Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

The theme behind your examples seem to be consciousness (well except for the QM example), especially the blushing response to embarrassment; and as for the psychological disorders could you be more specific? I hope I'm not coming across as having an impossible-to-fit criteria but I just want a clear example that downward causation is happening, seeing how there are supposedly numerous examples from what I've been told. However, usually the examples I see arent very impressive like: ants move according to the pheromones in the air. So the pheromones act like downward causation to the ants, but as I'm sure youre aware this isnt very persuasive and if anything seems more like a bottom-up process than a top-down one.

You are right, many examples do start from the mind or higher. As for an example of downward causation, that begins at a level lower than the mind, for the time being I will stick with the quantum measurement example. That particle detectors cause fundamental changes in the behaviour of single micro-objects is clearly downward.

As for an example of "psychological disorders", I must correct you in that I said

validity wrote:

Psychophysiologic illness and disorders

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

OK...I think I have an idea of what imagery would be behind this 'downward causation,' but I think I need to verify my imagery (to make sure I don't have it wrong).

Can I take downward causation to a be a flow of events, say as in a pathway, or a map system which has a stream from, say a consciousness controlled event which effects something like D2 receptor count? Then, could I see this as being the opposite of upward causation, as in, for example, when gene missense leads to processes which in turn lead to cognitive dysfunction down the road?

If you gentlemen (I'm guessing male) could help me out here, I'd appreciate it. KJ

0 Replies

@yffer,

yffer wrote:

As I see it, you are conflating and confusing consciousness/mind with contents of consciousness. Your examples of the brain being affected by drugs and damage doesn't address the issue of consciousness.

If we agree that everything observable; mental images, thoughts, perceptions, body sensations, are content to consciousness, your everyday sense of self is content, regardless of what state it is in.

>Drugs are introduced to the brain.
>Different perceptions, body sensations etc. are noticed. Sense of self changes.
>Consciousness, that which notices perceptions, body sensations, sense of self and change, remains whatever it was, which is nothing that can be observed. There is constant change, everything changes (appears to). However, consciousness, not being a thing, or anything observable, cannot be said to change (or not change).

There is no confusion because qualia and consciousness are fundamentally linked. Neurotransmitters alter your perceptions, which in turn alter your qualitative state, which in turn again alter your consciousness. Although, it all depends on how you define consciousness and your definition seems to try to seperate the qualitative from consciousness. Consciousness doesnt 'notice' perceptions, it is perceptions (among other things as well). So consciousness doesnt "remain the same" as you say; consciousness is being altered or rid of completely as in the trauma examples.

---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

validity wrote:

You are right, many examples do start from the mind or higher. As for an example of downward causation, that begins at a level lower than the mind, for the time being I will stick with the quantum measurement example. That particle detectors cause fundamental changes in the behaviour of single micro-objects is clearly downward.

As for an example of "psychological disorders", I must correct you in that I said

The QM example could be a good example of downward causation but alas is that the only one? A single example shouldnt sway the skeptic and I hate to sound cliche but "If you think you understand QM, you dont understand QM." Smile

As for the mishap of psychological disorders my bad. I usually make assumptions like that often because I know what you mean but I just say it differently.

---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

KaseiJin wrote:

OK...I think I have an idea of what imagery would be behind this 'downward causation,' but I think I need to verify my imagery (to make sure I don't have it wrong).

Can I take downward causation to a be a flow of events, say as in a pathway, or a map system which has a stream from, say a consciousness controlled event which effects something like D2 receptor count? Then, could I see this as being the opposite of upward causation, as in, for example, when gene missense leads to processes which in turn lead to cognitive dysfunction down the road?

If you gentlemen (I'm guessing male) could help me out here, I'd appreciate it. KJ

Yes and no.

