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]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

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.

 

I have been looking at NDE's for a while. I said that I had knowledge of only one experiment about random number generators in a hospital setting, not that I had only one experiment for the totality of the subject matter.  Some aspects of NDE's can be replicated, but not all of them all at once, except in the context of a bona fide NDE. For UFO accounts, I know very little about them.

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

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?

Caveat: At this point in time, I am only saying that mounting evidence seems to indicate that there is something missing in our current understanding of the brain. What it is? No one really knows at this point. One of the many hypotheses out there is that mind expresses itself through brain. So an analogy that I can use to explain this is as follows: mind is the signal and the brain is the TV capturing the signal and transforming into a sound and light show.

So why does the mind sleep when the brain is sleeping? the mind does not sleep, but the brain does, so you don't hear the music nor see the show.

You cannot think straight when you are intoxicated because you messed with the TV; poured gin into it.

Babies don't think like adults because their brains have not sufficiently evolved enough to make it happen. But, they do much more than we think.

We think in different languages because our brains through experience and teaching and learning have developed into thinking in a certain language, not in others.

The brain is needed to express mind; that is the thinking behind this hypothesis; there are many other theories out there.

 

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

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 

That's the whole point of the experiment; we believed that the brain did all the thinking; now some think that the body also plays a role. The point I was making is not that it proves mind through brain, but that new evidence is moving away from what we believed was going on with thinking and brain. That we had to move with evidence and modify our theory in sync with observation. No big surprise there, because that is how science works.

Never quoted in the "Popular Posts", so I guess that I am unpopular!

[DrmDoc]

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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!

I believe it was CharonY who initially asked how you define the mind and your comments above appears to at least suggest how you perceive mind relative to the brain.  Your comments suggest to me that you perceive mind as something whole and singular that emerges from or residing in a specific place relative to brain function or structure.  If true, that perception is wrong.

Mind isn't a localized quality. Mind is the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that emerges from a conflunce of brain function rather than from some specific brain structure or source.  Mind is a construct of brain function that isn't fully realized when any component of that function is compromised.  Through homestatsis, mind emerges as an efferent response to afferent stimuli.  Even more, mind is evinced by and is exclusive to behavioral expressions that suggest a thought process. 

If one were to answer "where is mind in the brain", the answer would be everywhere as it the cognitive environment within the brain created by our brain's responses to life experience.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

where is mind in the brain", the answer would be everywhere as it the cognitive environment within the brain created by our brain's responses to life experience.

Your last several responses have been excellent and I agree with most of this last one too, but might pushback slightly on this final bit I’ve quoted since we see so much involvement from the spine and nervous system more broadly, plus the gut biome, for example.

While Luc is a bit too extreme on the panpsychism front IMO, I do think limiting ourselves to just the brain when exploring this topic is also a bit too conservative and restrictive to provide us all with a full and accurate picture. 

Either way, thanks for the contributions and clarity they’ve added. It’s been much needed and appreciated. ✌️

[Luc Turpin]

First, I wish to acknowledge how appreciative I am of having discussions, especially on mind, on this Science Forums site.

Second, I appreciate my conversations with DrmDoc, Dim, INow and others. Without them, I would not be able to expose my position nor be able to advance in my thinking about Mind. DanMP is also asking relevant questions.

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Your comments suggest to me that you perceive mind as something whole and singular that emerges from or residing in a specific place relative to brain function or structure.  If true, that perception is wrong.

"whole and singular" - maybe.

"that emerges" - I was very vocal about the fact that the "emergent property" thesis was a "cop-out" for not knowing;

"residing in a specific place relative to brain function or structure" - It may very well reside nowhere and therefore not be relative to brain function or structure.

"If true, that perception is wrong" - agree that it's wrong.

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Mind isn't a localized quality.

.Mind is possibly not spacially nor qualitatively localised. So it seems that we agree partially on this.

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Mind is the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that emerges from a conflunce of brain function rather than from some specific brain structure or source. 

Saying mind "emerges" does not explain how it emerges; it just says so without explanation of how it does so! I am not the only one taking up this position on emergence. I reiterate and respectfully say that it's a "cop-out" for "we don't know"; 

"a confluence of brain function" - how does this come all together to form the impression of the "I" in the machine; is it not the "binding" issue that has pervaded the whole of neuroscience and has never been satisfactorily addressed?

"from some specific brain structure" - no; ..."or source" - maybe.

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Mind is a construct of brain function that isn't fully realized when any component of that function is compromised. 

So, again, how do you explain terminal lucidity or NDE's where brain function is compromised without apparent effect of mind?

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Through homestatsis, mind emerges as an efferent response to afferent stimuli. 

"emerges", that word again!

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

 Even more, mind is evinced by and is exclusive to behavioral expressions that suggest a thought process. 

I am not sure that I understand this one. If you mean that its just and all about behavioral expression, as in a process without thinking, then I strongly disagree. It is also ejecting "qualia" from the discussion.

 

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

If one were to answer "where is mind in the brain", the answer would be everywhere as it the cognitive environment within the brain created by our brain's responses to life experience.

This view is strongly being challenged by new evidence and observations. It has become almost untenable.

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Your last several responses have been excellent and I agree with most of this last one too, but might pushback slightly on this final bit I’ve quoted since we see so much involvement from the spine and nervous system more broadly, plus the gut biome, for example.

