Free synapses - a receiver for the soul?

[GreenDestiny]

Hi everybody!

 

I've not been on the SFN forums during the last months, but today I read about an issue that fits quite well into the neuroscience forum I think. It's from a German website, so the text is in German, but I will translate the part I am talking about.

 

Let's begin:

From the area of natural sciences just one further example - as announced above, evidence for the existence of a soul.

 

----

 

Nervous system and brain (from: Walter van Laack, »Eine bessere Geschichte des Lebens«/»A better history of life«, Aachen 2001, p. 115-119)

 

... now something about brain construction on a large scale, before I'll devote myself at the end of this chapter to the especially important, very small details in the cortex of the brain:

 

Hierarchically above the spinal marrow, the at the same time lowermost part of the so-called central nervous system, the oldest and meanwhile lowest part of the brain is located, the hindbrain. Above is the middle brain, followed by the interbrain. Over all these parts the historically developed youngest and hierarchically at the same time highest part of the brain, the cerebrum, also called cortex, is put. Alongside this a special rank regarding position and function is taken by the cerebellum.

 

If one cuts open a cerebrum, one can easily discern a gray layer from a white one. The so-called gray substance houses an overwhelming multitude of neurons, nerve cells. In the vernacular one talks about "gray matter" because of this. This surface is strongly enlarged by many twists and furrows, especially in the human brain.

Compared to the next highest mammals, the apes, all that concerns the number of cells and their connections among each other alone leads to a kind of "quantum leap" for the human: The white substance lies below and consists of many different "conduit pipes" ["Leitungsbahnen"]. Thinking, feeling, memory and consciousness lie, according to today's predominantly voiced school of thought, in the gray cells - either in those of the cerebral cortex or in those that are located in mostly insular accumulations, so-called cores, in the brain sections that are lying below.

 

(...)

 

Rarely noticed, but in this context very interesting, is the following aspect: Each nerve cell (neuron) possesses many branchings, the dendrites (the "receiving pole" ["Empfangsmast"]) and the neurites/axons, i.e. the "broadcasting pole" ["Sendemast"].

If one looks at the "formation" of the neurons in the cortex of the brain, the many dendrite bundles of the neurons there really point upwards or outwards, erect.

Like the fibrils of a fixed brush they point to the surface of the brain and approx. every 100 of these vertically ascending dendrites are bundled to a functional unit, the dendron. In one single section of the cortex of the brain alone, e.g. the center for motor function, i.e. the one for body movements, there are approx. 40 million of such dedrons in the human brain, compared to only about 200.000 for the higher mammals. Each single one of these "brush fibrils" is furthermore covered with circa 5000 thorns, that form free synapses. Here we now find all in all trillions of synpases, that entwine like ivy to the surface of the brain and in doing so don't contact any further nerve cell!

 

Each of these "antennas" possesses again many thousand control areas ["Schaltstellen"], the synapses with their Boutons [?], of which each one has a vesicle lattice. Even without all-too much fantasy these can be compared to flat parabolic mirrors, by which consequently any creature with such a cerebrum, thus e.g. all mammals and of course most notably the human, could start receiving.

 

----

 

Why does the human have trillions of synapses in his gray cells, that reach into empty space at the surface? Why does the intellectual decision always begin with an activation and subsequent concentration of these free synapses (Eccles)?

 

Every machine is constructed hierarchically: A control device sends an order to the receiver. If there are many receivers but no clearly determinable controller, a machine doesn't work. Looking at the human the "machine of the brain" is without clear hierarchy - obviously the control device is located outside the brain. The brain is only the executing organ.

 

Not only Nobel prize winner Sir John Eccles has come to this conclusion. However, much more important than the judgment of this renowned brain scientist is that no alternative interpretation is available for these insights. In other words: except for the advocates of the existence of a soul no one has so far even made a suggestion that explains wherefrom and for what these free synapses exist.

 

From: http://www.karl-leisner-jugend.de/Hinweise%20auf%20Gott.htm

 

What do you think about this?

 

Is the description of the brain structure and of those free synpases correct?

Well, at least a Nobel prize winner talks about it... but what about the interpretation that they are receivers for a soul? Are there really no other explanations for them? Why isn't this topic more talked about in the media or in science generally? At least I hadn't heard about it so far...

 

Regards,

GreenDestiny

[Xyph]

Perhaps I've misinterpreted the article, but is it saying that there are synapses that don't go anywhere on the surface of the brain? If this is the case, it's hardly surprising. I wouldn't expect the surface of the brain to be a perfect boundary, with no stray synapses extending beyond its surface... But in any case:

 

Looking at the human the "machine of the brain" is without clear hierarchy - obviously the control device is located outside the brain.