When you say downward causation is a "flow of events like a pathway" I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Dont get it confused with circular causality and nonlinearity via feedback loops. Downward causation is more like your consciousness example with dopamine receptors, but we dont even need to go that far. We can easily just use consciousness itself as an example of downward causation, but as I said earlier its an example that cannot be verified so I think we should steer away from it. Downward causation is about a new causal propert that affects its lower parts. Like the QM example by Validity the macro affects the micro by downward causation. There isnt a good working definition of downward causation but Heylighen defines it as "all processes at the lower level of a hierarchy are restrained by and act in conformity to the laws of the higher level."

2 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

There is no confusion because qualia and consciousness are fundamentally linked.

Yes, anything that is observed is linked with consciousness in that its appearance is dependent on consciousness. No consciousness no appearance. But lets say, in your present waking state, qualia, perceptions, thoughts etc. things in awareness, come and go, yet consciousness remains. New perceptions are present, old perceptions are not present , and we have not lost or gained anything in terms of consciousness.

Quote:

Consciousness doesnt 'notice' perceptions, it is perceptions, (among other things as well).

On one hand I agree in that there is nothing that is consciousness to distinguish it from what it is aware of. So we can't, for example, make a distinction between consciousness and a percept in a similar manner we would make a distinction between two percepts. The difference is noted by the recognition that consciousness is not an object of awareness, and is not an object of awareness to itself.

Quote:

So consciousness doesnt "remain the same" as you say; consciousness is being altered or rid of completely as in the trauma examples.

Again, I think, you're mixing up consciousness with something being observed. But for sure, if you think consciousness is an object to itself, than the object(s) that it is can change. But how can that be? How can consciousness be an object to itself? Don't you see the infinite regress there?

Consciousness may not disappear during sleep and trauma. How can consciousness sleep? When consciousness has no object it may appear as nothing. Consciousness would be present to itself as nothing. Though at some level of awareness consciousness might notice itself for what it is, but, I think that would be a different mode of awareness then the familiar subject-object way of observing.

1 Reply

@yffer,

yffer wrote:

Yes, anything that is observed is linked with consciousness in that its appearance is dependent on consciousness. No consciousness no appearance. But lets say, in your present waking state, qualia, perceptions, thoughts etc. things in awareness, come and go, yet consciousness remains. New perceptions are present, old perceptions are not present , and we have not lost or gained anything in terms of consciousness.

On one hand I agree in that there is nothing that is consciousness to distinguish it from what it is aware of. So we can't, for example, make a distinction between consciousness and a percept in a similar manner we would make a distinction between two percepts. The difference is noted by the recognition that consciousness is not an object of awareness, and is not an object of awareness to itself.

Again, I think, you're mixing up consciousness with something being observed. But for sure, if you think consciousness is an object to itself, than the object(s) that it is can change. But how can that be? How can consciousness be an object to itself? Don't you see the infinite regress there?

Consciousness may not disappear during sleep and trauma. How can consciousness sleep? When consciousness has no object it may appear as nothing. Consciousness would be present to itself as nothing. Though at some level of awareness consciousness might notice itself for what it is, but, I think that would be a different mode of awareness then the familiar subject-object way of observing.

I hope this doesnt continue to be a definition war and we actually get some substance to this dialogue. I dont know what definition of consciousness you are using but to claim that consciousness is never ending and doesnt 'disappear' is an extraordinary claim. Consciousness is not some fundamental part of existence; consciousness comes and goes. If you still dont think that should I start piling up another list of examples where loss of consciousness has occured? Even though I already have, and you believe the contrary, I must ask for some evidence in support of your position. Good luck with that... Wink

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

I dont know what definition of consciousness you are using but to claim that consciousness is never ending and doesnt 'disappear' is an extraordinary claim.

Yes it is extraordinary. So lets not go there....

Do you hold that there is a distinction between consciousness, mind, mental events, and self? If so, what would these distinctions be?

Quote:

Consciousness is not some fundamental part of existence; consciousness comes and goes.

That's up for debate. Some eastern philosophies claim all there is is consciousness.

Quote:

I must ask for some evidence in support of your position. Good luck with that.

I would say any evidence would be subjective, akin to asking for evidence of qualia.

