Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Sriram on March 09, 2021, 04:38:19 AM
-
Hi everyone
This video clearly brings out the fact that the brain is not a predetermined fixed structure that directs our thoughts and actions. This is a well known fact but needs reiterating.
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p098v92g/neuroplasticity-how-to-rewire-your-brain
The brain changes through out our life to accommodate our new experiences and ideas. This shows that the brain is not the deciding factor on what our mind does. Rather our mind also decides how the brain should be structured and how the pathways should form.
The mind is not just a product of the brain. The mind and brain depend on and influence one another.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone
This video clearly brings out the fact that the brain is not a predetermined fixed structure that directs our thoughts and actions. This is a well known fact but needs reiterating.
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p098v92g/neuroplasticity-how-to-rewire-your-brain
The brain changes through out our life to accommodate our new experiences and ideas. This shows that the brain is not the deciding factor on what our mind does. Rather our mind also decides how the brain should be structured and how the pathways should form.
The mind is not just a product of the brain. The mind and brain depend on and influence one another.
Cheers.
Sriram
Nah, neuroplasticity is not the same thing as dualism and it is not evidence for dualism. Nobody ever claimed that brains were fixed structures, they grow and shrink are rewire constantly. That doesn't mean there is a separate entity soliciting structural changes, making choices on how to reconfigure cortex to suit. Brains evolved to optimise decision making, and if there were some other entity responsible for thughts and choices then we wouldn't need a brain. Thoughts are not magic, they are phenomena of the thinking organ, the brain.
-
Nah, neuroplasticity is not the same thing as dualism and it is not evidence for dualism. Nobody ever claimed that brains were fixed structures, they grow and shrink are rewire constantly. That doesn't mean there is a separate entity soliciting structural changes, making choices on how to reconfigure cortex to suit. Brains evolved to optimise decision making, and if there were some other entity responsible for thughts and choices then we wouldn't need a brain. Thoughts are not magic, they are phenomena of the thinking organ, the brain.
What are the physical properties and measurements of a thought?
-
Nah, neuroplasticity is not the same thing as dualism and it is not evidence for dualism. Nobody ever claimed that brains were fixed structures, they grow and shrink are rewire constantly. That doesn't mean there is a separate entity soliciting structural changes, making choices on how to reconfigure cortex to suit. Brains evolved to optimise decision making, and if there were some other entity responsible for thughts and choices then we wouldn't need a brain. Thoughts are not magic, they are phenomena of the thinking organ, the brain.
Neuroplasticity as with phenotypic plasticity in general....is evidence of intelligent and very specific responses in the body (and brain) to environmental requirements. This clearly shows that there are other organs and mechanisms besides the brain, that respond to mental influences.
A brain is an important platform but just one component among others, involved in mental processes.
-
What are the physical properties and measurements of a thought?
To the best of our knowledge they are electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Measurement is difficult but normally it involves functional magnetic resonance imaging. There is a new technique however which shows promise where biosensors can detect the release of the molecules that the brain cells use to communicate.
-
Neuroplasticity as with phenotypic plasticity in general....is evidence of intelligent and very specific responses in the body (and brain) to environmental requirements. This clearly shows that there are other organs and mechanisms besides the brain, that respond to mental influences.
A brain is an important platform but just one component among others, involved in mental processes.
There are neurons in many places in the body, such as the heart, the gut, the nervous system. They organise and coordinate bodily functions and relay all sorts of messages to the brain. This is well known. The brain itself is capable of altering bodily functions such as heart rate or the release of certain chemicals. This is also well known.
As regards the word 'mental', there is every reason to think that the mind is a product of the brain. The fact that it communicates with the rest of the body does not negate this in any way.
-
Neuroplasticity as with phenotypic plasticity in general....is evidence of intelligent and very specific responses in the body (and brain) to environmental requirements. This clearly shows that there are other organs and mechanisms besides the brain, that respond to mental influences.
A brain is an important platform but just one component among others, involved in mental processes.
Yes, we, and all other creatures with brains, are distributed intelligence systems. Millions of neurons in every organ in the body, all talking to the neurons in the brain. It is your brain doing the thinking, and those thoughts are informed by the whole body communications network.
-
What are the physical properties and measurements of a thought?
A 'thought' is not even easy to define, never mind measure. The oft-quoted statistic is that the speed of thought is approx 110m/sec, but this is really the speed of electrochemical transmission in myelinated nerve fibres. There is no precise definition for any particular thought event, the concept is inherently nebulous, with many meanings.
