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
-
just for the record, Descartez wasn’t Greek, he was Spanish, and working in either Italy or France. The idea of dualism is that there is something more about consciousness that can’t be explained by physical means. The primary difference between that and what you are saying, is that you are talking about extraordinary means of physical explanation. This places you either in an exotic Dualism camp. or an exotic physicalism camp. The main difference is which type of errors in philosophy the other side assumes you have made. A Dualist will assume that consciousness can’t be solved by physicalist means and a physicalist will assume that no separate mechanism is needed.
In this sense you are following the Dualist pattern, and thus are accused by physicalists of making the Dualists mistakes.
-
Hans Ricke
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.
as I am advocating a mirror analogy of consciousness, …
The difference between a regular mirror and the mirror of consciousness inside a human being is this: a regular mirror just reflects. Continuously the images shift and completely disappear. Our mirror of consciousness also resonates and most importantly is sentient. That means, when something happens in “reach” of it, we know that. ..Sentience is the hard problem if you will.Comments from Philip Benjamin:
I could not find much on “mirror analogy” of consciousness. Are you referring to something “emerging” as a “mirror image” from the neuronal funcions and/or structures? A “virtual image” (optical) or a “virtual computer” (electronic) may be a better analogy.
First of all for a mirror to function, there must be a mirror. Leaving photons altogether, if you stay with the “particles” we have “mirror particles”, super-symmetric particles etc. Likewise at the molecular level we have “Optical (Mirror) Isomerism”. A chiral object and its mirror image are called enantiomorphs (Greek for opposite forms). Such molecules are called enantiomers.
Now, to turn your question around could there be “a mirror image” counter part for a living body? None of these particles or isomers can constitute such a “mirror image body”, from the mass and charge considerations alone, unless you consider particles like the neutrinos to form a mirror image body. They may be constituents of the living body, but even enantiomorphs are very specific in Nature- left handed. SUSY chemistry has been theoretically postulated, but the masses of these particles are unsuitable for any “mirror immage body” considerations.
A viable alternative is the “bio dark matter”, axion-like. They can have the mass (negligible), the charge (zero)and the spin (fermionic)suitable to form a “mirror image body”. So just as Astrophysics solved some of its invisible problems via Dark Matter, and Theoretical Physics plugged a hole in its theory by the “invisible axions”, Biology may solve its “dark” problems with its own dark matter. There is now common ground for the dark matter of astrophysics and the theoretical axions and it is conceivable that bio dark- matter may be also axions.
In that case a Dark Matter Chemistry is possible and an “invisible Homo sapiens” may be the result which of course is the “mirror image body” in resonance with the visible body.
Philip Benjamin
-
Graeme Smith Wrote:
Anyway the particular form of Dark Energy I believe in, religiously is a form called the Unit Field, which makes a mutual exclusion field the primitive of force. …. I can’t argue with your claiming that budhism is the source of the “Consciousness Theory”, but somehow I doubt that it is the whole case. Ancients in the Western Culture definitely were trying to deal with the mind/body problem as well. In fact much of Phenomenalism was started by.. Descartez that thought that there was something “Spiritual” about the mind.
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
You have written at length and I was slow to catch up. I will try to size up the salient points you have thoughtfully raised.
It is inevitable to be “religious” (I suppose you mean metaphysical), when anyone deals with something “intangible” or “invisible” but definitely bound within and operating from within something so physical as the human body and easily identifiable with something so intricate as the human brain. However much of the phenomenalism that you are referring to, both in the West and the East, is the brain-child of people who did not have the benefit of even conceptualizing Dark Energy or Dark Matter which are PURELY physical entities of modern science having all the attributes of what they called “spirit” (pneuma in Greek) or “atman” (breath in Sanskrit).However, when you look at it from a strictly “religious” angle, you still
tend to emphasize the “energy” side rather than the “particle”. You are convinced that something nebulous called “consciousness” exist, though you do not really know what it is or how to define it. There is no particular reason why elements should combine to form compunds, i.e. atoms to molecule transitions or to be more precise atomic orbitals to molecular orbitals. Not all elements give stable compounds easily- rare gases for example. Thus rare gas configurations of electrons become the “standard” for stability considerations.I used this progression to molecular orbitals deliberately. Elements to other elements (alchemy) or to compounds (vitalism)were once metaphysical concepts. Discovery of atoms changed all that. Electron orbits further changed that- the bold assumption of “stationary orbits” by Bohr for example. Orbitals came closer to reality and molecular orbitals closed most of the gaps. Spin and Exclusion Principle became known governing factors.