1 Reply

@yffer,

yffer wrote:

Yes it is extraordinary. So lets not go there....

Do you hold that there is a distinction between consciousness, mind, mental events, and self? If so, what would these distinctions be?

Consciousness and mind are synonymous in my point of view. Mental events and self could be up for debate but I think that is really beside the point.

yffer wrote:

That's up for debate. Some eastern philosophies claim all there is is consciousness.

And some people believe in bigfoot, doesnt make it true.

yffer wrote:

I would say any evidence would be subjective, akin to asking for evidence of qualia.

No, not really.

You're right in the sense that aside from myself I cannot actually verify that other people have qualia but we can just take that one step further and claim that aside from myself I cannot verify that not only are other people conscious but an external reality really exists. There is no way to verify it 100%. That is why solipsism is intriguing to some, but after a dose of critical thinking and common sense the whole idea falls flat.

You're definitely beating around the bush and I therefore cannot know what exactly you're endorsing as a view point. Hell, I dont even know if you're just playing devil's advocate with all this. However, maybe to get this ball rolling a little faster you can tell me what you associate yourself as. Are you a dualist?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

The QM example could be a good example of downward causation but alas is that the only one? A single example shouldnt sway the skeptic and I hate to sound cliche but "If you think you understand QM, you dont understand QM."

It is the only example I can think of that starts below the level of the mind. Paul Davies lists natural selection as an example of downward causation on page 8 here http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/The%20physics%20of%20downward%20causation.pdf I am still thinking about the strength of this example.

Perhaps another way to look at this is that downward causation is a feature of the mind, and not something that is at every level of complexity. This could explain why there are few examples below the level of the mind, but numerous when we consider the mind eg the blushing during embarrasment, psychophysiologic illness etc

Good thread this.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Mind is far more than mechanical Newtonian reductionism would permit. It has been scientifically verified that Mind or consciousness has an affect on outside phenomena.

PEAR PROJECT - Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
Engineering and Consciousness

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice. Over the next 28 years, an interdisciplinary staff of engineers, physicists, psychologists, and humanists has conducted a comprehensive agenda of experiments and developing complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality.

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

It has also been scientifically verified consciousness does not require the grey matter of a brain to be evident.

Man with no Brain
FOXNews.com - Report: Man with Almost No Brain Has Led Normal Life - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

There is the story, verified by many, of a headless rooster that lived for many years.
Mike the Headless Chicken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Brainless Salamander
brainless.html

And then there is "cellular memory" and Pearsall's The Heart's Code:
August SFM: Cellular Memory in Organ Transplants

When I read this research it always amazes me how anyone can hold onto the now outdated and unsupported mechanical Newtonian reductionist views as concerns consciousness, mind, brain and the human organism as a whole.

1 Reply

@dalesvp,

I would like to ask that you join us in thinking about, looking over, and further discussing and considering some points which seem to have been missed here, dalesvp. I would offer the thought that perhaps your more specific experience with neurological matters could stand some bolstering as well.

Bird brains are quite different from human brains, or even cat brains. Mike the Headless Chicken, was a beautiful testament to the value of the brain stem. This is true for humans as well, the medulla is very important, although so seemingly non-fanciful structure. With the cerebal and upper mid-brain areas of a bird removed, a bird can still pretty much function. This is not a matter of consciousness at all!! It is a matter of conscious--as I have been driving at for some time now, here and there; brain (uncountable noun) is conscious if it is alive. Also, the chicken lived for only 18 months; for which we could hardly say 'years,' I do believe.

I am not familiar with the syndrome that that one man with the enlarge ventricals had, but I know, for a fact, that he had a brain--even though it had been pressed against the sides. What is so spectacular, I will admit, is the fact that there had been no more symptoms of sympathetic and parasympathetic system losses. (but that report, I did notice, is not so detailed)

I'd suggest you re-read the experiment on the brain replacement for the salamander (sp?) and then give consideration to the ganglion type they are.

