DrmDoc

To clarify, science is a methodology by which objective evidence may be found that either supports or invalidates a hypothesis. The philosophy of consciousness suggest to me a perspective of consciousness that isn't grounded by the evidence good science provides. Espousing some fundamental nature of consciousness without a objective basis in science is philosophy and it's speculative at best, religion at worst. My definition for consciousness speak to an objective method in science for investigating and identifying whether an organism is aware, which is a quality essential for investigating whether an organism possesses that measure of consciousness that produces a mind. True, and my apologies if my comments implied that you did. I was merely conveying the voice of philosophy I hear whenever it speaks in a science forum. It really isn't difficult to understand anticipatory behaviors with an understanding of the likely path of our brain's evolution. Those behaviors are the effects our prefrontal cortex contributes to the thalmocortical loop--but I digress... The difference is that our thoughts and behaviors are exclusive to our central nervous system (CNS) rather kidney function. Kidney function regards what happens within that structure, while our CNS mediates what happens internal and external to the body. As Sohan Lalwani provided in earlier comments, its called the thalmocortical loop in which the thalamus is believed to "largely acts as a relay and modulator". It's well established and well researched. My comments were simplified and provided my perspective of how that loop operates. There is no first, second, or third party to that loop, merely the neural contributions and exchanges between the thalamus and the cerebrum that modulate our thoughts and mediates our behaviors. I welcome your continued interest.

If one is focused on the philosophy of consciousness rather than science of consciousness, then I understand why one may not understand how my definition of consciousness contributes to this discussion. The philosophy of consciousness, in my opinion, perceives consciousness as some singular operant of our being or some etheral, overriding sense of self that comprise our individuality or nature. The science of consciousness tells us that it is merely the measure of awareness suggested by an organism's responses to stimuli. My definition contributes this discussion on the science of consciousness in brain function because science informs us that an organism cannot be assessed as having consciousness without awareness and awareness cannot be assessed without observable behavioral responses to stimuli that suggest an organism is in fact measurably aware. A tenet of evolution suggests to me that those complex physical systems you've described that give rise to complex behaviors are adaptions that likely evolved from less complex, earlier systems. If that tenet is true, then science suggest that some trace of that evolution and those earlier system should be evident among contemporary brain structure and function. "I think; therefore, I am" is true but who would know that I or some other organism is possessed of any measure of consciousness without observable behaviors that, at a minimum, suggest that "I am"? This is important because understanding the nature and path of consciousness in brain function leads to an understanding of how that function creates a mind. As I have tried to convey, I perceive the responses of the brain to homoestasis instability as something akin to noise-cancelling; whereas, other organs reponses appear to employ entirely different processes. The thalamus incessantly disperses neural impulses to all areas of the cortex when impacted by sensory afference, which it is at all times. This creates continuous homeostasis imbalance. Simplistically, those areas receiving thalamic dispersals become neurally attuned to the frequency of those impulses, which is what I perceive as memory and learning, then those areas generate comparable neural impulses or feedback to the thalamus to effectively buffer or suppress the thalamus incessant impulses. That feedback become the thoughts and behaviors our thalamus ultimately execute in response to the sensory afference impacting it's neural function. Unlike kidney function, I perceive the waves of neural exchanges between the thalamus and the cerebrum as I do sound and the entire process as our brain's attempt to modulate the neural resonance impacting its system. I welcome your continued interest.

It appears that you've convinced yourself that consciousness is a "complicated phenomenon" That may be true for you but certainly not for anyone who has read and uderstood the definition for consciousness I provided in my openig comments to this discussion thread. The track I take to understanding consciousness in brain function involves the essence of that function, which involves its primary imperative--homeostasis. Understanding the complexity of the brain begins with evaluating and understanding the function of those basic components that comprise its workings. As I have tried to convey through various posts on this subject, sensory afference, thalamic function and homeostasis are key components of brain function. How these components work in concert to affect cerebral brain responses should comprise our understanding of the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors our brain function produces. You are responding here to my reply to theVat's posted opinion of not finding sufficient basis in my comments for my view of how homeostasis instability is any different in the brain than it is from other organs. The difference, as I tried to convey, is in the responses of the brain and of those other organs. As I explain, homeostasis instability is indeed a "global" concept with the added distinction that our brain responses to that instability produces thoughts and behaviors while other organs do not. Indeed, homeostasis is key to the function of every cell in our body but only our brain function produces thoughts and behaviors in response to homeostasis instability.

