Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mind!

Introduction

In its simplest form, mind is about being aware of oneself, and of the world around oneself. For some, mind is strictly confined to human brains while others see it everywhere. So, where is mind and how does it work?

Were is the Mind in the Brain?

After decades of scientific investigation and ongoing debate, no center has yet been found in the brain for subjective experience. Research so far has yielded inconclusive results. Where the “I” resides in the machine remains elusive (references below).

Searching for the Mind in Nature!

Mounting evidence points to intelligence being everywhere in nature. Animals, even small ones, plants, microbes and cells appear to show signs of intelligence; a bold statement being made here! There may be more than randomness-reactiveness coming out of nature (references below).

How Does the Mind Works Through the Brain?

Again, after decades of research, there is no understanding on how the mind works through the brain (the hard-problem). Christof Kock (scientist) lost a bet to David Chalmers (philosopher) on this issue. In 1998 he bet that by 2023 we would know how the brain achieves consciousness. How consciousness is extracted from a kilogram or so of flesh remains a mystery. And the bet was renewed for another 25 years (references below).

Statements

We know a lot about brain, little about mind!

It’s a big step from the non-living to the living. It’s an even bigger one from matter to mind!

So much complexity and subjectivity arising out of spontaneous reactions of matter!

The hardware problem is easy. The software one is not!

Why would nature even bother with consciousness in a matter universe? 

Notes

1 Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind; at least for me.

2 An informal review process was used to confirm notions presented above.

 

Where is Mind in Brain?

Cerebral cortex & Deep Grey Matter

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115284/#:~:text='%20The%20mind%20cannot%20be%20localised,grey%20matter%20form%20important%20components.

Motor cortex - somato-cognitive action network,

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/scientists-identify-mind-body-nexus-human-brain-2023-04-19/

Lateral frontal lobe

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16725-theory-of-mind-could-help-explain-belief-in-god/

Neurons for complex social thinking

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/theory-mind

White Matter

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-10-scientists-powerful-brain-white.html

Right and left parietal junction; posterior cingulate

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01768.x

Cortical midline, mirror neuron system

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929314000048

Dorsomedial subsystem (at least for part of it)

https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/15/1/63/5733878

Medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate, bilateral temporoparietal junction, posterior superior temporal sulcus

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tCgTDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA83&dq=location+of+mind+in+brain&ots=QvqpCYGDjs&sig=XVLpTURu2jikwB9Gs5HIN9au9ys#v=onepage&q=location%20of%20mind%20in%20brain&f=false

Anatomical regions far apart from one another

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6871093/

Its in multiple areas of the brain

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-4996-9_26

Specialized and domain general structure working in tandem

https://researchoutreach.org/articles/explaining-mind-works-new-theory/

No brain boundaries between thinking, feeling, deciding, etc.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/mental-phenomena-dont-map-into-the-brain-as-expected-20210824/

Its not even in the brain

https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body

 

Searching for Mind in Nature!

https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-intelligence-animal-behaviour

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-bacteria-memories-generations.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-silky-ants-aphids-medicine-sick.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s0LTDhqe5A

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579101/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-honey-bees-inherit-altruistic-behavior.html

https://uk.whales.org/whales-dolphins/how-intelligent-are-whales-and-dolphins/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-reveal-hidden-sensory-mechanism-hair.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-soil-viruses-interact-bacteria.html

https://scitechdaily.com/single-cells-are-more-intelligent-than-scientists-previously-thought/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-female-animals-unusual-malesnew.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-chloroplasts-photosynthesis-theyre-key-player.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-cell-walls-mechanical-properties-division.html

Animals – Jon Lieff, MD (jonlieffmd.com)

https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/plants

https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/microbes

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-extracellular-vesicles-exchange-genetic-cells.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-underground-fungi-forests.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM9GpLXepU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ChEmjsXCM

 

How Does Mind Work Through Brain?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/

https://scitechdaily.com/contrary-to-previous-belief-new-study-links-brain-waves-directly-to-memory/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/theory-of-mind#:~:text=Theory%20of%20Mind%20(ToM)%E2%80%94,regions%2C%20including%20the%20temporoparietal%20junction.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbot.2020.00060/full

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/so_how_does_the_mind_work.pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01142.x

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1031432/what-is-mind-brain-body-connection/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9MKzwoWPgwMVqVlHAR3dmAzIEAMYASAAEgIKC_D_BwE

https://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-behaving/thinking-and-awareness/2019/theory-of-mind-091119

https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/the-origin-of-life-and-consciousness

https://scitechdaily.com/challenging-long-held-assumptions-new-research-reveals-how-nuclear-spin-impacts-biological-processes/

