Unfortunately, many people apparently have not noticed how little of the brain's workings actually rise to conscious control. In fact, much of what we think we do consciously seems actually to be post hoc rationalization of what the brain has already done behind our back.
Near Death and Out of Body Experiences
- Thread starter zengirl
- Start date
Unfortunately, many people apparently have not noticed how little of the brain's workings actually rise to conscious control. In fact, much of what we think we do consciously seems actually to be post hoc rationalization of what the brain has already done behind our back.
I take it you are attempting to argue that because there are individuals who survive with various major neurological anomalies, then consciousness must not be so closely dependent on the brain as some of us are suggesting?
This argument could be valid, and it is certainly worth taking a closer look at. IF a person with a major anomaly has an UNALTERED consciousness, then this argument might hold water.
On the other hand, my brain=consciousness hypothesis predicts that the quality of conscious experience will be altered in a variety of ways when the brain is damaged, depending on what specific brain areas are damaged.
From the popular mechanics article, starting at the bottom, the 12 year old with only a brainstem has survived only by tube feeding, and basically breaths, maintains a circulation, and I presume eliminates waste. I would argue that this does not represent consciousness at all, certainly not UNALTERED from the condition you or I enjoy.
Next, the 27 year old with half a brain. "Mack still has issues comprehending abstract concepts, is prone to emotional distress, and her lowered visual–spatial processing ability means that she also is easily lost in unfamiliar surroundings." Conscious, yes, unaltered, no. Her lack of brain tissue has had very real and quite specific effects on her mind, just as the brain=consciousness hypothesis predicts.
Next the girl missing half her cerebral cortex. She has seizures, weakness of half her body, and no depth perception, but she is clearly conscious and apparently quite similar to you or I. This is where the plasticity comes in. Her brain has undergone extensive development while lacking that cerebral cortex, including axonal growth, branching of dendrites and axons, and synaptogenesis. It has been shown in animals with experimentaly produced lesions like this, that the brain is quite plastic during development, and even large deficits can be compensated for with only minor, and fairly specific deficits when mature. In addition to being a developmental lesion, she has all the various brain structures necessary for higher brain functions intact, just no right cerebral cortex.
If you or I were to suddenly lose even small parts of our cerebral cortex, there would be immediate and oddly specific effects on our conscious experience. See:https://larrycuban.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/wife-hat-2.pdf
The woman with no cerebellum is another interesting case. She complained of dizziness and nausea, and the part of her brain which was lacking (cerebellum) is closely connected with the vestibular system and our sense of balance and motor control in response to gravity. The fact that her consciousness was intact is no surprise, as consciousness appears to be a cerebral, not a cerebellar function.
Thus, I hope you can see, this description of brain lesions and their various effects is an excellent demonstration of why I believe that consciousness arises from the brain.
As others have asked, what aspects of your consciousness do you presume will exist without your brain?
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Yes - there have been some clever experiments that have demonstrated instances of this (which I can't find atm). There's a related cognitive bias called the Introspection Illusion.
Ironically, the process(es) that generates these rationalizations (a story or explanation generator, or confabulator), appears itself to be Type 1 (non-conscious), processing - in this situation - only the information available for conscious access, as input.
Given the requirement for efficiency, I would also expect this confabulator process to be involved in generating 'what-if' scenarios and forward planning too.
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
MuDPhuD said:
A thought occurs - could Navigator's descriptions be an example of the Introspection Illusion? they seem to tick most of the boxes.
Indeed.
Navigator would most certainly benefit from reading and pondering that Wiki link!
Donn
Philosopher
Wow, that was some link.
"The introspection illusion is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly think they have direct insight into the origins of their mental states, while treating others' introspections as unreliable. In certain situations, this illusion leads people to make confident but false explanations of their own behavior (called "causal theories"[1]) or inaccurate predictions of their future mental states.
When people mistake unreliable introspection for genuine self-knowledge, the result can be an illusion of superiority over other people, for example when each person thinks they are less biased and less conformist than the rest of the group. "
When people mistake unreliable introspection for genuine self-knowledge, the result can be an illusion of superiority over other people, for example when each person thinks they are less biased and less conformist than the rest of the group. "
Like a spot that's on.
Of course, my own mind is much more sound!
