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'

[DrmDoc]

On 4/3/2024 at 10:07 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Agreed that memory must be frequently traveled or stimulated to be fully recalled. Where lies our differences is in the role that waves play in memory. For DanMP, waves are a byproduct of synaptic firing with apparently no role to play in memory. For you, it is eloquently worded as a reverberant stimulation along a set neural pathway (brain waves) that strengthens that path of recall to a prior or learned experience. Both views espouse that waves have either no or some sort of limited role in memory. As for myself, I believe that waves play a more prominent role that what is currently ascribed to them. Given that brain waves arise from a network activity of brain cells. However, what still remains unsettled “is whether brain waves drive activity or simply occur as a byproduct of neural activity that was already happening”. Traveling waves that spread across the cortex or hippocampal ripples that appear “to play a crucial role in coordinating these nerve cells” may be indications of the former and not the latter. As for how memories are created and stored in the brain, I make a clear break from convention and stipulate that the brain stores memory as codes of wave phase; the same principle as the one required for holograms to do what they do. More on this later as our discussion unfolds.

Through our discussion, I'm beginning to have a better understanding of memory as it may relate to the autistic savant's brain.  We know that experience changes brain structure, which is supported by the differences in brain volumn we have found between domesticated animals and those that live in the wild. Animals that live in the wild, tend to have larger brain volumns because their experiences are richer and more varyed than those we've domesticated or that live in our zoos. What this suggests for the human animal is that all of our experiences are in someway imprinted in/on our brain structure.  If this is true, we potentially have memory access to the smallest detail of every sensory experience we have ever encountered--which brings us back to the austistic savant's brain.

The memory recall and mathematically abilities of certain celebrated savants are extraordinary. These extraordinary individuals are able to access their memories as though viewing a detail snapshot or imprint of some prior or learned experiences.  The difference between our brain and those of a savant involves the permanency of their neural pathways of recall--in this way memory ins't the imprinted prior or learned experiences, but rather the permanent neural pathways of recall linked to those imprinted experiences.

In pondering what I mean by permanent neural pathways of recall in the savant brain, I'm referring to some pronounced or incessant reverberant neural stimulation that those pathways must be experiencing.  This appears to align with a perspective shared on this site by an austic individual who described how his overwhelming sensory experiences preclude his ability to look and listen to a person at the same time.  

Edited April 4 by DrmDoc

[dimreepr]

On 4/1/2024 at 3:31 PM, Luc Turpin said:

Some parts of nature might think more than we think they do; no Gaia required.

And we're back to the tree's comunicating, they don't think about why they do, unless Gaia told them too...😉

[Luc Turpin]

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And we're back to the tree's comunicating, they don't think about why they do, unless Gaia told them too...😉

Trees communicate for sure; but I am still stuck with no evidence that they know why they are doing it; I admit, you always get me on this one! Still searching; hard to find a good example that might open up this discussion; admit also that it may be in vain.🤔

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

 What this suggests for the human animal is that all of our experiences are in someway imprinted in/on our brain structure.  If this is true, we potentially have memory access to the smallest detail of every sensory experience we have ever encountered.

Would synaptic pruning preclude "access to the smallest detail of every sensory experience we have ever encountered? How about the "use it or lose it" principal?

I know you do not share my opinion about the holographic state of memory, but the smallest detail of every sensory experience would be permanently stored in wave phase, thereby assuring their availability for recollection..

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

The memory recall and mathematically abilities of certain celebrated savants are extraordinary. These extraordinary individuals are able to access their memories as though viewing a detail snapshot or imprint of some prior or learned experiences.  The difference between our brain and those of a savant involves the permanency of their neural pathways of recall--in this way memory ins't the imprinted prior or learned experiences, but rather the permanent neural pathways of recall linked to those imprinted experiences.

Indeed, there is substantial evidence that "autism alters synapse formation and pruning", thereby leading to overall neuroplastic malfunctions.

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

In pondering what I mean by permanent neural pathways of recall in the savant brain, I'm referring to some pronounced or incessant reverberant neural stimulation that those pathways must be experiencing.  This appears to align with a perspective shared on this site by an austic individual who described how his overwhelming sensory experiences preclude his ability to look and listen to a person at the same time.  