-
A 'thought' is not even easy to define, never mind measure. The oft-quoted statistic is that the speed of thought is approx 110m/sec, but this is really the speed of electrochemical transmission in myelinated nerve fibres. There is no precise definition for any particular thought event, the concept is inherently nebulous, with many meanings.
Yes. But that doesn't make the mind a product of the brain. The fact that something (mind, consciousness) elicits specific information from the environment and passes it on to the brain and other organs, to enable suitable changes both in the phenotype and in the brain, is what I am talking about.
-
Yes. But that doesn't make the mind a product of the brain. The fact that something (mind, consciousness) elicits specific information from the environment and passes it on to the brain and other organs, to enable suitable changes both in the phenotype and in the brain, is what I am talking about.
It means that mind is not a product of just the brain. Rather mind is an internal phenomenon of an enbrained body. A brain is an outgrowth of the CNS and it constantly mediates all the information flows from the CNS and sense organs.
-
To the best of our knowledge they are electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Measurement is difficult but normally it involves functional magnetic resonance imaging. There is a new technique however which shows promise where biosensors can detect the release of the molecules that the brain cells use to communicate.
So have they actually shown an image of a thought? How many released molecules constitutes a thought? For instance is there a minimal amount for a thought? Are different amounts of molecules related to different thoughts?
-
So have they actually shown an image of a thought? How many released molecules constitutes a thought? For instance is there a minimal amount for a thought? Are different amounts of molecules related to different thoughts?
A couple of suggestions:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-aglow-scientists-watch-thoughts-form-in-the-brain/
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/how-are-thoughts-measured/
-
A couple of suggestions:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-aglow-scientists-watch-thoughts-form-in-the-brain/
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/how-are-thoughts-measured/
A few points here, we have been able to detect thinking and thoughts forming via peoples faces for possibly millions of years and other animals can kind of read thoughts as well.
How do you think just getting scientist and engineers up to speed on examining thoughts in time honoured but vague ways in ways that they like, furthers us?
-
A few points here, we have been able to detect thinking and thoughts forming via peoples faces for possibly millions of years and other animals can kind of read thoughts as well.
How do you think just getting scientist and engineers up to speed on examining thoughts in time honoured but vague ways in ways that they like, furthers us?
You obviously haven't paid much attention to the articles or else you would have realised that it's not some vague idea of 'examining thoughts in time honoured but vague ways' but examples of using techniques and equipment with increasing accuracy to determine whereabouts in the brain mental processes have their origins. Granted it is still in its infancy but the whole fast growing field of cognitive neuroscience shows great potential in our understanding of how the brain and how our mental processes work. Perhaps if you had bothered to look at the last paragraph of the Scientific American article, you might have discovered some of the potential uses for the CNiFER technique are listed.
You might care to have a look at this article also:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42894312
-
You obviously haven't paid much attention to the articles or else you would have realised that it's not some vague idea of 'examining thoughts in time honoured but vague ways' but examples of using techniques and equipment with increasing accuracy to determine whereabouts in the brain mental processes have their origins. Granted it is still in its infancy but the whole fast growing field of cognitive neuroscience shows great potential in our understanding of how the brain and how our mental processes work. Perhaps if you had bothered to look at the last paragraph of the Scientific American article, you might have discovered some of the potential uses for the CNiFER technique are listed.
You might care to have a look at this article also:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42894312
No doubt the fact that we can move a matchbox by thinking about it, we've actually been able to use our fingers for some time, will become very important for humanity at some point.
-
You seem to have no idea of the potential of BCIs, and it seems the best you can do is to belittle the science which enables a paralysed person who, by using BCI technology, can now move his arm and hand, by suggesting that:
No doubt the fact that we can move a matchbox by thinking about it, we've actually been able to use our fingers for some time, will become very important for humanity at some point.
So I'll leave you to your gross and silly distortions of the science as I can see no use in continuing with this discussion with a person who simply snipes at something seemingly for the sake of it.
-
A nice piece by David Eagleman taken from his book in today's Guardian explaining (in his view) why neural plasticity is the underlying reason for dreaming.
