12
   

From Brain to Consciousness to Mind--the biological basis

 
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 10:02 am
@xris,
No, xris, instead of raising further questions, please answer the ones I've asked both you and jeeprs. Once those questions are fully answered and understood, other things will fall into place more. Please take the time to read carefully...I am very certain that within the time of my having posted my previous post, and the time of you having posted your most recent post, you will not have had enough time to read my post carefully. Please do read carefully, please do think logically. Please. (I'll see you all tomorrow....gotta go now)
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 10:39 am
@KaseiJin,
I think we have answered them but not how you would like them to be. I gave you my reasoning and you dismissed it. I asked you to give a definitive reply to the official whereabouts of the conscious ability. A brief precis of our agreed views would also be helpful. I will endeavour to answer them again without resorting to suspicious references.

0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 11:06 pm
@salima,
Boy, it was a 'slow-getting-started' morning . . . and not because of any particular celebrations...just work; but I made it. It was a little hard to separate some of the textual points you had entered (in bold, basically) and those which were of the original post of mine; but I think I have pretty much successfully done that now. I'll try to be as clear as I can--I am fully aware of my tendency to be wordy, to squeeze as much information into a single sentence as possible, and to kind of write at the level that I am used to reading at, and I'll try to see if I can temper that somewhat here...try, let me emphasize. [addition here: I wish to touch on one point at a post, if that's OK with you, salima; so that I can handle the fullness of points underlying each point I had said earlier which you have more recently responded to.]

KaseiJin wrote:

In what I have come across . . . [there is] a question as to how to rate how the idea of [remote viewing ], ever came up in the first place.

salima wrote:
why do you want to rate how the idea came up in the first place? i imagine it came up because someone remotely viewed something and thought it was really cool.

'Remote viewing' is an English clause; in other words, it's English. Is this a translation from some other clause in another language that had been in use before English found it? (I have no information on that) In the literature, where and when will we find that this notion had first been mentioned or described? (see green parenthetical above) What description, explanation, or details are provided by such literature? (ditto) It is a fact, I'm sure you'll understand, salima, that because we have the English expression, and of course, the concept it stands for, we can know that there had to have been a starting point for that (especially if it is original in English...by an English speaker). . . and what we really need to do, is firstly investigate that, further.

One take would be that there is a strong likelihood that some internal event happened in one person, or a number of people's brains, and that was misinterpreted at that time. The reason it would likely have been misinterpreted, would thinkably have been due that person, or those people having not had as firm a grasp on the understanding of brain and brain events which we now have. To what degree this can be verified, will depend on the 'starting' of such a concept...so again, we need to investigate the start of this.

Another take would be that one person, or a number of people, came up with the notion of such a thing, and tried to force the mental event, and had various degrees of hits and misses with it, but it took on.

Here, though, let's think carefully about the intention behind the words of the expression itself. By 'remote,' it is obviously stating the notion of 'being distant from; not near; not in the same place.' By 'viewing,' it is surely meant 'to be seeing; to be visualizing in non-linguistic terms; to cognize objects as if through the visual sense.' When put together, it most logically is pointing to the matter of 'acknowledging cognitively, the visual sensation otherwise accomplished by occipital lobe processing of visual input from the normally working retinas, a scene while not being physically there, nor near there, nor having prior knowledge or experience of that scene, by such brain processes.

OK, so I'll hold it that you agree that the visual pathways and processes are exactly physical events both before and after the light hits the retinas, and that no material evidence at all speaks otherwise (and of course, you do have first hand experience here). Also, you will have learned about the two visual pathways, the dorsal (where [but suggestions for 'how pathway,' and 'vision for action pathway' have been offered too]) and the ventral (what, from pages 274, 275 of The Emotional Brain. The ventral pathway is the older, emotionally and heavily direct-motor connected-pathway which is not projected to the state of having consciousness, and the ventral is the newer, non-emotional, and less 'direct' to motor pathway which projects to the state of having consciousness.