While Luc is a bit too extreme on the panpsychism front IMO, I do think limiting ourselves to just the brain when exploring this topic is also a bit too conservative and restrictive to provide us all with a full and accurate picture. 

Either way, thanks for the contributions and clarity they’ve added. It’s been much needed and appreciated. ✌️

Yes on more than brain.

Not necessarily panpsychism, might be something else.

Agree that DrmDoc contribution is needed and appreciated.

 

[DanMP]

On 3/20/2024 at 8:24 PM, Luc Turpin said:

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!

I don't get/understand this limitation. Why you can't get outside the body if you really really want to see? Why you can't replicate the "required" condition to get outside, like lack of oxigen, and investigate this "ability"? Also why you don't see inside? Because it's dark? You can swallow a camera and not only provide light, but also images to be compared with the "mindsight".

 

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

So why does the mind sleep when the brain is sleeping? the mind does not sleep, but the brain does, so you don't hear the music nor see the show.

I don't get this. Why I cannot "hear the music nor see the show"? My mind is not me? I cannot hear my mind?! And if "the mind does not sleep", where are stored/memorized the thoughts "produced" in that period? If the "mindsight" (see above) was stored, why these thoughts are not? Or you remember thinking while asleep?

 

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

That's the whole point of the experiment; we believed that the brain did all the thinking; now some think that the body also plays a role.

The body role, in my opinion, was not to think, nor to store the memory of past activities, but to send information to the brain. In the worms case, the information from the used-to-rough-surfaces body was: "it does not hurt so bad", so the new brain could decide to go over rough surfaces. The other new brains would only get the message "it hurts!" so they'd decide to avoid the rough surface. The experimenters shouldn't discard the heads. I bet that all the heads would grow a sensible body and avoid going over rough surfaces, regardless of previous experience.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

The opperative word here is 'appeared/apparent' time can't slow down and a generous ghost can't interact with our world; whatever you think you remember has no basis in the reality of the moment, due to the way we automatically rewrite every memory in the context of the 'now' in which it was remembered IOW everytime we remember something, it's meaning is tweaked to suit our current mood.

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Meant the brain as hardware and the mind as software.

The software can only run on the appropriate hardware.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The opperative word here is 'appeared/apparent' time can't slow down and a generous ghost can't interact with our world; whatever you think you remember has no basis in the reality of the moment, due to the way we automatically rewrite every memory in the context of the 'now' in which it was remembered IOW everytime we remember something, it's meaning is tweaked to suit our current mood.

The software can only run on the appropriate hardware.

Not saying that time actually slowed-down; when I am bored, time seems to pass slowly and when I am not, it seems to pass faster; all a matter of perception. So, guess I was really bored during my experience, as it felt as if time had almost stopped 😊

"felt as if soft-gentle hands took control of my handle bar and turned it to the right"; who said it was a ghost? still just an impression of, not something that actually occurred; why would I be saved by a ghost and not others who get into an accident and die; I am not special.

The story has remained exactly the same for all these years, without tweaks to suit the mood; I am aware that memories are rewritten and noticed that some of my own change in tone and texture over time, but not this one. It is engraved in my memory.

Yep, software needs hardware to run, but the software is more complicated to understand and have it work as it does than the hardware.

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

I don't get/understand this limitation. Why you can't get outside the body if you really really want to see? Why you can't replicate the "required" condition to get outside, like lack of oxigen, and investigate this "ability"? Also why you don't see inside? Because it's dark? You can swallow a camera and not only provide light, but also images to be compared with the "mindsight".

You need to be near death to have an NDE; some have them without being near death, but they are rare and no one knows the mechanism to activate it. It would be unethical to bring someone near death to study it. For the rest, I am not sure what you mean.

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

I don't get this. Why I cannot "hear the music nor see the show"? My mind is not me? I cannot hear my mind?! And if "the mind does not sleep", where are stored/memorized the thoughts "produced" in that period? If the "mindsight" (see above) was stored, why these thoughts are not? Or you remember thinking while asleep?

Because you brain is offline and it is needed to be conscious. Your mind transforms the signal, which becomes your own mind. If you are not looking at the show, then you are not making memories to store. No one knows why near death, unconscious or anesthetised, someone would suddenly wake up, be aware and have memories. It is the same for "mindsight" experiences; how can someone blind, even from birth, be able to "see" in some fashion or another his surroundings and experience it? It you think while asleep it is because you are not entirely asleep.

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

The body role, in my opinion, was not to think, nor to store the memory of past activities, but to send information to the brain. In the worms case, the information from the used-to-rough-surfaces body was: "it does not hurt so bad", so the new brain could decide to go over rough surfaces. The other new brains would only get the message "it hurts!" so they'd decide to avoid the rough surface. The experimenters shouldn't discard the heads. I bet that all the heads would grow a sensible body and avoid going over rough surfaces, regardless of previous experience.

The body apparently participates with the brain in thinking and memory storage. The piece with the head and the piece without the head grew respectively tails and heads and all remembered the skill.  Meaning that that memory skill was stored in the body of the part without the head while it grew one.

 

[DrmDoc]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Your last several responses have been excellent and I agree with most of this last one too, but might pushback slightly on this final bit I’ve quoted since we see so much involvement from the spine and nervous system more broadly, plus the gut biome, for example.

While Luc is a bit too extreme on the panpsychism front IMO, I do think limiting ourselves to just the brain when exploring this topic is also a bit too conservative and restrictive to provide us all with a full and accurate picture. 