A few years ago, I wrote a book about the dreaming brain. In that book, I delivered a perspective of the thalamus basis on my research back then of the studies available. Here is a small list of those studies that help shape my current view of thalamic function, evolution of the dreaming brain, and brain function: Brad, P. “A Diencephalic Mechanism for the Expression of Rage with Special Reference to the Sympathetic Nervous System.” AJP (1928): 84: 490-515. Grill, H. J. and Norgren, R. “Neurological Tests and Behavioral Deficits in Chronic Thalamic and Chronic Decerebrate Rats.” Brain Res. (1978): 143(2): 299-312. Moore, J. W., Yeo, C. H., Oakley, D. A., and Russell, I. S. “Conditioned Inhibition of the Nictitating Membrane Response in Decorticate Rabbits.” Behav Brain Res. (1980): 1(5): 397-409. Oakley, D. A. “Performance of Decorticated Rats in a Two-Choice Visual Discrimination Apparatus.” Behav Brain Res. (1980): 3(1): 55-69. Shewmon, D. A., Holmes, G. L., and Byrne, P. A. “Consciousness In Congenitally Decorticate Children: Developmental Vegetative State As Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” Dev Med Child Neurol, (1990): 41(6): 364-74. Skinner, D. M., Martin, G. M., Harley, C., Kolb, B., Pridgar, A., Bechara, A., and Van derKooy, D. “Acquisition of Conditional Discriminations in Hippocampal Lesioned and Decorticated Rats: Evidence for Learning That is Separate from Both Simple Classical Conditioning and Configural Learning.” Behav Neurosci. (1994): 108(5): 911-26. Whishaw, I. Q. “The Decorticate Rat,” in B. Kolb and R. C. Tees (eds.), The Cerebral Cortex of the Rat. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990. Whishaw, I. Q. and Kolb, B. “Decortication Abolishes Place but Not Cue Learning in Rats.” Behav Brain Res. (1984): 11(2): 123-34. Although not referenced for the book I mentioned, I recall several cat studies over the years (e,g,, Behaviors of chronically decerebrated kittens) that fueled my thoughts on the position of cortical function in our brain's hierarchy. Decerebrate studies like those involving cats support what have become my perspective of our brain's likely path of evolution. One basic tenet of evolution is that recent biological developments are likely evolved or adapted version of some earlier form. Relative to brain structure our cortex, as I view its evolution, is a more recent development than the thalamus. As a recent adaptation, our cortical functionality is more dependent on thalamic function than thalamic function relative to the cortex. This secondary status of our cortex relative to the thalamus explains why we may survive severe cortical damage but will die when our thalamus suffers similarly severe damage. The importance of our thalamus to our survival and brain function is further emphasized, in my view, by it's shielded position, within our cerebral hierarchy, surrounded by structures that may not imperil our survival if damaged as damage to the thalamus might. In my book, which I wouldn't recommend given how much my understanding of the dreaming brain has grown since then, I referred to the thalamus as a proto-brain remnant of our contemporary brain's evolution. With a right and left hemispherical cortical appearance, our thalamus likely function as the initial iteration of our contemporary brain. Relative to how current science theorize contemporary thalamic function, I have further thoughts but will hold them for now unless there's further interest.

Greetings, I see there's quite a bit here that's deserving of consideration and a thoughtful response, which I will attempt to do: If that feeling is based on the definition of consciousness I delivered in my opening statements to this discussion thread, I assure you a philosophy is not the essence I had hope to convey. As I thought I conveyed quite clearly in prior comments, I don't perceive or define consciousness as some transcendant quaility. I don't ascribe anything more to consciousness other than as the measure of sensory awareness I perceive as essential to the cognitive matrix of brain function that produces a mind. I did and I don't disagree. My compulsion is to find the essence of my choice of study and to build and convey my understanding from that essence. Perhaps it was my oversimplification that has caused some misperception. If I were using homeostasis to explain consciousness, in view of how I define consciousness, that explanation would have been about simple sensory awareness relative to brain function because sensory awareness is essentially all of what consciousness is to me. However, I agree that homeostasis is a global concept and process but, relative to behavioral expressions, it explains everything about what give rise to the brain functions that produce those expressions. Indeed, homeostasis is an imperative of every biological system. but what affects that imperative in the brain ultimately give rise to the behaviors our brain function engages and expresses. For example, consider the drug addicted brain and the behaviors the presences and absences of that drug causes. Empirically, illicit drugs can and do affect the homeostatic status of brain function, which can and does produce thoughts and behaviors centered around those drug. Similarly--and to my point--all senory afferrence bare the same homeostatic destabilizing affect, which can and does produce behaviors and thoughts centered around that afferrence. Also, in furtherance of my perspective, the afferrence our brains are exchanging through this discussion, similarly compells and propells our further discussions and is attributable to the affects of that afference on our brain's homeostatic status. I acknowledge your analogy, but what I'm asserting isn't about cell striving for energy but rather about neural responses to suppress destabilizing effects, which to me is similar to noise cancelling technology. I knew my comment would draw you in and your point is here is well made...I was just having a bit of fun. I couldn't agree more. Cognition is indeed a complex process. In my response to Eise, I talked about the affect of drugs and drug addiction. As for grounds, I've tried to convey how sensory experience is an energy draw that impacts homostasis in brain and the brain's responses to that impact is essential similar to addiction. What make homeostasis in the brain difference from other organs is that the brain responds to destabilization differently that other organs because its reponses produces thoughts and behaviors while other organs don't appear to do so. You are well studied and I cannot deny that thalamic function is more complex than I have commented here. Admittedly, I provided a simplistic view of the neural interplay between the thalamus and cortex to be more engaged by knowledgeable and less knowledgeable respondents to this discussion. However, there was something you stated here regarding the "thalamus largely acts as a relay and modulator rather than a generator of motor or behavioral responses." Much of what I understand about thalamic function is predicated decorticate and diencephalic animal studies, which suggest no cortical activity engages without a subcortical neural connection. I recall further stud[es which suggested decorticate animals at brith thrived and ambulated sufficiently without cortical structure. I will comment further, when I'm able to cite those studies here for your review. Until then, I welcome your continued interest.

Great! I was hoping someone would. You say that as though it's a bad thing. I preceive reductionism as cutting away the fat from a choice piece of meat or simply defining the key components of a simple equation. I disagree. Homeostasis provides and explains the foundation from which brain function and, ultimately, behavioral expression arises. Within the brain, processing sensory stimuli and information (afference) requires energy and that requirement impacts our brain's ability to maintain its metabolic stability. What our brain does in response to that destablizing impact of sensory afference is what ultimately manifests as emotion, thought, and behavioral expression. Wait...you're not a theVat sockpuppet are you???🤔 Consciousness...there goes that word again and, as I have often said, consciousness is nothing more to me than the awareness suggested by an organism's observable behavioral responses to stimuli. In my view, consciousness is merely a prerequisite for determining whether an organism has a mind, which is a quality I perceive as entirely distinct. However, since you've mentioned the "C" word here, I believe you mistook my perspective of the thalamus as where we may find some singular, etheral form of self. To clarify, thalamic function plays a singularly major role in how our sense of self manifest. As I have previously commented, our thalamus is the primary gateway into brain structure for neural afference and, as such, the thalamus is the primary brain structure that is initially impacted by that afference. The thalamus desperses that afferent impact along various neural pathways to various cortical regions throughout brain structure. In turn, those various cortical regions respond to that impact via their reciprocal neural connections. With the reciprocal responses the thalamus receives, it then executes or engages our response to the afference it is or has experienced. In this view, the role of the thalamus is to alert superior brain structures that it has been impacted and the role of those superior brain structure is to deliver feedback defining that impact and how the thalamus should execute a response to that impact. I welcome your continued interest.

Hello All, Just a final bit about the thalamus, which I believe is more important than most of us may realize. If I were asked where in the brain might we discover the structure that manifest our mental and physically sense of self, my answer would undoubtedly be the thalamus.