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-10-scientists.html

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1183498.pdf

https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/the-life-of-a-thought-in-the-brain

https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/networks-of-genes-respond-to-social-experiences

https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/human-brain/what-is-the-mind-5-theoretical-possibilities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLJFvdr7NoA

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-22399-006

Notes:

1 This is an inexhaustive-cursory search for reference material.

2 Some references are debatable as to their relevance, but can easily be replaced by more relevant ones.

3 A good primer for discussion can be obtained here: https://jonlieffmd.com/blog

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been lots of discussions about the the self, soul, mind, body, brain, consciousness and other notions disposition of  in humans and other beings.

Your impressively long list of references bear evidence to it being a very popular subject of discussion that has not been resolved.

I like the writings of this Man.

hoft1.jpg.c8a106a84ff89b2069289c7121aa5f1e.jpghoft2.jpg.680e7193066497e4f835a55653e32ef2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

There have been lots of discussions about the the self, soul, mind, body, brain, consciousness and other notions disposition of  in humans and other beings.

Your impressively long list of references bear evidence to it being a very popular subject of discussion that has not been resolved.

I like the writings of this Man.

hoft1.jpg.c8a106a84ff89b2069289c7121aa5f1e.jpghoft2.jpg.680e7193066497e4f835a55653e32ef2.jpg

 Godel work is different;  unfamiliar with this book; will get it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind!

Introduction

In its simplest form, mind is about being aware of oneself, and of the world around oneself. For some, mind is strictly confined to human brains while others see it everywhere. So, where is mind and how does it work?

 

I've had previous discussions here about the nature of the mind and it's not quite the enigma some researchers have concluded.  Sunccintly, mind is the environment of cognitive activity in the brain that arises from brain function.   Through that function, a mind is quantified or evinced by a brain's capacity to integrate diverse sensory data with memory functions through a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct.  In even simpler terms, a mind is evidenced by behaviors that suggest a though process--behaviors more clearly associated with proactive rather than reactive responses.  The primary process or mechanism in brain function that produces a mind is homeostasis, which is simply our brain's efforts to maintain its metabolic balance against the imbalance sensory stimuli causes.  No understanding of mind and consciousness it complete without a understanding of how our brain likely evolved to its current state. Understanding that evolution likely explains why our species of human dominates while others have gone exstinct.

Edited by DrmDoc
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I've had previous discussions here about the nature of the mind and it's not quite the enigma some researchers have concluded.  Sunccintly, mind is the environment of cognitive activity in the brain that arises from brain function.   Through that function, a mind is quantified or evinced by a brain's capacity to integrate diverse sensory data with memory functions through a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct.  In even simpler terms, a mind is evidenced by behaviors that suggest a though process--behaviors more clearly associated with proactive rather than reactive responses.  The primary process or mechanism in brain function that produces a mind is homeostasis, which is simply our brain's efforts to maintain its metabolic balance against the imbalance sensory stimuli causes.  No understanding of mind and consciousness it complete without a understanding of how our brain likely evolved to its current state. Understanding that evolution likely explains why our species of human dominates while others have gone exstinct.

Thank you for your response. I have pressing matters; will formally respond tomorrow. However, data makes me question your interpretation of mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, thank you very much for your response. I read your previous post and feel that we come at the problem from different perspectives. You come with a brain-based and evolution perspective while I come with a more open perspective of let's see what research findings tells us about consciousness and then go where it leads us, even if it brings us to naturalistic dualism.

Note: I still have opinions about it (see below).

I strongly disagree with your statement that mind is not quite the enigma some researchers conclude. From neuroscientists themselves "consciousness research far from converging towards a unifying paradigm, has become more fractious and chaotic than ever".

As for "the primary process or mechanism in brain function that produces a mind is homeostasis", I would like for you to expand on this as it is unfamiliar to me. 

As for the overall brain-evolution theory of mind, it is one of many out there still waiting to be proven.

For myself, I think that a major litmus test for a functional theory of consciousness is when it will take into account the following: that information is a fundamental property of reality and that it must account for consciousness in any system.

I also have a hunch (not very scientific) that, like John Wheeler and Roger Penrose, quantum mechanic "may" have something to do with it.  My friends in the QM forum will be cringing at this idea, but until proven wrong, I maintain that information theory and QM might have a say in it.