In short, all cortex is valuable real estate, constantly in demand. If some cortex were to be unused it would likely be commandeered by some other brain function anxious to maximise its cortical capital. Visual cortex is therefore at risk because we live on a planet that rotates, meaning we spend half our lives in darkness, and so it might seem that visual cortex is not being fully used. Having dreams is the way the brain defends its visual cortex against being conscripted by other brain functions - it is injecting pseudo visual stimulation sourced from memory in the absence of actual stimulation from the optic nerves. This is a 'hands off' message to rival regions to stop them taking over, which would have negative consequences for vision. Thus the brain has evolved dreaming as a means to protect vision on a planet with alternating day and night.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/12/david-eagleman-the-working-of-the-brain-resembles-drug-dealers-in-albuquerque (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/12/david-eagleman-the-working-of-the-brain-resembles-drug-dealers-in-albuquerque)
-
A nice piece by David Eagleman taken from his book in today's Guardian explaining (in his view) why neural plasticity is the underlying reason for dreaming.
In short, all cortex is valuable real estate, constantly in demand. If some cortex were to be unused it would likely be commandeered by some other brain function anxious to maximise its cortical capital. Visual cortex is therefore at risk because we live on a planet that rotates, meaning we spend half our lives in darkness, and so it might seem that visual cortex is not being fully used. Having dreams is the way the brain defends its visual cortex against being conscripted by other brain functions - it is injecting pseudo visual stimulation sourced from memory in the absence of actual stimulation from the optic nerves. This is a 'hands off' message to rival regions to stop them taking over, which would have negative consequences for vision. Thus the brain has evolved dreaming as a means to protect vision on a planet with alternating day and night.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/12/david-eagleman-the-working-of-the-brain-resembles-drug-dealers-in-albuquerque (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/12/david-eagleman-the-working-of-the-brain-resembles-drug-dealers-in-albuquerque)
Clearly a far fetched 'explanation'. How does the brain know all this and how does it 'decide' to come up with a method to use the visual cortex and how does it actually come up with this idea of creating dreams?
We know very little about the mind and its true nature. We assume that it is a product of the brain and keep coming up with such convoluted processes through which the brain 'decides' such and such and 'creates' such and such. Even NDE's are claimed to be the brain's way of reassuring itself before shutting down...or some such... ::)
-
Clearly a far fetched 'explanation'. How does the brain know all this and how does it 'decide' to come up with a method to use the visual cortex and how does it actually come up with this idea of creating dreams?
We know very little about the mind and its true nature. We assume that it is a product of the brain and keep coming up with such convoluted processes through which the brain 'decides' such and such and 'creates' such and such. Even NDE's are claimed to be the brain's way of reassuring itself before shutting down...or some such... ::)
Talk about pots, kettles, and black! The explanation is (basically) evolution (which you've never properly understood). The irony is, that just in that short article (and I'm sure there's more in the book), he's given far, far more basis for his ideas than you ever have for any of your far fetched speculations about consciousness...
-
Clearly a far fetched 'explanation'. How does the brain know all this and how does it 'decide' to come up with a method to use the visual cortex and how does it actually come up with this idea of creating dreams?
We know very little about the mind and its true nature. We assume that it is a product of the brain and keep coming up with such convoluted processes through which the brain 'decides' such and such and 'creates' such and such. Even NDE's are claimed to be the brain's way of reassuring itself before shutting down...or some such... ::)
Perhaps we tend to anthropomorphise the language we use to describe evolutionary processes and this gives the misleading notion of intention. Think of it this way, brains which protected vision would have a survival advantage over ones that didn't and so that is why dreaming became a feature in lineages where sight is a priority sense. As for plasticity in general, there are accounts of people losing significant amounts of cortical tissue to injury or disease, and yet who seem to manage live a 'normal' life. How on earth could that be possible ? Neural plasticity is the answer to that question, the brain is very quick to reconfigure cortex, to reuse it. The brain is not a fixed structure, it is dynamic, responsive, adaptable, or 'plastic', in the jargon.
-
Perhaps we tend to anthropomorphise the language we use to describe evolutionary processes and this gives the misleading notion of intention. Think of it this way, brains which protected vision would have a survival advantage over ones that didn't and so that is why dreaming became a feature in lineages where sight is a priority sense. As for plasticity in general, there are accounts of people losing significant amounts of cortical tissue to injury or disease, and yet who seem to manage live a 'normal' life. How on earth could that be possible ? Neural plasticity is the answer to that question, the brain is very quick to reconfigure cortex, to reuse it. The brain is not a fixed structure, it is dynamic, responsive, adaptable, or 'plastic', in the jargon.
How does it happen.....the process by which the 'brain' comes to know that there will be a survival advantage with a protected vision and then it goes about designing such a system..?! Just through random genetic variations and natural selection...?!
I have already linked an article in the 'Selfish Gene' thread that highlights the fact that genetic variations happen due to signals from the general physiology. Here is a part of it.
**********
The DNA molecule on its own does absolutely nothing since it reacts biochemically only to triggering signals. It cannot even initiate its own transcription or replication.
It would therefore be more correct to say that genes are not active causes; they are, rather, caused to give their information by and to the system that activates them. The only kind of causation that can be attributed to them is passive, much in the way a computer program reads and uses databases.
**********
The system is much more responsive and intelligent than you are giving it credit for. And this responsive intelligence is not a property of the brain but a part of the entire system. The brain is only a part of it.
-
How does it happen.....the process by which the 'brain' comes to know that there will be a survival advantage with a protected vision and then it goes about designing such a system..?! Just through random genetic variations and natural selection...?!
I have already linked an article in the 'Selfish Gene' thread that highlights the fact that genetic variations happen due to signals from the general physiology. Here is a part of it.
**********
The DNA molecule on its own does absolutely nothing since it reacts biochemically only to triggering signals. It cannot even initiate its own transcription or replication.
It would therefore be more correct to say that genes are not active causes; they are, rather, caused to give their information by and to the system that activates them. The only kind of causation that can be attributed to them is passive, much in the way a computer program reads and uses databases.
**********
The system is much more responsive and intelligent than you are giving it credit for. And this responsive intelligence is not a property of the brain but a part of the entire system. The brain is only a part of it.
We could describe a complex system as intelligent, but don't fall into the trap of thinking, therefore, it must have been designed by an intelligent designer. That might work on occasions, like finding a watch on a beach, but is does not work as a general fundamental principle or law of nature. Complex things arise out of the combination of simpler things. The fact that brains appear to do smart things, just what we want them to do, in effect, merely reflects the fact that brains derive out of a competitive process where smarter variations will tend to be conserved and less smart ones will tend to lose out. The answer to how did intelligence arise ? - it must have been created by something with intelligence is a line of reasoning going nowhere useful. To understand complexity, we have to start from first principles.
-
How does it happen.....the process by which the 'brain' comes to know that there will be a survival advantage with a protected vision and then it goes about designing such a system..?! Just through random genetic variations and natural selection...?!
Just how many times do you need natural section explained? Nothing needs to know that anything will be a survival advantage, it's just that if some variation is such an advantage, it will survive and reproduce more (being a survival advantage an' all) than less advantageous variations and hence spread through the population.
So yes, the 'design' process is through variation and natural selection.
A system such as the brain, of course, will be the result of countless different advantageous variations and selection - and mechanisms such as the one suggested (assuming it's correct) about dreaming would have evolved long before modern humans.
-
We could describe a complex system as intelligent, but don't fall into the trap of thinking, therefore, it must have been designed by an intelligent designer. That might work on occasions, like finding a watch on a beach, but is does not work as a general fundamental principle or law of nature. Complex things arise out of the combination of simpler things. The fact that brains appear to do smart things, just what we want them to do, in effect, merely reflects the fact that brains derive out of a competitive process where smarter variations will tend to be conserved and less smart ones will tend to lose out. The answer to how did intelligence arise ? - it must have been created by something with intelligence is a line of reasoning going nowhere useful. To understand complexity, we have to start from first principles.
The article I have quoted above clearly states that whatever variation the system wants it elicits from the gene. Genes only contain 'data' that are made available when the system wants it. There is an active system (phenotypic plasticity) of responding to the environment and providing what is required. The system is not chance driven...it is intelligently responsive.
It is not about 'random' variations that just happen to be available at any point of time.
-
The article I have quoted above clearly states that whatever variation the system wants it elicits from the gene.
Drivel.
There is an active system (phenotypic plasticity) of responding to the environment and providing what is required. The system is not chance driven...it is intelligently responsive.
It is not about 'random' variations that just happen to be available at any point of time.
Now you're confusing evolution with what it has produced. Neuroplasticity is something that has itself evolved via variation and natural selection.
-
A brain is an important platform but just one component among others, involved in mental processes.
