What's new

We are the brain, we are the neurons...

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
28 Jul 2005
5,172
169
123
Here I sit, in this body of mine--the extension of myself--weighing in at just around 1 kilogram (2.2046 pounds) up and running on drugs, (which I guess we can say are what all chemical substances can be called) charged with internal electrical circuitry, and explaining myself through this means; and yet wondering:

With even the some 100 billion neurons that I consist of, I cannot remember the 9,000 books by heart that Kim Peek has. I am not able to sculpt to 95% accuracy an animal that I have just seen for the first time on TV within a 20 minute time frame of having seen it, as Alonzo Clemons can.

But I can close almost all my whole brain down for repairs (sleep) and still be awakened by an alarm clock--basically meaning I can be very much unaware of even existing, and then pull out of that state. I can 'see' by creative process, an entity that does not exist and which I have never gotten signals from my physical eyes about. Most of all, maybe, I can sit in here and comtemplate myself comtemplating how others think and feel--something which we humans have an advantage in over all other animals.

I am so strong as to be able to work around faults due to damage--such as a greatly paralyzed brain remaps itself to make up for lost functions--yet so weak that even a cup of good strong coffee will throw me into a rush that I would otherwise not have wanted to bring on. Well, no...I am not being fully honest here, now am I? ok, I will open up and face the facts. Yes, I actually had been craving that cup of coffee. I have built a positive feedback in my pleasure-reward system that kicks in a desire for that 'rush.'​

The brain. Don't leave home without it--which I sometimes tend to do? As far as we can understand at the moment, this is it. The philosophers of old were mistaken due to lack of knowledge, experience, and study--thinking was not a function of our hearts or lungs. Descartes had been mistaken in seing the pineal gland as being the seat of higher thought--the soul.

We can far more clearly see at the moment that what we are as regards cognitive function and mental disposition (beyond genetics) is the brain itself. But what about the idea of 'soul'--some invisible essense which from (and due to) ancient times had been seen as our cognitive function? Is that the penile gland? Is it the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as the Greek physician Galen (129-199 CE) had thought?

Obviously, as the evidence continues to come in, even, we can see that the notion of anything beyond the mere material that the brain is, as being the conscious, aware, and operative function of mind, is a false one. There most evidently is no 'soul' or 'spirit' as the old religio-philosophical thinkers of old would have had us believe. We are the brain. . . we are the neurons.

With this OP, I open this explanation and discussion/informal debate on the matter of what the brain is. The areas that this touches on and has relevancy to are those of soul, spirit (as usually used in religious belief-systems; also see Ghost Stories Thread) (im)mortality, reincarnation, and, among others, the general scientific fields.

My first presentations (soon to come) will more so be about neurology and brain function that provides evidence for the conclusion I am arguing for.




BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Human Brain-A Guided Tour by Susan Greenfield, 1997; The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, 2007; The Blank Slate-The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, 2002; Dreaming Reality-How Dreaming Keeps Us Sane, or Can Drive Us Mad by Joe Griffin & Ivan Tyrrell, 2004; The Science of Good & Evil--Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule by Michael Shermer, 2004; Scientific American related issues (on going); Science related issues (on going); Nature related issues (on going); NewScientist related issues; Sceptic related issues (on going); Psychology Today related issues; and other sources as they come up. I will usually identify them individually when the need for such is felt to be important.
 
Last edited:
The corporeal mind

Chemistry is interesting... I think of the frequency at which ceretonin is created in the brain... the brain actually uses electrical signals at a spicific frequency to create ceretonin... hahaha... around 12hz. Waking consciousness is said to be within the approximate range between 20hz and 40hz (beta)... I am sorry that I cannot remember my sources for this information. All I can say is that scalar technology uses this information to manipulate space and animals... haha... I must sound like a freek. My point is that our brain can be a puppet for the use of external forces. Our senses are essential to internalizing the outside world. The inside of our ear is specially designed to recognize sound using the phi ratio (approx 3:5)... the same ratio that the Parthanon was created with. It is one of the most naturally occurring ratios. Conches (sea shells), whirl pool, etc. Scalar technology sometimes works with antenas using this ratio.

Also, the nose has the only gland in the body that is directly connected to the brain and exposed to the outside world all the time. Not only that, but the nose has a tad of mercury in it, much like birds, who base their migration on the mercury levels in their nose. Then there's the sense of touch... hahaha... with all the neurons running through our nervous system, I can begin to conclude that the brain is not only in one spot, or only one large mass of neural fibers. The stomach is actually the location in the body with the second highest amount of neurons.