Agree that there must be a reinforcing mechanism such as pronounced or incessant reverberant neural stimulation of pathways to keep their integrity. However, there seems also to be an issue with filtering of sensory inputs. e.g. autism having no or less sensory filtration, which causes an over stimulation of brain faculties. .They are getting too much information from senses all at once. This overstimulation of information might also help in understanding savant brains. They acquire more information than most of us. My opinion about it..

[TheVat]

15 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

We know that experience changes brain structure, which is supported by the differences in brain volumn we have found between domesticated animals and those that live in the wild. Animals that live in the wild, tend to have larger brain volumns because their experiences are richer and more varyed than those we've domesticated or that live in our zoos. What this suggests for the human animal is that all of our experiences are in someway imprinted in/on our brain structure.  If this is true, we potentially have memory access to the smallest detail of every sensory experience

Domestication effects on phenotypic traits are driven by a mix of artificial selection and natural selection.  These effects are not operating within an individual species member in the way you describe.  

And  research doesn't support the level of retention you posit, and neuronal ensembles are far from retaining "the smallest detail of every sensory experience."  This is a theory that's been long discredited.  

 

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Domestication effects on phenotypic traits are driven by a mix of artificial selection and natural selection. These effects are not operating within an individual species member in the way you describe.  

Domestication operating within an individual species member does occur through environmental adaptation. However, these "traits" are not passed on to the next generation. So, differences in brain volumes from domesticated and non-domesticated animals are more than possible. The "trait" is not passed on, but the environment stays basically the same for the next generation at least. So, a bigger brain will still be needed to adapt to a more complex environment in the wild. And so it goes.

Also, I believe that epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer are making it more contentious in upholding a pure natural selection model as ascribed a few decades ago.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

And  research doesn't support the level of retention you posit, and neuronal ensembles are far from retaining "the smallest detail of every sensory experience."  This is a theory that's been long discredited.  

Your statement is correct. However, I would have used "shown incorrect" rather than "discredited".

Furthermore, there are examples of very detailed memory recall under severe duress. A friend of mine built a glider and took off with it on its maiden flight. After takeoff, he realised that his directional stick was jammed. His mind went into overdrive and he could see in his mind every single detail of his very elaborate construction plans (down to the single rivet) and realized that upon raising the landing gear, it had jammed the control wires against the fuselage. He lowered the landing gear and was able to take back control of his glider. He said that all of this happened almost instantaneously. This is only anecdotal, but remains intriguing. There are many such “stories” that appear to not fit with the current model of memory.

[Luc Turpin]

Even if half correct, how would we explain this within our current mind-brain model?

"With each mental event, dramatic structural changes occur inside large numbers of neurons, outside of neurons in the extracellular space, at the synapses between neurons and in glial brain cells. Remarkably, these molecular changes occur instantaneously all over the brain in specific circuits using many different mechanisms. For each momentary event, the same neuron can be used in completely different circuits. Signals in the circuits occur simultaneously with other types of elctrical communication including synchonous oscillations and changes in the extracellular electrical potentials. Also, with each new learing event, new cells are minted from stem cells and incorporated into the neurola circuits. This is just part of the life of a thought in the brain".

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Even if half correct, how would we explain this within our current mind-brain model?

Like this:

14 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

"With each mental event, dramatic structural changes occur inside large numbers of neurons, outside of neurons in the extracellular space, at the synapses between neurons and in glial brain cells. Remarkably, these molecular changes occur instantaneously all over the brain in specific circuits using many different mechanisms. For each momentary event, the same neuron can be used in completely different circuits. Signals in the circuits occur simultaneously with other types of elctrical communication including synchonous oscillations and changes in the extracellular electrical potentials. Also, with each new learing event, new cells are minted from stem cells and incorporated into the neurola circuits. This is just part of the life of a thought in the brain".

Which bit is doing the thinking?

All we can say is, it onlly happens in the brain, the only caveat I can think of is the neurons around the heart, but their only thinking about the beat, "Ha Ha Ha Ha, staying alive, staying alive"... 😉

Edited April 6 by dimreepr

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Like this:

Which bit is doing the thinking?

All we can say is, it onlly happens in the brain, the only caveat I can think of is the neurons around the heart, but their only thinking about the beat, "Ha Ha Ha Ha, staying alive, staying alive"... 😉

 Agreed, all in the head, but how in the heck does it do that?

Din't know you were into disco 😊

[Luc Turpin]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How would Dawkins react to this one?

