Consciousness

[fromderinside]

If you want me to discuss something you have to prove you know something about these things you plop down like little turds.

By writing that you prove you didn't read my posts with references, quotes, my analysis and comments. So go back and read them now, choose one and use it with references, explanation etc, to make your point rather than just blathering an unjustified True escape.

I wrote my post the way you see it because you haven't responded with other than such as 'you know nothing' etc. I need to see some scholarship from you before I engage further.

 

[untermensche]

If you want me to discuss something you have to prove you know something about these things you plop down like little turds.

By writing that you prove you didn't read my posts with references, quotes, my analysis and comments. So go back and read them now, choose one and use it with references, explanation etc, to make your point rather than just blathering an unjustified True escape.

I wrote my post the way you see it because you haven't responded with other than such as 'you know nothing' etc. I need to see some scholarship from you before I engage further.

So you say you now want to discuss something but you will present nothing.

You are full of shit.

 

[fromderinside]

So you say you now want to discuss something but you will present nothing.

You are full of shit.

I want you to discuss material I've already discussed supported in this thread by presenting refereed articles in scientific journals of note to which you've only shouted worthless without any support. I also want you to find those discussions since I've already done my job by finding and commenting on them relative to your unsubstantiated positions.

From your above comments I see you aren't up to legitimate discussion on merit. So, hey, you just substantiated you can't defend your position with facts or data. From your recent posts avoiding any substantive response you're a shallow and lazy troll who is just there to incite with invective laden demeaning comments like the one you just presented.

 

[untermensche]

So you say you now want to discuss something but you will present nothing.

You are full of shit.

I want you to discuss material I've already discussed supported in this thread by presenting refereed articles in scientific journals of note to which you've only shouted worthless without any support. I also want you to find those discussions since I've already done my job by finding and commenting on them relative to your unsubstantiated positions.

From your above comments I see you aren't up to legitimate discussion on merit. So, hey, you just substantiated you can't defend your position with facts or data. From your recent posts avoiding any substantive response you're a shallow and lazy troll who is just there to incite with invective laden demeaning comments like the one you just presented.

I'll discuss any study you present right now in your own words.

If I wanted somebody to discuss a study I would easily be able to do the same.

 

[fromderinside]

If I wanted somebody to discuss a study I would easily be able to do the same.

"You know nothing" is not discussion. Also you haven't presented a discussion and discussed it so why should we take your word that you'll even discuss?

 

[untermensche]

If I wanted somebody to discuss a study I would easily be able to do the same.

"You know nothing" is not discussion. Also you haven't presented a discussion and discussed it so why should we take your word that you'll even discuss?

You want to discuss something but you do not want any of your assumptions or conclusions questioned?

Is that what you want?

In other words, no discussion.

 

[bilby]

"You know nothing" is not discussion. Also you haven't presented a discussion and discussed it so why should we take your word that you'll even discuss?

You want to discuss something but you do not want any of your assumptions or conclusions questioned?

Is that what you want?

Well, it's very obviously what YOU want.

In other words, no discussion.

Indeed.

 

[untermensche]

...

 

[DBT]

...

 

[bilby]

...

 

[untermensche]

...

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. No discussion at all.

How about we return to The claustrum’s proposed role in consciousness is supported by the effect and target localization of Salvia divinorum

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935397/

In this study the authors used Crick's work as a jumping off point in a novel way. They noted three things: the abundance of k-opioid reeceptors in the claustrum, Crick's proposed structure as important to consciousness, the tendency for targeting of a psychotrophic drug, Salivia dininorum, to those receptors, and the unique nature of that drug re consciousness changing. They pursued EEG, fMRI and subjective methodologies in an attempt to get at whether calustrum was either home or coordinator of conscious. They made progress on both IMHO.

The late Francis Crick proposed that at any one moment, human subjective consciousness of perceptual contents1 is brought about by the activity of a limited number (~105) of neurons (Crick, 1995; Crick and Koch, 2003). According to Crick’s analysis, these neurons must: (1) Be central in the connection scheme of the human brain, not too close to primary sensory or motor areas. (2) Involve a number of sensory areas, since consciousness integrates several sensory modalities. (3) Have activity correlated with conscious experience, even in situations where it is dissociated from direct sensory input (for instance during the perception of visual illusions). Importantly, the identity of these neural populations will likely change as the contents of conscious experience change. Crick and other authors have suggested that some brain region must act as a “conductor” of this dynamic “conscious field” (Tononi and Edelman, 1998a)2, “dynamical core” (Tononi and Edelman, 1998b; Dehaene and Changeux, 2004) or “neuronal workspace” (Crick and Koch, 2005).In the last paper Crick authored before his death, he and Koch argued that the claustrum is an ideal candidate for this role (Crick and Koch, 2005). The claustrum is a brain region located between the insular cortex, piriform cortex and the caudate-putamen (Franklin and Paxinos, 2007), see Figure ​Figure1
1. It is highly connected to a number of cortical areas in a mostly reciprocal manner (Carman et al., 1964; Shameem et al., 1984; Neal et al., 1986; Sadowski et al., 1997). This strong and complex interconnectivity with the cortex makes it a prime candidate for the role of the director of the conscious field.