All the light which hits the normal, working array of rods and cones evokes signals to the occipital lobe via these pathways. The normal working optic nerves and occipital lobe gets all the signals, but not all of the signals are projected to the state of having consciousness. The point here, is that the visual scene projected to the state of having consciousness--that scene which we acknowledge cognitively as being 'out there'--is after some screening out . . . we don't get all of it at that level of awareness of being aware of it, but we do get all of the information originally.

In experiments done by Dr. Koch and others in a canyon in the New Mexico desert on a moonless night, it was again well demonstrated that peripheral vision informs motor cognition without awareness of it. As happens from time to time in Alzheimer's patients, one lady reported on had developed blindness due to that terrible disease. What was interesting at first, and thus became reported, was that while she would bump into doorways, walls, furniture, etc, and needed her daughter's help, she could still cognize moving things preconsciously. When she was helped into the doctor's office for a first visit (upon reference due to her condition, and the doctor had first checked up on her case) almost the first thing he did was to wad up a sheet of paper, and lob it towards (in a softball like throw). Of course she reached out and caught it (she had been an ardent tennis player for a long time); but she couldn't see it. She later lost that ability, of course, as the damage from the disease killed even those neuron fields, and could see nothing at--although she could of course operate visual memory and image scenes in her head.

The point here, is that to visualize in the first place, even to act without actually having acknowledged cognition of really seeing a scene, or objects in a scene (meaning it is not in consciousness at all), we have to have a certain number of neurons/neuron fields alive to do so--including all those I had mentioned above.

Then, the act of mentally visualizing anything internally--otherwise memory and imaginative reassembly from visual memory structures--will be based on the ability to see (as per the above less detailed description). A congenitally blind person would be very, very hard pressed to describe a scene in a unfamiliar setting without having first picked up any other sensory clues. Likewise, it would simply not be possible to imagine in material, non-random detail, such a scene without the visual memory of things upon which to build that imagery.

However, we can say that there will be times when other sensory input can result in a 'sensation' of a visual setting wherein the result of such is experienced subjectively as 'visual ' in nature (or 'feeling') with the report of not actually being able to see anything.

We will have to keep this matter in mind, as we proceed in investigating what is said to be remote viewing, then. I'll go to the next point in the next post...later this week (but my time is getting less and less, actually now).

Xris, I'll get back with those questions which I had asked which had not been answered, a bit later on this week. Apologies...I'm simply starting to get very, very busy...actually. Thanks for your patience.









0 Replies
 
xris
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 05:38 am
@KaseiJin,
Im not asking you to reduce your argument to simple reasoning but I would appreciate you defining the real reason why you assume consciousness does not go beyond its physical explaination.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 05:43 am
@xris,
Since I read in scientific books I started to believe in parallel universums, the scientist called it multimersum... multiversum.

Can U live paralel lives; a physical one and a spiritual one ?
Mr. Green
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 08:07 am
@xris,
xris wrote:

Im not asking you to reduce your argument to simple reasoning but I would appreciate you defining the real reason why you assume consciousness does not go beyond its physical explaination.


xris, I have done that and am doing that. . . are you really that hard headed, or are you just fishing around, or something...for crying out loud. Let me get back with those questions later on in the week...ARE YOU ACTUALLY READING MY POSTS?

The Parallel universe idea is pure fiction; and falls under theoretical physics. Consciousness and conscious fall under the hard sciences...very, VERY different areas.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 10:36 am
@KaseiJin,
Don't get teasy, you have been speculating for some time and your ideas are inter dispersed with certain rhetoric certainty. I have read your posts but you make claims that certain parts of the brain when incapacitated or damaged influence the character or the ability of consciousness. Now as far as certain damage is concerned or even when questioning the vegetative state, we or you must be precise in what you require me to reply to. I'm not rushing you, just requesting you make it as reasonable and understandable a question as you can, or do you want only your equals on this subject to involve you with debate? It appears Im the only one willing to confront your opinions, I'm sorry about that. I am doing the best I can.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 10:39 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
I cant say I have any confidence in the theories of multi verses ,they ignore so many certainties but who really knows? not I.
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 11:38 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:

Don't get teasy, . . .

Yes, you are acting correctly, xris, in calling me on my failure to cap the emotional spurge that overwhelmed me upon having read that particular post I had responded to. I did fail to cap that, and I am sorry for that. At the same time, I wish to call to your attention, the emotion which I had failed to let reside firstly, is humanly understandable. Even so; I do apologize.

Please give me a little time to regroup the questions, and point out what they mean. Also, I have mentally come up a kind of check list which I am going to put out about the facts...so we can tick them off one by one. That will also help, xris, because it is a very complicated matter, and one (as I have come to reason from seeing what you have posted all this time [not just the past few weeks]) that you don't actually have much detailed background on, nor study data access of. I can, and most certainly do hope to, help out there.

Also, I have those at least 130 study result citations (and more, actually) lined up....but... (please re-read that point in that particular post there...a little homework, I know, but homework and research are very important things)

xris wrote:
I am doing the best I can.

I understand, and will do my best to write/present it clearly, yet at the same time, hope to help bolster your knowledge and perception on the information in this field.

And, as a kind of bonus, I'll give you two brain structures which are musts-- for the much, MUCH greater part--for consciousness to be: ascending reticular activating system, and intralaminar nuclei (although further explanation is in store.
I'll be back, but probably Thurs...? at the latest...getting busy
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 10:17 pm
I had come on line last night in order to post, but felt I'd best re-read (get the flow back in mind) firstly...then, before I knew it had run out of time to post. Oh boy...if I only had more of that elusive notion of 'timefulness.'

I'd like to do two things here, xris (as I am especially answering towards him at the moment and other readers as well). One is to amplify in a paraphrased manner one or two questions asked earlier (which had not been responded towards more directly and specifically), and another is to provide only a sample of some studies which give evidences for the conclusion I have been pounding out in this thread (and elsewhere, regarding this matter, as well). While there are a number of questions which I had asked which were not more directly and specifically answered towards, I may only put one or two here...since I hope to amplify and paraphrase (or explain further, if you will).

The first question was in post #15 on page 17 and was asking if you had remembered having eaten dinner a couple of days before that of that particular post. So again, as of the moment that this very post is read, can you report that you recall having eaten dinner two nights before? This is specifically asking for an episodic memory report. This is of course focusing on the matter of memory formation and retention, and the factors and actors of brain that make such a reportable matter; there will be other memory aspects tied in with the bare episodic long-term memory (LTM) (or non-permanent-in-nature LTM), but here I ask for a report on the episodic portion only.

On post number 5 of page 18 (and further on too), I had asked about how it can be reported that acknowledged awareness of an object's moving from point A to point B, occurs when all the minicolums in the area of V1 through to MT, of the occipital lobe have died? It has been well demonstrated that V1 activity--the first level of visual sensory signaling from LGN--is totally preconscious, but informs other cortical (and sub-cortical areas to some extent, quite thinkably). The other areas, however, give us greater degrees of input and direct bearing on what is spotlighted by the state of having consciousness.

However, if the cells in the MT and area V5 are dead, the state of having consciousness presents with no acknowledged cognition of movement (the person is aware of not seeing things move...but suddenly appear from either nowhere (seemingly to their mind) or from some other place where the object had simply been 'resting'). If one argues that the cognitive ability to acknowledge, in the first person (and evidence that through actions for the second and third person perspectives), the motion of objects in space and time is intact, even with all those neurons and glia cells being dead, how would we go about doing that?

Now, I will list just a bare sample of the categories of studies which have provided ample evidences for (which act against, additionally and simultaneously, propositions for consciousness as being of a non-physical something else). For each type of study are listed (and even this is not complete, xris, but I just don't really have the time, and this is not the medium, and I simply ask for your trust) there will be at least 10 to 20 studies supporting the conclusion and bearing on brain to mind and consciousness relationship, and causation.

The Following Is Only for the Interested:




Sur, M. and Rubenstein, J.L.R. (2005) Patterning and plasticity of the cerebral cortex. Science 310 (4 Nov): 805~809;

Sakai, K.L. (2005) Language Acquisition and Brain Development. ibid.:815~819;

Thiebaut de Schotten, M., et al. (2005) Direct Evidence for a Parietal-Frontal Pathway Subserving Spatial Awareness in Humans. Science Vol 309 (30 Sept):2226~2228; (open brain surgery testing and examination)

Samejima, K. et al. (2005) Representation of Action-Specific Reward Values in the Striatum. Science Vol 310 (25 Nov): 1337~1340;

Niessing, J. et al. (2005) Hemodynamic Signals Correlate Tightly with Synchronized Gamma Oscillations. Science vol 309 (5 Aug):948~951;

Tsao, D. (2006) A Dedicated System for Processing Faces. Science Vol 314 (6 Oct):72, 73; (winner of the 2006 Eppendorf prize for biology)

Tsao, D., et al. (2006) A Cortical Region Consisting Entirely of Face-Selective Cells. Science Vol 311 (3 Feb):670~674;

Chan, J.R. et al. (2006) The Polarity Protein Par-3 Directly Interacts with p75 NTR to Regulate Myelination. Science Vol 314 (3 Nov):832~836;

Summerfield, C. et al. (2006) Predictive Codes for Forthcoming Perception in the Frontal Cortex. Science Vol 314 (24 Nov):1311~1314;

Popesco, M.C., et al. (2006) Human Lineage-Specific Amplification, Selection, and Neuronal Expression of DUF1220 Domains. Science Vol 313 (1 Sept):1304~1307;

Nieder, A., et al. (2006) Temporal and Spatial Enumeration Processes in the Primate Parietal Cortex. Science Vol 313 (8 Sept):1431~1435;

Wilson, R.I. (2007) Neural Circuits Underlying Chemical Perception. Science vol 318 (26 Oct):584, 585; (winner of 2007 Eppendorf prize for biology)

Koechlin, E., and Hyafil, A. (2007) Anterior Prefrontal Function and the Limits of Human Decision-Making. ibid.:594~598;

Mansouri, F.A. et al. (2007) Mnemonic Function of the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Conflict-Induced Behavioral Adjustment. Science Vol 318 (9 Nov):987~990;

Reijmas, L.G. et al. (2007) Localization of a Stable Neural Correlate of Associative Memory. Science Vol 317 (31 Aug):1230~1233;

Mobbs, D. et al. (2007) When Fear is Near: Threat Emminence Elicits Prefrontal-Periaqueductal Gray Shifts in Humans. Science vol 317 (24 Aug):1083~1086;

Huang, L. et al. (2007) Characterizing the Limits of Human Visual Awareness. Science vol 317 (10 Aug):823~825;

Depue, B. et al. (2007) Prefrontal Regions Orchestrate Suppression of Emotional Memories via a Two-Phase Process. Science Vol 317 (13 July):215~219;

Saalmann, Y.B. et al. (2007) Neural Mechanisms of Visual Attention: How Top-Down Feedback Highlights Relevant Locations. Science Vol 316 (15 June):1612~1615;

Pessiglione, M. et al. (2007) How the Brain Translates Money into Force; A Neuroimaging Study of Subliminal Motivation. Science Vol 316 (11 May):904~906;

Buschman, T.J. and Miller E.K. (2007) Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Control of Attention in the Prefrontal and Posterior Parietal cortices. Scinece Vol 315 (30 Mar):1860~1862; [and this count ratio sample will continue in the journal Science for 2008~2010, as well]

Hanslmayr, S., et al (2009) Anticipatory Signatures of Voluntary Memory Suppression. J. Neurosci. Vol 29 (March 4):2742~2747;

Mathewson, K.E., et al. (2009) To See of Not to See: Prestimulus a (should be Greek alpha, but no font for that here) Phase Predicts Visual Awareness. ibid.:2725~2732;

David, S. V., et al. (2009) Rapid Synaptic Depression Explains Nonlinear Modulation of Spectro-Temporal Timing in Primary Auditory Cortex by Natural Stimuli. J. Neurosci. Vol 29 (March 18):3374~3386;

Lehn, H., et al. (2009) A Specific Role of the Human Hippocampus in Recall of Temporal Sequences. ibid.:3475~3484;

Xu, J., et al. (2009) mGluR5 Has a Critical Role in Inhibitory Learning. J. Neurosci. Vol 29 (March 25):3673~3684;

Kraemer, D.J.M., et al. (2009) The Neural Correlates of Visual and Verbal Cognitive Styles. ibid.:3792~3798;

Gallivan, J.P., et al. (2009) Is That Within Reach? fMRI Reveals That the Human Superior Parieto-Occipital Cortex Encodes Objects Reachable by the Hand. J. Neurosci. Vol 29 (April 8): 4381~4391;

Yalachkov, Y., et al. (2009) Brain Regions Related to Tool Use and Action Knowledge Reflect Nicotine Dependence. J. Neurosci. Vol 29 (April 15):4922~4929;

Sterpenich, V., et al. (2009) Sleep Promotes the Neural Reorganization of Remote Emotional Memory. J. Neurosci. Vol 29 (April 22):5143~5152;

Well, I just kind of pulled out a number of issues of the Journal of Neuroscience from 2009 here to do this...but am kind of tired now. Also, when I look at what is left to do even with the other journals...wow...let me get back later with this listing (if there is actual need for it, really) later, with simply an even more direct and impact studies, xris



0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 10:55 pm
@KaseiJin,
There is reason to believe that the thing we call consciousness did not exist 4000 years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279342251&sr=1-1

http://www.julianjaynes.org/

KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 02:41 am
@gungasnake,
The reasons offered, as far as I have looked at a few of them (especially regarding those from language), and the data employed to deliver them, from Dr. Jaynes, have not stood up well against the tests of further understanding and time. It is safe enough to set them aside as being of no consequence. Especially is that so in that consciousness is a continuum matter, and not only of the H. sapiens type.

I would suggest, please (if it hasn't be done already), taking in more of the argumentation presented in this thread. One good post to start at (which has links) can be found in this post.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 03:55 am
@KaseiJin,
I dont think we will ever come to a agreement as we are divided on what we are actualy looking for. I always assumed it was the human experience not the basic constructs of the brain. Evolution we must assume has taken us fom the reptilian brain to the higher primate brain and yet further till we now have the brain that considers itself. No other brain has that capacity and it is that brain I thought we were debating. Now ,I may be wrong but is your investigation and your examination not concerned with the brain that might also be relevant to our close cousins the higher primates? If it is , is it relevant? Is the primate consciousness the same as our or is it not?

I cant divorce my beliefs ,such as they are, with the simple examination of my brain . I cant assume that this emerging human consciousness is just a matter of observing the intricacies of the mechanics that allow me to be conscious. I cant discount that this ability was an intention of evolution and the formula for life knew its outcome. Now please dont jump to the conclusion I need a god or my natural desire requires me to search for a creator. I am an agnostic, not many who dont maintain this position realise how this influences your reasoning and then for us to say to the scientist or the fervent believer, don't be so certain.

I asked you to give me a the reference that confirmed your reasoning but you have not Im afraid given me anything you have not done before. Science has not even defined human consciousness let alone found its real home. Just one reference that has become acceptable to say, this is where we reside. If my claim of EM field is not proven, its not discounted and that is why the question remains unanswered.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 05:12 am
@KaseiJin,
Ok, I'll jump in the pool here.
In my simple way I see the question as the origin of conciousness.
The current state of biological science does, I think, clearly show an undeniable connection between conciousness and the biological function of the brain.
That really is logically undeniable at this point.
I can't, however, see any evidence whatsoever to favor conciousness as a function of the brain over the expression of conciousness as a function of the brain.
At present I am unaware of any evidence that comes close to favoring either position. Rather, a position may be taken ,and argued for either position equally.
The expression of conciousness necessarily appears exactly as conciousness , being indistinguishable.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 02:23 pm
@wayne,
Sorry Wayne you will have to explain your point of view just a little clearer for this biological functioning brain, please.
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 09:02 pm
There is, xris, this certain element of--I'll try to pin it down as--instability in your posting flow overall which I'd like you to try to help me weed out, please. There is no need to talk of agreement (it's beside the point, fundamentally) while there is every need to speak of reasoning and conscientiousness. Brain function is exactly what the individual and collective human experience is, xris. A person can sit down upon a slab of granite and deny that until they die, and the fact of that statement will never change. (and I am using the word 'fact' here due to the clarity and solidity of the evidence and understandings empirically tested and holding)

Now, xris, you may be of the capacity, or you may not be--I really, simply, do not know, having never met nor talked to you in person, nor having never had the chance to see your 'works in life (so to speak)--but one has to reason carefully . . . or at least more preferably do so in order to reach any better, more secure understanding on all practical matters. I do, very much wish to encourage you yet further along this line. Here, then, I will once again copy and paste these two questions which have been standing since pages 17 and 18 (and you can check the dates there). . . it's due to the likes of the seemingly so blatant miss here, which causes this brain to conclude that my posts are not really (and let me stress that, REALLY) being read by yourself, xris (and, most obviously, if your more recent post had been any attempt to answer these, that is extremely, extremely hard to see as being any answer to these).


The first question was in post #15 on page 17 and was asking if you had remembered having eaten dinner a couple of days before that of that particular post. So again, as of the moment that this very post is read, can you report that you recall having eaten dinner two nights before? This is specifically asking for an episodic memory report. This is of course focusing on the matter of memory formation and retention, and the factors and actors of brain that make such a reportable matter; there will be other memory aspects tied in with the bare episodic long-term memory (LTM) (or non-permanent-in-nature LTM), but here I ask for a report on the episodic portion only.


On post number 5 of page 18 (and further on too), I had asked about how it can be reported that acknowledged awareness of an object's moving from point A to point B, occurs when all the minicolums in the area of V1 through to MT, of the occipital lobe have died? It has been well demonstrated that V1 activity--the first level of visual sensory signaling from LGN--is totally preconscious, but informs other cortical (and sub-cortical areas to some extent, quite thinkably). The other areas, however, give us greater degrees of input and direct bearing on what is spotlighted by the state of having consciousness.



wayne wrote:

In my simple way I see the question as the origin of conciousness.

Nice to have you swimming with us, wayne. Please do allow me to suggest that it might be worth considering the spelling, as well--I think we'll find consciousness as having an 's' before the second 'c.' Would I be correct in paraphrasing your statement as being: "In my simple way of looking at the matter of consciousness, I see the question as being one of what makes for consciousness in the brain, rather than one of whether consciousness is solely a brain function, or not?"

wayne wrote:

I can't, however, see any evidence whatsoever to favor conciousness as a function of the brain over the expression of conciousness as a function of the brain.

