Luc Turpin

First, I wish to acknowledge how appreciative I am of having discussions, especially on mind, on this Science Forums site. Second, I appreciate my conversations with DrmDoc, Dim, INow and others. Without them, I would not be able to expose my position nor be able to advance in my thinking about Mind. DanMP is also asking relevant questions. "whole and singular" - maybe. "that emerges" - I was very vocal about the fact that the "emergent property" thesis was a "cop-out" for not knowing; "residing in a specific place relative to brain function or structure" - It may very well reside nowhere and therefore not be relative to brain function or structure. "If true, that perception is wrong" - agree that it's wrong. .Mind is possibly not spacially nor qualitatively localised. So it seems that we agree partially on this. Saying mind "emerges" does not explain how it emerges; it just says so without explanation of how it does so! I am not the only one taking up this position on emergence. I reiterate and respectfully say that it's a "cop-out" for "we don't know"; "a confluence of brain function" - how does this come all together to form the impression of the "I" in the machine; is it not the "binding" issue that has pervaded the whole of neuroscience and has never been satisfactorily addressed? "from some specific brain structure" - no; ..."or source" - maybe. So, again, how do you explain terminal lucidity or NDE's where brain function is compromised without apparent effect of mind? "emerges", that word again! I am not sure that I understand this one. If you mean that its just and all about behavioral expression, as in a process without thinking, then I strongly disagree. It is also ejecting "qualia" from the discussion. This view is strongly being challenged by new evidence and observations. It has become almost untenable. Yes on more than brain. Not necessarily panpsychism, might be something else. Agree that DrmDoc contribution is needed and appreciated.

Thought I was being mischievous without realising it!😀

Whole lot of stuff here and a bit of misrepresentation of character, mixed in with bad sentencing on my part. Same bandcamp we are! just that we do seem to do more thinking than others. Dolphins do a lot, but less than us and insects do a lot, but possibly less than dolphins. I hold these views not on emotional thinking, but research and observation. A) I was always arguing since the begining that animals think, sorry for the confusion. Most in science believe that it is about information processing without thinking. I see it as information processing with thinking. Repeating myself for clarification purposes. B) all of these plus more coming as they are published. Fun videos added for pleasure. https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-intelligence-animal-behaviour https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4 https://phys.org/news/2023-11-bacteria-memories-generations.html https://phys.org/news/2023-11-silky-ants-aphids-medicine-sick.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s0LTDhqe5A https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579101/ https://phys.org/news/2023-10-honey-bees-inherit-altruistic-behavior.html https://uk.whales.org/whales-dolphins/how-intelligent-are-whales-and-dolphins/ https://phys.org/news/2023-10-reveal-hidden-sensory-mechanism-hair.html https://phys.org/news/2023-10-soil-viruses-interact-bacteria.html https://scitechdaily.com/single-cells-are-more-intelligent-than-scientists-previously-thought/ https://phys.org/news/2023-10-female-animals-unusual-malesnew.html https://phys.org/news/2023-10-chloroplasts-photosynthesis-theyre-key-player.html https://phys.org/news/2023-10-cell-walls-mechanical-properties-division.html Animals – Jon Lieff, MD (jonlieffmd.com) https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/plants https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/microbes https://phys.org/news/2023-11-extracellular-vesicles-exchange-genetic-cells.html https://phys.org/news/2023-11-underground-fungi-forests.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM9GpLXepU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ChEmjsXCM I am not smart, but being myself. You asked and I delivered.

I have been looking at NDE's for a while. I said that I had knowledge of only one experiment about random number generators in a hospital setting, not that I had only one experiment for the totality of the subject matter. Some aspects of NDE's can be replicated, but not all of them all at once, except in the context of a bona fide NDE. For UFO accounts, I know very little about them. Caveat: At this point in time, I am only saying that mounting evidence seems to indicate that there is something missing in our current understanding of the brain. What it is? No one really knows at this point. One of the many hypotheses out there is that mind expresses itself through brain. So an analogy that I can use to explain this is as follows: mind is the signal and the brain is the TV capturing the signal and transforming into a sound and light show. So why does the mind sleep when the brain is sleeping? the mind does not sleep, but the brain does, so you don't hear the music nor see the show. You cannot think straight when you are intoxicated because you messed with the TV; poured gin into it. Babies don't think like adults because their brains have not sufficiently evolved enough to make it happen. But, they do much more than we think. We think in different languages because our brains through experience and teaching and learning have developed into thinking in a certain language, not in others. The brain is needed to express mind; that is the thinking behind this hypothesis; there are many other theories out there. That's the whole point of the experiment; we believed that the brain did all the thinking; now some think that the body also plays a role. The point I was making is not that it proves mind through brain, but that new evidence is moving away from what we believed was going on with thinking and brain. That we had to move with evidence and modify our theory in sync with observation. No big surprise there, because that is how science works. Never quoted in the "Popular Posts", so I guess that I am unpopular!

