Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Reflection & Resonance
Philip Benjamin
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 15:00 UTC
Suppose the mirror image of ‘me’ recognizes me, or is conscious!
Suppose? It does everything I do! Why reckon that it doesn’t think?
In a pan-psychic universe mirror images do think! If not, why not?
This reflection resonates ‘me’ warts, moles and all; incredulous?
More real is a bio dark-matter axion-like ‘Invisible Homo sapiens’
Of three different spin-axions akin to the ordinary fermions
With differential taxonomic distributions in plants, animals, humans
Dark Chemistries and differential taxonomic emission of bio-photons
Philip Benjamin
medinuclear@hotmail.com
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Alfredo, has made a case for the independence of Astrocyte calcium waves from everything but the output of the Axon because they happen inside the Astrocyte even though they are triggered by Glutamate. But this assumption of isolation, may not be all that accurate. There might be coupling via electrostatic means allowing the Astrocyte to modulate the available calcium for the cell, essentially the amplitude of the wave could result in an increase in electrostatic force exerted on Calcium in the intercellular fluid, thus forcing it closer to the neuron, and making it easier for the ion channels to access.
In which case the activity of the neuron is fed back into itself to increase the amount of calcium available to increase the strength of the output, and the neuron is again the active element in the equation.
Inistol might modulate the amplitude of the calcium wave, but it still has to go through a regular calcium ion channel, the S synapse or the NMDA synapse to get into the cell. The best I would expect from the Inistol modulation is a regulation of neural activity, and a sort of pumping action that causes the calcium to migrate from the Axon bud to the calcium ion channels that need it. No my bets are on the Calcium based synapses for the most effective control of activity, and that is linked in my mind to the early attention system.
-
[Graeme Smith]
Is there a graduation of Consciousness?
Perhaps there is, for instance we know that humans are conscious in a more sentient way than animals, and that some animals are conscious in a more sentient way than other animals, and that most animals are more sentient than plants. …
[Philip Benjamin]
“Conscious in a more sentient way”? How can such an ‘axiomatic’ conclusion be veryfied or quantitated? Plants are VERIFIABLY more sentient than animals. Humans are VERIFIABLY more sentient than animals which differences can be assessed in many different ways.
[Graeme Smith]
Right now, my theory has 3 levels of graduation that some scientist or other has called consciousness.
1. Reactive Consciousness Which I call awareness
2. Reflective Consciousness Which is what I call the animal model of consciousness
3. Higher order (Thinking) Consciousness (Human Model of Consciousness)
….I think that I can clear up the distinction between sentience and consciousness.
.. Intelligence is necessary but not sufficent to explain sentience.
Consciousness is necessary but not sufficient to explain sentience because it does not explain intelligence.
Neither of these is as sentient as a human, and so neither alone is sufficient to meet the requirements of human sentience, if they combined can reach a similar level of sentience is not possible to test yet, if only because we cant test for consciousness and therefore can’t prove that any particular machine is truly conscious.
[Philip Benjamin]
How so? If all living matter is made of the same Standard Particles, why such differences exist? What essentially are the differences in the animal and
human brain? Practically very little. The DNA structures are also essentially the same across the taxa?It is sapience, an altogether different dimension, which gives personhood to sentient humans.
The logical conclusion is panpsychism and mysticism via the introduction of an unknown “consciousness” parrying Ocam’s Razor. This is empirically unproven and unproveable.
Or there is a differential distribution of “unknown” particles across the taxa.
Best regards
Philip Benjamin
-
Dear Graeme:
“Alfredo has made a case for the independence of Astrocyte calcium waves from everything but the output of the Axon because they happen inside the Astrocyte even though they are triggered by Glutamate. But this assumption of isolation, may not be all that accurate. There might be coupling via electrostatic means allowing the Astrocyte to modulate the available calcium for the cell, essentially the amplitude of the wave could result in an increase in electrostatic force exerted on Calcium in the intercellular fluid, thus forcing it closer to the neuron, and making it easier for the ion channels to access.”
