Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 12:06:24 GMT
Edit: deleted, content
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 23, 2017 16:43:34 GMT
Nature published this article last month on the clastrum www.nature.com/news/a-giant-neuron-found-wrapped-around-entire-mouse-brain-1.21539This is not the first time it has been in the news. In 2014 it was discovered it was possible to turn someone "off" (lose consciousness) by stimulating it: www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/The researcher in the first article is a panpsychist (or narrow panpsychist) who entertains that most systems are conscious. One thing that the claustrum always sounds like though is the Cartesian understanding of the pineal gland, the material seat of the soul that interacts with the physical body. (Another interesting article referencing that can be found here: link) Substance dualism is considered unacceptable within philosophy of mind (as Searle says, avoid sunstance dualism at all costs, even being wrong). The great majority of ordinary people do still believe in souls though. So I'm curious, if you believe in a soul how would you say it interacts with the greater brain? And to what capacity? How would a soul - body interaction look to you? Is anything really gained by dragging an outdated idea like the soul into this? Why not focus on sound science and contemplate how this neuron fits into the global neuronal workspace model of consciousness, which is already solidly established? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 18:51:25 GMT
Nature published this article last month on the clastrum www.nature.com/news/a-giant-neuron-found-wrapped-around-entire-mouse-brain-1.21539This is not the first time it has been in the news. In 2014 it was discovered it was possible to turn someone "off" (lose consciousness) by stimulating it: www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/The researcher in the first article is a panpsychist (or narrow panpsychist) who entertains that most systems are conscious. One thing that the claustrum always sounds like though is the Cartesian understanding of the pineal gland, the material seat of the soul that interacts with the physical body. (Another interesting article referencing that can be found here: link) Substance dualism is considered unacceptable within philosophy of mind (as Searle says, avoid sunstance dualism at all costs, even being wrong). The great majority of ordinary people do still believe in souls though. So I'm curious, if you believe in a soul how would you say it interacts with the greater brain? And to what capacity? How would a soul - body interaction look to you? Is anything really gained by dragging an outdated idea like the soul into this? Why not focus on sound science and contemplate how this neuron fits into the global neuronal workspace model of consciousness, which is already solidly established? Well I posted it in the philosophy forum because I was interested in reading neo-Cartesian thought if any exists here. I had a similar discussion before on another board on this specific subject. In hindsight, it probably belongs on a more active philosophy board. I wasn't presenting the information as definitive. Actually I would make a thread on every theory of mind, there was a user already doing that but they were banned. I'm okay with the thread being whatever though.  Anyway I'm not sure how much Koch's work is congruent with global workspace theory. This is what Baars wrote on Quora reasonably recently: |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 24, 2017 16:58:49 GMT
Is anything really gained by dragging an outdated idea like the soul into this? Why not focus on sound science and contemplate how this neuron fits into the global neuronal workspace model of consciousness, which is already solidly established? Well I posted it in the philosophy forum because I was interested in reading neo-Cartesian thought if any exists here. I had a similar discussion before on another board on this specific subject. In hindsight, it probably belongs on a more active philosophy board. I wasn't presenting the information as definitive. Actually I would make a thread on every theory of mind, there was a user already doing that but they were banned. I'm okay with the thread being whatever though. Anyway I'm not sure how much Koch's work is congruent with global workspace theory. This is what Baars wrote on Quora reasonably recently: Fair enough, it is your thread and you get to talk about whatever you want. I just find it unfortunate when there is so much good science going on in the study of the mind and folks want to rehash defeated ideas. Crick and Koch's quest to identify single bits of tissue with consciousness is really quite absurd and betrays a fundamental muddling of thought on a philosophical level. My educated bet is that since the global neuronal workspace theory depends on the workspace being made of neurons with long range connectivity throughout the brain, if this claustrum proves an interesting and vital find, it will be because it is exactly that kind of neuron. But a claustrum sitting in a petri dish all by itself is no more conscious of anything than any other kind of neuron. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 11:24:59 GMT
But a claustrum sitting in a petri dish all by itself is no more conscious of anything than any other kind of neuron. Recall Descartes placed the soul within a structure sitting between the two halves so as to allow for full passage to the entire brain so I don't think the argument would be made that an unlocking can occur with a key isolated from its door. So perhaps not, but maybe if wired to different machinery (of a different conception and integration to its surrounding current bio institution) it may show some surprises and add new questions to its evolutionary function and history. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 22:32:19 GMT
I don't normally waste my time with asses who don't believe in a soul, but I will just say that the brain acts as a filter and a receiver. We see only a very small portion of this reality because the brain filters out most of it due to our nervous system being limited. Compare it to computers. You cannot download a gigabyte of information into 500mg hard drive.
Consciousness does not lie within the brain. These dumbasses looking for consciousness in the brain is like someone looking for the voice inside a radio.
The brain acts as a receiver also.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 27, 2017 12:23:50 GMT
Substance dualism is considered unacceptable within philosophy of mind (as Searle says, avoid sunstance dualism at all costs, even being wrong). Wow that seems a bit of an extreme statement. Did he mean it seriously or was he being a bit tongue-in-cheek? I'm not really a substance dualist (despite having some sympathy with the idea and arguing for it in the past). It strikes me though that what we would expect to see if interactionism were true would be identical to what we would expect to see if it were not true. Since mental-physical interaction would only be observable by the effects on the physical, we would never know whether the physical was just doing what it does or if it was being manipulated by some unobservable force. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 14:15:18 GMT
Substance dualism is considered unacceptable within philosophy of mind (as Searle says, avoid sunstance dualism at all costs, even being wrong). Wow that seems a bit of an extreme statement. Did he mean it seriously or was he being a bit tongue-in-cheek? Sorry no, that's not his actual view (Searle is often identified of endorsing a form of property dualism) He was actually paraphrasing Dennett when he said it (the even being wrong bit was his addition). It was within the philosophy of mind lectures (introducing responses to dualism), now discontinued pending sexual assault charges.  thx, Koch amongst others have often criticised the notion of a soul in that it breaks the energy conservation law, although it's readily conceivable that someone's actions playing a videogame wouldn't tally into the system's worksheet, especially if each agent (both internal, and external) only has a set number of turns/moves/or whatever/ as allocated by that system. Though I may be way off there because I don't know much about it. I believe Descartes may have been searching to distance humanity from the automata (other animal life) and so was trying to identify the access point. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 27, 2017 15:03:08 GMT
Sorry no, that's not his actual view (Searle is often identified of endorsing a form of property dualism) He was actually paraphrasing Dennett when he said it (the even being wrong bit was his addition). Ah ok, that makes more sense! Yeah that's a good analogy. The conservation of energy argument only holds if there is supposedly new energy coming into the system. If mental manipulation of the physical merely redistributes existing energy then the law of conservation of energy stands. Since no-one can answer how interaction would work, it's a bit weak to say "oh it would have to work this way, but it couldn't work that way therefore it's false" |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 27, 2017 16:45:11 GMT
But a claustrum sitting in a petri dish all by itself is no more conscious of anything than any other kind of neuron. Recall Descartes placed the soul within a structure sitting between the two halves so as to allow for full passage to the entire brain so I don't think the argument would be made that an unlocking can occur with a key isolated from its door. I used the example of a petri dish specifically because I saw Koch, in a question and answer session after a talk, literally say that if we discovered the part of the brain that was a “neural correlate of consciousness”, that if it was active sitting all by itself in a petri dish, it would be having a genuine conscious experience. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 27, 2017 16:47:27 GMT
Consciousness does not lie within the brain. These dumbasses looking for consciousness in the brain is like someone looking for the voice inside a radio.