Hello All, I've been wanting to add a bit more to this discussion and so I shall by providing this perspective of thought relative to brain function. In prior statements, I talked about homeostasis as the basis of brain function and briefly how sensory stimuli affects our brain's effort to maintain its metabolic balance. The neural impact of afference (sensory) stimuli on the thalamus affects our brain's effort to maintain its metabolic balance. Our thalamus is the gateway through which sensory stimuli must traverse to reach the upper regions of our brain structure. Those regions respond by producing neural feedback sufficient to suppress the destablizing neural effects resonating from the thalamus. From the neural impact sensory stimuli appears to have on our neural gateway to upper brain structures, we may confidently conclude that thought is a product of the neural interplay between the thalamus and structutes of the brain exterior to the thalamus. More importantly, the neural impulses released by surrounding brain structures in response to thalamic neural resonance doesn't truly become thought until those impluses reach the thalamus. I welcome your response.

Agreed, my apologies.

Most definitions of consciousness describe some ethereal, unearthly quality, but your definition here is commendable because it encompasses attributes that are both testable and observable--self-awareness & environmental-awareness. Those attributes are certainly applicable to humans and I believe we can test and observe for their equivalency in many but not all subjects/objects of our observations. If we want to refine our tests and observations to include nearly all, shouldn't we refine our definition of consciousness to its testable and observable essence? The essence of consciousness isn't anything ethereal or unearthly and it's right there in your description. Strip away "self" and "environment" from your description and you will have "awareness", which is the essence of consciousness. Awareness is the essence of consciousness because we can test for its iterations in all species, but with one caveat--our test subjects must have the facility to engage observable behaviors. Without testable or observable behaviors there's no basis for our conclusions about a species' equivalency.

I agree; there's no understanding of consciousness without a foundation for reaching that understanding. Definitions based on faith, philosophies, and conjecture aren't a proper foundation because, imo, they reference notions and ideas that are either untestable or unobservable. Our spectulations about the nature of consciousness in other organisms invariably relate to the manifest nature of that quality in humans. Therefore, our definitions and basis for understanding consciousness should arise from our understanding of how that quality arises in humans. That understanding enables our ability to identify consciousness equivalency in other species.

When defining consciousness, shouldn't we begin by exploring and understand its human iteration? The only measure of consciousness that we as humans are capable of fully understanding is that measure expressed by humans because of the commonality share among humans in biology, physiology, and social experience. With humanity's iteration of consciousness as the basis for its definition, that definition should be predicated on some understanding of how human consciousness manifest. For my part in this discussion, I will not entertain any notion that human consciousness manifests without brain function and a nervous system stimulating that function. If we are assessing whether organisms as small as a bee possess's human equivalent consciousness, then we must assess the equivalency of a bee's central nervous system--but, I'm getting ahead of myself. My definition of consciousness is predicated on the empirical truth that human consciousness is a product or output of brain function. As an output of brain function, something else must occur before consciousness is produced. So, the question this raises is, what is that something? To make a much longer post short, brain output is a response to the input it receives via its connection to our nervous system. Consciousness in brain function does not occur without a neural network and the sensory awareness that connection provides--essentially, consciousness doesn't occur without awareness.

If you'll recall this OP... ...and the opening salvo in this debate... ...so I led with my "idiosyncratic definition of consciousness...." In your opinion, right? Thnaks for the reminder🤪 Curious...is there a consensus on the meaning of consciousness? Hmmm...I guess there really isn't a consensus on the meaning of consciousness😊 Admittedly, my perspective of consciousness is based on my personal study and perspective of the science primarily associated with brain function...and also a little bit of basic algebra. This perspective begins with a basic question: Can an organism possess consciousness without awareness? I believe the answer to that question is an empirical no. If true, then all definitions of consciousness begins with a perspective on the meaning of awareness...and if we're discussing awareness, what is its measure?

