Is the brain necessary for consciousness?

[DaveC426913]

2. The brain is some form of transducer which allows some universal property of consciousness to be accessed by a biological body and identified with it. When the brain dies, so does the linkage, and so the body loses consciousness as a radio loses its signal. This view was first presented to me, decades ago, as the "radio theory" of mind, at that time associated with famed neurologists John Eccles and Wilder Penfield.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not lend itself to the observable fact that a deteriorating mind doesn't just lose consciousness, it does many other things that can only be explained by the brain changing the mind - such as paranoid delusions, schizophrenia and a zillion other things that link mind directly to brain.

If the brain were merely a conduit, it would not be able to corrupt the thought processes of the mind.

To-wit: no matter how janky the radio gets, it can't alter the sports scores.

 

[TheVat]

The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not lend itself to the observable fact that a deteriorating mind doesn't just lose consciousness, it does many other things that can only be explained by the brain changing the mind - such as paranoid delusions, schizophrenia and a zillion other things that link mind directly to brain.

If the brain were merely a conduit, it would not be able to corrupt the thought processes of the mind.

To-wit: no matter how janky the radio gets, it can't alter the sports scores.

Yes, nice analogy. And I hope my post was clear that the second hypothesis (in light of the earlier portion of my post) was much weaker than the first one (mind and brain are one). I think you got this, but the out of context snip you took, atop a new page, could give a false impression as to my opinions.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, nice analogy. And I hope my post was clear that the second hypothesis (in light of the earlier portion of my post) was much weaker than the first one (mind and brain are one). I think you got this, but the out of context snip you took, atop a new page, could give a false impression as to my opinions.

Yes. I got the impression you didn't support it so much as include it for the sake of due diligence.

 

[Write4U]

If the brain were merely a conduit, it would not be able to corrupt the thought processes of the mind.

Microtubule catastrophe is responsible for Alzheimers.
But that is not connected to the part of the brain that controls homeostasis.
Brain functions are divided into specialized areas, more or less independent of other brain functions.

To-wit: no matter how janky the radio gets, it can't alter the sports scores.

It has nothing to do with the data as it has to do with brain function.

 

[James R]

Microtubule catastrophe is responsible for Alzheimers.

Quick! Phone all the dementia researchers. Write4U has FOUND THE CAUSE!

 

[Halc]

Human Brain Facts:

Some of your facts are mutually contradictory, such as a brain weighing more than 3 pounds, and also less than 3 pounds.
Most are quite accurate, but it consumes about 20 watts, not just 10. Some of your 'facts' work it out to 20, so they agree with this figure.

As for the brain acting as a sort of transducer, it would seem to be a testable claim, and one that fails that test.
The proponents of such models avoid testing precisely to avoid this falsification.

 

[Pinball1970]

Microtubule catastrophe is responsible for Alzheimers.
But that is not connected to the part of the brain that controls homeostasis

I really hope you have just got confused here.
Amyloid structures have been known to be a key factor in Alzheimer's for about 30 years or so.

 

[gmilam]

Understanding Alzheimer's in 3 minutes:

 

[Pinball1970]

Microtubule catastrophe is responsible for Alzheimers.
But that is not connected to the part of the brain that controls homeostasis.

This is a good example of where it is obvious you do not understand the very Basics.
This is better than posting links and pastes however, we get to know where the gaps are in your knowledge and understanding.
I would read the wiki article on Homeostasis, that would be a good start.

 

[Write4U]

This is a good example of where it is obvious you do not understand the very Basics.
This is better than posting links and pastes however, we get to know where the gaps are in your knowledge and understanding.
I would read the wiki article on Homeostasis, that would be a good start.

What makes you think I have not already read this?

I would suggest that you read up on microtubule catastrophe.
Here is a little excerpt.

Neurofibrillary tangles

In Alzheimer's disease, however, abnormal chemical changes cause tau to detach from microtubules and stick to other tau molecules, forming threads that eventually join to form tangles inside neurons. These tangles block the neuron's transport system, which harms the synaptic communication between neurons.May 16, 2017

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzh...actors/what-happens-brain-alzheimers-disease#

 

[Pinball1970]

What makes you think I have not already read this?

I would suggest that you read up on microtubule catastrophe.
Here is a little excerpt.

Neurofibrillary tangles

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzh...actors/what-happens-brain-alzheimers-disease#

I have already told you that homeostasis involves, different organs, tissues and cells.

Why keep referencing this with consciousness?

 

[Write4U]

I have already told you that homeostasis involves, different organs, tissues and cells.

Why keep referencing this with consciousness?

Please read up on "interoception" and the role the brain (microtubules) plays in Homeostasis.

And it is not a conscious function of the brain but sub-conscious of regulating and controlling homeostasis by a separate part of the brain.

See Anil Seth!

 

[Write4U]

I really hope you have just got confused here.
Amyloid structures have been known to be a key factor in Alzheimer's for about 30 years or so.

Read up on microtubule catastrophe and "tau tangles"

Diagram of how microtubules disintegrate with Alzheimer's disease

All this stuff is in my thread on microtubules. I have been at this for a few years now. Don't underestimate my familiarity with the subject.

 

[Pinball1970]

Read up on microtubule catastrophe and "tau tangles"

Diagram of how microtubules disintegrate with Alzheimer's disease

All this stuff is in my thread on microtubules. I have been at this for a few years now. Don't underestimate my familiarity with the subject.

I don't need to read up.
Why are you not reading what I keep posting?
It is NOT just the brain that is is involved with metabolic process and maintenance.

 

[Pinball1970]

All this stuff is in my thread on microtubules. I have been at this for a few years now. Don't underestimate my familiarity with the subject.

Yes and you post about quantum mechanics too, it does not mean you have understanding.

 

[Write4U]

Yes and you post about quantum mechanics too, it does not mean you have understanding.

That is not the question. The question is if it is informative and has a prominent place in current science.

These subjects at these levels are finally becoming available for observation and measurement.
These are exciting times for science.
I am but a minor messenger, trying to distribute some of the materials I personally find interesting.

 

[Write4U]

It is NOT just the brain that is is involved with metabolic process and maintenance.

Well, there are our bacterial symbionts.
And the entire body's microtubule-maintained intra-cellular and inter-cellular neural network, responding to the action potentials produced by the brain from neural input to the brain's sub-conscious homeostatic level.

Homeostasis doesn't need to be consciously self-aware. It is an autonomous regulation and control system for maintaining the body's biochemical balance.

 

[Write4U]

Some of your facts are mutually contradictory, such as a brain weighing more than 3 pounds, and also less than 3 pounds.

No brain is exactly the same. And brain capacity seems to depend on number of microtubules and their connective synapses in the brain.

Most are quite accurate, but it consumes about 20 watts, not just 10. Some of your 'facts' work it out to 20, so they agree with this figure.

That is good to hear.

As for the brain acting as a sort of transducer, it would seem to be a testable claim, and one that fails that test.

Microtubules are transducers. Cilia and flagella are driven by microtubule motors.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...cytoskeleton-within-the-cilium_fig1_326722397

Microtubules perform an enormous range of functions in differents parts of the body and for many different purposes.

The proponents of such models avoid testing precisely to avoid this falsification.

Don't forget that this may be due to several problems of making several simultaneous measurements at smaller than nano-scale.
Moreover, microtubules are dynamically changeable. This ability also makes the microtubule act as a variable potentiometer as well, with resultant variations in measurements of EM activity.

Moreover and more importantly, the measurement of microtubule function itself affects the microtubule function and is thus unreliable. Perhaps the flexibility in approximation may be to account for "observer interference"?

 

[wegs]

I’d say “yes” to the topic question but explaining the processes behind subjective experiences, thoughts and one’s personal self-awareness, remains a challenge. During wakefulness, for example, the cerebral cortex displays heightened activity including a connection between consciousness and neuron activity. But it’s still challenging to explain consciousness without getting philosophy involved.

Maybe a better question would be is it possible to explain consciousness strictly from a neuroscience perspective?

 

[Write4U]

I’d say “yes” to the topic question but explaining the processes behind subjective experiences, thoughts and one’s personal self-awareness, remains a challenge. During wakefulness, for example, the cerebral cortex displays heightened activity including a connection between consciousness and neuron activity. But it’s still challenging to explain consciousness without getting philosophy involved.

Indeed. There are two aspects to examining consciousness. There is Chalmer's philosophical "hard question" of what consciousness" is, and Tegmark's proposal that we should concentrate on neurological "hard facts" that can be identified and used in a model.

Maybe a better question would be is it possible to explain consciousness strictly from a neuroscience perspective?

And that question prompted Tegmark's proposal to begin with gathering "hard facts" of what we already know from neuroscience. Tegmark suggests that we (our brains) already possess all the evolved necessary neurological tools for an emergent self-aware conscious experience of the brain's thought processes.