Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?

[Magical Realist]

Thanks. I own The Rediscovery of the Mind and another of Searle´s but have not read them for years. I have long thought Searle´s Position on the mind/ brain problem the most reasonable (next to mine, of course) and agree 100% with all he says in you quote. I go a little farther than Searle does, in that I identify consciousness as being a higher level creation of the brain, mostly achieved in parietal lobes. -A part of the larger process that makes the world we directly perceive.

Searle, like almost all cognitive scientists ignores several embarrassing known facts that are not only explained by my RTS version of perception, but required for it to be correct. For example:
(1) Everyone, me included, agrees that the first processing of all the sensory input information by the brain is deconstruction. To use visual data as an example: Information arriving at V1 is parsed into sets of neural loops with different mutually re-enforcing oscillation frequencies in the general range of 30 to 50 Hz. These, probably correspond to objects so separated from the continuous field of visual stimulation. I have published a detailed paper in 1994 on how this is achieved at the neuronal level by known properties of neurons (not some higher hand-waving phrases). The most important neural facts being that each neuron part of a "contrast line detector receptive field" mutually excites near by line detector neurons of the same or nearly the same line orientation and has an inhibitory effect on the nearby line detectors whose "receptive fields" are orthogonal. (It is very much like the same process that occurs when several AC generators with slightly different natural frequencies are interconnected - they all lock together with a common frequency.)

After this main V1 (and some of V2) segregation or parsing into objects, each object is "tagged" by it locally unique frequency, it is then further deconstructed into "characteristic." This takes place in well separated parts of the visual cortex. For example, in V4 there are three sets of color (intensity of white vs. black being one set). The other two are the red / green axis and the blue / yellow axis neurons. Motion (speed and direction) of each of frequency distinct objects is "measured" in V5; But no where does the deconstructed into physically separated object "characteristics” ever come together again in any one set of neural tissue. Yet, if the visual scene was a red cube and a bouncing yellow tennis ball that is what we perceive. Not any other alternative such as a bouncing yellow cube a stationary red ball. Very few cognitive scientists even acknowledge this "where & how does it all come together" problem.

The same deconstruction happens to all the sensory inputs. For example, the very first thing that happens to the sound waves an orchestra makes in the cochlea is to be separated into their different frequency components (Sort of like Fourier analysis) before being separately sent into the acoustical part of the temporal lobes. The "Middle C" energy from the piano and all the other instruments is exciting the same cilia (fine hair cells) inside the liquid filled cochlea as if one, yet we hear the instruments each distinctly!

Summary of (1): We perceive correctly the unified world, not the neurally deconstructed (separated into different parts of the brain and never rejoined) characterizes of it. In my RTS version of perception this deconstruction into separated characteristic is done for the same reason a pilot uses an item-by-item check list. For example if on your TV a red ball rolling down a hill becomes and suddenly becomes blue - only that one color characteristic in the Real Time Simulation needs to be revised. - Keeping the RTS an accurate model of the external world is most accurate and efficient if the sensory data has early on in the neural processing been deconstructed into a set of characteristic. (More than a dozen are known: For example surface texture as well as color is one.)

(2) Without some temporal projection ahead of steady motions to compensate for the neural delays, playing a fast game of ping-pong would be impossible. I.e. you would perceive the ball where it was at least 0.2 seconds earlier - i.e. still on the other side of the net when you should be hitting it back. That temporal forward projection is the essence of what the Real Time Simulation of a world to perceive is all about. It provided a huge survival advantage to our ancestors who first perfected the RTS when in combat (thrown rocks and spears) with the larger, stronger, bigger brained, Neanderthals (and at least a dozen other hominoid types) so they could "explode" Out of Africa about 50,000 years ago and dominate the world of other creatures that still perceived the world with a small fraction of a second delay due to sequential stages of neural processing.

(3) Numerous neural/physiological facts have no reason to exist if as cognitive scientist believe, our perception "emerge" after many stages one neural processing - neural transformations or calculations operating on the sensory input data. For example, The existence of these large white fiber retro-tracks is such an unexplained embarrassment to the accepted theory of perception that it is rarely even acknowledged to be the case (except by neurophysiologist, but not by cognitive scientists). For example, slightly more than half of the input to the visual cortex V1 comes not from the eyes, but via "retrograde fibers" (axons) from the parietal brain!

The RTS not only explains why these retrograde fibers exist, but REQUIRES that they do so that checking, characteristic by characteristic, what is being simulated in the RTS in parietal brain can be corrected to agree with the changing sensory input data ASAP. Likewise there is a huge set of white fibers feeding data back from parietal brain to earlier part of the sensory input system process, especially going back to thalamus, which was often considered to be a "relay station" for the sensory inputs. Visual data from the retina for example goes thru the LGN part of the thalamus. Probably the thalamus functioned prior to the evolution of cortex as a "central processor" for more privative creatures and it is now recognized to be more than just the "relay station" it was thought to be 30 years ago.

