the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[The Man]

As I understand it, the brain undertakes considerable unconscious processing of ongoing data, already establishing meaning at this level, and then decides which streams should amplified and propagated across multiple brain modules (consciousness).

While there certainly is a considerable amount of unconscious processing that takes place and it would seem unlikely that at least some extent of meaning doesn’t get established there, we can still consciously interrogate, discern and assign meaning. Even to the point of considering and applying the meanings ascribed by others. However, regardless of where meaning may or may not be assigned and what might or might not get amplified and propagated, that active suppression is a specific function of certain neurons and neurotransmitters should be a fundamental part of any understanding of brain function, if it isn’t already.

But I don't follow how the presence of a brain chemical like GABA could really be central to the creation of consciousness. Isn't it more likely that how neurons are interconnected is more in the central role? If the pattern of interconnection facilitates the generation of more information then wouldn't this be more the nub of it?

This is specifically about how neurons interconnect via neurotransmitters. GABA isn’t just present, like any neurotransmitter it is specifically released and then reabsorbed (reuptake) before it can be released again. Of course reuptake can never be absolute so some amount of neurotransmitters remain present in the synaptic gap. As GABAergic neurons (neurons that release GABA) are different they have their own interconnections (axon terminals) to other neurons. I have seen some indications that GABA receptors are more concentrated along the postsynaptic dendrite stem with the typical excitatory neurotransmitter receptors being more concentrated at the dendrite tip. However I’ve yet to review sufficient current literature to confirm that configuration. None the less, still different action and different presynaptic neurons so different interconnections. If I recall correctly something like 30 to 40% of all synapses involve GABA and they are located in all regions of the brain.

GABAergic-synapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-Aminobutyric_acid#/media/File:GABAergic-synapse.gif


Some other helpful links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmitter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuptake

http://www.mrcbndu.ox.ac.uk/publica...ed-basket-and-dendrite-targeting-interneurons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GABA_reuptake_inhibitor

The last link refers to GABA reuptake inhibitors,. Chemicals that prevent or slowdown the reuptake of GABA. The “indications” portion gives an idea of the result of too little GABA floating around while the “effects” portion give an ideas of the results of perhaps too much GABA.. From them and the overdose portion the potential influence of GABA on consciousness should be obvious.

 

[The Man]

The people who design it are called 'engineers', and the people who build and operate it are called 'technicians'. Scientists do research.

This^

From your mouth (or keyboard) to my life (or career). I've held positions and titles doing just about all of this. From Drafter to Laboratory Technician to Product Designer to Engineer (mechanical) to Project Engineer to Production Engineer. While, I have done some very basic research in material science (in an engineering laboratory) I've never done the pure theoretical research nor had an official title of Scientist.

 

[Navigator]

No, the point of this thread is the argument that some have made that conscious exists and is sourced outside and independent of the brain, and the brain's function is as a 2 way radio to allow that consciousness to interact with the material world.
We may not understand exactly how conciousness works, but that doesn't preclude us from reasoning from all available evidence that it originates out of the brains biological/chemical functions.

The point being made throughout the thread is that whatever side of the argument one chooses to position oneself, reasoning is fine as long as that reasoning doesn't push one over into the absurdity of actual belief...and the insanity of actually arguing from positions of belief.

 

[The Sparrow]

The point being made throughout the thread is that whatever side of the argument one chooses to position oneself, reasoning is fine as long as that reasoning doesn't push one over into the absurdity of actual belief...and the insanity of actually arguing from positions of belief.

Belief? Ah yes, you are attempting to place both positions as being an article of faith, hoping no one will notice the complete lack of evidence for external consciousness against all the science that leads very plainly to the alternative.

 

[Navigator]

Belief? Ah yes, you are attempting to place both positions as being an article of faith, hoping no one will notice the complete lack of evidence for external consciousness against all the science that leads very plainly to the alternative.

Nope. I expect lack of evidence in relation to one side of the argument. That in itself is good enough reason not to form actual beliefs, but not good enough reason to completely abandon such ideas altogether.

What I am saying is that the evidence available is not any reason to form belief and then argue from a position of belief.

What I have said (in this thread) is that evidence of its self is subject to interpretation and all such evidence has not extinguished the possibility that all internal brain functions are necessarily internally sourced.