Alfredo: I also used to think this way, but the effect of the amplitude of the wave is lilely to be the opening of vesicles of astrocytic glutamate, and then this glutamate binds to a class of neuronal NMDA receptors (those containing the NR2B subunit, frequently located outside of the neuronal synapse). These NMDA receptors then open to calcium entry. There may be a relation between the quantity of intercellular calcium available to neurons and calcium activity in astrocytes, but I never found (published) experimental results about this relation.
>In which case the activity of the neuron is fed back into itself
Alfredo: The activity of the presynaptic neuron feeds forwrd to the post-synaptic one by means of a synapse between them or by means of astrocyte mediation.>…to increase the amount of calcium available to increase the strength of the output, and the neuron is again the active element in the equation.
Alfredo: As I wrote before, the same neuron does not increase its calcium level by means of controlling an astrocyte. BTW, in neurons too much calcium is toxic.>Inistol might modulate the amplitude of the calcium wave, but it still has to go through a regular calcium ion channel, the S synapse or the NMDA synapse to get into the cell. The best I would expect from the Inistol modulation is a regulation of neural activity, and a sort of pumping action that causes the calcium to migrate from the Axon bud to the calcium ion channels that need it.
Alfredo: I was referring to a signal transduction pathway inside the astrocyte, composed by metabotropic glutamate receptors and inositol triphosphate signaling macromolecules.>No my bets are on the Calcium based synapses for the most effective control of activity, and that is linked in my mind to the early attention system.
Alfredo: Attention is mostly supported by cholinergic systems. Calcium entry in neurons is mostly related to processes of associative learning and formation of memories. There are calcium receptors in thalamic neurons – as studied by Jones – that might be involved in early attention, but to my knowledge their functions have not been clarified yet.Best
Alfredo
-
Alfredo said “I was referring to a signal transduction pathway inside the Astrocyte” well so was I, however there is no reason to think that the wave form did not have an electrostatic coupling effect on the Calcium in the intercellular area between the astrocyte and the neuron. And a traveling wave might have the effect of “Pumping” calcium ions up the Axon process away from the terminal bud, and towards the basal dendrites.
If this was coupled with an increase in GLU production, it would trigger NMDA type ion channels, but it is a mistake to rely too heavily on the NMDA model, since most cerebral cortex tissues do not have NMDA synapses. Are these astrocytes mostly found in the hippocampus? or do they surround even cells that do not have NMDA synapses?
I am not sure that Thalamus connections influence all early forms of attention, I think that a case can be made for Basal Ganglia involvement as well, but I might be showing my ignorance by insisting that it is so.
I simply don’t know enough about the connectonics around the S synapse and the Basket Cells, to be sure of my implicit Attention mechanism. I could have the mechanism completely wrong, but a link has been suggested via experiments with anesthesia and monitoring the 40 hertz SSR signal that suggest that long-term implicit memory is dependent on the 40 hertz SSR, and one of the possible mechanisms for triggering Long-term memory might be the Activation of the S synapse. Activation of the S Synapse by the 40 hertz SSR signal might therefore be a requirement or long term implicit memory. In my implicit memory model, it is thought that the 40 hertz signal is the equivalence of a GSO, and that therefore suppression of all but the active GSO will result in suppression of implicit long-term memory, for all but active functional clusters, acting as a filter that favors salient information over non-salient information at the zone level in early attention.
Now you have noted that Calcium channels seem more important in memory, than in the thalamus, but I must note that in my Attention System, the purpose of Attention is to move data between memory locations so the end result of all attention is memory even if the bottom up memory system doesn’t involve calcium channels. I think that the thalamus argument is therefore spurrious.
-
Philip, sorry about spouting off to Alfredo on your topic thread, I will try and tone it down somewhat in the future.