“Sophisticated swarming: Bacteria support each other across generations”

"We used Bacillus subtilis as a model organism. This ubiquitous bacterium is also found in our intestinal flora. We have revealed that these bacteria, which live in communities, cooperate and interact with each other across generations," explains Prof Knut Drescher, head of the study. "Earlier generations deposit metabolites for later generations."

 

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-sophisticated-swarming-bacteria-generations.html

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4

 

   

[DrmDoc]

On 4/5/2024 at 10:35 AM, TheVat said:

Domestication effects on phenotypic traits are driven by a mix of artificial selection and natural selection.  These effects are not operating within an individual species member in the way you describe.  

I tend to abbreviate my explanations in discussions here to make them accessible to all.  I understand how natural and artificial selection affects the brain of domesticated animals.  However, the science for me appears to suggest that both natural and artificial selection are essentially driven by the experiences of the animal rather than the experience/perspective of their domesticator.

There is no disagreement in the science that domesticated animals have smaller brains than their counterparts in the wild.  In the brains of domesticated species, the parts associated with aggression and fight/flight behaviors are significantly smaller than their versions in the wild.  The theory behind this difference is that the ancestry of domesticated animals were selectively bred by humans for their non-aggressive traits.  This would suggest that humans were unknowingly selecting and breeding animals with naturally smaller and smaller amygdalas.   I contend that this shinkage occurred as a result of the safe and relatively stable environment of the animal rather than selective breeding between decreasingly aggressive animals--these brain changes occurred because of the animals environment (experience) rather than breeding.  This perspective, in my view, is support by the rare reversal of brain volumn of domesticated animals that returned to the wild.  Some might suggests that such reversal is a result of natural selection, which again to me suggest the environmental adaptations in behavior that changed the brains of these animals.

On 4/5/2024 at 10:35 AM, TheVat said:

And  research doesn't support the level of retention you posit, and neuronal ensembles are far from retaining "the smallest detail of every sensory experience."  This is a theory that's been long discredited. 

The question I ask is, "Does experience influence brain architecture?"  The evidence suggest that it does.  The next question is, "What does this infer about the savant brain's architecture as it may relate to memory retention?"  It's clear the seemingly eidetic memory of certain savants involve some permanently accessible neural pathway to selectly detailed memories.  If evidence suggests experiences influence brain architecture and it also suggests the potential permenancy of that architectural influence, then the potential for access to the smallest detail of every architectural influence ever expeirenced is possible.  The seemingly eidetic brain function of the savant suggest to me that potential possibility regardless of what theory may have been discredited.

[Luc Turpin]

43 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I tend to abbreviate my explanations in discussions here to make them accessible to all.  I understand how natural and artificial selection affects the brain of domesticated animals.  However, the science for me appears to suggest that both natural and artificial selection are essentially driven by the experiences of the animal rather than the experience/perspective of their domesticator.

There is no disagreement in the science that domesticated animals have smaller brains than their counterparts in the wild.  In the brains of domesticated species, the parts associated with aggression and fight/flight behaviors are significantly smaller than their versions in the wild.  The theory behind this difference is that the ancestry of domesticated animals were selectively bred by humans for their non-aggressive traits.  This would suggest that humans were unknowingly selecting and breeding animals with naturally smaller and smaller amygdalas.   I contend that this shinkage occurred as a result of the safe and relatively stable environment of the animal rather than selective breeding between decreasingly aggressive animals--these brain changes occurred because of the animals environment (experience) rather than breeding.  This perspective, in my view, is support by the rare reversal of brain volumn of domesticated animals that returned to the wild.  Some might suggests that such reversal is a result of natural selection, which again to me suggest the environmental adaptations in behavior that changed the brains of these animals.

The question I ask is, "Does experience influence brain architecture?"  The evidence suggest that it does.  The next question is, "What does this infer about the savant brain's architecture as it may relate to memory retention?"  It's clear the seemingly eidetic memory of certain savants involve some permanently accessible neural pathway to selectly detailed memories.  If evidence suggests experiences influence brain architecture and it also suggests the potential permenancy of that architectural influence, then the potential for access to the smallest detail of every architectural influence ever expeirenced is possible.  The seemingly eidetic brain function of the savant suggest to me that potential possibility regardless of what theory may have been discredited.

+1

Evidence trumps theory.

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

I contend that this shinkage occurred as a result of the safe and relatively stable environment of the animal rather than selective breeding between decreasingly aggressive animals--these brain changes occurred because of the animals environment (experience) rather than breeding.  This perspective, in my view, is support by the rare reversal of brain volumn of domesticated animals that returned to the wild. 

