17 hours ago, CharonY said:

The issue I have is that our classification of instinctive behaviour is really only specific when we talk about (almost) reflexive behaviour. There are examples in higher vertebrates which at this point (and it took really long to establish that) are considered higher levels of thought and planning. But at a simpler level, often data is missing as we don't have good experimental designs that are not simply variations of the ways we think. This has led to the rise of newer concepts such as that of behavioral flexibility (i.e. some understanding that animal behavior is not necessarily bound by instinctual constraints).

A challenge which behavioural scientists are looking at is how identify what an animal understands about its environment how problems are solved using that knowledge. 

Agreed and that's precisely my position.  If we agree that evidence of mind is inferred by behaviors that suggest a thought process, then those thoughtful behaviors should be the antithesis of instinctive behaviors.  Indeed, evidence of mind could be suggested by other behaviors but, in view, no behavior consistently provides the clearest evidence of mind as those that are clearly contrary to reflexive, preprogrammed behaviors.

Indeed, they very definition of thoughtful behaviors could be those not "bound by instinctual constraint."  As I've observed in assessing the likely evolutional path of sensory acquisition in the human brain, much of its early sensory developments appear to have been devoted to various forms of tactile perception (touch, taste, sound, etc).  In ancestral animals, tactile perception likely necessitated and promoted reactive, reflexive behaviors because of the very real and immediate survival impact or threat associated with physical contact. When these animal sensory perception diversified into visual sensory, they evolved a means to assess the survival impact of their environment and experiences without the level of threat to their physical well-being posed by just tactile perception alone.  The enhancement visual sensory acquisition gave ancestral animals likely allowed them to better mediate their instinctive survival responses, which infers the primal emergence of mind-the emergence of behavioral expressions not bound by instinctual constraints. 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Probably it has been said already and I missed it, but one way to think about it is that a brain (and potentially similar structures) are necessary but likely not sufficient to whatever one might define as mind.

I agree that having just a brain isn't sufficient to produce the quality I define as mind; however, as I have discussed, a mind is inferred in organisms by behaviors that suggest a thought process.  In my view, the behaviors that most effectively suggest a thought process are those an organism engages that appear to be independent of its accessed instinctive behaviors. That distinction in brain function or similar neural functions in various speices is having a capacity to mediate its instinctive behavioral responses. We can assess when a species may have evolved such a capacity within it CNS by sensory acquistions that decrease their potential for instinctive responses. Not all structures that appear to function as a brain in some species suggest their potential to produce a mind as suggested to me by human brain structure. 

On 4/16/2024 at 1:49 PM, Luc Turpin said:

He also asks where is mind in the brain? In the cerebellum? no. even if 80% of neurons are located there? Still no! In the cortex? maybe, but why there and not somewhere else, he says. In the thalamus? He does not answer! in the Claustrum? mentions it at the end with still no definite answer.

Just a quick comment on this bit. This continuing question of "where is mind in the brain" is difficult to answer for some because they may not have fully considered the likely path of our brain's evolution. Theories about how our brain creates mind without some basic perspective or understanding of it's functional evolution is, IMO, no more than an uneducated guess.

Included in my definition of mind I said that it is quantified by a brain's capacity to integrate dichotomous sensory data with its memory stores to produce behaviors independent of instinct.  While investigating the likely evolutional path of the dreaming brain, I realized from my study that our brain retains significantly clear evidence of its path of evolution--from spinal cord to neocortex.

Along that path in the human brain, three significant developments had to occur: The thalamus, sensory perception diversification, and memory.  Prominent among these developments was the thalamus, which I have in previous discussion referred to as our proto-brain. but is perhaps best described as our instinctive brain.  For millions of years, as our central nervous system (CNS) evolved, our instinctive brain's primary sensory intake was tactile.  When you evaluate the current structure of our CNS from spinal cord to thalamus, you'll get a sense of the various stages of its evolutional history from simple sensory intake to increasingly complex forms of sensory intake. 

For millions of years, increasingly complex forms of tactile sensory intake evolved.  This is important to note because tactile sensory detection reinforces the need for the instinctive responses that evolved through thalamic function. Diversification in our brain's sensory perception evolution came with the acquistion and increasing prominence of visual perception.  Visual perception was a major diversion from tactile perception because it did not require direct physical contact with ancestral animals--with visual perception, these animals had a means to evaluate their responses without the energy expenditure tactile sensory responses likely required. 

From that last sentence, you should get a sense of my basis for mind in brain function.  Although there's much more that I haven't shared, I said this would be quick and hope this suffices for now.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

This thread might be better suited for the Speculations forum.

Perhaps, but with the direction of your natural/artificial selection argument we'd be debating the age old question of nature versus nurture--a debate that apparently won't be settled by or between us in any assigned forum.

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The point being made is that we easily remember what is right, but seldom acknowledge what is wrong with our well established scientific models.

Excellent point!

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Your citation doesn't support this.  The authors do not dispute that selective breeding was the primary cause of the shrinkage.  And they stress, in the paper, that the rebound effect (to a wild size brain) which took 50 generations, is rare and relates to an unusual effect called Dehnel's phenomenon.  The rebound effect appears to be a result of natural selection reinstated on a formerly domesticated (artificially selected) population.  Individuals with the smallest brains were less likely to successfully reproduce in the wild, thus a fairly strong selective pressure that yielded change within 50  generations.  

The evidence still supports that animals are adapting to a domesticated setting by being selectively bred for docility and lower fear response to human handlers.  Your study only suggests that some species may recover the phenotypic wild brain more quickly through strong selective pressure than others due to a predisposition like Dehnel's.

I am not a studier of evolutionary biology and I stated that the example I provided was indeed "rare".  I also stated that it was "my view" of the example and clearly the researchers conclusions differ from mine.  As I have stated in this discussion thread, I am seldom in agreement with author's conclusions provided in citations for various reasons.  Wild animals selectively bred to be docile would likely be selected from among animals captured and held in an environment that promotes docile behaviors. What need is there for an animal to behave aggressively where such pressures do not exist?  Again, "I" contend that the evidence suggest to me that the "experiences" of wild animals under domestication promotes a lineage of docile offspring.  Conversely, the "rare" reversal or phenomenon associated with animals returned to the wild is indeed a result of selective pressures--the pressures of their experiences in the wild.  Essentially, I am suggesting domestication is learned behavior past on to offspring with the effect of decreasing the need for aggressive behaviors among those animals--learning has the affect of influencing the brain architecture among the young of both humans and, apparently, other species.

