From Brain to Consciousness to Mind--the biological basis

hey kj, i really do appreciate all the time and trouble you are going to in presenting such a complete picture of the brain and related neurology. it is interesting to me along with and apart from my own ideas of the metaphysical implications. also it has done a lot to help me expose a few silly ideas of my own to myself so i can amend my temporary conclusion as to what consciousness may be, allowing me to go on (in my own mind of course) to be able to separate that from whatever else i imagine to be there. everyone has their own style, and you are definitely a teacher at heart in the best sense of the word.

and i also think you have been very patient with us who go on discussing and musing about things and going off in other directions, taking time to reply to us as you go along. so there must be some reason why we are still here, different reasons for different folks. and who knows how many others are reading along without posting any comments. this thread is rather unique in that way too...

i wonder whatever happened to oden? he was able to give you some support, i also found some of the stuff he brought in to be of interest. the ordinary mundane everyday brain is as you say quite awesome even if we confine it to physicality.

and happy new year to you, and everyone else!

Consciousness or thought is ethereal non-matter and by using consciousness we create in the real world. I believe the conscious part of a person is eternal never dies but just evolves both during physical life and post death where we must enter other realms and dimensions of living

Thanks salima chan. Let's see what I can come up with, as I have explained to paulhanke.

OK, Alan, would you please explain just how it is you would say you have come to 'know' of that? It is most clear that the conscious part of the a person is especially the brain...and then, to a much lesser degree, other ganglia in the human body (but only the brain reaches the threshold we can call 'having a state of consciousness.'

Taking an aspirin will allow your consciousness to not acknowledge cognitively, the pain that you would otherwise would continue to feel (in many, if not most, cases). The aspirin works due to public information (studies in the objective arena) on the brain state (the first person, subjective feeling) in a neuromodulator-like manner. This is physical element to physical element; nothing, in any practical matter whatsoever, can be identified as being non-material about the entire action reaction events.

KJ - I don't understand your point and I can see why others here might be becoming frustrated with your approach. You're entitled to your view, of course, but where is your argument? It's no good saying that all the wisdom tradtions are wrong about consciousness and leaving it at that. Consciousness studies would be easy of we could do that. As it is, nobody has managed to gainsay their doctrine yet. It is not 'scientific' to assume that someone will do so anyday now.

Perhaps part of the problem is that for those traditions 'consciousness,' as I think you mean this word, which would be the 'me' in 'me and my world,' is an illusion. It would not survive our death and would be dependent on our physical continuation. But there would be something else that needs explaining, something that is more primitive that intentional consciousness and which, on the scientific evidence, is required to explain how consciousness arises.

I'd suggest you explain why Chalmers is wrong when he proposes that we need another ingredient in our mind-matter theories. If you can do this then you'll have a case and not just a conjecture.

I know thought is not only a product of the brain because I have had a very close call with death and saw my lifeless body lying while I was separated from it and "contemplated and thought" with what I call my soul mind if you like, while my body was flatlining and clinically dead. I am nothing special millions have experience the same thing. Some people blind from birth are able to see clearly with ethereal eyes during a near death event. This shows that we do not only perceive all of our reality via the brain

OK - I apologize if I was being petulant (post 235), and thanks for your New Year wishes (and same to all).

Now back to the task at hand. In the OP the statement was made:


Now this was the basis for my saying that 'you have assumed consciousness is a brain function'. So - is my paraphrase correct? Are you not saying, in the quote above, something very similar to 'consciousness is a brain function'? And this was the opening premise of the whole thread.

In saying this, I acknowledge that you are really re-stating the orthodox outlook and attitude of the great majority of scientists, many philosophers, and even lay-persons in this day and age. I am not accusing you of subscribing to an absurd belief or something demonstrably incorrect. In fact common sense would suggest that yours is the correct view of the matter. I am sure that most of the scientifically-oriented contributors on the Forum would think it absurd to challenge this starting point. But myself and several others are presenting what is probably a minority viewpoint, albeit one which we think is ultimately correct. You are trying to account for the phenomena of consciousness in neuro-biological terms, against the background of Darwinian theory; we are challenging that analysis on the basis that consciousness itself is elusive and, in a very important way, not definable at all, among other grounds.