Either way, thanks for the contributions and clarity they’ve added. It’s been much needed and appreciated. ✌️

I understand and the fault is mine.  I have a proclivative for preceiving the most basic form of things and I may not have fully explained this reductionist perspective.  There are two basic components of my overall perspective and mind is just one component.

Brain function comprises a balance between afferent (input) and efferent (output) components.  Affects that channel into our central nervous system from source external to core brain function provide the impetus for that function.  Our brain's functional responses to that impetus are its efferent output.  The cognitive environment within the brain that emerges as mind is an efferent response to affects external to core brain functions, such as gut biome.

Indeed, mind and brain are distinct with the former being an enironment of cognitive activity and the latter being the structure that generates that cognitive activity.  However, when we discuss the involvement of components external to the brain, it's a discussion about the intake feuling the generator that creates mind. 

The key takeaway from all of this is that afferent influences do not comprise the mind, they are merely the stimulus that generate the confluence of brain responses that merge to create the mind.

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Saying mind "emerges" does not explain how it emerges; it just says so without explanation of how it does so! I am not the only one taking up this position on emergence. I reiterate and respectfully say that it's a "cop-out" for "we don't know"; 

"a confluence of brain function" - how does this come all together to form the impression of the "I" in the machine; is it not the "binding" issue that has pervaded the whole of neuroscience and has never been satisfactorily addressed?

The question of emergence and confluence is answerable by an imperative of brain function, which I briefly explored in previous discussions. The primary imperative of brain function is homeostasis, which our brain's functional effort to maintain its metabolic balance. It's a delicate balance that is influenced by everything we sense, perceive, and experience from in vitro until brain death.  Life experience stimulates brain activity, which consumes our brain's energy uptake. The mental and behavior responses our brain generates provides a conterbalance to that stimulation.  For example, my comments here have an afferent neural affect on the brain function of those who read them.  It's a reverberant neural effect that expends energy and does not wane without a response that has a nullifying effect.   For some, that nullifying effect may be to ignore my comments or, for other, to ponder a responses.  The effect of all of this in the brain is its effort to effect a neural counterbalance to a specific reverberant stimuli compromising it metabolic balance--which is essentially the metabolic nature of thought.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

when we discuss the involvement of components external to the brain, it's a discussion about the intake feuling the generator that creates mind. 

Nicely said. The clarification is appreciated 

[Luc Turpin]

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

I understand and the fault is mine.  I have a proclivative for preceiving the most basic form of things and I may not have fully explained this reductionist perspective.  There are two basic components of my overall perspective and mind is just one component.

Brain function comprises a balance between afferent (input) and efferent (output) components.  Affects that channel into our central nervous system from source external to core brain function provide the impetus for that function.  Our brain's functional responses to that impetus are its efferent output.  The cognitive environment within the brain that emerges as mind is an efferent response to affects external to core brain functions, such as gut biome.

Indeed, mind and brain are distinct with the former being an enironment of cognitive activity and the latter being the structure that generates that cognitive activity.  However, when we discuss the involvement of components external to the brain, it's a discussion about the intake feuling the generator that creates mind. 

The key takeaway from all of this is that afferent influences do not comprise the mind, they are merely the stimulus that generate the confluence of brain responses that merge to create the mind.

 

Only fueling the generator or also participating in the dance? getting harder to tell!

The enteric system can work separately from the nervous system.

"The gut-brain axis is a bidirectional communication network that links the enteric and central nervous systems. This network is not only anatomical, but it extends to include endocrine, humoral, metabolic, and immune routes of communication as well. The autonomic nervous system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and nerves within the gastrointestinal tract, all link the gut and the brain, allowing the brain to influence intestinal activities, including activity of functional immune effector cells; and the gut to influence mood, cognition, and mental health."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/

"How gut bacteria are controlling your brain"

"Over the last few decades, researchers have started to uncover curious, compelling – and sometimes controversial – evidence to suggest that the gut microbiota doesn't just help to keep our brains in prime working order by helping to free up nutrients for it from our food, but may also help to shape our very thoughts and behaviour. "

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230120-how-gut-bacteria-are-controlling-your-brain

"Thinking from the gut"

"The gut-brain axis seems to be bidirectional—the brain acts on gastrointestinal and immune functions that help to shape the gut's microbial makeup, and gut microbes make neuroactive compounds, including neurotransmitters and metabolites that also act on the brain."

https://www.nature.com/articles/518S13a#:~:text=The gut-brain axis seems,also act on the brain.

Gut instincts: The secrets of your second brain

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628951-900-gut-instincts-the-secrets-of-your-second-brain/

I could dig deeper into the data to find how complex, integrated and interchangeable the roles appear, but evidence and observations tend to get lost in the discussion.

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

The question of emergence and confluence is answerable by an imperative of brain function, which I briefly explored in previous discussions. The primary imperative of brain function is homeostasis, which our brain's functional effort to maintain its metabolic balance. It's a delicate balance that is influenced by everything we sense, perceive, and experience from in vitro until brain death.  Life experience stimulates brain activity, which consumes our brain's energy uptake. The mental and behavior responses our brain generates provides a conterbalance to that stimulation.  For example, my comments here have an afferent neural affect on the brain function of those who read them.  It's a reverberant neural effect that expends energy and does not wane without a response that has a nullifying effect.   For some, that nullifying effect may be to ignore my comments or, for other, to ponder a responses.  The effect of all of this in the brain is its effort to effect a neural counterbalance to a specific reverberant stimuli compromising it metabolic balance--which is essentially the metabolic nature of thought.