I guess I should gird my loins, put on my breastplate and armour, take my double-edged sword, and proceed into the thick of the fight. . . consciousness is a biological problem; a matter of mind which is brain (as in the uncountable sense of a biological tissue) !!

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;63193 wrote:

I guess I should gird my loins, put on my breastplate and armour, take my double-edged sword, and proceed into the thick of the fight. . . consciousness is a biological problem; a matter of mind which is brain (as in the uncountable sense of a biological tissue) !!

Sounds like you are here to defend your beliefs. Have at it. I'm only the messenger and I didn't come here to fight or defend anything unless it be an impartial and open-minded exploration of those things we do not yet fully understand.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

The main point of all this is to show that we need to treat consciousness as a biological problem, as Koch would say, because otherwise we are left with random claims that cannot be validated or falsified which in turn only impedes our progress at reaching our goal.

I disagree with this rationale. Consciousness has biological underpinnings that demand biological attention, but consciousness also has moral, social, ethical, philosophical, and even artistic implications (exploration of consciousness has been one of the major developments in literature since the mid 19th century). So treat it as a biological problem where biology is illuminating, but I wouldn't dismiss, say, the writings of James Joyce or William Faulkner just because it wasn't biological.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I disagree with this rationale. Consciousness has biological underpinnings that demand biological attention, but consciousness also has moral, social, ethical, philosophical, and even artistic implications (exploration of consciousness has been one of the major developments in literature since the mid 19th century). So treat it as a biological problem where biology is illuminating, but I wouldn't dismiss, say, the writings of James Joyce or William Faulkner just because it wasn't biological.

Very much so you are right, but perhaps you're taking my post past it's boundaries. I fully agree that when dealing with a problem like consciousness science needs to be interwoven with areas like philosophy to fully grasp the concept at hand, and who knows perhaps the problem of consciousness has already been explained! (obviously I dont think so but I'm just being honest) but to verify the actual solution we need science as a backbone. Otherwise the solution is right in front of our face but unfortunate to locate her without the spectacles of science.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

Dalesvp:

Your examples are at least intruiging and at most red-herring. Death is not an event, it is a process! and with lower level vertebrates whose behaviour isnt entirely dependant on its brain because of its underdevelopment the process is slower. Cut off a person or chimps head whose behaviour is almost entirely dependant on its brain and the process is faster.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

validity wrote:

It is the only example I can think of that starts below the level of the mind. Paul Davies lists natural selection as an example of downward causation on page 8 here http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/The%20physics%20of%20downward%20causation.pdf I am still thinking about the strength of this example.

Perhaps another way to look at this is that downward causation is a feature of the mind, and not something that is at every level of complexity. This could explain why there are few examples below the level of the mind, but numerous when we consider the mind eg the blushing during embarrasment, psychophysiologic illness etc

Good thread this.

Thanks for the read. I'll take a look at it and relpy later.

0 Replies

@dalesvp,

dalesvp;63203 wrote:

Sounds like you are here to defend your beliefs. Have at it.

Hee...hee...hee... I like to be funny at times, and my humor is quite possibly strange (I've been here in the Orient for a good long while now, and the humor is different in some levels). I am here to mostly present what I have learned in the very same attitude of open-mindedness that you have expressed in your most recent post, dalesvp. That is a good thing. I would suggest that you not rush, be careful to pay attention to details, and continue in your learning. Also, my Pauline mimic there had not been directed towards you, in particular, but rather my sign that I feel I should start presenting some particulars...as in details...towards the claim of this thread. (and will do that little by little)

Would you not tend to concur, Aedes, that matters of moral, social, ethical, philosophical, and even artistic implications, are those phenomena which result from the fact of consciousness--when we maintain in our working definition the properties of awake and aware, self-awareness, upper level cognition (especially due to the dominant left hemispheric 'interpreter?' In other words, as I percieve the drive of this particular thread (and please do correct me folks, where I am wrong here) to be matters of the spread up to the state of having (especially) normal human consciousness, what is done with that (consciousness)--being a pretty much non-biological matter--is outside the scope of the thread.(?)