On 4/5/2024 at 10:35 AM, TheVat said:

Domestication effects on phenotypic traits are driven by a mix of artificial selection and natural selection.  These effects are not operating within an individual species member in the way you describe.  

I tend to abbreviate my explanations in discussions here to make them accessible to all.  I understand how natural and artificial selection affects the brain of domesticated animals.  However, the science for me appears to suggest that both natural and artificial selection are essentially driven by the experiences of the animal rather than the experience/perspective of their domesticator.

There is no disagreement in the science that domesticated animals have smaller brains than their counterparts in the wild.  In the brains of domesticated species, the parts associated with aggression and fight/flight behaviors are significantly smaller than their versions in the wild.  The theory behind this difference is that the ancestry of domesticated animals were selectively bred by humans for their non-aggressive traits.  This would suggest that humans were unknowingly selecting and breeding animals with naturally smaller and smaller amygdalas.   I contend that this shinkage occurred as a result of the safe and relatively stable environment of the animal rather than selective breeding between decreasingly aggressive animals--these brain changes occurred because of the animals environment (experience) rather than breeding.  This perspective, in my view, is support by the rare reversal of brain volumn of domesticated animals that returned to the wild.  Some might suggests that such reversal is a result of natural selection, which again to me suggest the environmental adaptations in behavior that changed the brains of these animals.

On 4/5/2024 at 10:35 AM, TheVat said:

And  research doesn't support the level of retention you posit, and neuronal ensembles are far from retaining "the smallest detail of every sensory experience."  This is a theory that's been long discredited. 

The question I ask is, "Does experience influence brain architecture?"  The evidence suggest that it does.  The next question is, "What does this infer about the savant brain's architecture as it may relate to memory retention?"  It's clear the seemingly eidetic memory of certain savants involve some permanently accessible neural pathway to selectly detailed memories.  If evidence suggests experiences influence brain architecture and it also suggests the potential permenancy of that architectural influence, then the potential for access to the smallest detail of every architectural influence ever expeirenced is possible.  The seemingly eidetic brain function of the savant suggest to me that potential possibility regardless of what theory may have been discredited.

On 4/3/2024 at 10:07 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Agreed that memory must be frequently traveled or stimulated to be fully recalled. Where lies our differences is in the role that waves play in memory. For DanMP, waves are a byproduct of synaptic firing with apparently no role to play in memory. For you, it is eloquently worded as a reverberant stimulation along a set neural pathway (brain waves) that strengthens that path of recall to a prior or learned experience. Both views espouse that waves have either no or some sort of limited role in memory. As for myself, I believe that waves play a more prominent role that what is currently ascribed to them. Given that brain waves arise from a network activity of brain cells. However, what still remains unsettled “is whether brain waves drive activity or simply occur as a byproduct of neural activity that was already happening”. Traveling waves that spread across the cortex or hippocampal ripples that appear “to play a crucial role in coordinating these nerve cells” may be indications of the former and not the latter. As for how memories are created and stored in the brain, I make a clear break from convention and stipulate that the brain stores memory as codes of wave phase; the same principle as the one required for holograms to do what they do. More on this later as our discussion unfolds.

Through our discussion, I'm beginning to have a better understanding of memory as it may relate to the autistic savant's brain.  We know that experience changes brain structure, which is supported by the differences in brain volumn we have found between domesticated animals and those that live in the wild. Animals that live in the wild, tend to have larger brain volumns because their experiences are richer and more varyed than those we've domesticated or that live in our zoos. What this suggests for the human animal is that all of our experiences are in someway imprinted in/on our brain structure.  If this is true, we potentially have memory access to the smallest detail of every sensory experience we have ever encountered--which brings us back to the austistic savant's brain.

The memory recall and mathematically abilities of certain celebrated savants are extraordinary. These extraordinary individuals are able to access their memories as though viewing a detail snapshot or imprint of some prior or learned experiences.  The difference between our brain and those of a savant involves the permanency of their neural pathways of recall--in this way memory ins't the imprinted prior or learned experiences, but rather the permanent neural pathways of recall linked to those imprinted experiences.

In pondering what I mean by permanent neural pathways of recall in the savant brain, I'm referring to some pronounced or incessant reverberant neural stimulation that those pathways must be experiencing.  This appears to align with a perspective shared on this site by an austic individual who described how his overwhelming sensory experiences preclude his ability to look and listen to a person at the same time.  

On 4/1/2024 at 2:49 PM, Luc Turpin said:

I am entirely in agreement with the above indicated statement. There is indeed copious research on enhanced acuity in brain function after sleep. And I agree as well that sleep disruptions during studies must have an impact on the data set.

Furthermore, I would like to know your opinion on the statement that newer evidence appears to show that brain waves are also involved in memory storage.

Do you agreee or have an explanation for why this may not be the case?

Memory regards our ability to recall a prior or learned experience.  My take on memory storage and brain waves goes back to my analogy of the well traveled path between destinations in that the path of or to a memory must be frequently traveled or stimulated to be fully recalled.  Reverberant stimulation along a set neural pathway (brain waves) stengthens that path of recall to a prior or learned experience. Memory isn't the experience itself, it's the path of conscious recall within the brain to that experience.

On 4/1/2024 at 2:49 PM, Luc Turpin said:

If I apply your determinants of mind (sensory system, response system, thought process and independent of instinct) to the probable mind in nature examples, I come up with the following results:  all meet the first two determinants (sensory-response systems), most the third (though process) and a few the fourth and last determinant (independent of instinct). Are you in agreement with this assessment?

Assessing whether mind is suggested by any organism we identify regards our ability to assess whether it behaves in a way that is independent of what we have identified as its instinctive behavior.  Behavior is a response to stimuli; therefore, the organism must have a both an observable or testable sensory and response system.  Evidence of a mind would be produced by the organism's response systems, which we would observe as its behaviors.  If any of the animal examples you've consider for the presence of mind displayed behaviors identified as non-instinctive, that animal likely has a mind--of course consideration must be given for whether the animal's non-instinctive behavior was caused by an abnormality or disease affecting its brain function.

15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The general-conventional consensus was that neurons stored memories:

“Memory is the reactivation of a specific group of neurons, formed from persistent changes in the strength of connections between neurons.”

“The brain stores memories by changing how neurons talk to each other. When one neuron fires an actional potential, another neuron activates. Over time, this connection gets stronger.”

But newer evidence appears to show that brain waves are also involved in memory storage.

“Hippocampal ripples were observed to play a crucial role in coordinating these nerve cells, suggesting their importance in memory formation and retrieval.”

https://neurosciencenews.com/memory-brain-waves-25630/

“Traveling waves influencing the storage and retrieval of memory”

"Broadly, we found that waves tended to move from the back of the brain to the front while patients were putting something into their memory,"

"When patients were later searching to recall the same information, those waves moved in the opposite direction, from the front towards the back of the brain,"

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-brain-memories-recalled.html

There are many other recent findings that indicate a combination of cell activation and brain wave in the formation and storage of memories.

So, what’s the big deal? This opens the possibility that memories are stored like in a hologram.  Speculating here, but with evidence and possible theoretical model -  Hologramic Theory of Mind.

With memory, there's this generally accepted idea that the brain produces two types:  Short-term working memory and long-term memory.  Relative to the dreaming brain, the accepted idea is that dreaming is one way in which our brain consolidates short-term memories into long-term memory.  To support this idea, copious research has revealed enhanced acuity in brain function only after it has received sufficient dreaming-level (REM) sleep--however, as I have so often discovered, the researchers conclusions are flawed, which brings us back to the neuronal nature of memory.

In brief, the conclusions sleep/memory researchers have reached suggest that memory is like food stock in a refrigerator (short-term memory) that dreaming consolidates or move into freezer storage (long-term memory).  This conclusion is flawed because it doesn't account for the effects of our brain's glymphatic system. Briefly, brain activity creates cell waste and the glymphatic process is how the brain cleans itself. Researchers of sleep and dreaming have not accounted for the effects of that process in their research.

Sleep/memory researchers gauge the acuity effects of waking and testing sleep study participant amid the various stages of sleep. Their sleep interruption study approach impedes the brain's ability to clean itself, which occurs more efficiently during sleep.  These interruptions impede the brain ability to remove obstructions between cell communication--allow our brain to complete its sleep cycles enhances the connectivity between its neurons, which enhances functional acuity.

In my view, which appears to be alligned with your neuroscience citations, memory isn't analogous to moving food stock from refrigerator to freezer; memory is a well worn path between destinations that gets lost or forgotten if not traveled often and cleared of debris.

15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I was using consciousness and mind interchangeably. Moving onward in our discussion, I will adopt your definitions of both terms. Consciousness is merely having a sensory system; a precondition for a response system, which is essential to the construct of min. And having a mind is reserved to organisms whose behaviors suggest a thought process.

As a result of the preceding, do these behaviors indicated below suggest a thought process?

“Matabele ants recognize infected wounds and treat them with antibiotics”

“If the wounds become infected, there is a significant survival risk. However, Matabele ants have developed a sophisticated health care system: They can distinguish between non-infected and infected wounds and treat the latter efficiently with antibiotics they produce themselves”.

Targeted treatment of injured nestmates with antimicrobial compounds in an ant society | Nature Communications

 

Bee-2-Bee influencing: Bees master complex tasks through social interaction

“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. Individual bees failed to solve the puzzle without previous demonstration, despite extensive exposure.

Bumblebees socially learn behaviour too complex to innovate alone | Nature

 

Clown anemonefish seem to be counting bars and laying down the law

“We often think of fish as carefree swimmers in the ocean, reacting to the world around them without much forethought. However, new research suggests that our marine cousins may be more cognizant than we credit them for. Fish may be counting vertical bars on intruders to determine their threat level, and to inform the social hierarchy governing their sea anemone colonies”.

Counting Nemo: anemonefish Amphiprion ocellaris identify species by number of white bars | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists

 

Octopus

“They can complete puzzles, untie knots, open jars and toddler proof cases, and are expert escape artists from aquariums. Even more fascinating—their intelligence stems from a completely unrelated path to human intelligence, and about two-thirds of their neurons are in their arms, not their head.” 

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/why-octopus-brain-so-extraordinary#:~:text=They%20can%20complete%20puzzles%2C%20untie,their%20arms%2C%20not%20their%20head.

How I determine whether an organism's behavior suggest it has a mind is by asking myself if that organism is behaving in way that is independent of its instinctive nature.  If an organism is engaging in a behavior that does not align with what we know of its instinctive behaviors, then we may infer from the behaviors we observe that the organism has engaged a choice not to follow its instinct, which to me suggest a thought process.  Indeed, behaviors that suggest a thought process infers evidence of a mind and, by my definition, a mind is quantified by a brain's capacity to merge dichotomous sensory data with its memory stores in a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct.

8 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

We do not know what consciousness is, let alone how it works.

We do not know how the brain really thinks beyond synapses and chemicals.

Also, the body does more than we think it does and nature thinks more than we think it does.

That is what I think!

I have presented arguments, information and evidence to that effect in past posts and will continue to do so in future ones.

correction: We do not know how the brain really thinks beyond synapses and molecules.

Knowing what consciousness is and how it works depends on one's definition of consciousness.  Excluding various faiths and philosophies, the science suggest to me that consciousness is merely a basic awareness suggested by an organism's observed behavioral responses to stimuli and nothing more than that.  In my view, every living organism potentially has some level of consciousness, which is simply some level of sensory awareness of its environment.  In my view, consciousness and mind are not synonymous--consciousness is a precursor to or prerequisite for mind.

Although some ascribe consciousness with some salient or spirital quality, for me it is merely a term that identifies an organism as having a sensory system.  Having a sensory system, for me, does not suggest that an organism has a mind; however, having a sensory system is essential for building the response systems essential to the construct of mind--mind is a product of our brain's response systems.  For example, during dream sleep, your identity of self relative to your life and sleep environment is lost to that dreaming state.  It is only when you awake from the dream state that you become fully aware of who you are relative to physical reality.  This happens because our brain does not have full access to the body's sensory system amid the dream state.  We regain our full sense of self when we arouse from dream sleep as our brain reconnects to the body's sensory because that connection stimulates those neural pathways our brain uses to navigate our physical/material reality--it is our connection to our body the reminds us of who we are relative to our reality when we awake.

Mind and consciousness are not the same because, in my view, having mind is reserved for organisms whose behaviors suggest a thought process.  Before ascribing mind to an organism that organism's should demonstrate it's ability to engage behaviors contrary to its instinctive behaviors.  For example, if you heard a sudden loud bang from behind, your instinct might be to distance yourself from that noise.  If instead the noise came from a person in front of you who popped a balloon, you might not react from fear because you could visually assess the balloon pop threat level--your ability to engage thoughtful behaviors contrary to your fears suggests you have a mind.

On 3/28/2024 at 7:33 AM, Luc Turpin said:

My main contention in our discussion remains that evidence-observations do not match up with our current understanding of how mind works. More on this later.

As for "categories' being used in the discussion, here is a simplification that may help in understanding:

• Mind from brain: Mind is the exclusive domain of the brain with body providing energy, stimuli and senses to the brain
• Mind from brain and body: Brain plays the predominant role in mind while body provides energy, stimuli and senses, but also aids in memory, emotion, cognition etc. 
• Mind through brain: The brain and body become conduits for mind residing outside of the body and brain. The mind is the signal and the brain is the television set.

I have used these categories in our discussion, because I believe that they help a bit in comprehension. But do be reminded that they are mine and arbitrary in nature. Hence my opening statement that the main topic of discussion is about data not matching up to evidence rather than mind-brain categorisation.

I hope this helps a little, and indeed I believe as well that we don't agree on the nature of the partnership. I think that your position is more in line with the mind from body model, while mine is more in line with the mind from brain and body model.

In light of this being a discussion broader than categorisation, here are two links to newer findings that I would like you to comment on:

Brain waves found to travel in one direction when memories are made and the opposite when recalled.url

Evidence early, but emerging, that gamma rhythm stimulation can treat neurological disorders.url

So, are we not moving a bit the needle here in determining that it is not only about synapses and molecules, but maybe also about waves and frequencies?

Or am I the one stuck in the past still thinking that the neuro-science field is even now only contemplating molecules and synapses?

Note: These are but only two of many examples of studies finding out that waves and frequencies affect the brain. Or, more broadly, that the brain does not work as expected.

Brain waves found to travel in one direction when memories are made and the opposite when recalled.url 93 B · 2 downloads Evidence early, but emerging, that gamma rhythm stimulation can treat neurological disorders.url 106 B · 0 downloads

If I now understand correctly, this discussion for you is broader than our separate views on the various theories about how mind originates.  For you, if I understand, our discussion is also about how the evidence either supports or invalidates those theories.  Although I believe there's sufficient evidence supporting a consensus for mind emergence, you believe differring interpretations of the evidence belie that consensus.

Again, if I understand correctly, you perceive my perspective as aligned with mind-from-brain with body merely its vessel and sensory array.  As you've offerred, your perspective is aligned with mind-from-brain and body with body as an "active participant" in memory, emotion, and cognition.  In support of your position, you've offerred various citations suggesting that memory, emotion, and cognition may reside elsewhere in the body.  If true, let's begin with memory.

This idea of memory transference from cells, bio-matrices, or organs to the brain suggest the transference of these aspects learned experiences from the body external and subordinant to the brain.  I don't readily accept evidence of any claim by the title of a paper or by the conclusions of its author.  It has been my experience that all papers are in someway biased by the predisposition, objectives, and/or poor science of their authors. So when I explore claims of memory transference from aspects of the body subordinant to the brain, I'm the devil's advocate--I look for flaws and ask myself if these are sufficient to invalidate a claim.

Admittedly, I have a predisposed bias to citations and rarely review them in their entirety.  But I've prevoiusly read several papers on memory transference with organ transplants and have found them all insufficient for baseline evaluations of transplant recipients.  I found their author's investigations should have included a thorough psychological assessment of their subject's history and suggestibility, which would explain their behaviors subsequent to the transplant. 

Regarding the notion of cell memory transference or "Do cells think", I agree that there is a type of memory transference between cells, but not between cellular matrices and the brain.  The memory transference I speak of is described by what happens between cells to adapt to pathogens.  To answer whether cells think, one must ask whether cells engage behaviors contrary to their instinctive nature--whether cell behaviors suggest a brain-equivalent thought process. 

Your perspective on brain-body interplay also offerred emotion and cognition as a body contribution to the mind our brain constructs.  Emotion is an efferent response and exclusive domian of brain function.  The emotional influence of our brain's subsystems does not describe a package (emotion) delivered to the brain, but instead describe our brain's reaction to that package--which is precisely the same with cognition.

More recently, you've offerred citations suggesting the potential influence of wave forces external to the brain.  It's true, wave forces such as those generated by strong magnetic fields have been shown to have a direct affect on brain function.  This, perhaps, would be the only evidence of support for a wave field external to the brain that has an affect on the mind the brain creates--but this is about resphaping, adjusting or, possibly, ameliorate what's already there in the brain rather than implanting something external to the brain. 

11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

A mind through brain model is not required to explain memories from organ transplants nor physical transformations due to multiple personality disorders. What is required is a modification of the mind from brain only model to a mind from brain and body model. However, what would constitute an indication of mind through brain is your suggestion that a head trauma patient coming out of a coma would begin speaking a foreign language unknown to him before the trauma. I do not believe this to be possible, but would nonetheless constitute probable evidence of mind being processed through the brain, if it was so.

It's admittedly difficult to understand your perspective of the idea of mind-through-brain, which you've offerred for our consideration and discussion.  The wording of this idea suggest that the brain is merely a conduit for the mind, which is secondary to something else.  I also understand the of perception of mind-from-brain as suggesting mind originates from no other factor other than the brain.  I believe your counter to that perception has been the idea of mind as a partnership between brain and body. If true, I agree that mind originates from a partnerships between brain and body.  However, I don't believe we agree on the nature of that partnership.

Foreign Accent Syndrome is a speech disorder that can occur as a result of brain trauma.  People with this disorder speak with accent perceived as not native to their own.  Other than an individual with savant syndrome, there's indeed no record of spontaneous acquisition of a foreign language due to brain trauma--a tangent that required my correction.

