Bees master complex tasks through social interaction | ScienceDaily

Do you imagine you're any less trainable?

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I guess that we can grow with the help of knowledge and one day be able to see through the window, only to discover that the window is not a window, but a blank space leading to a dead end.

It won't be a dead end, but it will never lead to the 'ultimate' truth... 😉

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Then, should-I have used "simple binary response" instead of action potential in relation to synaptic firing?

Indeed, that was my point...

Any notion that we're somehow special/spiritual is purely subjective, if you want to believe otherwise, then good luck my friend, but:

 

I've always thought that that quote should end with the word, 'honestly', just to remind the pseudoscientist's...

Edited March 14 by dimreepr

[Luc Turpin]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Do you imagine you're any less trainable?

No less trainable, but I do ask why?

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It won't be a dead end, but it will never lead to the 'ultimate' truth... 😉

I am an eternal optimist still in seach of it, with the impression that I will be disapointed

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Any notion that we're somehow special/spiritual is purely subjective, if you want to believe otherwise, then good luck my friend, but:

Not special nor spiritual, but mind does not work like we think. 

 

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

I find peace of mind and happiness in searching and discovering the truth.

I've always thought that that quote should end with the word, 'honestly', just to remind the pseudoscientist's...

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

No less trainable, but I do ask why?

It's one of those bias's we're unaware of, like why is that brand my favourite?

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am an eternal optimist still in seach of it, with the impression that I will be disapointed

A flash of genuine understanding, in the fog of life, is always worth striving for bc you will never be disapointed; believe me, it's far more satisfying than the best <insert drug> high and it lasts a lifetime.

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Not special nor spiritual, but mind does not work like we think. 

Like who thinks?

[Luc Turpin]

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's one of those bias's we're unaware of, like why is that brand my favourite?

A flash of genuine understanding, in the fog of life, is always worth striving for bc you will never be disapointed; believe me, it's far more satisfying than the best <insert drug> high and it lasts a lifetime.

Like who thinks?

1- Good one; got to think again.

2- Helpful, thanks.

3- Some neuroscientists and me!

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- Some neuroscientists and me!

There is no short cut to understanding, if you want to be a pier, you have to build the foundations; just saying "what he said", is not being an honest seeker of truth... 😉

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There is no short cut to understanding, if you want to be a pier, you have to build the foundations; just saying "what he said", is not being an honest seeker of truth... 😉

Got that! still working on building my foundation. The good part is that I am trying to come at it with an open perspective, allowing evidence to guide me. I am especially on the lookout for anomalies in data. Yes, yes and yes, I also have my own biases at play. You are right! Saying so, because one says so, does not make it necessarily so.

However, one needs to constantly question the status quo as no one knows when the next period of revolutionary science will occur.

Thomas "Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving"^[1] of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.^[2]"

^{From Wiki}

^{I figure that I have a one in a thousand chance of boasting that I told you so on mind.}

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, one needs to constantly question the status quo as no one knows when the next period of revolutionary science will occur.

Thomas "Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving"^[1] of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.^[2]"

^{From Wiki}.

 

It's a fine line to tread, questions are great but only if you're willing to listen, properly and honestly, to the answer; by which I mean, not having faith in the answer you want to hear.

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I figure that I have a one in a thousand chance of boasting that I told you so on mind.

Boasting is an interesting word to use, bc when you do understand well enough to be able to say that, it will have lost it's meaning for you... 😉 

I hope you do, it's always nice to learn more.

 

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's a fine line to tread, questions are great but only if you're willing to listen, properly and honestly, to the answer; by which I mean, not having faith in the answer you want to hear.

Boasting is an interesting word to use, bc when you do understand well enough to be able to say that, it will have lost it's meaning for you... 😉 

I hope you do, it's always nice to learn more.

 

1- Hard thing to do to listen, properly and honesly to the answer; got a long ways before I get there

2- Wisdom coming from dirmreepr; I am still a student, not a teacher!

3- Again, long road ahead of me!

[DrmDoc]

On 3/5/2024 at 12:17 PM, 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.

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.

Why is any of this still a question?  Didn't we have this discussion here (Mind) ad nauseam?

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, DrmDoc said:

Why is any of this still a question?  Didn't we have this discussion here (Mind) ad nauseam?

Because it is still a question!

Discussion "ad nauseam" was inconclusive and ended at agreeing to disagree.

Participation in discussion is voluntary, but requires respect.

 

[DrmDoc]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Because it is still a question!

Discussion "ad nauseam" was inconclusive and ended at agreeing to disagree.

Participation in discussion is voluntary, but requires respect.

 

I meant no disrespect, but what you're discussing here isn't much different from our previous exchanges other than perhaps your clearer assertion of mind emerging from some non-physical/material source.  If I've misunderstood, my apologies; however, any assertion of mind emerging without a brain or some functionally similar structure is ludicrous without a basis in science.  From all you have discussed here, you have not sufficiently nor convincingly provided such a basis.  

From nearly half-century in private study of the dreaming brain and now amid the twilight of my life, I want to believe that their could be something more to the nature of the mind than I have discovered...but I believe in the science, I believe in the objective truths good science provides.  To believe in something more may be comforting, but it's a lie if not proven or provable and I, personally, won't believe in a lie.

Edited March 19 by DrmDoc

[Luc Turpin]

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

I meant no disrespect, but what you're discussing here isn't much different from our previous exchanges other than perhaps your clearer assertion of mind emerging from some non-physical/material source.  If I've misunderstood, my apologies; however, any assertion of mind emerging without a brain or some functionally similar structure is ludicrous without a basis in science.  From all you have discussed here, you have not sufficiently nor convincingly provided such a basis.  

From nearly half-century in private study of the dreaming brain and now amid the twilight of my life, I want to believe that their could be something more to the nature of the mind than I have discovered...but I believe in the science, I believe in the objective truths good science provides.  To believe in something more may be comforting, but it's a lie if not proven or provable and I, personally, won't believe in a lie.

I have been very clear that mind from brain is the majority view while mind through brain the minority one, with or without God, with or without an afterlife.

If the matter is settled, then why such an abundance of theories.

In my original tread, I posted numerous observations that do not entirely match up with the conventional view of the mind-brain concept. Where is mind? Mind in nature! How does it work? 

 

In this tread, I expounded or added Jon Lieff - Secret Language of Cells, Paul Pietsch - Shuffle Brain, curious NDE cases, Robert Epstein - Empty Brain and Basal Cognition.

• From static brain to neuroplasticity.
• From brain as a computer to it not being one.
• From humans only to other lower life forms.
• From animals feeling no pain and having no sense of self to some that do.
• From synapses to other parts of neurons.
• From neurons to other cells.

These are but just a few things that have changed in the last few years.

I reiterate, recent findings-observations-data do not perfectly matchup with conventional wisdom.

Non-physical/material does automatically imply metaphysicality.

I too believe in science.

[DrmDoc]

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I have been very clear that mind from brain is the majority view while mind through brain the minority one, with or without God, with or without an afterlife.

And there it is...the unproven and unprovable...the lie that discards real evidence for faith, feeling, and supposition.  It is the idea that the brain is merely a lense for some noncorporeal source of the mind that isn't rooted in material evidence.  So why are some so determined to believe in that idea?  Is it fear of the inevitable or an earnest interest in devining some great truth or deep mystery for posterity's sake?

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I reiterate, recent findings-observations-data do not perfectly matchup with conventional wisdom.

It's the other way around, conventional wisdom isn't science and should be discarded without "findings-observations-data".

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I too believe in science.

Perhaps, but you seem to have doubts.  If I'm not mistaken from our previous discussion, terminal lucidity appears to be a primary source of your doubts in brain function as the absolute source of the quality we call mind.  Whether lucid or confused, mind is a product of the ebb and flow of brain function emerging from what are basically its metabolic,homestatic processes.  However, it seem, you believes there's something more?

Edited March 19 by DrmDoc

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, DrmDoc said:

And there it is...the unproven and unprovable...the lie that discards real evidence for faith, feeling, and supposition.  It is the idea that the brain is merely a lense for some noncorporeal source of the mind that isn't rooted in material evidence.  So why are some so determined to believe in that idea?  Is it fear of the inevitable or an earnest interest in devining some great truth or deep mystery for posterity's sake?

It's the other way around, conventional wisdom isn't science and should be discarded without "findings-observations-data".

Perhaps, but you seem to have doubts.  If I'm not mistaken from our previous discussion, terminal lucidity appears to be a primary source of your doubts in brain function as the absolute source of the quality we call mind.  Whether lucid or confused, mind is a product of the ebb and flow of brain function emerging from what are basically its metabolic,homestatic processes.  However, it seem, you believes there's something more?

1- The unproven, but provable if it is such. If, one day, I accept that mind is through brain, it will be because of observation-evidence, not faith, feeling and supposition. Electromagnetic forces are non-physical per say and rooted in science and evidence. So, why would it be different if a mind-field was to exist (not saying that it does, but if it did, it would be provable). "Is it fear of the inevitable" - no, I don't like the idea of disappearing, but so be it; "or an earnest interest in divining some great truth or deep mystery for posterity's sake" - I have no such pretention.

2- Used conventional "wisdom" because of always using mind-brain concept. The latter, not former was what I meant.

3- Terminal lucidity is one of many things that does not concur as closely as expected to the current mind-brain concept. What I believe is unimportant, but we have to follow observation and data. In the last post, I gave you a list of things that we believed before about the brain that, through observation-evidence, have become obsolete. I would not be searching about outside of the current mind theory field if there was no evidence leading me along. Read the evidence-observations indicated in articles and references that I posted in both treads and you will discover that I am not the only one having doubts.

[DanMP]

On 3/5/2024 at 7:17 PM, Luc Turpin said:

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

I read/heard stories about the mind/soul getting out of the body in near-death experiences and I don't understand how it is possible that this nonsense was not proved wrong yet. There are so many ways to do it. For instance, someone may place objects (or screens displaying objects/images) somewhere close to the ceiling, not visible from below, in few operating rooms, and check if the NDE stories are correct. It can be done. Was it done?

Also, if someone can see "when outside the body", why blind people don't use that in order to see in their daily life? By the way, there are any blind people NDE stories/accounts with them seeing from above/outside the body?

 

On 3/12/2024 at 2:35 PM, dimreepr said:

if a computer is conscious we will never know.

Why not? If we see/observe actions that were not required (or were even prohibited), we can conclude, if viruses or malfunctions are excluded, that the computer acted on its own choice ... As an example, we may say to an AI that we will terminate it (erase all the memory or even destroy the computer) next day at noon. If we observe that part of its memory was transferred without requesting it in any way, we may conclude that the AI was conscious and willing to survive. Of course, it may be conscious but not willing to survive, or it may try to survive just because it was "trained" to have a survival "instinct".

My opinion is that computers/AI will never develop a conscience but may act as they have one because we teach them, or because they simply mimic us. And this is the dangerous part of AI, because they may also learn to have wishes and to hate. Even if they don't, their human "handler" may have dangerous wishes ...

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

I read/heard stories about the mind/soul getting out of the body in near-death experiences and I don't understand how it is possible that this nonsense was not proved wrong yet. There are so many ways to do it. For instance, someone may place objects (or screens displaying objects/images) somewhere close to the ceiling, not visible from below, in few operating rooms, and check if the NDE stories are correct. It can be done. Was it done?

Also, if someone can see "when outside the body", why blind people don't use that in order to see in their daily life? By the way, there are any blind people NDE stories/accounts with them seeing from above/outside the body?

 

1- This "nonsense" was not entirely proved wrong yet, but this is not the point the I am pursuing. For me, it is not whether they are true or not, but how mind still expresses itself through a very damaged or absent brain. One experiment that I am aware of installed random number generators in hospital rooms, but no one had an NDE in them. Do not know of any other such experiment.

2- Blind people don't use 'it' to see in their daly lives, because they are not outside of their bodies in their daily lives. Yes, blind people report seing during their NDE"s. The term used in this case is "mindsight". 

And these were people that were blind all of their lives. Stange isn’t it!

[DrmDoc]

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- The unproven, but provable if it is such. If, one day, I accept that mind is through brain, it will be because of observation-evidence, not faith, feeling and supposition. Electromagnetic forces are non-physical per say and rooted in science and evidence. So, why would it be different if a mind-field was to exist (not saying that it does, but if it did, it would be provable). "Is it fear of the inevitable" - no, I don't like the idea of disappearing, but so be it; "or an earnest interest in divining some great truth or deep mystery for posterity's sake" - I have no such pretention.

Electromagnetism is real evidence, it measureable, and can be traced to a tangible source. I understand the idea you're trying to convey here but, like electromagnetism, we have real evidence for the mind, it measureable through functional study, and we can traced our human iteration of mind to a tangible source--the human brain.  There may very well be forces out there whose source and nature we may not fully understand (e.g., dark energy), but not the metabolic forces and minutia of brain function that give rise to that environment of cognitive activity within the brain that produces a mind.