That is where I think we are at. The reason for my frustration earlier on still stands, which is that most of your replies are made on the basis that the answers will be found within the evolutionary neuro-biological account of consciousness, which is precisely what I am trying to question. Your responses are basically along the lines of 'given this background, then x'. Where I am calling you out is not on the specifics of the cases you use to illustrate the points. It is rather seeking to question the framework. Many of the anomalous cases that I have brought up before, have not really been addressed. But - this is not a complaint. It is an observation. I am just asking you to think about these anomalous examples and their implications, rather than saying



which really does not belong in a philosophy forum, in my view.

Now without repeating all of the details of earlier posts, I will summarize some of the main points that I have made against the evolutionary neuro-biological account of consciousness.

First is the ability of the brain to 'reorganize itself' around injury or pathological condition of some kind, so that, for example, centres associated with one kind of funcionality become associated with a different kind. Aedes responded as follows:



But I say it is a mystery if you think about it. It is actually the mystery of life - what life itself is, how it organizes itself, how it heals after injury, how it evolves, and everything else that it does. I think we all assume we 'know what life is' but I would question that very assumption. We loose sight of the mystery of life at our peril. (1)

When a brain is severely injured, as we know, sometimes the subject will never recover, other times their recovery is completely unpredictable. But we do see cases where the brain completely re-organises itself over a period of years to route signals away from the damaged areas and re-capture a lot of the lost functionality. This has happened with my younger brother, who had a catastrophic brain injury in 1986 which put him in a coma for 9 weeks, and left him with no langauge for many months thereafter. He has since recovered to the point where he drives, cooks, cleans house, and rings me regularly to tell me all politicians are idiots.

So - what is doing this re-organising? The brain itself is the injured entity; what is it that knows how these functions are to be restored? I am not trying to reify or vitalise anything here; I am simply observing that there is a higher-order principle at work in everything living which can actually re-organise matter. This is what Aristotle called entelechy and I am quite sure that something like this will have to be re-introduced to biology at some point. The orthodox scientific account is that such functionalities are the output of biological matter. It seems to me that this higher-order principle, which might actually just be life, whatever that is, is organising the material bases. I suppose this is 'vitalism'. OK then - guilty as charged.

The Post 222 on Kim Peeke and Savant Syndrome, and also in Post 232 on the fact that PET scans have undermined the idea of 'representationalism' I won't repeat here.

Finally there was some discussion of 'downward causation' earlier in the thread - the idea that 'thought itself can effect nueorological configuration.' This very simple principle seems to me to challenge the 'primacy of matter'.

To try and sum up - this is a monster thread and a huge topic - but where I am going with all of this always is that of course there is a biological basis to consciousness insofar as we are biological beings. But we are also more than biological beings ('the body is more than meat') - and there is an important sense in which consciousness itself is prior to the processes of evolution. So this is a religious outlook, broadly speaking - and by saying that, I am of course bringing in the whole ID controversy, but I do believe it is unavoidable. Yes we evolved, yes we have a material body and brain, but I believe with the traditional philosophers of antiquity, that reality itself is a heirarchy of levels, with matter at the bottom and pure intelligence or Nous (or, God, if you are so inclined) at the top. All of these levels are recapitulated in H Sapiens according to the ancient dictum 'As above, so below'. And we evolved in accordance with principles over and above simply material causes.

As for documentation the sources I have, which are far to voluminous to summarize here, are as follows:

Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, Edward F. Kelly, et al.

Why Us? How Science re-discovered the Mystery of Ourselves, James le Fanu

about which:


And in terms of understanding the Perennial Philosophy, I can do no better than to recommend The Perennial Philosophy, by Alduous Huxley, written not long after WW2 but still absolutely current.