This study is not definitive, it is a step in the direction of finding whether this approach is useful in fleshing out the neruoscience of consiousness in the brain through association of struct, to targets to conscious changes. in it anatomical findings and percscriptions by one of the best among us, Crick, lead him to propose the claustrum as either the source of conscious or an integrator of conscious influencing regions in the brain. These authors went further, showing k-opioid receptors are preeminent in these structures and that experiences with specific receptor targeting drugs produce conscious altering changes with injestion of the target drug coincident with anticipated effectiveness.

Not a done deal. Still it adds to what has been fleshing out now for about 50 years on the matter of brain and conscious. Obviously worthy of much more than a pooh, pooh,hand wave by passing deniers This study and previous work by Crick and associates need to be taken seriously.

 

[untermensche]

Basically this "study", it's not a study, says that there is a hypothesis that the claustrum, a part of the brain, is involved in consciousness.

I bet it is.

But that information is not necessarily the beginning of any further understanding.

As far as kappa receptors they are in a lot more places than the claustrum.

KORs are widely distributed in the brain, spinal cord (substantia gelatinosa), and in pheripheral tissues. High levels of the receptor have been detected in the prefrontal cortex, periaqueductal gray, raphe nuclei (dorsal), ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra, dorsal striatum (putamen, caudate), ventral striatum (nucleus accumbens, olfactory tubercle), amygdala, bed nucleus stria terminalis, claustrum, hippocampus, hypothalamus, midline thalamic nuclei, locus coeruleus, spinal trigeminal nucleus, parabrachial nucleus, and solitary nucleus.[7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A-opioid_receptor

This is not what I'm talking about when I talk about understanding brain activity.

What I mean is to understand how the activity of cells results in conscious experience. How do a bunch of cells create consciousness?

Not just where in the brain is some unknown kind of activity taking place.

 

[fromderinside]

Basically this "study", it's not a study, says that there is a hypothesis that the claustrum, a part of the brain, is involved in consciousness.

I bet it is.

But that information is not necessarily the beginning of any further understanding.

BTW, I'm sure most would call the article a study which includes bringing together data previously not brought together. It's just not an experiment.

BTW, although I present this study I disagree that it is possible

As far as kappa receptors they are in a lot more places than the claustrum.

KORs are widely distributed in the brain, spinal cord (substantia gelatinosa), and in pheripheral tissues. High levels of the receptor have been detected in the prefrontal cortex, periaqueductal gray, raphe nuclei (dorsal), ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra, dorsal striatum (putamen, caudate), ventral striatum (nucleus accumbens, olfactory tubercle), amygdala, bed nucleus stria terminalis, claustrum, hippocampus, hypothalamus, midline thalamic nuclei, locus coeruleus, spinal trigeminal nucleus, parabrachial nucleus, and solitary nucleus.[7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Κ-opioid_receptor

This is not what I'm talking about when I talk about understanding brain activity.

What I mean is to understand how the activity of cells results in conscious experience. How do a bunch of cells create consciousness?

Not just where in the brain is some unknown kind of activity taking place.

Fist the k-opioid receptors. Most of the listed sights are integrative loci which have processes extending to claustrum. Just tiny bit more than you dismissed.

Although I brought forth this study I disagree with their comment

[FONT=&quot]Unfortunately for scientists, human consciousness is not accessible to outside observers. [/FONT]

.

I believe JD Haynes et al have been doing this for years when they, using fMRI, show processes taking place implementing action before observers report they are aware they have made a decision which these investigators also illustrate in brain activity indices of oxygen uptake.

As for your De Sotoan search for for the neuronal fountain of consciousness, you are going to be disappointed just as surely as there isn't an integrated process designed to deliver consciousness. The structures are there. The communication channels are there. The coordinating communication channels between these structures are demonstrated. We shall light up the brain with exactly what you want, the instance of consciousness of this or that in context with it's place in time, space, and motive.

 

[untermensche]

Fist the k-opioid receptors. Most of the listed sights are integrative loci which have processes extending to claustrum. Just tiny bit more than you dismissed.

It's not dismissed. It's highlighted.

So where exactly do we think this "kappa effect" is taking place then, if these structures are interconnected?

And they are not all interconnected.

Some kappa receptors are in the spinal cord and prefrontal cortex.

And again, to be conscious requires two things. That which can be conscious of things and the things it can be conscious of.

