DrmDoc

I see…it isn’t omitted citations you want, but rather a discussion of my analogy. For those who have actually perused rather than glanced over my numerous comments on the subject of mind, consciousness, and brain function, they may recall that I routinely refer to the confluence of brain function as a “concert”. I’ve adhered to music adjacent analogies and themes here and in many of my prior discourse on this topic because I believe they most clearly convey my thoughts, in a relatable way, on the harmony of brain function that must occur to produce attributes of mind and consciousness. I understand your perception but from the outset of this discussion thread, I wrote: Allow me to correct your perception of implied metaphysics, which was not an implication I intented. Significant portions of my discussion thus far have encompassed the affect of sensory experience. Using your analogy, the player of that clarinet would be that experience. Succinctly, our brain’s neural experience or perception of afferent stimuli via its sensory connection to that stimuli shapes and influences its responses. I’m certain of little disagreement among science circles that thought is indeed a response of brain function. My perspective is that thought (music) emerges from brain function (clarinet) as an effect of its sensory connection to sensory experience (player). Your imagination notwithstanding, I wrote in prior comments that the entirety of brain function is devoted to h-o-m-e-o-s-t-a-s-i-s. (Hope I got the spelling right this time🤞) The comment you referenced is a synopsis of my prior comments in this discussion thread on the relevance of homeostasis as the basis for all brain activity and responses. Again, from the outset of this discussion thread, I said I would attempt to make my thoughts and "keep this discussion accessible to all knowledge levels." You might agree that those interested in this topic may not all be neuroscientists, which is why I’ve inserted definitions among my various posts on my use of terms as my discussion progressed. Indeed, some neuroscientists may object to my “nomenclature” but my comments were not entirely meant for their consumption. I want to encourage the interest and contribution of non-neuroscientists in the discussion of this topic as I believe it will only enhance my personal insight and enrich my understanding as it has done so often in past discussions. I appreciate your critique and welcome your continued interest.

Thank you for the corrections of my misspelling and, so I may provide, for which aspect, statement, or portion of my comments thus far are you requesting supporting citations? If I may add, my comments were meant to provide a mental image of the processes of brain function in a way that would be understood by those disinterested in the minutia. If the minutia is your interest, then let's explore the ingredients of my salad which you appear to find unpalatable.

Hello All, In my last post I asked, rhetorically, " what is thought and what happens in the brain to produce thought?" I believe the answer I gave wasn't as clear as it could have been. Considering the whole of my comments thus far, thought is a resonant neural effect that emerges from upper brain regions--beyond the thalamus--in response to the affect of sensory experiences. If we think of the brain as a musical instrument, thought would be the sound that instrument produces. When we follow that example to one logical conclusion, thought isn't spontaneous--the musical instrument that is brain structure must be played to produce the resonance of consciousness we call thought. We are not born truly thoughtful beings, which means that we do not emerge from the womb with a fully developed structural instrument capable of producing the dolce or torrid music that is thought. Thought isn't so much about structural brain development as it is about fine tuning that instrument to produce the harmonious responses essential to the aesthetics of our survival. Relative to brain structure and function, fine tuning is about building those resonance neural pathways that can produce frequencies essential to hemostasis—essential to sustaining our brain’s metabolic balance against the destabilizing affect of all sensory experience. I welcome your thoughts.

