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
-
Dear Benjamin,
you wrote: “What is this “mirror of consciousness” made of?”
I do not know and I guess noone knows. Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose have created a theory called Orch-OR that is regarded as very speculative and suggests to locate the “mirror” in the microtubuli of neurons in the human brain. Jonathan Edwards has written a book about single cell consciousness that focusses on single cells which is interesting and also on certain processes in the membranes of neurons in the brain. Also quite speculative.
My concern is not trying to solve that riddle but rather how that mirror functions and how it functions in the whole organism of a human individual.
There is apparently a lot of knowledge about certain aspects of conscious experience, mostly sensorial perception, mostly visual perception and how different parts of the brain contribute to it.
This approach seems to be most advanced and solid, still my view is that it leaves many unanswered questions that can better be answered by a psychological and phenomenological approach.
I think a phenomenological approach may even if it does not address the physiological underpinnings, be very enlightening about how human consciousness actually works and how we can take advantage of that in various fields from education to therapy and on.
Yours friendly
Hans -
Alejandro Correa wrote:
In relation at the black holes and the dark matter, I really stopped to think, now that they have discovered new black holes, they could be the link to the response of the image of the mirror, due to the high luminosity in different energy from different emission spectra. It is likely that if one day reach the edge of the hole: it has reflected the fate of the universe even as it is could be determined the exact speed and expansion of the universe, thanks to the mirror image produced by the average mass of black hole .¡It is probable, or no!.
Philip Benjamin replies:
The real question is not “Is it probable” , but is it necessary to explain a physical perhaps non-EM ‘thing’ called ‘mind’ housed in a physical EM ‘thing’ called the ‘body’?
-
Yes Graeme, is probably a black-light that acts as the opacity of the back of a mirror and that probably comes from the dark matter. Perhaps act as a reflection of a mirror.
-
Hans Ricke wrote:
“This approach (referring to Orch-Or and single cell) seems to be most advanced and solid, still my view is that it leaves many unanswered questions that can better be answered by a psychological and phenomenological approach”.
Philip Benjamin replies:
Agreed it is ‘solid’ in the sense that it is a purely ‘physical’ approach and thus subject to rigorous analysis. But, it is ‘fluid’ and ‘gaseous’ with respect to ‘falsifiability’. You have to remove all microtubuli (everywhere in the body?)from humans to see if they still have ‘minds’!! Even that will not help, because all animals have the same microtubuli, but none the same human mind!! That applies to the collective ‘single cells’.
However, your non-pontification over a fictitious misnomer called, rather misspoken, ‘consciousness’ is highly commendable. William James- the physician-psychologist-philosopher-Sweedenborgian, the American patron Saint of this movement never has and never could have used the term “consciousness”.
Philip Benjamin
-
Dear Benjamin,
Science often unusual discoveries through probability and causality, if one thinks that everything is objective and the “thing” has a real meaning, rebuttal is positive of the “thing-study”, where the dialogue is essential, not make sense to hard science. Then there is a discovery to explain the idea a priori probability that this occurs through experimentation and observation of fact.
Best regards
Alejandro Correa
-
Graeme Smith argues:
“It is YOU that insists that information is carried on the electons, not me. I don’t see anywhere in my work a reference to electron spin, except here where it is my intention to refute the idea that it has any basis on information storage in the brain. I am quite happy to have information carried in the form of chemical changes in the cell, in fact the communication between cells is not electrical, it is chemical, it just has the effect of adjusting the electrical charge and thus the electrical potential (read that voltage) of the cell. A single electron is insignificant to the operation of the brain”.
“As for two different pathways for Evolution, I think I understand your misapprehension, some how you have bought the idea that evolution is linear”.
" Reflective Black-holes… good try"
Philip Benjamin replies:
First for the reflective black holes. Alejandro Correa did the posting on that, to which I had replied: “The real question is not “Is it probable” , but is it necessary to explain a physical perhaps non-EM ‘thing’ called ‘mind’ housed in a physical EM ‘thing’ called the ‘body’?”
The word chemical derives from Alchemy. As a ‘derivative’ of physics chemistry must be called “electronistry” or “Spinistry”. What you refer to as chemical is an electron phenomenon with electron spin as an essential, if not the most important determining factor’ both in the atomic and molecular structures, bindings and bonds. There is no chemical language other than electron configuration and whatever is contained in that configuration. Unlike the configuration of water moleules in the ‘dumb’ river, the “electron configurations” or “chemicals” of each living cell is a library of information
much more vast than in the entire Library of Congress!!The SAME configurations but different outcomes in animals and humans add to the complexity of sentience. It is materialism alright,not ordinary but extraordinary materialism!!
Philip Benjamin
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“You keep going on about the difference between humans and animals as if it is some quantizable entity. the fact is, except for the fact that we know we don’t have quite the same DNA, and there is a difference in the way that the brain is built, the way the neurons are built, and so on, we don’t know what the difference is. Part of what I am doing by attempting to define an animal model of consciousness, is to give us something to compare higher order consciousness against, so we can clearly see the gap. So far there is little except a small increase in complexity and one assumes sophistication to find”.
Philip Benjamin dissents:
There are many areas where quantification is not only possible, but is the basis for animals being animals and humans being humans.
