the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[Nick227]

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.

Uhm, I think you'll find that the N400 wave has been demonstrated to take place unconsciously - van Gaal 2013. I'm pretty sure the same has been shown for Broca's Area.

 

[Nick227]

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.

Well, I'm a new-ager and from what I've read of Chopra's ideas they are pretty incoherent really. I don't know that ideology comes into it. He seems to be rehashing Vedic cosmology but not in a good way.

 

[Nick227]

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.

OK. But does this really place GABA in a central role in the creation of consciousness? What do you propose the drug does to create the difference that makes all the difference?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

That's not even close to the explanation you claimed was in the thread. Not even clear that's any explanation at all.

 

[Nick227]

That's not even close to the explanation you claimed was in the thread. Not even clear that's any explanation at all.

Well, it might be true. It just doesn't tell you very much. But if you want to hedge your bets and not take too much of a risk it's probably a good option.

Though, another fave doing the rounds is Attention Schema Theory, much vaunted by Dennett and others more on the eliminativist side of the fence. Graziano, the proposer, states it's not an emergent theory and that he never held with these ideas of consciousness emerging in some fuzzy haze around the neurons!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, it might be true. It just doesn't tell you very much. But if you want to hedge your bets and not take too much of a risk it's probably a good option.

I agree, I assume it's true too. But there is no more explanation in "Brain does it" (paraphrasing someone else in the thread) than "God did it" even after allowing for the fact that one is true is and the other isn't. And this was offered as a definitive description of how the brain causes us to write letters and sentences. And offered as if it was the person rejecting it as an explanation that was in denial about something.

 

[Belz...]

…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

Stop projecting your ignorance onto other people, annnnoid. We've been over this, and each time you plug your ears and chant "la la la, I can't hear you so you haven't said anything".

 

[Belz...]

…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.




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

Nothing in your post makes an actual point or argument. It's just a long way to say "nope. I don't know therefore you don't know".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Stop projecting your ignorance onto other people, annnnoid. We've been over this, and each time you plug your ears and chant "la la la, I can't hear you so you haven't said anything".

Same question for you. Can you point at where his question is answered? I see lots of claims that it's been answered but I never see the actual answer. I asked another poster a few posts back to point it out and got a totally pathetic answer. Where's this definitive description of how the brain produces writing?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Where's this definitive description of how the brain produces writing?

The brain produces writing?

 

[tsig]

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

That's not even close to the explanation you claimed was in the thread. Not even clear that's any explanation at all.

I didn't say it was in this thread. This conversation has happened many times on many threads.

Why do you think it's not any explanation? Granted it's only a first approximation and if you want to dig deeper you can find more and more detail but it appears that you are unwilling to accept any physical explanation.

 

[tsig]

Same question for you. Can you point at where his question is answered? I see lots of claims that it's been answered but I never see the actual answer. I asked another poster a few posts back to point it out and got a totally pathetic answer. Where's this definitive description of how the brain produces writing?

We learned what the letters are at an early age so when we type a letter we recall what the letter looks like then the brain sends signals to the fingers to type the letter.

 

[tsig]

The brain produces writing?

Surely You've heard of telepathic writing.

 

[annnnoid]

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.

Do let me know when you come anywhere close to an argument that can actually establish that Chopra is wrong (that doesn’t mean he’s right of course, that just means you don’t know what is). The physics argument turned out to be garbage, the neural argument is full of holes, and the cognitive argument doesn’t even get to the starting line.

Basically…there’s lots and lots of ‘knowledge’ in his argument, you just don’t happen to like any of it.

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."

No…they can’t. I’m not talking about theories. I’m talking about actual answers. When an automaker has to design an engine (just one of the ridiculously stupid brain analogies that gets frequently dumped on these threads) they don’t have ‘theories’. They know exactly what every component is – from the smallest to the largest, the exact size and shape, precisely where every part is supposed to go and why, the specific materials involved (right down to their atomic structure), how everything works individually and collectively.

Everything is understood. No theories required. No questions about being ‘proven right’…cause they already know that they are.

In comparison, find me anyone who can even begin to explain why even one single reasonably differentiated area of the brain has the bio-chemical architecture that it has (why it is that way, let alone how it ever came to be that way in the first place [no post-hoc rationalizations]). Why it is situated where it is in the brain and how it interacts with other areas around it. How it’s bio-chemical structure explicitly generates whatever specific cognitive activity is associated with it (to the degree that the cognitive activity can even be empirically defined and explicitly differentiated…which it usually cannot be). Why that specific bio-chemical activity is associated with that specific cognitive activity …and not some other cognitive activity…or no cognitive activity.

Like I said…it’s dead easy to blast huge holes in just about any of these arguments.

I didn't say it was in this thread. This conversation has happened many times on many threads.

It’s not in any thread (and I can 100% guarantee that no links will be produced to demonstrate that I’m wrong)….for the very simple reason that no such answer exists. All that exists are a bunch of skeptics wishing there was such an answer.

We learned what the letters are at an early age so when we type a letter we recall what the letter looks like then the brain sends signals to the fingers to type the letter.

I’m going to assume this is meant as a joke.

 

[tsig]

Did not your ‘mind’ just precipitate the physical activity that caused your fingers (matter) to pound out that post (that’s not a question). Trivially easy.

Do let me know when you come anywhere close to an argument that can actually establish that Chopra is wrong (that doesn’t mean he’s right of course, that just means you don’t know what is). The physics argument turned out to be garbage, the neural argument is full of holes, and the cognitive argument doesn’t even get to the starting line.

Basically…there’s lots and lots of ‘knowledge’ in his argument, you just don’t happen to like any of it.




No…they can’t. I’m not talking about theories. I’m talking about actual answers. When an automaker has to design an engine (just one of the ridiculously stupid brain analogies that gets frequently dumped on these threads) they don’t have ‘theories’. They know exactly what every component is – from the smallest to the largest, the exact size and shape, precisely where every part is supposed to go and why, the specific materials involved (right down to their atomic structure), how everything works individually and collectively.

Everything is understood. No theories required. No questions about being ‘proven right’…cause they already know that they are.

In comparison, find me anyone who can even begin to explain why even one single reasonably differentiated area of the brain has the bio-chemical architecture that it has (why it is that way, let alone how it ever came to be that way in the first place [no post-hoc rationalizations]). Why it is situated where it is in the brain and how it interacts with other areas around it. How it’s bio-chemical structure explicitly generates whatever specific cognitive activity is associated with it (to the degree that the cognitive activity can even be empirically defined and explicitly differentiated…which it usually cannot be). Why that specific bio-chemical activity is associated with that specific cognitive activity …and not some other cognitive activity…or no cognitive activity.

Like I said…it’s dead easy to blast huge holes in just about any of these arguments.




It’s not in any thread (and I can 100% guarantee that no links will be produced to demonstrate that I’m wrong)….for the very simple reason that no such answer exists. All that exists are a bunch of skeptics wishing there was such an answer.




I’m going to assume this is meant as a joke.

Odd in one thread it's trivially easy for your mind to generate physical activity in this thread it's impossible.

Rather than just calling things a joke you might explain why it's wrong.

 

[The Man]

OK. But does this really place GABA in a central role in the creation of consciousness? What do you propose the drug does to create the difference that makes all the difference?

It's not a drug it's a neurotransmitter and the specific neurons that release and interconnect through it to other neurons. Again how neurons interconnect was what you were asking might be the "rub of it". Who said "central role" or "makes all the difference"? You asked if I thought "it's linked to the apparent presence of consciousness in only certain parts of the brain". Again I do specifically because of it's inhibitory function and where the concentrations of GABAergic neurons tend to be.

 

[Navigator]

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

Sorry but that was not an appeal to ignorance but a stated matter of fact. We actually don't know a lot and are fairly ignorant but that is no reason to develop beliefs about the things we do know.

Arguing from belief is ...ignorant...

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

Emphasizing the post ahead of mine. No, it is not an appeal to ignorance to say we don't know something. It's an appeal to ignorance when you claim you known something because we don't know something.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Odd in one thread it's trivially easy for your mind to generate physical activity in this thread it's impossible.

Rather than just calling things a joke you might explain why it's wrong.

You've got to be joking. Please tell me you're joking.

 

[Belz...]

Same question for you. Can you point at where his question is answered? I see lots of claims that it's been answered but I never see the actual answer.

His question is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Furthermore, the fact that we've had this discussion dozens of times over the past ten years, that Annnnoid has ignored this for all this time, and that you have apparently missed all of it, doesn't exactly inspire confidence that such an effort would be worth the time.

Thirtly, and lastly, the question is so vague and misleading that any such demonstration would naturally be met with a spectacular dodge.