In previous discussions, I've defined consciousness as merely the basic awareness suggested by an organism's observed--or observable--behavioral responses to stimuli. We cannot determine organisms or objects of interest as possessing consciousness if they are incapable of producing observable behaviors suggesting that quality. Bees produce objectively observable behaviors and their behavioral responses to centuries of direct human contact suggests minimally their awareness on some level. However, if the question is does bees possess human equivalent consciousness, the answer would be suggested by whether bees are able to produce human equivalent responses to human equivalent stimuli. From another perspective, if an organism or object's reactions to stimuli suggests some basic level of awareness or consciousness, then we might ask ourselves if the attraction or repulsion between the poles of magnets suggest some level of awareness between magnets? Although not a level or measure suggestive of human awareness, I would argue that the attraction/repulsion between the poles of separate magnets suggest a type of basic awareness between magnets. For those who might argue otherwise, you should understand that from my perspective having consciousness does not necessarily confer intelligence or that an organism or object possesses a mind.

Fascinating! My son is an animator who's honing his craft while currently producing a DC fan film. Cartoon Network's, The Venture Bros, did a very humorous take on Jonny Quest...they called it the "Walking Eyeball."

Yes! My understanding precisely!

Quite true! As my perspective on the interplay between the thalamus and its reciprocal connections with surrounding brain structures evolve, my perspective on the role of the thalamus in the autistic brain continues to evolve. Although their are multiple facets to the neural interplay between the thalamus and surrounding brain structures, there's more than sufficient evidence that all behaviors we engage are executed by thalamic function. There's also sufficient evidence, in my opinion, that our thalamus engages these behaviors according to the feedback rather than commands it receives from superior or surrounding brain structures. The distinction between feedback rather than commands suggest that our thalamus executes behaviors based on neural advice rather than direction of other brain sturctures which places the thalamus in a far superior role than I previously perceived. For example, consider the explosive aggression of some CTE sufferers. Structures like the thalamus and amygdala are somewhat shielded by the cortex from intercranial trauma. It's likely that thalamic function in the CTE brain responds more readily to amygdala feedback than the prefrontal cortex due to a compromised link between the cortex and thalamus caused by head trauma. The behaviors a thalamus expresses with a CTE brain are likely compromised by weak signals from the cortex with comparatively strong and healthy amygdala signaling. If there's anything to draw from my comments here relative to dreams and dreaming is that they are everything I have previously discussed but, first and foremost, they are a feedback response to afferent resonance from the thalamus amid sleep. Relative to autism, clarity will require a bit more time and investigation.

It was my focusing on the buffering function of the thalamus through our discussion. An autistic respondent in a previous discussion in another forum of this website described their condition as like having a gatekeeper who allows entry to everyone. My epiphany, through this discussion, was that this individual's form of autism likely involves a malfunction of their thalamus' ability to buffer incoming neural impulses (external stimuli) while at the same time maintaining an ability to target the focus of their thalamus on specific and well-defined areas of feedback (behavioral commands) from superior regions of brain beyond the thalamus--it's letting all the noise in but only responding to that noise that activates a specific channel of feedback or behavioral responses. I believe I now have a better visual perception and understanding of the input/output function of the thalamus in the autistic brain. Even more, I'm beginning to consider what impact malfunction of the thalamus may have in the structual variances we find in some autistic brains--indeed, a delightful and illuminating discussion.

Much of my thoughts on this subject can be found in this discussion thread: Consciousness in Brain Function Give it a read and share your thoughts.

