BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Self In The Brain
enlightened_master
post Jan 11, 2004, 08:01 PM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Aug 26, 2003
Member No.: 137




Here's some food for thought, an excerpt from an article in Time magazine from July 17 on the mind and the brain, called "Glimpses of the Mind":

Despite our every instinct to the contrary, [which is a tacit admission we already know what is right here and we have to deny] there is one thing that consciousness is not. Some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the self. Some kernel of awareness that runs the show as the man behind the curtain manipulating the illusion of a powerful magician in the Wizard of Oz. After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain and that it simply doesn't exist


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Jan 11, 2004, 09:32 PM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



I believe this 'dude in the brain' is referred to as the 'homonculus'. If there is no homonculus, then the 'mind' must be non-local. If the mind is non-local, it must be a property of the universe itself

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
purkinje
post Jan 12, 2004, 06:35 AM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Full Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Member No.: 914




I think you mean 'homunculus'. Can you please clarify what you mean by 'If the mind is non-local, it must be a property of the universe itself'. Why can't the mind just be a construct and distributed property of individual brains? What do you mean by the homunculus being a property of the universe itself?


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Jan 12, 2004, 09:21 AM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

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



I can accept that 'self' may well not be 'resident' within a particular, localised set of cells within the body, [which would need to be given its own unique name].
In fact it seems reasonable, or at least efficient, that the 'self' be no more [not to minimise its importance] than a [the] network of permanently active interconnections between the several areas of the brain known to be linked to [or to 'map'] all important organs and parts of the body and mental construct areas as well.

I have said elsewhere that I can accept that the brain contains the mechanism[s] to make the body. This also is the 'internal' model of the body. Everything that happens to that body from within or without, is remembered. This 'information' then IS the self! It is an integrated logbook of all real parts, imagined parts [thoughts] and events, desires etc.
Many parts of the brain, because of separation can easily be used as differentiators for discernment. The generation of 'self' is then seen as 'integration' of information to create a 'whole' [self], which is in effect a construct.
Some ailments like itchy amputated leg or disassociation may more easily then be understood!
Anyone got any more ideas?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Jan 12, 2004, 09:36 AM
Post #5


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
Why can't the mind just be a construct and distributed property of individual brains?


The structure that defines the mind undoubtedly is the brain, and the brain is a distributed information network. What I am talking about is the subjective sense of mind, which is unitary (the 'whole' exixts as a single perceived state). How do you think a disjoint collection of matter might lead to a unitary subjective state? Do you even understand the problem?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
purkinje
post Jan 12, 2004, 11:53 AM
Post #6


Newbie
*

Group: Full Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Member No.: 914




I like your ideas rhymer.

QUOTE
The generation of 'self' is then seen as 'integration' of information to create a 'whole' [self], which is in effect a construct.


but one of the keys involves characterizing that 'integration' and better defining the 'self'.

QUOTE
Do you even understand the problem?


yes. Maybe it has to do with our percepts of "disjoint collections of matter" which in reality are not so disjoint. Besides wholeness, we'd need to account for the apparent individuality of consciousness. How comes about the ego and why does it fool itself, assuming it fools itself?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Jan 12, 2004, 01:36 PM
Post #7


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
Maybe it has to do with our percepts of "disjoint collections of matter" which in reality are not so disjoint.

this sounds like a wonderful discussion in itself. Do you have any ideas on this 'matter'? dry.gif


QUOTE
Besides wholeness, we'd need to account for the apparent individuality of consciousness.

I'm not sure what you mean here; can you rephrase?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 08, 2004, 11:42 AM
Post #8





Group:
Posts:
Joined: --
Member No.:



Yeah, more from purkinje about the ego. Individuality of consciousness as opposed to what?
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
purkinje
post Feb 08, 2004, 12:18 PM
Post #9


Newbie
*

Group: Full Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Member No.: 914



QUOTE (Idd @ Feb 08, 11:42 AM)
Yeah, more from purkinje about the ego. Individuality of consciousness as opposed to what?

Individuality of consciousness, in the sense of experiencing individuality, versus universality and identity of consciousness, in the sense of experiencing universality and identity.

That is, do you experience your individuality, or your universality, or both, or something else? Do you experience yourself as an individual defined (and confined) by your ego, or do you experience yourself beyond ego, to universal consciousness and universal mind?

Have you not experienced anything other than your individuality and ego? If so, then what was it?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 09, 2004, 09:27 AM
Post #10





Group:
Posts:
Joined: --
Member No.:



Through psychadelics, yea I have. But I'm not completely convinced that our conscious experience will develop in that direction once it is expanded. Everyone here seems so sure of it. To me it sounds reasonable but I think I can see other possibilities as well.
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Feb 11, 2004, 08:40 AM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



yes indeed, there is no promise of positive conscious evolution due to 'expansion' tinkering.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Feb 11, 2004, 11:30 AM
Post #12


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



All roads lead to the same place, some just take longer than others to get to the goal.
Even with the idea of curved space it is thorized that going in any direction will eventually lead back to the same place.

"Stupid is as stupid does, mama used to say"- Forrest Gump

All things being equal and created by the same consciousness lead back to the source.
Conscious choice will lead you very quickly.
Unconscious choices will eventually lead to conscious awareness by example and by contrast. You have eternity to create the examples and to make the choices.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Walter
post May 30, 2004, 08:00 PM
Post #13


Unregistered









Individuality of consciousness, in the sense of experiencing individuality, versus universality and identity of consciousness, in the sense of experiencing universality and identity.

