Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 03:23pm PT
|
People believe subjective consciousness is separate from the neural firings that we know (particularly from the past decade's brain imaging experiments and studies of neural deficit) creates it because it just 'feels' that way. This recursive paradox vanishes if they are, in fact, one in the same, however.
This 'feeling' of something leads to another question - why do we 'feel' thoughts at all?
Aside from the two way wiring that reaches every corner of our very physical body (people, not brains, are conscious), 'feeling', as posited by Damasio, is the aggregate emergence property of billions of neurons 'proto-feeling' in a concerted fashion. Neurons, like other single celled organisms, are perfectly capable of 'proto-feeling'. Poke an amoeba and it runs away. The poking is not a good 'proto-feeling' for the critter. Neurons, which must open their cell membranes to fire, exhibit this same capacity for proto-feeling. Through a few billion into a coordinated pile and you've got the spark for a full blown emotional response - which is, in itself, a complicated chain reaction with a lot of moving parts.
As I mentioned before, it's a matter a scale and perspective. Just as I cannot see the individual atoms that make up this seemingly solid keyboard, experientialists can neither observe nor measure anything below the very macro level of consciousness. They may achieve a rich variety of mental states - all at that same macro level, and all observed from the lonely and so far isolated perch of the subjective self.
That their experience doesn't 'feel' physical is no surprise - none of us are equipped for that level of observation.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 03:40pm PT
|
I'm saying that there is an evolutionary benefit to 'knowing' versus 'not knowing', and that has informed our emotional responses and drives accordingly. It informs our responses here with every post - if one were to parse out insults and posturing from information - I'd wager the former would account for a vast majority of the word count.
There is also a competing evolutionary drive 'not to know', of course. For example, knowing the time of your death might cause more stress than it relieves - you may prefer not to know. So, too, 'not knowing' your mate's every thought. This can drive avoidance behavior when it gets out of hand.
We are a big basket of evolutionary needs, however - and they are often in conflict. Plus, they vary widely among individuals. But the desire to 'know' is at the root of curiosity, and we are certainly a very curious species.
The yearning for white spaces you refer speaks to different evolved needs, perhaps - the need for power and relevance (recognition of discovery - even if it's just your pals who share in it) and fun (learning, the act of discovery). You may appreciate the white spaces even as you plan to erase them. A white space on a map isn't critical to your survival at all, either, although you may associate it, albeit at a much grander and more removed scale, with the survival our species overall. White space is often a metaphor for population pressure - too little of the former means too much of the latter.
"Not knowing" never really feels good in a mission critical situation, but people do vary with regards to how well they handle such uncertainty, and that is often informed by prior training and familiarity. Experienced people learn to take calculated risks, rather than just risks. They become more comfortable with the triage required to go through life successfully.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 04:10pm PT
|
Well, there's certainly no crime in not being curious about any one subject, although it is curious that you choose to participate in a discussion of same if, in fact, your lack of curiosity is genuine and not just another dismissive remark.
Fact is, however, the digital revolution has predictably extended into neurological research, thanks to substantially more powerful image processing and processing in general, so this is an exciting time to be discussing this very subject - if you're me, anyway.
I'm gratified that at least one pro's theorizing and research agrees with my layman's first cut, shoot-from-the-hip run at understanding one of the Big Problems. I've developed a nascent list for further reading - sparking an intellectual journey isn't the worst thing a thread ever did. What's interesting is that I, myself, chafe at his idea of physical/mental activity sameness - even as I agree that it makes the most sense. After all, I haven't seen a competing idea that doesn't employ some form of magic.
I can understand the pride of those experientialists who have managed to achieve exotic mental states through their practice - states which will likely remain a mystery to me, although its not because I'm not interested in them, per se.
I really don't see any of these states, no matter how profound, as evidence for what the experientialists claim must be happening (because they've experienced it subjectively), however.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 04:27pm PT
|
Now that was some quality reading, at long last!
On point. Taking into acct evolutionary theory, evolutionary psychology, the fact that we are beings of conflicts, that we are beings of internal balances, opposing forces. Thumbs-up. Like.
.....
Annie: "Why won't you face the truth, Kate?"
Kate: "The truth! the truth! What good is the truth if it destroys us all?!"
All My Sons, 1948
.....
Here's a brain-action-packed, high-density exchange. Saw it a few years back, just rediscovered it. What a thing of beauty, every minute a mindful...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMReUsxTt4
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 04:38pm PT
|
An awesome Dawkins-Pinker exchange...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
A snippet...
Pinker: It may even be that ultimately there may be domains that are permanently baffling because of the way our minds work such as why a brain firing in patterns feels like something to the person who is that brain.
Dawkins: Feels subjective.
Pinker: Subjective, yes. It's quite possible in that in areas where philosophers seem to have gone around in circles for thousands of years in which every possible solution seems deeply unsatisfying yet all the phenomena remain accounted for there we might be running up against the limitations of what our own minds find intuitive.
Dawkins: If our ancestors had been in the habit of traveling near the speed of light, Einstein would be obvious; if our ancestors had been the size of nutrinos, quantum physics would be obvious. But we live in a middle world between those extremes and so we're limited to our understanding things at that level.