Firstly, what you appear to be dealing with is what is otherwise known as the problem of quale (qualia in the plural form). That is an armchair question which can be well set aside due to its impracticality. There is no advantage at all--and it has well enough be demonstrated--in trying tease out how a first person experience can be experienced by another first person experience; all the while knowing fully well that each first person experience is a fact of brain build/state which is the same for all such within that bell curve range of similarity. (The question, if you will, does make for interesting thought experiment and discussion, yes, but I am focusing on the down-to-earth practicality of the biological basis of consciousness and mind, to brain. )

It is for this reason that we can find that rare occasion of phantom arm experience by a person born without that arm (pretty much) in the first place (so never having had the chance to ever experience that portion of an arm 'there') simply because the maps are hardwired into the brain by genetic build...they come with the brain (and it's true for other animals as well...as far as has been studied). Brain does what brain does, and that we can term conscious (which is quite the same [if you've been reading up on this thread] as cell activity). Most brain activity (around 80%) does not get projected to the attention of acknowledged cognition--thus remains forever in preconsciousness . . . that is, we never know of it--but does effect output and, even, the state of having consciousness (even though the first person won't know that). Thus, the activity of brain is the expression of brain.

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 09:23 pm
@KaseiJin,
Quote:
The reasons offered, as far as I have looked at a few of them (especially regarding those from language), and the data employed to deliver them, from Dr. Jaynes, have not stood up well against the tests of further understanding and time.


Try writing shorter sentences, you'll find yourself making sense more often.

Jaynes' thesis has withstood tests of time quite well other than for the notion that all of the phenomena he described amounted to auditory hallucinations.

Prophets and oracles in particular appear to have been sufficiently real at some early stage and then for some reason likely amounting to more than the sort of societal change which Jaynes posited, all such practices broke down. By the time of Alexander, no such practices worked.

As Jaynes noted it seems sufficiently obvious from reading the Iliad and other literature of the period that what we call schizophrenia would have been called normal at that time. His description of his conversations with neuro-physiologists regarding the right-brain analog to the speech center still strike most readers as a reasonable basis for his hypothesis.


0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 12:57 am
@xris,
xris wrote:

Sorry Wayne you will have to explain your point of view just a little clearer for this biological functioning brain, please.


Actually, what I mean to address is the original assumption that what we are looking at here is actual consciousness and not just the expression of consciousness into our present reality. You touched on this earlier, with your analogy of the car and it's driver.
I just got interested in this thread and am not quite up to speed. I wanted to get clear on whether that assumption was made and accepted in order to further explore the areas of connection between between biology and consciousness ie expression of consciousness, in which case it works just fine, or whether that assumption was going to be used to determine the actual origin of consciousness, in which case it matters a great deal.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:39 am
@KaseiJin,
Thanks for the welcome, and the spelling correction, I'm usually quite meticulous. My education doesn't match my intellect so I may ask some obvious questions from time to time, please bear with me. I find this subject extremely interesting, possibly because the armchair factor suits my education Smile.
Anyway, I wasn't sure of the intention of that assumption of consciousness made at the start of the thread, but my read of your response has clarified that. Also you clarified my understanding of Qualia too, thanks for that.
I'm sure you are familiar with Oliver Sacks, his work goes pretty deep into the phenomenae such as phantom arm experience. The last paragraph of your response put me in mind of the brain as somewhat of a generic biological device, at first, which is programmed and individualized by unique experience. I hope I am reading you correctly, because that just interests the hell out of me.
I''ll be here, reading and asking questions for awhile, I think, so thanks aforehand for your time and patience.

P.S. Is the term mind, in this thread to be synonymous with personality?
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 05:19 am
@KaseiJin,
Kaseijin, I can assure you however much my replies are annoying you , so to are yours for me. We appear to be locked in struggle of definitions. The questions you ask , answer them how you like. I'm sure my dog would remember certain events and a primate even more. The activities of my brain and how it functions is biological, I admit it but thats not human consciousness, is it? I'm not doubting the functions of the brain or how it has biologically evolved, constructed or functions. You will not accept that the human consciousness goes beyond these mundane examples. You will never give me accepted scientific proof that we understand or even know where it is placed, this human consciousness. If it lies hidden in the brain it doing its damndest to evade your searching. We have to agree on what we are looking for before we can progress surely?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 11:47:24