I have started looking into that downward causation understanding, and am not through it all, but am beginning to feel that it isn't, afterall, worth worrying about so much. . . because here, it will still be a biological thing.

2 Replies

@KaseiJin,

I realize this thread is discussing conscious, I thought it appropriate to discuss a relative of consciousness and that is the conscience.

Let me ask this, is it possible to assume the memory is that which is stored in the brain as it records any and all of our sensory input and how we use that recorded input in affect makes us who we are. The individual mind is the mechanism that assimilates that "knowledge" held in memory that allows us to access to that knowledge whether it be "good knowledge or bad knowledge" that enables each and every one of us a conscious perception of life dependent solely on what is stored in that memory.

I feel the individual memory contains all of ones sensory experiences. Assuming there is a "higher mind function" that is capable of tapping into a reservoir of a "universal mind" (considering we are creations of the universe) based on how we utilize that knowledge is what we refer to as the conscience or "sense of mind".

This universal mind aids in the assimilation of that sensory input to maintain universal harmony.

If the conscience lies in rest, we are then able to tap into a higher mind function that is connected to that universal reservoir based solely on how we utilize that knowledge and that is referred to as "enlightment". If we use that knowledge in a wrong way, whether we realize it or not, the conscience awakens and we all know what that feels like, or as least I hope to think we all do. For he who is totally without conscience can be define, IMO as evil provided there is no evidence of "brain damage" that would make access to the memory impossible.

In my opinion one of the greatest misconceptions and rationalizations is to assume that everyone else assimilates knowledge like we do. That is impossible. Many respond to the conscience whereas many, for egotistical reasons, do all in there power to ignore it. Hence the ego whose only desire is to survive regardless of the consequences to themselves or others. Selfishness personified.

The more knowledge we have the more difficult it is to assimilate it all such as could be the cause of Alzheimer's. A mental overload and why this impairment is primarily a malady that afflicts the aged. This could be the answer to that age old axiom-"ignorance is bliss" and the fine line that separates genius from insanity. I don't mean ignorant like a stump, I mean too much knowledge is dangerous to our health in that it overloads memory and the brain can't function as it should and summarily the body breaks down and goes kaput. If I am at all on the right track, then any measure taken to extend life "mechanically" is a bad idea.

Thinking out loud, thank you for your input provided you don't beat me up to bad. Please forgive me for not responding scientifically. I don't know how to do that.:perplexed:

William

1 Reply

@William,

Hello there again William. I, for one, appreciate your joining in and expressing your thoguhts here. For now, there are a few points I'd like to present which answer in various ways to some of your concerns.

Firstly, as you probably have heard of, we humans do get our brain builds in genetic and environment-over-individual-experience-like ways. More than anything else, the frontal lobes deal with the matter of conscience, primarily, it seems, through reward mapping. Damage to the prefrontal cortext area especially (but seemingly not only) will materially dampen judgmental cognition. So, while conscience is noticeable by the state of conscious which we can (and usually do) call consciousness, that active operation which we can put in the set of 'that which is an act of conscience,' is not always an act of consciousness.

When that one guy got in his car (and I'll have to go check my library for the name and date) and drove to his in-laws, and killed his mother and father-in-law, he had absolutely no consciousness at all. In that one particularly famous case of sexsomnia rape, the verdict was of course 'not guilty' (leaving further moral implications/discussions on the side, for now) because 'he' had not done it--although his brain definitely did !

In one fairly recent study, it is concluded that all gained sensory imput might well be being stored by brain, in the brain. If we were to take the likes of Kim Peeks (and I'm not in a position to check the details at the moment, will do later and correct spelling or errors in later post) who can recall verbatim and page number every detail of the several hundreds of books he has read, we can see how that is a possibility. One key point here, although, is that 'gained' element. Not all sensory input is gained, much of it is shut out through screening processes--it's a very, very noisy world out there.

