the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[RecoveringYuppy]

any such demonstration would naturally be met with a spectacular dodge.

Oh my god, the irony.

 

[Belz...]

Oh my god, the irony.

Thank you for not understanding my point in any way, shape or form, and using it as an opportunity to insult me for no reason.

Maybe you're not aware of this, but once something has been said and demonstrated one too many times, people are rarely enthousiastic about doing it all over again. This isn't a sign of not having that thing to say or demonstrate.

I also notice you've ignored the fact that it's irrelevant to the thread. Perhaps you don't understand that point.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Thank you for not understanding my point in any way, shape or form, and using it as an opportunity to insult me for no reason.

Maybe you're not aware of this, but once something has been said and demonstrated one too many times, people are rarely enthousiastic about doing it all over again. This isn't a sign of not having that thing to say or demonstrate.

I also notice you've ignored the fact that it's irrelevant to the thread. Perhaps you don't understand that point.

Sorry you find that insulting but I think I could have also said hypocritical and I will now since you say I ignored the fact that it's irrelevant to the thread. Why was it not irrelevant to say his question has been answered as you did, and then declare it irrelevant when someone asks you to prove your claim that's it been answered?

I follow these threads, his question has not been answered. You made a claim you can't back up.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry you find that insulting

No, you're not.

Why was it not irrelevant to say his question has been answered as you did, and then declare it irrelevant when someone asks you to prove your claim that's it been answered?

You're right. I should've just said it was irrelevant and not that it had also been answered because for some people it apparently means that it becomes relevant by the same token. Great bit of logic, here, Yuppy.

I follow these threads, his question has not been answered.

Sure it had. He just doesn't like the answer.

If you want to ask an off-topic question, do so in another thread and I'll do my best to answer you, but don't think for a second that Annnnoid's question is due to him wanting an actual answer. He wants to avoid any actual discussion about the brain by always returning to his ridiculous appeal to ignorance about consciousness.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Sure it had. He just doesn't like the answer.

Show it to me. Show me this answer he doesn't like.

If you want to ask an off-topic question, do so in another thread and I'll do my best to answer you, but don't think for a second that Annnnoid's question is due to him wanting an actual answer. He wants to avoid any actual discussion about the brain by always returning to his ridiculous appeal to ignorance about consciousness.

It's not off topic. It's perfectly on topic in a thread that says "the brain is X" to say, "no it's not, we already know it's Y". And that's exactly what you and tsig have done.

Show me this definitive explanation for how the brain produces the activities that lead to writing. Forget about whether annoid wants the answer or not, I want it.

 

[Belz...]

It's not off topic. It's perfectly on topic in a thread that says "the brain is X" to say, "no it's not, we already know it's Y".

The thread is about the brain-radio analogy, not about Annnnoid's obsession with his ignorance regarding consciousness.

Either start a new thread about it, and ask your question clearly, or revive another thread about it to do so. I don't give Annnnoid the benefit of the doubt anymore.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The thread is about the brain-radio analogy, not about Annnnoid's obsession with his ignorance regarding consciousness.

Either start a new thread about it, and ask your question clearly, or revive another thread about it to do so. I don't give Annnnoid the benefit of the doubt anymore.

It's on topic here. The question is clear. Stop dodging.

 

[MuDPhuD]

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.

Please continue if you would, to elaborate the knowledge you are aware of which is in support of the "brain as a radio" hypothesis.

I presume the "holes" you speak of, of which the "neural argument" is full, is the fact that no one can describe exactly HOW the brain produces the "mind", as this is your constant mantra. (Since no one will help me define it better I will stick to the definition of "consciousness" or "mind" which I provided, no matter how unsatisfactory it may be.). Never mind that all the parts of the mind correspond exactly in their smallest detail to neural mechanisms. Never mind that specific limited damage to brain areas produces specific and reproducible alterations in mood, personality, cognition, etc. Never mind that ingesting neuro-pharmaceuticals which are known to act in specific ways at specific subsets of synapses to interfere with neural transmission, also conincidentally effect things like personality, mood, memory, and perception of sensory input. Never mind that direct microelectrical stimulation of cerebral cortex or subcortical structures in awake humans can produce repeated intrusions into awareness like sensory experiences, memories, emotions, or autoscopy.

You suggest we should ignore all this great mountain of evidence that the brain gives rise to the mind because we are not sure HOW the brain does it.