Finally, as stated in my original post, there is no center so far of mind in brain, consciousness, or at least its substrate, intelligence, leaves its markings in all living things and there is no currently accepted theory of how brains create minds. And this speaks loudly that we may be looking at the problem in the wrong way. I invite you to have a look at a few of the references that I provide and start with this and my litmus test, in testing out your theory.  

I hope that our conversation will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to be conflating mind, consciousness, and other similarly nebulous concepts lacking utility. 

1 Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind; at least for me; from my original post; there are many interpretations of this.

Similar nebulous concepts lacking utility is what enabled you to respond to this post; it is a fundamental aspect of nature, that we like it or not; in science, we are comfortable with the objective aspect of the world, but not the subjectife par; but, discarding it because we do not want to deal with it is unscientific.

Please have a look at a few of the references (section on how mind works) provided before discarding as useless nostrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind

Substances are measurable. What apparatus can we use to measure these? What is the baseline state we're looking to compare results against?

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Please have a look at a few of the references

You posted like 900 of them. How about instead you summarize here which key point you'd like to begin with. 

Also, please don't assume I'm beginning in this topic tabula rasa and with no existing baseline knowledge. That would be an error. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Substances are measurable. What apparatus can we use to measure these? What is the baseline state we're looking to compare results against?

You posted like 900 of them. How about instead you summarize here which key point you'd like to begin with. 

Good questions; need to leave for an important meeting, will respond later in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

With bated breath I sit awaiting your return

Well said

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Also, please don't assume I'm beginning in this topic tabula rasa and with no existing baseline knowledge. That would be an error. 

will not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

After decades of scientific investigation and ongoing debate, no center has yet been found in the brain for subjective experience.

Actually, the parts of our minds responsible for narrative generation and story writing pretty much own this. While much like a single board or brick doesn't hold up an entire house and other parts of the brain are involved, contrary to your assertion above the key player here is quite obviously the hippocampus. 

 

18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mounting evidence points to intelligence being everywhere in nature.

This depends on how one defines intelligence, does it not? Some people are intelligent with regards to math, others with regards to poetry, and others still with music or engineering or how emotions work and how to interact with others. The point is there are MULTIPLE frameworks for the concept of "intelligence" and your assertion comes across as oblivious to that. 

I agree that there is intelligence to be found in nature, but unless you make this more concrete then you may as well be saying there is love in nature or beauty. Agreed... so what?

 

18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

after decades of research, there is no understanding on how the mind works through the brain

So obviously false, it's not even wrong... but maybe you're defining "mind" in a unique way?

 

12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I have pressing matters

19 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

need to leave for an important meeting

You're obviously a very important man, but please expect no awe from me that you "have a meeting."

I haven't been able to scrub through them all... Do any of your links above touch on recent ideas from neuroscientists regarding the use an algorithm to consistently calculate different levels of complexity in cortical activation?

The core idea here in case you're unfamiliar is that we seem to have different levels of consciousness (whatever that is and however it ultimately gets defined) and that those  levels of complexity can be put into an equation and get explored by reviewing how much activity is occurring across how many brain regions at which intensities in a given time.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Substances are measurable. What apparatus can we use to measure these? What is the baseline state we're looking to compare results against?

You posted like 900 of them. How about instead you summarize here which key point you'd like to begin with. 

Also, please don't assume I'm beginning in this topic tabula rasa and with no existing baseline knowledge. That would be an error. 

The mind can be indirectly measured with scanning devices (MRI). Wilder Penfield used electric prods to tease out information; experiments such as those indicated in the second portion of the reference section of the first post, observation on the living can be undertaken, etc. 

As for the baseline state, I need to think about that.

900- key points are that there is no center for mind in brain; it is all over; mind is also all over in nature; and we cannot explain how a kg or so of living tissue creates consciousness. To me, this means that we might have to entertain other ideas to progress in learning about consciousness 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Actually, the parts of our minds responsible for narrative generation and story writing pretty much own this. While much like a single board or brick doesn't hold up an entire house and other parts of the brain are involved, contrary to your assertion above the key player here is quite obviously the hippocampus. 

 

This depends on how one defines intelligence, does it not? Some people are intelligent with regards to math, others with regards to poetry, and others still with music or engineering or how emotions work and how to interact with others. The point is there are MULTIPLE frameworks for the concept of "intelligence" and your assertion comes across as oblivious to that. 

I agree that there is intelligence to be found in nature, but unless you make this more concrete then you may as well be saying there is love in nature or beauty. Agreed... so what?

 

So obviously false, it's not even wrong... but maybe you're defining "mind" in a unique way?

