BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Connection between “physical world” and “consciousness”, Is it plausible?
pilechian
post Jun 01, 2007, 07:25 AM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



Hello all,

I’ve heard a lot about approaches which are trying to draw a connection between “physical world” and “consciousness”. They all try to make a connection between some features of the physical things and consciousness. But as I can see we get all of our information through our mind (or consciousness) so how can one investigate what are real features of the physical things?

I mean that when you are discussing of a feature in a physical thing you are aware of that feature and therefore it is a part of your consciousness so it seems to be a part of your consciousness rather than a real physical feature.
Isn’t it so?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dragan
post Jun 01, 2007, 08:16 AM
Post #2


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3
Joined: May 30, 2007
Member No.: 11516



Nice thinking pilechian,

As I say before in my post, you must think radically. In a way, how from non-physical entity is made the physical.

Consciousness is concerned to be the non-physical missing link between the physical entities.



cheers
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pilechian
post Jun 01, 2007, 08:42 AM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



QUOTE(Dragan @ Jun 01, 2007, 08:16 AM) *

Nice thinking pilechian,

As I say before in my post, you must think radically. In a way, how from non-physical entity is made the physical.

Consciousness is concerned to be the non-physical missing link between the physical entities.



cheers

Dear Dragon

My point is that since our understanding is actually limited to our consciousness, it seems to me that we are actually trying to make a connection between two parts of the consciousness rather than physical things and consciousness. I strictly believe that this change in the definition of the problem is so useful for better understanding of its nature.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 01, 2007, 02:53 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



WYSINWYG
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 01, 2007, 05:20 PM
Post #5


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(pilechian @ Jun 01, 2007, 08:25 AM) *
so it seems to be a part of your consciousness rather than a real physical feature.


seems being the key word here. Yes, it may well seem like that for you, but so do many optical illusions, hallucinations and dreams.



In any event, the idea you are suggesting is not new; there is a long tradition in philosophy (spanning over two millenia) devoted to idealism and its consequences.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pilechian
post Jun 02, 2007, 07:38 AM
Post #6


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jun 01, 2007, 05:20 PM) *

QUOTE(pilechian @ Jun 01, 2007, 08:25 AM) *
so it seems to be a part of your consciousness rather than a real physical feature.


seems being the key word here. Yes, it may well seem like that for you, but so do many optical illusions, hallucinations and dreams.



In any event, the idea you are suggesting is not new; there is a long tradition in philosophy (spanning over two millenia) devoted to idealism and its consequences.

Dear Ludic_Dream

A. So I try to wipe out “seems” and rearrange my suggestions to be more logical:

1- Every piece of information you get, you are aware of that. So it is a part of your consciousness.
2- When we are talking about “features of the physical things”, we are talking about a piece of information which we think we know about physical things.

As a result when we are talking about “features of the physical things” we are actually talking about consciousness entities.

B. I’m fully aware that what I’m telling is very ancient idea. No argument about that.

C. But the reason why I suggest this is to change the definition of the problem of relating physical world to mind. As I’ve mentioned before this change in definition is so useful. For instance if we accept that we are trying to connect two parts of the consciousness together, the problem of different nature of the physical world and mind will be wipe out.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 02, 2007, 10:59 AM
Post #7


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



Where do the pieces of information (from 1 above) come from if not from something other than the consciousness we are aware of? And how would you explain subliminal information which we are not aware of yet which becomes indirectly part of our conscious awareness through its effects?

About investigating "real" features of the physical things, quite a bit has been said about this, with some claiming we can know the "real" features, either through representations of the will (Schopenhauer), or that consciousness itself is the real essence of things (Upanishads, Gita), or that the real features of things are mathematical (Spinoza) and hence accessible to our understanding.

The fact is that we have been stuck trying to explain consciousness through consciousness. This is obvious. The solution is not.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Jun 02, 2007, 03:35 PM
Post #8


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



The way I think about the the physical world and our consciousness.

For me the physical world really exists.
We really exist, and I'm damned sure our thoughts exist.
We use our brains, both subconsciously and consciously, to construct 'models' or 'representations' of the real world (including our real selves and our real thoughts).
So all thoughts are no more than these representations.
When these representations are particularly close to the reality of the real world, we can be extremely successful in our real world interactions.
When these representations are poor or non-existent we have theories which need improving to be of better use in our understand of those aspects of the real world entities.
These representations we develop have no 'substance' in a physical sense, so they are not 'real' in the sense of the real world objects or rules themselves. Nonetheless, they are necessary blueprints of information about real world objects and rules (natural laws).
I cannot see any advantage to concluding that thoughts about external objects are more realistic than the objects themselves!
This does not mean that the posts above are wrong, just that my own experience and thoughts lead me to believe in my statements as adequately explaining what goes on.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 02, 2007, 03:50 PM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