Much of what I understand about the dreaming brain is rooted in my perspective of its likely path of evolution. That path suggests to me that the function of recent brain developments were built upon and are likely dependent on the function of earlier developments. Mid-century experiments with diencephalic animals, as I recall, appear to confirm that no cortical activity occurs without a neural connection from the thalamus. If we agree that dreaming and dream content are efferent products of cortical activity in sleep, then that activity likely doesn't occur without an afferent neural connection from the thalamus. Therefore, the question this poses is what precisely does that afferent neural connection from the thalamus contributes to the production of dreaming? When we are awake and aware, thalamic function appears to buffer most of the neural noise it receives from the stimuli traversing its neural structure to superior brain regions from external sources. As the gateway for neural commands exiting the brain, the thalamus also executes our physical responses to the external stimuli it experiences based the feedback it receives from superior brain regions. That neural noise the thalamus experience at the outset of dreaming emerges from itself as a residual affect of its wakeful buffering rather than direct external stimuli. Although it may buffer the affects of external stimuli during the conscious state of brain function, the thalamus amid sleep is incapable of buffering the noise emanating from its own neural body as a result of its conscious experience—it’s the bell that keeps ringing after it has been struck. Countering that incessant neural ringing amid sleep requires equivalent neural feedback from superior brain regions sufficient to nullify that effect. Rather than create dream content, thalamic reverbs in sleep inspire that content. Dreaming is a feedback process where upper regions nullify thalamic reverbs in sleep with materially meaningful neural impulses (dream content) matching the neural frequency or impact of those reverbs. From my perspective, the thalamus is our instinctive, primal brain. It doesn't engage thought, it reacts and execute our outward behavioral expressions. Structures beyond the thalamus, as I perceive, informs the behaviors it executes. In my view, structures like the amygdala and prefrontal cortex mediate the reactions the thalamus executes. For example, the amygdala tells the thalamus to react with agression, while the prefrontal cortex informs the thalamus on the consequences of that agression. But what has become more profound for me is a clearer understanding of the autistic brain--particularly through our discussion.

Quite right, dreams act to counteract the affects of a noisy (active) thalamus in sleep. The exception in sleep is that this neural noise arising from the thalamus isn't necessarily occuring in the presence of the external stimuli (life experience) causing that noise. Our cortical response areas in sleep are able to detect this indirect, abstract affect life experience has on thalamic function. In sleep, our thalamus appears to reverberate from the indirect affects of life experience and our cortical responses to that reverberance serve to nullify those affects. The form of that nullification is to mirror and, thereby, cancel the energy destabilizating neural impact of that reverberance. This explain why our dream content interprets something that is indirect and abstract. I welcome your continue interest.

I think you're quite close to my thoughts on this. Both types do rely on the same neurobiology, but there's a difference I perceive in the process. To begin, as you know, the interpretive aspects of brain function is an efferent process (top-down), which infers processes that do not engage without afferent stimuli (bottom-up). The top-down processes of brain function emerge from the upper regions of the brain beyond the thalamus, while the bottom-up processes emerge through and from the thalamus. The difference between the responses of the awake and dreaming brain resides in whether the brain's top-down processes are a response to the stimuli that emerge solely from thalamus or the stimuli that traverse the thalamus from its external neural connections. Other than olfactory, as you know, all sensory input must traverse the thalamus before entering the upper regions of our central nervous system. When we are awake and aware, the responses of our upper brain regions are focused on stimuli traversing the thalamus as that stimuli may have a real physical/material impact on our wellbeing and sense of self. Accordingly, stimili traversing those neural pathways through the thalamus' external neural connections are perceived and interpreted according to their literal impact. Conversely, stimuli that emerge solely from the thalamus without a continuous neural link to that stimuli's external physical/material sources initiate a different efferent response from upper brain region. This type of stimuli is what I have termed in other discussions as the "resonant" neural affect of our life experiences. It's like that ringing in our ears that we continue to hear long after the band has stopped playing. Our thalamus continuously resonate from the affects or impact of our life experiences. As that resonance enters the upper reponse centers of our brain amid the sleep state, it is as ill defined as that ringing in our ear without a sound source. Yet, as this resonance has a homeostasis destablizing affect, our brain responses in sleep (dreaming) emerge as a counterbalance to that persistent neural noise. As a counterbalance, our sleeping brain has to generate a equivalent neural frequency (dreams) sufficient to cancel the impact of that persistent neural affect emerging from the thalamus amid the sleep state. Dreaming is an equivalency process our brain engages amid sleep to match and, thereby, quell the neural resonance persisting in the thalamus from the affects life experience. When we are awake and aware, this equivalency process involves matching and engaging an appropriate response to external stimuli, which primarily involves physical, material and literal responses. When we're dreaming, that process involves matching and engaging responses to soothe the thalamus rather than address some direct physical/material stimili. In a sense, dreaming addresses something the brain perceives as indirect or abstract--the operants of mind and emotion. I welcome your continued interest and insightful perspective.

Pardon this delayed reply but there are few whose perspective I enjoy reading and pondering as much as I do yours. Indeed, there's a distinction between the brain responses that dreaming suggest and the responses of the awake and aware brain. The conscious brain interprets the nature of its experiences by the physical/material impact of those experiences; e.g., cold is cold, light is light, and dark is dark, etc. Conversely, the dreaming brain--through comparative imagery and experiences--interprets the residual mental/emotional impact of its experiences; e.g., cold, light, and dark describe mental/emotional effects. As some may already know, our brain responses while conscious are a counterbalances to the imbalance caused by experiences that directly emerge from and impact the sensory array of our body physical. Amid the dreaming state, our brain responses are a counterbalance to the persistent neural effects of those experiences. Perhaps the most apt analogy is that life experience causes a type of neural-tinnitus within the brain and dreaming is our brain's effort to quell that malody by, in someway, quantifying its nature. My perspective is that our sense of self emerges from the thalamus and how it is impacted by its neural connections and exchanges. In that perspective, our physical/material sense of self emerges from our thalamus' afferent neural connections, while our mental/emotional sense of self emerge from its efferent neural connections. In my model of brain function, dreaming comprises our thalamus' efferent neural connections and exchanges. I am very well and in good spirit this holiday season. Thanks so much for asking and I wish you the same.

Hello All, It has been a while since I last added content to this discussion, so I thought I would add a bit more based on my evolving perspective of the dreaming brain. Remember these initials, E.I.A.I, as they will assist your better understanding of dreams, their content, and the dreaming brain. Somewhere in my most recent ciscussion of brain funtion, I said the primary imperative of that function is homeostasis, which describes our brain's efforts to maintain its metabolic balance against the destablizing affects of our sensory experiences. Dreaming is one of those efforts our brain engages in sleep to stabilize its metabolic balance. Dreaming is how our sleeping brain response to the resonant destabilizing affects of our life experiences. Our dreams are Efferent Interpretations of the Afferent Impact an experience has had on our mental sense of self. In perhaps a break with how most mind scientists understand dream content, our dreams interpret effects rather than the causes of those effects. It's analogous to interpreting a pain rather than the cause of that pain. Rather than emerging from our direct experiences in sleep, dreams emerge from the resonant mental/emotional impact of those life experiences that persist amid the sleep state. If you have interest, I welcome yout thoughts.

I see…it isn’t omitted citations you want, but rather a discussion of my analogy. For those who have actually perused rather than glanced over my numerous comments on the subject of mind, consciousness, and brain function, they may recall that I routinely refer to the confluence of brain function as a “concert”. I’ve adhered to music adjacent analogies and themes here and in many of my prior discourse on this topic because I believe they most clearly convey my thoughts, in a relatable way, on the harmony of brain function that must occur to produce attributes of mind and consciousness. I understand your perception but from the outset of this discussion thread, I wrote: Allow me to correct your perception of implied metaphysics, which was not an implication I intented. Significant portions of my discussion thus far have encompassed the affect of sensory experience. Using your analogy, the player of that clarinet would be that experience. Succinctly, our brain’s neural experience or perception of afferent stimuli via its sensory connection to that stimuli shapes and influences its responses. I’m certain of little disagreement among science circles that thought is indeed a response of brain function. My perspective is that thought (music) emerges from brain function (clarinet) as an effect of its sensory connection to sensory experience (player). Your imagination notwithstanding, I wrote in prior comments that the entirety of brain function is devoted to h-o-m-e-o-s-t-a-s-i-s. (Hope I got the spelling right this time🤞) The comment you referenced is a synopsis of my prior comments in this discussion thread on the relevance of homeostasis as the basis for all brain activity and responses. Again, from the outset of this discussion thread, I said I would attempt to make my thoughts and "keep this discussion accessible to all knowledge levels." You might agree that those interested in this topic may not all be neuroscientists, which is why I’ve inserted definitions among my various posts on my use of terms as my discussion progressed. Indeed, some neuroscientists may object to my “nomenclature” but my comments were not entirely meant for their consumption. I want to encourage the interest and contribution of non-neuroscientists in the discussion of this topic as I believe it will only enhance my personal insight and enrich my understanding as it has done so often in past discussions. I appreciate your critique and welcome your continued interest.