In support of the idea of mind-through-brain, you've offerred citations suggesting memory transfers through transplants.  These types of citations appear to support the idea of brain being a "conduit" for memories residing in the transplanted origin. My perspective of these types of citations is that they merely reflect the brain's responses to the transplant with something already present in the mind of the transplant's recipient through that recipient's prior knowledge or life experiences.

Mind-from-brain, in my view, does indeed involve a partnership between brain and body.  Without body--without a means to sense and engage life experience--our brain is incapable of producing a mind.  Mind is our brain's cognitive response to stimuli and there is no mind without a brain's capacity to experience stimuli--our body is our brain's vehicle for experiencing stimuli.    

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

First, there is nothing in my last post to you that tends towards showing mind residing outside of brains; only that the body may play a more prominent role in mind than anticipated.

Yes, and I have offered my perspective of the role of the body as a sensory array for engaging life experiences that basically support the metabolic/homostatic imperative of the brain and brain function. 

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Second, let's be honest here; based on the strict definition and application of the mind from brain only model, who would seriously have expected that an organ transplant would lead to memory transfer and major personality changes? Or that a multiple personality disorder would bring about such dramatic physical transformations! I am sure that some of you were surprised, even perplexed by this. At the very least, this needs to be acknowledged. Acknowledgement is also warranted for other material posted by me that were both unexpected findings and inconclusive of mind from brain. How can the possibility that organs have and pass on memories or other findings previously provided in this thread fit in tightly and neatly with a mind from brain only model? Do remember that memory to cells was also the conclusion in the flatworm experiments provided earlier. And that electrical fields affect body shapes! This also unexpected.

I'd perfer not to have my focus and discussions diverted by a tangent maze of multiple citations.  So my focus has regarded what I believed to be the point you were trying to convey with all of your citations.   When you provide citations focusing on "memory transfer and major personality changes" after transplants, it's quite clear your position isn't just about the prominent role of the body in the formation of mind.  You are clearly providing support for our consideration of "mind-through-brain," which is counter to the more proven and provable position of "mind-from-brain."

If you're promoting consideration of mind-through-brain evidence, that idea infers the emergence of mind or indeed a piece of mind from a location external to the brain.  After considering the whole of the citations you've provided, I see that they are flawed.  Firstly, self-reported and anecdotal reports or observations of memory transfers and personality changes after organ transplants are not solid science. No where in any of these types of citations have I found discussion of how prior knowledge of the donor or of the donor's lifestyle might have influenced the organ recipient's thoughts and behaviors.  For example, one citation mentioned a recipient's aquired taste for beer after receiving the organ of a donor who died in a motorcycle accident.  As a scientist, I'd ask, "How much did the donor recipient know about the donor before and after their transplant?"  I'd ask, "What impact did that knowledge have on the psychology of the recipient?" As a scientist, there should have been a baseline assessment of the recipient's life and personality prior to receiving any knowledge of the recipient.  It may be that the recipient's prior knowledge of bikers influence the psychological impact of receiving an organ from a biker.  This is akin to people who experience head trauma and awaken one day speaking a different language or with a foreign accent--the inference is that the trauma these people experience unlock some unconscious store of life experience associated with that foreign language or accent.

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Congenital blindness does not entail mind loss, but brain transformation, as would be expected from either a mind from brain or mind through brain model. 

Indeed it does, like an atrophied muscle through non-use.  However, this type of brain transformation doesn't fit the mind-through-brain model.  Again, that idea appears to suggest that mind has to come from somewhere external to the brain--that mind has to be input to the brain before mind can be created and expressed by the brain.

15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Amputation causes a whole cascade of effects: depression, anxiety, self-esteem issues, distorted body image, change in personality, cognition impairment, change in body schema. Most are probably actuated by the brain, but how would we know if it was not, in some small sense, also coming from the body?  How could we disentangle the two?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where it gets interesting is for organ transplants,  

 “Personality changes may occur following organ transplants: In some case, organ recipients report personality changes that parallel the personality of their donor; Some organ recipients “remember” events from their donor’s life. Cellular memories stored outside the brain may transfer information from organ donors to recipients."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-leading-edge/202402/do-organ-transplants-cause-personality-change-in-recipients#:~:text=In%20some%20cases%2C%20organ%20recipients,from%20organ%20donors%20to%20recipients.

“When excluding changes in physical attributes, 89.3% of all transplant recipients reported experiencing a personality change after receiving their organ transplant.”

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3943/5/1/2#:~:text=Among%20heart%20transplant%20recipients%20who,four%20or%20more%20personality%20changes

Another article presenting types of personality changes

Physical Attributes* 19 (95.7) 13 (54.2) 32 (68.1)	Temperament 14 (60.9) 12 (50.0) 26 (55.3)	Emotions (happy, sad, etc.) 12 (52.2) 14 (58.3) 26 (55.3)
Food 11 (47.8) 8 (33.3) 19 (40.4)	Participating or Watching Sports 7 (30.4) 2 (8.3) 9 (19.1	Physical Activities 6 (26.1) 7 (29.2) 13 (27.7)
Personal Identity 4 (17.4) 4 (16.7) 8 (17.0)	Movies/TV 3 (13.0) 1 (4.2) 4 (8.5)	Religious/spiritual Beliefs 3 (13.0) 3 (12.5) 6 (12.8)
Sexual Preferences 3 (13.0) 1 (4.2) 4 (8.5)	Memories 2 (8.7) 5 (20.8) 7 (14.9)	Music 2 (8.7) 3 (12.5) 5 (10.6)
Art 0 (0) 1 (4.2) 1 (2.1)	Colors 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)	Electronic Devices 0 (0) 2 (8.3) 2 (4.2)
Political views 0 (0) 1 (4.2) 1 (2.1	ANY (excluding Physical Attributes) 21 (91.3) 21 (87.5) 42 (89.3

file:///C:/Users/Dad/Downloads/preprints202309.1894.v1%202.pdf

“Changes in heart transplant recipients that parallel the personalities of their donors”

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/HeartorBrain2_Pearsall-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_2002-20-191-206.pdf

A theory about it!

"Can an Organ Transplant Change A Recipient's Personality? Cell Memory Theory Affirms "Yes"" 

https://www.medicaldaily.com/can-organ-transplant-change-recipients-personality-cell-memory-theory-affirms-yes-247498

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 And it gets really interesting is in dissociative identity disorder where the brain actually changes the body.

