Consciousness

[untermensche]

We can learn things about apparent location of function, if we employ subjective reporting.

But knowing areas of function does not take us one step closer to understanding what consciousness is.

Here are two twisted sentences. As to the first clinical subjective reporting, like ethological journals, is useless unless there are physical evidence to back up what is being claimed by observers.

As to the second knowing the areas where functions are located permit us to test, with tools like MRI and experiments designed to elicit determinable responses, whether an area predicts specific subject micro behavior. How this sort of research isn't useful in determining where or whether consciousness is operative or operating escapes me.

What is the problem?

It is apparent function because as we know the brain can use many areas to carry out a single function.

So you really never know if it is the only area involved.

And of course all is dependent on subjective reporting. None of this can be done without it.

In these experiments subjective reporting stands in for consciousness. They are considered synonymous. Which is absurd.

 

[untermensche]

No. That doesn't follow and once again adds nothing to the discussion.

You are right if you are implying what is happening is an increase in activity.

We can't explain this increase either.

Which moves from place to place in the brain.

Well, you are right that your claim adds nothing to the discussion.

That's not my claim.

How many times will you post and add nothing?

When we look at the brain we see areas of activity moving around from place to place.

We don't have a clue how this happens.

This is a claim easily refuted with one fact.

Which I have no doubt you will not provide.

 

[fromderinside]

If we are talking about MRI we are talking about measuring indirectly oxygen uptake by cells in specific loci. MRI measures blood movement or activity in the brain. Blood is the obvious player in these measurements because it carries oxygen using iron.* Higher blood flow in a given area provides evidence of increased metabolic activity through measuring blood flow rates. The cells in the vicinity of the activity are seen as the targets of this activity and they are linked strongly to other evidence of what these cells do. That is how we are able to say decide or choose. Those are things consciousness is supposed to perform.

*Deoxygenated blood is more ferromagnetic and oxygenated blood is less ferromagnetic which provides the basis for measuring metabolic activity by looking at blood flow. Again we're back to metabolism. So wrong material right activity. With this correction my presentation is spot on.

The rest of your harangue is meaningless.

MRI looks at hydrogen.

Hydrogen nuclei absorb energy via the magnetic field then release it.

I think you might be talking about PET scans.

I know you want to ignore my comments because you want to pretend you understand something.

The question is?

Since with a PET scan we can see activity moving from one area to another, how is the brain doing this? How does the brain move activity from one place and then to another?

Once again, the truth is, we don't have the slightest clue.

Again you are partly correct. Blood iron is not ferromagnetic.* I made that correction in my post and I added the note so it appears in this post as well.

It ids not the hydrogen we are looking at though. It is the difference between oxygenated and deoxygenated blood providing the index of metabolic activity.

 

[untermensche]

MRI looks at hydrogen.

Hydrogen nuclei absorb energy via the magnetic field then release it.

I think you might be talking about PET scans.

I know you want to ignore my comments because you want to pretend you understand something.

The question is?

Since with a PET scan we can see activity moving from one area to another, how is the brain doing this? How does the brain move activity from one place and then to another?

Once again, the truth is, we don't have the slightest clue.

Again you are partly correct. Blood iron is not ferromagnetic.* I made that correction in my post and I added the note so it appears in this post as well.

It ids not the hydrogen we are looking at though. It is the difference between oxygenated and deoxygenated blood providing the index of metabolic activity.

How am I "partly" correct?

I am doing nothing but correcting you.

 

[fromderinside]

OK so a blind guy uses part of the occipital lobe for auditory analysis of spatial quality and destroyed tissue is often replaced by other tissue in performing the 'lost' capability. What you seem to be missing is there is a regular arrangement of sensory and motor cortex where cells from one can be replaced by cells from another to do work as long as connections can be established. This has been shown to be the case since at least 1960. It is known that neuronal processes are establishing neural connections right up to one's death.

Your ability to ignore stuff is amazing.

 

[fromderinside]

You corrected me wrongly. You are actually doing nothing. I don't mean that. I appreciate corrections so I can produce better explanations in the future, My brain is quite old and I do get stuff wrong from time to time. Check that out with bilby.

If only you would learn from my examples.

 

[untermensche]

OK so a blind guy uses part of the occipital lobe for auditory analysis of spatial quality and destroyed tissue is often replaced by other tissue in performing the 'lost' capability. What you seem to be missing is there is a regular arrangement of sensory and motor cortex where cells from one can be replaced by cells from another to do work as long as connections can be established. This has been shown to be the case since at least 1960. It is known that neuronal processes are establishing neural connections right up to one's death.

Your ability to ignore stuff is amazing.

Again, my history is working with stroke patients for years as a physical therapist before going to pharmacy school.

I understand the plasticity of the brain well. That is almost all I had to work with. You also have the individual "will", which varies greatly.

How am I ignoring what I know very well?

What you are saying makes the whole idea of trying to understand consciousness much harder.

What kind of "effect" is it?

A cellular effect? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect?