Your citation doesn't support this.  The authors do not dispute that selective breeding was the primary cause of the shrinkage.  And they stress, in the paper, that the rebound effect (to a wild size brain) which took 50 generations, is rare and relates to an unusual effect called Dehnel's phenomenon.  The rebound effect appears to be a result of natural selection reinstated on a formerly domesticated (artificially selected) population.  Individuals with the smallest brains were less likely to successfully reproduce in the wild, thus a fairly strong selective pressure that yielded change within 50  generations.  

The evidence still supports that animals are adapting to a domesticated setting by being selectively bred for docility and lower fear response to human handlers.  Your study only suggests that some species may recover the phenotypic wild brain more quickly through strong selective pressure than others due to a predisposition like Dehnel's.

Good luck in your studies of evolutionary biology.

Regarding eidetic memory...this lasts from 1-5 minutes.  And does not provide a comprehensive record of all experience.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-such-a-thing-as/

As it turns out, however, the accuracy of many eidetic images is far from perfect.

In fact, besides often being sketchy on some details, it is not unusual for eidetikers to alter visual details and even to invent some that were never in the original.

This suggests that eidetic images are certainly not photographic in nature but instead are reconstructed from memory and can be influenced like other memories (both visual and nonvisual) by cognitive biases and expectations.

…The vast majority of the people who have been identified as possessing eidetic imagery are children…

With a few notable exceptions, however, most research has shown that virtually no adults seem to possess the ability to form eidetic images.

[DrmDoc]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Your citation doesn't support this.  The authors do not dispute that selective breeding was the primary cause of the shrinkage.  And they stress, in the paper, that the rebound effect (to a wild size brain) which took 50 generations, is rare and relates to an unusual effect called Dehnel's phenomenon.  The rebound effect appears to be a result of natural selection reinstated on a formerly domesticated (artificially selected) population.  Individuals with the smallest brains were less likely to successfully reproduce in the wild, thus a fairly strong selective pressure that yielded change within 50  generations.  

The evidence still supports that animals are adapting to a domesticated setting by being selectively bred for docility and lower fear response to human handlers.  Your study only suggests that some species may recover the phenotypic wild brain more quickly through strong selective pressure than others due to a predisposition like Dehnel's.

I am not a studier of evolutionary biology and I stated that the example I provided was indeed "rare".  I also stated that it was "my view" of the example and clearly the researchers conclusions differ from mine.  As I have stated in this discussion thread, I am seldom in agreement with author's conclusions provided in citations for various reasons.  Wild animals selectively bred to be docile would likely be selected from among animals captured and held in an environment that promotes docile behaviors. What need is there for an animal to behave aggressively where such pressures do not exist?  Again, "I" contend that the evidence suggest to me that the "experiences" of wild animals under domestication promotes a lineage of docile offspring.  Conversely, the "rare" reversal or phenomenon associated with animals returned to the wild is indeed a result of selective pressures--the pressures of their experiences in the wild.  Essentially, I am suggesting domestication is learned behavior past on to offspring with the effect of decreasing the need for aggressive behaviors among those animals--learning has the affect of influencing the brain architecture among the young of both humans and, apparently, other species.

[DanMP]

On 4/3/2024 at 8:32 PM, Luc Turpin said:

The point that I am trying to make is that waves produced by neurons or waves applied to the brain have an effect on the brain. More specifically, that waves produced by neurons are implicated in memory.

You can obtain "an effect on the brain" in many ways, e.g.: decrease the oxigen/nutrients/water supply, increase/decrease temperature, apply pressure, cut, puncture, whatever 😛  but there is no definitive proof that waves are "implicated in memory". Can you imprint a memory using waves?

The waves produced by neurons are a result of electrical signals travelling through neurons. See here how this works. A quote:

Quote

A neuron (a nerve cell) is the basic building block of the nervous system. When neurons transmit signals through the body, part of the transmission process involves an electrical impulse called an action potential.1

This process, which occurs during the firing of the neurons, allows a nerve cell to transmit an electrical signal down the axon (a portion of the neuron that carries nerve impulses away from the cell body) toward other cells

How can waves be a cause of this and not a (by)product?

 

On 4/3/2024 at 8:32 PM, Luc Turpin said:

Almost all of the examples and references provided in this thread run counter to the conventional picture of how mind works in the brain

I said real evidence, not hints that something may be different or (in most cases) insufficiently explained.