This sentence seems to sum up the supported viewpoint, and in my opinion its quite a silly one - the latter part especially. From what I've heard, the brain does have a fairly clear hierarchy, since we can trace its evolutionary history back through its layers - primate, mammalian and finally reptilian (or something along those lines).

 

I think the claim, in this case, that the brain doesn't have a clear hierarchy comes from wanting to pin down an easily definable, fundamental, "spark" that gives rise to consciousness. Faced with the apparent lack of such a spark, the obvious conclusion should be that there simply isn't one, and consciousness is just the cumulative effect of the interactions going on within the brain. Instead of this, however, the writer seems to have come to the considerably less rational conclusion that there is something immaterial from which consciousness springs.

 

 

what about the interpretation that they are receivers for a soul? Are there really no other explanations for them? Why isn't this topic more talked about in the media or in science generally?

I expect because the actual relevance of these free synapses has been severely overstated. Even if it is true that there are no other explanations, though, "receivers for the soul" is no more a scientific explanation than "God did it".

[Cognition]

I know the work of John Eccles a little and indeed it seems that he is a modern day (substance) dualist. The problem with such a hypothesis is that it ends just there, because we have no way of testing it, since a consciousness in such a view is obviously something "mysterious", almost spirit-like. We can, however, take a position that anyone who doesn't deny consciousness and who is not silly enough to bluntly say that there is nothing MORE than just firings of clusters of neurons and that IS consciousness will not take and that is the fact that any realistic person, in my view, should be a property-dualist. By this I mean to say that brain-processes have physical properties and consciousness can only be known from a subjective viewpoint and has different properties. So, for now I am a property-dualist

[GreenDestiny]

and that is the fact that any realistic person, in my view, should be a property-dualist. By this I mean to say that brain-processes have physical properties and consciousness can only be known from a subjective viewpoint and has different properties. So, for now I am a property-dualist

 

Property dualism... didn't know that, but I found something on Wikipedia: "It asserts that when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e., organized in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge."

 

There's also a short definition at http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/propertydualism.html.

 

Do I understand it correctly that it means that matter has or can have different properties, like on different levels? Like some atom having physical properties, but also having mental properties on a different level at the same time?

 

But to come back to the question of the free synapses:

 

Perhaps I've misinterpreted the article, but is it saying that there are synapses that don't go anywhere on the surface of the brain? If this is the case, it's hardly surprising. I wouldn't expect the surface of the brain to be a perfect boundary, with no stray synapses extending beyond its surface...

 

Yes, I think that's what it's saying. But it doesn't sound as if those were only a couple of stray synapses here and there, but rather as if the whole surface was covered with them - not randomly, but with a real structure.

 

From what I've heard, the brain does have a fairly clear hierarchy, since we can trace its evolutionary history back through its layers - primate, mammalian and finally reptilian (or something along those lines).

 

Yes, I've just read something like that quite recently. So there seems to be some hierarchy, but as you said, just no single place to which we could point for consciousness.

 

what about the interpretation that they are receivers for a soul? Are there really no other explanations for them? Why isn't this topic more talked about in the media or in science generally?

 

I expect because the actual relevance of these free synapses has been severely overstated.

 

That might be true. Actually, I don't know enough about brain structure to comment on that - that's why I started this thread.

[bascule]

Consciousness and qualia are emergent properties of the physical operation of the brain. Like Cognition said, this is known as property dualism.

 

Anyway, back to OP... free synapses - a receiver for the soul? No. You Cartesian Dualists need to stop looking for some magical mystical metaphysical gateway to the soul, be it the pineal gland, free synapses, some as-yet-discovered quantum property of neurons, etc. It doesn't exist.

[aguy2]

GreenDestiny:

Very interesting. Axons forming antenna like structures on the surface of the human brain is new to me, but I have observed that the very versatile, magnetically active microtubules that form the endoskeleton of eucary cells resemble antenna and might triple for a computational devise.

 

The only problem I have with the translation is the statement that, "the brain is only the executing organ". I don't see any necessity for an 'either or' condition. The central nervous system may prove not to be entirely a 'stand alone' entity, but neither I would think it is entirely 'outer directed'.

 

aguy2

[bascule]

The central nervous system may prove not to be entirely a 'stand alone' entity

 

Yes, and unicorns may prove not to be entirely fictional.

 

Cartesian dualism is dumb.

[GreenDestiny]

Consciousness and qualia are emergent properties of the physical operation of the brain. Like Cognition said, this is known as property dualism..

 

So according to property dualism it's not like atoms having both physical and mental properties, but rather like the atoms forming the brain, in the way they work together giving rise to the mental properties?

 

Anyway, back to OP... free synapses - a receiver for the soul? No. You Cartesian Dualists need to stop looking for some magical mystical metaphysical gateway to the soul, be it the pineal gland, free synapses, some as-yet-discovered quantum property of neurons, etc. It doesn't exist.