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
I had to go looking, I'm not sure how to explain it not being a physicist. I'm not using the right words.
I missed your previous question so let me see if I can synthesize what it is I believe and why I believe it.
I looked up Bohm and Pribram, there are also other physicists out there that support the holographic model. Pribram noted that the brain has holographic functions involving memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
Bohm's theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order
The way we view the world makes it difficult to comprehend the implications of Bohm's theory. We categorize and divide things into parts. From what I understand of his theory, separateness is an illusion, we actually exist in a fog of particles/waves. That means A is not simply related to B--A actually is B.
Therefore the brain must work as a lens to perceive reality in the way that we see it here. It can't be the seat of consciousness. If we are all one then death really doesn't exist because each of us carries the holographic image of the whole "it" that we are.
When someone is dying, their lens is malfunctioning in it's ability to perceive this world. I suggest that the NDE is the person's consciousness dipping down into the implicate order to create a hologram of what their expectations are of life after death. I don't think what they are seeing is not real, it's very real, just as our self created world is real to us in a global way. This would explain why everyone sees something different, why it doesn't really match any particular religion. Religion to the majority of people in this world isn't real, very few actually have faith in it, even those attending services and ceremonies on a regular basis.
As for brain injured people in a vegetative state, if memories exist in holographic form, then whatever functioning part of the brain they have left can interface with the computer augmentation to respond and experience life here.
If that's true then there is no reason we can't remove those implants on autopsy and see what individuals are actually seeing at their point of death. It would be a tool to see other levels of reality, but you would need a brain to do it since it acts as the lens. It wouldn't be possible to build a machine alone that could do this, IMO.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
So all we have to do is toss aside what we perceive as real and postulate a whole other level of reality operating unseen below the known world that is really real?
What if there's another level under that level?
Donn
Philosopher
Please note that you said this. I don't mind, I'm not one either, but it does weigh against your embellishing of the physics.
You are interpreting the science to fit your preconceived ideas. In short, you are begging the question and arguing from ignorance.
Here's where you dig up a gap so you can then tailor an argument it to fit:
Here's where you cut the cloth to fit your prior idea:
Here follows the post-hoc which sees the gap nicely filled:
Tah dah.
Change the science a bit, blather, rinse, repeat.
Then you just free-form it like it's beat night at the beach bar. It does not matter that this is all non-sequitur, the bona fides have been established.
Tap-tap, is this thing on?
Ahem:
And you keep going for a while; it's very creative.
I've been hard, but can you admit that you might be doing something wrong? Can you be objective and see that you are assuming your argument is correct before having any evidence or good reason to - that you are cheating?
Last edited:
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Your whole life is a subjective experience. Do you consider that to be unreliable?
That may or may not be so. They are beliefs about the nature of dreams and these too are subjective. Therefore what you believe about dreams are unreliable, according to science.
As I think I mentioned, there are experiences which are 'dreams' there are 'lucid dreams' and there are interactive sensory experiences which seem to be real, so much so that they are easily mistaken for being real events which actually happened. Branching off from this type of experience are experiences which are more real then normal reality.
Because these are all different types of experiences, they are labelled according to acknowledge those differences.
Different. Special in that way, because they are unusual. At the very least, those who have never experienced these should refrain from too much opinion as to what might be happening. Everyone should refrain from believing.
The mind process has something to do with the consciousness I speak about in relation to ideomotor.
You will not know this until you can verify it through the same process
Assuming I understood what you were saying, the three separate experiences were connected with the first of the three.
The first time I became aware of the entity was not connected to any other experience (which is why it was the first time)
The second time I recognized it was the same entity I had encountered due to the laugh.
The third time I recognized it was the same entity because of the symbolism.
1st - I did not see the entity. I heard the entity.
2nd - I both heard and saw the entity
3rd - I did not see the entity but felt the entity when my wrists were grabbed and I was pulled upright from a reclining position.
2nd occasion I identified immediately (while experience was happening) that I was dealing with the same entity as in 1st time. This was not something I came to the realization of after the experience but during the experience. The 1st experience happened some months before the second.
3rd occasion happened the night after the 2nd.
Again, at the time of the experience I was aware that all three experiences were connected in relation to the entity.
When it comes to the nature of reality, the mind, etc it is best to speak in terms to which the experience most closely relates to.
Also, I have not said that I communicate with "entities".