 

On 4/3/2024 at 8:32 PM, Luc Turpin said:

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

We already discussed it. Insuficient evidence. More, thorough, experiments are needed.

 

On 4/3/2024 at 8:32 PM, Luc Turpin said:

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

Some stories, not a real study. Part of "personality changes" after organ transplant can be explained by the new DNA in the body. Our DNA is very powerful ... Many many things are inherited through DNA.

Also, the transplants require some changes (suppression?) in the immune response. This alone may trigger changes, as you can see here.

If "some recipients identified the names of their donors and recalled specific events from their donor’s lives", yes, it would be huge ... if proved real. New/thorough studies are needed.

 

On 4/3/2024 at 8:32 PM, Luc Turpin said:

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

A quote:

Quote

Our study was also not designed to determine the cause of personality changes following organ transplantation. Hypotheses regarding such mechanisms are numerous, as previously discussed, and it is possible that multiple mechanisms play a role. Also, these mechanisms may not be mutually exclusive (i.e., more than one mechanism may be involved) and mechanisms that have not yet been identified may contribute to these changes.

The limitations of our study include the small sample size (47 participants) which limits the generalizability of our findings. Our recruitment strategy, which primarily involved soliciting participants via Facebook and support groups, could introduce selection bias and may not accurately represent the broader transplant recipient population. Another limitation is potential selection bias. Recipients who experienced personality changes following organ transplantation might be more likely to respond to an online survey that was described as exploring such changes than recipients who experienced no personality changes. Also, our identification of personality changes following transplantation is based solely on self-reports. The reliance on self-reported data can lead to subjective bias. Another limitation is the retrospective nature of our study which precludes any objective assessment of pre-transplant personality. The absence of multiple, corroborating informants in the evaluation of personality changes is another limitation. Finally, the cross-sectional nature of our study restricts establishing causality.

Further studies are needed to determine the etiological factors contributing to personality changes following organ transplantation 

Again, not real evidence that our current understanding is wrong.

 

On 4/3/2024 at 8:32 PM, Luc Turpin said:

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

I never studied "Dissociative Identity Disorder", I don't know how is this explained, so I cannot comment about the validity of our current understanding. Do you know it and you have a different/better explanation?

 

On 4/4/2024 at 1:06 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Another theory of mind is that it consists of information, possibly in the form of electromagnetic energy, which would encompass all forms of electricity in the brain".

Information in the form of electromagnetic energy?! I don't get it. Can you offer a link to more details?

 

On 4/4/2024 at 4:22 PM, Luc Turpin said:

Here it is moving away from my contention that we don't know how the brain works. One example given by me for this was that in an NDE the brain was "offline" and still able to produce a stream of thought; thereby indicating that there was a gap in our understanding of how the brain works

Well according to this article, there is apparently a lot going on in a dead brain.

Interesting. Thank you.

[Luc Turpin]

Mind over genes?

"An international study led by the UGR using artificial intelligence has shown that our personalities alter the expression of our genes. The findings shed new light on the long-standing mystery of how the mind and body interact."

"In previous research, we found significant differences in well-being between people in the three personality groups, depending on their level of self-awareness. Specifically, those with greater self-awareness (the creative group) reported greater well-being compared to the organised and unregulated groups. We have now shown that these levels of self-awareness are also strongly associated with the regulation of gene expression in the same order (creative > organised > unregulated). This suggests that a person can improve their health and well-being by cultivating a more self-transcendent and creative outlook on life."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240401142515.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02484-x

 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind over genes?

"An international study led by the UGR using artificial intelligence has shown that our personalities alter the expression of our genes. The findings shed new light on the long-standing mystery of how the mind and body interact."

"In previous research, we found significant differences in well-being between people in the three personality groups, depending on their level of self-awareness. Specifically, those with greater self-awareness (the creative group) reported greater well-being compared to the organised and unregulated groups. We have now shown that these levels of self-awareness are also strongly associated with the regulation of gene expression in the same order (creative > organised > unregulated). This suggests that a person can improve their health and well-being by cultivating a more self-transcendent and creative outlook on life."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240401142515.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02484-x

 

Mind over genes; what, about this study makes you think that?

Using AI in this case will only really show statistical correlation, it doesn't know what the locus of control really means, for instance why have they labelled an internal locus as 'creative'?

This is a good place to start with your critical thinking on the subject.

Don't be fooled by the ease of finding thing's on t'internet that seem to agree with you, think about why that is...

[TheVat]

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind over genes?

"An international study led by the UGR using artificial intelligence has shown that our personalities alter the expression of our genes. The findings shed new light on the long-standing mystery of how the mind and body interact."

"In previous research, we found significant differences in well-being between people in the three personality groups, depending on their level of self-awareness. Specifically, those with greater self-awareness (the creative group) reported greater well-being compared to the organised and unregulated groups....

 

However, he cautions that it remains to be confirmed whether the regulation of gene expression through interventions that enhance self-awareness is the mediating factor in the association between self-awareness and well-being.

Good caution there.

[dimreepr]

49 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Good caution there.

Indeed, I wonder why...

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Mind over genes; what, about this study makes you think that?

Using AI in this case will only really show statistical correlation, it doesn't know what the locus of control really means, for instance why have they labelled an internal locus as 'creative'?

This is a good place to start with your critical thinking on the subject.

Don't be fooled by the ease of finding thing's on t'internet that seem to agree with you, think about why that is...

I watched the video from beginning to end.

Are you trying to convince me that I am right?

You should watch once again and put yourself in a mindset that the brain is actually a transducer.

I did so and a lot of how he says the brain work's, made sense in that perspective.

He also asks where is mind in the brain? In the cerebellum? no. even if 80% of neurons are located there? Still no! In the cortex? maybe, but why there and not somewhere else, he says. In the thalamus? He does not answer! in the Claustrum? mentions it at the end with still no definite answer.

He briefly states that consciousness is in nature; at least in dogs, which is my position also.

He talks about brain size, which is not an indication of higher consciousness, as I did.

During the video, he peppers us with many questions about consciousness without answering them, which is again my position that we know very little about the mind brain connection.

As for IIT, I can only say that it is a highly-highly controversial theory, with many neuroscientists indicating that it does not even address the really hard problem; e.g. how does a kilogram or so of meat create consciousness. There was also an open letter signed by scientists saying that IIT was pseudoscience.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

However, he cautions that it remains to be confirmed whether the regulation of gene expression through interventions that enhance self-awareness is the mediating factor in the association between self-awareness and well-being.

Good caution there.

Caution noted!

I posted the article not as absolute proof of concept, but that there may be, just may be a link between mind and genes. The jury is still out on this.

My point is that just a few years ago, there was not even mention of mind influencing brain, let alone genes. Now, we have some studies indicating that this might be the case. If this bears out, then the whole neuroscience field might be turned upside down. Fron brain creating mind, to mind affecting brain and genes.

 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I watched the video from beginning to end.

Are you trying to convince me that I am right?

That wasn't my intention, I was trying to get you to learn before you leap.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

You should watch once again and put yourself in a mindset that the brain is actually a transducer.

I did so and a lot of how he says the brain work's, made sense in that perspective.

What do you actually mean by a transducer?

Quote

In biology, a transducer is a device that translates one physical quantity to another12. In the context of biosensors, a biotransducer is the recognition-transduction component of a biosensor system, consisting of a bio-recognition layer and a physicochemical transducer that together convert a biochemical signal to an electronic or optical signal3. In plants, the term transducer is used to refer to plant species that trap energy from the sun and nutrients from the soil for the creation of food in the form of carbohydrates4.

Because, as I've previously mentioned, tree's don't think before they open their mouths.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

He also asks where is mind in the brain? In the cerebellum? no. even if 80% of neurons are located there? Still no! In the cortex? maybe, but why there and not somewhere else, he says. In the thalamus? He does not answer! in the Claustrum? mentions it at the end with still no definite answer.

Indeed, in the brain as I previously stated, we just don't know which bit does the thinking.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

He briefly states that consciousness is in nature; at least in dogs, which is my position also.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure I mentioned dog's and computer's in relation to consciousness, in this thread (if memory serves).

But again, it does nothing to bolster your case.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

During the video, he peppers us with many questions about consciousness without answering them, which is again my position that we know very little about the mind brain connection.

What's all this "we" business Tonto, do you have a relevant doctorate?

[Luc Turpin]

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That wasn't my intention, I was trying to get you to learn before you leap.

