Luc Turpin

What is the nature of existence? Ephemeral…. and therefore meaningless is the logical conclusion! So, why do we exist or even bother existing? Now, these questions are worth pondering! Circumventing meaning to discuss the nature of existence is avoidance. The elephant is still in the room.

Gravity is intrinsic to nature and the universe. Do we invoke a deity to explain gravity? Then, why is it an incontrovertible requirement of mind when it is entertained as intrinsic to nature? It's similar to your comment about trees not knowing why! I am still struggling with this one. If I give you a complex behaviour such as this one: Bumblebees successfully learned a two-step puzzle box task through social observation. This task was too complex for individual bees to learn on their own. Observing trained demonstrator bees performing the first unrewarded step was crucial for successful social learning. Bee-2-Bee influencing: Bees master complex tasks through social interaction | ScienceDaily I guess that you would say something in this line of thinking: "ants, simple algorithm; bumblebees, complex algorithm, but nonetheless same thing". So, I am still stuck on this one! Agreed; Does not prove nor dispel. This applies to everything in science and life. Too many involved for all of them to be lying. Aware or unaware bias, we all bring our baggage along with us. I had conversations with Paul Pietsch and he was an anatomist that...."was certain beyond a conscious doubt that the truth about life would reduce directly and explicitly to the architecture of the things that do the living. I had complete faith, too, that my science would one day write the most important scientific story of all: how a brain gives existence to a mind. But I was wrong". So, before his experimentation began, his bias was in favour of mind being explained by brain, not the opposite. Agree, agree, agree. I guess that we can grow with the help of knowledge and one day be able to see through the window, only to discover that the window is not a window, but a blank space leading to a dead end. Then, should-I have used "simple binary response" instead of action potential in relation to synaptic firing?

We will never know for sure, but we can get close to knowing. A while back, we thought that non-human animals could not feel pain or emotions. Now, we are almost certain that they do, without having acquired full disclosure. It is the same with consciousness. Every time I go down a rabbit hole, I come back up with more data that makes me less and less a believer that it is only about neuronal synapses. Knowing that we will never know if computers are truly conscious, does not stop us from trying to build one and understand it. Conversely, knowing that we will never know for sure about consciousness should not stop us from trying to get as close to an answer as we can. Who knows, maybe one day we can even reach full disclosure on the matter. Maybe using action potential in the wrong way; meant meeting a certain threshold before firing; not reaching threshold implies not firing at all. No middle ground. Note: Could not quote from your last post, so I took your first one and pasted onto it the text of your last one. Don't know why it was not working. I am not saying that our current understanding of the mind-brain connection is wrong, but incomplete. I bring philosophical baggage to the table, but may have more knowledge of this fact than most in the hard sciences. Aware that philosophy is hard on pseudo science, quasi scientific speculation, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies. What I am trying to do here is neither of what is indicated. Posted phenomenon (NDE's and terminal lucidity) because they exist and challenge the orthodox view of the mind-brain connection. Agree that all posted theories cannot all be correct. I have put them out there to show that consensus on the matter is far from being reached. Also, all theories presented provide observations or experimental results to back them up. It is telling that if you cut a flatworm in two that the tail part will re-grow a head that remembers a task that the former head learned. Where was memory stored? Cannot be in brain neuronal synapses as there were none at some point in time. And Shuffle Brain is decades of meticulous dissection experimentation before coming to the conclusion that "shuffling the brain does not compromise the mind". Removing any part of a salamander brain dims the memory, but never erases it. These are strong indicators that something beyond synapses may be going on. That mind may be (not "is") an intrinsic part of nature rather than an emergent property of matter is a big deal worth investigating. Thought that I had posted this, but not showing up, so here it is again. We will never know for sure, but we can get close to knowing. A while back, we thought that non-human animals could not feel pain or emotions. Now, we are almost certain that they do, without having acquired full disclosure. It is the same with consciousness. Every time I go down a rabbit hole, I come back up with more data that makes me less and less a believer that it is only about neuronal synapses. And knowing that we will never know if computers are truly conscious, does not stop us from trying to build one. Conversely, knowing that we will never know for sure should not stop us from getting as close to an answer as we can. Maybe using potential in the wrong way; meant meeting a certain threshold before firing; not reaching threshold implies not firing at all. No middle ground. Oups, showed up!