"The different identities, referred to as alters, may exhibit differences in speech, manerism, attitudes, thoughts and gender orientation. The alter may even present physical differences, such as allergies, right-or-left handedness or the need for eyeglass prescriptions. These differences between alters are often quite striking".

https://namimi.org/mental-illness/dissociative-disorder/didfactsheet#:~:text=The%20different%20identities%2C%20referred%20to,the%20need%20for%20eyeglass%20prescriptions.

"These include the abrupt appearance and disappearance of rashes, welts, scars and other tissue wounds; switches in handwriting and handedness;" .

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/28/science/probing-the-enigma-of-multiple-personality.html

“Multiple personality disorder has been associated with marked psychophysiologic alterations ever since careful clinical observations have been made on this perplexing disorder. Physical symptoms known to be associated with multiple personality include headaches, conversion symptoms, changes in voice, seizure-like activity, unexplained pain or insensitivity to pain, alterations in handedness or handwriting style, palpitations, alterations in respiration, gastrointestinal disturbances including bulimia and anorexia, menstrual irregularities, sexual dysfunction, and dermatological conditions including unusual allergic responses and differential responses to medication. Early scientific studies on the galvanic skin response in multiple personality disorder were conducted by Prince in the erly twentieth century. Since 1970 there has been a resurgence of interest in multiple personality disorder including sophisticated studies of physical symptoms, brain-wave activity, visual evoked potential, regional cerebral blood fWw, visual refraction, muscle activity, cardiac and respiratory activity, galvanic skin response, and the switch process. In addition to describing these studies, the etiology of multiple personality disorder and future directions in research will be discussed.”

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36679938.pdf

“Visual function in multiple personality disorder”

“Background: Multiple personality disorder (MPD) is characterized by the existence of two or more personality states that recurrently exchange control over the behavior of the individual. Numerous reports indicate physiological differences, including significant differences in ocular and visual function, across alter personality states in MPD.”

“Results: Physiologic differences across alter personality states in MPD include differences in dominant handedness, response to the same medication, allergic sensitivities, autonomic and endocrine function, EEG, VEP, and regional cerebral blood flow. Differences in visual function include variability in visual acuity, refraction, oculomotor status, visual field, color vision, corneal curvature, pupil size, and intraocular pressure in the various personality states of MPD subjects as compared to single personality controls.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8888853/#:~:text=Results%3A%20Physiologic%20differences%20across%20alter,and%20regional%20cerebral%20blood%20flow.

“Individuals with dissociative identity disorder (DID) have been known to show varied skills and talents as they change from one dissociative state to another. For example, case reports have described people who have changed their handedness or have spoken foreign languages during their dissociative states.” 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766827/#:~:text=Individuals%20with%20dissociative%20identity%20disorder,languages%20during%20their%20dissociative%20states.

If this evidence-observations are correct, how does this fit in a mind from brain model?

 

I understand the point you're attempting to convey with all of this, which is that these are all at least some psychological evidence that parts of the mind may exist elsewhere in the body and, by extension, part of mind may exist external to the body.  It's true that trauma changes the mind our brain creates, but the psychological effects of trauma isn't truly evidence that mind has lost pieces of itself with that truama--it's not evidence that parts of the mind exist in the parts of the body lost or exposed to trauma.

The psychological effects of truama simply shows how easily brain's responses are influenced by truama, which is how easily the mind our brain constructs may be influenced by the data it receives through its sensory array.  For example, congenital blindness doesn't suggest that parts of the mind are lost to what some are unable to see nor does it suggest that parts of the mind reside in our eyes.  What blindness shows is how the lack of access to visual sensory data affects the mind our brain is able to construct--the parts of the brain associated with our responses to visual sensory do not respond or function as efficiently without that sensory data.  In another example, the lost of a hand doesn't suggest that a piece of the mind is lost with that hand.  The mind our brain constructs through the lost of a limb merely suggests our brain's reaction to the lost of access to the sensory data that limb has or could have provided.

Psychological effects, to be clear, are not evidence that pieces of the mind reside elsewhere no more than the depression some experience on rainy days suggests that pieces of the mind reside in sunlight or is blotted out by that rain.  The changes in our mental state are merely evidence of the fragility of the balance between the afferent influences on brain functions and our brain's efferent responses to those influences. 

15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

But, It may be a magician's hat with many surprises in it!☺️

That may be true, but the real magic is in the mind of the magician who head that hat likely sits upon.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

 Apologies, woke up more susceptible for no apparent reason yesterday.

Your participation in this thread is essential.

Your knowledge, your intelligence and your sound theory on mind-brain pushes me to think and rethink things as we progress in our discussion.

No aplologies are necessary and I, sincerely, appreciate our participation in this discussion.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I believe that one of our main differences between you and I is about certainty in the matter of mind and brain. You believe, based on knowledge-observation acquired a while ago (no disrespect intended here) that mind is created by brain. While I believe that more recent evidence-observation indicates that it might not work like that, that it might be mind through brain. I reiterate that the "jury" is still very much out on this one. What makes it difficult for both of us in this discussion is that there would be only subtle differences between both in how the brain would appear to operate. So most of the evidence-observations that supports the mind from brain would support either one, while newer findings appear to show at least that it might not be that simple, that something is amiss, that it might be a different type of operating system.

Take for example the topic of interplay between brain and body. You see it as the brain taking what resources it needs from the body and creating mind on itself. While a mind through brain theory could (as in not a definite possibility; given for example only) see mind being expressed in the brain and body and expressed differently in the brain than in the body. The consolidation of the appearance of mind, whether coming solely from brain or from a "montage" created by brain and body, would be very similar in appearance and be hard to differentiate from one another. One has body in a supporting role while the other has body in a participative role, but both have similar outputs (mind). Brain takes in what it needs from the body and makes it happen, while mind goes through brain and body with different outcomes which are collated together to create mind (not entirely sure of this last statement, because it brings up the binding issue).

As I mentioned in previous comments, I have a proclivity for perceiving the simplest form of things.  When I evaluated the science on the collaboration of brain and body to create mind, I perceive the distinct role each appears to play in that collaboration. 

In considering the science of brain and body as progenitors of mind, I've asked myself, "What is mind relative to the brain and what is mind relative to the body?"  The science informs me that mind is a cognitive response of brain function and the evidence suggests that mind does not exist without brain function.  Relative to the body, the science informs me that the body is merely a vehicle that facilitates the brain's survival imperative.  From this perspective one might ask, "So how important is the body to the brain functions that produce a mind?"  The answer to that question has been provided for centuries through effects of war, experiment, and everyday accidents the body has experienced.