Taste and vision... haha... well... taste allows us to judge the use of objects in the external world. I think of bone. If you lick a bone, it has a much different sensation then stone. The tongue is a finely tuned finger. Images are only body sensations using the nerves in the eye to perceive the external world pictorially and download this information at quite a slower rate than that which the images were percieved.

If we consider the pictorial perception of the world as a function of the imagination, and imagination is immaterial, than the psyche or soul, which also uses the other senses to make sence of the world, is definitely grounded in the whole body.

Have you read, "The User Illusion" by Tor Norretranders? It is a wealth of sociological and physical information in conjunction with technology and how we see the world... one of my favorite books... it even reduces our senses to the amount, in "bits", not bytes, that our waking consciousnes actually absorbs in comparison with the amount of information that our senses can potentially sense...haha. I found consciousness to be quite over rated after reading the book... and if consciousness is not so great, what is? The ghost... the spirit... which exists beyond conscious perception.☝:p
 
Well,

very interested discussion. I am not a specialist as you guys are, but I was impressed by the fact that the brain uses around 20% of human energy intake. To have survived during millions of years of evolution, it must have been quite a useful device.
 
What's weird is when you know your brain isn't working correctly. I was very ill and was hallucinating. I know that vacuum cleaners can't talk, but mine was talking to me! I knew something was really wrong. Later that night I had angels talking to me. I knew that wasn't real either but I was too sick to do anything....my mom found me a day later unconscious by the front door of my house! Also, I had a horseback riding accident and got the back of my head split open from a kick, and I couldn't see clearly for many weeks. (not to mention walk in a straight line) My eyes were just fine, but the part of your brain that process vision had suffered trauma.
 
We are the neurons! That offers a lot of hope, and at least I would say, more hope than say, taking on a religion, or just reading motivational books.

In short, neuroscientists are figuring out what parts of the brain develop best when, what parts are plastic throughout life, what parts are only plastic at one time in life, and a lot of other stuff that will be helpful in man's ultimate quest, the quest for happiness (at least I would argue that that is man's ultimate quest).

It offers potential ideas for curing psychopathy (actual the garden varety type of psychopath easily passes for a normal person till one gets to know them well, and there are a lot of garden variety type psychopaths out there). It offers clues to why certain people get involved in criminal activity, to why people have short attention spans (the better control over attention one has, the more chances one has of entering into a state of happy but complete concentration [something psychologists refer to as flow], the more chances one will be able to direct one's attention to states of mind that foster happiness).

It may also be helpful in getting people to take on more noble qualities, such as empathy, altruism, and being less materialistic, all stuff that as we reach globalism, when one economy effects that of another across the world, when the environment is highly stressed, and the actions we take here affect those in another country, would all be extremely useful traits to take on, both for smoother interdependence, and for the sometimes very elusive seeming state of happiness.

We are the neurons gives us something that we can figure out and later manipulate towards our ultimate goals.
 
You have touched on a very important point there, Revenant...a bit of foreshadowing indeed ! Wow... I intend to eventually come to that matter--that of application, if you will.

That is exactly right, Goldigirl! Especially is it more, and I will use the term fascinating, when after a fairly deep degree of study in the area of brain operation and build, one ponders that in those momentary states of 'not usual.' I will never forget how my uncle--who I've mentioned before--noticed something was wrong with the way he had been working and it was later found to be a tumor, or one Japanese lady who started behaving strangely, and was found lying in bed shaking uncontrollably one morning--again, a tumor. (which one removed, put her back to her normal self)

BUT...my heart goes out to you Goldigirl, you have had some hard luck, in a way. You have touched on a major point too--rather than just the sensory input 'pipelines,' it is the 'processing centers' and 'maps' that really make the difference.

While I have not read the book The User Illusion, I will try to get my hands on a copy to have a look at it. From the magazines/journals I do regularly recieve, I have come across the study data which shows that opitical sensory signals do go the the memory-laying area, and that imagination stems from that area too. I would be hesitant to draw too much from that at the moment, but will keep my eye out for more information there. I am not familiar with 'scalar' technology, however, other than to know that it's yet to be a mainstream field within science. I'll keep my eye open there too.