This is one of many attemps to resolve the easy problems. All of them do not address the hard problem. If it did, Chalmers would have lost his bet in 2023. Bold-large text not mine.

"The easy problems are easy precisely because they concern the explanation of cognitive abilities and functions. To explain a cognitive function, we need only specify a mechanism that can perform the function. The methods of cognitive science are well-suited for this sort of explanation, and so are well-suited to the easy problems of consciousness. By contrast, the hard problem is hard precisely because it is not a problem about the performance of functions. The problem persists even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained … What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions. To see this, note that even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience … there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? A simple explanation of the functions leaves this question open … Why doesn't all this information-processing go on “in the dark,” free of any inner feel?"

 

 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The story has remained exactly the same for all these years, without tweaks to suit the mood; I am aware that memories are rewritten and noticed that some of my own change in tone and texture over time, but not this one. It is engraved in my memory.

If you're aware that memories can be rewritten, how do you know if the rewrite is perfect?

My only fight at school was with the person who is now my best friend, and we both remember winning.

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Yep, software needs hardware to run, but the software is more complicated to understand and have it work as it does than the hardware.

That depends on the engineering degree you chose to study...

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Only fueling the generator or also participating in the dance? getting harder to tell!

The enteric system can work separately from the nervous system.

"The gut-brain axis is a bidirectional communication network that links the enteric and central nervous systems. This network is not only anatomical, but it extends to include endocrine, humoral, metabolic, and immune routes of communication as well. The autonomic nervous system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and nerves within the gastrointestinal tract, all link the gut and the brain, allowing the brain to influence intestinal activities, including activity of functional immune effector cells; and the gut to influence mood, cognition, and mental health."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/

"How gut bacteria are controlling your brain"

There you go again, thinking influences can think, the gut doesn't control the brain, it just assists in it's abilitty to think.

[DrmDoc]

29 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Only fueling the generator or also participating in the dance? getting harder to tell!

The enteric system can work separately from the nervous system.

"The gut-brain axis is a bidirectional communication network that links the enteric and central nervous systems. This network is not only anatomical, but it extends to include endocrine, humoral, metabolic, and immune routes of communication as well. The autonomic nervous system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and nerves within the gastrointestinal tract, all link the gut and the brain, allowing the brain to influence intestinal activities, including activity of functional immune effector cells; and the gut to influence mood, cognition, and mental health."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/

"How gut bacteria are controlling your brain"

"Over the last few decades, researchers have started to uncover curious, compelling – and sometimes controversial – evidence to suggest that the gut microbiota doesn't just help to keep our brains in prime working order by helping to free up nutrients for it from our food, but may also help to shape our very thoughts and behaviour. "

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230120-how-gut-bacteria-are-controlling-your-brain

"Thinking from the gut"

"The gut-brain axis seems to be bidirectional—the brain acts on gastrointestinal and immune functions that help to shape the gut's microbial makeup, and gut microbes make neuroactive compounds, including neurotransmitters and metabolites that also act on the brain."

https://www.nature.com/articles/518S13a#:~:text=The gut-brain axis seems,also act on the brain.

Gut instincts: The secrets of your second brain

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628951-900-gut-instincts-the-secrets-of-your-second-brain/

I could dig deeper into the data to find how complex, integrated and interchangeable the roles appear, but evidence and observations tend to get lost in the discussion.

This is one of many attemps to resolve the easy problems. All of them do not address the hard problem. If it did, Chalmers would have lost his bet in 2023. Bold-large text not mine.

"The easy problems are easy precisely because they concern the explanation of cognitive abilities and functions. To explain a cognitive function, we need only specify a mechanism that can perform the function. The methods of cognitive science are well-suited for this sort of explanation, and so are well-suited to the easy problems of consciousness. By contrast, the hard problem is hard precisely because it is not a problem about the performance of functions. The problem persists even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained … What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions. To see this, note that even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience … there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? A simple explanation of the functions leaves this question open … Why doesn't all this information-processing go on “in the dark,” free of any inner feel?"

 

 

I am well versed in the nature of the enteric system and its influence on brain function, but is enteric a mind or a component of the mind?  As I explained, mind is the cognitive environment that emerges within the brain itself from brain function. As an influence upon brain function, the enteric system is merely a contributor to that function that unconsciously feul the responses within the brain that generates mind.  The enteric system may be a secondary brain that controls subsystems in the body that influence brain function, but it doesn't produce a mind--it doesn't engage in the independent thought processes suggestive of a mind.

Having a mind allows an organism's engagement of behaviors independent of its instincts.  These are the behaviors that suggest a thought process.  That behavior doesn't manifest in the gut.  That "gut feeling" some of us boast about is merely our brain's reaction to an extension of its sensory array.  Mind is essentially our brain's cognitive reaction to sensory input.

Chalmers lost his bet because he didn't full grasp the primary nature of brain function.  Most perceive mind and brain function as essentially a collection of synaptic discharges.  I perceive mind and brain function through the metabolic processes at the basis of those synaptic activities.  From single cell to complex organism, the primary imperative of these lifeforms is homestasis, which is an imperative to maintain metabolic stability.  In the brain, homestasis isn't a thought process, it's the metabolic mechanism that powers and drive those processes.  When you fully grasp the nature of homestasis in brain function, you will grasp the nature of thought and mind in its most basic form.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you're aware that memories can be rewritten, how do you know if the rewrite is perfect?