(1). Dawkins says he wonders at the 'mystery of life', but basically, mystery just annoys him. He can't help but see it as something to be gotten rid of (see The God Delusion, chapter 1). I think one of the very insidious effects of Darwinism as an outlook is that we feel we have 'explained' life. We believe that Darwin is to biology as Newton was to physics. He is not. Living beings are immeasurably more complex than physical entities. I fully accept the outlines of evolutionary history, but I don't accept that the combination of Darwinian theory of natural selection combined with Mendelian genetics explains the fundamental nature of life. And besides all of that, there could easily be the equivalent of an Einstein in biology one day, who discovers principles at work which we can't even concieve of now. Call me a creationist. I have been called worse.

happy new year jeep, glad you are still with us. we are a small party now but if you notice how many views this thread gets, there must be a lot of silent thinkers out there.

i have to ponder about your post some more, i admit i havent been thinking much lately, just listening. be back later...

what about yogis and fakirs? you know, like the guys who walk on burning coals and their feet arent burnt... I mean not to feel pain is one thing, but to be able to control what is happening to the skin as far as fire burning it is all the way along the spectrum to what one would imagine mind over matter could mean. so is there documented proof? I dont know. have there been proper empirical studies where it could be repeatably verified? I dont know. and I dont have any names or dates either. but what I am talking about is known to be possible for certain people, and I cant believe anyone would discount the possibility of it having happened. suppose it happened even once, wouldnt that be enough to prove that the mind can affect the rest of the organism in ways that are unexplained and unbelievable?


what I mean to say is that it is imaginable that the mind could convince the brain to ignore pain signals, not so remarkable. superb mental will power, no big deal. but to cause the skin not to be able to blister, hmm...ok, what is the mechanism of skin blistering when burnt? is it unavoidable and unstoppable? I am sure there are other examples that are better than this...how about the guys who lay on beds of nails and their skin isnt pierced? here is almost a case of defying gravity. and there are said to be cases of that too, during meditation while sitting in lotus position some people are said to be able to jump into the air. impossible? is every instance of this impossible?


I have had occasion myself to play with these ideas-for instance, I have successfully been able to stop the sensation of being cold or hot as far as weather is concerned-not frostbite from ice or sunburn, but mind control to relieve the symptoms of heat, cold and pain. I have a condition known as raynaud's and my hands used to get numb very often, even in the summer when I was handling vegetables from the frig, so I used to practice sending heat from my heart to the extremities of my hands and feet. it worked, but I cant prove it. I have also had many instances where I catch myself just at the moment of being burned and tell myself there is no need to burn, I have removed myself from danger, and there is no burn. not even any sign of redness. it is not the same as sitting in a fire, no...i am talking about simple kitchen burns.


what about controlling bodily functions? like temperature, heart rate, blood pressure...we know the brain does that, but we cant do anything about it under ordinary circumstances. yet there are people who have been able to control certain bodily functions through the use of bio feedback. I personally have been able to maintain a particular blood pressure level through simply visualizing the numbers. I was not able to make it go below 150/90, but that is a lot better than the 170/100 it had been. eventually I had to give in to taking pills...but it was enough to convince me that it was possible. so how is it that we can do that? is it the brain deciding to do those things? ok, is it the mind telling the brain? is it the mind or brain telling the body to behave properly? or is it the body telling the brain?


whichever it is, it seems to me that it is the thought that is causing a change in activity...so will you say then that the thought is a product of the brain, so all this is nothing other than biology? can we assume that any or all of these things are organic? if 'will' is involved, what is will? just a thought, like all the random stream of consciousness or inspirational thoughts produced by the brain? come to think of it, why cant we sneeze at will, or hiccup?


what about dna? if the brain is so smart, why cant it correct mistakes like we expect to be able to do in the future by taking apart the strings and loops of dna and locating the anomalies? what I am getting at is what is studying our brain? how can the brain be studying itself? that sounds like the ghost in the machine theory, I guess...is that also vitalism?