What is the Salivia having an effect on?

Is it effecting that which is conscious of things? Is it merely effecting the things consciousness is conscious of? Or is it effecting both?

And what about LSD? It effects Serotonin receptors, not kappa receptors.

I think what you get from these hallucinogenics are a general disruption of all kinds of brain function. Not any specific disruption at the "seat of consciousness".

 

[fromderinside]

So the article is in front of you and you ask questions that are answered in the article? Claustrum is connected to pre-frontal and some upper spinal loci. One of the keys for why they focused on Salivia rather than LSD for the differences in effects as well as it acting on targets of interest suggested by Crick et. al. Should be apparent to you if yo actually read.

To wit click on figure 2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935397/figure/F2/ Text descriptions can be found in article or at accessible article referenced sites.

Reading is fundamental. Hand waves without reading aren't worth the screen they occupy.

 

[untermensche]

So the article is in front of you and you ask questions that are answered in the article? Claustrum is connected to pre-frontal and some upper spinal loci. One of the keys for why they focused on Salivia rather than LSD for the differences in effects as well as it acting on targets of interest suggested by Crick et. al. Should be apparent to you if yo actually read.

To wit click on figure 2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935397/figure/F2/ Text descriptions can be found in article or at accessible article referenced sites.

Reading is fundamental. Hand waves without reading aren't worth the screen they occupy.

My concerns are not addressed in a 5 paragraph summation of a very sketchy hypothesis.

I don't but it.

Those drugs act globally, not in one specific location.

And one acts on serotonin receptors and the other on kappa.

So which is it?

I don't see this as giving us any information about consciousness beyond; A slight change in brain chemistry will sometimes have a large effect on consciousness.

But there is nothing to do with that information. It explains nothing.

 

[fromderinside]

If you need confidence in my assertions about synapse specific actions by taken or injected substances I can share an article for which I did sufficient work to receive an authorship back in ought-80 So much for your "don't buy" LSD on serotonin sites and salivia at k-opioid sites. ...and they said mostly in both cases. The activating shapes are different.

The standard mechanism of uptake is lock and key same as works for cells receiving odor chemicals via olfactory bulb. Crudely lock and key is a geometric molecular shape match.

Since we already have much information about how, to what, and when, on all of the sites and stimuli and effects to and from each that are at the heart of their operation. Nay saying that is just silly, doesn't do anything for your credibility, and really detracts from any discussion that might be had.

So your last statement lacks any support.

Still, you have provided no counter examples that might augment your views which makes your commentary extremely empty.

 

[untermensche]

If you need confidence in my assertions about synapse specific actions by taken or injected substances I can share an article for which I did sufficient work to receive an authorship back in ought-80 So much for your "don't buy" LSD on serotonin sites and salivia at k-opioid sites. ...and they said mostly in both cases. The activating shapes are different.

The standard mechanism of uptake is lock and key same as works for cells receiving odor chemicals via olfactory bulb. Crudely lock and key is a geometric molecular shape match.

Since we already have much information about how, to what, and when, on all of the sites and stimuli and effects to and from each that are at the heart of their operation. Nay saying that is just silly, doesn't do anything for your credibility, and really detracts from any discussion that might be had.

So your last statement lacks any support.

Still, you have provided no counter examples that might augment your views which makes your commentary extremely empty.

I don't get much information from your "talk" of the difference between serotonin receptors and kappa receptors?

What are you trying to say?

You did some research in the 80's that showed what about human brain receptors?

I know how molecules bind to receptors.

Geometry is half the picture and charge is the other half.

As far as a counter example I think the mechanisms are further dispersed and not centralized.

And I use the phenomena of neglect after a stroke as an example.

You can have strokes in the parietal or frontal lobe and the person can lose all consciousness of one half of their body and half the visual field. They will eat food only on one half of their plate. They will not turn their head towards the side of neglect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect

 

[fromderinside]

As far as a counter example I think the mechanisms are further dispersed and not centralized.

And I use the phenomena of neglect after a stroke as an example.

You can have strokes in the parietal or frontal lobe and the person can lose all consciousness of one half of their body and half the visual field. They will eat food only on one half of their plate. They will not turn their head towards the side of neglect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect

Not a counter example at all. It suggests consciousness is probably distributed rather than some fixed group of cells as the distribution of structures containing k-opioid recepters supports and as do the the many diverse functions required for function consciousness implies.

The point of the paper I cited was to suggest a distributed system within the brain supporting various elements of consciousness including particular structural and functional grouping of awareness as Crick et al have suggested from physiological and neural study supported by comparative behavioral and genetic studies and to suggest promising avenues of future study on the topic.

All the study eliminated was a point or singular structure of consciousness in the brain. Of course many other studies have suggested that probability since the late forties, with the identification of  Ascending reticular activating system