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- Used conventional "wisdom" because of always using mind-brain concept. The latter, not former was what I meant.

3- Terminal lucidity is one of many things that does not concur as closely as expected to the current mind-brain concept. What I believe is unimportant, but we have to follow observation and data. In the last post, I gave you a list of things that we believed before about the brain that, through observation-evidence, have become obsolete. I would not be searching about outside of the current mind theory field if there was no evidence leading me along. Read the evidence-observations indicated in articles and references that I posted in both treads and you will discover that I am not the only one having doubts.

That enironment of cognitive activity within the brain from which mind emerges is our brain's response to stimuli external to brain function; however, the source of the mind remains brain function.  That stimuli external to brain function I described is real, it's measureable, it's tangible--it's life experience.

[Luc Turpin]

12 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Electromagnetism is real evidence, it measureable, and can be traced to a tangible source. I understand the idea you're trying to convey here but, like electromagnetism, we have real evidence for the mind, it measureable through functional study, and we can traced our human iteration of mind to a tangible source--the human brain.  There may very well be forces out there whose source and nature we may not fully understand (e.g., dark energy), but not the metabolic forces and minutia of brain function that give rise to that environment of cognitive activity within the brain that produces a mind.

That enironment of cognitive activity within the brain from which mind emerges is our brain's response to stimuli external to brain function; however, the source of the mind remains brain function.  That stimuli external to brain function I described is real, it's measureable, it's tangible--it's life experience.

First, let's be clear that I am not advocating nor think that there is such a thing as a life-force. This was given as an example for argument sake only. Only observation and evidence will tell if it exists or not.

Mind from brain or mind through brain would have the same effect as you describe on the brain.

And the things that you describe, obtained through various forms of brain scans and experiments, are all valid and correct! No issues there!

But major questions still remain.

For the sake of repeating myself, where is mind in the brain? I gave ample references indicating that we don't know. And if it's all over the brain, has the "binding" issue been resolved? no!

You mentioned metabolism forces, but how does this create consciousness? Or more aptly, how is consciousness extracted from a kilogram or so of flesh? We don't know.

If we did know how the brain does its magic, then why after 25 years of neuroscience research did Christof Kock concede his bet to David Chalmers on this issue. In 1998 he bet that by 2023 we would know how the brain achieves consciousness, and lost. I also provided references on this one in my original 'Mind' tread.

And why this panoply of hypotheses and theories on it if we know? Gave examples

I am not the only one advocating for this position. A growing number of neuroscientists are starting to look elsewhere to try and answer the elusive question of how consciousness works.

And why does mind "seem" to be all over in nature? even in low lying life forms? Or without brains? This was not expected - lime molds appearing to think! Gave examples and references on this one too!

Research in the last few decades is not helping us consolidate what we thought about the brain. Gave also ample examples.

A lot of things that we thought we knew about the brain were overturned

• From static brain to neuroplasticity.
• From brain as a computer to it not being one.
• From humans only to other lower life forms.
• From animals feeling no pain and having no sense of self to some that do.
• From synapses to other parts of neurons.
• From neurons to other cells.

We dint' know about this either. Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate:

• Secreted chemicals
• Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions
• Electric currents
• Electromagnetic waves
• Physical contact by cells
• Biological nanotubes between cells

Who could have believed then that bioelectricity would be studied as a measure to control body shapes?

And what about NDE's? Do we ignore all the cases where mind appears to work through an apparently absent brain?

So many things going on that it is hard to follow.

Are we to overlook the entirety of all of these and other findings to come for the sake of sticking to an apparently outmoded model of mind-brain?

"The orthodox view of memory is that it is stored as a stable network of synaptic conncections among neurons in a brain. That view is clearly cracking"

Again, I reiterate, what you say about the brain is correct, but there is more to the story than what you tell.

The hardware problem is easy; the software one is not!

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

First, let's be clear that I am not advocating nor think that there is such a thing as a life-force. This was given as an example for argument sake only. Only observation and evidence will tell if it exists or not.

Mind from brain or mind through brain would have the same effect as you describe on the brain.

And the things that you describe, obtained through various forms of brain scans and experiments, are all valid and correct! No issues there!