As we know, a radio is not a box which contains a little person who lives inside the little box expressing messages and other entertainments to big people who live outside the little box...even though it might appear that way to some who don't know any better...

So by all means argue from knowledge but try not to allow the knowledge to morph into belief.

 

[The Man]

As I understand it, the brain undertakes considerable unconscious processing of ongoing data, already establishing meaning at this level, and then decides which streams should amplified and propagated across multiple brain modules (consciousness).

But I don't follow how the presence of a brain chemical like GABA could really be central to the creation of consciousness. Isn't it more likely that how neurons are interconnected is more in the central role? If the pattern of interconnection facilitates the generation of more information then wouldn't this be more the nub of it?

This might also help...

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Interneurons

 

[The Sparrow]

...

What I have said (in this thread) is that evidence of its self is subject to interpretation and all such evidence has not extinguished the possibility that all internal brain functions are necessarily internally sourced.

I assume you meant aren't.
So, because we can't prove a negative, you can argue that it has not been proven that consciousness doesn't come externally.
And in fact, you've set up a standard by which you can always argue an external source. Even when we get to the point that we can model consciousness right from the brain's consumption of sugar, the woo-meisters will argue that at the 'quantum level' is where consciousness is coming from an external source and expressing itself through the brain.

Nothing will convince these folks otherwise, so why bother trying. Meanwhile science will march on.

 

[Navigator]

So, because we can't prove a negative, you can argue that it has not been proven that consciousness doesn't come externally.

There is nothing to argue in that. It is a matter of fact.

And in fact, you've set up a standard by which you can always argue an external source.

Nope. I am not arguing an external source as in 'there IS or MUST BE an external source."

What I do is agree that it may be possible that consciousness is not sole creation of brains... -

Even when we get to the point that we can model consciousness right from the brain's consumption of sugar, the woo-meisters will argue that at the 'quantum level' is where consciousness is coming from an external source and expressing itself through the brain.

We know very little about most things, quantum of otherwise. If some are arguing that quantum as an 'external source' they need to explain why they think that is the case.

The way I see it, even if there was another universe linked with our own, this might not constitute anything which is actually 'external' - it just may appear to be that way. I know that other human beings are external from the body I occupy but for all I know, consciousness may exist literally throughout the entire universe...in which case I couldn't really accurately refer to IT or even other aspects of IT in separate bodies as being 'external' when for all I know IT may consider me and all others to being part of what it is...You and I may be an extension of what IT is - like nerves on the tip of a finger are still part of what a finger is...not external or internal...

Nothing will convince these folks otherwise, so why bother trying.

Wisdom would not think to try

Meanwhile science will march on.

For as long as there is consciousness to propel it

 

[tsig]

There is nothing to argue in that. It is a matter of fact.



Nope. I am not arguing an external source as in 'there IS or MUST BE an external source."

What I do is agree that it may be possible that consciousness is not sole creation of brains... -




We know very little about most things, quantum of otherwise. If some are arguing that quantum as an 'external source' they need to explain why they think that is the case.

The way I see it, even if there was another universe linked with our own, this might not constitute anything which is actually 'external' - it just may appear to be that way. I know that other human beings are external from the body I occupy but for all I know, consciousness may exist literally throughout the entire universe...in which case I couldn't really accurately refer to IT or even other aspects of IT in separate bodies as being 'external' when for all I know IT may consider me and all others to being part of what it is...You and I may be an extension of what IT is - like nerves on the tip of a finger are still part of what a finger is...not external or internal...



Wisdom would not think to try



For as long as there is consciousness to propel it

There it is an appeal to ignorance the last refuge of the woo.

 

[annnnoid]

There it is an appeal to ignorance the last refuge of the woo.

…given that neither you nor any scientist on the planet could even begin to definitively describe how your brain / consciousness / whatever created a single letter of that sentence (let alone the entire thing [in fact, neither you nor any scientist could even begin to definitively describe what you even are!])…what word besides ‘ignorance’ most appropriately describes your condition?

‘Denial’, it seems, is the last refuge of the skeptic.

 

[Myriad]

…given that neither you nor any scientist on the planet could even begin to definitively describe how your brain / consciousness / whatever created a single letter of that sentence (let alone the entire thing [in fact, neither you nor any scientist could even begin to definitively describe what you even are!])…what word besides ‘ignorance’ most appropriately describes your condition?