For now, then, the general assumption you have put forth regarding memory making us who we are is only partly in line with the best understanding at present--what we do know. A person with heavy anterograde amnesia will not be able to form memory (not just a matter of recall) past the point of injury. The general personality, otherwise, will go the natural course . . . if there is no damage in some other brain structures like the orbital prefrontal cortext, basal ganglion, or agmydala, for example. What we are, while depending very much on brain (in turn, depending largely (as I too hold it) on synaptic connections) is not just a matter of recallable stored long-term memory.

I'll answer some other points later...in time (I intend to, at least...I may err there, I'm just a normal human brain).

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

William;63285 wrote:

In my opinion one of the greatest misconceptions and rationalizations is to assume that everyone else assimilates knowledge like we do. That is impossible.

Please do stick around, follow, and consider all case studies and research carefully and conscientiously, and I'm sure that there will be a chance, at least, of your being able to come to understand how the above understanding has been shown to be incorrect.

William wrote:

The more knowledge we have the more difficult it is to assimilate it all such as could be the cause of Alzheimer’s. A mental overload . . .

I will explain Alzheimers Disease in some detail, then, later, so that you'll have a better picture of it. It is mostly genetically orientated in causation, but that is on the cellular level, dealing with protein misfolding, among some other stuff, it seems. Please allow me time, as I wish to go with the flow of posts that come afterwards too. Thanks ! KJ

0 Replies

@validity,

validity wrote:

It is the only example I can think of that starts below the level of the mind. Paul Davies lists natural selection as an example of downward causation on page 8 here http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/The%20physics%20of%20downward%20causation.pdf I am still thinking about the strength of this example.

Perhaps another way to look at this is that downward causation is a feature of the mind, and not something that is at every level of complexity. This could explain why there are few examples below the level of the mind, but numerous when we consider the mind eg the blushing during embarrasment, psychophysiologic illness etc

Good thread this.

Ok so after reading the paper I was somewhat disappointed. Unfortunately, Davies didn't really have much to talk about besides quantum mechanics and it seems like everyone and their brother is citing QM as a source for their new "theory". No disrespect intended to anyone in particular I just find it irritating seeing the exploitation of QM as its popularity increases. However, I digress... let's get to the real issue.

First, I sincerely wonder if he was actually calling evolution and natural selection as downward causation. For it seems that what I am thinking of when we talk about downward causation isn't what Davies was using in his example. I say this because before in his article about Benard Cells Davies uses that as an example where the illusion of global causal efficacy is apparent but in reality its local neighboring interactions.

Davies wrote:

...This carries the hint that there is a sort global choreographer, an emergent demon, marshalling the molecules into a coherent, cooperative dance, the better to fulfil the global project of convective flow. Naturally that is absurd.

Davies also hints at his altered definition of downward causation later in his paper as, [quote=Davies]Let me distinguish between two types of downward causation. The first is whole-part causation, in which the behaviour of a part can be understood only by reference to the whole. The second I call level-entanglement (no connection intended with quantum entanglement, a very different phenomenon), and has to do with higher conceptual levels having causal efficacy over lower conceptual levels.[/quote]

The first concept is more along the lines of what downward causation really is, to me anyways. As in the Heylighen defnition: all processes at the lower level of a heirarchy are restrained by and act in conformity to the laws of the higher level. Obviously, Davies' second definition still somewhat resembles Heylighens definition but Davies incorporates conceptual causality, instead of an actual causal force. It seems like Davies leans more towards what I referred to earlier as circular causality which produces non-linearity via feedback loops, more elusive cause and effect, and the illusion of downward causation. I say this because he hints at this very closely in his talk about mind/body interaction, [quote=Davies]Now imagine a program that instructs the arm to reach inside the computer's own circuitry and rearrange it, e.g. by throwing a switch or removing a circuit board. This is software-hardware feedback, where software brings about a change in the very hardware that supports it.[/quote] The brain is so interconnected that feedback loops are almost abundant in its environment in which the brain works in a similar fasion.

Additionally, Davies closing statement about natural selection doesn't seem to help support the notion that it is a causally downward force:

Davies wrote:

Instead, natural selection is described as having causal powers, even though it is causatively neutral.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I do not subscribe to the view that consciousness is a biological problem.