Pinker: And we have ways of analyzing reality that are very easily misapplied… such as thinking that evolution must be something that has a purpose in the same way that we have a purpose.
Dawkins: Our purpose is so endemic in our human life and our social life.
Pinker: Indeed we use it to make sense of each other's behavior. Why did John just get on a bus? Well it's not because there's some big magnet that pulled him up. It's because he wanted to get somewhere and he knew that the bus would take him there. Which is why he won't get on a bus if it has a slightly different number. That kind of explanation is indispensible to our common sense social life. When we misapply it to questions like 'Why are there humans?' 'Why is there a planet earth?' we're apt to be mislead and have to have that debugged.
Dawkins: Yes, very interesting.
.....
I don't know what the mind is. Neither does anyone else posting to this thread.
Well, some less than others, lol!
.....
people, not brains, are conscious...
Well, you said this earlier, too. I also have Damasio's books, I went and looked. You stretched it a bit, saying "people" instead of "bodies." That the brain-body system is conscious in many and various aspects or dimensions (as opposed to just the brain) is pretty matter of fact considering the function of the nervous system (incl the brain) as an organ is to serve as a control system (an engineering and bioengineering term) for the body in its environment.
Nitpicking, sure. But give those in the clown car (one in particular) a foot, they'll (he'll) take a mile. ;)
.....
"But what is mind made of? Does mind come from the air or from the body? Smart people say it comes from the brain, that it is in the brain, but that is not a satisfactory reply. How does the brain do mind?" - Damasio
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
|
Damasio...
"Brain science and its explanations are not about to provide for all people the satisfaction that so many obtain from..."
rock climbing...
"But there certainly are other compensations."
Damn straight. :)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
|
"Harvard biophysicist D. P. Dupey writes, "We may lead ourselves down a blind alley by adhering dogmatically
to the assumption that life can be explained entirely by what we know of the laws of nature."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 05:28pm PT
|
To you science types... Why are rank and file humans ready to throw science under the bus?
A mix of reasons, not the least from evolutionary game theory which covers rules and strategy in the context of winning and losing, winners and losers...
they're "ready" for the same reason a blind person in contest with a sighted person prefers the battle ground to be dark; or a dimwit in contest with a crackerjack prefers any information (raw data) to be ambiguous or wrong instead of clear, accurate.
The catfish with poor vision prefers murky water. The trout with excellent vision prefers of course crystal clear water. Best strategy: Play to your strengths.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 05:43pm PT
|
To me a far greater mystery than consciousness is why people are so curious about it.
I am curious about memory:
Why do we remember some things but not others? All day long you see things, hear things, smell, taste and touch things, but you only remember parts of that. What makes events memorable? Why do some things impress us, have significance for us, seem meaningful? How do some memories persist for so long? Where in the architecture of the brain are the faces you recognize so quickly when you see them?
How does a solitary wasp remember where its hole is? How does a honeybee remember which direction to the flowers?
There are birds which learn the adult song. Mynahs and parrots can mimic human speech. Somewhere inside those brains the information needed to reproduce the signal is stored. Where and how is it stored? We do not yet know well enough to take even an ant brain and read what is written there. And we may never manage that, considering the technical difficulty.
Answering questions about the biology of memory would likely tell us much about consciousness, the mind, the self, and subjectivity. Without a good understanding of where and what memory is, higher-level functions are likely to remain mysterious.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 05:45pm PT
|
My props. This has suddenly become a real discussion.
"Harvard biophysicist D. P. Dupey writes, "We may lead ourselves down a blind alley by
adhering dogmatically to the assumption that life can be explained entirely by what we know of
the laws of nature."
This is a tautology on its face. Simply because we do not yet know all the laws of nature.
"Mind" is a vaporous word that has oozed out of history. No one knows even its meaning. Does it
make sense to center a discussion or our thought processes on a word that has no agreed upon
meaning? How could such a discussion yield anything?
Would it not make more sense to develop our understanding of neurological function so that we
can define the processes that have to be performed. An example. The process that compares the
sparse representation for a current sensor pattern with remembered patterns has to be
performed before a "memory" is obtained. We might then call whatever that process is "the
comparator". And so on for other processes we define based on studies of brain function. Out of
it we get building blocks that can be variously grouped to yield functions located higher in a
hierarchy.
Bottom line. I think we need to stop using the word "mind". To do so sets what we are doing on
its head.
Edit:
Another absolute.
You should instead say: "I don't know anyone who knows it's meaning."
You are quite right. I should have said the people here are not all using the same definition.
And DMT is right. We argue endlessly here about what freedom is. That argument seems mainly concerned with the boundaries. Is my freedom constrained when my gun can be configured so I can kill only twenty people at a time. Definitely a boundary issue.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 06:51pm PT
|
No one knows even its meaning.
Another absolute.
You should instead say: "I don't know anyone who knows it's meaning."
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
Fresno/Clovis, ca
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 07:17pm PT
|
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
Romans 1:22
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
Fresno/Clovis, ca
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
|
This looks like a cool thread, so I'm gunna wade through the prior posts/conversation a bit, then try to chime in with something either wise, witty or thoughtful, but probably not all three.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 07:34pm PT
|
Actually, 'mind' has a specific, scientific definition that is functionally bounded, and therefore bounded by the physiological components that are responsible for those functions.
Consciousness requires wakefulness, an operational mind, and a self - again, all functionally different, if closely interacting, processes - and all supported by specific components of the neural/body system (working in concert, and with some overlap).
An basic mind is an intentional integration and processing of sensory, feeling, and memory images. It is separate from wakefulness and self. A basic mind is not a conscious one, however.
A conscious mind requires the addition of the self, however. A blacked out drunk has a basic mind - one in such a state can drive a car, for example. They are awake - one can't drive a car otherwise. They are not conscious, however - as a functional autobiographical self is largely absent. Certain epileptics exhibit wakefulness while a basic mind is largely absent.
This makes sense, since wakefulness, the mind, and the self are related and interdependent, but nonetheless functionally separate (and separable) processes that happen in different (but overlapping, in some cases) parts of of the neural/body system.
The mind likely includes a host of processes that occur at the fringes of consciousness or just below the conscious level. Subconscious problem solving, or just be able to walk down the street without thinking about it (and being able to focus on something entirely in your imagination), are examples of this).
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 07:55pm PT
|
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140527-brain-muscle-metabolism-genes-apes-science/
Humans Evolved Weak Muscles to Feed Brain's Growth, Study Suggests
The researchers found that in the last six million years, people have evolved weaker muscles much more rapidly—eight times faster—than the rest of our body changed.
Our early ancestors likely possessed apelike strength, at least for the skeletal muscles analyzed in the new study. Today our brawn is much reduced, while other body tissues, like kidneys, have remained relatively unchanged over millions of years.
Over the same time period, the brain evolved four times faster than the rest of the body.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:09pm PT
|
"Studying" mind to me is like "studying" climbing; as mostly reading about it and reviewing others work and theories about it. Mostly the arm chair approach and for some exclusively the arm chair approach , very little actual watching your own mind or actual climbing.
As opposed to lots and lots of climbing (meditation) with abit of interesting reading about climbing (meditiation , what is mind) that is very relatable because you have been there.
I have noticed a few armchair oriented comments lately regarding "states of mind " . Most good meditation practices will direct the practitioner to not be attached to different states of mind that come up and to just observe them , get to know them and try not to push it away or grasp/desire it ; and to notice when you do that.
The pushing away and the grasping is attachment and attachment causes suffering. No attachment no suffering. No suffering ... then what?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:12pm PT
|
The selectivity of memory may be understood by considering evolution's drive to maximize value - in the simplest sense - the well being, and thus survivability, of the organism.
First, memory storage is limited. It's best to use it for important things.
Second, an organism is more survivable when its conscious 'brain space' is free to deal with what's the organism's value system considers important. Ruminations on how to craft a better spear, a bodacious set of Pleistocene ta tas, the sudden appearance of a monolith - these might grab your attention. Remembering each blade of grass? Not so much.
Thus, much of what we do all the time - walking, chewing gum, what we see or hear - happens at the fringe of consciousness - relatively autonomously, not only to free up conscious brainspace but also because it's simply more efficient. We're better walkers - and guitar players and singers, who burn less brain power doing cooler things if we just keep the conscious brainspace largely out of these repetitive functions, even if they require conscious practice first.
The above comment about 'studying the mind is like studying climbing' is, therefore, an apples to oranges comparison. The two are completely different processes.
Climbing is like playing music - one seeks to make it second nature (a sub conscious process) through repetition and training. One needn't know the physics of a violin to be a virtuoso.
Studying the mind, at least as far as this discussion goes, is high learning curve stuff. It is novel and requires focused attention with lots of deliberative thought. This process is much more like planning a new route, or analyzing the physics of a violin, than climbing or playing Mozart.
Meditation is not studying the mind, at least not in any scientific sense. Rather, meditation is exploring various mental states through repetitive practice and training - like climbing or playing music. Meditators need know nothing about the functional underpinnings of consciousness to become experts at it.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:35pm PT
|
Tvash responded
"Meditation is not studying the mind, at least in any scientific sense. More accurately, it is exploring various mental states through repetitive practice and training - like climbing or playing music. "
Exactly meditation observes the mind. It is a full participation activity- like climbing or playing music.
If you are interested in understanding the mind you do the science or read the sutras etc.. If you are interested in the experience of mind you do the activity meditation (the work as JL would say).
Apples and oranges as many have been saying all along.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:47pm PT
|
Me included.
The idea that physical neural function and conscious experience are one in the same shouldn't matter at all to a meditator, at least as it relates to the practice. Physicalism, in general, shouldn't matter. The neural/body system is an instrument that can perform in nearly an infinity of ways. That nirvana shows up on an fMRI is irrelevant to its profundity.
One can't pit the 'experiential arts' - or any art, for that matter, against science. Paint is a mixture of chemicals, music is a mixture of sound waves and neither painters nor musicians need to fret much about either.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!