I can tell you that creating each letter of that sentence involved intensive neutal activity in Broca's Area of the writer's brain, and that damage to that area would impair that ability.

This is strong evidence that language is bicycle.

I can also tell you with great confidence that reading that last sentence caused a particular pattern of electrical activity to occur in certain areas of your brain, called the N400 response.

The field of study is called neurolinguistics.

Now your turn. Tell us one thing, verified by repeatable experiments, about how the external origin of consciousness works.

 

[tsig]

…given that neither you nor any scientist on the planet could even begin to definitively describe how your brain / consciousness / whatever created a single letter of that sentence (let alone the entire thing [in fact, neither you nor any scientist could even begin to definitively describe what you even are!])…what word besides ‘ignorance’ most appropriately describes your condition?

‘Denial’, it seems, is the last refuge of the skeptic.

The description has been given but you refuse to listen to it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The description has been given but you refuse to listen to it.

Could you tell me where that was and/or give me some phrase or keywords I could search for?

 

[LarryS]

I can tell you that creating each letter of that sentence involved intensive neutal activity in Broca's Area of the writer's brain, and that damage to that area would impair that ability.

This is strong evidence that language is bicycle.

I can also tell you with great confidence that reading that last sentence caused a particular pattern of electrical activity to occur in certain areas of your brain, called the N400 response.

The field of study is called neurolinguistics.

Now your turn. Tell us one thing, verified by repeatable experiments, about how the external origin of consciousness works.

I can't say anything re anyone else's skepticism of the claim "brain is the source of consciousness" - but for me its similar to the claim the book "War and Peace - its about Russia". Meaning its an uninteresting claim and, which does not make the brain claim wrong, nor does it mean there is an external source of consciousness - its just flat out uninteresting and offers nothing.

 

[annnnoid]

I can tell you that creating each letter of that sentence involved intensive neutal activity in Broca's Area of the writer's brain, and that damage to that area would impair that ability.

This is strong evidence that language is bicycle.

I can also tell you with great confidence that reading that last sentence caused a particular pattern of electrical activity to occur in certain areas of your brain, called the N400 response.

The field of study is called neurolinguistics.

Now your turn. Tell us one thing, verified by repeatable experiments, about how the external origin of consciousness works.

…and what can you NOT tell me? I could very easily come up with a whole list of very explicit questions directly related to your response that expose the huge gaps in our understanding of these issues. It’s not difficult to do…and I know this because I’ve done it numerous times before and no one has ever presented a response. Ever. And I know why as well (besides the simple fact that those who were disagreeing with me simply did not know what they were talking about…and when the yukky stuff hit the fan it’s time to vamoose!).

Because these questions have yet to be answered.

To put it simply, what we don’t know is substantially greater than what we do. In fact, to the degree that the word ‘infinite’ would have an application in such a situation, it is that very word that would apply. What we don’t know is actually infinitely greater than what we do…because we neither know how we know anything at all, nor do we know what ‘knowing’ itself even is (or if it is a ‘thing’ or what variety of ‘thing’ it is). We gaze through the (apparently) immeasurable telescope of the epistemology of science at our world and see so much…and yet we have no explicit idea either what the telescope is or how it works. In fact, the ONLY reason the telescope even works is entirely a function of faith.

…and then you trot out this typical nonsense about the inability to substantiate alternate theories. To put it very very very very simply…if the theories that currently exist were even remotely sufficient, this argument wouldn’t happen.

Does that justify any and every crackpot idea that pops up? Nope. But then again… as I pointed out elsewhere… we have skeptics tossing around lots of science that itself is BS. So the line between ‘crackpot’ and ‘not-crackpot’ is not nearly as explicit as many would like to believe.

Another question: Does the simple fact that any theory cannot be experimentally verified extinguish its veracity? Quite obviously not! Scientists themselves are constantly coming up with theories that cannot be experimentally verified. That is actually a fundamental part of the process of doing science.

Not to mention that we engage in countless activities every single moment that in no way shape or form can even be explained, yet alone experimentally verified. So are we to dismiss them all as fraudulent?

You want simplistic arguments…and they don’t exist…so stop wanting them.