 

[ryan]

That is actually wrong.

There are 2 very different kinds of cell signaling between neurons, electrical and chemical. The chemical signalling is the slower and less direct of the 2. This is what you are talking about that use neurotransmitters to flow through a synaptic cleft to the next neuron. But the electrical signals are actually ions that signal by way of electrical current. They are practically an instantaneous transmission from one neuron to another. And this kind of signalling use neurons that are actually connected by gap junction channels that the ions flow through.

So this really would allow neurological brain activity by electromagnetic induction.

Here is a reference, http://cbm.msoe.edu/markMyweb/ddtyResources/documents/synapseTypes.pdf

You are missing the point.

The neurons on the outer part of the cortex, that are stimulated in these artificial stimulation experiments, are not these rare specialized neurons that can conduct a charge. When you look at the brain the vast majority of cells communicate via neurotransmitters. They do not conduct a charge. There is no electricity flowing through the brain except in the rare tracts connecting to glands. There is electrical activity in the individual neuron. But communication with the next neuron is via chemical transmitter. This is not a flow of electricity.

So when these neurons are excited with an external charge you are not replicating normal function.

You are creating abnormal function.

I think you might be underestimating their roles in brain function,

"Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that connexins are gaining recognition for their ability to shape synchronous rhythmic activity in the CNS. Oscillations occurring at different frequencies have been recorded in vivo in various brain regions such as the olfactory bulb, hippocampus, thalamus, cortex, and cerebellum [188]; [189]; [190]; [191] ; [192]. They reflect the temporal coordination of the activity of neuronal populations and, because they may display task or stimulus dependence, have been implicated as a mechanism that selects subsets of neurons for further joint processing and eventual stimulus representation"

"Connexins" being the proteins of the gap junction channels

from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005273604000410

 

[untermensche]

You are missing the point.

The neurons on the outer part of the cortex, that are stimulated in these artificial stimulation experiments, are not these rare specialized neurons that can conduct a charge. When you look at the brain the vast majority of cells communicate via neurotransmitters. They do not conduct a charge. There is no electricity flowing through the brain except in the rare tracts connecting to glands. There is electrical activity in the individual neuron. But communication with the next neuron is via chemical transmitter. This is not a flow of electricity.

So when these neurons are excited with an external charge you are not replicating normal function.

You are creating abnormal function.

I think you might be underestimating their roles in brain function,

"Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that connexins are gaining recognition for their ability to shape synchronous rhythmic activity in the CNS. Oscillations occurring at different frequencies have been recorded in vivo in various brain regions such as the olfactory bulb, hippocampus, thalamus, cortex, and cerebellum [188]; [189]; [190]; [191] ; [192]. They reflect the temporal coordination of the activity of neuronal populations and, because they may display task or stimulus dependence, have been implicated as a mechanism that selects subsets of neurons for further joint processing and eventual stimulus representation"

"Connexins" being the proteins of the gap junction channels

from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005273604000410

I think it is interesting and important but it is still a minority of cells and not the cells excited in these stimulation experiments.

If you stimulated these cells that transmit a signal you would not likely see an effect that consciousness is aware of. You might disrupt normal hormone function though.

 

[ryan]

I think you might be underestimating their roles in brain function,

"Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that connexins are gaining recognition for their ability to shape synchronous rhythmic activity in the CNS. Oscillations occurring at different frequencies have been recorded in vivo in various brain regions such as the olfactory bulb, hippocampus, thalamus, cortex, and cerebellum [188]; [189]; [190]; [191] ; [192]. They reflect the temporal coordination of the activity of neuronal populations and, because they may display task or stimulus dependence, have been implicated as a mechanism that selects subsets of neurons for further joint processing and eventual stimulus representation"

"Connexins" being the proteins of the gap junction channels

from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005273604000410

I think it is interesting and important but it is still a minority of cells and not the cells excited in these stimulation experiments.

If you stimulated these cells that transmit a signal you would not likely see an effect that consciousness is aware of. You might disrupt normal hormone function though.

The hippocampus, thalamus, cortex, and cerebellum are glands???

 

[untermensche]

The hippocampus, thalamus, cortex, and cerebellum are glands???

I'm talking about connections to glands.

Where is the pituitary?

When they excite parts of the brain and elicit memories or induce some kind of experience they are exciting neurons that communicate via chemical transmitter.

 

[ryan]

The hippocampus, thalamus, cortex, and cerebellum are glands???

I'm talking about connections to glands.

I know, but I am trying to tell you that electronic signalling is more than just about glands.

 

[untermensche]

I'm talking about connections to glands.

I know, but I am trying to tell you that electronic signalling is more than just about glands.

The question is: Does it have anything to do with consciousness?

Is there any evidence that if you excite these cells a person has an awareness of it?

A lot of what the brain is doing is beyond conscious experience.

The cerebellum is doing all kinds of things in terms of movement, but we are not aware of any of it.

This is a thread about consciousness, not reflexes.

How do these cells relate to consciousness?

 

[fromderinside]

What you are saying makes the whole idea of trying to understand consciousness much harder.

What kind of "effect" is it?

A cellular effect? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect?

As you know I'm holding a position that consciousness is an explanation that is homocentric, one I believe that has never found a home. i don't think it is an explanation of anything at all. I do think humans decide, choose, react, do, etc. I believe humans also construct an operating model of their world upon which they individually depend for deciding, choosing, doing, etc which is probably more a social arena model than anything else.

By social arena I mean some sort of structure which includes mostly nearby individuals, parents, children, friends, cohorts, and some official actors that come from categories like judiciary, clerical, operational, and the like that the individual uses to model for doing such as deciding. This might seem like, to some who are familiar with Kurt Lewin, a social theater. It can be seen like a place where moods, tendencies, desires, needs, and the like, apply value to particular issues which are included when decisions are made or actions initiated.

 

[Rayschism]

Sometimes we can only learn the within from exploring the without.

 

[untermensche]

What you are saying makes the whole idea of trying to understand consciousness much harder.

What kind of "effect" is it?

A cellular effect? A magnetic effect? A quantum effect?

As you know I'm holding a position that consciousness is an explanation that is homocentric, one I believe that has never found a home. i don't think it is an explanation of anything at all. I do think humans decide, choose, react, do, etc. I believe humans also construct an operating model of their world upon which they individually depend for deciding, choosing, doing, etc which is probably more a social arena model than anything else.

By social arena I mean some sort of structure which includes mostly nearby individuals, parents, children, friends, cohorts, and some official actors that come from categories like judiciary, clerical, operational, and the like that the individual uses to model for doing such as deciding. This might seem like, to some who are familiar with Kurt Lewin, a social theater. It can be seen like a place where moods, tendencies, desires, needs, and the like, apply value to particular issues which are included when decisions are made or actions initiated.

Consciousness is first of all an ability to be conscious of things, to experience them.

Humans did not invent the ability to experience.

They have that ability.

They have consciousness. It is not a matter for discussion.

The only thing to discuss is: What is this ability to be conscious of things?

What you are talking about is the psychology of the human, a whole different topic.

 

[DBT]

You continue to miss the point that electrical impulses transmit information right to the synaptic cleft, so when a nerve impulse arrives at the terminal of one neuron, a chemical ''messenger'' is released through the membrane, traveling in milliseconds across the gap.

So transmission of information between cells involves both electrical signals and chemical transmitters. One does not work without the other.

The action potential is really just a flow in and out of charged ions. It is not the movement of electrons down the nerve.

It is not like an electric current through a wire.

And communication between cells is purely chemical, not electrical, in most cases.

So the introduction of an electric current is a totally foreign event and it does not tell us about normal function.

It tells us about abnormal function.

The same fallacy over and over again.

If we send someone a package by airmail and upon destination it's picked up by by a van and delivered to the recipients mailing address you can't just say that packages travel between sender and recipient by van.

The process involves both aircraft and van.

The van alone can't cross oceans, that's the role an aircraft plays, Same with neurons, information is sent between cells using electrical signals (the 'aircraft' ) and the information conveyed crosses the synaptic cleft using chemical messengers (the 'vans')

So the conveyance of information between cells is both electrical and chemical. You can't separate the two, if this is disrupted information is not received by the recipient cell. Connectivity is broken or disrupted.

Please stop repeating your fallacies.

 

[Rayschism]

Is consciousness and awareness the same thing?

 

[DBT]

Is consciousness and awareness the same thing?

To be aware is to be conscious.

 

[untermensche]

The action potential is really just a flow in and out of charged ions. It is not the movement of electrons down the nerve.

It is not like an electric current through a wire.

And communication between cells is purely chemical, not electrical, in most cases.

So the introduction of an electric current is a totally foreign event and it does not tell us about normal function.

It tells us about abnormal function.

The same fallacy over and over again.

If we send someone a package by airmail and upon destination it's picked up by by a van and delivered to the recipients mailing address you can't just say that packages travel between sender and recipient by van.

The process involves both aircraft and van.

The van alone can't cross oceans, that's the role an aircraft plays, Same with neurons, information is sent between cells using electrical signals (the 'aircraft' ) and the information conveyed crosses the synaptic cleft using chemical messengers (the 'vans')

So the conveyance of information between cells is both electrical and chemical. You can't separate the two, if this is disrupted information is not received by the recipient cell. Connectivity is broken or disrupted.

Please stop repeating your fallacies.

You're just wrong.

A cell has the ability to say "no". To stop the transmission. A cell does not have to release neurotransmitter just because it is stimulated. And the cell does not have one terminal. A cell can send transmitter from one terminal and not another. This is how the brain controls activity. Some cells say "yes" and some say "no". How the brain does this is completely unknown.

The situation is nothing like electricity running through a wire.

With external stimulation you are forcing cells to fire. You are removing their ability to control activity, removing their ability to say "no".

It is a totally unnatural situation that does not tell us one thing about what consciousness is or how it is achieved.