What other components and what evidence do you have that such components exist?
-
The article I have quoted above clearly states that whatever variation the system wants it elicits from the gene. Genes only contain 'data' that are made available when the system wants it. There is an active system (phenotypic plasticity) of responding to the environment and providing what is required. The system is not chance driven...it is intelligently responsive.
It is not about 'random' variations that just happen to be available at any point of time.
The 'random' bit refers to genetic mutations that have accrued through generations of a lineage that resulted in an organism being as it is today. It is not referring to the general functioning of the organism or any of its subsystems at any level. Even the 'random' genetic mutations may not be truly random, more likely they are stochastic in nature.
I think you confuse complexity with intelligence. We might describe a system as intelligent because it is complex and it adheres to underlying laws so it might seem that it is behaving in a way it was 'designed' to behave. I think that is a non sequitur because living systems evolve through a random (or stochastic) history of events that lead to their complexity. It is easy to mistake the seeming design of complex systems for actual design, ie actually designed by a being with human-like intentions and desires. This is superfluous since we have no evidence for an absent intelligent designer, and all the evidence we do in fact have merely substantiates how complex systems arise to be consistent with underlying laws of laws of nature and principles of logic.
-
What other components and what evidence do you have that such components exist?
Well...there is the endocrine system for instance that generates most of our emotions. Also our instinctive responses generated from the genes.
The mind is generated through various means...though it is possible that the brain is used as a central platform in these cases also. There is also the 'second' brain (enteric nervous system) centered around the stomach which has a major role in our mental processes.
Secondly, it is to be noted that some people have survived and even lived near normal lives almost without a brain.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125
************
When a 44-year-old man from France started experiencing weakness in his leg, he went to the hospital. That's when doctors told him he was missing most of his brain. The man's skull was full of liquid, with just a thin layer of brain tissue left. The condition is known as hydrocephalus.
"He was living a normal life. He has a family. He works. His IQ was tested at the time of his complaint. This came out to be 84, which is slightly below the normal range … So, this person is not bright — but perfectly, socially apt," explains Axel Cleeremans.
Cleeremans is a cognitive psychologist at the Université Libre in Brussels. When he learned about the case, which was first described in The Lancet in 2007, he saw a medical miracle — but also a major challenge to theories about consciousness.
************
-
The 'random' bit refers to genetic mutations that have accrued through generations of a lineage that resulted in an organism being as it is today. It is not referring to the general functioning of the organism or any of its subsystems at any level. Even the 'random' genetic mutations may not be truly random, more likely they are stochastic in nature.
I think you confuse complexity with intelligence. We might describe a system as intelligent because it is complex and it adheres to underlying laws so it might seem that it is behaving in a way it was 'designed' to behave. I think that is a non sequitur because living systems evolve through a random (or stochastic) history of events that lead to their complexity. It is easy to mistake the seeming design of complex systems for actual design, ie actually designed by a being with human-like intentions and desires. This is superfluous since we have no evidence for an absent intelligent designer, and all the evidence we do in fact have merely substantiates how complex systems arise to be consistent with underlying laws of laws of nature and principles of logic.
You keep confusing the idea of an intelligent system with the idea of an external intelligent entity (God) who does things miraculously. That is not what I am talking about (though that could still be a possibility).
I am talking about intelligent systems that can regulate themselves and respond actively to changes in the environment. Chance and random variations are clearly not responsible for phenotypic changes. This is seen in plasticity.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/phenotypic-plasticity
**********
Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to change in response to stimuli or inputs from the environment.
Even though the phenotype is defined here to exclude the genome, in fact phenotypic plasticity always involves a change in gene expression or gene-product use (morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits always being products, in part, of gene expression).
**********
-
You keep confusing the idea of an intelligent system with the idea of an external intelligent entity (God) who does things miraculously. That is not what I am talking about (though that could still be a possibility).
It's you who are confused here. Nobody is suggesting the systems that respond is quickly to change (neuroplasticity or phenotypic plasticity) are doing so randomly. The point is that those system came about (or were 'designed') not by intelligence but by the process of evolution.
There is no actual intelligent input needed for a system to come about (by evolution) and react in a way in which you have labelled 'intelligent'. The 'design', or appearance of design, is fully explained by evolution.
Do you get it now? Evolution (variation with selection) produces traits like phenotypic plasticity, that can then react to changes in the environment (because that ability is a survival advantage).