 

You're obviously a very important man, but please expect no awe from me that you "have a meeting."

I haven't been able to scrub through them all... Do any of your links above touch on recent ideas from neuroscientists regarding the use an algorithm to consistently calculate different levels of complexity in cortical activation?

The core idea here in case you're unfamiliar is that we seem to have different levels of consciousness (whatever that is and however it ultimately gets defined) and that those  levels of complexity can be put into an equation and get explored by reviewing how much activity is occurring across how many brain regions at which intensities in a given time.

See first part of the reference section of the first post: mind is in the cerebral cortex, deep grey matter, motor cortex, somato-cognitive action network, neurons for complex social thinking, white matter, right and left parietal junction; posterior cingulate, cortical midline, mirror neuron system, dorsomedial subsystem (at least for part of it), medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate, bilateral temporoparietal junction, posterior superior temporal sulcus, and now the hippocampus; I remain on my position that there is no center of mind in the brain.

You are right that there are multiple layers of intelligence; but my definition of intelligence is that it is a substrate of mind, and we are talking about mind.

Mind in nature tells us that it is not constricted to us and other higher state animals; that it is in, maybe, all living things; this tells us something important; and we need to figure that one out (scientists). If its in all living things, then can we say that it is essential to life? I do not know!

As for being an important man, I am not.

No on the algorithm question, but I am very interested in findings out; will do a search.

Agree with you on having different levels of consciousness; on putting them into equation, I need to inverstigate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

For myself, I think that a major litmus test for a functional theory of consciousness is when it will take into account the following: that information is a fundamental property of reality and that it must account for consciousness in any system.

Integrated information theory would probably interest you if you don't already know about it.

Quote

I also have a hunch (not very scientific) that, like John Wheeler and Roger Penrose, quantum mechanic "may" have something to do with it.  My friends in the QM forum will be cringing at this idea, but until proven wrong, I maintain that information theory and QM might have a say in it.

I don't think the question anymore is if QM plays any sort of a role, but rather to what extent.  There is more and more QM falling through the cracks of warm macroscopic systems.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iNow said:

The core idea here in case you're unfamiliar is that we seem to have different levels of consciousness (whatever that is and however it ultimately gets defined) and that those  levels of complexity can be put into an equation and get explored by reviewing how much activity is occurring across how many brain regions at which intensities in a given time.

All consciousness chats on a science forum tend to arrive at Tononi.  

-- Vat's Law

🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

there is no center for mind in brain; it is all over; mind is also all over in nature

So panpsychism, basically?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I remain on my position that there is no center of mind in the brain.

Easy to do since a definition of mind is so arbitrary and so consistently conflated with self.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

my definition of intelligence is that it is a substrate of mind

That's not a definition, at least not one that anyone with any experience on this topic would willingly accept. The "substrate of mind" is a set of cells that behave in specific ways. 

Sub - Under, beneath, below... Strate - Material, surface, layer... these are useful concepts in construction, but not in definitions of intelligence (which are expressed behaviors and activities viewed from specific perspectives and with an overarching framework.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind in nature tells us that it is not constricted to us and other higher state animals; that it is in, maybe, all living things

Lol... now try definining living. 

54 minutes ago, TheVat said:

All consciousness chats on a science forum tend to arrive at Tononi.  

-- Vat's Law

🙂

Most consciousness chats on a science forum just waste time for page after page after page and go absolutely no where useful.

--iNow's Law 

;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Integrated information theory would probably interest you if you don't already know about it.

I don't think the question anymore is if QM plays any sort of a role, but rather to what extent.  There is more and more QM falling through the cracks of warm macroscopic systems.   

Thanks for the response; I need to know more about integrated information theory.

My colleages in the physics forum would not agree to your statement that its part of QM. It is not through the "Observer Effect" as what is really intended there is not the observer per say, but the observation by an aparatus or object.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

All consciousness chats on a science forum tend to arrive at Tononi.  

-- Vat's Law

🙂

About a few hundred thousand neuroscientists are talking about it and they do not all agree with Tononi 😄

 

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

So panpsychism, basically?

Easy to do since a definition of mind is so arbitrary and so consistently conflated with self.

That's not a definition, at least not one that anyone with any experience on this topic would willingly accept. The "substrate of mind" is a set of cells that behave in specific ways. 

Sub - Under, beneath, below... Strate - Material, surface, layer... these are useful concepts in construction, but not in definitions of intelligence (which are expressed behaviors and activities viewed from specific perspectives and with an overarching framework.

Lol... now try definining living. 