I have been doing a lot of reading over the years on mind and brain, so I learned a bit before leaping. It's my lectures that brought me to the realisation that we may not have it quite right as it relates to the mind-brain connection. During the viewing of the video, I realized that I may know more than I thought and that the presenter seemed to share many of my concerns.

54 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, in the brain as I previously stated, we just don't know which bit does the thinking.

Not a bit or bits of brain that does the thinking, but the whole brain upon itslelf.

56 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But again, it does nothing to bolster your case.

If mind, in various ways, is in all living things, then yes it does make a big difference. It becomes an inherent property of the living and bolsters my case.

 

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What's all this "we" business Tonto, do you have a relevant doctorate?

A none pretentious "we" as in all of us, not as in some of us experts. The "we" would include Geronimo 😊

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I have been doing a lot of reading over the years on mind and brain, so I learned a bit before leaping. It's my lectures that brought me to the realisation that we may not have it quite right as it relates to the mind-brain connection. During the viewing of the video, I realized that I may know more than I thought and that the presenter seemed to share many of my concerns.

Not a bit or bits of brain that does the thinking, but the whole brain upon itslelf.

If mind, in various ways, is in all living things, then yes it does make a big difference. It becomes an inherent property of the living and bolsters my case.

 

A none pretentious "we" as in all of us, not as in some of us experts. The "we" would include Geronimo 😊

Corrections:

1- Not a bit or bits of brain that does the thinking, but the whole brain unto itself.

2- A non-pretentious "we" as in........

[DrmDoc]

On 4/16/2024 at 1:49 PM, Luc Turpin said:

He also asks where is mind in the brain? In the cerebellum? no. even if 80% of neurons are located there? Still no! In the cortex? maybe, but why there and not somewhere else, he says. In the thalamus? He does not answer! in the Claustrum? mentions it at the end with still no definite answer.

Just a quick comment on this bit. This continuing question of "where is mind in the brain" is difficult to answer for some because they may not have fully considered the likely path of our brain's evolution. Theories about how our brain creates mind without some basic perspective or understanding of it's functional evolution is, IMO, no more than an uneducated guess.

Included in my definition of mind I said that it is quantified by a brain's capacity to integrate dichotomous sensory data with its memory stores to produce behaviors independent of instinct.  While investigating the likely evolutional path of the dreaming brain, I realized from my study that our brain retains significantly clear evidence of its path of evolution--from spinal cord to neocortex.

Along that path in the human brain, three significant developments had to occur: The thalamus, sensory perception diversification, and memory.  Prominent among these developments was the thalamus, which I have in previous discussion referred to as our proto-brain. but is perhaps best described as our instinctive brain.  For millions of years, as our central nervous system (CNS) evolved, our instinctive brain's primary sensory intake was tactile.  When you evaluate the current structure of our CNS from spinal cord to thalamus, you'll get a sense of the various stages of its evolutional history from simple sensory intake to increasingly complex forms of sensory intake. 

For millions of years, increasingly complex forms of tactile sensory intake evolved.  This is important to note because tactile sensory detection reinforces the need for the instinctive responses that evolved through thalamic function. Diversification in our brain's sensory perception evolution came with the acquistion and increasing prominence of visual perception.  Visual perception was a major diversion from tactile perception because it did not require direct physical contact with ancestral animals--with visual perception, these animals had a means to evaluate their responses without the energy expenditure tactile sensory responses likely required. 

From that last sentence, you should get a sense of my basis for mind in brain function.  Although there's much more that I haven't shared, I said this would be quick and hope this suffices for now.

Edited April 17 by DrmDoc

[CharonY]

Probably it has been said already and I missed it, but one way to think about it is that a brain (and potentially similar structures) are necessary but likely not sufficient to whatever one might define as mind.

[DrmDoc]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Probably it has been said already and I missed it, but one way to think about it is that a brain (and potentially similar structures) are necessary but likely not sufficient to whatever one might define as mind.

I agree that having just a brain isn't sufficient to produce the quality I define as mind; however, as I have discussed, a mind is inferred in organisms by behaviors that suggest a thought process.  In my view, the behaviors that most effectively suggest a thought process are those an organism engages that appear to be independent of its accessed instinctive behaviors. That distinction in brain function or similar neural functions in various speices is having a capacity to mediate its instinctive behavioral responses. We can assess when a species may have evolved such a capacity within it CNS by sensory acquistions that decrease their potential for instinctive responses. Not all structures that appear to function as a brain in some species suggest their potential to produce a mind as suggested to me by human brain structure.