Yes an internal combustion engine has been engineered by humans, but there are many humans you have no idea how it works. Not understanding its component parts and how they work together does not prevent even a child from concluding that the engine makes the car go. You are suggesting we should tell the child that until he passes his engineering exams he should not jump to any conclusions. Does that really seem reasonable to you?

The architecture of the human brain has determined step by step, neuron by neuron by the process of EVOLUTION. The questions you ask regarding why this neuron here, why this pathway here, why this transmitter here... this is all a result of billions of years of evolution. If you don't understand that I suggest you read The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker. They explain it quite well. I'm sure you won't have any difficulty understanding it.

I guess we could add to list:
Why those three opsin pigments for our color vision with their specific absorbances leading to our particular type of human color vision? The answer is evolution. If you don't want to accept that then you must explain why a significant proportion of the human population has altered absorbances in one or more opsin genes (caused by alteration in the genes for the opsin proteins) which result in altered color vision, some of them drastically different from "normal". Can you explain that? Understanding evolution provides a very good explanation for these pesky little facts.
Why our specific range of hearing? Why can't we hear the same frequencies as dogs and bats? The answer, again, is evolution. And why can't humans echolocate like bats? That would be handy, but no, we have a rudimentary capability in this regard but nothing as well developed as bats have. Why not? EVOLUTION.


Anyway:
Please continue if you would, to elaborate the knowledge you are aware of which is in support of the "brain as a radio" hypothesis.

 

[tsig]

Show it to me. Show me this answer he doesn't like.

It's not off topic. It's perfectly on topic in a thread that says "the brain is X" to say, "no it's not, we already know it's Y". And that's exactly what you and tsig have done.

Show me this definitive explanation for how the brain produces the activities that lead to writing. Forget about whether annoid wants the answer or not, I want it.

When you are given an answer you think it's a joke so I don't think you are seeking an answer but are seeking to perpetuate the idea that the brain is a deep dark mystery.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

When you are given an answer you think it's a joke so I don't think you are seeking an answer but are seeking to perpetuate the idea that the brain is a deep dark mystery.

Yeah, right. You might note that I agreed what you said was true. The part I thought was a joke was that you thought it was an answer to the question that was asked.

 

[annnnoid]

Please continue if you would, to elaborate the knowledge you are aware of which is in support of the "brain as a radio" hypothesis.

I presume the "holes" you speak of, of which the "neural argument" is full, is the fact that no one can describe exactly HOW the brain produces the "mind", as this is your constant mantra. (Since no one will help me define it better I will stick to the definition of "consciousness" or "mind" which I provided, no matter how unsatisfactory it may be.). Never mind that all the parts of the mind correspond exactly in their smallest detail to neural mechanisms. Never mind that specific limited damage to brain areas produces specific and reproducible alterations in mood, personality, cognition, etc. Never mind that ingesting neuro-pharmaceuticals which are known to act in specific ways at specific subsets of synapses to interfere with neural transmission, also conincidentally effect things like personality, mood, memory, and perception of sensory input. Never mind that direct microelectrical stimulation of cerebral cortex or subcortical structures in awake humans can produce repeated intrusions into awareness like sensory experiences, memories, emotions, or autoscopy.

You suggest we should ignore all this great mountain of evidence that the brain gives rise to the mind because we are not sure HOW the brain does it.

Yes an internal combustion engine has been engineered by humans, but there are many humans you have no idea how it works. Not understanding its component parts and how they work together does not prevent even a child from concluding that the engine makes the car go. You are suggesting we should tell the child that until he passes his engineering exams he should not jump to any conclusions. Does that really seem reasonable to you?

The architecture of the human brain has determined step by step, neuron by neuron by the process of EVOLUTION. The questions you ask regarding why this neuron here, why this pathway here, why this transmitter here... this is all a result of billions of years of evolution. If you don't understand that I suggest you read The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker. They explain it quite well. I'm sure you won't have any difficulty understanding it.

I guess we could add to list:
Why those three opsin pigments for our color vision with their specific absorbances leading to our particular type of human color vision? The answer is evolution. If you don't want to accept that then you must explain why a significant proportion of the human population has altered absorbances in one or more opsin genes (caused by alteration in the genes for the opsin proteins) which result in altered color vision, some of them drastically different from "normal". Can you explain that? Understanding evolution provides a very good explanation for these pesky little facts.
Why our specific range of hearing? Why can't we hear the same frequencies as dogs and bats? The answer, again, is evolution. And why can't humans echolocate like bats? That would be handy, but no, we have a rudimentary capability in this regard but nothing as well developed as bats have. Why not? EVOLUTION.