In terms of a measurable EM quantity, biophoton emission rates are significantly different for each taxon, plant cells emitting about ten times more biophotons than human cells. Biophotons have extremely low frequencies (ELF’s), indicating not an ORDINARY EM phenomenon. The 1% difference in DNA you cite will not explain this order of magnitude. All indications are it is an interaction phenomena, probably EM-nonEM interactions or dissociations or stretchings of EM-nonEM bonds.
Philip Benjamin
-
Alejandro Correa wrote:
“Science often unusual discoveries through probability and causality, if one thinks that everything is objective and the “thing” has a real meaning, rebuttal is positive of the “thing-study”, where the dialogue is essential, not make sense to hard science. Then there is a discovery to explain the idea a priori probability that this occurs through experimentation and observation of fact”.
Philip Benjamin replies:
If I understood it correctly, I agree. Astrophysics for example could not easily explain the missing mass of the universe- a gigantic 90+ % missing!! So it came up wit Dark Matter. Theoretical physics had ahole to plug. It came up with almost mass-less non-EM axions, but in such cosmic proportions to account even for the missing matter of the universe. Now, these have explanatory powers, though not easily verifiable entities.
Biology has a lot of “missing” matters, besides all the “missing links”
which Darwin thought every back yard will yield aplenty on deep digging!!
Just like the “smart” astrophysics and the “smart” theortical physics, it is high time for Biology to be “smart” enough to look for a bio dark-matter and its dark chemistries. These are, including DNA, things beyond the reach or even imagination of 18th centrury Biology.Philip Benjamin
-
Sorry Benjamin and Alejandro I did get the attribution wrong on the Black hole front, my mistake.
Electonisty and Spinistry… Too much sophistry for me.
Chemistry is a good solid name for a science that has grown from natural science and Alchemy, it is true. to resemble the physics that underlays it.
While there are a couple of forces involved in molecular formation, notedly the strong and weak force, I have never seen a presentation that says that the strong force is created by electron spin.So I think you are pulling my leg on the Spinstry name…
As for the size of the library of information, at the electron level… So What? if it can’t be interpreted why would we worry about it? When we get into quantum computing, and quantum sensing using the quantum computers there might be a whole new science come into being, but there is no reason to think that we need that science now to explain most of the functions of the brain. It’s like Archimedes said, give me a lever long enough…, does the lever quit working because it has quantum mechanical information in it?
No, does it care about the quantum mechanical information? No, does the quantum mechanical information make much difference to the mechanical linkage that makes the lever work? No, so unless we are material scientists trying to build a specific lever, if the lever isn’t long enough or bends too much, we just get a different lever.Now it is true that the Dark Matter stuff is a different type of lever to get information out of science, but, if we already have a lever that works, why build a Dark Matter Lever?
I guess I just don’t get your argument, I have noted differences between animals and humans but cautioned you that we can’t define which ones are critical to consciousness, yet you keep saying that animals and humans are the same and therefore the “Something” that makes them different lies outside bio-chemistry. Then you drag the fact that plants have some biophotons that I have never heard about before, in and ask me to explain them. Frankly having never heard of them, and not knowing to what they refer, I certainly can’t explain them.
You say that there are many places where quantization can be shown to tell that animals are animals and humans are humans. That may be true, but is a useless statement in that there are also many places where quantization can be shown that indicates that Humans are animals, with a gift perhaps, but still animals.
Now I can’t comment on Biophotons per Taxon… but then I don’t know what a Biophoton is, nor do I know a taxon to see one. You keep saying that Plants give off more Biophotons, but plants dont even have neurons. The parallel between humans and animals is hard to see.
Ah, I wondered when the “Missing Link/s” argument was going to raise it’s ugly head. Are you familiar with the genotyping experiments that show that you can detect the distance between two genomes with only a partial sample of each? Some animals we thought were different species just mature differently in different ecological niches. Until genotyping we thought they were different species, now we find that many animals we thought were the same species are also different versions of the same base DNA, developed for different ecological niches. The Mendelian classification of species, is just as likely to be at fault as the evolution of species for classifying the same species as different because it developed differently in a different climate.
Poor Darwin gets blamed for Mendel’s mistakes.
But you might be right Biology is a complex science and it has a long way to go before it reaches the stability of physics where only one or two things don’t add up. But then physics is working with a lot smaller set of elements to study, so we should expect it to take longer for Biology to catch up.
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“While there are a couple of forces involved in molecular formation, notedly the strong and weak force, I have never seen a presentation that says that the strong force is created by electron spin..So I think you are pulling my leg on the Spinstry name…
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
No,teasing here. Electronistry and Spinistry came as a spontaneous response to your ‘chemical’ approach. There is no reference to “strong force” only molecular forces (weak electron forces).For the atomic Aufbau (the Element Table) electron spin (the Pauli Principle) is fundamental. Chemical compunds including the DNA are products/manifestations of electron configurations which in turn depend on electron spins.
All particles in any cell (some more frequently than others) are always undergoing replacements (apoptosis included). Any property you attribute to “chemicals” is a property of electron configurations unless you want to include the nucleons also into the equation, in which case you are moving from the chemical realm to the atomic ‘nuclear’ realm. You (meaning the ’consciousness’movement) have no mechanism to transfer information from the old’configurations’ to the new. So, every now and then you are producing ‘zombie’ cells, not “consciousness”.
Best regards
Philip Benjamin
Results
-