If there is dark matter particles it is conceivable there is dark matter chemistry and even a dark matter body. Instead of “charges”, “monopoles” or ‘some kind of’ gravitinos may bring it closer to reality. Some of the ‘dark’ problems of biology as for example the mind-body problem may thus have a new avenue for exploration.Graeme Smith wrote:
This is perhaps the start of the dualism school, that demands that there be something more than physically available to explain consciousness. However your Dark Matter Dualism, is not all that different from physicalism, except that you substitute dark matter in, and that makes you a special type of dualist, which is completely different from my own philosophical bent.
Consider my work Conditional Dualism, in that I believe that there is no reason to assume dualism is necessary, but if it is, I believe that trying to model the brain will show where the dualism is likely to come into play.Reply from Philip Benjamin
In the light of what I have noted above, “dualism” becomes more or less semantic. It is physical all the way, one of ordinary matter particles and the other of extraordinary matter particles. One leads to ordinary materialism and its uncanny ’dualistic" counterpart. The other leads to extraordinary materialism with a physical counterpart “the invisible Homo sapiens”.
-
Benjamin you say that there is no reason for atoms to join to make compounds.
Actually there is a reason, but it is hidden in the second law of thermodynamics that reason is entropy, any arrangement that is more entropic is more likely to happen and more likely to remain stable than a similar arrangement that is less entropic.
This may seem counter-intuitive, why would entropy cause things to self-arrange?
My belief is that we only know part of the story about entropy, that self-arrangement is just as important a part of the story, as the better known breaking apart into smaller particles.
The problem isn’t that entropy doesn’t work at the quantum level, but that the second law is based on equilibrium, and equilibrium needs to be redefined for as dynamic a system as quantum mechanics. I have proposed a different definition of equilibrium based on the energy/entropy balance, and the idea that the Universe Oscillates around the entropic constant in such a way as to create a power curve where both entropy and energy are increasing.
You continue to assume that there is a need for dark matter to assume a role that is missing in consciousness.
When I labelled myself a conditional Dualist, I meant that my philsophy can be summed up as Dualism if necessary, but not necessarily dualism. I would prefer that you wait to assume a need for dark matter until later in the process. A sort of conditional Dark Matter approach, but that is just my own personal approach.
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“Benjamin you say that there is no reason for atoms to join to make compounds.
Actually there is a reason, but it is hidden in the second law of thermodynamics that reason is entropy, any arrangement that is more entropic is more likely to happen and more likely to remain stable than a similar arrangement that is less entropic."
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
What I meant by “PARTICULAR” reason was in the context of forming a human body, in other words no “anthropic” reason. The rare gases are very stable and they have duet, octet electron configurations in their outer shells (atomic). So, these configurations were assumed to be ‘least entropic’ and all other elements theoretically tend to reach these stable electron configurations through molecular ‘architecture’. Thus instead of oxygen atoms existing in a free state, you normally have oxygen molecules.. etc.
Graeme Smith Wrote:
“You continue to assume that there is a need for dark matter to assume a role that is missing in consciousness.
I would prefer that you wait to assume a need for dark matter until later in the process. A sort of conditional Dark Matter approach, but that is just my own personal approach".
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
I am realy not coming from ‘consciousness’ angle per se. I saw Hans Ricke’s “Mirror Image Analogy for Consciousness” which prompted a poetic ‘provocation’. Where is the mirror? What are the mirror image correlates? Is there a substance to this image? Why are these mirror images different at least quantitatively (though empirically alogether different)in plants and animals and humans? From a purely physical point of view, are biophoton emissions related to “mirror image analogy”? Is the 10 times greater emission of biophotons in plants with respect to humans related to any interaction beween the original and the mirror image?
For any analysis of this sort, metaphysics is not helpful. You need the necessary invisible ‘materials’ to explain the invisible source(s) of any such “mirror images”.
Best regards
Philip Benjamin
-
If you look at my From Memory System to mind, How the Mind Might Work thread, you will see that I too think consciousness is reflective, but call for an Awareness Buffer, and Consciousness Buffer to do the actual reflection. As well I am not talking about reflection of the actual environment, but reflection of the processing done in the Intention system for awareness, and reflection of the processing done in the Volition system for Consciousness. As well I stress the presence of Meta-cognitive signals experienced along with awareness during consciousness, clearly creating a detectable difference in the reflection.