The fact is, you folks (understandably) dislike Chopra and his ideas. They implicate positions that you find ideologically contrary. Thus, you summarily dismiss them. Unfortunately…a lot of the baby goes out with the bathwater.

The description has been given but you refuse to listen to it.

Yeah…’the brain dunnit’. It’s called denial of denial.

 

[Myriad]

I can't say anything re anyone else's skepticism of the claim "brain is the source of consciousness" - but for me its similar to the claim the book "War and Peace - its about Russia". Meaning its an uninteresting claim and, which does not make the brain claim wrong, nor does it mean there is an external source of consciousness - its just flat out uninteresting and offers nothing.

"Vampires don't exist" is also an uninteresting claim, compared to all the countless fascinating books and movies speculating in intricate detail what they might be like if they did exist. ("How sexy would they be?" "Really really sexy!" "No, sexier than that!") Understanding how the world works is one thing; entertainment is another. Both are fine, as long as you don't get the two confused.

 

[Myriad]

…and what can you NOT tell me? I could very easily come up with a whole list of very explicit questions directly related to your response that expose the huge gaps in our understanding of these issues. It’s not difficult to do…and I know this because I’ve done it numerous times before and no one has ever presented a response. Ever. And I know why as well (besides the simple fact that those who were disagreeing with me simply did not know what they were talking about…and when the yukky stuff hit the fan it’s time to vamoose!).

Because these questions have yet to be answered.

To put it simply, what we don’t know is substantially greater than what we do. In fact, to the degree that the word ‘infinite’ would have an application in such a situation, it is that very word that would apply. What we don’t know is actually infinitely greater than what we do…because we neither know how we know anything at all, nor do we know what ‘knowing’ itself even is (or if it is a ‘thing’ or what variety of ‘thing’ it is). We gaze through the (apparently) immeasurable telescope of the epistemology of science at our world and see so much…and yet we have no explicit idea either what the telescope is or how it works. In fact, the ONLY reason the telescope even works is entirely a function of faith.

…and then you trot out this typical nonsense about the inability to substantiate alternate theories. To put it very very very very simply…if the theories that currently exist were even remotely sufficient, this argument wouldn’t happen.

Does that justify any and every crackpot idea that pops up? Nope. But then again… as I pointed out elsewhere… we have skeptics tossing around lots of science that itself is BS. So the line between ‘crackpot’ and ‘not-crackpot’ is not nearly as explicit as many would like to believe.

Another question: Does the simple fact that any theory cannot be experimentally verified extinguish its veracity? Quite obviously not! Scientists themselves are constantly coming up with theories that cannot be experimentally verified. That is actually a fundamental part of the process of doing science.

Not to mention that we engage in countless activities every single moment that in no way shape or form can even be explained, yet alone experimentally verified. So are we to dismiss them all as fraudulent?

You want simplistic arguments…and they don’t exist…so stop wanting them.

The fact is, you folks (understandably) dislike Chopra and his ideas. They implicate positions that you find ideologically contrary. Thus, you summarily dismiss them. Unfortunately…a lot of the baby goes out with the bathwater.

As I suspected, you cannot reciprocate my response by telling me a single thing about how the "brain as a radio" works.

All you can do is harp on cognitive neuroscience having gaps in knowledge.

The external consciousness hypothesis has no gaps in knowledge because it has no knowledge.

 

[tsig]

Could you tell me where that was and/or give me some phrase or keywords I could search for?

Consciousness is an emergent property of electro-chemical reactions in the brain.

 

[Nick227]

"What I like about it is the idea that what has been going on with this planet is altogether an act of a god - one who has been both overseeing the operations undergone and undergoing as well as participating in these at a more intimate level.

Awesome."

Well, the idea that there's some "overseer" here might be comforting, but personally I doubt it's accurate.

 

[Nick227]

…given that neither you nor any scientist on the planet could even begin to definitively describe how your brain / consciousness / whatever created a single letter of that sentence (let alone the entire thing [in fact, neither you nor any scientist could even begin to definitively describe what you even are!])…what word besides ‘ignorance’ most appropriately describes your condition?

Well, I mean, they can actually. In the final analysis, they might not be proven right. But scientists can go there and formulate theories about "how."

As I've said to you before, you have to be careful not to ascribe properties to consciousness which are actually not real, and then claim that science cannot explain some property that is anyway just a useful illusion.