I'm still amazed at times by our mental construction of our physical bodies. For instance, take a moment to reflect on one of your legs, and reflect on the fact that this experience of your leg, which feels very real and seems to be an object extended in 3D space, is just a mental construct, a mere hallucination of sorts. When you become aware of the constructive nature of all mental representations, you may decide to start deconstructing these representations, but when you begin to do so, the question invariably arises, "if we deconstruct all mental representations, what are we left with besides non-differentiated consciousness, which is not necessarily something terribly interesting in itself?" And how far can we take the deconstruction process? Do we deconstruct ourselves into non-consciousness?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 02, 2007, 04:49 PM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Are there subcomponents of consciousness, like subatomic particles or energy? What about E=MC^2 wrt consciousness?

Consciousness could be considered to have two overall perspectives:

1. Its perception/interpretation of the external
2. Its internalization (or, itself)

How are these two aspects influenced by different regions of the brain, and how these regions work together? A good example are those areas concerned with speech and the unusual different aphasias when either Broca's or Wernicka's areas are damaged, and especially weird, how the mind works language behind these aphasias, and then how other minds interpret the output.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pilechian
post Jun 03, 2007, 07:25 AM
Post #11


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



Dear Lucid_Dream,

A. Lucid_Dream wrote: “Where do the pieces of information (from 1 above) come from if not from something other than the consciousness we are aware of?”
Yes, there is so likely that there is “A real world” actually. It is hard to deny that But still what we are aware of, is our consciousness not any probable “real world”.

B. About subliminal information: may be you have to pay attention to the real argument I’ve made. I don’t argue that “there is not a real world”. This “real world” probably exists and has its own effect on us. What I claim is that “physical things we are aware of them, and we call them “real world” are not actual “real world” but are parts of our consciousness”. Therefore subliminal information is out of domain of my discussion. Actually I want to demonstrate that no philosophical theory (which is necessarily a part of consciousness of the philosopher who has constructed it) is able to relate “consciousness” to “real physical world”. What they are trying to do is to make a connection between two parts of the consciousness. It is so crucial because it emphasize that they are trying to connect two concepts which are in the same domain (Mind domain) not in two different domains (Real physical domain and Mind domain).

C. Lucid_Dream wrote: “We can know the "real" features”:
1 .Either through representations of the will (Schopenhauer): If we are conscious about our “wills”, it follows what I’ve discussed up to now. If not, they are subliminal and so follow B.

2. Consciousness itself is the real essence of things (Upanishads, Gita): Isn’t it somehow what I’ve said?

3. Real features of things are mathematical (Spinoza) and hence accessible to our understanding: How has he deduced that “Real features of things are mathematical“? It is so obviously a process in consciousness. (But thanks, I thought that Spinoza had just tried to explain moral principles through math).

D. I’m not exactly trying to explain consciousness using itself. What I’m trying to do now is to make it clear that we are actually trying to make a connection between two parts which are in the same domain (Mind domain).


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 03, 2007, 08:05 PM
Post #12


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(pilechian @ Jun 03, 2007, 08:25 AM) *
What I’m trying to do now is to make it clear that we are actually trying to make a connection between two parts which are in the same domain (Mind domain).

how is this a non-trivial observation when it has been known for well over 2000 years that everything we perceive is of consciousness, and not of the thing itself in the "real world"? The "real world" is an extrapolation from our experiences and mental constructs, and assumes there is a coherence between the "real world" and our perception, and that things in the "real world" are based on observations that can be confirmed by other individuals. Do read Spinoza's "Ethics", as he has a lot to say on the issue of God, mind, and ethics that you would likely find of interest.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pilechian
post Jun 04, 2007, 12:51 AM
Post #13


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jun 03, 2007, 08:05 PM) *

how is this a non-trivial observation when it has been known for well over 2000 years that everything we perceive is of consciousness, and not of the thing itself in the "real world"?


Dear Lucid_Dream

Ok. Let’s assume that any philosopher does know this very concept. So what’s your idea about the following sentences? :

“…Strawson, having wrestled his angel to a draw, stands revealed as a panpsychist: basic things (protons, for example) are loci of conscious experience. You don’t find that plausible? Well, I warned you.”
(From Jerry Fodor’s review on “Consciousness and Its Place in Nature: Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? by Galen Strawson and et al.”). (I cannot put web adress here but you can find it in recent post in david chalmers weblog.)

I don’t see any reason to think that here “basic things” are assumed to be a part in consciousness. Do you see?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 04, 2007, 07:39 AM
Post #14


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



Panpsychism (the view that everything has consciousness) is a counter to emergentism (the view that consciousness suddenly emerges in, or is associated with, only some things but not others). The assumption behind panpsychism is that consciousness must be a fundamental feature of reality, and hence is present in varying degrees throughout everything. The question is whether this is more plausible than one of the assumptions of emergentism; i.e., that it's possible for consciousness to be 'selectively' associated with certain realities but not others. One big problem with emergentism is trying to explain the conditions that give rise to consciousness (or that lead to its selective association with certain parts of reality but not others), whereas panpsychism assumes consciousness is ubiquitious, and instead has the task of explaining how the particular forms of consciousness are related to the particular parts of reality.

Btw, pilechian, you should be able to post links now.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 04, 2007, 12:40 PM
Post #15


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(pilechian @ Jun 01, 2007, 09:42 AM) *
My point is that since our understanding is actually limited to our consciousness, it seems to me that we are actually trying to make a connection between two parts of the consciousness rather than physical things and consciousness. I strictly believe that this change in the definition of the problem is so useful for better understanding of its nature.

This is much like the philosophy of George Berkeley:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 04, 2007, 12:43 PM
Post #16


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jun 04, 2007, 08:39 AM) *

Panpsychism (the view that everything has consciousness) is a counter to emergentism (the view that consciousness suddenly emerges in, or is associated with, only some things but not others). ...

The problem with panpsychism is that it doesn't account for why most of our mind is unconscious. Emergentism directly tackles that issue. It would seem that consciousness is a scarce resource to be allocated efficiently.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 04, 2007, 02:16 PM
Post #17


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 04, 2007, 01:43 PM) *
The problem with panpsychism is that it doesn't account for why most of our mind is unconscious.

the standard reply to your objection is that all of our mind is conscious, which is a consequence of panpsychism (i.e., that everything is conscious), but that you don't have access to it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 04, 2007, 02:54 PM
Post #18


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



So Dr. Freud's Unconscious is actually "conscious but inaccessible." That results in a conscious conscious mind and an unconscious but in accessible conscious mind. Too complicated by Occam's razor, and it still doesn't answer the question of why some parts are "accessible" and some parts are not.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pilechian
post Jun 05, 2007, 01:36 AM
Post #19


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



Dear Lucid_Dream

I take PanPsychism as an example. I think PanPsychism is concluded because (1) we can not deny that we are conscious and (2) we are made (roughly) of some material (= flesh). They “seem” to be rational statements. But if you find it somehow odd that things as tables or etc. do have consciousness (as I found) it may lead you to perceive that what this “oddity” may actually mean and how it is related to our subject:

A. As before we accept that everything which we are discussing about is a part of our consciousness (and/or) even unconscious.

B. (A) Can somehow show that the real frame work we are working in is Mind (roughly), as a sum of consciousness and unconscious. (It is why I persisted on the same nature of two things we are trying to connect together).

C. My intuition and experiences tells me that if a theory sounds to be odd (in the way that it is seems to be unsatisfactory but even we don’t have any why it is) it somehow means that some fact about that theory is violating principles that our Mind (exclusive to every individual) has been based on. It simply means that any “oddity” (in the way that I described) is a violation of the framework (Mind). So if the theory sounds odd, it is its failure.

You may say that it’s too obvious. Yes I agree. But I’m putting emphasize on it to emphasize on the fact that prior to any discussion about consciousness or related things, we have to declare rules of our framework (which I suggest is the Mind). I mean that when we are using our Mind as a framework we have to declare some rules about “working outline” of the Mind. But we always declare parts of our Minds (pieces of information in our Minds as (1) and (2) are) as rules of our framework.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 05, 2007, 07:37 AM
Post #20


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



I don't think panpsychism is odd, or that the notion of a table being conscious is odd. Consciousness is a completely impersonal phenomena, much like the forces of Nature such as gravitation and electro-magnetism, which are ubiquitous. So why should we expect consciousness to be any different? If consciousness is akin to a fundamental force or property of nature, then it should be ubiquitous. The question is to what extent consciousness is a fundamental feature of Nature. The idea that consciousness magically 'emerges' seems much less plausible to me than that it exists everywhere and in everything. Granted, there are problems with determining what realities have access to what consciousness (i.e., why I'm not consciously aware of your consciousness or of a table's consciousness), but these problems are more acceptable than the big problem of getting something from nothing, which is what emergentism proposes.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 05, 2007, 09:44 AM
Post #21


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jun 05, 2007, 08:37 AM) *
... these problems are more acceptable than the big problem of getting something from nothing, which is what emergentism proposes.

Put mechanical power into a generator shaft, turning it, and you get electricity emerging. Put sugar into my bloodstream and you (I) get consciousness emerging. How is that odd?

The analogy can be literally true in the case of an unconscious patient in insulin shock. A glucose IV will wake him up.

I suppose everyone is asking about the exact details of the chemical phenomenon. With bioluminescence, we have atoms in an energized state emitting photons. With internal luminence, perhaps we have them emitting conscions. Neuroscientists, get to work!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 05, 2007, 10:24 AM
Post #22


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 05, 2007, 10:44 AM) *
Put mechanical power into a generator shaft, turning it, and you get electricity emerging.

but the electricity doesn't appear out nowhere. It's always there.

QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 05, 2007, 10:44 AM) *
Neuroscientists, get to work!

smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pilechian
post Jun 05, 2007, 10:37 AM
Post #23


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jun 05, 2007, 07:37 AM) *

...(i.e., why I'm not consciously aware of your consciousness or of a table's consciousness)...

Dear Lucid_Dream

A. Ok. Let’s assume that conscious tables are not odd (though they still sound so odd to me).
As you mentioned in your post you are not consciously aware of a table's consciousness. So how do you know “a table's consciousness does exist”, when you are not “consciously aware” of that? I mean if you are not “consciously aware” of any aspect of consciousness of a table, which clue makes you conclude that that table is conscious?

B. I’m neither in favor of panpsychism nor emergentism. What I’m just trying to put emphasize on, as I’ve mentioned before, is the fact that when we are using our Mind as a framework we have to declare some rules about “working outline” of the Mind. But we always declare parts of our Minds (pieces of information in our Minds) as rules of our framework.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 05, 2007, 10:51 AM
Post #24


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jun 05, 2007, 11:24 AM) *
but the electricity doesn't appear out nowhere. It's always there.

I have a different view. Take the case of a DC generator, the type of which Thomas Edison was fond. Suppose we connect a simple circuit of copper wire. The free electrons in the copper wire are always there, and when we turn the crank, the electrons begin to travel. However, before we turned the crank, there was no magnetic field around the wire. None at all. When we are turning the crank, a magnetic field is established and remains present and detectable. The magnetic field emerges in a manner (roughly, perhaps, perhpas not) similar to the way I imagine consciousness emerges from the electro-chemical activity of neurons.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 05, 2007, 10:53 AM
Post #25


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 05, 2007, 11:51 AM) *
The magnetic field emerges in a manner (roughly, perhaps, perhpas not) similar to the way I imagine consciousness emerges from the electro-chemical activity of neurons.

that makes emergentism sound more plausible
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 05, 2007, 10:57 PM
Post #26


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 05, 2007, 06:44 PM) *
With internal luminence, perhaps we have them emitting conscions. Neuroscientists, get to work!
Excellent! Maybe there could instead be an analogy with gravitons that are associated with an incredibly weak force and that might explain the seemingly very localized characteristic of consciousness (save telepathy that we all know is real!).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 06, 2007, 08:43 AM
Post #27


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



But consciousness is not localized! Non-locality is one of the well known properties of consciousness. The "atoms" of consciousness (qualia) have no "place" in the 3D physical world. The brain's neurons are local, of course, but not the consciousness they produce. Very mysterious, eh?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pilechian
post Jun 08, 2007, 06:25 AM
Post #28


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



Dear all

You know, I don’t think that any of these analogies mentioned here could make clear what consciousness would be. Actually as these are parts of consciousness, you can not explain a whole concept using just some of its parts. You are reducing consciousness to some of its parts. We are better to search for more unusual explanations.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jun 08, 2007, 07:43 AM
Post #29


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 06, 2007, 09:43 AM) *

But consciousness is not localized! Non-locality is one of the well known properties of consciousness. The "atoms" of consciousness (qualia) have no "place" in the 3D physical world. The brain's neurons are local, of course, but not the consciousness they produce. Very mysterious, eh?


you make an analogy to magnetism, which is a localized field, and then claim consciousness is not localized. Trying to have your cake and eat it too?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pilechian
post Jun 08, 2007, 09:38 AM
Post #30


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
Member No.: 11590



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jun 08, 2007, 07:43 AM) *

you make an analogy to magnetism, which is a localized field, and then claim consciousness is not localized. Trying to have your cake and eat it too?


Dear All

I agree with lucid_dream. Actually I think that if you want to define or explain consciousness you have to do that using something more fundamental than consciousness (and also understandable to human being). Does anyone have an idea what it would be?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2017 - 07:13 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles