2 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

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.

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. 

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

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.

Your writing is very clear and concise, and valuable

I know that my method of inquiry is unconventional and at times bothersome, but here is an article that I would like for you to comment on! If you do not wish to do so, I would understand.

"With a finding that will "rewrite neuroanatomy textbooks," University of Iowa neurologist Aaron Boes, MD, Ph.D., and his colleagues show that the thalamus is not a critical part of the brain pathway involved in keeping humans awake and conscious."

"The finding upends decades of medical dogma that placed the thalamus as a critical relay point for the signals originating in the brainstem and ending in the cortex that maintain consciousness (wakefulness). The new study, published online Nov. 12 as a preprint in the Annals of Neurology, provides the first systematic evidence from humans that questions the routing of this critical pathway. The study evaluates patients with strokes of the thalamus and shows that even extensive injury to the thalamus does not severely impair consciousness."

https://www.gehealthcare.ca/fr-CA/insights/article/rewriting-the-brain-pathway-for-consciousness

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.25377

Furthermore, cephalopods and some other living entities do not have a thalamus per say, but show complex behaviours.

 

12 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.

I agree with this assessment.

I would push the boundary even further by saying that not only higher vertebrates, but also lower life forms have shown "higher levels of thought and planning"

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Your writing is very clear and concise, and valuable

I know that my method of inquiry is unconventional and at times bothersome, but here is an article that I would like for you to comment on! If you do not wish to do so, I would understand.

"With a finding that will "rewrite neuroanatomy textbooks," University of Iowa neurologist Aaron Boes, MD, Ph.D., and his colleagues show that the thalamus is not a critical part of the brain pathway involved in keeping humans awake and conscious."

"The finding upends decades of medical dogma that placed the thalamus as a critical relay point for the signals originating in the brainstem and ending in the cortex that maintain consciousness (wakefulness). The new study, published online Nov. 12 as a preprint in the Annals of Neurology, provides the first systematic evidence from humans that questions the routing of this critical pathway. The study evaluates patients with strokes of the thalamus and shows that even extensive injury to the thalamus does not severely impair consciousness."

https://www.gehealthcare.ca/fr-CA/insights/article/rewriting-the-brain-pathway-for-consciousness

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.25377

Furthermore, cephalopods and some other living entities do not have a thalamus per say, but show complex behaviours.

The only thing I find bothersome is, you're clearly an intelligent person, but you're trying to run before you can walk; please think about building your case, rather than flit from study to study saying "what about this".

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The only thing I find bothersome is, you're clearly an intelligent person, but you're trying to run before you can walk; please think about building your case, rather than flit from study to study saying "what about this".

There is NASA and SpaceX. 

I am more like SpaceX, where I shoot rockets in the air and see them blow-up until maybe they fly.

Greg Venter also used some kind of shotgun approach to genetics’.

It's too late for me to change, because it would take me too much time to back-up and move forward.

And I would rather run and fall on my face than walk, again because time is of the essence for me.

I will nonetheless begin thinking about building a case. However, knowing me, it will be a haphazard and incongruent endeavour.

Through experience and reading, I have come to the conclusion that the conventional mind model is lacking. I am surely wrong, but this is the path that I have chosen to take. And I have also chosen to prove or disprove this by unconventional means; not because my process is better, but because more valid scientific processes are inaccessible to me.

I will continue doing what I do in the hope that maybe someday something of me will make sense.

Be not disapointed if I continue posting studies; this is the only way that I have of expressing myself.

Vive la différence!

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. 

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am more like SpaceX, where I shoot rockets in the air and see them blow-up until maybe they fly.

SpaceX employ rocket 'scientists' for the basics, just saying.

 

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

It's too late for me to change, because it would take me too much time to back-up and move forward.

And I would rather run and fall on my face than walk, again because time is of the essence for me.

I hate to be a prophet of doom, but that's the same for most of us, just never forget that this endeavour is little more than a parlour game, it doesn't matter who wins; so slow down and enjoy what you can learn from the view. 😉

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I hate to be a prophet of doom, but that's the same for most of us, just never forget that this endeavour is little more than a parlour game, it doesn't matter who wins; so slow down and enjoy what you can learn from the view. 😉

Not in it for the winning, but for understanding.

As for learning, I  have done a lot of this with our exchanges.

Also, with what I have posted so far in Science Forums, i believe that there is ground for reasonable doubt on the current-conventional theory of mind.

Sent my application to SpaceX; never got a response 😊

On 4/18/2024 at 8:14 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Your writing is very clear and concise, and valuable

I know that my method of inquiry is unconventional and at times bothersome, but here is an article that I would like for you to comment on! If you do not wish to do so, I would understand.

"With a finding that will "rewrite neuroanatomy textbooks," University of Iowa neurologist Aaron Boes, MD, Ph.D., and his colleagues show that the thalamus is not a critical part of the brain pathway involved in keeping humans awake and conscious."

