BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Does Memory Reside Outside the Brain?
Hey Hey
post Dec 13, 2009, 10:06 AM
Post #1


Supreme God
*******

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



Biologist, author, and investigator Dr. Rupert Sheldrake notes that the search for the mind has gone in two opposite directions. While a majority of scientists have been searching inside the skull, he looks outside.

According to Sheldrake, author of numerous scientific books and articles, memory does not reside in any geographic region of the cerebrum, but instead in a kind of field surrounding and permeating the brain. Meanwhile, the brain itself acts as a “decoder” for the flux of information produced by the interaction of each person with their environment.

In his paper "Mind, Memory, and Archetype Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious" published in the journal Psychological Perspectives, Sheldrake likens the brain to a TV set—drawing an analogy to explain how the mind and brain interact.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science-te...cious-3486.html

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Morphic/morphic1_paper.html
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 13, 2009, 02:03 PM
Post #2


God
******

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



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dr. Jumba Jookiba
post Dec 17, 2009, 08:14 AM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Dec 17, 2009
Member No.: 32535



As I see my former lab partner Dr. Rupert Jacques von Hamsterviel is doing quite well in the Trinity College.

Still projects to "Take over the Universe?" As I see he has good funding from the Trinity College. Very interesting.

---

Btw people, Hi, I am a friend of Enki from your forum, I am from ArmEn[k]ia. I have handed to Enki some pictures of the Rings of Power which he published in the Telepathy section and which, as I see now are removed (certainly that does not surprise me why, but it is good that it once was published, chewed and digested and understood).

It was here: BrainMeta com Forum > Science > Cognitive Science & Psychology > Telepathy: A Potential of Meditation or A Delusion of the Mind?, In this topic, we will explore whether or not telepathy is a real, accessible potential for human beings, and if so, how to prove its existence and how use such an ability. smile.gif

I do not plan to post at your forum, I just registered to express the sense of my great impression from the presentation of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake.

My respects Dr. Sheldrake. Enki forwarded to me the link. We both are impressed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
almoehi
post Jan 06, 2010, 12:33 PM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Jan 06, 2010
Member No.: 32562



interesting
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jan 07, 2010, 07:00 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

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



Dear All, I've pruned this topic so that all of the irrelevant material between Enki and his friend has now gone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jan 07, 2010, 07:04 PM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

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



You won't find consciousness in the brain

New Scientist
07 January 2010 by Ray Tallis

MOST neuroscientists, philosophers of the mind and science journalists feel the time is near when we will be able to explain the mystery of human consciousness in terms of the activity of the brain. There is, however, a vocal minority of neurosceptics who contest this orthodoxy. Among them are those who focus on claims neuroscience makes about the preciseness of correlations between indirectly observed neural activity and different mental functions, states or experiences.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2052...-the-brain.html
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Jan 14, 2010, 12:20 AM
Post #7


God
******

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



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jan 07, 2010, 08:04 PM) *

You won't find consciousness in the brain

New Scientist
07 January 2010 by Ray Tallis

MOST neuroscientists, philosophers of the mind and science journalists feel the time is near when we will be able to explain the mystery of human consciousness in terms of the activity of the brain. There is, however, a vocal minority of neurosceptics who contest this orthodoxy. Among them are those who focus on claims neuroscience makes about the preciseness of correlations between indirectly observed neural activity and different mental functions, states or experiences.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2052...-the-brain.html


this was an interesting article, moreso for the accompanying comments. I do not think, however, that the article successfully disputed identity theories of mind-brain. To say that different aspects (i.e., neural interactions and consciousness) of one thing presupposes consciousness, and therefore is false, is false reasoning, though it does raise some interesting points. For instance, compare the two aspects of mind-brain with the two aspects of the EM field, the latter of which depends on frame of reference regarding the electric and magnetic components of the field that you observe, and it is clear that the mind-brain aspects are different in a fundamental way when compared to the electric and magnetic components of an EM field.

Further, what was lacking in the article, unless i overlooked it, was a definition of consciousness. Are we talking about consciousness of things, the underlying conscious self, or what exactly? The article does not make it clear.

I do agree, however, that correlating fMRI, which measures blood oxygenation, with consciousness, is not going to tell us anything of interest about consciousness. I can elaborate on this if people are interested.