Most consciousness chats on a science forum just waste time for page after page after page and go absolutely no where useful.

--iNow's Law 

;) 

We are far from panpsychism!

I am looking for a discussion, not a conflict; its about learning, not necessarily being right.

"Substrate", can be used in other applications than construction

'Most consciousness chats on a science forum just waste time"; then don't participate and there will be less pages.

Disapointed with the level of discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

its about learning, not necessarily being right.

Why would you ask that flawed claims not be challenged and suggest some desire to learn what is "not right?" That's ridiculous. 

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Disapointed with the level of discussion

I feel this deeply right now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

About a few hundred thousand neuroscientists are talking about it and they do not all agree with Tononi 😄

 

True.  What I meant is that IIT has been a sort of centerpiece for a lot of recent discussion and debate on how the mind works.  Just today I was browsing Vox and noticed yet another article on IIT.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/12/15/24001424/consciousness-complexity-neuroscience-mental-health

There are some strong rival theories out there, the one of Changeux and Dehaene comes to mind, often called the Global Neuronal Workspace.   It's a model that may be useful in understanding consciousness as an emergent process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehaene–Changeux_model

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

a lot of recent discussion and debate on how the mind works.

Amplified by the stunning abilities of AI that has come over the world like a wave this year… and the deep philosophical questions around being, existing, and trusting that’s generating. 

There are reasons so many people are thinking and talking about it. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

True.  What I meant is that IIT has been a sort of centerpiece for a lot of recent discussion and debate on how the mind works.  Just today I was browsing Vox and noticed yet another article on IIT.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/12/15/24001424/consciousness-complexity-neuroscience-mental-health

There are some strong rival theories out there, the one of Changeux and Dehaene comes to mind, often called the Global Neuronal Workspace.   It's a model that may be useful in understanding consciousness as an emergent process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehaene–Changeux_model

 

First article is interesting as it shows how to measure consciousness complexity, and speaks to iNow's post on how to measure consciousness. Said article provides a few examples of how it could be done. Good!

Second article shows strong rival theories, which can be added to numerous other ones.  The issue for neuroscientists is that they have too many theories, with none so far being able to account for all various aspects of consciousness.  As for an emergent process, I tend to shy away from this, because, for me at least, it seems to show that we do not understand, so we say it is emergent. Finally, many theories and none prevailing, may also be an indication that we need to look elswhere for a suitable theory of mind"

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Amplified by the stunning abilities of AI that has come over the world like a wave this year… and the deep philosophical questions around being, existing, and trusting that’s generating. 

There are reasons so many people are thinking and talking about it. 

Good point! nothing better than a 'disruptive" technology for people to start talking about intelligence and what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

My colleages in the physics forum would not agree to your statement that its part of QM. It is not through the "Observer Effect" as what is really intended there is not the observer per say, but the observation by an aparatus or object.

I was talking more about QM having correlations to the mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please pardon this late response:

13 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I strongly disagree with your statement that mind is not quite the enigma some researchers conclude. From neuroscientists themselves "consciousness research far from converging towards a unifying paradigm, has become more fractious and chaotic than ever".

I agree with iNow, you appear to be conflating mind with consciousness as a singular concept; therefore, before I proceed further, let me provide some clarity on how I perceive these distinct qualities.  You've title this discussion thread with "Mind" and have cited research in neuroscience as a basis for your perspective.  If our discussion regards the mind with a basis in neuroscience then this discussion does indeed involve brain function.  Specifically, mind and consciousness does not exist without brain function.  More specifically, consciousness is the progenitor of that quality or attribute we perceive as the mind.  For clarity sake, we should define the relative and basic nature of consciousness in brain function.

Consciousness isn't a quality unique to humans. From my view, consciousness is merely the awareness suggested by an organism's responses to stimuli.  To respond to stimuli, an organism must have an sensory system for the detection of stimuli.  In addition to a sensory detection system, an organism must also have a system that provides recipracol responses to detected stimuli.  In the brain, we have afferent neural pathways for the delivery of sensory into our central nervous system and efferent pathways for the recipracol responses that issue from our central nervous system. The effect of this diametrical system is that the action of one of these systems does not engage without the action of the other--essentially, there is no efferent response from the brain without afferent stimulation.

Consciousness is the efferently expressed behavior that suggests awareness and awareness is the basic progenitor of those processing in the brain that lead to the quality we perceive as having a mind.  To add emphasis, the entirety of this process requires energy and without that energy the system fails.  With brain function--and yes, this is about the brain--failure is not a option. Homeostasis is the process that drives brain function. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.