Consciousness is the ability to react to environmental conditions in a manner which is consistent to both the structure of the environment and to the entity experiencing that environment. It is therefore a process which takes place between an object and either the space surrounding it, or another object within that space. This requires no biological function whatsoever.
From this fundamental level can be elaborated ever more complex forms of consciousness as interactions become every more complex. Eventually consciousness evolves to a state of self-awareness; and one may finally discuss self-awareness as a biological process distinct from a fundamental state of consciousness; but that would be an error of perception on the part of the observer. They are one and the same process.

This self-awareness observes itself and not the true nature of consciousness from which it originates and of which it is part.

1 Reply

@Doorsopen,

A question (probably rhetorical in nature, though) raised by validity in post #14, on page 2: What of the blushing response to embarrassment?. This was offered in the presentation of the matter of 'downward causation.' While the concept of downward causation in some terms (ways of looking at what that means) appears to be not really worth talking about in brain processes, while in some terms, it is. I will present some ideas on this latter understanding. (although it is most likely not what had been in mind)

Embarressment is an emotional state which falls under the general catagory of fear response. The amygdala is the main actor with the hippocampal structure backing it up. Both the hippocampal circuits and the amygdala recieve extensive information from the cortical association areas (parietal-temporal-occipital (PTO association cortex), prefrontal association cortex, and the limbic association cortext [which recieves information from the other two cortical regions]). The amygdala has cortical projections (axons going to) via the thalamus and basal forebrain that confer emotional significance to experiences and memories. There is a bit of overlap in connections and functions of the amygdala and hippocampal formation and some other limbic structures they engauge.

The information that the limbic association cortex recieves from the prefrontal and PTO regions is processed/associated then projected to the agmydala and hippocampal formation--although different information is sent to the respective targets. The amygdala has three major nuclear divisions, the central nuclei, the cortimedial nuclei, and the basolateral nuclei. The latter recieve information about the particular characteristics of a stimulus from higher order sensory cortical areas in the temporal and insular cortical areas, and from the association areas.

The major efferent connections are directed back to the cerebral cortex, either directly or indirectly. Those which are direct from the basolateral nuclei to the limbic association cortex (singulate gyrus, temporal pole and medial orbitalfrontal cortex), and the prefrontal cortex. The amygdala projects directly to the hippocampal complex and the basolateral nuceli also project to the central amygdala nuclei which are important in mediating behavioural responses to emotional stimuli.

Direct paths between the amygdala and the periventricular hypothalamus influence pituitary hormone secretion--for example, from the corticomedial nuclei via the stria terminalis to the ventromedial nucleus which projects to a key component of the paravocellular neurosecretory system (arcuate nucleus). The center nuclei project directly to the brain stem autonomic centers.

The main neurotransmitters in this area with the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis) are dopmine, setotonin, noradrenalin (or noraphinephrine), and acetylchone (ACh).

Sensory information, externally recieved firstly, or internally reproduced through memory association with external events/circumstances, are processed and forwarded, fed back, and act with the system which kicks off autonomical reactions. Heartbeat increases (to whatever degree), capillaries expand, blood pressure increases show up, and the galvanize response and such shoot up. The prefrontal areas process information and memory in order to come up with an escape plan (in whatever mental manner that plan may be, it is essentially a plan to relieve the situation). The major part of the flow is at a level of conscious below that of consciousness, and the embarrassment/blushing is largely higher order to lower order--and in that sense, as used here, downward causation (though not likely what had been spoken of earlier).

This whole event is biological in nature, and thus is one point-in-case in support of the understanding that consciousness is a biological problem.

EDIT* I had to rush post it. I'll wrap up the loose ends later. Sorry KJ.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin wrote:

This whole event is biological in nature, and thus is one point-in-case in support of the understanding that consciousness is a biological problem.

There's an unbridgeable gap between consciousness and biology. Don't you see that?

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know