Consciousness is a Biological Problem

hi kj-been pondering your post.
I think we have to separate the concept of thoughts from messages that the brain sends and receives from other parts of the body within the context of what I was trying to ask. There are other things that need clarification also.

So let me try another avenue...you have explained how the sensory motor messages are conveyed thus:
"The fact that action potentials are electrical currents is one thing, but the actual exchanges across the synaptic clefts are the real workers--not the electrical currents. Also, the synaptic arrangements are extremely complex and are not static either--which is why brains can learn."

are you saying that something is passed across a gap in space from one synapse to another the way a spark plug ignites inside a motor whatever it is it ignites? (sorry, I forgot my auto engine terms) then the electrical currents would be what enables this exchange? Is it an exchange of data?
So if the person wants to move their arm, they first have a thought about it, regardless of whether it is expressed verbally or not, or shall we say an intention to move their arm, which could happen in a split second as you feel an annoying fly and wish to wave it away without producing what would ordinarily be considered a thought. Isnt it the intention that generates the current that jumps over the synapse and activates the arm? What you are doing in open skull surgery by probing the brain and moving the arm without the patient's knowledge is by-passing the intention. In effect, the surgeon is substituting his intention for that of the patient.
Now in what I have outlined above, the brain, if not a sender and receiver of signals, would have to have that ghost who is producing the will or thought, which we are trying to debunk right? And I was not suggesting there is some 'receiver unit' within the brain-i can accept your comment that it could be the entire brain material itself, what you called ganglion, a totally physical material.
I am going about it the long way, but what I am getting at is might it be said that the brain sends thoughts or intentions through space as the sun sends heat and light-they radiate. These thoughts and intentions are what put actions in motion in the body sometimes-but they can also be ordinary stream of consciousness, wishful thinking, catastrophizing, worrying, laughing, creative inspiration, problem solving, expressions of sensations in the body, emotions, everything that you can place within the brain. But they might be controlled better if we knew how, and received by other brains if they knew how. And as far as the screening process that is in place to keep us from going bonkers...don't say 'it's just not there'. It would be more correct to say that science has not been able to discover it yet, and if it is there they surely some day will do so.

do you feel the concept of one brain communicating with another by what has been called mental telepathy is scientifically impossible?

In this quote:
"The self-talk error has been studied quite well, it is secure enough to say it is an internal brain event. The lack of recognition is usually to be found in fronticrtical neuronal misconnection. (almost always associated with schizophrenia, but it can happen on some drugs too [pure mescal will do it])."

do you mean that I made an error by suggesting that the talking inside our heads may be coming from a source outside our very own brains? You mean because when you examine someone who hears voices you find a particular misconnection? But you are only examining people who are schizophrenic to begin with or hallucinating on drugs, right? I dont take drugs, and it is my own opinion that I am mentally sound these days, but over the course of my life I have heard voices now and then but I never went to get my head examined by a neurosurgeon. Would they find that misconnection? And even if they did, why could it not be suspected as the reason why a person is able to hear voices in their head that were not in fact coming from their own brain? maybe this is where they should be looking for that auto-screening function?!

I have a lot of questions...this is very interesting! The more I reflect on this, the better it gets!

Again, let me first express appreciation for the input and energy. It appears, jeepers, that the bulk of what you are trying to present, or the element of whatever it may be as an overall 'picture,' if you will, that you have so far put forth is comitting what I call the 'wanting-to-have-the-cake-and-eat-it-too' fallacy. Of course I am fully willing to work on this with you, and go over it so as to more fully explain what I mean, and why I say that, but FIRST, I need to ask one thing of you.

I'd like you to answer my one question first. Are you, or are you not, actually willing to go through the 'all that it takes' to look at this, and to do so most carefully and logically? (rather than give up mid-stream with a 'you go back to your lab, and I'll go back to my meditation chair'-like line?) Please let me know your stance.

Salima, meri priya baheen, I'm at a bit of a loss just how to proceed, actually. One line of thought in your most recent post, draws this out; please follow through this with me, to check it out. In saying the following:

[indent]" . . . don't say 'it's just not there'. It would be more correct to say that science has not been able to discover it yet, and if it is there they surely some day will do so."[/indent]

two positions can be seen. The clause 'it would be more correct to say . . . ' linguistically demands the postion that a 'correct matter' is known, and therefore adjustment of another position is necessary. However, in the clause, 'if it is there . . . ' is linguistically identifying that there is a possibility of something, but that it is known as being a 'correct matter' (as in being known to be so) yet.

I do think I know where you are coming from though...I think...and so my dilemma. Do I start my explanation at the very bottom, and work upward covering all points, so as to give a full background so that when I make a statement it will not appear to be coming out of the blue...out of nowhere? Or, will you allow me a certain degree of trust to make some general summary statements from time to time, so as to avoid the details (as LWSleeth had seemly accused me of being overly fond of--though detail is VERY important)? I'm interested in doing this right, and it should require some degree of detail, but, how much? Please get back with me on this point firstly, if you don't mind; I'd truly appreciate it.

Awaiting that response, however, let me point out that there is a difference between the idea of telepathy (as I know of it, at least) and hearing internal voices. We would surely not be very off target at all to say that it is most thinkable that up to some 95% percent of every human being who has lived in the past 10, 000 years (at least), and those living today too, have 'heard' and do 'hear' a voice in their head--most usually simulated as their own.

While driving, I may 'hear' that voice say 'Hurry and make your turn, you silly, slow poke driver...' [hey, never claimed to be perfect]. The thing is, this activity is not something that other structures are unaware of; the cognitive recognition is that it belongs to this organism.

As another example, most people will 'hear' voices in their heads when they dream too. . . with varying degrees of being able to recall 'voice possession' if disassociated from visual context. And, right on the very beginning of going into stage one sleep, in the period called sleep onset, many will, from time to time (some more than others...and brain build difference and daily experience intensity is often evidenced for such) experience hypnagogic hallucinations.

Around that point there may be hypnic jerks (as muscle tone relaxes but motor activity persists for a number of seconds, and so on), feelings of kind of waving, like on a boat, or sinking downward. Here, we will find that 'voices' or 'sounds' can be 'heard' which the yet stimulated association cortical areas and loops will acknowledge as external, yet, which are not (this has been shown, and is firm knowledge).

But actually hearing an externally sourced voice, is to hear an externally sourced sound, right? In the vacumm of space, sound waves do not travel because there is no bouncing of molecules to carry the sound...so, of couse, our ears would not pick up almost no, if any sound at all, voice or not. For that reason too, we can understand that to 'hear' a voice, without there being an actual sound wave hitting our ears (assuming too, they function properly and have no cuts in the links and processing structures) has to be an internal event--regardless.

Another point is that just like vision, the 'pieces' of language are spread around in a number of structures. . . it's not one single thing that is making this 'talking' event that we get in self-talk, even.

Two points which you have brought up, salima, in your most recent post, I'll just touch on, but wait for your thoughts on how much detail you'd like before going into that.

[indent]There is the pre-synaptic area (axon terminal) and the post-synaptic area (a number of varieties, but mostly dendritic) with a synaptic cleft inbetween them of some 20~50 nanometers. This cleft, however, is filled with a 'matrix' of extracellular protein basically to help adherence. Inside the pre-synaptic terminal 'button' (or 'element') there are, among some other things, these little sacs called synaptic vesicles which are filled with nerotransmitters of a number of types and secretory granules carrying soluble proteins (dense-core visicles).

Depending on a number of factors (espcially inhibitory activity) an action potential will cause the vesicles to merge into the wall of the cell's membrane, and release the neurotransmitters. The post-synaptic cell will have recepters, like locks for certain keys, which the correct, or at least correctly-looking (as LSD mimics serotonin (5-HT1,2) neurotransmitter will fit into, causing reactions in that post-synaptic cell which may, or may not cause an action potential. The neurotransmitters are re-uptaken (re-uptake). Neuromodulators are of a slightly different class, and go beyond just the synaptic area.

That is point one 'your post, lines1-3 of second paragraph), and point two (lines 4, 5 of [basically] 4th paragraph) is that the surgeon will simply probe all around the area, we couldn't say that any intention has crossed over. The excitation of a cortical area will be the same as a set of (or sometimes a single neuron possibly as some recent research as suggested) neurons firing in a certain loop (or map) so as to cause a certian number of action potentials which in turn will produce other events...such as an actual movement.

Again, the electricity does not usually cross over execpt at what are called 'gap-junctions' but then that exchange of event will eventually go to chemical events anyway. Because a lot of people (as I have mentioned before) kind of want things right here, right now, many, I feel (not pointing to anyone here, on purpose) don't take the time to consider all that has to really be considered to start to get a hold on the big picture. Brain (as an uncountable noun, thus opposed to the term, 'THE brain') is alive and active, and does what it does. The feeling to do something (urge) the intention to do something (stronger urge) and the actual act (brain caused event) are all brain events. [/indent]

Time is up...(I'll proof-read later, sorry....KJ)

Sure. I have put forward a philosophical argument. Let's see if it can be rebutted. I certainly won't walk away from the discussion if I believe there is more that can be said.

hi kj
i should make a few things more plain then...of course i used the wrong words in the post when i said 'it would be more correct to say'. i was trying to convey the idea that everything science has not been able to prove cannot be said to be 'just not there'. i was wanting to make sure we are in agreement on that. so it would be one thing to say 'it is just not there' and another to say 'it has just not been found'.

the second thing is that i didnt mean to suggest that there was any similarity in 'mentally hearing voices' that no one else hears, whether they are actually originating in another brain or one's own and telepathy, which i would define as 'recognizing verbal thoughts or experiencing sensations that originate in someone else's brain'. i am not sure the word recognizing is appropriate, but i can't say we hear thoughts any more than we actually hear voices in our brain, so i specified that with the word 'mentally'. i separate line and paragraphs sometimes because i have gone on to another subject altogether, and sometimes an idea will jump in and rather than leave it to wait its turn i just print it out in the middle of something else.

the third thing is i can accept explanations that are less detailed, not so much on trust (not to insinuate that i think you are being deceptive, nothing of the kind!) but if they are based on some kind of logic. to be honest, i am really straining my brain to try and understand this stuff, but without grasping some of the foundation there is no way i could even begin to ask a question, and i realize that.

the last thing for now is that i can tell you where i am going with all of this is that i dont think there is anything 'paranormal' because things either are or they arent. i believe there is an explanation for all the things human beings experience, and i believe if all we are is what lives and dies, (which i accept as a possibility), then the explanation is here in this brain/body. i think it may be a problem that people try to find the answer in only one field. neuroscience is one field with a lot of information already established, and so is physics, so is biology. it will take many of them put together to properly answer the many questions there are.

i hope this helps you in answering, and i realize i am firing questions faster than anyone could reflect on-especially when the answers are as involved as these. i have some other ideas and will try and work on expressing them intelligibly and give you some time before i go on.

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

oops-
also working on some definitions to see if i got it right in my own words.

and i remember your asking about the definition of thought. what i have so far is "ideas, concepts or abstractions generated by the brain at random or in response to stimuli occurring either externally or internally"any feedback on that?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

---------- Post added at 08:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 AM ----------

You should check this site out.

my sentence was a bit awkward, using a double negative-but i did mean to say that where there is no evidence for something i dont automatically discount it, waiting for proof. even my conclusions are open to new ideas and possibilities. (there's that double negative again, i dont seem to be able to say that any other way. but what i mean is i agree with your quote above.)

that is not to say that i consider things that go against logic as possible but there are a lot of things that seem perfectly reasonable to me and do not upset the apple cart if i add them to my existing reality map, yet there is no proof of them. it is my feeling that the proof exists, it just hasnt been identified.

thanks for the link, i will check into it when i get to the states.

Yes, but my concern, you see--and this is what happened last time, basically--is about when there is more to be heard ! Are you going to walk away because of not being interested in taking the time to start from the bottom and go up . . . walking through and drawing connections between a whole lot of dots, before stepping away to get a look at the big picture?

That is basically what I am asking an answer to. Your being willing to stay with the discussion as you long as you feel you have something else to say is one thing, of course, but that is only the unilateral side, you see. . . and, as we all know, the sound of one hand clapping is a very none thing.