"The finding upends decades of medical dogma that placed the thalamus as a critical relay point for the signals originating in the brainstem and ending in the cortex that maintain consciousness (wakefulness). The new study, published online Nov. 12 as a preprint in the Annals of Neurology, provides the first systematic evidence from humans that questions the routing of this critical pathway. The study evaluates patients with strokes of the thalamus and shows that even extensive injury to the thalamus does not severely impair consciousness."

https://www.gehealthcare.ca/fr-CA/insights/article/rewriting-the-brain-pathway-for-consciousness

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.25377

I followed your link and reviewed the article regarding pathways of consciousness through the thalamus.  The article regarded the insignificant effect of thalamic damage on arousal and wakefulness.  Although the article freely uses the term consciousness, that term was primarily used as a description of arousal and wakefulness and not specifically as it relates to the precursor awareness associated with mind emergence. 

I agree that thalamic function is not the mediation or maintenance of arousal and wakefulness, but rather the coordination and integration of sensory information and memory associated with our behavioral responses.  It's important to be clear on one's understanding, definition, and use of the term consciousness.

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

I followed your link and reviewed the article regarding pathways of consciousness through the thalamus.  The article regarded the insignificant effect of thalamic damage on arousal and wakefulness.  Although the article freely uses the term consciousness, that term was primarily used as a description of arousal and wakefulness and not specifically as it relates to the precursor awareness associated with mind emergence. 

I agree that thalamic function is not the mediation or maintenance of arousal and wakefulness, but rather the coordination and integration of sensory information and memory associated with our behavioral responses.  It's important to be clear on one's understanding, definition, and use of the term consciousness.

Thank you for this.

It clarifies things greatly for me!

All from Nothing and All for Nothing!

In a bit of a human brain the size of half a grain of rice; 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses and 23 centimeters of blood vessels.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/biological-puzzles-human-brain-visual

“Webb’s image covers a patch of sky approximately the size of a grain of sand held at arm’s length by someone on the ground – and reveals thousands of galaxies in a tiny sliver of vast universe”

NASA’s Webb Delivers Deepest Infrared Image of Universe Yet - NASA

All of this from atoms and molecules randomly colliding with one another and for the ephemeral purpose of survival of the genetically fittest.

Wasted matter, energy, order and complexity at the grandest of scale.

But why am I even aware of all of this?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

An Eclectic Look at Serotonin, God and Machines

Note: originally destined for the “Serotonin” topic in the psychiatry and psychology section, but diverging too much from the thread’s main subject matter.

How many have unnecessarily suffered from psychiatry pursuing a dogmatic serotonin approach to depression. The notion of a genetic defect being compensated by a molecule did not come about solely on account of evidence, but also, I contend, as a way of promulgating a mechanistic worldview. Other explanatory models of depression existed at the time, but a genetic-serotonin model fitted best with a mechanistic worldview. It was also very profitable. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. How many times during our recent history have we unleashed the powers of a godless machine worldview to devastating effect on unsuspecting populations. One only has to think of communism (Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin) as examples of this view wreaking havoc onto the world. Or how about Hitler’s anti-communist, but scientifically “proven” supremacy of the Aryan race. All the while, materialistic capitalism without a soul was faring no much better with its exploited masses (think Guatemalans picking fruits and vegetables under a brutal sun and a cloud of pesticides). Or still yet Neo-Darwinism with its diminutive role of humanity predicated upon “unassailable” original “truths” for which some are now being brought back into question. There is also more to the story than originally thought. Again, has anyone ever asked how negatively the theory, in its original form, had impacted the world? Rather than pause and think, things just moved along without a mere mention of consequences. Adding to this, everything is still being deducted away and reduced down to fundamentals without reference to context. With all of this said, those clamouring for religion as being the scourge of the earth suffer from a severe state of advanced selective amnesia. Let spirituality rule our inner world even if it only implies sacredly offering back our atoms and molecules to the universe upon passing away. The world leaving us behind will be better off then.

36 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

All of this from atoms and molecules randomly colliding with one another and for the ephemeral purpose of survival of the genetically fittest.

Wasted matter, energy, order and complexity at the grandest of scale.

But why am I even aware of all of this?

Relish in your moment of awe and accept the consequences; why am I so special? God was a good got/go to, but all we get now is, dark matter/energy has put a spanner in the works...

Your not... 😉 In a lot of way's "genetically fittest" is a feedback loop, IOW your fit enough to live now, tomorrow is anyones guess... 

Edited May 27, 20241 yr by dimreepr

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Relish in your moment of awe and accept the consequences; why am I so special? God was a good got/go to, but all we get now is, dark matter/energy has put a spanner in the works...

Your not... 😉 In a lot of way's "genetically fittest" is a feedback loop, IOW your fit enough to live now, tomorrow is anyones guess... 

Relishing in awe every moment of it 😊

Not really sure that matter/energy really put a spanner in the works.

Right ho! on living for the moment.

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Not really sure that matter/energy really put a spanner in the works.

That depends on how dark it gets...😉

Edited May 27, 20241 yr by dimreepr