Anyway:
Please continue if you would, to elaborate the knowledge you are aware of which is in support of the "brain as a radio" hypothesis.

Off to work just now so not much time…but there are two question here. What is happening, and how is it happening.

You provide a reasonable description of ‘what’. I’ve no doubt that you have vastly more expertise than I in this field…but I have just as little doubt that I could find countless gaps in our understanding of ‘what’…both neurally and, especially, cognitively. Small gaps…and very very large gaps.

I don't know if you've ever encountered this quote:

"The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend," Scott Huettel / Center for Cognitive Neuroscience / Duke University

What I found in many of the studies that I've encountered...is they often extrapolate and over-rate their conclusions (this was relatively easy to establish by simply following later critiques and reviews [the internet is a wonderful thing!]). IOW...they assumed a degree of comprehension that simply was not justified. So far...Scott's observation has proven to be quite prescient.

Every single time I have ever made the effort to investigate this subject (a couple of times over the past few years) this has invariably been the case. Since I have encountered no revelatory headlines since then (in either the popular press or the few science feeds that I follow) I have no reason to believe that anything substantial has changed.

…as for ‘how’…how is that not a fundamental part of the equation? That is precisely where Chopra finds his wriggle room. His ‘knowledge’ may not be explicitly replicative or conventionally confirmable…but in his world, it is entirely internally consistent (Myriad’s point…which he, naturally, insisted Chopra’s argument failed at). It’s as much theology as it is science…probably more-so. Therefore it’s simply not something that can be effectively adjudicated within a strictly rational academic perspective. Physics can’t dismiss it, neurally it can’t be dismissed (since ‘how’ is not known), and cognitively it’s simply derivative.

Like I said…until you can fill the gap of ‘how’…you’re stuck and he has room to say whatever he wants.

More later.

...but one question does, I suppose, come immediately to mind: Where have 'all parts of the mind' (and 'their smallest detail') ever been explicitly empirically taxonomized? ...and how?

 

[Belz...]

It's on topic here.

If you think so, then you don't understand the meaning of "on topic".

I've given you an opportunity to get your answers, but you refuse to do so. Who's dodging, now?

 

[MuDPhuD]

Off to work just now so not much time…but there are two question here. What is happening, and how is it happening.

You provide a reasonable description of ‘what’. I’ve no doubt that you have vastly more expertise than I in this field…but I have just as little doubt that I could find countless gaps in our understanding of ‘what’…both neurally and, especially, cognitively. Small gaps…and very very large gaps.

I don't know if you've ever encountered this quote:

"The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend," Scott Huettel / Center for Cognitive Neuroscience / Duke University

What I found in many of the studies that I've encountered...is they often extrapolate and over-rate their conclusions (this was relatively easy to establish by simply following later critiques and reviews [the internet is a wonderful thing!]). IOW...they assumed a degree of comprehension that simply was not justified. So far...Scott's observation has proven to be quite prescient.

Every single time I have ever made the effort to investigate this subject (a couple of times over the past few years) this has invariably been the case. Since I have encountered no revelatory headlines since then (in either the popular press or the few science feeds that I follow) I have no reason to believe that anything substantial has changed.

…as for ‘how’…how is that not a fundamental part of the equation? That is precisely where Chopra finds his wriggle room. His ‘knowledge’ may not be explicitly replicative or conventionally confirmable…but in his world, it is entirely internally consistent (Myriad’s point…which he, naturally, insisted Chopra’s argument failed at). It’s as much theology as it is science…probably more-so. Therefore it’s simply not something that can be effectively adjudicated within a strictly rational academic perspective. Physics can’t dismiss it, neurally it can’t be dismissed (since ‘how’ is not known), and cognitively it’s simply derivative.

Like I said…until you can fill the gap of ‘how’…you’re stuck and he has room to say whatever he wants.

More later.

...but one question does, I suppose, come immediately to mind: Where have 'all parts of the mind' (and 'their smallest detail') ever been explicitly empirically taxonomized? ...and how?