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“I too think consciousness is reflective, but call for an Awareness Buffer, and Consciousness Buffer to do the actual reflection. As well I am not talking about reflection of the actual environment, but reflection of the processing done in the Intention system for awareness, and reflection of the processing done in the Volition system for Consciousness. As well I stress the presence of Meta-cognitive signals experienced along with awareness during consciousness, clearly creating a detectable difference in the reflection”.
Concurrence by Philip Benjamin:
This all very good and, unless I have missed a whole lot of current status on
mind/consciousness discussions, is a breath of fresh air!Then again what are these buffers: Awareness/Consciousness?
What is Intention System?
What is meta-cognitive? Why nor ortho or para?This whole thing called “consciousness” ( a very misleading translation of the Eastern Atman/Brahman or Chit and the Greek “spirit”), whatever it be, is efficiently and discernibly housed in a physical system called the “body”. What is housed and is functioning and interacting efficiently in the “physical” cannot and need not be meta-physical in any of its aspects. Physical/metaphysical do not mix any better than water/oil!
Best regards
Philip benjamin
-
Benjamin asked: But then again what are these buffers, Awareness ans Consciousness.
Well a buffer is a place where memory is held temporarily until it is processed.
The idea is that the brain is a self-programming system, and that because it does not implement a stack, it uses a sequence buffer to store commands. The buffer is not technically unique, what is important is the fact that a parallel thread of processing happens right after a sequence is started, that lags a few milliseconds after the actual “Intentive” automation. This process is linked to a model test that determines whether the parameters have caused the output to fall outside the “Comfort zone” of the individual, and meta-cognitive signals are generated that inform the processing whether it completed successfully or not.The combination of the feedback from the buffer, and the experience of the meta-cognitive data, defines the experience of awareness. If automation fails a further mechanism is engaged that readjusts the parameters, or picks a different process in order to achieve the same goal. This is also reflected via a buffer in order to allow rewinding of second order control, and it includes a reflection of the Meta-cognitive signals from awareness and the experience of the meta-cognitive signals about awareness such as the feeling of self.
One of the illusions that our brain creates is that we are conscious when we are only aware, and that the reflection is conscious reflection, when at least part of the time, we can see by the missing meta-cognitive signals that what people are claiming is consciousness might also be awareness.
A Meta-cognitive signal is a signal about the state of a cognitive process.
For instance the meta-cognitive error signal that indicates that your process has not worked. This is especially notable in memory retrieval during a Tip of the Tongue episode where you can actually feel the rewinding and failure signals related to finding the word you wanted to say.Intention is a word that has been adopted by the industry, in an attempt to find a middle ground between autonomic activity and Volition. An Intention is an automation that does something that you want to do, but doesn’t require consciousness to achieve. I think we are stuck with the word consciousness, however, even though it has unfortunate consequences, it just has too long a track record to be ignored.
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“One of the illusions that our brain creates is that we are conscious when we are only aware, and that the reflection is conscious reflection, when at least part of the time, we can see by the missing meta-cognitive signals that what people are claiming is consciousness might also be awareness”.
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
There is everything there in your post that one can agree with, except the cardinal ‘unknown’ how and where and why the brain ‘creates’. What is it different in the human brain which does not exist in the other animal brains? To say that it is ‘linguistic’ or ‘cultural’ or ‘environmental’ is simply begging the question and solves not the problem.
Again what is it that makes plants ‘incompetent’ to do some of these things? After all, they are of the same good stuff- electrons, protons and neutrons! Late Prof. Gould of Harvard goes further to assert that " there is no difference between a twig and the human". But the twig does not wiggle.
-
We don’t yet understand creativity, we can measure it to some extent, and associated with certain genes as has lately been done, but we don’t exactly understand what makes one person creative and another not.
The article on the genetic marker of both creativity and schizophrenia suggests that one of the aspects to Artistic Creativity, is a greater need to express the artists opinions blocked by a basic lack of articulation in language. I think this is naive because it assumes that graphics is the only art form and doesn’t see writing and speach as artforms as well.
Humans are not however the only creative animals, in fact there have been many studies with different types of Omnivorus animals that have shown that they are creative solution finders. For instance Igor Aleksanders Crow, which uses tools to get at a nut, that is out of reach by direct beak action, or the various obstacle courses designed for squirrels, where the squirrel actually seems to prefer to approach its food via the obstacle course.
I think the main difference between human creativity and animal creativity is that humans are creative in a wider number of media, if only because they are motivated to operate in a wider range of media.
Results
-
