What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 21221 - 21240 of total 22763 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Jul 12, 2018 - 07:49am PT
Nice comments, nafod.

eeyonkee,

Gazzaniga’s research has hardly “nailed” anything. He has a theory. It will be devilishly difficult to ever prove.

The theory of evolution is a good example for the word "natural" in supernatural. "Super" in supernatural is like "meta" in metaphysics. It means that it is "above" natural and "above" physics.

I think you’re avoiding being concrete for fear that you’ll end up eating words. And I don’t blame you. But I find it’s useful now and then to take a stand and see what shows up.

Ed: I generally don't "believe" in things... but I also suspect you are not using these words the same way I would, perhaps you could also provide what you mean by "causes" and by "causality" and how they are a part of science.

Good. I don’t believe in things either. “Things” appear to be the common, everyday understanding that comes from modern conceptualization for most folks.

IMO, as yanqui seems to suggest, cause / causality appear to be core ideas that science uses to concretely link things to each other and explain change. Associations / correlations are just too flaccid for hard sciences. Findings seemingly determining causality constitute a gold standard in the sciences, from what I’ve seen. Without causality (explanation of how one thing predictably gives rise to another), science would amount to description for the most part.

I agree with Largo, for the most part: most of causality appears to be rather linearly and dichotomously stipulated, and when it is, then if falls prey to the “post hoc fallacy” complaint. It’s been rare for me to find research in my fields claiming non-linear causal explanations for any outcome. (Even the word “outcome” is laden with notions of causality.) In my fields, exemplary anecdotes have provided non-linear explanations, but those are looked down upon in my fields. Think about: “Why did the economy take a dive?” There would appear to be way too many variables to answer that question with, but people will distill a massive set of inter-relationships into a story that can be remembered and easily articulated.

Causality, as most of us use the term these days, seems to me to be a simple-minded / heavy-handed, binary way of speaking. Sure we think in these ways commonly, but I’d say that’s a sociological and psychological habit that’s been engrained in us philosophically (see, logocentricism).

I wonder if Jan could make some references to different ways of seeing from other cultures than how we speak in Western, modern cultures.

Your turn.


yanqui

climber
Balcarce, Argentina
Jul 12, 2018 - 08:26am PT
IMO, as yanqui seems to suggest, cause / causality appear to be core ideas that science uses to concretely link things to each other and explain change. Associations / correlations are just too flaccid for hard sciences. Findings seemingly determining causality constitute a gold standard in the sciences, from what I’ve seen. Without causality (explanation of how one thing predictably gives rise to another), science would amount to description for the most part.

I think you may have misunderstood my remarks. Take the time to look over Feynman's characterization of Fermat's principle of least time in his classic text: the reasons he gives for why he thinks it's good science. Being a "causal description" of light has nothing to do with it.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 12, 2018 - 09:14am PT
Feynman refers to an interesting way of describing a physical system using variational principles, in the case of Fermat, we use the idea that the light takes the path that minimizes the time for it to pass from "point A to point B."

Using this minimization one arrives at Snell's law for refraction.

No student that I have known fails to ask the question "how does the light know?" But the very question reveals the limitation of our language and our bias to seeing the world driven by analogs to "human agency." The light does not "know," and doesn't require that knowledge to "do it's thing."

So there is no need to invoke a "cause" in the sense of agency.

When two massive stars execute their orbital dynamics, what is the "cause"? Viewing the dynamical description of the two stars' trajectory, subject to the initial conditions, are sufficient.

The differential equations that are a part of the description do not "cause" the trajectories. The initial conditions do not "cause" the trajectories. The existence of massive bodies do not "cause" the trajectories. The very existence of gravity does not "cause" the trajectories.

There is no "law of physics" which enshrines this sort of "causality:" A causes B, and there is a lot of physics for which no such proposition is possible.

So while don Largo's insistence that this be the case, he is arguing from profound ignorance, or he means something different.

Since I wouldn't accuse Largo of being ignorant, I have asked him for a definition to help make it clear what exactly he is talking about.

As for MikeL, I think his impressions of science and how science is done lead him to erroneous assumptions. The "hard sciences" are full of associations and correlations, they are often the first things we "see" when trying to understand what is going on...

Newton, the hardest of them all:

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

provides a stark account of our gropings.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Jul 12, 2018 - 09:20am PT
Whoa! Thanks to yanqui. Probably many people, including me, have discovered the weird thing that happens when you slowly oppose finger to thumb while watching the light between them. I could not be sure it wasn't some trick of my eye or brain, but was aware that small slits can affect the travel of light, depending on wavelength.


Rather than talk about cause and effect, I think a simpler frame for the various steps of a scientific investigation, from initial curiosity to testing to hypothesis and theory and prediction is:

What happens when....?


But if you want to call that cause and effect, okay, but do those terms improve your understanding? I think they may prematurely fix your description and understanding. Much of science is a work in progress and flexible thinking is needed. Using the language of cause and effect has an air of finality and certainty.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 12, 2018 - 11:53am PT
Show your work

This, coming from you, DMT?

Alert!!!

Somebody has hacked into DMT's Taco Stand account! Quick. Alert CMac and Co.

;-)

Nothing made him angrier than making something simple sound complicated.

Ah, the invariable tension. So, "show your work," but do it with "simplicity." Sorry to leave you on your own here, John, for the past few days. Too much materialist popcorn for one non-materialist to eat all on his own.

Having caught up from where I left off, I think that a summary of "where we are" is in order.

MIT physicist Victor Weisskopf used an analogy to describe explaining general relativity to a layperson, and that analogy seems apropos to this discussion of materialists trying to explain mind to us non-materialist laypeople.

A 19th century scientist tries to explain a steam engine to a peasant. At each step of the explanation, the peasant nods and says, "Makes sense. I understand." The scientist covers everything, including how the whole thing works together to produce output-power. Finally satisfied with his explanation, the scientist asks, "So, do you understand it now? Any questions?"

The peasant nods enthusiastically and says, "Thank you for the explanation. I think I've got it. But I do have one question."

The scientist says, "Ask away."

The peasant asks, "But where's the horse?"

This entire thread strikes me as almost exactly that very 19th century exchange. The scientists/materialists here (and as cited) carefully explain the steam engine, and we non-materialists ask, "But where's the horse?"

Materialists are frustrated by the question, because they think that having explained the steam engine, they have demonstrated that the peasant can't even be asking a proper question to ask, "Where's the horse?" But, not wanting to call the peasants downright stupid, they nevertheless wonder about the intelligence/sanity of the peasants who CLEARLY are "not getting it" no matter how carefully they explain the steam engine.

Initially this analogy seems very slanted in favor of the materialists about mind. After all, there are indeed extremely good accounts of the steam engine, and given such accounts, it does seem worse than a misunderstanding, something like a category error, to ask, "Where's the horse?"

But upon a bit more reflection, it seems that the category error or mistake is on the side of the materialists. To whit:

"The horse" is self-consciousness. There it is, big as life. If there's any empirical phenomenon we are most confident has "real existence," it is our own self-consciousness. We know that we are self-conscious with more confidence than we know any other empirical phenomenon.

So, when the "peasant" asks about "the horse," we are really saying, "But this steam engine has nothing whatsoever to do with a horse. There is no horse in that system, and the horse is not some 'emergent property' of that system. Yet, here is the horse, big as life."

The materialist now replies variously (not an exhaustive list): There is no horse; "the horse" can be completely accounted for in terms of horsepower; "the horse" is an "emergent property" of horsepower; "the horse" is really identical to horsepower; etc.

The non-materialist now replies: "But wait. I get all of that. I honestly understand how the engine works as you've described it. I totally understand how 'work' results from the engine and how that work can be described as 'horsepower.' But ALL of that fails to account for this ACTUAL HORSE. This one. Right here. I see one, and you see one. And THAT HORSE is NOWHERE in your system nor explanation of your system. In fact, it is a terrible conflation or outright category error to in ANY way assert that 'horsepower' is related to THIS HORSE; or at least you have thus far failed to account for that relation, whatever it might be."

Now, at this juncture, the materialist has but two options, it seems to me: 1) Abandon the fruitless discussion in recognition that the two camps are literally incommensurable paradigms, and never the twain shall meet; 2) Keep on trying with steam-engine explanations in the (vain) hope that the peasants will someday "get it."

The non-materialist has but two options, it seems to me: 1) Abandon the fruitless discussion in recognition that the two camps are literally incommensurable paradigms, and never the twain shall meet; 2) Keep on asking, "Where's the horse?" in the (vain) hope that the scientists will someday recognize the gaping holes in their steam engine explanations.

The only other discussion I see here is the oft-repeated materialist assertion that we peasants live in a "God of the gaps" paradigm. There may be some anti-materialists on this thread that are in that paradigm. I don't know. But I don't believe that John is, and I know that I'm not.

The "God of the gaps" argument goes something like this:

1) Science has thus far failed to account for phenomenon X.
2) I think that science won't manage to produce such an account.
3) Therefore, God is responsible for X.

The obvious scientific response is: "Well, here's a Y about which you were saying the same thing fifty years ago, and we accounted for that without appeal to God. So, look back at the relentless progress of science, and you really SHOULD abandon your lame argument and believe instead that science WILL at some point account for X."

The "God of the gaps" argument is indeed invalid, and the scientific response is indeed intuitively and inductively compelling.

But I don't believe that John is, and I know that I'm not, making anything like the inferential move from (2) to (3). I wouldn't even be comfortable to assert (3) in the traditional sense of "God" for ANY empirical phenomena!

My perspective is better cast this way:

1) Self-consciousness is an empirical phenomenon that cannot IN-PRINCIPLE be accounted for on ANY empirical/materialistic model.
2) Therefore, the empirical/materialistic account of "reality" is inadequate.

Where you go from (2) is FAR beyond the scope of this (or really any) forum thread!

I've taken stabs at accounting for why I am convinced of (1), but a forum thread is not an adequate venue for a rigorous discussion of why I am personally convinced of (1). The tension between "show your work" and "keep it simple" is too great to bear! So: Kant, properly understood.

What troubles me is that the materialists here keep citing this or that person or model that they have just read, and ohhhh, it is just so compelling. That is NOT an intellectually honest approach to this discussion. Intellectual honesty necessarily includes two attributes that I see precious little of here: 1) systematically and sweepingly immersing yourself in the literature of your opponent; 2) CHARITABLY considering that position, doing everything you can to fill in holes and prop up that position to make it as good as it can possibly be.

For my part, I have spent MANY years doing both to achieve a very thorough understanding of the best arguments in favor of materialism of mind. Indeed, MOST of the literature out there is arguing for materialism of mind, so studying philosophy of mind cannot fail to immerse you in a wide sweep of well-argued materialist accounts. And this study was not just "hobbiest reading," because it was in the context of rigorously evaluated coursework and formal papers taught and evaluated ENTIRELY from a materialist perspective.

Moreover, I have no problem with empiricism/materialism proving to be an adequate paradigm within which to discuss "all that there is." I'm a LONG way from being a "good Christian," and I honestly have no ax to grind here. Conversely, I would guess that most materialists here would find themselves in something like an existential crisis if they really tumbled to HOW inadequate, in-principle, their paradigm is. That would require a leap into the rabbit hole that they are not prepared to take!

Notice that many months ago, I recommended Searle's book, "Minds, Brains, and Science". I even provided an Amazon link to it (this may have been in the "soul" thread, but there's a LOT of attendance-overlap between these two threads). It's a short book, and it is not an "exhaustive case" by any means. But it is a "simple" book outlining a fundamental aspect of the non-materialist case. Have ANY of you materialists purchased/read it in the intervening months?

I thought not. But if I were in your shoes, I'd be looking in the mirror and asking myself, "Have I REALLY given the opposing perspective a fair and charitable hearing? Have I really understood its arguments?" I believe that I can honestly and accurately say that I have rigorously and very systematically given the materialist "side" a fair and charitable hearing. But I put it to you materialists that you have not been willing to do the same. Read "Minds, Brains, and Science," and then we'll have more to talk about.

Non-materialists are not necessarily stupid or ignorant peasants (of course, some are) when we continue to ask, "But where's the horse?" We ALL know that there IS a horse (except for, perhaps, Dennett). We non-materialists do NOT see "the horse," the ACTUAL HORSE in your system nor in any conflation with horsepower. And for my part, I am convinced that empiricism/materialism cannot in-principle account for the horse.

Where we go from here is beyond me. If I'm going to continue, I feel like the only option is to keep questioning, "But where's the horse?" and hope that some of the materialists here will get SERIOUS about considering the opposing viewpoint rather than just dismissively talking about steam engines and horsepower.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 12, 2018 - 12:27pm PT
There is no "law of physics" which enshrines this sort of "causality:" A causes B, and there is a lot of physics for which no such proposition is possible.

So while don Largo's insistence that this be the case, he is arguing from profound ignorance, or he means something different.

Since I wouldn't accuse Largo of being ignorant, I have asked him for a definition to help make it clear what exactly he is talking about.


Actually, Ed, you've said what I've been fishing for.

I have never claimed as my own the causality I sketch out here, that A follows B and was caused by A (including variations of same) is something I agree with. What I AM saying is that this binary way of thinking and constructing the world is implied if not stated outright by most of those who's attention goes to the brain (like a moth to a flame) when asked questions about experience.

Take Eyonkees drift about the "interpreter," a function believed to "originate" in the left prefrontal cortex.

What does that mean, in our common usage of the word? Does it mean that the interpreter "caused" the pre-frontal cortex? Who would believe that? Is he saying that the pre-frontal cortex caused, gave rise to, birthed or in some way created the interpreter by way of mechanical brain function that occurred BEFORE the interpreter chimes in.

You know perfectly well that's what he's driving at - a classical world view in which the physical is fundamental and that all phenomenon arise from it. Junk "causation" if you want. But most people clearly see reality unfolding in a linear way, and whatever you see or experience is in some way - according to this folk belief - attributable to physical processes that preceded it. That is, mind is the outcome of physical brain processes "we" are not aware of. What's more, these physical processes "explain" why this is so. Ergo, consciousness is what the brain is doing.

Say what you want but this is linear/reductionist all the way. Problem is, this kind of linear, bottom-up, temporally connected sequencing leads either to infinite regress, a first cause, an infinite or boundless fundamental phenomenon or scaler field which either caused itself or else you describe this phenomenon by way of models having nothing to directly do with the subject.

When the man said, If you think you understand it, you don't, what do you think he meant my "understand?" My take is that he meant our common sense understanding of linear causation IS understanding in this regards. And that there was no evidence of this being the case under investigation.

Now what happens when you disregard the linear, the temporal, and the causal from your own internal phenomenal (subjective) process? What changes? What do you see, sense, feel, intuit, hear, and so forth?

Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
Jul 12, 2018 - 02:19pm PT
Some anecdotes about causality from Nepal.

I was explaining to some villagers that they shouldn't drink unboiled water because there were tiny germs in the water. They noted they couldn't see them. I told them in my country we have instruments called microscopes that can see them. I've seen them, they're there.

No, no they told me, stomach problems are not caused by germs, they're caused by water serpent spirits (naga). Well, I've never seen a naga I said. Well in our country, they told me, we have shamans who can see spirits, so we know they're there.

So why do these spirits make people sick? Because people go to the toilet too close to the water and they get mad when their water is polluted. Close enough I told them. We actually believe in the same thing. Keep dirty things out of the water.

So the question is, was this a compromise or was it a close enough approximation of causality?

Another one. I had a stomach ache and blamed the dirty conditions. Oh no, an old woman told me, it's because you took a bath a couple of weeks ago. Look at me, I'm 80 years old and I never took a bath in my life. If you keep bathing, you will never be an old lady like me. Remembering that I had eaten and drunk the same exact things as my Sherpa porters a few months before and I got typhoid fever and they didn't because their natural immunities were stronger than my innoculations, I told her, You may be right. If I had decided to live in Nepal on a permanent basis, I'm sure she would have been right.

Meanwhile, a guy working in my house got a sore throat and knew he needed some powerful medicine. He thought to himself. What is the most powerful thing in this house and decided it must be the mantel on the kerosene pressure lamp which glowed with fire, but never burned up. So he ate one. When I freaked out, he couldn't understand because he had never heard of asbestos before. In fact he died from a drunken fall down some icy steps, so the asbestos didn't kill him after all.

Notions of causality change with the culture for sure.



nafod

Boulder climber
State college
Jul 12, 2018 - 02:23pm PT
The important thing is both models reasonably serve the cause of prediction, which is what science is actually about.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Jul 12, 2018 - 02:59pm PT
Largo said
Take Eyonkees drift about the "interpreter," a function believed to "originate" in the left prefrontal cortex.

What does that mean, in our common usage of the word? Does it mean that the interpreter "caused" the pre-frontal cortex? Who would believe that? Is he saying that the pre-frontal cortex caused, gave rise to, birthed or in some way created the interpreter by way of mechanical brain function that occurred BEFORE the interpreter chimes in.
Ho man, you got this all mixed up! I would say that Mother Nature "caused" the interpreter to evolve in humans. Why? Don't know, but she did.

The interpreter has a physical side and a "functional" side. The functional side encompasses our feelings about what it is to experience mind. The physical side is the apparatus in a particular part of the left hemisphere that all humans have that is dedicated to self-reflective consciousness. It should be noted that the interpreter does not appear to be a decision-maker. Instead, it is an after-the-fact story-teller.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Jul 12, 2018 - 03:16pm PT
The "God of the gaps" argument goes something like this:

1) Science has thus far failed to account for phenomenon X.
2) I think that science won't manage to produce such an account.
3) Therefore, God is responsible for X.
Nice try, mb1. No, the "God of the gaps" goes more like this:

Throughout history, all consequential phenomenon were believed to be caused by the gods by most humans. Through time, mostly very recent time (last 500 years, say), most of those phenomenon have been able to be explained by science. This is not an hypothesis. This is just plain historical fact. There continue to be phenomenon that appear be not adequately explained by science, that, in the past, have been explained via supernatural agents. These phenomenon would qualify as "God of the gaps" phenomenon.
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
Jul 12, 2018 - 04:24pm PT
So eeyonkee, how would you prove that germs and not nagas cause stomach illness because of dirty water? By arguing that the shamans are only hallucinating when they see nagas, but people looking in microscopes are seeing clearly? How do you know a germ is not a naga? A lot of parasites swim through water with flagellating tales like a serpent. Since shamans and belief in nagas have been around for thousands of years, and microscopes for only hundreds, can you be sure that shamans didn't discover germs, especially microscopic parasites, before science?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 12, 2018 - 04:38pm PT
Through time, mostly very recent time (last 500 years, say), most of those phenomenon have been able to be explained by science. This is not an hypothesis. This is just plain historical fact.
--


First, let's look at Eeyonke's wonky interpretation of Gazzaniga, based on what the man said himself:

"Why is the hunt for the neuronal side of the story so palpably distant from a true sense of personal understanding of conscious experience? The answer, I believe, is that consciousness is an instinct—a built-in property of brains. Like all instincts, it is just there. You do not learn to be conscious, and you cannot unlearn the reality of conscious experience. Someday we will achieve a more mechanistic understanding of its operation."

If we use the common usage of instinct ("an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli"), we are correct to realize Gazzaniga has harked back to the stimulus-response mode favored by the long-ago junked behavioralist model.

This approach, as well as Gazzaniga's update, are more bumbling attempts to frame consciousness entirely in a “neuroevolutionary” context. As is obvious to anyone who has taken a studied look at the material, this inevitably leads to the dead-end of Identity Theory, that consciousness IS the brain. Tallis responded this way per the woo that consciousness is indistinguishable from neural activity:

"If we are just our brains, and our brains are just material objects, then we, and our lives, are merely way stations in the great causal net that is the universe, stretching from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch."

Behold all the wonky attempts to reframe causation to try and avoid this simple conclusion.

The topic was well covered in this longer article from the Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204618704576642991109496396



Now while Eyeonkee might be an easy mark, he is nonetheless dead set on pimping the Neuroevolutionary angle as a "scientific explanation." That is, he is not saying evolution DESCRIBES a process, rather it EXPLAINS it. Scientifically. That is, "a reason or justification given for an action or belief." Just as Freud Freud tried to make sex the explanation for everything, for Eyonkee, evolution is the new God.

Now how, exactly, do you think Eyonkee believes evolution explains consciousness if not by dint of linear causation?

It seems the materialist fights this tooth and nail - that a functionalst or physicalist position is entirely beholden to linear causation, no matter how hard Ed and others try and kick it back on me.

Problem is, evolution doesn't "explain" anything. It describes the process.

A deeper question might be: In functional/physicalist terms, provide ANY "explanation" that is not beholden to linear causation.

So much of these needless misunderstandings and misrepresentations could be avoided if people would just read some Searle, as Madbolter suggested. the million dollar question is: Why don't they?





MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Jul 12, 2018 - 04:47pm PT
"But where's the horse?"

Materialists are frustrated by the question, because




Not this materialist.

Not everybody needs to understand everything.


I think the example is a set-up. Peasants aren't all stuck in a horse perspective.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Jul 12, 2018 - 04:49pm PT
as Madbolter suggested. the million dollar question is: Why don't they?

But the 64 dollar question is: Why should they?

eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Jul 12, 2018 - 04:49pm PT
how would you prove that germs and not nagas cause stomach illness because of dirty water?
Good question, Jan. But why stop there? I suppose one could believe anything at all about why dirty water might cause stomach illness. Does that make them all equally plausible? Science tries to postulate the simplest explanation that is sufficient to explain the relevant data including how it meshes with all of the other scientific data that we have acquired. Nagas would require all sorts of explanation with respect to how they fit in with the other scientific knowledge that we have. Introducing nagas makes for a more, not less complicated answer,
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 12, 2018 - 04:59pm PT
"No one currently has the slightest idea how to explain how we get mind out of brain."

Direct quote from Gazzaniga from a 2008 interview. When he uses the word "how," what do you expect he means by the term?
WBraun

climber
Jul 12, 2018 - 05:25pm PT
Not everybody needs to understand everything.

You, gross materialists, don't even understand the first thing period .....
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Jul 12, 2018 - 05:25pm PT
I don't know why I continue with this thread. Actually, I do know. I keep forgetting what I have learned previously from it because I'm forgetful. Sometimes it feels agonizingly boring.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Jul 12, 2018 - 05:51pm PT
Sometimes it feels agonizingly boring.

The way some feel about football(soccer)?

The way many soccer fans feel about the match for bronze in the World Cup?

There's still much to be learned.


https://thesefootballtimes.co/2018/07/12/how-the-much-maligned-world-cup-third-place-match-can-often-define-tournaments/



Don't count the 'losers' as unimportant.

But it was great to see Croatia get the equalizing goal. After that I left and didn't care who won.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Jul 12, 2018 - 06:47pm PT
The mind is emergent from the brain and there is causality, but certainly not a 'linear causality'.

But you're right, evolution is a process, but you can tell it's the process responsible for consciousness by looking and the 'artifacts' of that process over time: progressively more complicated behaviors including instinctual, unconscious and conscious. That progression by itself tells you that minds evolved with brains.

The fact we don't know how exactly how brains produce consciousness is more an indicator of how complex a problem space we're talking about. Oh, that it was a simple matter of reductively following a linear breadcrumb trail from mind to brain - but it isn't when you're talking about 100 trillion active neural connections, real-time neuroepigenetics, and distributed hierarchies of neural oscillations. In fact, while recent advances in 'brain mapping' from research into comas and vegetative states have contributed to identifying brain areas involved in awareness (consciousness), we're still a long way from understanding how it happens or works.
Messages 21221 - 21240 of total 22763 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta