Recent replies to "Conceptual Issues"

Reply from marvin kirsh

marvin kirsh — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:12:13 -0000

With Regards to A Science of Consciousness (repost)

The story(the mind) and the book (the brain) Nigel http://network.nature.com/forums/bpcc/438?page=4.. my pet point comes immediately to light..especially with the “Point question” how is the book reading the story?” I wanted to point out that it is always the story reading(or trying to make sense of) the book. There is no way around my interpretation regardless of the constructs or data we assemble. Some things are not knowable: all we have (are in essence) to probe is the story (our awareness and consciousness)..my view is that regarding the functioning of nature, the success of survival…that men simply add questions like children to his observations that exceed the needs of understanding .understanding of his continuance-complete meaning-especially when his philosophy is still incomplete..and that what we do not know: the question arising from inverting book with story sums to incoherent questioning. There is always a perplexity to nature:a part of the bundle:package deal in that our certainties are not constants but variables held higher in perception because they are more prominent with respect to the rest and explain more of the time the world we do experience and are familiar with But the world is always open -the forwards path is always in the greatest diversity direction of greatest openness , more surface and volume. It is just perplexing because the truth, even to our most highest held concepts is at a90 degree tangent to the line of sight-regardless of what we interpret-or concepts (for instance a detail of the road we most travel-but there are other roads) there is more question possible. The story reading the book-the story also arrives from the book:the result is all we have is the solid earth we sense, and a perception/survival mechanism that functions at it root in a manner superfluous to it. The gene for Beta-lactosidase for example is a palindrome:reads the same forwards and reverse , and goes on to process milk even if all of the rest is inverted, the road we relate to and its actual mental-response eliciting meaning: relsted to a past road(i.e that our behavior is inappropriate to the present see Nietzsche:about (on the geneology of morals) the Jews and Arians):we keep drinking eating as long as we physically sense a road. (for this reasoning I believe inversions if not a whole ironically genetic make up(e.g chromosomes are recently shown t contract to pulling forces rather than to expand-with regards our scientific planning for nature :it works against ourself-arrives from self denigrating (incoherency bearing) abstraction :which must originate and result in this phenomenon)) are at both the root and nature of what identifies mankind… and he comes to test :crossing points possessed with blinding inversions composing his nature -pass or fail there is no mechanism to say the difference and continues with his milk etc.) I think current genome mapping and analysis will find inversions related to sight and seeing -foot and mouth etc. swallowing (ideas?)(failed births related to up down water weight, etc) pathologies etc..the possibilities are immense. And yet a correct course is only a mental motion away to know this before our storys dig in the book to damage it. It is hard tofrom the ancient dialogues if something is perceived wrong then or not :a pursuit of knowledge for its own sake or a sense of something unjust, inappropriate to pursue a topic of morality and knowledge in order to define footing in a (subtly) slanted setting. I think the best,best grounded,soundest of all if George Berkeley on Mind and Matter:he never once transgresses a limit of man with respect to nature-himself:fills in the unknown with an aware always present deity as the only logical alternative and doesn’t believe in the existence of matter an odd eccentric sounding idea that is today controversial. Why are writing prominent at sometimes and unknown at others. I don’t think these occasions involve new spontaneous revelations. There are lots of new science references with new views related to emergence that open the doors to such interpretations. The theory of relativity breathes dualisms:seeks a monism but by its very conception is a monism yet incompatible immiscible with the dualisms of it’s basic nature:is very conflicting and arousing and illogical that only the highest IQs:abstractions (incoherent to ordinary language) can assimilate relative time A basic one, appropriate to consciousness and cognition is in Scientific American% – Selective Vision: the Brains Spin Machine Starts Early Anticipating Reward: More Than Meets The Eye Susanna Martinez-Conde Nigels analogy of book and story is very rich and good focusing point. I also wanted to point out, when people fnd fault in the theory of relativity, Einstein himself admitted that it was not perfect, based on explanation of observation at a great distance. His comment was that possibly “phenomenon observed and then reconsidered” (chenged in description fromthe actual if not the phenomeneom themselves having reconsidered themselves))and that “the measureing rod and the clock do not necessarily constitute the fundamental elements..” My idea of inversion (of the timing of events)fits with Einsteins reflection on hs own theory, and I also think that the measuring rod is entailed by time , whichmust be granted, assumed without explanation..thus a monism, single element rather than a dualism. All of my papers with some artwork and 3-D graphs are available at my internet site given below.

Marvin E. Kirsh
http://www.authorsden.com/marvinelikirsh
kirsh2152000@yahoo.com
http://www.marvinekirsh.com

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:42:56 -0000

Dear Marvin:

Please post your message again. Soon I will “clean” the group site, removing all posts that have problems (in format or content).

Best,

Alfredo

Reply from marvin kirsh

marvin kirsh — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:49:01 -0000

On viewing my last, I do not know how how part of th emiddel got lined out. If one reads it through, it reads contiuously with the same meaning without the etched section. (have to be careful not to include dashes-they continue on-at least not here instead of) May be in a real model a potential inversion places the middle part that is still important to the total content elsewhere where it still has contextual meaning, butis at one place and not the other, not both places, where priorities leave us struggling at the heavy end of a light thought. I am peculiar that way sometimes that my writng has continuity even with page one leading to page 3 etc..renumbered -has caused me troubles with tampering, if one is not wise to it. Maybe we all need new browsers to lessen our efforts not be left hanging struggling in search for a total view. I have created a new manuscript Inversion, the record and the Record Player: With Regards to a Science of Consciousness, Consciousness and Free Will I am about to post with reference material. I added a partial search for know genetic inversions-most of the data is in bacteria, for eukaryots moost of the data refers to whole chromosome sections and little is resolved with respect to sequence in various genes. factor VIII inversions in hemophilia are characterised, and physiological rearrangements related to albinoism and vision arew characterised. Also noted is the use of genetic algarithms (originally in population genetics) to predict a model segregation of characterists through populations-is very accurate, and is also applied in other contexts :geophysics, aerosol dispersements, a model of learning -in the physical sciences employes mathematical inverses giving a more detailed magnification. Interstingly adjustments have to be made so characteristics do not “fiz out” lost to non uniqueness, generality, converge upon them selves prematurely(found also to happen in biological applications.) I think the point of the whole issue is over looked in the effort to create workable models. A total view would include the biological non working converging model as a potential reality. The labor at the keyboard, priorites, interactions, thoughts and perspective are a vital, inseparable part of the whole picture if one is discussing cogniton, behavior and genetics. A difference between downhill, uphill, on the level, peace to know where you stand what you can do, survival can reduce to a mental motion. Socrates”if one knows the truth he will act accordingly” “no such thing as will against the person” We shoud be carefull, as medical science-to fix alleviate-repair, is not the same as science ( which at a distance and a separate perspective from the doctors chambers) applied to find answers from (comunicated)observation.

Reply from Matt Brown

Matt Brown — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:14:54 -0000

We’re looking at improving the layout of Nature Network in the near future – several people find the main column too narrow.

The scrollbar problem you mentioned sounds like something to do with your browser. If you can, try using Firefox, which seems to look good. Or try closing the bookmarks window if you have it open.

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:14:11 -0000

Dear Michael:

I don´t know how to solve this problem.
Before posting I always check the preview, and it is always fine (the alignment is automatic).

Best

Alfredo

Reply from Michael Baggot

Michael Baggot — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:48:17 -0000

Alfredo,
Can you do something about reformating the margins on the text here. When the text excedes a normal page lenth a sidebar scroll adjustment appears on the right side and it overlaps the text on the right side making it difficult to read. If the right margin was moved to the right a rew spaces then the sidebar would not interfere.

Thanks,
Michael Baggot

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:45:50 -0000

A new paper (preprint) by a philosopher who is well grounded in neuroscience:

Mindmelding: Connected brains and the problem of consciousness

Hirstein William
Department of Philosophy, 190 Prospect Ave., Box 113, Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, IL 60126, USA

Correspondence Address:
Hirstein William
Department of Philosophy, 190 Prospect Ave., Box 113, Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, IL 60126
USA
williamh@elmhurst.edu

Abstract: Contrary to the widely-held view that our conscious states are necessarily private (in that only one person can ever experience them directly), in this paper I argue that it is possible for a person to directly experience the conscious states of another. This possibility removes an obstacle to thinking of conscious states as physical, since their apparent privacy makes them different from all other physical states. A separation can be made in the brain between our conscious mental representations and the other executive processes that manipulate them and are guided by them in planning and executing behavior. I argue here that these executive processes are also largely responsible for producing our sense of self in the moment. Our conscious perceptual representations themselves reside primarily in the posterior portions of the brain’s cortex, in the temporal and parietal lobes, while the executive processes reside primarily in the prefrontal lobes. We can imagine an experiment in which we sever the association fibers that connect the posterior regions with these prefrontal regions and, instead, connect the posterior regions to the prefrontal regions of another person. According to my hypothesis, this would produce in the latter person the direct experience of the conscious perceptual states of the first person.

Keywords: Consciousness, Executive Processes, Association Fibers, Binding, Prefrontal Cortex, Self, Subjectivity

Full text freely available at Mens Sana Monographs

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:01:46 -0000

Dear Nigel:

Living processes make use of the movement of ions to integrate tissue function. In the brain, it is well known that the activity measured e.g. by the EEG is generated by the movement of ions in and out the neuronal membrane. The movement of ions is possibly related to changes in electronic configuration (e.g. increase in kinetic energy causing an electron to jump to a less stable sub-shell of energy). Such changes may be related to quantum information and computation. The traditional problem is how properly quantum processes could occur in the wet, hot and noisy brain. Technically speaking, how to obtain superposition and entanglement in such conditions? And how to get multiparticle superposition and entanglement supporting the integration of information from several brain circuits into a holographic-like pattern? In the past, some attempts have been made to conceptualize quantum computing in the ion channel context, but it is hard to imagine how zillions of ions crossing neuronal membrane channels all over the brain could get entangled. Recently it was discovered the close interaction of neurons and astrocytes in brain activity. The consideration of astrocytes opens a new possibility for entanglement, since there is a population of calcium ions trapped in gap junctions in these cells (the similarity of this system with ion-trapped quantum computers was described in my paper published in Quantum Biosystems; please check the group’s bibliography). Considering the problem of “free will” (that I understand as the problem of explaining how genuine decision-making processes are possible in living systems), we must also consider the role of effector systems and their feedback on brain activity, since decisions are not taken by the brain alone; e.g. if an action leads to the activation of a injured muscle that feedbacks a signal that is interpreted as pain by the brain, the continuation of that action is probably inhibited. In this situation there is a very complex interaction between the quantum computing system that supports integrated conscious processing (the neuro-astroglial system), and the feedback circuits that involve the whole body (the neuro-muscular-endocrine-immune system). Neurons, of course, are the interface between the two systems.

Best Regards

Alfredo

Reply from Nigel Leigh Oldfield

Nigel Leigh Oldfield — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:39:16 -0000

Dear Alfredo, TY.

Do we really believe that quantum effects have any bearing on what is, actually, the macroscopic level of machinery which is the CNS and above?

Regards.

Nigel.

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:47:16 -0000

Dear Nigel:

The first processing steps (activation of neuronal receptive fields, formation of local field potentials, activation of memory registers and motor plans, etc.) are all automatic and unconscious. The endpoints of (some of) the distributed processes emerge to consciousness in an integrated form (which, I think, is physiologically related to the calcium waves in astrocytes). Phenomenologically we know that this integrated form always includes behavioral alternatives.
In my view (that follows E. Morsella’s approach) the “space-time” of conscious experiences is between the integration process in the brain and the activation of skeletal muscles that execute the action plan. This neuron-muscle system involves several feedback loops (endocrine and immune effectors may also be included in the picture). Somehow these loops interact with the integrated pattern that was formed in neuro-astroglial networks and “decide” the best behavioral alternative (or the one that seems to be better at the moment). As quantum information may be present in the system, it may be the source of the indeterminism that makes the decision process more than an ephiphenomenon of physical laws (as other authors have speculated, the alternatives would correspond to a superposition state and the “decision” to the decoherence of the state).
In the above picture, it is the whole body that decides, not the brain alone.
This is my conjecture…

Best Regards,

Alfredo

Reply from Nigel Leigh Oldfield

Nigel Leigh Oldfield — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:15:45 -0000

Dear Alfredo,

How would you respond to those who would say, as all cognition is biochemical in origin and out of control of the ‘reader’ ...

... even, if the ‘reader’ ‘thought’ they were making a decision, it would only be them ‘reading the story’ that has already been written by the biochemistry.

... i.e. there can never be such a thing as ‘free will’?

Regards.

Nigel.

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:01:28 -0000

Dear Nigel:

There are several ways to conceptualize the problem.
My approach (not very different from your idea) is that consciousness is subjective experience with
informational content. The content is embodied in brain activity and
can be studied empirically. The conscious subject is the whole living body
(Merleau-Ponty’s view). Conscious experience is the process by which the action
of the living body is controlled by the patterns in
the brain. Physiology studies the structures that support experiences, not the experiences themselves. Experiences are singular and could hardly be explained
scientifically. This is why the consciousness story is more directly appraoched by philosophy (phenomenology and eastern wisdom are good guides here), arts and religion, than by science.

Best Regards,

Alfredo

Reply from Nigel Leigh Oldfield

Nigel Leigh Oldfield — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:55:33 -0000

The brain is the book,
Consciousness is the story,

The question is, how is the book reading the story?

Regards.

Nigel.

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 01:14:14 -0000

Dear Lajos:

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. I am open to learn, but not agreeing with your interpretation.
A comment on the Ramachandran´s text that you indicated: first, it is not fair to discuss the “brain in a vat” scenario without reference to philosopher H. Putnam, who created this thought experiment.
Second, the idea that mirror neurons reflect the intentions of other people seems to me to be mistaken for two reasons. The first one is that people´s “intentions” or “points of view” are “first-person states”, still not accessible to other people’s observations (perhaps some day they will be, with very sophisticated technology).
The second one is that Rama’s reasoning seems to be fallacious. I quote him: “Iaccomo Rizzolati and Vittorio Gallasse discovered mirror neurons. They found that neurons in the ventral premotor area of macaque monkeys will fire anytime a monkey performs a complex action such as reaching for a peanut, pulling a lever, pushing a door, etc. (different neurons fire for different actions). Most of these neurons control motor skill (originally discovered by Vernon Mountcastle in the 60’s), but a subset of them, the Italians found, will fire even when the monkey watches another monkey perform the same action. In essence, the neuron is part of a network that allows you to see the world “from the other persons point of view,” hence the name “mirror neuron.””
The fallacy is clear in this paragraph. If the mirror neuron controls motor skills, it is assumed to reflect other people/animal’s overt behavior. If it does not (the owner of the neuron is just watching), then (Rama concludes) the neuron is reflecting other people/animal’s “point of view” (or “intentions”). The forgotten possibility is that the neuron could be equally reflecting other people/animal’s overt behavior, but generating only a sub-threshold membrane potential, which is not sufficient to initiate an imitative movement.

Best Regards,

Alfredo

Reply from Lajos Incze

Lajos Incze — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:28:18 -0000

“Mirror neurons do not replicate mental states of other people; they just register body movements and support the imitation of the same kind of action.”

No, that’s a much more intricate phenomena. The mirror system seems to be activated by recognized intentions, not by simple body movements. I don’t think there would be an agreement, how the mirror mechanism is working (is that a kind of simulation on the basis of the skills of the motor system, as originally proposed, or not), what would be the scope and purpose of this system. But, broadly speaking, it is closer to the experiences to say that the mirror system recognizes mental states, than that it recognizes body movements.

See, e.g. this essay .

Best wishes.
incze

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:50:16 -0000

Message sent by Gregory Nixon:

Alfredo, I must admit to being impressed by your careful “physicalist” differentiation between conscious and unconscious experience. None of your views are in any way objectionable to me or my proposals on the KJF (where I will compose a more detailed response). I especially appreciate your understanding of systems theory and how systems necessarily are open and interact to even bear the name of being a dynamic systemic. This implies that experience is fundamentally interactive in the same way that subsystems are within what might be called an ecosystem (even though ecosystems themselves must be subsystems of other systems). I’m interested that you refer to your views as physicalist since these days, what with the extreme sciences of cosmology physics and quantum physics, we seem to have reached a point where not only the usual laws of nature breakdown but where matter as organized energy breaks down into a near infinite continuum of potential energy, according to some theorists of the quantum vacuum, dark energy, and whatnot. There seems to be a point where our neat humanly-created categories like “physical” or even “existing” are put under great strain to grasp unidentifiable or evanescent referents: Can the “quantum flux” or “foam” be called physical or existing (in the usual senses of our understanding of these terms)? Interesting thoughts. Just wanted to let you know how well I think you have grasped this important dichomoty and helped explicate its details. It may well be that experience, raw experience, is always already a part of nature or natural processes, but that the added quality of consciousness – that is, consciously apprehended experience – is a learned form of awareness through which natural experience is reflected back upon itself through the symbolic interaction of cultural entities like ourselves. Enjoy your next cup of excellent Brasilian coffee! Greg Nixon

Reply from Subrata Podder

Subrata Podder — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:31:18 -0000

Dear Alfredo Pereira Jr

Consciousness is a quantal phenomena, and as such it can stay as yes or no.
Regarding some consciousness under anaesthesia, you may be right while saying some consciousness may remain. But again it depends on stage of anaesthesia. In true sense there should be no consciousness. Granted the processing of information continues in the subconsciousness level and people may retain implicit memory. But that also verbal and have to be emotionally significant. As verbal sensation is the most persistent amongst sensations that may be no surprise.
And yes i think it is Uri Gellar, the guy bending spoons! but does not quantal field theory opens up that possibility? while we see no evidence.

With regards

Subrata

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:18:21 -0000

Subrata wrote:

> When I see people in pain they do not bother about all the things under discussion, in fact about anything except pain.

Alfredo – Of course, if the pain is intense, this sensation dominates consciousness.

> Also when undergoing anaesthesia, they either are conscious or unconscious.

Alfredo – In some cases they may seem to be unconscious but some conscious functions may remain; do you agree?

> Under no circumstances I found them to influence behavior of physical objects unaided only by mental power.

Alfredo – Oh yes, except for Uri Geller – do you remember him?

Best Regards

Alfredo

Reply from Subrata Podder

Subrata Podder — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:49:08 -0000

Dear Alfredo Pereira Jr

Sorry to interrupt, but I got a problem.

When I see people in pain they do not bother about all the things under discussion, in fact about anything except pain.

Also when undergoing anaesthesia, they either are conscious or unconscious. Under no circumstances I found them to influence behavior of physical objects unaided only by mental power.

with regards

Subrata

Reply from Alfredo Pereira Jr

Alfredo Pereira Jr — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:24:52 -0000

Dear Sumeet:

Mirror neurons do not replicate mental states of other people; they just register body movements and support the imitation of the same kind of action.
The study of mental states of others is the subject of D. Dennett’s proposal of “heterophenomenology” (presented in the book Consciousness Explained, 1991). It is based on his “intentional stance”, the attribution of mentality to others, based on our own mentality. The biological basis of heterophenomenology is not of my knowledge, but I assume it is far more complex than mirror neurons.

Best Regards

Alfredo