That is, do you experience your individuality, or your universality, or both, or something else? Do you experience yourself as an individual defined (and confined) by your ego, or do you experience yourself beyond ego, to universal consciousness and universal mind?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post May 30, 2004, 08:03 PM
Post #14


Unregistered









QUOTE (Walter @ May 30, 08:00 PM)
Individuality of consciousness, in the sense of experiencing individuality, versus universality and identity of consciousness, in the sense of experiencing universality and identity.

That is, do you experience your individuality, or your universality, or both, or something else? Do you experience yourself as an individual defined (and confined) by your ego, or do you experience yourself beyond ego, to universal consciousness and universal mind?

It all comes to the universanl mind, my friend.

Alex
------------------------------------------------
http://www.biofeedbackzone.com
http://www.biofeedbackzone.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
onecross31
post Jul 11, 2004, 10:28 PM
Post #15


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Jul 11, 2004
From: Texas
Member No.: 2991



just like the motherboard of your pc , the mind is the main board of the body .Self/spirit are components , self and spirit being one . The physical brain being equivilant to the hard drive. The soul equivialant to the modem.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jul 13, 2004, 05:36 AM
Post #16


Unregistered









QUOTE (onecross31 @ Jul 11, 10:28 PM)
just like the motherboard of your pc , the mind is the main board of the body .Self/spirit are components , self and spirit being one . The physical brain being equivilant to the hard drive. The soul equivialant to the modem.

No, no, no. Taking your motherboard/pc analogy, the brain (or more accurately, the entire nervous system) is the motherboard of the body. The mind is the software, not the hardware, even though the hardware constrains the software. The hard drive is just where memory is located, and you might be tempted to compare this with the hippocampus in the brain (though it should be noted that the hippocampus seems involved in the transition of short-term memory to long-term, and not with memory storage per se). The soul equivalent to a modem is silly because a modem is just one channel (of many possible channels) enabling the exchange of information. As such, a modem might be comparable to the sensory organs of the body (i.e., retina, skin, cochlea). The soul might be comparable to digital logic (or computation), or in other words, digital logic and computation are the soul of a computer.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tnolley
post Nov 09, 2004, 12:40 PM
Post #17


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Member No.: 3982



QUOTE (rhymer @ Jan 12, 09:21 AM)
I have said elsewhere that I can accept that the brain contains the mechanism[s] to make the body.

DNA handles that quite nicely.

Or are you suggesting the brain reprograms our DNA?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown #20135
post Nov 25, 2004, 05:38 AM
Post #18


Unregistered









tnolley the brain, part of our greater mind, can infact reprogram our DNA, evolution is a testament to this.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
flowerfairy
post Feb 06, 2005, 06:44 PM
Post #19


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 192
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Member No.: 3659



QUOTE (enlightened_master @ Jan 11, 08:01 PM)
After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain and that it simply doesn't exist

well what i don't get is that we must have a conscious in order to survive, since we are conscious beings, so if our conscious does not exist in our brains then where the hell does it exist?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Feb 10, 2005, 02:12 PM
Post #20


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



where does the universe exist?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rajesh
post Feb 12, 2005, 03:23 AM
Post #21


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Member No.: 1690



QUOTE (Dan @ Feb 10, 02:12 PM)
where does the universe exist?

Universe exists in consciousness!



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Feb 12, 2005, 06:26 PM
Post #22


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



where does consciousness exist?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post Feb 12, 2005, 06:28 PM
Post #23


Unregistered









QUOTE (Dan @ Feb 12, 06:26 PM)
where does consciousness exist?

'where' is a form of consciousness, so there is no 'where' that consciousness exists.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post Feb 13, 2005, 02:55 PM
Post #24


Unregistered









consciousness does not exist

it is only the act of observation
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Feb 13, 2005, 03:09 PM
Post #25


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE

'where' is a form of consciousness, so there is no 'where' that consciousness exists.

that makes sense to you?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Feb 13, 2005, 03:14 PM
Post #26


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (Unknown @ Feb 13, 02:55 PM)
consciousness does not exist

it is only the act of observation

then the 'observer' exists, right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post Feb 13, 2005, 03:24 PM
Post #27


Unregistered









QUOTE (Dan @ Feb 13, 03:09 PM)
QUOTE

'where' is a form of consciousness, so there is no 'where' that consciousness exists.

that makes sense to you?

topologically speaking, yes.

There are no distance measures in topology. There are only connectivities. Introducing a distance metric transforms topology into geometry. But distance is only imposed by consciousness; it is an illusion. Connectivities may also be an illusion, but it's difficult to imagine anything better. Maybe binary logic. You know, 'It from bit'.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Feb 13, 2005, 03:53 PM
Post #28


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



if there is no 'where' that consciousness exists, this means that consciousness is not connected to anything 'outside' it and that there can be no relation to 'other consciousnesses'. How can such a state be reconciled with the apparent existence of 'others'?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unknown
post Feb 13, 2005, 05:06 PM
Post #29


Unregistered









the collective consciousness is where our individual consciousness resides.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Feb 13, 2005, 06:06 PM
Post #30


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



is this the same 'unknown'?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
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: 20th October 2017 - 05:03 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