You are aware of your own mind, are you not? Surely you can tell me something about it? I gave my own thoughts hoping to hear from some others to revise/refine my own definition. If you refuse to name what it is you are talking about then yes, you are free to continue to say we know nothing about "it". My own consciousness consists of a content which includes emotions, memories, feelings, a sensorium, thoughts...these are the contents of "mind", and they are all obvious functions of my brain.

What part of your own consciousness is NOT an obvious brain function?

The question of "how" is an important question, but does it really negate the obvious conclusion that the engine makes the car go?

Oh and by the way ,AGAIN, what is this "knowledge" which is in support of the brain as a radio hypothesis, to which you keep referring? You keep repeating yourself without furthering the conversation.
I know, I know...more later....

 

[Belz...]

You are aware of your own mind, are you not? Surely you can tell me something about it? I gave my own thoughts hoping to hear from some others to revise/refine my own definition. If you refuse to name what it is you are talking about then yes, you are free to continue to say we know nothing about "it".

You're wasting your time. Ignorance is the goal, not the starting point.

 

[Nick227]

You suggest we should ignore all this great mountain of evidence that the brain gives rise to the mind because we are not sure HOW the brain does it.

Yes an internal combustion engine has been engineered by humans, but there are many humans you have no idea how it works. Not understanding its component parts and how they work together does not prevent even a child from concluding that the engine makes the car go. You are suggesting we should tell the child that until he passes his engineering exams he should not jump to any conclusions. Does that really seem reasonable to you?

The architecture of the human brain has determined step by step, neuron by neuron by the process of EVOLUTION. The questions you ask regarding why this neuron here, why this pathway here, why this transmitter here... this is all a result of billions of years of evolution. ......

Giving rise to "mind" is one thing. But "consciousness" or "conscious processing" or "conscious access" is a different thing.

As I pointed out to Myriad earlier in this thread, much of what appears in consciousness has also been demonstrated to be processed unconsciously. Thus if we're talking about consciousness - as in conscious experience - it would be useful to find processing that only occurs within consciousness. And ideally track that to the brain.

When you take out the role of consciousness as a symbolic language to facilitate communication between brain modules, what do you propose as being specific to it's function, and how do you track that to the brain?

Chopra puts out his ideas here. His quoted article from neuroscientist Don Hoffman is online here.

 

[Belz...]

Giving rise to "MIND" is one thing. But "consciousness" or "conscious processing" or "conscious access" is a different thing.

That sounds like a distinction without a difference.

 

[Nick227]

That sounds like a distinction without a difference.

I find the term "mind" problematic because it's clear that there exists both conscious experience and unconscious processing. So, if you're talking about consciousness, for me you're talking about specifically the former. The latter may "become conscious" if certain areas of the brain choose to attribute sufficient importance to it. But all we know of this actual process so far is that this action of being broadcast around the brain seems to correlate with conscious experience... sometimes.

It's not really conclusive and, as the later linked article shows, not all neuroscientists are necessarily materialists.

 

[LarryS]

What part of your own consciousness is NOT an obvious brain function?

Well if you word it that way - nothing in my consciousness is an obvious brain function - that is, nothing appears to be the result of a calculation of a machine.

 

[Navigator]

I find the term "mind" problematic because it's clear that there exists both conscious experience and unconscious processing. So, if you're talking about consciousness, for me you're talking about specifically the former. The latter may "become conscious" if certain areas of the brain choose to attribute sufficient importance to it. But all we know of this actual process so far is that this action of being broadcast around the brain seems to correlate with conscious experience... sometimes.

It's not really conclusive and, as the later linked article shows, not all neuroscientists are necessarily materialists.

Your assumption here is that the subconscious is not conscious because you have learned to understand consciousness as 'that which you are consciously aware of' or 'the thing that gives you the impression that you are' or 'what you are when you are awake and active in the world' etc...

You can of course consciously process things in your experience with the world. (be aware that you are processing information)

There is no reason for anyone to assume that processing is strictly the task of subconscious activity any more than there is any particular reason to believe that the subconscious is not conscious...even that you (or what you think of as "you") may not be in the least bit conscious of that.

 

[Navigator]

When you are given an answer you think it's a joke so I don't think you are seeking an answer but are seeking to perpetuate the idea that the brain is a deep dark mystery.

I get the impression that the brain is as well known as the universe is...