Ask yourself, "Has a history of non-fatal body dismemberment showed the disappearance of mind?" Has a significant lost of limbs or removal of prominent organs consistently resulted in a deminished capacity of our brain's ability to produce a mind?  Although there may be psychological effects associated with these, those effects are treatable and not consistently permanent.  So how important is the body to the brain's production of mind when significant bodily damage doesn't inhibit that production?  My certainty of the role of body in the interplay that produces mind is rooted in a clear perspective of that role.

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

No disagreement as to the foundation of mind, but the picture does not end at the foundation. There is apparently a lot that sits on top of the foundation. Mind needs brain and body to fully express itself in a mind through brain theory. Energy is required for both theories to work.

A discussion of the things that sit on top of the mind's foundation, in my view, is discussion of the hat that sits upon a head-- the thinking actually occurs below the hat.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

You very well know that I was not talking only about the enteric system, but the possible interplay between brain and body as a whole. Mind is a holistic process with brain doing the heavy-duty work and body possibly doing some of it. Its an interplay, not a one-way. It's a painting, where most of the painting is done by the brain and the body fills in the gaps to create the whole. I gave references to that; not coming from me, but from others.

I understood your comments regarding the enteric system as an example of the "interplay between brain and body as a whole."  My subsequent response regarded how I perceive your example's specific role in that interplay.  If I now understand correctly, you perceive mind in a "holistic" form or as a result of a "holistic process."  If correct, then I agree with the perspective that mind is indeed a product of a holistic process.  In my view, our only disagreement here is how that process operates.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind-brain interaction is much more than homeostasis and energy balance and metabolism.

I have said that you are right in all of your assertions, but evidence-observation tend towards a picture that is more than this. Not that you are wrong, but that there is more.

What could possibly be more to the foundation of mind than the engine and energy that powers the brain functions generating the mind.  Mind, to be clear, doesn't exist without brain function and brain function does not occur without the energy driving that function.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

You always come back with a categorical position with no movement and no consideration for evidence-observation. No consideration, only rebuttals.

I am always wrong in all of my statements, even when backed with possible evidence-observations. All positions are categorically rejected without even slight consideration.

Then, why do we even bother discussing if I am always wrong and there is not even the slightest chance of movement?

The evidence and observations for me have been incredibly clear, which is why I may be perceived as ridgid in expressing my views.  However, I do not perceive our exchanges as an issue of who's right and who's wrong, but rather a discussion of point-counterpoint.  I enjoy these exchanges as they compel me to re-evaluate and sharpen my perspective when challenged.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

If "I do not grasp the nature of thought and mind in its most basic form", then others more versed on the matter than I do so and have said that the story is incomplete.

By the way, Chalmers won his bet and there is still no consensus in neuroscience on how the brain creates the mind. That is not me talking, but the whole of this science field. You say you know, without an inkling of a doubt, which is not possible in science. One theory supersedes another when data becomes available, or at least the theory is tweaked to take into consideration new information.

No tweaking possible here.

Ceci n'est pas une discussion mais une conversation de sourd.

 

These discussions have sharpen my perspective and have allowed me to share what little insight I managed to glean over the years.  If there's no consensus in neuroscience on the nature of mind, it's not because there isn't sufficient evidence for same--IMO.

29 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Only fueling the generator or also participating in the dance? getting harder to tell!

The enteric system can work separately from the nervous system.

"The gut-brain axis is a bidirectional communication network that links the enteric and central nervous systems. This network is not only anatomical, but it extends to include endocrine, humoral, metabolic, and immune routes of communication as well. The autonomic nervous system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and nerves within the gastrointestinal tract, all link the gut and the brain, allowing the brain to influence intestinal activities, including activity of functional immune effector cells; and the gut to influence mood, cognition, and mental health."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469458/

"How gut bacteria are controlling your brain"

"Over the last few decades, researchers have started to uncover curious, compelling – and sometimes controversial – evidence to suggest that the gut microbiota doesn't just help to keep our brains in prime working order by helping to free up nutrients for it from our food, but may also help to shape our very thoughts and behaviour. "

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230120-how-gut-bacteria-are-controlling-your-brain

"Thinking from the gut"

"The gut-brain axis seems to be bidirectional—the brain acts on gastrointestinal and immune functions that help to shape the gut's microbial makeup, and gut microbes make neuroactive compounds, including neurotransmitters and metabolites that also act on the brain."

https://www.nature.com/articles/518S13a#:~:text=The gut-brain axis seems,also act on the brain.

Gut instincts: The secrets of your second brain

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628951-900-gut-instincts-the-secrets-of-your-second-brain/

I could dig deeper into the data to find how complex, integrated and interchangeable the roles appear, but evidence and observations tend to get lost in the discussion.

This is one of many attemps to resolve the easy problems. All of them do not address the hard problem. If it did, Chalmers would have lost his bet in 2023. Bold-large text not mine.

"The easy problems are easy precisely because they concern the explanation of cognitive abilities and functions. To explain a cognitive function, we need only specify a mechanism that can perform the function. The methods of cognitive science are well-suited for this sort of explanation, and so are well-suited to the easy problems of consciousness. By contrast, the hard problem is hard precisely because it is not a problem about the performance of functions. The problem persists even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained … What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions. To see this, note that even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience … there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? A simple explanation of the functions leaves this question open … Why doesn't all this information-processing go on “in the dark,” free of any inner feel?"

 

 

I am well versed in the nature of the enteric system and its influence on brain function, but is enteric a mind or a component of the mind?  As I explained, mind is the cognitive environment that emerges within the brain itself from brain function. As an influence upon brain function, the enteric system is merely a contributor to that function that unconsciously feul the responses within the brain that generates mind.  The enteric system may be a secondary brain that controls subsystems in the body that influence brain function, but it doesn't produce a mind--it doesn't engage in the independent thought processes suggestive of a mind.

Having a mind allows an organism's engagement of behaviors independent of its instincts.  These are the behaviors that suggest a thought process.  That behavior doesn't manifest in the gut.  That "gut feeling" some of us boast about is merely our brain's reaction to an extension of its sensory array.  Mind is essentially our brain's cognitive reaction to sensory input.