Good morning All, Before I proceed further, I thought I'd provide a bit of clarity on my use of certain terms relative to brain function: Neural resonance/reverberance - I use this term to describe my perception of a continuously repetitive chain of afferent and efferent neuron firings. Reflexive behaviors - the physical expressions and behaviors our thalamic neural activations appear to execute in direct response to afferent stimuli. Reflective behaviors-the physical expressions and behaviors our thalamic neural activations appear to execute in direct response to efferent stimuli. In my previous posts, I shared my perception of the behaviors our thalamus activations appear to execute in response to the metabolically impactful nature of sensory experiences. Our experiences alter the metabolic balance of our brain function via the resonant affect those experiences have on our thalamus. That affect doesn't dissipate without counter measures or resonance from the thalamus and from surrounding brain structures via their reciprocal neural connections to the thalamus. The counter resonance our thalamus activity engages manifest first as reflexive behaviors, which are then followed by or in conjunction with reflective behaviors. When the resonant effects our experiences cause persist beyond our thalamus' reflexive responses to quell those experiences, the neural reverberance they cause afferently radiates into surrounding brain structure from the thalamus. Those brain structures, whose functions are affected by the frequency of that neural reverberance, begin to match or reflect that frequency in neural feedback to the thalamus. That reflective resonance has a cancelling or deadening affect on the neural resonance emanating from the thalamus. When the reflective neural resonances from other brain structures reaches the thalamus, their impact alters the resonance responses of the thalamus to that which diminishes, suppresses, or disperses the impact of our sensory experience on its functions. Those reflective behaviors our thalamus executes in response to reflective resonance from other brain regions are those that most readily suggest the thought processes indicative of organisms that appear to possess a mind. I felt compelled to discuss my thoughts on this topic here for basically the very reason suggested by the things I’ve discussed, which is the nature of consciousness relative to brain function. This topic is important to me and should be for you because it offers a compelling view of what may be happening in the brain by the behaviors we observe. We generally know the function of various brain structures and aspects of our central nervous system. We know that those functions and aspects work in concert to manifest our behaviors, identity, and consciousness. What some of us don’t know or clearly understand is the operational aspect, which is specifically how that concert of brain function is conducted. Metaphorically, we know the various music, strings, horns, and percussions of brain structure and function, but what isn’t clear to all of us is specifically how all of that is orchestrated to produce the extraordinary expressions and behaviors of human consciousness. Consider, if you will, we know the various stages of brain development and we know how experience and learning alter brain structure, but what is thought and what happens in the brain to produce thought? For example, consider the autistic brain. In an exchange with an autistic individual at this science discussion website, I was informed of the overwhelming nature of their sensory experience. The experience was described to me as having a gatekeeper who lets everybody in. Yet, that person wrote with such eloquence and focus that I wondered how that was possible? Now with a clearer perspective of the orchestration or functional exchanges between the various structures of the autistic brain, I have visual picture and a clearer understanding of how their eloquence was possible and where the variance between my brain structure/function and theirs may resided. I welcome your thought.

Hello All, In my initial post, I described our brain as an organic machine whose primary functional imperative is to maintain its metabolic balance (homeostasis) against the destabilizing affect of stimuli. The whole of our brain function--its responses and activity--is to nullify or suppress the destabilizing neural affect of our sensory experiences. The core of brain structure and, therefore, the core of brain function is the thalamus, which isn't necessarily because of its literal position within our overall brain structure. Our thalamus earns its functional prominence, as some of you may already know, from it being the primary structure that all neural pathways initially transit before entering and exiting the upper regions of our central nervous system and brain structure. As the first stop for all neural input and output, thalamic function is the first line of our brain's neural defense and action against the resonant (destabilizing) neural affect of sensory stimuli. Those observable behaviors suggestive of consciousness that we engage are the physical expression of our Thalamus neural defense and action against the destabilizing affect our sensory experiences cause. Our thalamus engages two distinct types of behavioral responses to our experiences, reflexive and reflective. The initial response of our thalamus to stimuli is invariably reflexive behavior. Reflexive behaviors primarily involve our instinctive reactions, which are shown by our physical responses to sudden sounds and tactile stimuli, such as a loud bang or a touch on the shoulder from behind. When the resonant effects of our sensory experiences persist beyond the reflexive responses of the thalamus, it then engages reflective behaviors. Reflective behaviors are those the thalamus engages in response to the neural feedback it receives from other brain regions impacted by the resonant neural effects our sensory experiences cause. If interest persist, I will explore and attempt to explain these thoughts a bit further in a subsequent post. I welcome your thoughts.

The answer to all of your questions is that they are all responses to the experiences of the individuals you've referenced. Relative to brain function, the neural activity that generates creativity, thought, and art emerge as a reflection of the resonant neural impact our experiences have on the metabolic balance of brain function. As I explained, all of ouf experiences have a resonant neural impact on our brains metabolic balance, which is our brain's imperative to maintain. In that effort, our brain generates opposing neural activity matching the frequency of that destabilizing neural resonance. I will cover this more specifically in a subsequent postings on reflexive and reflective behaviors relative to brain function. I appreciate your continued interest.

Greetings All, No, this is not necessarily a rehash of an overdone topic, but rather a focusing and sharing of recent insights I've acquired to hopefully provide some empirical clarity on the subject. As always, I will make my thoughts and attempt to keep this discussion accessible to all knowledge levels. To start, this is how I define and will use the term consciousness from this point forward in our discussion: Consciousness - the awareness suggested by an organism's observed behavioral responses to stimuli. I prefer that definition because we cannot assess organisms, which include humans, as being meaningfully aware if they do not observably respond or react to external affects or influence. You should understand that this will not be a discussion of some ethereal quality or essence, but rather a discussion of the attributes and emergence of human awareness suggested by the components of brain structure and function as current science provides. As current science provides, the primary imperative of brain function is homeostasis. The primary purpose of brain function isn't the production of thought, behavioral expression, or that meaningful awareness suggestive of consciousness. The purpose of brain function is homeostasis, which is our brain's efforts to maintain its metabolic balance. Our brain is an organic machine that's essentially fueled by a combination of oxygen and glucose. Maintaining a stabile balance of that fuel within its structure is the goal of brain function. The neural activity our brain engages consumes about 20% of our body's overall energy uptake, which is remarkable given our brain averages about 5% of body mass. Everything our brain neurally experiences impacts its metabolic balance and that impact triggers those brain responses that produce consciousness. So, what are those brain responses? Consciousness is our brain’s response to the destabilizing metabolic effects of our neural experiences. Everything we experience sensorially impacts our central nervous system and, ultimately, our brain's metabolic balance. When that occurs, our brain responses engage to restore that balance. To restore that balance, our brain must engage responses to increase its resources and neutralize or suppress that impactful neural activity causing its metabolic imbalance. Think of that impactful neural activity as a loud and continuous ringing (neural resonance) and our brain's effort to neutralize that sound with its noise-cancelling technology. Our brain responds to the resonant neural effects of stimuli with reciprocal neural feedback matching the frequency of that neural resonance. The best example of this fete is what happens in the brain when we dream. Dreaming, broadly, involves increased neural activity in the brain during sleep. That activity occurs as the brain becomes increasingly sensitive to sensory stimuli amid the sleep cycle. That stimuli engage the interpretive response systems of our brain, which matches the frequency or impact of that stimuli with its stores of sensory experience. The imagery we experience as dreams is how our dreaming brain identifies or interprets the impact of the neural resonance we experience in sleep. That interpretation is sufficient for most of us to dismiss them from memory upon arousal from sleep. Our dreams do not typically engage our physical responses because the neural resonance causing them does not emerge from concurrent physical reality. From my perspective, our brain engages in two types of responses to stimuli, which I term functional and behavioral. Functional involves those brain processes associated with stimuli perception and assessment. Behavioral responses are those expressed as the observable behaviors indicative of consciousness. So, you might ask, what are these responses relative to brain structure and function? Well, science suggests to me that all observable behavioral responses produced by our brain's functional responses emerge from the thalamus. I've recently gained a new perspective of thalamic function and how it appears to express our behavioral responses. If there is interest, I will explore this with you in my next post as it involves a discussion of reflexive and reflective behavior and the nature of mind and consciousness relative to both. Until then, I welcome your thoughts.

Today I learned about Schedule F appointment, which is an insidious method of US government control and a subversive tool for those who aspire to dictatorship. Schedule F appointments essentially allow the reclassification of potentially thousands of US government workers as political appointees who can be hired and fired at the whim of the Executive branch of US government regardless of qualifications. Potentially, under Schedule F appointment if restored, a president can fire any so designated federal employee who conscientiously refuse his directives and replace them with a sycophant willing to do and say whatever he commands regardless of consequence. I shiver at the thought of such power in the hands of a man as sociopathic and unscrupulous as Donald J. Trump--even more unnerving is that there could be a majority of America's voting population that wants him to have that power come this November elections.

I followed your link and reviewed the article regarding pathways of consciousness through the thalamus. The article regarded the insignificant effect of thalamic damage on arousal and wakefulness. Although the article freely uses the term consciousness, that term was primarily used as a description of arousal and wakefulness and not specifically as it relates to the precursor awareness associated with mind emergence. I agree that thalamic function is not the mediation or maintenance of arousal and wakefulness, but rather the coordination and integration of sensory information and memory associated with our behavioral responses. It's important to be clear on one's understanding, definition, and use of the term consciousness.

Agreed and that's precisely my position. If we agree that evidence of mind is inferred by behaviors that suggest a thought process, then those thoughtful behaviors should be the antithesis of instinctive behaviors. Indeed, evidence of mind could be suggested by other behaviors but, in view, no behavior consistently provides the clearest evidence of mind as those that are clearly contrary to reflexive, preprogrammed behaviors. Indeed, they very definition of thoughtful behaviors could be those not "bound by instinctual constraint." As I've observed in assessing the likely evolutional path of sensory acquisition in the human brain, much of its early sensory developments appear to have been devoted to various forms of tactile perception (touch, taste, sound, etc). In ancestral animals, tactile perception likely necessitated and promoted reactive, reflexive behaviors because of the very real and immediate survival impact or threat associated with physical contact. When these animal sensory perception diversified into visual sensory, they evolved a means to assess the survival impact of their environment and experiences without the level of threat to their physical well-being posed by just tactile perception alone. The enhancement visual sensory acquisition gave ancestral animals likely allowed them to better mediate their instinctive survival responses, which infers the primal emergence of mind-the emergence of behavioral expressions not bound by instinctual constraints.

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.

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.

Perhaps, but with the direction of your natural/artificial selection argument we'd be debating the age old question of nature versus nurture--a debate that apparently won't be settled by or between us in any assigned forum.

Excellent point!

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.