Thought not; just a warning to one individual; still wanted to make sure that I was not rule breaking. Therefore, you are in the majority view that lower life-forms process information without thinking and I am in the minority view that they do think! For the rest, it is hard to follow; always having to decipher what you mean; it all seems to be made up by you with limited input from other sources; there are many discrepancies and contradictions. And it also almost feels like you telling us rather than you having a conversation with us.

Would never lie to you Dim 😇 Yes and no! Not life changing. I was about 15 years of age; leaving my friends house; driveway with slight down slope to the main road; picked-up my bike; turned it around; started pedaling fast down the driveway; felt a car coming on my left side; said to myself, I am going to get killed; time appeared to slow down; had a instant flash of many of my main life memories; felt as if soft-gentle hands took control of my handle bar and turned it to the right; felt the car pass real close to me on my left side; heard the passenger of the car yell something like "you're going to get yourself killed"; then my heart started to pound and I told myself "what the heck just happen here?". This occurred many years ago and I can remember it as if it was today. Again, this was not a life changing moment for me and I still don't know what really happened. Meant the brain as hardware and the mind as software.

Is the tread closed?

It is clear from data that sperm count is down from previous decades (-50% in some studies) It is also clear that multiple causes are involved in lowering sperm count (pollution, endocrine disruptors, etc.) There is evidence that antibiotics reduce fertility. But, I don't think that considerable permanent infertility can be extrapolated from any of the available data. And as mentioned, we see no evidence of this in the real world (fertility clinics for example) Also, notwithstanding the reason, use antibiotics only when needed or when other treatments have failed. We should be more worried about antibiotic resistance then infertility. ....than infertility.....sorry

"We have both thought and consciousness but experience only thought". Thought and consciousness are so tightly bound together that they can't be differentiated as you imply they can be. And, I think that you are mixing up meanings of words. 'In our terms you might say they think but aren't aware of it'. I think you mean that they process information without thinking. "Our abstractions are a great way to communicate complex ideas and use of inductive logic but they do not exist in reality". Are you saying that our mental picture of the world is not the same as reality? Not sure what you mean! "We still live and exist in our thought". And live in the world. "We are still animals and still hooked up like other animals but unlike other life we have a "one track mind"; don't know what you are talking about! The rest, respectfully, I don't quite understand. How do patterns relate to dogs trying to understand its master? You seem to say that there are different levels of consciousness? That every conscious entity resonates (participates) in creating reality? You are making it very hard to understand you and most of it does seem to make sense. Consider twice before posting and re-read yourself to make sure that you are conveying the thought that you wish to convey.

Disagree! We experience both and both are difficult to unravel from one another! They apparently do much more than that, and evidence is mounting to that effect Statements witout apparent grounds for determining their veracity. It's a waggle dance with apparently a lot of information (distance, direction, etc. of pollen) being conveyed to others. It's a symbolic language.

First, let's be clear that I am not advocating nor think that there is such a thing as a life-force. This was given as an example for argument sake only. Only observation and evidence will tell if it exists or not. Mind from brain or mind through brain would have the same effect as you describe on the brain. And the things that you describe, obtained through various forms of brain scans and experiments, are all valid and correct! No issues there! But major questions still remain. For the sake of repeating myself, where is mind in the brain? I gave ample references indicating that we don't know. And if it's all over the brain, has the "binding" issue been resolved? no! You mentioned metabolism forces, but how does this create consciousness? Or more aptly, how is consciousness extracted from a kilogram or so of flesh? We don't know. If we did know how the brain does its magic, then why after 25 years of neuroscience research did Christof Kock concede his bet to David Chalmers on this issue. In 1998 he bet that by 2023 we would know how the brain achieves consciousness, and lost. I also provided references on this one in my original 'Mind' tread. And why this panoply of hypotheses and theories on it if we know? Gave examples I am not the only one advocating for this position. A growing number of neuroscientists are starting to look elsewhere to try and answer the elusive question of how consciousness works. And why does mind "seem" to be all over in nature? even in low lying life forms? Or without brains? This was not expected - lime molds appearing to think! Gave examples and references on this one too! Research in the last few decades is not helping us consolidate what we thought about the brain. Gave also ample examples. A lot of things that we thought we knew about the brain were overturned From static brain to neuroplasticity. From brain as a computer to it not being one. From humans only to other lower life forms. From animals feeling no pain and having no sense of self to some that do. From synapses to other parts of neurons. From neurons to other cells. We dint' know about this either. Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate: Secreted chemicals Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions Electric currents Electromagnetic waves Physical contact by cells Biological nanotubes between cells Who could have believed then that bioelectricity would be studied as a measure to control body shapes? And what about NDE's? Do we ignore all the cases where mind appears to work through an apparently absent brain? So many things going on that it is hard to follow. Are we to overlook the entirety of all of these and other findings to come for the sake of sticking to an apparently outmoded model of mind-brain? "The orthodox view of memory is that it is stored as a stable network of synaptic conncections among neurons in a brain. That view is clearly cracking" Again, I reiterate, what you say about the brain is correct, but there is more to the story than what you tell. The hardware problem is easy; the software one is not!

1- This "nonsense" was not entirely proved wrong yet, but this is not the point the I am pursuing. For me, it is not whether they are true or not, but how mind still expresses itself through a very damaged or absent brain. One experiment that I am aware of installed random number generators in hospital rooms, but no one had an NDE in them. Do not know of any other such experiment. 2- Blind people don't use 'it' to see in their daly lives, because they are not outside of their bodies in their daily lives. Yes, blind people report seing during their NDE"s. The term used in this case is "mindsight". And these were people that were blind all of their lives. Stange isn’t it!

We are expressions of our mind interacting with reality, not only "expressions of whatever beliefs we choose to accept". Consciousness, perception, thoughts, feelings, senses and beliefs, come from mind and are combined together to create our own inner-world of what reality is perceived to be.

+1

I think that I have been mediocre at best in my understanding and responding to your topic The fault is all mine and on my limited knowledge of the subject matter. But consciousness, I have many opinions about it. With some backed by evidence. Thought and consciousness are strongly corelated; I think therefore I am Mounting evidence, not yet conclusive, hints at not only us humans that can think Life and consciousness are corelated, but not the same thing; one is a biological process and the other is still in the process of being defined; it is either an emergent property of matter or an essential element of life, but not life itself I don't see how "wiring" makes it logical, expand Cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and reality is complete unto itself - all of this seems related to reality, not consciousness. Survival has to be assured for consciousness to exist, then, maybe, more attributes come into play afterward. All of consciousness, in humans and others if they are conscious (still being debated), is non digital. The brain does not work like a computer (ample evidence on this one). Good point! To me, science and philosophy are a bit like dart throwing, but one has a target and the other appears to not have one 😊

1- Yes, your actions can most assuredly change reality, within the limits of the laws of nature. 2- Then there will have to be a lot of reinterpretation to be done from this paradigm shifting perspective. Paradigm shift - Thomas Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving"[1] of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.[2]·" 3- Please expand if you wish on you only having the evidence and that every experiment agrees with this interpretation, but agree that this is a philosophy forum so evidence is not an absolute requirment. 4- I guess simply explained, simply understood; I think though that there is more to the story than this. 5- Like what about the double slit experiment? 6- Please expand on the relationship of logic-beliefs and the nature or meaning of existence? Note: I admit of being out of my comfort zone with your topic, but our back and fourth is useful at least to me as I am seekiing to understand at the same time as I am responding.

I reiterate with more precision: what I experience of reality affects my beliefs of it and my beliefs affect the perception that I have of reality, but my own beliefs or collective ones cannot change reality in onto itself. A lot of science would have to be overturned for it to be such and this extraordinary claim would also require extraordinary evidence, before being contemplated as a contending hypothesis. 1- You are providing a statement, not evidence nor observations 2- I knew that maths would be brought into a discussion on logic. I have major limitations in understanding it's role in describing the universe, so I will pass on this one. 3- Yes they do and are absolutly confounded by the experience, real or not. 4- I think that you need to rephrase this statement as it appears to say that our beliefs mold reality. If your belief is such, then see opening statement above. 5- So, truth, logic, falsity and illogic exist, which seem to run the whole gamut of possibilities. Randomness also uses all of those when expressing itself. I am not sure that this idea is worth pursuing, unless major discrepancies start cropping up in our current understanding of the universe Finaly, we are bit off topic.

1- The unproven, but provable if it is such. If, one day, I accept that mind is through brain, it will be because of observation-evidence, not faith, feeling and supposition. Electromagnetic forces are non-physical per say and rooted in science and evidence. So, why would it be different if a mind-field was to exist (not saying that it does, but if it did, it would be provable). "Is it fear of the inevitable" - no, I don't like the idea of disappearing, but so be it; "or an earnest interest in divining some great truth or deep mystery for posterity's sake" - I have no such pretention. 2- Used conventional "wisdom" because of always using mind-brain concept. The latter, not former was what I meant. 3- Terminal lucidity is one of many things that does not concur as closely as expected to the current mind-brain concept. What I believe is unimportant, but we have to follow observation and data. In the last post, I gave you a list of things that we believed before about the brain that, through observation-evidence, have become obsolete. I would not be searching about outside of the current mind theory field if there was no evidence leading me along. Read the evidence-observations indicated in articles and references that I posted in both treads and you will discover that I am not the only one having doubts.

Got it! Better! Thanks for responding

1- What evidence is there for a universal logic? Believing it is not enough to make it occur. 2- There is substantial evidence that there are "laws of nature". 3- Not sure that I got an answer! 4- To me, both appear of almost equal proportion. 5- Yes beliefs can change 6- Yes, hard to change a person 7- I do not think that beliefs is the only filter nor a requirement of perception. Some have "mystical' experiences without belief in them. 8- Yes, easy to not notice

I am reasonably ok with this one. But not this one. When were delusional perception and schizptipicals fun things to have as labels; and it appears in the way that you worded it that all religious folks have these attributes. Also, your quote makes mention of personality disorder, thought disorder, paranoia, social anxiety, derealization, transient psychosis, and unconventional beliefs. When were these things associated with mental stability? DSM-5 classifies them as disorders. Noted that some are "characteristics of others", but it still linking them all. The referenced articles appear tamer in their conclusion than the Wiki article. Correction - Delusional perception was referenced here:

Large brush that you're painting with! My religious friends appear more mentally stable than most in society. Their faith anchors them to a more benevolent-peaceful reality than science does. Even if this reality is not so much benvolent and peaceful. Disturbed individuals are all over, even in science.

So, a universal logic underlies consciousness and reality? Are the "laws of nature" all encompassing of reality? Are beliefs involved in determining the meaning or not of existence? What I experience of reality affects my beliefs of it! My beliefs can change the perception of reality that I have! You play the part without the horns 😉

I have been very clear that mind from brain is the majority view while mind through brain the minority one, with or without God, with or without an afterlife. If the matter is settled, then why such an abundance of theories. In my original tread, I posted numerous observations that do not entirely match up with the conventional view of the mind-brain concept. Where is mind? Mind in nature! How does it work? In this tread, I expounded or added Jon Lieff - Secret Language of Cells, Paul Pietsch - Shuffle Brain, curious NDE cases, Robert Epstein - Empty Brain and Basal Cognition. From static brain to neuroplasticity. From brain as a computer to it not being one. From humans only to other lower life forms. From animals feeling no pain and having no sense of self to some that do. From synapses to other parts of neurons. From neurons to other cells. These are but just a few things that have changed in the last few years. I reiterate, recent findings-observations-data do not perfectly matchup with conventional wisdom. Non-physical/material does automatically imply metaphysicality. I too believe in science.

Because it is still a question! Discussion "ad nauseam" was inconclusive and ended at agreeing to disagree. Participation in discussion is voluntary, but requires respect.