Next, I feel obligated to respond to this old worn out religious belief-system related battle cry: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Yes, I don't know why that most obvious fact is so often, so over emphasized...as if to cover for lack in evidences for the evidence that leads to any conclusion towards a concern. Of course that statement is true, and I think we all know already. At the same time, of course, a concern which has no evidence to back it up at all, has to be weighed in with and against an opposing concern which does have evidence to back it up.

Sounds good salima; I can understand a bit better on that (about the 'more correct' thing; and see above paragraph). The pure scientists (and those I have personally had contact with, or have read through books or papers in journals) are most usually quite fair with this. We will have to approach things with as neutral a stance as is humanly possible (and that too has been shown to possibly be a hard enough thing), and study and observe it to make any statements towards it. Also, as you have mentioned inter-disciplinary research can help (but at times differences of method and terminology get in the way). Here is where some have also voiced the argument that to make further gains in understanding consciousness, the humanities (especially philosophy and psychology) would do greater service by following more closely to the neurosciences--as opposed to trying to hang on to old concepts which have been readily shown to not worthy of hanging on to any longer.

Regarding hearing voices, I will make some more points, but first, here (since it was an earlier matter) will look at your suggestion for the term 'thought.' I cannot help but see, with what you have given there, salima, that we'd then have to either limit this to linguistical realized ideas, concepts or abstractions . . . externally or internally, or leave it open. Then, in that line of thought, if we were to leave it open, it would include ideas, concepts or abstractions which do not project to consciousness as well, I would think. But...you had wanted to avoid that, I believe, so perhaps we should limit it to linguistically realized events? That will mean we'll be focusing on language aspects and specializing structures and neurons clusters and so on.

I'll be back hopefully, tonight. KJ

Think of forests and trees. The brain may depend on neurobiology, which depends on cell biology, which depends on molecular biology and biochemistry, which depend on chemistry, which depend on atomic physics, etc.

But it's irrelevant. The brain is a complex functioning physiologic entity unto itself, and it cannot be divided into simpler units as such.

It's like asking what is the fundamental unit of a lawnmower -- it doesn't matter, because the lawnmower is only a meaningful entity when assembled.

What is the 'fundamental' unit of physical reality? It's something completely generic to all things -- and therefore will not shed light on the brain in particular.

Yes KJ, I assure you I will stay with the argument, but I can't really say how I might respond to a counter-argument, until I know what it is, can I? If, for example, you say, well we can really only consider the nature of consciousness insofar as it is understood as a biological process, I will not have much to contribute. I have advanced an idealist proposal against a materialist, or anyway biological, explanation, and if that is the argument you wish to pursue then I will do my best to respond.

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 PM ----------



Nothing can be 'completely generic' because 'generic' means 'of a type' and nothing can be of the type that is all types, can it?

The question is one of ontology. If you maintain the brain is material, and that the mind is the brain, then the basic existing reality is material. But what then is matter? In the early part of the century, you might have said 'atoms', but we know that is not true, insofar as atoms are supposed to be 'indivisible'. So the atom has been divided, we now have a particle zoo, but (a) it is incomplete and (b) many of the 'particles' barely qualify for that name.

I don't claim to have an answer, by the way, but I think it is a serious question. I also have always found it most unseemly for the human intelligence to attempt to explain itself in terms of the objects of perception.

"with what you have given there, salima, that we'd then have to either limit this to linguistical realized ideas, concepts or abstractions . . . externally or internally, or leave it open. Then, in that line of thought, if we were to leave it open, it would include ideas, concepts or abstractions which do not project to consciousness as well, I would think. But...you had wanted to avoid that, I believe, so perhaps we should limit it to linguistically realized events? That will mean we'll be focusing on language aspects and specializing structures and neurons clusters and so on."......kj

no, i think it shouldnt be limited to linguistically realized. now i never thought of this-if thoughts are not projected to consciousness, do you mean they are lying at a subconscious level? because i would include those also.
what i wanted to leave out of the definition of thoughts was the kind of communication that goes on between the brain and other organs such as controlling heartbeat, digestion,etc. it is still communication but different. thoughts may also be spontaneous and uncontrolled, but they must be something taking place in a different area of the brain than for instance the kneejerk when the doctor hits us with a mallet. we may have an accompanying thought at the time, but there was no thought that told the knee to move.

E=mc2 shows that matter is a form of energy


Although, there are still many mysteries regarding matter...

... could you expand upon that statement? ... (it seems paradoxical to me to say that intelligence shouldn't be explained in terms of the very things it evolved in response to) ...

Thankyou for the question.

I said that because according to the argument I am advancing, intelligence is prior to matter. This is the Platonist view. I am not an expert on Greek philosophy but there are parts of it that I am starting to understand. From what little I recall, the Platonist view is that the soul possesses all knowledge prior to its being born in the earthly realm. Its job is to remember its real nature (which is immortal). (This is known in Sanskrit as 'smirti', right recollection, and is also implicit in most schools of Hinduism.)

Materialists, meanwhile, attempt to explain themselves in terms of particles, objects, collections of things of various kinds because they have forgotten who they are and wander through the sensory realm in a state of amnesia.

According to this understanding, intelligence doesn't evolve, but our capacity for it evolves. Intelligence, in the sense of the 'divine intelligence' or 'the one mind', is the true ground of reality, but in our 'fallen' state, all we see are some of its lesser consequences in matter, which is the lowest rung on the ladder. This is the view of all of traditional schools.

I don't expect many to agree with it. It is an explanation of the view of traditional metaphysics which is nowadays regarded as archaic. Be this as it may, it is the view I am trying to represent. Besides, if the core of it is true, the distinction of ancient and modern is irrelevant.

I am reading Pierre Hadot 'Plotinus: The Simplicity of Vision' and "The Shape of Ancient Thought" by Thomas McEvilly, for reference.

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------



Of course. But the original impulse behind materialism is that 'reality is made of stuff'. When we discovered that stuff is actually composed of energy, materialism actually died at that moment. The problem is most materialists don't realise this yet.

I am putting this view forward as a hypothetical. I am interested to see if the 'traditional' view of the matter is able to stand up in the circumstances.

---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

[/COLOR]Actually I was wrong about 'smirti'. It was the wrong word, and besides I spelt it wrongly.

... thanks for the clarification ... it'll be interesting to watch this thread and see if you're able to make the "traditional" view hold up

Materialism is the view that everything is made up of matter.



I havent met a single materialist yet. Mainly because science figured out that alot of things arent made up of matter, like you said. Although, my sixth or even seventh sense is telling me that you're mistakingly refering to physicalism?

Thanks for your consideration and response, jeeprs. I will accept what you have offered, and the limitations that may appear with that. I also will try to avoid, as much as possible, misunderstandings due to the different discplines frow which we are seemingly approaching the matter of investigation. Please do understand, jeeprs, that I do not go beyond a certain level of pragmatic concern, because to do so is useless as a tool towards building societies, human relationships, moral norms, health-boosting understandings/procedures, and carrying out the day-to-day life activity of survival.

I hope to firstly go back a little bit, with a presentation of what is best understood about the progression of things from around a certain point in time on earth, to the circumstances of today.

We know just a nuance above nothing about the three hominoids (or pongid) which walked that vocanic ash strewn plain in Africa some number of millions of years ago. They were bipedal. They had brains that worked to whatever degree, to which degree, they were concious. A break in their gate evidences paying attention to their surroundings. They were not H. sapiens.

From among the branches of mammals, what might generally be said to be a 'primate' line developed, on which we can find hominoid/pongidae such as P. robustus, P. boisei, H. eragster, H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. awtecessor, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. neandertahlensis, and H. sapien; not to mention the more recent Great Apes, as well.

From studying the fossils, and applying empirical knowledge, the understanding that these forerunners of the primate line had working brains somewhat like those of the primate lineage today. In that there are differences in brain build among the primates of today, there will surely have been differences of brain build--genetic mutations, changes and enviornmental pressures, acquisition/learning--among the forerunners as well. Nevertheless, it will have been a slow, progressing building with yet quite similar genetically 'hard-wired' structures and functions on the molecular, cellular, synaptic, and global structure wiring levels.

It is very misfortunate, however, that it is not taken into account nearly enough, that we primates by no means hold total market share on being brainy. In fact, a good look at the evolutionary record will allow us to make two very clearly evidence supported conclusions:
[INDENT]1) The prime condition leading to ganglion clustering, then brain, was spatial mobility within a given environment over a possible range of interacting enviornments, and 2) ganglion to brain 'procession,' and brain builds, represent a fairly smooth continuum of build, complexity, integration, and function over a great span of time.
[/INDENT]Therefore, when we approach this organ first, we must take it on the basis of its being an arrived at organ (just as lungs would be) AND (I feel it cannot be overstressed) as being a point on that continuum, not something different from and/or excluded from the group of other specimens of that fundamentally same organ. What this will entail, therefore, for inquiries into consciousness, is the element of being conscious that is an element of all ganglion/brain as it leads up to that particular brain build that projects the consciousness of the modern H. sapien. This will mean, without valid rebut, that we must first take the brain, and by extension consciousness (because it is simply a certain level of conscious [brain activity]), as the result of biological processes, thus a biological matter.





In this line of thought and response to the post involved (#98; p 10)I intend to next (I hope soon) give a presentation on the validity and accuracy of report (so to speak) of part A.1, above (as I have labelled it), after which I will argue on the extreme lack of power and validity of the connection between parts A.1, 2 and part B, and thus almost total lack of analogous power of part B.

I will also continue with your concerns and questions, salima, and cross-reference when I can. For now, I might suggest that you take a careful look at pages 6~9 of the Brain Facts booklet I had shared the link to earlier. If you were to give this section a very careful study, it'll prepare the stage for the explanation I intend to give so as to explain how it is that we cannot think of thoughts (regardless of the definition, actually, although I'll still work on that with you a little more) as being merely energy waves, like light waves, or sound waves, and why we cannot think of them as exchanging between brains, really. [but do note carefully my wording here...cannot think....]

(emphasis added)

Thanks for the courteous response KJ. I do detect, however, a certain, how shall we say, cultural chauvinism in this sentiment. (But I will let it go. Someone has to be around to repair the television, after all:bigsmile:)

I will await with interest.

... if I could interject for a moment here, I think this is like saying "All of the pots I have seen are aluminum or steel, therefore pots are a metallurgy problem" when in fact pots can be made of glass, ceramic, and so on ... yes, the only instances of consciousness we know of are biological - but does that necessarily imply that consciousness can only be biological? ... it used to be the case that the only instances of evolution we knew of were biological - that is no longer the case (we now have instances of digital evolution and robotic evolution to study, as well) ... it used to be the case that the only instances of intelligence we knew of were biological - that is no longer the case (we now have instances of artificial intelligence) ... it used to be (and may still be) the case that the only instances of life we knew of were biological - but the field of artificial life (not "life as it is", but "life as it could be") may be on the verge of changing that ... is consciousness so radically different from evolution, intelligence, and life that it alone can only be realized on a biological substrate?

I think you have hit on a crucial point paul...

Saying consciousness is ONLY a biological problem would be in error. However, as far as humans and other significant vertebrates are concerned -animals with 'conscious maturity'- the issue is clearly biological because, well, they are biological creatures. In fact, sense all living organisms are biological our vantage point is pretty limited. But dont despair, for surely the AI research will end in fruition. At least I hope it will... So no I dont think consciousness is ONLY a biological problem. The topic was more along the lines of solving the hard-problem of consciousness in humans, which is clearly biological.

Quite. The concern I am raising is with the 'death of the soul'. Our depiction as products of natural selection, a 'significant verterbrate' - amongst various other species of animal - whose intellectual functions are the output of organic matter, is, in my view, a debased understanding of homo sapiens insofar as it masquerades as 'philosophy'.

Which other verterbrate is capable, after all, of sapience? What is the particular significance of that word, which is the unique signifier of our species? I suggest you look into it.

I am not objecting to a functional analysis of human consciousness for the purposes of medical or cognitive science. These are fascinating and fruitful fields for study with much to teach and many years of discovery ahead. But I think there is another agenda at work in all this.