"So - what is doing this re-organising? The brain itself is the injured entity; what is it that knows how these functions are to be restored? I am not trying to reify or vitalise anything here; I am simply observing that there is a higher-order principle at work in everything living which can actually re-organise matter. This is what Aristotle called entelechy and I am quite sure that something like this will have to be re-introduced to biology at some point. The orthodox scientific account is that such functionalities are the output of biological matter. It seems to me that this higher-order principle, which might actually just be life, whatever that is, is organising the material bases. I suppose this is 'vitalism'. OK then - guilty as charged. ".....quote jeeprs

---------- Post added 01-01-2010 at 11:08 PM ----------

please ignore the underlining, it is a quirk in the office doc i was using and i couldnt get it to come out...

There have been various scientific studies of yogic meditation done. Advanced yogis can go into trance states which last for many hours during which their respiratory and other metabolic functions are greatly reduced.

Anand (1961) attached EEGs to yogis who entered the samadhi state. 'In two of these, strong auditory, visual, tactil and thermal stimuli which invariably produced blocking of the ongoing EEG in the normal state failed to do so during meditation, Two other yogis showed no changes in parietal EEG during protracted (45-55 minute) immersion of their hands in near-freezing water. (Irreducible Mind E. F. Kely et al, Pp 569-571


There is a more dramatic case reported also in which a yogi was sealed into a small underground pit and connected to an EKG, for eight days. 'Almost immediately after the pit was sealed, asignificant sinus tahcycardia developed and progressed until it reached 250 beats per minute, but without any signs of ischemia. This...continued for 29 hours when suddenly, and with no prior slowing of the heart rate, 'a straight line had replaced the EKG tracing'. The investigators wanted to terminate the experiment, understandably fearing that the yogi was dead, but his attendants insisted that it continue. The flat-line state persisted for five more days until, half an hour before the experiment was scheduled to end, sinuas tachycardia again developed'. The yogi was eventually disinterred, and after a short time his metabolism all returned to normal. The experimenters ruled out disconnection or malfunction of the equipment; however they recorded in their paper that although there was no explanation for the flat line on the EKG, they were not prepared to accept that the yogi had voluntarily stopped his heart for 5 days. (Ibid Pp 177-179)

It is an open question, also, whether, or how much, 'thinking' is involved with any of this. By definition, when yogis go into trance states, thinking is suspended also. So there is some cognitive capacity involved other than thought.

This text provides a great deal more information on cases of this kind, and also general observations about 'altered states of consciousness' including Near Death experiences, out-of-body states, and the like. It also notes that the suspension of consciousness or the appearance of deep trance-like states in which normal bodily functions are reduced or even appear to stop, are often associated with mystical experiences from both the West and the East, that have been reported for many centuries.

As for 'studying the brain' this is what neurosciences do. Through PET scans and related technology, science has been able to find out an enormous amount which was previously only guesswork. But what makes food smell delicious, the sunset beautiful, or the sound of mosquitoes irritating is still elusive.

I wouldn't see Darwinian evolution as a problem. Darwin was happy to allow the possibility that consciousness has a role in the evolution of species, and I think he had nothing to say about its origins. It's neo-Darwinism that's the problem, it seems to me, not the ideas of Darwin, who was a more rigorous and subtle thinker than many of his disciples.

The simplest argument I've found against the conjecture that mind reduces to matter is that materialism is demonstrably absurd, or can be refuted in the dialectic. If this isn't enough to persuade someone that materialism is not the solution for the hard problem then they must believe that the universe is logically absurd, in which case anything at all might be true.

I will maintain my present tone of address, adopted--for better or for worse--from my post number 233. It's a slightly interesting word there, 'petulant,' and is related to the root of the term from where 'pet-peeve' had been picked up from. It implies a type of intrinsic emotion; a part of one's inherent personality. Yet even more interesting, we may say, is the particular couching of your offered apology....which I of course, accept...if, in fact, it is an apology which is being offered. (not that whether it is, or isn't, is the real concern here, actually)

Therefore, as you have presented yourself (by couching it in the 'present conditional un-real state'), jeeprs, do you, or don't you, reason that you had over-reacted in an emotionally fashion, in that post? In the event that you do, from your heart, feel that you had, then I'd like to see it worded that way...and, additionally (as said above), I offer my understanding, acceptance, and comradeship. In the event that you do not, from your heart, feel that you had, then I yet offer my understanding, and will continue with my present outline. (otherwise I plan on tailoring it towards you a little more)



You make two correct statements following this introduction, but fail to make the connection with your previous claim...HOWEVER, I first ask that you please clarify your intentions with the above most quote. Thank you.