Plants, more sentient than animals? Oh, do tell!
We can’t measure consciousness, and you want to measure sentience? You claim to have already measured it? Do Tell!
Philip asks “If living stuff is made of the same standard particles, Why such differences exist?”
Well I hate to go back to basic algebra, but have you ever heard of permutations and combinations? Sure all earthly, and maybe some spacely life has the same 4 base pairs, but the base pairs are not the end of the matter, in fact base pairs form codons which form chains called chromosomes, that each code for one of a number of possible amino acids. Chains of these codons join to form Chromosomes which code for specific proteins. A group of chomosomes makes up a gene. The genes then line up in long chains called RNA, and are combined into a double helix called DNA. So there are 4 base pairs, a significantly larger number of codons, a significantly larger number of chomasomes, a significantly larger number of possible arrangements of chromosomes in a gene, and a significantly larger number of arrangements of genes in an RNA chain. DNA simply doubles the potential variation in RNA, and protects the RNA against transcription errors, caused because the CODONS of the chromosomes are degeneratively coded.
So we can calculate the number of different combinations possible for a particular sized chain of DNA. Ok, then we need to take into the account that not every gene will be expressed at the same time in every cell, changing which cells express which DNA results in an further increase in variation since some cells do one job and others do another, allowing specialization within the body. In fact the whole idea of a stem cell is that certain types of cells are more likely to be able to differentiate into a wider range of different types of cells doing different things. This is what makes the placenta such a valuable element that doctors have taken to preserving them in liquid nitrogen if they have the facilities.
Now we can say that different animals and plants have different sized DNA, and therefore that there are different combinations possible despite the fact that animal DNA can be inserted into a plant and visa versa. It is interesting to note that phylogeny generally follows the size of the DNA chain, and so Humans are probably the largest chains of DNA available.
So no it isn’t the base-pairs that determine what dna is, it is the combinations and how they are translated chemically into different types of proteins at different times in the life of the cell. More DNA means more combinations, meaning in turn more possible arrangements of different timings and therefore more specialized or more options in specialized cells.
Plants quite simply do not have as many options in their specialized cells as humans do, so they tend to be very similar in the way that they are built.
-
[Alfredo Pereira Jr]
I also used to think this way, but the effect of the amplitude of the wave is lilely to be the opening of vesicles of astrocytic glutamate, and then this glutamate binds to a class of neuronal NMDA receptors (those containing the NR2B subunit, frequently located outside of the neuronal synapse). These NMDA receptors then open to calcium entry. There may be a relation between the quantity of intercellular calcium available to neurons and calcium activity in astrocytes, but I never found (published) experimental results about this relation.[Philip Benjamin]
If these considerations are equally relevant to all animals, what would be the ‘boundary’ conditions or components, if any, that make human consciousness (subjective ‘feel’ of personhood)and human sapience (ratiocination) distinctly different from all other sentient entities?
The ‘qualitative’ differences are too conspicuous to be explained in terms of any ‘quatitative’ aspect of DNA information or structures.
It is just as reasonable to think in terms of a differential distribution of “bio dark-matter particles and their compounds” in mutually recognizing (i.e. with an awareness base)“resonant relationships”, as it is to introduce a differential participation of some unknown dark entity called “consciousness”.
Best regards,
Philip Benjamin
-
Graeme Smith]
Now we can say that different animals and plants have different sized DNA, and therefore that there are different combinations possible despite the fact that animal DNA can be inserted into a plant and visa versa. It is interesting to note that phylogeny generally follows the size of the DNA chain, and so Humans are probably the largest chains of DNA available.
So no it isn’t the base-pairs that determine what dna is, it is the combinations and how they are translated chemically into different types of proteins at different times in the life of the cell. More DNA means more combinations, meaning in turn more possible arrangements of different timings and therefore more specialized or more options in specialized cells.
[Philip Benjamin]
[I regret the misprint: “animals are less(not more)sentient than animals” though they are smarter in many respects]
Now, to get back from the necessary digression to sentience of which you consider “consciousness” as some kind of ‘dark’ non-physical entity, I would suggest that at least three basic principles need be uniformly applied to all deliberations pertaing to sentience, intelligence (including AI)and the “dark horse” of consciousness. These are:
1. Logical consistency
2. Experimental testability or falsification
3. Experiential (rather existential)adequacyFirst, consider the association of immateriality with non-physicality. Begin with the ordinary photons. They are immaterial, but visible (experimentally viable)and in every which way PHYSICAL (existentially adequate). Otherwise the whole section of OPTICS become non-physical and a logical inconsistency. The high energy photons have another mysterious (or mystic to be imprecise)aspect to its existential adequacy- the invisibility. That still does not make it non-physical. It is logically, experimentally and experientially pPHYSICAL all the way.
Mysticism may be a valid human experience. But it is also rational to consider anything that interacts or reacts with a known physical(EM) entity as physical, be it immaterial or invisible or non-EM. Materiality/immateriality and visibility/invisibility are no more relevant than odor/odorlessness and color/colorlessness, to confirm physicality of a perceived or observed object.
Are you assuming that the unknown "consciousness’ factor is dependent on the size of DNA chains which in turn is independent of the physical size of living matter? In other words the unknown “consciousness” which is considered a qualitative feature (quale)in the biosphere is dependent on the ‘quantitative’ feutures of DNA. Will that position be logically consistent with the initial premise that “consciousness” is non-physical implying independent of physical measures.
Will it not be equally tenable that the “unknown” factors may in some manner be related to non-Standard Particles and to their possible chemistries?
Most of the “rationale” for consciousness is based on Eastern religious perspectives, especially Buddhism, where the whole body is believed to be the “seat of consciousness” which itself is not clearly defined. [From: Sugunasiri, Suwanda H J, The Whole Body, not Heart, as ‘Seat of Consciousness’: the Buddha’s View’, Philosophy East & West, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 409-430]. Since there is no experimental observation of what is touted as ‘consciousness’, the next best alternative is to elevate “Buddhism” to science. But, is that necessary?
I have (previous posts) suggested a “total body reflection”. This “reflection” will be in “resonance” with the visible body- cell by cell and organ by organ. Resonance is recognition, a ’base’for awareness. The “reflection” cannot be non-physical. Axion like bio dark matter particles and their possible chemistries leading to a complete ‘dark body" in humans is a viable proposition. [Plants and animals will have incomplete dark matter chemistries and incomplete dark matter bodies, due to incomplete distribution of dark particles governed by both ’light’ and ‘dark’ DNA).
Instead of experiential verification, physical experiments can be performed on possible products of interraction of ‘dark’ bonds with their ordinary counterparts- the chemical bonds. Moreover induced ‘paranormal’ phenomena as well as ELF emission can be explained in terms of “dissociation” of “dark-light” bond energies in a complex varying low energy magnetic field.
Best regards,
Philip Benjamin
-
Philip asks: "Are you assuming that the unknown “Consciousness Factor” is dependent on the size of the DNA chains? No not really, or not directly, I am assuming that a certain architectural sophistication is required, and that that sophistication happens in animals with longer DNA chains. Not because they have longer DNA chains, but because longer DNA chains mean that the sophistication of the DNA algorythm, takes in more conditions, and Consciousness is an adaptation that came late in the phylogenic continuum probably in response to an increased need for sophistication, due to a more complex or threatening environmental change.
In any case I think that the Immateriality of Consciousness is an illusion brought about by the subjective process of introspection being applied by philosophers to a physical system. Because the feedback we experience during reflection is simplified by the control system to constrain the responses, we assume that there is some unobservable simplicity to consciousness that does not jibe with representation. I maintain that it is the simplicity that is the illusion, and that the representational system is more complex than we give it credit for being because we judge it on the basis of introspective impressions of simplicity. Thus looking for a whole body, Dark Photon representation of the body, is just as invalid as looking for phenomenal Qualia and ignoring representation.