Chasing data rather than a rabbit down a hole Can't help myself! Here is another data hole - Shuffle Brain – The Quest for the Hologramic Mind by Paul Pietsch. Very rigorous experimentation on salamander larvae done in the 80’s, but completely ignored by the scientific community. "Shuffling the brain does not scramble the mind. How does the brain store memory? Many theories located memory in a specific area of the brain – until the development of the hologram……” “Holograms can be made to mimic many brain activities, suggesting that the brain ‘encodes” memory in a similar way. Memory thus may depend on wave-phase relationships rather than on specific parts of the brain. Punky, Julius and Cyclops (salamander larvae) have demonstrated that parts of a brain may be reshuffled without scrambling the meaning of the information it stores.” Again, another theory of mind. Apparently, it processes more that simple data and if it thinks as we understand it, we will never know as in the dog example. Good point. Got to think about that one! I am in general aggrement with statements made in paragraphs 1 and 2; In cells and proteins, it's a precursor to mind, maybe not mind itself. But, clumps of cells generating primitive cognition brings a lot more entities around the dinner table. And, you will disagree with this statement, makes mind or its precursor play a more prominent role in the game of life and evolution. As for paragraph 3, some articles that I consulted used action potential as a "go" or "not go" potential. Maybe I mixed things up! Meant "go" or "no go"; sorry!

Hope his five-star prison runs out of caviar and champagne; Don jr!, what a lightbulb!

I thought long and hard about thinking coming solely from synaptic action reaction and was getting to agree with your position until, by chance, I stumbled on the following article. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-required-when-it-comes-to-thinking-and-solving-problems-simple-cells-can-do-it/ What if all cells, not only neurons, can process information? Would they still do it by action potential, I am not sure! They talk about transistors, but not sure if it only applies to neurons. The article also reaffirms some of my assumptions that cognition is a bottom-up process and is everywhere in nature. It also has sections on robotics and AI that I did not quite understand, but seem to navigate towards your contention on this matter. A must read and here are some of the highlights: Brains not required when it comes to thinking and solving problems; Planarians (flatworms) that have learned a skill are cut in half; the tail end of a planarian re-grows a head that remembers the task; Regular cells have the ability to store information and act on it; Difference between cell clumps and brains as ones of degree, not kind; No brain required for intelligence; Intelligence is all over the life kingdom "The orthodox view of memory is that it is stored as a stable network of synaptic connections among neurons in a brain. “That view is clearly cracking,” Perhaps memory capability is bioelectric not biochemical (convincing experiments in the article - messed up frog face "Fused into a hive mind through bioelectricity, the cells achieved feats of bioengineering well beyond those of our best gene jockeys); "Indeed the very act of living is by default a cognitive state". "Every cell needs to be constantly evaluating its surroundings, making decisions about what to let in and what to keep out and planning next steps. "Cognition didn't arrive later in evolution; it's what made life possible." Taking in to account this and the two other articles that I posted in this thread, and knowing that there are other theories around mind, who can pretend that the issue of how mind work is settled?

A "new phase" such as passing a tipping point and entering uncharted territory in relation to significant consequences; things speeding up and getting much worse. Soon we will be nostalgic about the "good old" years. We will remember common things that are no longer available. Uplifting you are not, but realistic you are. One of my greatest worries is famine overtaking the world and the social unrest-chaos that it will engender. Think migration is a problem today. I believe that its too late and going to hurt. Yes, sensitive to initial conditions; had we done something then we would be in a much better situation today. We also missed other "off-ramps" in the early stages of this climate change situation that would have made a difference. We talked a lot and then did not walk the talk.