My only fight at school was with the person who is now my best friend, and we both remember winning.

That depends on the engineering degree you chose to study...

There you go again, thinking influences can think, the gut doesn't control the brain, it just assists in it's abilitty to think.

Could be that it changed or was not what actually happened, but this memory has an indelible character to 

1 hour ago, DrmDoc said:

I am well versed in the nature of the enteric system and its influence on brain function, but is enteric a mind or a component of the mind?  As I explained, mind is the cognitive environment that emerges within the brain itself from brain function. As an influence upon brain function, the enteric system is merely a contributor to that function that unconsciously feul the responses within the brain that generates mind.  The enteric system may be a secondary brain that controls subsystems in the body that influence brain function, but it doesn't produce a mind--it doesn't engage in the independent thought processes suggestive of a mind.

Having a mind allows an organism's engagement of behaviors independent of its instincts.  These are the behaviors that suggest a thought process.  That behavior doesn't manifest in the gut.  That "gut feeling" some of us boast about is merely our brain's reaction to an extension of its sensory array.  Mind is essentially our brain's cognitive reaction to sensory input.

Chalmers lost his bet because he didn't full grasp the primary nature of brain function.  Most perceive mind and brain function as essentially a collection of synaptic discharges.  I perceive mind and brain function through the metabolic processes at the basis of those synaptic activities.  From single cell to complex organism, the primary imperative of these lifeforms is homestasis, which is an imperative to maintain metabolic stability.  In the brain, homestasis isn't a thought process, it's the metabolic mechanism that powers and drive those processes.  When you fully grasp the nature of homestasis in brain function, you will grasp the nature of thought and mind in its most basic form.

You very well know that I was not talking only about the enteric system, but the possible interplay between brain and body as a whole. Mind is a holistic process with brain doing the heavy-duty work and body possibly doing some of it. Its an interplay, not a one-way. It's a painting, where most of the painting is done by the brain and the body fills in the gaps to create the whole. I gave references to that; not coming from me, but from others.

Mind-brain interaction is much more than homeostasis and energy balance and metabolism.

I have said that you are right in all of your assertions, but evidence-observation tend towards a picture that is more than this. Not that you are wrong, but that there is more.

You always come back with a categorical position with no movement and no consideration for evidence-observation. No consideration, only rebuttals.

I am always wrong in all of my statements, even when backed with possible evidence-observations. All positions are categorically rejected without even slight consideration.

Then, why do we even bother discussing if I am always wrong and there is not even the slightest chance of movement?

If "I do not grasp the nature of thought and mind in its most basic form", then others more versed on the matter than I do so and have said that the story is incomplete.

By the way, Chalmers won his bet and there is still no consensus in neuroscience on how the brain creates the mind. That is not me talking, but the whole of this science field. You say you know, without an inkling of a doubt, which is not possible in science. One theory supersedes another when data becomes available, or at least the theory is tweaked to take into consideration new information.

No tweaking possible here.

Ceci n'est pas une discussion mais une conversation de sourd.

 

[DrmDoc]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

You very well know that I was not talking only about the enteric system, but the possible interplay between brain and body as a whole. Mind is a holistic process with brain doing the heavy-duty work and body possibly doing some of it. Its an interplay, not a one-way. It's a painting, where most of the painting is done by the brain and the body fills in the gaps to create the whole. I gave references to that; not coming from me, but from others.

I understood your comments regarding the enteric system as an example of the "interplay between brain and body as a whole."  My subsequent response regarded how I perceive your example's specific role in that interplay.  If I now understand correctly, you perceive mind in a "holistic" form or as a result of a "holistic process."  If correct, then I agree with the perspective that mind is indeed a product of a holistic process.  In my view, our only disagreement here is how that process operates.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind-brain interaction is much more than homeostasis and energy balance and metabolism.

I have said that you are right in all of your assertions, but evidence-observation tend towards a picture that is more than this. Not that you are wrong, but that there is more.

What could possibly be more to the foundation of mind than the engine and energy that powers the brain functions generating the mind.  Mind, to be clear, doesn't exist without brain function and brain function does not occur without the energy driving that function.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

You always come back with a categorical position with no movement and no consideration for evidence-observation. No consideration, only rebuttals.

I am always wrong in all of my statements, even when backed with possible evidence-observations. All positions are categorically rejected without even slight consideration.

Then, why do we even bother discussing if I am always wrong and there is not even the slightest chance of movement?

The evidence and observations for me have been incredibly clear, which is why I may be perceived as ridgid in expressing my views.  However, I do not perceive our exchanges as an issue of who's right and who's wrong, but rather a discussion of point-counterpoint.  I enjoy these exchanges as they compel me to re-evaluate and sharpen my perspective when challenged.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

If "I do not grasp the nature of thought and mind in its most basic form", then others more versed on the matter than I do so and have said that the story is incomplete.

By the way, Chalmers won his bet and there is still no consensus in neuroscience on how the brain creates the mind. That is not me talking, but the whole of this science field. You say you know, without an inkling of a doubt, which is not possible in science. One theory supersedes another when data becomes available, or at least the theory is tweaked to take into consideration new information.

No tweaking possible here.

Ceci n'est pas une discussion mais une conversation de sourd.

 

These discussions have sharpen my perspective and have allowed me to share what little insight I managed to glean over the years.  If there's no consensus in neuroscience on the nature of mind, it's not because there isn't sufficient evidence for same--IMO.

[Luc Turpin]

 Apologies, woke up more susceptible for no apparent reason yesterday.

Your participation in this thread is essential.

Your knowledge, your intelligence and your sound theory on mind-brain pushes me to think and rethink things as we progress in our discussion.

16 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

I understood your comments regarding the enteric system as an example of the "interplay between brain and body as a whole."  My subsequent response regarded how I perceive your example's specific role in that interplay.  If I now understand correctly, you perceive mind in a "holistic" form or as a result of a "holistic process."  If correct, then I agree with the perspective that mind is indeed a product of a holistic process.  In my view, our only disagreement here is how that process operates.

I believe that one of our main differences between you and I is about certainty in the matter of mind and brain. You believe, based on knowledge-observation acquired a while ago (no disrespect intended here) that mind is created by brain. While I believe that more recent evidence-observation indicates that it might not work like that, that it might be mind through brain. I reiterate that the "jury" is still very much out on this one. What makes it difficult for both of us in this discussion is that there would be only subtle differences between both in how the brain would appear to operate. So most of the evidence-observations that supports the mind from brain would support either one, while newer findings appear to show at least that it might not be that simple, that something is amiss, that it might be a different type of operating system.

Take for example the topic of interplay between brain and body. You see it as the brain taking what resources it needs from the body and creating mind on itself. While a mind through brain theory could (as in not a definite possibility; given for example only) see mind being expressed in the brain and body and expressed differently in the brain than in the body. The consolidation of the appearance of mind, whether coming solely from brain or from a "montage" created by brain and body, would be very similar in appearance and be hard to differentiate from one another. One has body in a supporting role while the other has body in a participative role, but both have similar outputs (mind). Brain takes in what it needs from the body and makes it happen, while mind goes through brain and body with different outcomes which are collated together to create mind (not entirely sure of this last statement, because it brings up the binding issue).

17 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

What could possibly be more to the foundation of mind than the engine and energy that powers the brain functions generating the mind.  Mind, to be clear, doesn't exist without brain function and brain function does not occur without the energy driving that function.

No disagreement as to the foundation of mind, but the picture does not end at the foundation. There is apparently a lot that sits on top of the foundation. Mind needs brain and body to fully express itself in a mind through brain theory. Energy is required for both theories to work.

17 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

The evidence and observations for me have been incredibly clear, which is why I may be perceived as ridgid in expressing my views.  However, I do not perceive our exchanges as an issue of who's right and who's wrong, but rather a discussion of point-counterpoint.  I enjoy these exchanges as they compel me to re-evaluate and sharpen my perspective when challenged.

Yes, evidence and observations have been incredibly clear, but this evidence-observations does not rule out something else at play. We are both right on mind from brain, but I might be wrong on even entertaining a mind through brain scenario. I too, most of the time, enjoy our exchanges. The onus is on me to make them always pleasurable.

17 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

These discussions have sharpen my perspective and have allowed me to share what little insight I managed to glean over the years.  If there's no consensus in neuroscience on the nature of mind, it's not because there isn't sufficient evidence for same--IMO.

They have sharpened my perspective also. You know much more than all of us who have participated so far in this thread.

By the way, Chalmers was saying that we do not know of brain creates mind, not the opposite. No consensus not because there isn't sufficient evidence, but because of different interpretations of evidence.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Could be that it changed or was not what actually happened, but this memory has an indelible character to 

Too what? Stain?

That would be interesting, if the stain decided to be indelible.

 

[DrmDoc]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

 Apologies, woke up more susceptible for no apparent reason yesterday.

Your participation in this thread is essential.

Your knowledge, your intelligence and your sound theory on mind-brain pushes me to think and rethink things as we progress in our discussion.

No aplologies are necessary and I, sincerely, appreciate our participation in this discussion.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I believe that one of our main differences between you and I is about certainty in the matter of mind and brain. You believe, based on knowledge-observation acquired a while ago (no disrespect intended here) that mind is created by brain. While I believe that more recent evidence-observation indicates that it might not work like that, that it might be mind through brain. I reiterate that the "jury" is still very much out on this one. What makes it difficult for both of us in this discussion is that there would be only subtle differences between both in how the brain would appear to operate. So most of the evidence-observations that supports the mind from brain would support either one, while newer findings appear to show at least that it might not be that simple, that something is amiss, that it might be a different type of operating system.

Take for example the topic of interplay between brain and body. You see it as the brain taking what resources it needs from the body and creating mind on itself. While a mind through brain theory could (as in not a definite possibility; given for example only) see mind being expressed in the brain and body and expressed differently in the brain than in the body. The consolidation of the appearance of mind, whether coming solely from brain or from a "montage" created by brain and body, would be very similar in appearance and be hard to differentiate from one another. One has body in a supporting role while the other has body in a participative role, but both have similar outputs (mind). Brain takes in what it needs from the body and makes it happen, while mind goes through brain and body with different outcomes which are collated together to create mind (not entirely sure of this last statement, because it brings up the binding issue).

As I mentioned in previous comments, I have a proclivity for perceiving the simplest form of things.  When I evaluated the science on the collaboration of brain and body to create mind, I perceive the distinct role each appears to play in that collaboration. 

