Crick was one hell of an anatomist. Claustrum confirmed as probable source of consciousness

[fromderinside]

The late Francis Crick proposed, through anatomical analysis that the Claustrum, underlying areas of frontal cortex was likely locus of consciousness back in two thousand ought-five. Now others are confirming by other means.

The claustrum's proposed role in consciousness is supported by the effect and target localization of Salvia divinorum. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935397/

This article brings together three findings and ideas relevant for the understanding of human consciousness: (I) Crick’s and Koch’s theory that the claustrum is a “conductor of consciousness” crucial for subjective conscious experience. (II) Subjective reports of the consciousness-altering effects the plant Salvia divinorum, whose primary active ingredient is salvinorin A, a κ-opioid receptor agonist. (III) The high density of κ-opioid receptors in the claustrum. Fact III suggests that the consciousness-altering effects of S. divinorum/salvinorin A (II) are due to a κ-opioid receptor mediated inhibition of primarily the claustrum and, additionally, the deep layers of the cortex, mainly in prefrontal areas.

Not everything is accomplished by wiz bang new methods like fMRI. His work gives new hope that traditionalists, those who are well grounded in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, behavior and scientific principles may one day again take center stage in hot areas of brain research. Aren't we all getting tired of that Harvard gang aguing with itself about consciousness Togo?

 

[Emily Lake]

I am interested, but this article is not written for a layman. Anyway you might give me the cliff-notes version?

 

[Rilx]

For a long time I've considered Francis Crick and Christof Koch the last of the Mohicans searching Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Claustrum was Crick's last hypothesis before he died ten years ago. Since then nothing worth news has happened in the field of NCC. And never will, IMO: it's a wrong paradigm.

Some drug has consciousness-altering effects by receptors in claustrum? There are hundreds if not thousands of drugs having consciousness-altering effects all over brains.

 

[Togo]

Aren't we all getting tired of that Harvard gang aguing with itself about consciousness Togo?

Harvard gang?

 

[fromderinside]

Aren't we all getting tired of that Harvard gang arguing with itself about consciousness Togo?

Harvard gang?

Yeah. I should have written Michael Gazzinaga, using his split brain technique as a hammer, changes the subject. [h=1]Free Will Is an Illusion, but You're Still Responsible for Your Action. See http://cognitive science of free willchronicle.com/article/Michael-S-Gazzaniga/131167[/h]

 

[rousseau]

Does understanding the source of consciousness really explain consciousness? Forget regions of the brain, we've known for a good long while that consciousness arises in some way from the brain. More interesting, maybe relevant, are the properties of consciousness itself which can only be known by being aware of one's own consciousness.

So I wonder: what are the effects of this finding? Does it basically just give us a chance to connect the dots between the phenomena we experience and neural wiring?

 

[untermensche]

This study does not conclude that the claustrum is the source of consciousness.

All one has to do is read the conclusions.

 

[fromderinside]

For a long time I've considered Francis Crick and Christof Koch the last of the Mohicans searching Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Claustrum was Crick's last hypothesis before he died ten years ago. Since then nothing worth news has happened in the field of NCC. And never will, IMO: it's a wrong paradigm.

Some drug has consciousness-altering effects by receptors in claustrum? There are hundreds if not thousands of drugs having consciousness-altering effects all over brains.

Of course all those clusters and capsules and regions are just random consequences of evolution ... except every one of them still seems to be in play and humans are the greatest reasoning biological system ever seen on earth ... I'm certainly not talking time and evolution leads to complexity except at the extremes is seems to be finding more complex results which it uses doing thus.*

*_{^{it refers to evolution.}}

 

[Togo]

Harvard gang?

Yeah. I should have written Michael Gazzinaga, using his split brain technique as a hammer, changes the subject. [h=1]Free Will Is an Illusion, but You're Still Responsible for Your Action. See http://cognitive science of free willchronicle.com/article/Michael-S-Gazzaniga/131167[/h]

Faulty link...

 

[Perspicuo]

Curious etymological turn of events. Claustrum (pronounced "CLOW-stroom") in Latin means "closed/enclosure" or "fence for enclosure", which gives English 'cloister' with the same meaning of part of a monastery where only the monks (or nuns) can go, meet and, of course, make their decisions, common meals, etc.

The claustrum is depicted in blue in the following illustration:

"Francis Crick and Christof Koch have compared the claustrum to the conductor of an orchestra. The different parts of the cortex must play in harmony or else the result is a cacophony of sounds instead of a beautiful symphony. The claustrum may be involved in widespread coordination of the cerebral cortex, using synchronization to achieve a seamless timescale between both the two cortical hemispheres and between cortical regions within the same hemisphere, resulting in the seamless quality of conscious experience."
-Wikipedia, Claustrum.

 

[fromderinside]

Faulty link...

This link makes essentially the same point. Gazzaniga, Neuroscience and the correct level of explanation for understanding mind: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2940054/

 

[Togo]

Faulty link...

This link makes essentially the same point. Gazzaniga, Neuroscience and the correct level of explanation for understanding mind: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2940054/

Ok.. Why did this remarkably Gazzinga-like extraterrestrial confine himself to neurophysiology? Why not visit labs where the brain is studied on the decision level. Like yours? Or mine?

 

[untermensche]

What is the concept of emergence besides "something happens"?

Yes of course, something happens.

But what happens?

 

[DBT]

What is the concept of emergence besides "something happens"?

Yes of course, something happens.

But what happens?

A new quality or attribute that is not present in the constituent parts, an attribute that forms or emerges when a set of parts come together in a working relationship, eg, microchips/electronic activity/computer information processing, internal combustion engine/ motion, brain architecture/electrochemical activity/consciousness, etc.

 

[fromderinside]

What is the concept of emergence besides "something happens"?

Yes of course, something happens.

But what happens?

A new quality or attribute that is not present in the constituent parts, an attribute that forms or emerges when a set of parts come together in a working relationship, eg, microchips/electronic activity/computer information processing, internal combustion engine/ motion, brain architecture/electrochemical activity/consciousness, etc.

Many of us think such is just the appearance of something not defined yet as the result of inadequate analysis. Many of us of who think this way believe things work as described by thermodynamics. Things aren't created. Things are realized from combination within the parameters included in the combination. Emergence is being supported mainly by those who don't cotton to reductionism.

Togo this also explains why I don't think it really make sense to look at at decision behaviors without understanding underpinnings.

 

[untermensche]

What is the concept of emergence besides "something happens"?

Yes of course, something happens.

But what happens?

A new quality or attribute that is not present in the constituent parts, an attribute that forms or emerges when a set of parts come together in a working relationship, eg, microchips/electronic activity/computer information processing, internal combustion engine/ motion, brain architecture/electrochemical activity/consciousness, etc.

Yes. Something happens.

But in the case of human consciousness we want to know specifically what it is that happens.

We fully agree, something happens.

 

[DBT]

A new quality or attribute that is not present in the constituent parts, an attribute that forms or emerges when a set of parts come together in a working relationship, eg, microchips/electronic activity/computer information processing, internal combustion engine/ motion, brain architecture/electrochemical activity/consciousness, etc.

Yes. Something happens.

But in the case of human consciousness we want to know specifically what it is that happens.

We fully agree, something happens.

Describing what you are experiencing is a description of what is happening....how that experience is formed by the brain is the big question.

 

[untermensche]

Yes. Something happens.

But in the case of human consciousness we want to know specifically what it is that happens.

We fully agree, something happens.

Describing what you are experiencing is a description of what is happening....how that experience is formed by the brain is the big question.

It's not always so clear.

Our eyes move quickly back and forth. This is what causes looking at certain geometric patterns to appear to move.

But we don't perceive this movement. What we perceive is not what is happening.

 

[DBT]

Describing what you are experiencing is a description of what is happening....how that experience is formed by the brain is the big question.

It's not always so clear.

Our eyes move quickly back and forth. This is what causes looking at certain geometric patterns to appear to move.

But we don't perceive this movement. What we perceive is not what is happening.

It's not perfect, but when functioning normally we do have a reasonably accurate representation of our environment, albeit within a narrow band of the spectrum (which we can augment with instruments). It's reasonable enough to negotiate our way in the world. And that is something we are able to describe.

 

[untermensche]

It's not always so clear.

Our eyes move quickly back and forth. This is what causes looking at certain geometric patterns to appear to move.

But we don't perceive this movement. What we perceive is not what is happening.

It's not perfect, but when functioning normally we do have a reasonably accurate representation of our environment, albeit within a narrow band of the spectrum (which we can augment with instruments). It's reasonable enough to negotiate our way in the world. And that is something we are able to describe.

Some things, like color, are made completely whole by the brain.

Color is not what is happening in the world. Color only happens in the brains of animals.

So what people would like to understand is what is happening when a brain makes a color.