It does if you are talking about electrical activity across the ENTIRE brain.
You really have a weird issue with categories and sub-categories.
If wave activity, shape, frequency, pattern, across the entire brain changes that means the activity producing those waves has changed.
Even if that were an accurate account of what happens "across the entire brain," that does not necessarily mean that the changes do no also entail or otherwise account for a "meta" (or merely separate) form of baseline activity. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that a literal
bass line--as in the musical instrument--i.e., repeatedly hitting the "E" note on a bass clef and that note hit consistently represents the operating system's activity.
Then to fill out the rest of the entire orchestra, you've got all manner of different instruments all paying different notes in different ever changing ways. Horns, violins, flutes, cymbals, etc., etc., etc. But no matter where the other instruments go in the symphony, there is always that consistent E bass note being played.
Or not, as this interesting study explores:
Does the brain have a baseline? (the conclusion is yes, but that it may not be correlated to physical rest).
All you are giving is a possible way, with no supporting evidence, how the activity could change, not an argument showing that it has not changed.
Considering you haven't ever given jack shit in the form of supporting evidence (and I just did above), you can forever cease with that evasion. Again, even if it does change as a part of a different whole--just like changing a song--that does not necessarily mean that there isn't still an "E" note being played or that the "notes" themselves are all that is necessary.
There is, after all, the idea of neuroplasticity the seems to evidence a highly adaptive component to our brain that allows it to take functions normally handled by one organ/section and "assign" them to another when that original organ/section is damaged and the like.
In short, there are all kinds of ways to account for the notion of categories and sub-categories; operating systems and subroutines/applications/programs/utilities and the like and that's not even getting into the notion that algorithm X can incorporate certain components of
another algorithm Y within it, such that the new algorithm Z encompasses X and Y.
you said:
me said:
you said:
when we look at the electrical patterns in the conscious brain and in the sleeping brain we observe they are different.
And when you look at the patterns of humans in the day time and then when they're sleeping, we observe they are different too. Still humans, though.
Non-argument.
Refutation of your argument in that, just because we see differences in patterns does not necessarily mean those differences are exhaustive or even substantive to the whole. Again, that's binary thinking.
Yes, the change in activity produces a change in behavior.
That is the whole point.
Again, just because you are writing a novel in Microsoft Word, that activity does not necessarily have any impact on how the Operating System works. YOUR argument is binary; ALL activity performs just one function so if you change that activity in any fashion, function one necessarily completely ceases. That's simply not the case in so many different ways the brain boggles.
The capacity for conscious thought and experience is related to specific activity
Again, you don't know that, but even if it were the case that only
specific activity rigidly defined the "capacity for conscious thought and experience" how does that necessarily mean that there can be no other activity that maintains other functions? Stop with the binary. It's clearly not a necessarily either/or proposition.
The brain is not the mind.
Nothing is "the" mind. If there a "the" mind then it would be like the amygdala or the neocortex.
At best, the brain generates "mind" (i.e., a virtual, phenomenal, condition)
It cannot rationally be the mind
Equivocation. You have--once again--gone from a verb (a state of action/process) to its noun. Stop it. There is no justification for that. The brain generates "mind" not the Brain created the Mind.
since the mind is also dependent on specific activity which can and does change daily.
Like a novel being written in Microsoft Word...
you said:
me said:
I reiterate my serious question as to where you fall on the autism spectrum. You keep exhibiting binary/ two-dimensional thinking.
It is because there are two stereotypical states created by brain activity. The waking state and the sleeping state. There are states in between but they are more idiosyncratic. Why does talking about two things where there are two stereotypical states bother you so much?
Because it is
literally binary thinking and doesn't take into account the simple notion that there may be many different ways in which it need not be.
If you were to clock a computer's energy usage pattern with no programs running, you would observe a different pattern than if you were to open several programs at once and have them all performing various tasks. Still a computer, though. Still the same operating system.
The brain clocks equally in sleep and in wakefulness.
Your own statement above disproves that: "there are two stereotypical states created by brain activity."
The speed of transmission is based on properties of cells, not some external program.
The notion of a program was analogy, not literal. Regardless, we're not talking about the speed of transmission. Again this is binary thinking. You seem incapable--or merely petulant--of understanding how a system (or systems) can operate their own functions that in turn
include sub-functions. Or even the more basic notion of a dynamic algorithm that can account for the entirety of all such functions, including its own.
Iow, turn it on (i.e., give birth) and it dynamically expands with each new experience until it is turned off (ie., brain death).
And the sleeping brain is very activity. It has a lot of activity. there is no way to say it has less activity than when the person is conscious.
It's not necessarily a matter of "less" activity. Again with the fucking binary thinking. I encourage you to read the study I posted. It may (burt likely won't) give you better insights.
It has different activity which produces evidence it is different.
Binary.
you said:
me said:
you said:
We know that it is not just activity in the brain that produces the conscious mind.
We do? Link please.
By rational conclusion.
So, you mean, via inference and not that there is any physical evidence of any of this.
It is specific brain activity, not just brain activity.
Yeah, again that's like saying, "It's 4/4 drum beat, not just playing the drums." Which is fine, but that, again, does not just axiomatically mean the rest of the band isn't playing their own instruments in their own way in tandem with the 4/4 beat.
If you
just played a 4/4 beat, that would be an example of "specific activity" right? If you then added other instruments playing along to the 4/4 beat, it would be a different set of "specific activity," but it would still contain the "specific activity" of the 4/4 beat yes?
you said:
me said:
you said:
It is a specific kind of activity.
Equivocation. Once again, Microsoft Word may have a "specific kind of activity" but it still can't function without another "specific kind of activity" from the Operating System that is always running as a base system that makes all other routines/programs/sub-routines possible.
Software has no activity.
False. Just opening up the program is a matter of activity, let alone the activity that occurs in its use.
Equivocation.
The brain must have controls of activity but how it is done is not known.
But the controls would be distinct from the activity.
Equivocation again.
In nature there are no goals.
...
You conflate individual goals of individual organisms with some overall goal of evolution.
The point is evolution has no goals.
Then you should have said that instead of "In nature there are no goals" as that is false. We see goal seeking all the time in nature.
he brain was not pushed towards some preordained goal of achieving human consciousness.
Agreed. It most likely first happened as a result of creating an analogue--i.e., picking up a rock--and intimating to other hunters that the pebble represented the individual holding it, who then placed it in the dirt and then picked up another rock to represent a threat (like a lion or the like) and how the individual then intimated how the other hunters would triangulate on the threat by drawing a diagram in the dirt. Or something to that effect.
Iow, it started with the notion of representational analogues for use in strategic role playing to achieve optimal courses of action prior to acting.
No reason to think there are any algorithms which are created with a specific goal in mind.
Now you have at least one. Survival of the cowardly. The individual in the above scenario likely watched the five previous--and therefore strongest warriors of the tribe--all taking the same approach to trying to kill the lion only to be killed themselves. Hence the idea of picking up a rock to represent him and what he wanted the others to help him with instead of him just walking into be killed like the previous less intelligent warriors.