Chalmers lost his bet because he didn't full grasp the primary nature of brain function.  Most perceive mind and brain function as essentially a collection of synaptic discharges.  I perceive mind and brain function through the metabolic processes at the basis of those synaptic activities.  From single cell to complex organism, the primary imperative of these lifeforms is homestasis, which is an imperative to maintain metabolic stability.  In the brain, homestasis isn't a thought process, it's the metabolic mechanism that powers and drive those processes.  When you fully grasp the nature of homestasis in brain function, you will grasp the nature of thought and mind in its most basic form.

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Your last several responses have been excellent and I agree with most of this last one too, but might pushback slightly on this final bit I’ve quoted since we see so much involvement from the spine and nervous system more broadly, plus the gut biome, for example.

While Luc is a bit too extreme on the panpsychism front IMO, I do think limiting ourselves to just the brain when exploring this topic is also a bit too conservative and restrictive to provide us all with a full and accurate picture. 

Either way, thanks for the contributions and clarity they’ve added. It’s been much needed and appreciated. ✌️

I understand and the fault is mine.  I have a proclivative for preceiving the most basic form of things and I may not have fully explained this reductionist perspective.  There are two basic components of my overall perspective and mind is just one component.

Brain function comprises a balance between afferent (input) and efferent (output) components.  Affects that channel into our central nervous system from source external to core brain function provide the impetus for that function.  Our brain's functional responses to that impetus are its efferent output.  The cognitive environment within the brain that emerges as mind is an efferent response to affects external to core brain functions, such as gut biome.

Indeed, mind and brain are distinct with the former being an enironment of cognitive activity and the latter being the structure that generates that cognitive activity.  However, when we discuss the involvement of components external to the brain, it's a discussion about the intake feuling the generator that creates mind. 

The key takeaway from all of this is that afferent influences do not comprise the mind, they are merely the stimulus that generate the confluence of brain responses that merge to create the mind.

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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?

The question of emergence and confluence is answerable by an imperative of brain function, which I briefly explored in previous discussions. The primary imperative of brain function is homeostasis, which our brain's functional effort to maintain its metabolic balance. It's a delicate balance that is influenced by everything we sense, perceive, and experience from in vitro until brain death.  Life experience stimulates brain activity, which consumes our brain's energy uptake. The mental and behavior responses our brain generates provides a conterbalance to that stimulation.  For example, my comments here have an afferent neural affect on the brain function of those who read them.  It's a reverberant neural effect that expends energy and does not wane without a response that has a nullifying effect.   For some, that nullifying effect may be to ignore my comments or, for other, to ponder a responses.  The effect of all of this in the brain is its effort to effect a neural counterbalance to a specific reverberant stimuli compromising it metabolic balance--which is essentially the metabolic nature of thought.

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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!

I believe it was CharonY who initially asked how you define the mind and your comments above appears to at least suggest how you perceive mind relative to the brain.  Your comments suggest to me that you perceive mind as something whole and singular that emerges from or residing in a specific place relative to brain function or structure.  If true, that perception is wrong.

Mind isn't a localized quality. Mind is the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that emerges from a conflunce of brain function rather than from some specific brain structure or source.  Mind is a construct of brain function that isn't fully realized when any component of that function is compromised.  Through homestatsis, mind emerges as an efferent response to afferent stimuli.  Even more, mind is evinced by and is exclusive to behavioral expressions that suggest a thought process. 

If one were to answer "where is mind in the brain", the answer would be everywhere as it the cognitive environment within the brain created by our brain's responses to life experience.

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Electromagnetism is real evidence, it measureable, and can be traced to a tangible source. I understand the idea you're trying to convey here but, like electromagnetism, we have real evidence for the mind, it measureable through functional study, and we can traced our human iteration of mind to a tangible source--the human brain.  There may very well be forces out there whose source and nature we may not fully understand (e.g., dark energy), but not the metabolic forces and minutia of brain function that give rise to that environment of cognitive activity within the brain that produces a mind.

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

That enironment of cognitive activity within the brain from which mind emerges is our brain's response to stimuli external to brain function; however, the source of the mind remains brain function.  That stimuli external to brain function I described is real, it's measureable, it's tangible--it's life experience.

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

And there it is...the unproven and unprovable...the lie that discards real evidence for faith, feeling, and supposition.  It is the idea that the brain is merely a lense for some noncorporeal source of the mind that isn't rooted in material evidence.  So why are some so determined to believe in that idea?  Is it fear of the inevitable or an earnest interest in devining some great truth or deep mystery for posterity's sake?

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I reiterate, recent findings-observations-data do not perfectly matchup with conventional wisdom.

It's the other way around, conventional wisdom isn't science and should be discarded without "findings-observations-data".

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I too believe in science.

Perhaps, but you seem to have doubts.  If I'm not mistaken from our previous discussion, terminal lucidity appears to be a primary source of your doubts in brain function as the absolute source of the quality we call mind.  Whether lucid or confused, mind is a product of the ebb and flow of brain function emerging from what are basically its metabolic,homestatic processes.  However, it seem, you believes there's something more?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

 

I meant no disrespect, but what you're discussing here isn't much different from our previous exchanges other than perhaps your clearer assertion of mind emerging from some non-physical/material source.  If I've misunderstood, my apologies; however, any assertion of mind emerging without a brain or some functionally similar structure is ludicrous without a basis in science.  From all you have discussed here, you have not sufficiently nor convincingly provided such a basis.  

From nearly half-century in private study of the dreaming brain and now amid the twilight of my life, I want to believe that their could be something more to the nature of the mind than I have discovered...but I believe in the science, I believe in the objective truths good science provides.  To believe in something more may be comforting, but it's a lie if not proven or provable and I, personally, won't believe in a lie.

On 3/5/2024 at 12:17 PM, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Why is any of this still a question?  Didn't we have this discussion here (Mind) ad nauseam?

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not looking for a miracle, but a more satisfactory understanding of terminal lucidity and possible ramifications in the on-going debate on mind-brain connection.

Yes, but it appears only extraordinary findings will satisfy your quest for understanding rather than findings that are clearly ordinary. The ordinary answer to your inquiry resides in the resiliency of our physiology, which itself is truly extraordinary--imho.