KJ

oh, mere bhai...with the greatest respect, i must admit that i agree with the claim that the way you had worded the opening post pretty much wrapped up the conclusion you intended, but i really didnt mind.

jeepers quoted the wrong part though...please see this:
"With the title, I am presenting the process of approaching the theme, along with the correlation of the three things--brain, consciousness, and mind--and their foundational situational basis, namely that of biological concern. This then means that we will approach the brain as an organ of a certain basic, yet distinct (when compared to other organs) constitution, and that because of this more natural and pragmatic approach, and because of all organs' being matters of biological concern, we have the brain as being of a biological concern. Consciousness--as generally used in this thread (as to be more precisely spelled out later on)--will then be that which can be shown in a position of having relation to the brain.".....kaseijin

---------- Post added 01-02-2010 at 07:43 PM ----------

actually i read it as meaning you were making a presentation for your argument, rather than opening up a discussion...so why complain? and you didnt discourage us from having a discussion about your presentation while it is going on, so i was happy enough.

Actually, salima, meree baheen, you are correct. I'm not sure how much experience you have with formal thesis writing, or 'papers' for publishing, but the conclusion is always presented first, with background and methods next, followed by discussion and conclusion in more detail. (and perhaps because of not being used to such, we can see in whoever's post of admitting that he had missed the argument)

There is additionally, another matter too, but I'm going to wait for a reply to the above first. (and the reason for that I hold to myself at the moment...please try to give room for understanding)

The conclusion given at the start is usually followed by a discussion explaining how it was arrived at.

Hi KJ - I do have trouble understanding your point sometimes, I think 'circumlocution' is another relevant word to consider :bigsmile:.

Now as to emotion - I have analysed why I feel emotional about this topic, and I think I understand it well enough now. I feel, like many others in this day and age, that my 'religious identity' is often challenged by the attempts of neurological science and genetic reductionism to explain the soul in terms of brain function and evolutionary adaptation. From time to time, I get emotional in response. No doubt things that I write really get on some people's nerves too. It is often exasperation - why does anyone want to think like that? - and probably the feeling is often mutual.:perplexed: Anyway, in future I will try and avoid sarcasm, exasperation, and petulance, of which I am sometimes guilty. (Maintaining equanimity is actually part of the sadhana, or spiritual discipline).

Anyway I have gotten over these tendencies to a large extent. There are many viewpoints in today's world, and mine is just one of them, so I just have to adjust to that and try and be patient and diligent in presenting my POV, as you are with yours.

And besides I would be interested to see if you have any comment on the anomalous cases we have brought up which seem to challenge the regular model of conscious brain functioning.

With appreciation for your candid and introspective words, jeerps, I will then spend a little time to see how I can shift this, and will work towards the questions which are pending--and, actually, they are some number . . . because there are questions still pending from the previous thread on this topic, even, actually, which I still have on my list of things to do.

The most proper flow, whoever, is abstract, background, objective, methods, discussion, conclusion, citations. Due to the largeness of the scale, I have been presenting in the background stage all this time so far--however, I will probably drop that presentation style for the most part, so it doesn't matter now.

EDIT Please take note that I may (I repeat, may) be focusing much more towards jeeprs concerns for a while, and my seem to ignore other points; although actually, it would only be due to holding them on the side for a moment. I ask for understanding here, please.

sounds good to me-i vote for jeeprs to lead the opposition party. that allows me to jump the fence now and then :bigsmile:

I'm still not clear what is being opposed to what so I'll also defer to Jeeprs, who seems to have superhuman powers of politeness.

... in this dialectic, is it that the notion of reductionism is itself absurd, or simply that one particular brand of reductionism (materialism) is absurd? ...

I meant refutable in Aristotle's dialectic, the one we usually use. This shows that materialism is absurd, but not reductionism. I can't even think of an argument against reductionism.