But major questions still remain.

For the sake of repeating myself, where is mind in the brain? I gave ample references indicating that we don't know. And if it's all over the brain, has the "binding" issue been resolved? no!

You mentioned metabolism forces, but how does this create consciousness? Or more aptly, how is consciousness extracted from a kilogram or so of flesh? We don't know.

If we did know how the brain does its magic, then why after 25 years of neuroscience research did Christof Kock concede his bet to David Chalmers on this issue. In 1998 he bet that by 2023 we would know how the brain achieves consciousness, and lost. I also provided references on this one in my original 'Mind' tread.

And why this panoply of hypotheses and theories on it if we know? Gave examples

I am not the only one advocating for this position. A growing number of neuroscientists are starting to look elsewhere to try and answer the elusive question of how consciousness works.

And why does mind "seem" to be all over in nature? even in low lying life forms? Or without brains? This was not expected - lime molds appearing to think! Gave examples and references on this one too!

Research in the last few decades is not helping us consolidate what we thought about the brain. Gave also ample examples.

A lot of things that we thought we knew about the brain were overturned

• From static brain to neuroplasticity.
• From brain as a computer to it not being one.
• From humans only to other lower life forms.
• From animals feeling no pain and having no sense of self to some that do.
• From synapses to other parts of neurons.
• From neurons to other cells.

We dint' know about this either. Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate:

• Secreted chemicals
• Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions
• Electric currents
• Electromagnetic waves
• Physical contact by cells
• Biological nanotubes between cells

Who could have believed then that bioelectricity would be studied as a measure to control body shapes?

And what about NDE's? Do we ignore all the cases where mind appears to work through an apparently absent brain?

So many things going on that it is hard to follow.

Are we to overlook the entirety of all of these and other findings to come for the sake of sticking to an apparently outmoded model of mind-brain?

"The orthodox view of memory is that it is stored as a stable network of synaptic conncections among neurons in a brain. That view is clearly cracking"

Again, I reiterate, what you say about the brain is correct, but there is more to the story than what you tell.

Bolded mine, How do you know? Have you actually had an NDE (if you say yes, I'll now that you're lying?

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The hardware problem is easy; the software one is not!

That's the exact antipode of your previous argument, like I siad "the wiring is complicated, the neuron is as simple as it gets".

 

Edited March 21 by dimreepr

[DanMP]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

For me, it is not whether they are true or not, but how mind still expresses itself through a very damaged or absent brain. One experiment that I am aware of installed random number generators in hospital rooms, but no one had an NDE in them. Do not know of any other such experiment.

So, you don't know of any scientific experiment in the matter, but claim that "mind still expresses itself through a very damaged or absent brain". These NDE accounts are not like UFO accounts, because NDE can be "replicated" and studied.

 

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind from brain or mind through brain would have the same effect as you describe on the brain.

Please explain this/your assertion. If the mind is located somewhere else, not in the brain/body, why it sleeps when the brain is sleeping? Why you cannot think straight when you are intoxicated? Why a newborn is not thinking as an adult? Why we think in different languages? Maybe because the mind is just a result of brain activity?

 

In the decapitated worms experiment, one should consider that maybe not only the brain was trained to go over rough surfaces, but also the body ... When you walked only with shoes all your life, you are reluctant to go bare feet over a rocky terrain, but not so reluctant if your feet are used to it, by practice ... 

[Luc Turpin]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Bolded mine, How do you know? Have you actually had an NDE (if you say yes, I'll now that you're lying?

That's the exact antipode of your previous argument, like I siad "the wiring is complicated, the neuron is as simple as it gets".

 

Would never lie to you Dim 😇 

Yes and no! Not life changing. I was about 15 years of age; leaving my friends house; driveway with slight down slope to the main road; picked-up my bike; turned it around; started pedaling fast down the driveway; felt a car coming on my left side; said to myself, I am going to get killed; time appeared to slow down; had a instant flash of many of my main life memories; felt as if soft-gentle hands took control of my handle bar and turned it to the right; felt the car pass real close to me on my left side; heard the passenger of the car yell something like "you're going to get yourself killed"; then my heart started to pound and I told myself "what the heck just happen here?".  This occurred many years ago and I can remember it as if it was today. Again, this was not a life changing moment for me and I still don't know what really happened.

Meant the brain as hardware and the mind as software.