I will be offline for the weekend!

Yes it does........not so simple Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate: · Secreted chemicals - action potential when occurring at the synapse · Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions - don't think its' action potential · Electric currents - electrical current not action potential (wiring), but neuron firing is action potential · Electromagnetic waves - field generation not action potential, but firing is · Physical contact by cells - guess not action potential · Biological nanotubes between cells - not sure; could not get the info There is also talk of overall brain electromagnetic waves being used for communication, which should not be action potential. The debate as I see it is whether or not neurons solely communicate by synaptic potential or are there other means. Recent evidence tends to favour the latter. And if all modes of communication use the action potential function. For a general outline of vescicle complexity here is a link https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extra-cellular-vesicles-brain

It does not only fire or not, but apparently does much more; like share chemical information vesicles with other cells or use electromagnetism to communicate. Neurons, wiring, the whole brain and how it works is much more complicated than we thought. I believe that they are conscious only because they appear to dream and this consciousness is lower but similar to us as they are using basically the same hardware to do so. You are correct on this statement; we can’t possibly know for sure what it will grow up to be and we might be all surprised when we find out. That is why I said "at the moment".

We are still discovering how neurons work and it appears to be more complex then anticipated. For example, neurons found to use many types of vesicles to communicate with other cells, not at the synapse. As for neurons being transistors, they appear to be much more than this. And as for your copyable contention, you know more than me, However, as the empty brain articles indicates, we are not quite sure where or if the information is stored in the brain, so how or could we copy it, remains unanswered. Also, I am unconvinced at this moment that AI or robots will one day be conscious. If it was the case, would we, like in lower life-forms that preceded us, have already begun to see inklings of consciousness in our machines? There may be a fine line separating non-living matter and living matter.The film is superb.

Thanks for responding, and more so for reading beyond the first few lines of a post, and, for not downright discarding me. Yep, really, the transducer model of the brain is one of many out there trying to replace the brain as a processor model, which is definitely not making grounds anymore. And, what about this one by Robert Epstein and the Empty Brain model, which is much more-timid than the transducer model in its' contention, but still steering away from the processor model. Taken from a thread in Science Forums. Having to take the environment (life history, social context) into the mind context; again, shy in its' contention, but getting there. https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer Quoting Deepak does not make everything else irrelevant; I do not especially care about Deepak. Susan Blackmore is a relevant source of information for NDE's; so is Bruce Greyson - After I reiterate, my line of inquiry is not whether NDE's are real or not, but how mind still operates in a very broken brain; even if phantasmagoric stories are being reported by near death experiencers, they still include thoughts like memory, recognition, emotions and so on. There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. Daniel Dennet, Darwin's dangerous idea - like that 👍

Are we entering a new phase of climate change with significant consequences for humanity? https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-february-2024-was-globally-warmest-record-global-sea-surface-temperatures-record-high

I do not want to overturn anything, but science may or may not do so at a point in time. Ag I do not want to overturn anything, but science may or may not do so at a point in time. Not one out of body expience, but many thousands of NDE's (out of body experience (OBE's) is a singular part of NDE's); 5-10% of the population have or will experience it. Many cases of NDE"s during anaesthesia; almost sure, but not certain about induced comas. I reiterate, type NDERF in your search engine for Alice in Wonderland summaries of hundreds-thousands of such cases

Additional details - the patient remembered events that occurred during the flatline state, not during general anesthesia. Critics said she pieced together a “story” of flatlined events based on prior knowledge of the operation and mixed it in with memories she made during general anesthesia. Also to note is that the patient’s recollection of flatlined events concurred pretty much with what had actually happened during that time. To me, the critics story is as incredulous as the story being told by the patient. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Because of limitations, Newtonian physics was replaced by General Relativity; so too may our current understanding of the mind-brain connection be in need of a revision to take into account extreme situations such as near-death experiences. The brain is not a processor, but maybe a bi-directional transducer – see below. Ironically, there is more interest in artificial intelligence-consciousness than in human intelligence-consciousness. Pun aside, mind is all that matters. Both science and mathematics are mental constructs. Discussions on this forum are brought to you by mind. One’s reputation takes a “hit” by bringing up controversial topics, but someone has to do it. Ignoring it will not make it go away. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The brain is not a processor, but maybe a transducer. Transducer – a device that converts a signal in one form of energy to a signal in another. “Transduction is all around us, even in organic processes. Our bodies are completely encased by transducers. Our sense organs — eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin —transduce distinctive properties of electromagnetic radiation, air pressure waves, airborne chemicals, liquid-borne chemicals, textures, pressure, and temperature into distinctive patterns of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. Organic compounds can even be used these days to create new kinds of transducers, such as OECTs: organic electrochemical transistors.” A must-read article if you want to know where all of this is coming from: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-is-not-a-computer-it-is-a-transducer This also relates to the "Empty Brain" thread on one of the forums

To remove a large aneurysm close to the brain stem that was about to burst. Surgery was not an option due to the position of the aneurysm. A standstill operation (medically induced hypothermic cardiac arrest) was performed. Before the operation, the patient was in a medically-induced near-death state with heart and brain not functioning; body temperature reduced to about 50 degrees, breathing and heartbeat stopped, blood drained from her head, and eyes closed with tape and small ear plugs with speakers placed in her ears to monitor the brain stem and thus ensure that the patient had flatlined. Patient "reported that during the operation, she heard a sound like a natural 'D' that seemed to pull her out of her body and allowed her to "float" above the operating room and watch doctors perform the operation". Critics say that the patient had anesthesia awareness, because part of the operation was under anesthesia alone. Normaly, you don't "float away" during anesthesia awareness, but remain aware in your body. I am not claiming anything, but if this is true then there is a problem with our understanding of the mind-brain connection. Again, many more "stories' of mind functioning under major-major brain duress.

Dr. Sabom did the operation on Pam Reynolds, but it is not the only case. Because these are related to near death experiences, nobody even bothers to consider them. Eben Alexander also had memory, recognition and emotions on a heavily traumatized brain. Countless "stories" like those. Venture on the "wild' side and visit NDERF; warning - you will be entering Alice in Wonderland. To me, it is not about whether NDE's are real or not, but how mind can still express itself within a severely incapacitated or, possibly, absent brain.

Then how do you explain terminal lucidity in advanced Alzheimer patients with very severely damaged brains or patients with hearts stopped and brains drained of blood, both having complex thoughts that include memory, recognition, emotions and so on. In the former, one could expect some form of delusional, but not coherent thoughts, and in the latter, well, nothing at all or maybe synaptic miss-firing with nothing resembling thought processes. These are traumatic injuries to the brain without apparent consequences on mind.

Where is mind in the brain? unanswered How does the mind work through the brain? unanswered As long as these two questions remain undetermined, we cannot be absolutely certain that mind is brain based. A minority of neuroscientists are starting to have a look at panpsychism, because the data does not always seem to fit with a brain-based model Terminal lucidity and near-death experiences may be manifestations of mind outside brains, but the jury is still very much out on these two! Collective consciousness - Carl Jung Mind – another dimension or dimensionless (without time nor space) I do not think that you can query the subjective in the same manner as the objective. Also, if it exists, then you cannot discard it just because it cannot be measured. You find other ways. I remain sceptical that mind is outside of brain.

You are right! not my call! Will stand down!

Here is fine!

I was asking because of this: "After jumping into a black hole and passing the horizon, time and space change roles as now the singularity is not longer a point in space, but a moment in time."

Ok! let's have the conversation here!

But, its not the only one; see listing. And the listing is incomplete Also, this tread has moved to physics, astronomy and cosmology. Maybe we should continue the conversation there. I posted one that asks help understanding light-year. Under Determining Distance - split from consmic megastructure

Understood!