The brain acts as a receiver also. Congratulations, you’ve put your complete ignorance of modern science and philosophy on display in a public space. Hope you’re proud of yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 27, 2017 16:50:35 GMT
Yeah that's a good analogy. The conservation of energy argument only holds if there is supposedly new energy coming into the system. If mental manipulation of the physical merely redistributes existing energy then the law of conservation of energy stands. Since no-one can answer how interaction would work, it's a bit weak to say "oh it would have to work this way, but it couldn't work that way therefore it's false" But there's really no escaping the fact that the only way a mental realm could manipulate the physical realm is by introducing effects that violate the normal laws of physics and chemistry. So of course the world would look different if interactionism were true. We should see events in the brain which cannot be accounted for by what we know about the biochemistry of its workings. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 27, 2017 17:13:19 GMT
Yeah that's a good analogy. The conservation of energy argument only holds if there is supposedly new energy coming into the system. If mental manipulation of the physical merely redistributes existing energy then the law of conservation of energy stands. Since no-one can answer how interaction would work, it's a bit weak to say "oh it would have to work this way, but it couldn't work that way therefore it's false" But there's really no escaping the fact that the only way a mental realm could manipulate the physical realm is by introducing effects that violate the normal laws of physics and chemistry. So of course the world would look different if interactionism were true. We should see events in the brain which cannot be accounted for by what we know about the biochemistry of its workings. Is there a specific example of an observation you would expect to be different were interactionism true? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 18:13:10 GMT
Consciousness does not lie within the brain. These dumbasses looking for consciousness in the brain is like someone looking for the voice inside a radio.
The brain acts as a receiver also. Congratulations, you’ve put your complete ignorance of modern science and philosophy on display in a public space. Hope you’re proud of yourself.
I see you as no different than a native tribesman and won't waste any more of my time on you. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 28, 2017 12:22:47 GMT
Congratulations, you’ve put your complete ignorance of modern science and philosophy on display in a public space. Hope you’re proud of yourself.
I see you as no different than a native tribesman and won't waste any more of my time on you.Maybe, but how do you know consciousness functions like a transistor radio? Just because we can conceive it doing so doesn't mean it actually does. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 28, 2017 16:49:51 GMT
If you take a transistor radio to a remote tribe who has never seen one before, they would take it apart looking for voice. That's what they do who look for consciousness in the brain.
I see you as no different than a native tribesman and won't waste any more of my time on you. That's a bogus analogy. We have no evidence that consciousness exists as some kind of field the brain translates. We have tons of evidence for the brain producing consciousness all on its own. That's why the only people who think like you do are New Age flakes with no understanding of science or the scientific method. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 16:56:12 GMT
If you take a transistor radio to a remote tribe who has never seen one before, they would take it apart looking for voice. That's what they do who look for consciousness in the brain.
I see you as no different than a native tribesman and won't waste any more of my time on you. That's a bogus analogy. We have no evidence that consciousness exists as some kind of field the brain translates. We have tons of evidence for the brain producing consciousness all on its own. That's why the only people who think like you do are New Age flakes with no understanding of science or the scientific method.
Again, I don't argue with the equivalent of pygmies. Good-bye. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 30, 2017 17:02:13 GMT
Your 'proof' proves nothing except that they can simulate things by manipulating parts of the 'filter/receiver'.
Again, I don't argue with the equivalent of pygmies. Good-bye. That isn't how science works, cupcake. You first must give reasons for believing that consciousnesses exists separately as something that can be filtered in the first place. There is no evidence for this absurd idea in the slightest. None. Zip. Zero. Trust me, the average pygmy understands how the world works far better than the likes of you. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 14, 2017 12:57:37 GMT
"Francis Crick and Christof Koch suggested the claustrum might be the anatomical basis of conscious thought."
What I'd be more interested in is why they think this. What is the evidentiary/argumentative support for it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 1:55:07 GMT
"Francis Crick and Christof Koch suggested the claustrum might be the anatomical basis of conscious thought." What I'd be more interested in is why they think this. What is the evidentiary/argumentative support for it? Because they were looking for the reductive explanation for the Aristotelian common sense, a location in the brain where the sensory information is binded together. Crick & Koch presented their reasons in Crick's final paper here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569501/ |
|