There are more than a dozen other well established facts difficult or impossible for the accepted POV about perception to explain that are logical results explained by the RTS. Just to mention one: How can you have a visual experience in dreams with your eyes closed if visual experiences “emerge” following many stages of neural data transformations of retinal data? (Illusions, hallucinations, phantom limbs, etc. – a large list)

Again, If you want to know more about the RTS, please read (and then comment on) the "GFW essay" (Last part of a paper I published in 1994) on here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?2868-About-determinism&p=882356&viewfull=1#post882356

I see what you are saying. That the RTS has to continuously update itself with any changes that are occurring in the perceived world. And that these haveto be tracked as broken apart qualia of the original gestalt. But I was lying in bed last night thinking, what if we severed all the sensory inputs into the brain--all the nerves from the eyes and the ears and the flesh that carry the electrical signals caused by environmental stimulation--and instead hooked the brain up to a signal generator that exactly duplicatedthose signals? Wouldn't the brain continue to perceive a real world, or at least a RTS of it, and even have the experience of being a body perceiving the real world. Note the signals and the frequencies would have to be injected into the brain from a highly computerized signal generator that could select whatever environment you were experiencing. Note also any motor signals outputed by the brain would be exactly matched by incoming sensory inputs (kinaesthetic and proprioceptive sensations of muscle exertion, motion, and resistance.) Where iow does consciousness of the real world begin? At the brain or at the nerves near the surface of our skin?

 

[wellwisher]

In ancient tradition, the soul is static and becomes animated by a spirit.

As an analogy, the soul would be like the data on a DVD. The DVD contains all the information, but is inert and will just sit, there. To get the data or soul to do anything, need to animate the DVD, with a DVD drive (spirit) so the programs come to life. This is how the ancients thought of this. The sperm has its soul or programs inherent within the DNA. The DNA is where the soul of the sperm resides. This is passive information. The soul becomes animated when acted on by a spirit; dynamic principle. The genes act and the soul is animated.

There is too much misinformation about soul and spirit leading to confusion. The soul and spirit was how the ancients view information and information in action.

Life is unique in that it makes use of the entropic force, which is the fifth force of nature. This force is generated by increasing entropy. It can be demonstrated in the lab with an osmotic device. The osmotic pressure is generated by increasing water entropy, with pressure=force/area. This entropic force or entropy related force, is the spirit (force) that animates the soul of life (genetic data). All cells make use of membranes and selective diffusion allowing the cell to control the entropic force.

The entropic force is not stressed in biology, as much as it should, because biology prefers the spirit of gambling casinos to animate its soul or collection of data. I am not a fan of that spirit, since it is primitive. I prefer the spirit of cause and effect to animate the soul (data) so the animated soul of life is based on the principles of logic. This is more modern.

 

[Magical Realist]

David Chalmers on consciousness, zombies, and "the hard problem":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

 

[Magical Realist]

In ancient tradition, the soul is static and becomes animated by a spirit.

As an analogy, the soul would be like the data on a DVD. The DVD contains all the information, but is inert and will just sit, there. To get the data or soul to do anything, need to animate the DVD, with a DVD drive (spirit) so the programs come to life. This is how the ancients thought of this. The sperm has its soul or programs inherent within the DNA. The DNA is where the soul of the sperm resides. This is passive information. The soul becomes animated when acted on by a spirit; dynamic principle. The genes act and the soul is animated.

There is too much misinformation about soul and spirit leading to confusion. The soul and spirit was how the ancients view information and information in action.

Life is unique in that it makes use of the entropic force, which is the fifth force of nature. This force is generated by increasing entropy. It can be demonstrated in the lab with an osmotic device. The osmotic pressure is generated by increasing water entropy, with pressure=force/area. This entropic force or entropy related force, is the spirit (force) that animates the soul of life (genetic data). All cells make use of membranes and selective diffusion allowing the cell to control the entropic force.

The entropic force is not stressed in biology, as much as it should, because biology prefers the spirit of gambling casinos to animate its soul or collection of data. I am not a fan of that spirit, since it is primitive. I prefer the spirit of cause and effect to animate the soul (data) so the animated soul of life is based on the principles of logic. This is more modern.

I see..So the spirit or entropic force animates the genes which in turn animate the soul which is really just information inside sperm cells. That's about as clear as mud. You said there is alot of confusion due to misinformation about the soul and spirit. I find the information about them just as confusing.

 

[Billy T]

David Chalmers on consciousness, zombies, and "the hard problem": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

Thanks. I of coursed knew all discussed and much related not mentioned, like the neurosurgeon who reversed the red and green color processing neurons, so when you awake from the operation the grass is red for you. He also does the same for a new born, who grows up calling his experienced "qualia" (when looking at grass) "green" as he learns language. This (called the "inverted spectra" problem)* all proving that your qualia for red may be someone else´s for green or more likely qualia are unique for all with no way to know anything about those of another.

BTW, many will prefix a "P" before "zombie" to distinguish the Philosophical zombie from the "half dead" zombies. I think this desirable as not all readers just reading "zombie" know that we are speaking of consciousness lacking P-zombies, who have identical behavior to a normal human. (And thus are not detectable. i.e. I may be the only not P-zombie in the universe as know I am not because I directly experience "consciousness")

The only thing new to me in the link was that D. Chalmers, now at least, looks like a "hippie." I wonder if he did some years ago, when getting to be a professor at some University in the US´s SW. (I forget which).

* With a more complex version in that after you adapt / learn to call the experience that post operation was your red/ "green" again. The neurosurgeon, re-wires your color neurons back to their original connections so after this 2nd operation you again call (due to your period of adaptation) the grass "red." This adaption is not just in naming (words used to tell others what you are experiencing) as experiment with inverting glasses show (nothing to do with naming). One young man learned to ride his bicycle rapidly thru urban traffic jams, after a few weeks of continuously wearing the inverting glasses. Then when first removing them he could not walk! The readaption to seeing the world not "upside down" was quite rapid - only a day or so.

P.S. At the right side bar of your link there is a list of other videos - I know most of the writings of these people. I recommend most:
Ned Block is an American philosopher working in the field of the philosophy of mind who has made important contributions to studies of consciousness and cognitive science. He obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard University under Hilary Putnam and was a professor of philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for many years.

You don´t need to spend time watching Collin McGinn - His POV is that consciousness is simply too complex for human understanding - sort of like a a dog or turtle can not comprehend calculus.

I may have been the first to read Dan Dennett´s book Consciousness Explained" (paid ~$15 extra for airmail special delievery as two days after public release I would be on my way to Cancun) - quite a dis aqpointent. His egotistical title is not lived up to - Ned Block tells in part why, but I add that existance ferrile children (never exposured to any language) destroys Dan´s point of view also as they are fully conscious, planners, etc.

If asked, I can comment on most of the others, but may need to watch some of the videos to do so. If you watch them all, you will have a reasonable good understanding of how man understanding of the "hard problem" has evolved (and of the "harder problem" of non-human minds, too)

 

[Billy T]

BTW, Dan Dennett´s brief video (see side bar of Magical Realist´s link) about the "binding problem" confirms what I said about the "deconstruction" of all the sensory inputs into separate "characteristics" processed in different neural tissue and the FACT that this highly divided and separate sensory information never comes together again in any one place in the brain.

Dan uses this to degrade "consciousness" as just a story well tell our selves (constantly "revised drafts") but he is wrong for several reason as I and Ned Block noted (see my last post) although I and all neuroscientist do agree the sensory inputs are deconstructed and processed for its "characteristics" in widely separated parts of the brain, I explain the FACT that perception is of a unified world with the Parietal Simulation of it in Real time (not with many stages of neural processing and transmission delays) - MY RTS theory of perception.

{post 237, in part}... (1) Everyone, me included, agrees that the first processing of all the sensory input information by the brain is deconstruction. To use visual data as an example: Information arriving at V1 is parsed into sets of neural loops with different mutually re-enforcing oscillation frequencies in the general range of 30 to 50 Hz. These, probably correspond to objects so separated from the continuous field of visual stimulation. I have published a detailed paper in 1994 on how this is achieved at the neuronal level by known properties of neurons (not some higher hand-waving phrases). The most important neural facts being that each neuron part of a "contrast line detector receptive field" mutually excites near by line detector neurons of the same or nearly the same line orientation and has an inhibitory effect on the nearby line detectors whose "receptive fields" are orthogonal. (It is very much like the same process that occurs when several AC generators with slightly different natural frequencies are interconnected - they all lock together with a common frequency.)

After this main V1 (and some of V2) segregation or parsing into objects, each object is "tagged" by it locally unique frequency, is then further deconstructed into "characteristic." This takes place in well separated parts of the visual cortex. For example, in V4 there are three sets of color (intensity of white vs. black being one set). The other two are the red / green axis and the blue / yellow axis neurons. Motion (speed and direction) of each of frequency distinct objects is "measured" in V5; But no where does the deconstructed into physically separated object "characteristics” ever come together again in any one set of neural tissue. Yet, if the visual scene was a red cube and a bouncing yellow tennis ball that is what we perceive. Not any other alternative such as a bouncing yellow cube a stationary red ball. Very few cognitive scientists even acknowledge this "where & how does it all come together" problem.

The same deconstruction happens to all the sensory inputs. For example, the very first thing that happens to the sound waves an orchestra makes in the cochlea is to be separated into their different frequency components (Sort of like Fourier analysis) before being separately sent into the acoustical part of the temporal lobes. The "Middle C" energy from the piano and all the other instruments is exciting the same cilia (fine hair cells) inside the liquid filled cochlea as if one, yet we hear the instruments each distinctly!...

Again, If you want to know more about the RTS, please read (and then comment on) the "GFW essay" (Last part of a paper I published in 1994) found here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?2868-About-determinism&p=882356&viewfull=1#post882356

 

[wellwisher]

To answer the question you need to define consciousness. One way to do this is to define what consciousness is not.

Consciousness, to me, are all those mental things which computers and machines cannot do. If a machine can do basic humanoid things, like create new memory, does that mean the machine is conscious? The answer is no, so creating memory is not consciousness. Memory helps to create the foundation onto which consciousness appears.

Computers can roll the dice; generate random numbers, and they can also reason using logic. Does randomness and logic make a computer conscious? Again the answer is no. These activities due not define consciousness, it is only the foundation, or else the machines would be conscious.

Machines do not have self awareness like humans.

If a computer runs a machine (arm) and the machine (arm) is reacting to the environment, the feedback creates sort of an awareness within the machine by means of external pertubations. This type of feeback loop is normal for single cells, so it is not consciousness, since a machine can also do this, and machines are not conscious.

Human self awareness (mental self awareness) would be more like two computers, which can work as a team, or can work independently, such that each is aware of how the other half is altering itself and/or the team, via the team connection. This is not a normal computer arrangement and may lead to instability if there diverge too much. This is getting closer to consciousness, since it is not for machines.

Machines can also follow a procedure and then use variations of parameters to make new combinations. This form of creativity is not consciousness, since a machine can do it. But the machine can't pull new ideas out of the air without pre-defined procedures. That could occur with the two computer scenario working as a team.

 

[Magical Realist]

Billy, this may relate to the binding problem, but I was wondering what your view on gamma wave synchrony in the brain as the agent of coherent perceptions was. Evidence suggests that conscious attention may be more of a higher level function of neurons firing in synchrony with each other rather than being due to lower level synaptic firings themselves. Here's the wiki article on it:


http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_wave

 

[gmilam]

Consciousness, to me, are all those mental things which computers and machines cannot do.

Fairly meaningless definition.

What exactly is it that you claim computers and machines cannot do? What happens to consciousness as computers are developed which can do more?

 

[Billy T]

Billy, this may relate to the binding problem, but I was wondering what your view on gamma wave synchrony in the brain as the agent of coherent perceptions was. Evidence suggests that conscious attention may be more of a higher level function of neurons firing in synchrony with each other rather than being due to lower level synaptic firings themselves. Here's the wiki article on it: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_wave

Thanks. I am not very impressed with this Wiki article -too speculative. However I will try to read its Ref 5 (W. Singer and C.M. Gray, Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 18 (1995), pp. 555-586). Note that their title does not mention "consciousness."

I read paper by both these authors (and two others) >2 decades ago, which is Ref 13 of the paper I published back in 1994. I.e. Paper by: Gray,C.M. König,P. Engle,A.K. & Singer,W. "Oscillatory Responses in Cat .... Which reflects global stimulus Properties" Nature Vol.338, p334-337 (1989) - A fine piece of multiple micro-electrode recording research that show same frequency and phase oscillation in Cat´s V1 even a few mm apart as that region was, I guessed, but they did not say that it was, stimulated by one object´s boundary. I don´t think they knew what object images were stimulating the regions they measured, but it is more than 20 years since I read their paper.

It was the main stimulus for my idea of how the continuous visual field is "parsed" into objects as I already knew that the "orientated line detectors" in V1 that Hubel & Wiesel* got the Nobel prize for interacted with nearby line detectors re-enforcing the near parallel ones and inhibiting the near orthogonal ones. Plus being a Ph.D. physicist, I knew that a set of natural oscillators will lock together in frequency if even weakly coupled. Thus any closed contrast boundary in V1 would rapidly have all the neurons of the boundary in mutual self stimulating oscillation ALL AT A COMMON FREQUENCY and guessed that was how objects were "parsed" (or separated) one from the other -almost within minutes of reading this four author paper (my Ref 13)

I, with in a day or two, also realized that I could explain the Gestalt law of "good continuation" entirely with known properties of neurons - not some higher level and waving arguments. The law of good continuation lets you perceive one cat on the other side of picket fence, (not a bunch of "cat slices") etc. Here is how:

Imagine that ---- is part of the cat´s contrast boundary with say even more distant grass that is visible thru the fence and that .... is part of the cat´s boundary that is INvisible, because direct vision of it is blocked by the vertical planks of the picket fence.

Then a section of the cat boundary (slightly curved, but I can´t make that in this illustration) the ---- parts of which are directly stimulating V1 is:

----....----....----....----.... etc.
Let me call the four ---- s "A" the left most, "B", "C" & "D and the four cat boundary sections blocked by the picket fence, the .... s, "a" "b" "c" & "d"

The right most neural cells of seen cat boundary "A" and the left most neural cells of seen cat boundary "B" will not for first few ms be oscillation at same frequency but each will be trying to excite the blocked parts "a" (and b,c,d ....s like wise by BC, CD etc.) of UNseen cat boundary between "A" & "B" that is also horizontal in my "typed illustration" here. Thus with in a few cycles, the gap between "A"&"B" will have induced activity of these blocked same "a" orientation line detector neurons. I.e. in 20 or so ms both "A" horizontal line detector neurons AND "B" horizontal line detector neurons are locked together in one oscillation frequency (and of course "C" and "D" are also oscillating with that same frequency as is the entire closed boundary contour of the cat, directly seen or not).

All later stages of the brain know is which neurons are locked in mutual oscillation, at the same frequency. They don´t actually know if that common frequency of these neurons was the result of direct stimulation or of indirect, induced stimulation by directly stimulated neurons. That is the entire closed boundary of the cat in a few ms has locally mutually oriented H&W line detectors all oscillation at the same frequency - as if the picket fence were not there! This is how, I think neurons both parse the cat as one object (TAGGED BY A FREQUENCE DIFFERENT IN PHASE AND FREQUENCY) from other near or even adjoining objects that in the visual field are in contact with it and how the Gestalt law of good continuation is achieved BY KNOWN PROPERTIES OF NEURONS , not "hand-waving" words. (My 1994 paper deals with more complex than "behind a picket fence" cases, and several other important problems that had no purely neuronal level solutions.)

SUMMARY: YES, for 20+ years, I have believed the mutually self stimulating Hubel & Wiesel line detectors lock into a closed boundary neural oscillation loop of objects (even if part are not directly stimulated as blocked by some closer object). All objects oscillation at one unique frequency phase & and even the object´s distinct characteristic that deconstructed and separated into different neural tissue for further processing are "frequency tagged" together still.

Why as I spoke of in prior post that if the scene is a red cube and a bouncing yellow tennis ball, that is what you perceive, not a bouncing red cube and as stationary red ball, etc. for many of false perceptions. Keep everyting straight with color and motion processed in V4 & V5 for all the objects with both motion and color is not a simple task but we do it with zero conscious effort.

However important as these oscillations are for object parsing and solving the "binding problem" with many characteristic processed in widely separated neural tissue, I do not think the oscillation (gama wave or not) have anything to do with consciousness as your link overly strongly speculates.

BTW, a brain-sized bowl of Jello, with modest vibration acting on it will give the same gross EEG signals that the brain does! - Another reason why I doubt these oscillation have anything to do with "consciousness." But who can be sure? - Perhaps mildly shaken bowl of Jello is conscious and just can not say:
"Please don´t eat me."

* H&W did not need to know what object their allert cat saw - they made its entire visual filed just parallel black and white lines they could rotate. BTW, they are not really "line detectors" although all call them that. They detect specific orinetations in the Fourier like transform of the information. - I can prove that, but poof is not original with me, and very complex to do. - It has to do with how the phase reversals effect the image transformed. Further more - it is not really the 2D Fourier tranfom, but the Gabor transforms - a basis set that is of finite width, not infinite width like the Fourier basis set. But this is all much too complex to teach here, by me. H&W´s stimulus is very concentrated to have only one orientation in the transform strongly excited - in this reguard they got lucky.

 

[Magical Realist]

Karl Pribram's and David Bohm's Holonomic Brain Theory:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

 

[Billy T]

Karl Pribram's and David Bohm's Holonomic Brain Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

Again, I am not very impressed with your link. It, as they admit, is pure speculation based on analogy – A bad approach when there are more than 100 FACTS they could consider, as I have; however, the link dose include many correct facts. I.e. memory is not local – there is no “grandmother cell” that if cut out removes your memory of your grandmother. It errors IMHO to think QM has anything to do with the complex multi-cellular processing in the brain. Especial wrong When Pribram allows Bohm’s version of QM to dominate the standard version (Bohm’s QM has the entire future pre determined so I resist that and also**). If requested, I will comment on more specific points in your link.

Quoting from your link, with bold added:
“Pribram was encouraged in this line of speculation by the fact that Devalues and Devalues[2] had found that "the spatial frequency encoding displayed by cells of the visual cortex was best described as a Fourier transform of the input pattern."

Recall my post footnote:

… {Post 250, in part}: H&W did not need to know what object their alert cat saw - they made its entire visual filed just parallel black and white lines they could rotate. BTW, they are not really "line detectors" although all call them that. They detect specific orientations in the Fourier like transform of the information. - I can prove that, but poof is not original with me, and very complex to do. - It has to do with how the phase reversals affect the image transformed. Further more - it is not really the 2D Fourier transform, but the Gabor transforms - a basis set that is of finite width, not infinite width like the Fourier basis set. But this is all much too complex to teach here, by me. H&W´s stimulus is very concentrated to have only one orientation in the transform strongly excited - in this regard they got lucky.

When I said that H&W´s “line detectors” are not line detectors, but sort of like Fourier transform component selectors and I could prove that, but the proof of that was not original with me, I was referring to text in Devalues and DeValois´s book Spatial Vision where the proof is presented. That book is ref.(2) of my 1994 paper and also they are quoted in my essay on genuine free will, that outlines my RTS theory of perception (See my final self quote below).

IMHO Spatial Vision is the best and most completely honest (full disclosure of facts most ignore)* book on the subject (I own a copy of the 1988 edition.) They treat the problem from ALL angles – physiology, psychology, experimental evidence, clinical results (especially from slightly injured visual systems) etc. with deep advanced understanding. If you want a more simple but still very exceptional treatment, nothing better than: R.L Gregory´s Eye and Brain – Ref (1) of my 1994 paper and it is also cheap in paper back.
-----------
*Of neurological facts that are great embarrassment to the accepted (“It Emerge” after many stages of neural transformations of sensory data.) which is just “hand-waving” until something is said about how “it emerges.” From the object characteristic separately processed in different parts of the brain.

If the simulation is constructed in the parietal region of the brain, then one would expect that the number of neural fiber leaving the parietal cortex and returning to the visual cortex would at least equal those coming there, via the LGN, from the eyes. In fact they are somewhat more numerous. They are called “retrograde fibers” and no plausible reason for their existence has been suggested. Some of the comparison may be made even earlier in the LGN, which is usually considered to be mainly a “relay station” between the eyes and visual cortex. (Both areas have large projections into the parietal cortex, so it can easily “know” when, where and what difference has been detected.) The quantity of retrograde fibers from the visual striate cortex to the LGN slightly outnumbers the number of fibers coming there from the eyes. About this second set of retrograde fibers, Devalues4 states: “It is by no means obvious what function is subserved by this feedback.” (From V1 to LGN) About the retrograde set from the parietal to V1, they state: “Even less is understood (if that is possible) about these feedback connections...” They also note that both sets are “strictly retinotopic,” which is the neuro-physiologist’s way to compactly state that each small part of the visual field is mapped in one-to-one correspondence with neural tissue.

I especially like the strength with which they state our ignorance about the Parietal to V1 retrograde fibers. – I.e. “less than nothing” is known as to why they exist and are more numerous than the input from the eyes to V1, but my RTS theory REQUIRES them to exist and explains why they do.

** Bohm’s QM, I think, violates the idea that all electrons are IDENTICAL: Briefly his theory has particles motion controlled by a (not directly detectable) “guiding wave´.” Problem is that two electrons can be passing thru the exact same point in space (they are waves too) but with different trajectories. I´ll call them “A” & “B” but there no distinguishing difference. “A” has it own unique guiding wave, called “a”, likewise, “B” guiding wave is “b” and each is immune to the other´s guiding waves. But when they are at exactly the same point in space that is possible ONLY if they are NOT identical – I.e. every electron in the universe must have a unique “tag” for its guiding wave to know to guide it and not the other one at the same point.– As I said “ Each has a unique name.” in half a dozen or more emails to the international Bohm QM center (in Denmark as I recall – that that email exchange was > 10 years ago and achieved nothing – neither side could sway the other from their POV.)

 

[hansda]

You are contradicting your self as earlier you said it was the soul which animated things - caused the movement of ever atom of a life form, not the natural laws.

Sperms and Ovums are Nature's special design for continuation of life or soul. So there must be some natural attraction between them, which may cause their movements towards each other. This fact can not prove that 'soul does not animate physical body'.

Compare two bodies. A living body and a dead body. Dead body can not resist gravitational force, whereas living body can resist gravitational force. This fact is proof enough that soul/life can apply a physical force.

Another example. Consider an apple in a tree. When the apple falls, it is due gravitational force. When the apple does not fall, why it does not fall? What force is opposing the gravitational force? It is only due soul/life of the tree that the apple remains attached.

So you believe the soul joins the egg when it is fertalized by a sperm cell. These fertalized eggs are often stored in Liquid N2 for more than a year, but most just end up being discarded. - What ahppens to the "trash-canned" souls?

This is a case similar to hibernation. Soul still remains in the physical body.

So you still cling to the idea that ms before T when you were last alive, you are dead. - I guess with the invisible, undectatbel soul hanging around just in case a few minutes later the doctors restart your heart, etc.

What exactly you mean by "ms before T"? I dont think if a dead body can be re-vived.

 

[Billy T]

... Soul still remains in the physical body. ...

In addition to spouting a lot of unsupported personal belief nonsense, you are avoiding the question.

I asked what happens to the "souls" in the hundreds of no longer wanted fertilized human egg cells stored in liquid N2 that are thrown into the trash can each day (as owners ceases to pay their storage fees) or are used for cell division / differentiation research? (Perhaps grown until the neural fold develops in a body of several hundred cells and other forms of differentiation occur.)

I.e. there is no "physical body" just an egg cell you need a magnifying glass to see. BTW, thousand of fertilized eggs (with souls according to you) get flushed down the toilet every day as many women in whom the failed to implant in the uterus wall did not even know they were pregnant. At the sewerage treatment plant those fertilized egg will be destroyed along with feces, food scraps, etc. - what happens to those souls? - Call that question #2 for you to ignore.

I´ll bet you don´t want to say these souls attached to an egg cell with no bodies are "recycled" as that means your soul may have earlier been one in a fertalized egg buried in a blob of shit at the sewerage treatment plant. So again (question#2): What happens to these "flushed down the toilet" souls?

...I dont think if a dead body can be re-vived.

By most peoples beliefs, that happens every day in many hospitals. You can´t tell when a body is dead as you are not using any standard definition of death - like no resperation, no heart beat, no brain acivitity, etc. - You can not detect the soul leaving the living body to make it a dead body. (As that does not have any observable effect when that happens, even assuming that happens despite total lack of evidence that it does.)

 

[hansda]

In addition to spouting a lot of unsupported personal belief nonsense, you are avoiding the question.

By the term "physical body" i meant "life-ful body". It may be a single cell or multiple cells. We know that a multi-celled living body grows from a single-cell fertilized egg. If there is soul in the multi-cell, the soul should also be there in the single cell. We should also remember that at this stage soul is still a mysterious entity, presence of which supports life in a physical body. These are my understandings.

I asked what happens to the "souls" in the hundreds of no longer wanted fertilized human egg cells stored in liquid N2 that are thrown into the trash can each day (as owners ceases to pay their storage fees) or are used for cell division / differentiation research? (Perhaps grown until the neural fold develops in a body of several hundred cells and other forms of differentiation occur.)

This may be a case similar to 'abortion'. My understanding is that soul/life still remains in the fertilized egg till it is destroyed.

I.e. there is no "physical body" just an egg cell you need a magnifying glass to see. BTW, thousand of fertilized eggs (with souls according to you) get flushed down the toilet every day as many women in whom the failed to implant in the uterus wall did not even know they were pregnant. At the sewerage treatment plant those fertilized egg will be destroyed along with feces, food scraps, etc. - what happens to those souls? - Call that question #2 for you to ignore.

As i said, a "physical body" grows from an egg cell. If there is no soul/life in the egg cell, it can not grow into a multi-celled "physical body".

If the fertilized eggs are destroyed, that means soul/life is released from these living cells.

I´ll bet you don´t want to say these souls attached to an egg cell with no bodies are "recycled" as that means your soul may have earlier been one in a fertalized egg buried in a blob of shit at the sewerage treatment plant. So again (question#2): What happens to these "flushed down the toilet" souls?

As i said, soul is still a mysterious entity. It is believed soul is birth-less and death-less. It only travels from one body to another body. It is difficult to tell in which body form it was in previous birth or after death. Only the physical body is born or dies but not the soul. It is believed soul travels among the physical-bodies of 8.4 million species.

By most peoples beliefs, that happens every day in many hospitals. You can´t tell when a body is dead as you are not using any standard definition of death - like no resperation, no heart beat, no brain acivitity, etc. - You can not detect the soul leaving the living body to make it a dead body. (As that does not have any observable effect when that happens, even assuming that happens despite total lack of evidence that it does.)

We can not see "soul" but its effect can be observed. We also can not see "force" but its effect can be observed with the object of a mass. "Force" differentiates between inertia of a mass and its change of motion. Similarly, "soul" differentiates between a dead-body and a living-body. A living body can animate whereas a dead body can not animate. Even RTS will not work, if there is no soul in the body.

In a hospital if a dead body can be revived, that means the affected organ is revived through some medical treatment. It is not a case that soul is brought back to the body. It is a case that soul is already in the body but the body is not responding as a living body due critical illness of some organ in the body.

 

[Billy T]

By the term "physical body" i meant "life-ful body". It may be a single cell ... It is believed soul is birth-less and death-less. It only travels from one body to another body. It is difficult to tell in which body form it was in previous birth or after death. Only the physical body is born or dies but not the soul. It is believed soul travels among the physical-bodies of 8.4 million species.

So you believe in a Hindu reincarnation. I.e. your soul may have given life to the body of a cow, etc. before animating you etc.

Are viruses "living bodies" with soul? Or do you believe only bacteria and more complex single-cell living animals like amoebas have souls? What about plant life forms – Do they have souls too? If not, why not? Note there are many living organisms, like blue/green alge, that seem to be in between plant and animal. Some plants like the Venus fly trap, spring into action at times, others do move parts of their bodies (sun flowers considerably each day, but all plants at least slowly) etc. Various sea plants move locations, some more than a kilometer in their life times.

The world´s total bio-mass has never be higher than today. In the last ice age it was perhaps only 1% as numerous, certainly less than 10% as numerous. That means we now have at least 10 times more souls than in the last ice age. Where did this great increase in the number of souls come from since you say souls can not be born or die?

You still have not answered my several times asked question:
What happens to all the souls that were part of fertalized eggs that never developed to a multi-cellular organisms - the egg cell just decomposed after a week or so?

* btw, Do you also refuse to eat meat, like a good Hindu?

 

[hansda]

So you believe in a Hindu reincarnation.

Buddhism also believe in reincarnation. This is a proven fact. Some people were able to recollect their previous birth.

I.e. your soul may have given life to the body of a cow, etc. before animating you etc.

May be. It is believed we get birth of human life after many other births in the past. As soul is death-less it might have existed at the time of big-bang or before that.

Are viruses "living bodies" with soul?

Viruses can only live within a living cell and replicate there. They can not live outside living cell. So, it may be case of soul within soul.

Or do you believe only bacteria and more complex single-cell living animals like amoebas have souls?

All living bacteria and amoebas are having soul.

What about plant life forms � Do they have souls too? If not, why not? Note there are many living organisms, like blue/green alge, that seem to be in between plant and animal. Some plants like the Venus fly trap, spring into action at times, others do move parts of their bodies (sun flowers considerably each day, but all plants at least slowly) etc. Various sea plants move locations, some more than a kilometer in their life times.

Plants are having life. So, they are also having soul.

The world�s total bio-mass has never be higher than today. In the last ice age it was perhaps only 1% as numerous, certainly less than 10% as numerous. That means we now have at least 10 times more souls than in the last ice age. Where did this great increase in the number of souls come from since you say souls can not be born or die?

Soul is still a mystery as far as science is concerned. Science hasn't yet given much thought to the scientific contribution of soul. Earlier we have seen, soul can apply force and can interact with atom. As soul is still unknown completely, a definitive answer for the above can not be given at this stage, as to whether soul can be counted or it is one continuum.

You still have not answered my several times asked question:
What happens to all the souls that were part of fertalized eggs that never developed to a multi-cellular organisms - the egg cell just decomposed after a week or so?

These egg cells might have died after one week or so.

* btw, Do you also refuse to eat meat, like a good Hindu?

Though i am non-vegetarian, i believe to be a good Hindu is to be a good human being.

 

[Billy T]

Buddhism also believe in reincarnation. This is a proven fact. Some people were able to recollect their previous birth. ...

Yes, there are many such reports, some fabricated and some sincere. Bride Murphy was one of the more discussed in the US, some years ago. (I seem to recall that it was later shown that her grandmother had knowledge of all the confirmed events she recalled, and probably told her of them when she was a child.)

The thing I find quite interesting about almost all of them is that they were always important people in their prior lives. - None claim to have been a typical no body.

Members of the "Scientology Church" can hire professionals to help them "regress" - go back prior to their birth and recall their prior life. The Church makes a lot of money on this and almost never was the prior life reveled an unimportant one. They were at least a local leader if not a prince or princesses, etc. – Strange don´t you think.

Note the ability to recall prior events is not proof of anything. For example, I can recall flying over my college fraternity house - not so well now, but back then it was so real, I actually went upon the roof later to see if the details were correct. Recall of flying is quite a common human delusion as flying is impossible, but recalls that do not violate physics are harder to brand as "delusion."

I believe ALL our perceptions and experiences are created mainly in parietal brain activity in what I call the Real Time Simulation (and "we" are a small part of that simulation) Thus, these impossible delusions may have the same, equally valid foundation as everthing else we believe - for example I believe that I am typing on a computer now but it may not even exist.

 

[hansda]

Yes, there are many such reports, some fabricated and some sincere. Bride Murphy was one of the more discussed in the US, some years ago.

The thing I find quite interesting about almost all of them is that they were always important people in their prior lives. - None claim to have been a typical no body.

Members of the "Scientology Church" can hire professionals to help them "regress" - go back prior to their birth and recall their prior life. The Church makes a lot of money on this and almost never was the prior life reveled an unimportant one. They were at least a local leader if not a prince or princesses, etc. – Strange don´t you think.

In our school one of the class mate could recollect her previous birth. In her previous birth she was a boy. She recollected some incident about her previous birth, which was verified and found to be true. Though such cases are very rare.

 

[Billy T]

... Though such cases are very rare.

Yes they are. In fact I don´t think any exist where it is both possible to confirm AND prove that the recalling person had no knowledge of the event that did actually occur long ago as reliable independent records show. Quite probably, IMHO, that is why only famous prior lives that they may have read about (even years earlier as a child) are "recalled" - dozens of people recall being Joan of Arc. Etc. in their prior lives. I will be happy to read about any case you think can pass these two tests. As I recall, Bride Murphy´s case failed to pass. (I seem to recall, it was later shown that her grandmother had told her as a child of the things that she recalled that did in fact happen.)