Sceptics play a useful role if they are able to highlight weaknesses in their opponents arguments, and I think this article does a half decent job and is worth the read. Not that I agree with any of it. Consciousness, as we experience it, is identical to coordinated neural activities. That seems clear. What isn't clear is precisely what type of neural activities are identical to consciousness. And if we knew precisely what neural activities are identical to consciousness, would that really explain consciousness? I think it would, from an information theoretic point of view (at the very least). Clearly, an explanation of consciousness in terms of coordinated neural activities is not going to be identical to my experience of green or blue, but the information content will be the same.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jan 14, 2010, 09:05 AM
Post #8


Supreme God
*******

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



So I guess, to sum up, the key problem is to explain why if all consciousness is neural activity, not all neural activity is consciousness. I gather that, in fact, most neural activity is unconscious.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Jan 14, 2010, 09:43 PM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Jan 14, 2010, 01:20 AM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jan 07, 2010, 08:04 PM) *

You won't find consciousness in the brain

New Scientist
07 January 2010 by Ray Tallis

MOST neuroscientists, philosophers of the mind and science journalists feel the time is near when we will be able to explain the mystery of human consciousness in terms of the activity of the brain. There is, however, a vocal minority of neurosceptics who contest this orthodoxy. Among them are those who focus on claims neuroscience makes about the preciseness of correlations between indirectly observed neural activity and different mental functions, states or experiences.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2052...-the-brain.html


this was an interesting article, moreso for the accompanying comments. I do not think, however, that the article successfully disputed identity theories of mind-brain. To say that different aspects (i.e., neural interactions and consciousness) of one thing presupposes consciousness, and therefore is false, is false reasoning, though it does raise some interesting points. For instance, compare the two aspects of mind-brain with the two aspects of the EM field, the latter of which depends on frame of reference regarding the electric and magnetic components of the field that you observe, and it is clear that the mind-brain aspects are different in a fundamental way when compared to the electric and magnetic components of an EM field.

Further, what was lacking in the article, unless i overlooked it, was a definition of consciousness. Are we talking about consciousness of things, the underlying conscious self, or what exactly? The article does not make it clear.

I do agree, however, that correlating fMRI, which measures blood oxygenation, with consciousness, is not going to tell us anything of interest about consciousness. I can elaborate on this if people are interested.

Sceptics play a useful role if they are able to highlight weaknesses in their opponents arguments, and I think this article does a half decent job and is worth the read. Not that I agree with any of it. Consciousness, as we experience it, is identical to coordinated neural activities. That seems clear. What isn't clear is precisely what type of neural activities are identical to consciousness. And if we knew precisely what neural activities are identical to consciousness, would that really explain consciousness? I think it would, from an information theoretic point of view (at the very least). Clearly, an explanation of consciousness in terms of coordinated neural activities is not going to be identical to my experience of green or blue, but the information content will be the same.


The problem is what is clear at one level is unclear at another. What is up at this level is down at the next level.

Think about this.

Consciousness -> Existing In The Mind -> Existing In Reality -> Reality Existing In A Mind

We could be consciousness existing in minds which exist in a reality which exist in a mind. Then, that mind could be existing in a reality created by another mind. To infinitum. What is up at this level is down at the meta-level.

Problem is, who really knows what reality is. We use science to explain what we can observe and do a damn good job of it, but what lies beyond that -- what is past what our senses can know is very difficult to say. So true in one sense, completely unknown in another.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jan 15, 2010, 06:03 AM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

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



QUOTE(maximus242 @ Jan 15, 2010, 05:43 AM) *
Problem is, who really knows what reality is. We use science to explain what we can observe and do a damn good job of it, but what lies beyond that -- what is past what our senses can know is very difficult to say. So true in one sense, completely unknown in another.
Of course, we can probe beyond our senses and much of modern science spends its time doing just that using appropriate instrumentation. It is what that probed data means that is the problem, and even whether our (human) minds can make sense of it, if there is any sense to be made.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zafira
post Jan 22, 2010, 06:21 AM
Post #11


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Nov 04, 2009
Member No.: 32452



nice new stuff for me, thanks
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Feb 14, 2010, 12:08 PM
Post #12


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5156
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Paul King
post Aug 20, 2010, 11:41 AM
Post #13


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Aug 14, 2005
From: San Francisco, CA
Member No.: 4500



QUOTE(Rick @ Jan 14, 2010, 10:05 AM) *
So I guess, to sum up, the key problem is to explain why if all consciousness is neural activity, not all neural activity is consciousness. I gather that, in fact, most neural activity is unconscious.

A nice distillation!

From the neuroscience viewpoint, it is not the "neural activity" that is conscious (or unconscious). Rather, consciousness is a phenomenon that results from neural activity, and some neural activity (e.g. the NCCs) is more central to consciousness than others. That is, neural activity does not have the property of being conscious just like air/water molecule motion does not have the property of being a huricane.

The emerging neuroscience view is that consciousness in the brain is essentially a real-time conversation among the brain's 100 billion neurons to determine and act on the state of the world. This conversation happens via spatiotemporal spike patterns transmitted over bidirectional neural pathways, primarily in the cerebral cortex, and involves a lot of recurrent feedback and may involve temporally synchronized neural population activity and chaotic attractors.

As an analogy consider the 1+ million scientists of the world (neurons) who engage in scientific experiments (neural activity) and publish reports (communication). Collectively, these 1 million scientists are attempting to figure out how the world works (generate perceived reality). There is a certain "collective consciousness" that is the evolving consensus view of the world's scientists. This consensus view forms the basis of collective action such as new experiments by scientists (active sensing) or initiatives by governments (goal-directed action), for example in response to the scientific belief that global warming is real.

To ask which neural activity is conscious is like asking which scientific activity is the consensus view of the field. Authors of seminal papers (NCCs) have a greater impact than lab technicians ("unconscious" neurons). However the thought leaders of today may be discredited tomorrow. And a marginalized view confined to a small community today ("subconscious processing") might one day break out and alter the paradigm of the field (become "conscious"). Analogously, some neurons may play a central role in consciousness in one moment but become irrelevant later, while others that were peripheral become central. This would be analogous to "competition" models of attention in neuroscience.

The neural activity most involved in consciousness goes by names such as the "neural correlates of consciousness" (NCCs) (Koch), the "default mode network" (Malach), or the "dynamic core" (Tononi & Edelman). These all seem to be attempts to circle around the view that all neurons do not participate equally in conscious processing, and yet consciousness results from neural activity.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Aug 20, 2010, 02:41 PM
Post #14


Supreme God
*******

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



Maybe there are levels of consciousness that our 'normal' consciousness is not aware of. Think evolution and where consciousness might go. More of the same thing is difficult to imagine, but partitioning is easy to envisage. One or more partitions might be advanced and inaccessible to others, or even partly accessible with a gradual separation as one becomes so inferior as to be worthless. But this is maybe going to far off track and down the singularity-type pathway. Whatever, partitions would imply that separate biochemistry/physiology/anatomy could be involved in those different partitions of the same brain much as they are in functions such as speech, sensory facilities etc. Apologies in advance for the diversion, but don't knock it until you can explain the etiology of dissociative identity disorder.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Paul King
post Aug 21, 2010, 12:03 PM
Post #15


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Aug 14, 2005
From: San Francisco, CA
Member No.: 4500



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Aug 20, 2010, 03:41 PM) *
Maybe there are levels of consciousness that our 'normal' consciousness is not aware of. Think evolution and where consciousness might go. More of the same thing is difficult to imagine, but partitioning is easy to envisage. ... but don't knock it until you can explain the etiology of dissociative identity disorder.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me!

On the partitioning side, there is no reason to think consciousness requires the entire brain. In split brain patients (severed corpus collosum) people generally assume that each hemisphere has its own slightly separate but aligned consciousness. And sometimes the right hemisphere tries to do something different, which confuses "the patient" who is generally identified with the left hemisphere where language is located.

Many theorists see consciousness as an integrated unification of state across brain regions (the view espoused by the Global Workspace Theory of Baars, and also the Information Integration Theory of Tononi and Edelman, or even the global oscillation synchrony theories of Singer and Engel). So if two brain areas can't communicate with each other, presumeably their consciousness is divided as well.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness

On the unification side, some would say that a dyad (a romantic couple in an intimate long-term relationship) form a shared consciousness and divide the workload of awareness between them. Society and culture may be a collective consciousness that operates on a longer timescale.

There may also be organizational levels. For example buddhist meditators talk about achieving a meta-awareness that transcends "everyday" awareness. Don Beck has a theory called Spiral Dynamics that suggests society is moving toward higher-order conscious awareness modes over time.
http://rationalspirituality.com/articles/K...al_Dynamics.htm

Dissociative identity disorder seems slightly different. Most would say that only one identity is conscious at a time and the different consciousnesses are sequenced. The partitioning would seem to be in the memory and autobiographical narative, not in the awareness.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 22nd July 2017 - 10:51 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  ·  articles