From Brain to Consciousness to Mind--the biological basis

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;103717 wrote:

... quick question for clarification: when you say "'consciousness' requires the condition of having conscious (that quasi-noun), and brain", do you mean "conscious" and "brain" are necessary and sufficient? necessary but not sufficient? sufficient but not necessary? ...

Yes, paulhanke, let me clarify that here. In my presentation I am coming from the position of understanding which holds that brain (a certain level/degree of complexity which is greater than what would fall under the catagory of mere ganglion), and its having the condition of conscious (which could easily enough be viewed (for ease of visualizing) as computational in nature) are presently understood to be necessary and sufficient for the basis of reaching the state of consciousness. (unless I am erring on the application of the word sufficient)(1)

I will work towards demonstrating that in forth coming posts. Here, one thing which caught my eye just now . . .

KaseiJin;103626 wrote:

Also, please keep in mind that the definition of the common English adjective 'conscious' is quite fixed, and is a matter of brain--also, that the English term 'consciousness,' is a noun which is formed from the root, 'conscious.'.

Here, I didn't word this clearly enough. In the above, I am specifically talking about English Dictionary entries, and the English usage as it developed from the Latin. The sense that I often use for the word conscious is not a dictionary entry . . . yet Very Happy

Hey...we all have our right to wishful thinking, right?! . . . Surprised

1. At the moment, perhaps the largest and most detailed (as far I have information) AI intelligence and consciousness drive could be said to be the Blue Brain Project, and that too, is arguably far from presenting consciousness, so, for now, just the brain continuum (with its conscious process) that has built up to us. This means that the sufficient matter could change, I'd think.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;103726 wrote:

Yes, paulhanke, let me clarify that here. In my presentation I am coming from the position of understanding which holds that brain (a certain level/degree of complexity which is greater than what would fall under the catagory of mere ganglion), and its having the condition of conscious (which could easily enough be viewed (for ease of visualizing) as computational in nature) are presently understood to be necessary and sufficient for the basis of reaching the state of consciousness. (unless I am erring on the application of the word sufficient)(1)

1. At the moment, perhaps the largest and most detailed (as far I have information) AI intelligence and consciousness drive could be said to be the Blue Brain Project, and that too, is arguably far from presenting consciousness, so, for now, just the brain continuum (with its conscious process) that has built up to us. This means that the sufficient matter could change, I'd think.

... actually, I think the possibility of AI/AL means the necessity matter could change (i.e., if consciousness can be realized on silicon, that would show that carbon is not necessary for consciousness) ... (and to repeat a question from a previous post, has "conscious" been / can "conscious" be realized in silicon?) ... as far as sufficiency, perhaps some short examples would help us to come to some agreement upon what counts:

1. As the human organism cannot survive without oxygen, oxygen is necessary for the existence of a human organism. (If X is a contributor to a larger whole Y and cannot be replaced with a functionally similar contributor, then X can be said to be necessary for Y.)

2. As the human organism cannot survive without hydrogen, oxygen cannot be said to be sufficient for the existence of a human organism. (If X is a contributor to a larger whole Y but is not the sole contributor to Y, then X cannot be said to be sufficient for Y.)

3. As oxygen and hydrogen are the only elementary components of water, then oxygen and hydrogen together can be said to be sufficient for the existence of water with respect to the elements. (If { X,Y } as a subset of the set K can contribute to a larger whole Y in the absence of any other items from K, then { X,Y } can be said to be sufficient for Y with respect to K.)

#3 is pretty much a matter of isolating one or more classes of contributors to a whole ... that is, while you can say that { oxygen, hydrogen } is sufficient for the existence of water with respect to the elements, you cannot say { oxygen, hydrogen } is sufficient for the existence of water with respect to the elements and possible organizations thereof ... and in the context of this thread, would K be the set of what is empirically observable?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;93906 wrote:

Even if all you write is true, you can't escape from the fact that you can demonstrate a brain that lacks consciousness but you can never demonstrate consciousness that lacks a brain.

But this is only true insofar as you define consciousness as an attribute of the brain. If only one instance of (1) survival of personality beyond death (2) communication between remote minds or (3) intelligence received from a spiritual intelligence or realm could be demonstrated, then it would show that consciousness also exists beyond the brain, would it not?

---------- Post added 11-17-2009 at 08:20 PM ----------

Incidentally, on the Blue Brain project, and AI more generally, is there any reason to suppose that one might be able to replicate consciousness any more easily than one might replicate mitosis? I suppose it seems that consciousness might be easier to replicate in that it's 'content' or 'operations' might be imagined as analagous to a set of logical operations or rule-processing steps.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;103991 wrote:

But this is only true insofar as you define consciousness as an attribute of the brain. If only one instance of (1) survival of personality beyond death (2) communication between remote minds or (3) intelligence received from a spiritual intelligence or realm could be demonstrated, then it would show that consciousness also exists beyond the brain, would it not?

1, 2 and 3 were demonstrated to me and as far as i am concerned, it's been proven. too bad i cant share it with anyone else! maybe that time will come.

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

Many people might believe it, but I am asking, if it were proven, would it defeat the proposition that consciousness cannot be found elsewhere than in the brain.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;104007 wrote:

Many people might believe it, but I am asking, if it were proven, would it defeat the proposition that consciousness cannot be found elsewhere than in the brain.

i also wondered...might have asked the same thing somewhere back about 50 pages or so either here or on one of the other rwo threads and forgot, but if i did it hasnt been answered yet.

1 Reply

@salima,

I don't doubt it would prove that which we conceive of as mortal is in fact ethereal. Its not the science that ever confuses me its the personal experiences. We all approach this subject from a personal perspective and no matter what scientific evidence is produced, personal experiences stand supreme. Likewise those who defend the scientific reasoning will never accept the personal experience of others.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;103849 wrote:

... actually, I think the possibility of AI/AL means the necessity matter could change (i.e., if consciousness can be realized on silicon, that would show that carbon is not necessary for consciousness)

Yes, I understand the follow through here. I can see, at the same time, that what we have, nevertheless, is a flow where actually the present brain/mind (thus consciousness necessarily implied) is the condition through which the artificial will have been reached--if it ever really is [and I don't personally doubt that feasibility]. In one sense, therefore, I guess we could call it a kind of paradox, of sorts? Something both true and not true at the same time?

paulhanke;103849 wrote:

... (and to repeat a question from a previous post, has "conscious" been / can "conscious" be realized in silicon?)

I'm not quite up on AI enough to say much, but I'd tend to think that we could say that silicone mimics conscious (in the weakest wording, and computational sense), and may eventually demonstrate having the condition of conscious (in the strongest wording). Artificial is not biological, came afterwards, thus for now is out of the scope.

paulhanke;103849 wrote:

... as far as sufficiency, perhaps some short examples would help us to come to some agreement upon what counts:

.. and in the context of this thread, would K be the set of what is empirically observable?

I'm not so sure about the practical necessity of this, so you might have to expand on it, for me. In the meantime, I tend to say 'sufficient' because we have consciousness as a primary result of brain (as the evidences much more satisfactorily demonstrate).

jeeprs;103991 wrote:

But this is only true insofar as you define consciousness as an attribute of the brain. If only one instance of (1) survival of personality beyond death (2) communication between remote minds or (3) intelligence received from a spiritual intelligence or realm could be demonstrated, then it would show that consciousness also exists beyond the brain, would it not?

Firstly, we have to carefully pay heed to the circumstances of the definition we are using (here, in English). We have to keep in mind the general and material degree of sameness in brain build on a species basis (and even in general). Additionally, demonstration to show that consciousness does not require brain, would require us to have to satisfy its normality. It would not only have to give evidence beyond a doubt that--as based on our definition--the condition of having consciousness would itself (as a state of awareness of things) be aware of the lack of necessarily having brain behind it, it would also have to be free from restraint of brain activity--including conscious below the level of having consciousness. It would have to be able to overturn the quality and quantity of evidence against it. (the requirement of death has to be fully, and in practical terms of empirically knowable evidence, be explained)

Communication between remote minds, as well as a spiritual realm, will have to be shown to be normal and real, and will have to be shown to represent minds (intelligently aware centers [otherwise, brain-likeness]) acting in an immaterial process, for the latter. For the former, we can see that two living brains are said to be involved, so the problem is much more so one of information transfer (sensory medium) rather than consciousness being something immaterial (thus, by extension, non-biological in nature).

Also again, we have to demonstrate this for not just humans, but for other 'pre-human', and 'simi-human' lines, as well as for (at the very least) the primates, over all evolutionary time. We would have to explain how matters, say, like biographical memory, episodic memory, and others, do not survive on their own without the substance of brain in the areas that compile them in the major way. We would have to explain where consciousness thus comes from for an individual, if it does not come from brain development after birth (if an individual and developed through time consciousness is said to never expire, how is it to begin?) And. . . the list goes on. (Boy, if I can ever get around to getting started again . . .I may have to kind set aside immediacy for presentation development . . . maybe, and if I do, please do try to understand)

However, to answer towards your question there jeeprs, if it were demonstrated with such weight and clarity, it would behoove us to go with the better of the average of the total evidence, thus in that direction of what we define as consciousness, as being something which is beyond, and not dependent on, brain and conscious.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;103991 wrote:

But this is only true insofar as you define consciousness as an attribute of the brain. If only one instance of ... (2) communication between remote minds ... could be demonstrated, then it would show that consciousness also exists beyond the brain, would it not?

... conversation (electronic, verbal, non-verbal, hormonal, etc.) ... wasn't that easy to demonstrate? Smile

... unfortunately, I don't think we're anywhere near the point where you could demonstrate an extra-cranial example of consciousness that would be generally accepted - paradigm shifts take time ... consider AI as an example of what we're in for ... AI started out with the assumptions that only human beings are intelligent, that intelligence is wholly within the brain, as best exemplified by logical reasoning such as chess, and as opposed to second-nature things such as locomotion and sociality ... compare that to where AI is 50 years later where the assumptions are that ant colonies display intelligence, intelligence is distributed throughout the entire organism, as best exemplified by real-time interaction with a world and others, as opposed to mechanical reasoning tools such as logic ... if it takes 50 years to radically reconceptualize intelligence, should we expect it to take just as long to radically reconceptualize consciousness? ...

---------- Post added 11-17-2009 at 09:17 AM ----------

KaseiJin;104057 wrote:

I'm not so sure about the practical necessity of this, so you might have to expand on it, for me. In the meantime, I tend to say 'sufficient' because we have consciousness as a primary result of brain (as the evidences much more satisfactorily demonstrate).

... the practicality for me is to be able to better pin down what you mean when you say "requires" ... "requires" is a rather loose word that could be read a number of ways, for example:

1) "brain" and "conscious" contribute to consciousness

2) "brain" and "conscious" are sufficient for consciousness

3) "brain" and "conscious" are necessary for consciousness

4) "brain" and "conscious" are necessary and sufficient for consciousness

... it seems to me that your current use of "requires" is #1 (or #3 if we limit K to terrestrial biology - but in so doing, would we be guilty of begging the question? Smile

) ... that is, having defined "brain" and "conscious" (as brain tissue and any activity thereof), I imagine that the evidences you will present will include additional items such as "organization into a brain" (or perhaps "organization into a prefrontal cortex") that, when combined with "brain" and "conscious", you will suggest are sufficient for consciousness (at least to the extent that it is the best interpretation of the currently available empirical data), yes? ...

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

By remote communications, I am referring to telepathy and related. I don't think our 'current model' - the biological model of consciousness, if you like - really accomodates this phenomenon. Even if you were to hypothesise that such communications are propogated by electromagnetic radiation (i.e. a physical means) you are still left with explaining the mechanism in the brain which can send and receive information by this means, because to all intents and purposes, it is 'extra sensory' (hence the well-known term, ESP). It seems outside the scope of current neuroscientific theory.

I think the weight of evidence does show that telepathic communication of some kind does occur; there have been decades of trials, and the statistical meta-analysis of the results clearly demonstrate effects that cannot be solely attributed to chance. You only have to establish a single instance to demonstrate the principle. This is all described in detail in Parapsychology and the Skeptics, by Chris Carter and Irreducible Mindby Kelly et al.. And has been discussed in another thread, considerable evidence has been amassed by the late Prof Ian Stevenson of children who remember their previous lives. None of it really undermines the biological account of the nature of consciousness, however, unless it is held to be the only account.

So what is the philosophical significance? The fact that such things happen is interesting, insofar as it indicates that the nature of consciousness is not fully disclosed by our attributes and activities as normal conscious beings. Right now there are a number of research centres engaged in 'consciousness studies' based on examination of the implications of para-normal phenomena and the like. Conventional scientists will usually just say 'well this is all pseudo-science, there is nothing in it'. Basically they have a view as to what constitutes science, and what doesn't. I don't agree with them, but I am not that interested in promoting para-normal phenomena. I think it is just something that has to be accounted for, and the biological account of consciousness really can't account for it, that is all.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;104060 wrote:

... the practicality for me is to be able to better pin down what you mean when you say "requires" ...

'Require' is synonymous with need, and that had been the application in my having used it, in that post. We could use of the word 'contribute' too; although that wasn't really the point. In the first instance, we find (with our definition) a matter which is found only in the condition of having a brain in a condition of having a certain level of conscious.

Yes, parts of the evidence we have deals with brain structure, but a lot of it deals with brain function too. (and I will repeat some of what I had had before)

jeeprs;102088 wrote:

Incidentally, I am wondering if you have any views on the experiment I quoted in the earlier post #55 about how imagining to practise piano actually can change the neural structure of the brain (which I would have thought was pretty good evidence for 'downward causality' from mind to brain.)

I had basically touched on that a little, in my #101, about mid-section. The topic will surely come up again too, from some other studies.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

jeeprs;104137 wrote:

I think the weight of evidence does show that telepathic communication of some kind does occur; there have been decades of trials, and the statistical meta-analysis of the results clearly demonstrate effects that cannot be solely attributed to chance. You only have to establish a single instance to demonstrate the principle. This is all described in detail in Parapsychology and the Skeptics, by Chris Carter and Irreducible Mindby Kelly et al.. And has been discussed in another thread, considerable evidence has been amassed by the late Prof Ian Stevenson of children who remember their previous lives. None of it really undermines the biological account of the nature of consciousness, however, unless it is held to be the only account.

I do hope to go over these matters on down the road, but as for myself, at least, I hope to do that at a particular timing . . . if that will be acceptable to you, jeeprs (and others).

I'd like to lay out the motor matters again firstly (over a few posts), in the way of background for points argued later too. In this post, again, I'll present the basic CNS (considering elements of PNS and ANS at points along the way later on). 'On top' ( so to speak, though quite literally so) we have the neocortex. The primary, secondary, and supplimentary (or supplimental) cortical motor areas lie just anterior to the central sulcus, and along with the primary, secondary, and posterial parietal (BA 5 & 7) cortical areas that lie posterior the central sulcus, can be called the sensorimotor system. (and this can be seen to include the parietal-lobe association cortex)

The basal ganglia are a collective group of sub-cortical structures which act on descending pathways much more so than (if at all) by direct connection to motor neurons. This consists of the striatum (or neostriatum) which is the input area, recieving efferent projections from the cerebral cortex and is made up of the caudate nucleus, putamen, and nucleus accumbens; the globus pallidus--internal segment, ventral pallidum, and substantia nigra pars reticulata which deal with output; and the globus pallidus--external segment, subthalamic nucleus, substantia nigra pars compacta, and ventral tegmental area which work in a kind of intrinsic mode.

The cerebellum (or 'little brain') rests just posterior (dorsal) to the pons & medulla, and caudal to the occipital lobe. It works largely, though not only, towards the regulating of motor pathway functioning. While being highly complicated, it is generally organized into three somewhat broad functional zones. One area, the spinocerebellum recieves (among a few other things) highly organized somatic sensory inputs from the spinal chord, and projects to the lateral and medial motor systems (lower brain stem and thalamic area) and also deals with movement correction.

Another, the cerebrocerebellum, recieves input indirectly from the cerebral cortex, and is interconnected with diverse cortical regions--as it is primarily involved in planning of movement.

The vestibulocerebellum recieves input from the vestibular labyrinth, and projects back via the inferior cerebellar peduncle. It is important in eye and head movement control. While the pons plays a type of behind-the-scenes role, to some degree, it is primarily these three players mentioned above that are worthy of attention.

The heirarchy of control levels is broken down into three general catagories, viz., high (strategy) [association areas of cortex & basal ganglia], middle (tactics) [motor cortex & cerebellum], and low (execution) [brain stem, spinal chord]. A general outlay of the activity flow is as follows:
prefrontal through to sensorimotor cortex with prefrontal to BA 6 exchanges, BA 6 to BA 4 exchanges, and BA 4 with sensory cortex exchanges.

One descending projection from the above block to basal ganglia, is present. Among other things the basal ganglia project to the ventral lateral (VLo thalamic input related) which feeds back into BA 4. The other descending from the above block to the pons/cerebellum is present. These areas project to VLc (thalamic) which, among other things, feeds back to the above block.

The motor cortical area of the top block project descending pathways via the red nucleus to the lateral pathways, of the spinal chord, directly to the spinal chord, and via the reticular nuclei and superior colliculus and vestibular nuclei to the ventromedial pathways of the spinal chord. This is the general motor/cerebellum loop, but with the basal ganglia we have the skeletomotor loop, oculomotor loop, prefrontal cortex loop, and the limbic loop. The skeletal motor loop can be seen in terms of a direct path and an indirect path.

This much here, is go give an overview, and to set a detailed stage which I reason is necessary for later argumentation (although it's just reference). I'll make one more post along this line, then bring out those on the motor dysfunction again.

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

I am again struggling to see the purpose of a neuroanatomy presentation in the context of a philosophy forum.( Maybe is is a gloss on Descartes: "This is how you think, therefore that is how you are". Damn, I wish I could write Latin sometimes....)

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I can, actually, understand your wondering, there, jeeprs, in that I know that most folks, on most internet forums, don't take the time, effort, and conscientiousness to give a fuller, and detailed background and underpinnings to their arguments. Not to deride that, no . . . simply to point to such circumstance, and that then looking from that circumstance, see why you would wonder what I am doing here; with all this detail. I am presenting the background for the 'case-in-point's which come up later, which, in turn, will be used in developing the argument, namely:
[indent][indent]

KaseiJin;93258 wrote:

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. . . At the same time, we will be able to explore the depth and nature of correlation between brain and mind, and by extension the foundational, biological basis of mind and consciousness. . . In this manner, I argue the position that mind, and consciousness are robustly involved with, and foundationally determined by, brain, and that thus it is more accurate and especially fair enough to contend that they are foundationally biological concerns.

[/indent][/indent] which argument will be to demonstrate areas where certain philosophical positions need either rethinking or refining--as well as (along the way), perhaps, areas where findings/understandings in the brain sciences stand rethinking or refining. There is a good chance, you see, jeeprs, that somewhere down the road, someone'll come up and ask, "How do we know that?" Well, as much as possible, I wish to demonstrate firstly, rather than then (and mid-argumentation), how we know that.

[SIZE="4"]W[/SIZE]hile the cerebellum has direct connections to the spinal chord, the basal ganglia do not, but interact with the cerebral cortex. The general flow of information runs from the cerebral cortex to the striatum where it synapses with projections to various areas of globus pallidus, ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra (pars compacta & reticulata), and the sub thalamic nucleus. The general outflow (after all inner flows) is to areas of the frontal lobe. The cerebellum could be said to be more directly active in regulation and planning (based on memory search) of (especially) ballistic movement, whereas the basal ganglia participate in what could be called the cognitive dimensions of movement--thus the structures dual role of is planning and execution of motor strategies.

The skeletomotor loop more specifically recieves input from the primary motor, lateral premotor, supplimentary motor areas, and primary somatic sensory areas into the putamen which synapse with globus pallidus internal and substantia nigra pars reticulata where output goes to the ventral anterior & lateral thalamic nuclei. From there, feedback/output flows to the motor areas. One interesting aspect is the higher working load degree of the basal ganglia is by inhibitory, rather than excitatory activities--and some of the excitation is actually caused by disinhibition (inhibition of inhibitory spiking). The direct path of the skeletomotor loop promotes movement, and the indirect path inhibits movement.

The neurotransmitters and neuromodulators involved are (among a few possible others) glutamate (excitatory; corticostriatal neurons input into basal ganglia, thalamic neurons projecting to the striatum, and the subthalamic projection neurons), GABA (inhibitory; the medium spiny projection neurons of the striatum feeding both segments of the globus pallidus & the substantia nigra pars reticulata, and projection neurons of both segments of the globus pallidus and substantia nigra pars reticulata), enkephalin (a peptide contained largely in the medium spiny neurons), substance P (a peptide also contained largely in the medium spiny neurons), dynorphin (an endogenous opiod), dopamine (catecholamine) contain by neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta & the ventral tegmental area), land acetylcholine (in the striatal interneurons).

This is the normal build, and in looking at this overall motor system, we can see that we have very complicated circuitry, and that the interaction (internal feedback) makes a difference in the system's 'self-control' (so to speak) as does input (feed forward and feed back) from outside the system as well (such as emotional, visual and auditory input). This motor system working normally, as it normally does, (1) is how the muscles work to move (thus body movement). Body movement is not always a matter of acknowledgement (or awareness) at the consciousness level--and in cases, even the urge to move (although the movement itself is acknowledged in consciousness, having moved). Body movement is not always volitional in nature either (not talking about pure reflexes here). It is most clear, however, that brain controls body movement.

1. While there is a spectrum of build, in very minute detail from one H. sapien brain to another, there is still the 'normal' range within the bell curve.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;104841 wrote:

It is most clear, however, that brain controls body movement.

... what this last post makes clear is that it is the "normal build" of the sensorimotor loops in the brain that participates in the control of body movement ... the role of "brain" here seems to be of a more general and remote nature, much like "bone" and "muscle" (in contrast to the "normal build" of the body) ... in addition, it seems that to make the claim "brain controls body movement" based upon a detailed analysis of the operation of the brain (as opposed to a detailed analysis of the operation of the organism) could be an overstatement ... much as it would be an overstatement to claim that "ant" controls ant colony movement based upon a detailed analysis of the operation of individual ants (as opposed to a detailed analysis of the operation of the ant colony) ... but given the sentences that precede this claim, perhaps you had a more qualified meaning in mind? ...

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;104137 wrote:

By remote communications, I am referring to telepathy and related. I don't think our 'current model' - the biological model of consciousness, if you like - really accomodates this phenomenon. Even if you were to hypothesise that such communications are propogated by electromagnetic radiation (i.e. a physical means) you are still left with explaining the mechanism in the brain which can send and receive information by this means, because to all intents and purposes, it is 'extra sensory' (hence the well-known term, ESP). It seems outside the scope of current neuroscientific theory.

I think the weight of evidence does show that telepathic communication of some kind does occur; there have been decades of trials, and the statistical meta-analysis of the results clearly demonstrate effects that cannot be solely attributed to chance. You only have to establish a single instance to demonstrate the principle. This is all described in detail in Parapsychology and the Skeptics, by Chris Carter and Irreducible Mindby Kelly et al.. And has been discussed in another thread, considerable evidence has been amassed by the late Prof Ian Stevenson of children who remember their previous lives. None of it really undermines the biological account of the nature of consciousness, however, unless it is held to be the only account.

So what is the philosophical significance? The fact that such things happen is interesting, insofar as it indicates that the nature of consciousness is not fully disclosed by our attributes and activities as normal conscious beings. Right now there are a number of research centres engaged in 'consciousness studies' based on examination of the implications of para-normal phenomena and the like. Conventional scientists will usually just say 'well this is all pseudo-science, there is nothing in it'. Basically they have a view as to what constitutes science, and what doesn't. I don't agree with them, but I am not that interested in promoting para-normal phenomena. I think it is just something that has to be accounted for, and the biological account of consciousness really can't account for it, that is all.

If you dont mind Jeeprs I can make some responses in order to satisfy both parties, in that, you get some philosophical replies while KJ can finish his presentation sooner rather than later.

With that being said the first thing Im going to have to ask for is the actual papers submitted for peer-review that agree with your summary, because one could easily attack the publisher itself for being of poor quality (primarily dealing with romance, inspiration, and metaphysical stipulation), having a avid history of legal affairs with its writers (from what I've seen of my 5 min search on google), and could be seen as a bit biased to begin with (just take a look at their website). I dont want to do that to you so the actual papers submitted will be better for both of us.

Personally, I've never come across any info or data that actually supported the notion of ESP so this would be interesting to me and the rest of the world as well (James Randi has a million dollar offer to anyone that can show evidence of paranormal activity). So I cant really say much more until I can actually read something. I can try to find some of those books and read them when I go into work later today (I work at Borders) but if not then Im going to have to ask you to present it yourself so we can continue this conversation -that is, if you want...

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

Many thanks for the elaboration KJ - I am coming to understand what you are saying better.

As regards the question Keilicious has referred to, I think it needs to be discussed, and I do have some of those books, and some other reading, but I think I will start another thread on it, rather than bog this one down with all that detail. So I will start a thread, in the Philosophy of Mind forum, on the question of the possible existence of, and evidence for, what are known as paranormal mental phenomena. Might take me a day or so to get it together.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;104960 wrote:

If you dont mind Jeeprs I can make some responses in order to satisfy both parties, in that, you get some philosophical replies while KJ can finish his presentation sooner rather than later.

With that being said the first thing Im going to have to ask for is the actual papers submitted for peer-review that agree with your summary, because one could easily attack the publisher itself for being of poor quality (primarily dealing with romance, inspiration, and metaphysical stipulation), having a avid history of legal affairs with its writers (from what I've seen of my 5 min search on google), and could be seen as a bit biased to begin with (just take a look at their website). I dont want to do that to you so the actual papers submitted will be better for both of us.

Personally, I've never come across any info or data that actually supported the notion of ESP so this would be interesting to me and the rest of the world as well (James Randi has a million dollar offer to anyone that can show evidence of paranormal activity). So I cant really say much more until I can actually read something. I can try to find some of those books and read them when I go into work later today (I work at Borders) but if not then Im going to have to ask you to present it yourself so we can continue this conversation -that is, if you want...

working at borders!!! wow, what a great place to work!

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;104997 wrote:

working at borders!!! wow, what a great place to work!

Its a good place to work if your trying to get through school...

and its a GREAT place to work if you enjoy reading.

Needless to say, Im doing both. Very Happy

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

I am reading an interesting article about the placebo effect. This particular article observes that clinical trials have found out that the placebo effect is getting stronger over time. That is quite an interesting manifestation of 'collective psychology' in its own right. It got me thinking that the fact that the placebo effect seems to act, as the article says, to cause the body's own endogenous healing systems to combat many kinds of ailments on the basis of nothing more than an expectation.

Question: The 'placebo effect' seems to demonstrate the existence of a kind of 'feedback loop' between thought, brain, and mind, whereby expectation of a cure can cause physical consequences. Does this not illustrate, in this case, the primacy of mind over matter?

1 Reply

From Brain to Consciousness to Mind--the biological basis

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know