In considering the science of brain and body as progenitors of mind, I've asked myself, "What is mind relative to the brain and what is mind relative to the body?"  The science informs me that mind is a cognitive response of brain function and the evidence suggests that mind does not exist without brain function.  Relative to the body, the science informs me that the body is merely a vehicle that facilitates the brain's survival imperative.  From this perspective one might ask, "So how important is the body to the brain functions that produce a mind?"  The answer to that question has been provided for centuries through effects of war, experiment, and everyday accidents the body has experienced.

Ask yourself, "Has a history of non-fatal body dismemberment showed the disappearance of mind?" Has a significant lost of limbs or removal of prominent organs consistently resulted in a deminished capacity of our brain's ability to produce a mind?  Although there may be psychological effects associated with these, those effects are treatable and not consistently permanent.  So how important is the body to the brain's production of mind when significant bodily damage doesn't inhibit that production?  My certainty of the role of body in the interplay that produces mind is rooted in a clear perspective of that role.

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

No disagreement as to the foundation of mind, but the picture does not end at the foundation. There is apparently a lot that sits on top of the foundation. Mind needs brain and body to fully express itself in a mind through brain theory. Energy is required for both theories to work.

A discussion of the things that sit on top of the mind's foundation, in my view, is discussion of the hat that sits upon a head-- the thinking actually occurs below the hat.

 

 

[Luc Turpin]

19 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

"What is mind relative to the brain and what is mind relative to the body?" 

"So how important is the body to the brain functions that produce a mind?"  

"Has a history of non-fatal body dismemberment showed the disappearance of mind?"

Has a significant lost of limbs or removal of prominent organs consistently resulted in a deminished capacity of our brain's ability to produce a mind? 

Amputation causes a whole cascade of effects: depression, anxiety, self-esteem issues, distorted body image, change in personality, cognition impairment, change in body schema. Most are probably actuated by the brain, but how would we know if it was not, in some small sense, also coming from the body?  How could we disentangle the two?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where it gets interesting is for organ transplants,  

 “Personality changes may occur following organ transplants: In some case, organ recipients report personality changes that parallel the personality of their donor; Some organ recipients “remember” events from their donor’s life. Cellular memories stored outside the brain may transfer information from organ donors to recipients."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-leading-edge/202402/do-organ-transplants-cause-personality-change-in-recipients#:~:text=In%20some%20cases%2C%20organ%20recipients,from%20organ%20donors%20to%20recipients.

 

“When excluding changes in physical attributes, 89.3% of all transplant recipients reported experiencing a personality change after receiving their organ transplant.”

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3943/5/1/2#:~:text=Among%20heart%20transplant%20recipients%20who,four%20or%20more%20personality%20changes

 

 

Another article presenting types of personality changes

Physical Attributes* 19 (95.7) 13 (54.2) 32 (68.1)	Temperament 14 (60.9) 12 (50.0) 26 (55.3)	Emotions (happy, sad, etc.) 12 (52.2) 14 (58.3) 26 (55.3)
Food 11 (47.8) 8 (33.3) 19 (40.4)	Participating or Watching Sports 7 (30.4) 2 (8.3) 9 (19.1	Physical Activities 6 (26.1) 7 (29.2) 13 (27.7)
Personal Identity 4 (17.4) 4 (16.7) 8 (17.0)	Movies/TV 3 (13.0) 1 (4.2) 4 (8.5)	Religious/spiritual Beliefs 3 (13.0) 3 (12.5) 6 (12.8)
Sexual Preferences 3 (13.0) 1 (4.2) 4 (8.5)	Memories 2 (8.7) 5 (20.8) 7 (14.9)	Music 2 (8.7) 3 (12.5) 5 (10.6)
Art 0 (0) 1 (4.2) 1 (2.1)	Colors 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)	Electronic Devices 0 (0) 2 (8.3) 2 (4.2)
Political views 0 (0) 1 (4.2) 1 (2.1	ANY (excluding Physical Attributes) 21 (91.3) 21 (87.5) 42 (89.3

file:///C:/Users/Dad/Downloads/preprints202309.1894.v1%202.pdf

 

“Changes in heart transplant recipients that parallel the personalities of their donors”

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/HeartorBrain2_Pearsall-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_2002-20-191-206.pdf

 

 

A theory about it!

"Can an Organ Transplant Change A Recipient's Personality? Cell Memory Theory Affirms "Yes"" 

https://www.medicaldaily.com/can-organ-transplant-change-recipients-personality-cell-memory-theory-affirms-yes-247498

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 And it gets really interesting is in dissociative identity disorder where the brain actually changes the body.

"The different identities, referred to as alters, may exhibit differences in speech, manerism, attitudes, thoughts and gender orientation. The alter may even present physical differences, such as allergies, right-or-left handedness or the need for eyeglass prescriptions. These differences between alters are often quite striking".

https://namimi.org/mental-illness/dissociative-disorder/didfactsheet#:~:text=The%20different%20identities%2C%20referred%20to,the%20need%20for%20eyeglass%20prescriptions.

 

"These include the abrupt appearance and disappearance of rashes, welts, scars and other tissue wounds; switches in handwriting and handedness;" .