-
[Graeme Smith]
“I am assuming that a certain architectural sophistication is required, and that that sophistication happens in animals with longer DNA chains….which mean that the sophistication of the DNA algorythm, takes in more conditions, and Consciousness is an adaptation that came late in the phylogenic continuum probably in response to an increased need for sophistication, due to a more complex or threatening environmental change”.
[Philip Benjamin]
I had labored on “archetectural forms” at the basic levels of existence and incorporate the ideas of semiotics, semiosis and biosemiotics with a view to remove the ‘subtlety’ of Cartesian dualism that is still prevalent in the theories of mind. The dualist discontinuity, I thought, may yield to a body-mind continuity.
However, it still cannot explain why primitive processes of any embodied animal “knowing” remain unaltered at one level of existence and in a naturalistical manner (EMly) emerge as human “mindedness”, all things remaining the same in the Umwelt. Moreover, the constant turn-over of EM-fundamental particles at the cellular and molecular levels is so chaotic that at best it can yield a kaleidoscopic (sp?)mental state- just Bedlam!!!
On the other hand, Aristotlian Forms could be real “arechetectural forms” if they are made of non-EM particles (axion like)as counterparts of the components of living material- cell by cell, neuron by neuron, organ by organ and body by body- one class of “light” (EM) and the other “dark” (non-EM)components.
Biosemiotics (Jesper Hoffmeyer, Friedrich S. Rothschild, Thomas Sebeok and Thure von Uexküll) views life as SIGNS that are conveyed and interpreted by other LIVING signs in a variety of molecular and other PHYSICAL ways. The CONSTANCY of mind in spite of the complexity of living processes as revealed by molecular biology, brain science and psychology, demands a new and more unified perspective on sentience and the question of ‘SIGNIFICATION’ in the universe. It is not simply information transference from one locale to another, but the generation of the very content and meaning of that information in humans, animals and plants.
The sign producers (retainers) and sign receivers may not be the same, one may be the Aristotelian Forms made of “real” non-EM particles and the other of “real” EM- particles- all physical in the real sense.
The highly organized physical and chemical processes alone cannot account for the informational and molecular properties of the genome, or the teleology and informational characteristics of organisms. These are intrinsic to sentience. Traditional biology (and philosophy of biology) views these processes as being ORDINARILY physical and subject to a reductionist and mechanistic scheme of efficient causation. An EXTRAORDINARY materialistic view involving Dark Matter particles (axion-like) gives a broad logical and dynamic PROCESS to answer questions about meaning, intentionality and a psychic world including the paranormal. These questions are hard to answer within an ORDINARY materialist framework.
Dark Matter Biology can view life (sentience) and ordinary biophysical processes as two aspects of the same physical reality of matter in its two forms- EM and Non-EM. Ordinary molecular biology deals with the ‘outer sentience’. “Dark matter molecular biology” holds the inner qualitative aspects of sentience, and completes bio-picture of causality. The formal causality is the the downward causation from a whole structure, such as the organism, to its individual molecules with entropic constraints, but endowing them with functional meanings with respect to the whole metabolism. Final Causation is reposited in the Dark Matter counterparts and counter-processes. Quantum theories, Systems theory, theoretical biology and the study of self-organizing complexities are all applicable to the “dark matter” SYSTEMS.
[Graeme Smith]
In any case I think that the Immateriality of Consciousness is an illusion brought about by the subjective process of introspection being applied by philosophers to a physical system. ….
[Philip Benjamin]
Dark Matter particles are not IMMATERIAL. Axions are theretically determined to be of negligible masses and zero electrical charges. Monoploes may substitute for the charges.
Philip Benjamin
Results
-