Please do NOT believe it. I have not made the claim in the hope that you will believe it.
Indeed, I understand I have made that very clear in my posts.
To reiterate, I have made the claim that one can communicate with what is refereed to as 'the subconscious mind' To clarify that, I will say that the idea of it being the subconscious mind is as close as I can get in order to give some kind of meaning, but it is nothing particularly like how the subconscious mind is commonly thought or otherwise is assumed to be. There are similarities.
However, since it can communicate, it is conscious and since it is not, in any obvious way, an external intelligence "subconscious mind" will have to do for the purpose of clarity.
I have also claimed that whatever it is, because it is a conscious self aware reality, it is capable of explaining to the individual exactly what it is.
Okay so 'evolution' is a natural process regarding a thing which is called 'the universe.
The universe is the product of a process called evolution. Evolution is not a thing, but produces the thing.
Without the process the thing cannot exist.
Without evolution the universe cannot exist.
Or. The universe is not a product of evolution but aspects of it are.
Most people I have spoken with tend to think of movement as part of the process of things evolving, especially in relation to the universe, but also in relation to learning, growing, changing etc. 'We are evolving as a species' is not just describing physical changes (like we had tails and outgrew them etc).
The process is describing actuality. The process is the description (related to a thing) and the thing is the effect of the process.
The process nonetheless is evidently intelligent and therefore consciousness is involved.
No it is not. If something is something, then it cannot be nothing. That is plainly the truth.
If there became a need to switch to flies, then the process of evolution can oblige. In the case of things which have brains, the process might even be enhanced - for example, sped up.
All in all though, the process can be seen to serve consciousness. Apart from the fact that the process can be seen to have intelligence and therefore signals the presence of consciousness, the process can be seen to serve more obvious forms of consciousness. Even if something came along and wiped out most obvious forms of consciousness (as it is said, has already happened before) forms of consciousness evolve again. If it is all merely accidental (a process without conscious purpose) then why does consciousness keep evolving from the process? The most obvious answer is because it is involved with the process.
I agree. What I am claiming is that there is obviously conscious intent involved with the process of evolution.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is impossible or not for a consciousness to experience what it is like being a planet or a star, or a whole universe.
But I can accept that the process of evolution in relation to the physical universe is very likely one which involves consciousness, because of the evidence.
You see, as I have said before, everything to do with consciousness is subjective. It is here nor there that groups of subjective individuate consciousness get together and decide 'this is this and that is that' because it is all done subjectively anyway.
And subjectively, if you are someone who does not want to see intelligence in the process of evolution, it will most likely be influenced by your own bias to do with the implications of such observation which would naturally challenge the bias. Also, since the implications are very narrow due to the opposite bias, who accept the observation of intelligence involved in the process but who also conjure up all sorts of fantastic myths related to exactly what the nature of said intelligent consciousness must be, such implications simple serve to further strengthen the walls of the bias and prevent the individual from exploring the possibility free from the opposing bias.
Such is the power of belief.
Set all that aside, and with a simple "no batteries necessary" device, one can discover for oneself.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
I haven't the time to read all that. Pick out what you feel are the most pertinent pieces of evidence as to "How People Are Fooled by Ideomotor Action" and I will examine and comment on those.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Nope.
However in relation to bias it can be seen to be another reason why intelligence and thus consciousness is purposefully overlooked in the observation processes of those who find the implications threaten their own bias.
This is also argued the other way. That self (consciousness) is an illusion offers implications which offend the bias of those who believe otherwise.
Thus, the best thing one can do is recognize and eliminate all bias from the process.
That is my position. Whether the process involves introspection or extrospection, if bias is involved then the results won't be accurate.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
So, did you fail at being unbiased or do you claim not to be human?
Because as humans, we are incapable of acting without bias. The scientific method devloped, in large part, to limit the biases that we all have and counteract their effects.
Much like the easiest person to fool is the one sure he can't be fooled, the person with the most bias is the one who's sure he has no bias.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
You keep saying this; now comes the part where you produce the actual evidence to support the "evidently." No waffling with "philosophically," now- and please note that arguments from inference (or necessary circles) do not constitute evidence. I mean, you do realize that a "product" can be either simply an outcome or a goal, right? And that "outcome" covers both definitions, but that you need additional evidence to narrow it down to only "goal"? Your burden, not mine...
Donn
Philosopher
Yes, one should. As narrators of reality, even our own accrued lives, humans are rubbish at non-fiction.
For a certain social aspect, we pretend that we are in control and at the helm. We can manage an identity over time by the constant use of it. Other oft-repeated things groove into our minds and maintain the illusion of self, etc. For this short span and social aspect, we are "reliable" but it's within very strict limits.
Here's another very strange thing:
You say it's a claim and then you say it can so-and-so as if that's a fact. No, it's more claiming. You do this a lot, shifting from cautious to carefree and dabbing all over the canvas.
See? And, no, that's not at all clear.
Affirming the consequent. Begging the question. Coming to a gun fight with a halibut.
Evolution is a word with many meanings. One is that, loosely, things change and go from one state to another over time. So, yes, kinda-sorta, the universe evolved.
In the same sense as above, okay. Stuff happens. Atoms move about. Gravity affects them. Yadda yadda, physics.
The evolution here is not the same as the theory of evolution used in biology.
Without the stuff that makes it, sure. This is not saying anything.
False dilemma and a setup for some more special pleading.
Bald assertion served by your special pleading. Well done! No, there is no evidently about it. Zero.
Nope, wrong. Evidence? And not more fallacious looping.
Amen, brother. You should write comic books. Hellblazer, the Newage. Alan Moore better watch his six.
Yeah, you can discover that the mind is an endless source of stories that fit the mind.
Psychonaut, doubt thyself!
Last edited:
Donn
Philosopher
Well put. Navigator has avoided my question about what would make him realize he is wrong. He is so supremely certain that he's right. No bias there, no sir!
Ha, you jest! He's ideodowsed his own mind's Entity man! What more do you want? Really, skeptics these days. Dismissing subjective omphalic onanism without even trying the lube. I dunno.
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Just do the best you can.
Firstly, bear in mind that holography is a widely used technique for encoding 3D information on a 2D surface. That it can be applied in many different areas doesn't imply those areas are related or have anything in common. There are a number of 'holographic universe' ideas, the most recent coming out of String Theory and the maths of black holes, where it was found that the information in a 3D volume can be represented as hologram on a 2D surface of area proportional to the volume (e.g. a sphere enclosing it). This was speculatively extrapolated to the visible universe, with the cosmological horizon as the putative surface. At least one suggested prediction of this idea has failed experimental testing.
Regarding Pribram, yes, I used to think holographic memory was a very good candidate, but it doesn't seem to have gained any traction in recent times, and it's hard to see how it squares with what we now know about the associative performance of memory and the discovery of categorising neural hierarchies which look like a much better fit.
I've got Bohm's book 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'. It's an interesting metaphysical exploration of ideas about reality based on quantum mechanical principles and latterly using a holographic analogy he calls the 'holomovement'. He deals with consciousness in the last chapter, using even more speculative analogies. He was a great physicist in his time, but had a reputation for credulousness regarding psychic and other fraudsters (he apparently treasured a spoon bent by Geller) and a penchant for Eastern mysticism, which may put the scientific value of his later musings into perspective.
Nope; that is a total non-sequitur. I can see nothing in the holographic principle or Bohm's implicate order that would remotely suggest such a thing. Holographic principles and Bohm's musings don't change the character of physical law. I'm aware that a lot of web sites peddling pseudoscience and mysticism have latched onto the romantically esoteric appeal of the Holographic Principle, quantum weirdness, speculative metaphysics, and pop-eyed candidate theories-of-everything; chucking it all together and stirring; cherry-picking whatever authoritative sounding snippets they can find to make it sound sciency. But it's generally a load of wishful thinking, unsupported bollocks, and publicity seeking.
All unsupported fantasy. Just make it up as you go along and ownership bias and confirmation bias will do the rest.
What 'computer augmentation' would that be?
Where are you getting this stuff from? it's not even plausible as science-fiction.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
And it's a non-falsifiable ideodowsed omphalic onanism, to boot; just the sort of thing that merits the label "evidently," evidently.
(If someone had told me even just yesterday that I would ever be typing a phrase like "ideodowsed omphalic onanism," I would have laughed; it's funny, the turns that the evolution of conversations can take, without ever meaning to.)
Donn
Philosopher