 

Well, actually I'm not a Cartesian dualist. I don't hold the view of any specific philosophy (one could call me rather agnostic), but still I myself am rather skeptical of the claim made in the original posting. I'd like to know if the given description of those free synapses is correct though, or if maybe it is exaggerated. If those free synapses exist, what could they be good for?

 

Very interesting. Axons forming antenna like structures on the surface of the human brain is new to me, but I have observed that the very versatile, magnetically active microtubules that form the endoskeleton of eucary cells resemble antenna and might triple for a computational devise.

 

Well, I haven't heard of this. More possible 'antennas'? Do you have a source for that?

[Cognition]

Property dualism... didn't know that' date=' but I found something on Wikipedia: "It asserts that when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e., organized in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge."

 

There's also a short definition at http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/propertydualism.html.

 

Do I understand it correctly that it means that matter has or can have different properties, like on different levels? Like some atom having physical properties, but also having mental properties on a different level at the same time?[/quote']

 

What it means is that the brain has physical properties and conscious has not, it is subjective and has different properties (qualia). Somehow the brain will probably cause these qualia, but we still have absolutely no clue how that is done. So when you are a property dualist (which I didn't invent, I just read about it), then you can simply say there are different properties: this does not deny the subjective experiences, it does not lead to substance dualism and you leave open the possibility that science will explain the causation someday.

[bascule]

So according to property dualism it's not like atoms having both physical and mental properties, but rather like the atoms forming the brain, in the way they work together giving rise to the mental properties?

 

It's more like a program running inside of a computer. The program has properties which transcend the mere electronic switching of transistors. Qualia are ultimately phenomenological objects, and phenomenological objects can be reduced to collective synaptic patterns the way objects in a computer program can be reduced to electrical impulses.

 

Well, actually I'm not a Cartesian dualist. I don't hold the view of any specific philosophy (one could call me rather agnostic), but still I myself am rather skeptical of the claim made in the original posting. I'd like to know if the given description of those free synapses is correct though, or if maybe it is exaggerated. If those free synapses exist, what could they be good for?

 

I don't have an answer to that, but keep in mind that not everything you have in your body has a prespecified purpose. What is your appendix for besides getting infected and killing you? It used to house bacteria to digest cellulose, but that was too back in our evolutary lineage to be useful now.

[GreenDestiny]

I see... I think I now understand the concept of property dualism, thanks.

 

I don't have an answer to that, but keep in mind that not everything you have in your body has a prespecified purpose. What is your appendix for besides getting infected and killing you? It used to house bacteria to digest cellulose, but that was too back in our evolutary lineage to be useful now.

 

From what I've read the appendix (as well as the cecum) is still used for the digestion of cellulose in some other mammals. In addition to this it's supposed to have a function as part of the human immune system.

[Xyph]

Presumably the brain is completely saturated with synapses, so the fact that quite a few extend beyond its boundaries and don't connect to anything should be expected.

[GreenDestiny]

I just found something about John Eccles at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carew_Eccles

 

So his Nobel Prize has nothing to do with free synapses or dualism, but he wrote about this philosophy: "How the Self Controls Its Brain"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Self_Controls_Its_Brain

 

A quote from that link:

Eccles calls the fundamental neural units of the cerebral cortex "dendrons", and proposes that each of the 40 million dendrons is linked with a mental unit, or "psychon", representing a unitary conscious experience. In willed actions and thought, psychons act on dendrons and, for a moment, increase the probability of the firing of selected neurons, while in perception the reverse process takes place.

 

Are there other persons that have dealt with these "psychons" or is there any research that has been done about them?

[bascule]

The fundamental neural units of the cortex are the Neocortical Columns (NCCs), which comprise 80% of the human brain. I think they accomplish sensory postprocessing, processing of sensory postprocessing, processing of the processed output of sensory postprocessing, up to however many levels of feedback you desire, since they can feed back off each other, or sensory data. Some tend to specialize in sensory processing, some in association, and some in motor control.

 

I just wrote a post on them if you're interested

[GreenDestiny]

Thanks, I just wrote a reply to your post.

 

According to the National Geographic article I mentioned there, "more than a hundred billion neurons make up the human brain, and the nerve cells are bunched in neocortical columns. These columns mark a jump in the brain's evolution that occurred 200 million years ago as mammals emerged from reptiles." (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0720_050720_bluebrain.html)

 

BTW, how are the brains of other animals organized, e.g. dolphins? Those are said to be highly intelligent as well (of course not comparable to humans, but still impressive).

 

However, I don't think it makes that much of a difference whether one calls the neural units "dendrons" or "neocortical columns". I'd be interested if anyone else except of Eccles has done some serious study about those supposed "psychons" and if there is any scientific research that has been done about them.