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/28/science/probing-the-enigma-of-multiple-personality.html

 

“Multiple personality disorder has been associated with marked psychophysiologic alterations ever since careful clinical observations have been made on this perplexing disorder. Physical symptoms known to be associated with multiple personality include headaches, conversion symptoms, changes in voice, seizure-like activity, unexplained pain or insensitivity to pain, alterations in handedness or handwriting style, palpitations, alterations in respiration, gastrointestinal disturbances including bulimia and anorexia, menstrual irregularities, sexual dysfunction, and dermatological conditions including unusual allergic responses and differential responses to medication. Early scientific studies on the galvanic skin response in multiple personality disorder were conducted by Prince in the erly twentieth century. Since 1970 there has been a resurgence of interest in multiple personality disorder including sophisticated studies of physical symptoms, brain-wave activity, visual evoked potential, regional cerebral blood fWw, visual refraction, muscle activity, cardiac and respiratory activity, galvanic skin response, and the switch process. In addition to describing these studies, the etiology of multiple personality disorder and future directions in research will be discussed.”

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36679938.pdf

 

“Visual function in multiple personality disorder”

“Background: Multiple personality disorder (MPD) is characterized by the existence of two or more personality states that recurrently exchange control over the behavior of the individual. Numerous reports indicate physiological differences, including significant differences in ocular and visual function, across alter personality states in MPD.”

“Results: Physiologic differences across alter personality states in MPD include differences in dominant handedness, response to the same medication, allergic sensitivities, autonomic and endocrine function, EEG, VEP, and regional cerebral blood flow. Differences in visual function include variability in visual acuity, refraction, oculomotor status, visual field, color vision, corneal curvature, pupil size, and intraocular pressure in the various personality states of MPD subjects as compared to single personality controls.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8888853/#:~:text=Results%3A%20Physiologic%20differences%20across%20alter,and%20regional%20cerebral%20blood%20flow.

 

 

“Individuals with dissociative identity disorder (DID) have been known to show varied skills and talents as they change from one dissociative state to another. For example, case reports have described people who have changed their handedness or have spoken foreign languages during their dissociative states.” 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766827/#:~:text=Individuals%20with%20dissociative%20identity%20disorder,languages%20during%20their%20dissociative%20states.

 

If this evidence-observations are correct, how does this fit in a mind from brain model?

19 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

A discussion of the things that sit on top of the mind's foundation, in my view, is discussion of the hat that sits upon a head-- the thinking actually occurs below the hat.

 

But, It may be a magician's hat with many surprises in it!☺️

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Too what? Stain?

That would be interesting, if the stain decided to be indelible.

 

The memory did not decide, but just did become indelible.

This memory feels different than other, but I cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that it cannot be maleable through time. 

However, everytime I tell the "story", it does not change.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, everytime I tell the "story", it does not change.

Of course not, bc you can only read the updated text, you have no access to the original text to make a comparison; it's essentially chinese whispers.

[Luc Turpin]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Of course not, bc you can only read the updated text, you have no access to the original text to make a comparison; it's essentially chinese whispers.

I admit that I cannot be sure without doubt that its the same memory as the original.

But, I persist in saying that this memory appears to be less maleable to time than others.

Cold reality of an artifical heart

I line with what was just posted on organ transpants, but in a patient with an artifical heart.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/cold-reality-of-an-artificial-heart/

 

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

I line with what was just posted on organ transpants, but in a patient with an artifical heart.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/cold-reality-of-an-artificial-heart/

 

Should have been posted separately

Sorry Dim.

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I admit that I cannot be sure without doubt that its the same memory as the original.

But, I persist in saying that this memory appears to be less maleable to time than others.

Cold reality of an artifical heart

I line with what was just posted on organ transpants, but in a patient with an artifical heart.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/cold-reality-of-an-artificial-heart/

 

Should have been posted separately

Sorry Dim.

My point from the start has been, your faith has no objective measure. 

[Luc Turpin]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

My point from the start has been, your faith has no objective measure. 

You are right!

Then, I concede!

On this matter only!😊

 

[Luc Turpin]

Maybe our mind from brain theory should be renamed the mind from body theory!

[DanMP]

On 3/22/2024 at 8:25 PM, Luc Turpin said:

The body apparently participates with the brain in thinking and memory storage. The piece with the head and the piece without the head grew respectively tails and heads and all remembered the skill.  Meaning that that memory skill was stored in the body of the part without the head while it grew one.

No, the heads were discarded, as I wrote. And the "memory storage" may be just a thicker skin, allowing the new heads, with such a body, to feel less pain and learn quicker to go over the rough surface.

 

On 3/22/2024 at 8:25 PM, Luc Turpin said:

Because you brain is offline and it is needed to be conscious. Your mind transforms the signal, which becomes your own mind.

If the mind is the result of brain activity, as I said, yes, the brain must be online/conscious in order to think straight, but if the mind originates from outside the brain, as you said, it should continue thinking rationally, regardless of what the brain is doing. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

The brain, in your hypothesis, is just providing "made-up data" (dreams while sleeping or hallucinations when intoxicated) instead of normal feed (from eyes, ears, etc.), but the "outside mind" should continue thinking straight and discern what is normal or abnormal feed. We recognize a dream as a dream only after we wake up, so the mind is only from brain activity, not from some separated "place".

Just try to think about something while trying to sleep. You can't continue too long. You should be able to do it, if

On 3/21/2024 at 9:02 PM, Luc Turpin said:

the mind does not sleep

 

49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Maybe our mind from brain theory should be renamed the mind from body theory!

No, the mind is from the brain. The body only provides information.