And, then, speaking of 'eye,' I will present just a little of that matter here:

Light is basically an electromagnetic thing. It primarily pours in through the pupil and hits the retina in the back. This term, 'retina' is from the Latin 'rete' meaning 'net,' because that's kind of what it looks like under a microscope. Here the photos first hit the Ganglion cells .(so named because they came from those beings in Star Trek..NO...AMERICAN JOKE hee,hee, hee) Then the next layer will be the Amacrine cells, Horizontal cells, and bipolar cells. (has nothing to do with the neurological 'illness')

After this there are the Photoreceptor cells--cones and rods--which has been termed the 'photoreceptor mosaic.' These cells transfer the light energy into neural signals through and along with an event called Microsaccades.窶。@ It is here where different levels of excitement will produce the colors (various 'wave' frequencies) too.

The impulses then zip along the optic nerves, right eye to left hemisphere, left to right, to the Lateral geniculate nucleus on either side of the brain--this is in the thalamus, primarily a sensory related area. From this nucleus the messages travel on to the primary visual cortex at the mid back of the brain, through neuronal chords called optic radiations.

With this there is noisy 'chatter' within firing systems between here and the frontal cortex areas,the hypothalamus and hippocampus, and others. Not only is processing being done, but short term memory is being laid down too.

I will share some examples of damages that show that it is these processing functions more than anything else that gives us sight--as we already have with Goldiegirl's most unfortunate experience. Again, all the embedding is leading to conclusions far down the road; as well as bolstering the learning process.





窶。@ツ Otherwise these are minuscule ocular meanderings; small, consciously undetectable movements of the eyes to keep a stationary view in the consciously aware zone. See Microsaccades as an Overt Measure of Covert Attention Shifts by Z.M. Hafed and J.J. Clark in VISION RESEARCH Vol 42, pp2533-2545, '02; Microsaccades Counteract Visual Fading during Fixation by S. Martinez-Conde, S.L. Macknik, X.G. Troncoso and T.A. Dyar in NEURON, Vol 49, pp297-305, '06;
 
I've suffered from depression, anxiety and panic disorder since I was a child. Nothing has helped me cope with those illnesses more than accepting the evidence that I am my brain and nothing more.

I know that I have these illnesses partly because I inherited a predisposition from both my parents, who each inherited it from one of their parents. I know that this predisposition was realised because of learned behaviour from my parents when growing up. I know that I continue to suffer because my brain is habituated to those ways of thinking, stuck in a loop of forming neural pathways in a particular way, exacerbated by a chemical imbalance.

This knowledge has already helped me find respite from my symptoms. I know that if I keep my brain busy it has less opportunity for dwelling on anxieties, since my brain can only do so many things at once. I have learned to recognise patterns of behaviour, so I understand why I feel and act a certain way. Understanding is the first step to overcoming.

I know I'll never be cured, and strange to say, that knowledge has helped me more than anything. My brain was built this way and without these illnesses I wouldn't be me anymore. Acceptance is the second step to overcoming.

Before I had this knowledge I believed all kinds of things.

As a child I believed that god was watching me, and if I put one foot wrong I would be punished. So I tiptoed around, mortally afraid of what would happen if I made a mistake. I was in an almost constant state of panic.

As a teenager, I thought I had been reincarnated from some evil person, and that these illnesses were my punishment.

In my twenties I thought mental illness wasn't real, that I was just letting myself feel this way, and if I was strong enough I could pull myself together. I believed it was down to weakness and lack of character. I felt guilty when I was ill, that I was letting people down, so I tried to soldier on, which only made me feel worse because I pushed myself too hard.

Now I know that it's all in my brain I can rationalise. Although I can't control the fact that I have these illnesses, I can try to control the symptoms as they arise, and the more I know about what's causing them the easier that is.

When I feel myself starting to panic I ask myself "What's the worst that can happen?" While my brain gets busy answering that question I can already feel myself calming down.

When I feel depressed I just remind myself that my brain chemicals are out of whack and I let myself wallow for a while because I know I'll pick back up again sooner or later. Mental illness is physical illness, and just like with any physical illness, it's OK to take it easy when you don't feel well.

So yes, my Martian brother, thank goodness we are the brain - I wouldn't want it any other way! 👍
 
Thank you for relating your story with us Tsuyoiko chan. I have known some people with similar dispositions, and to some extent can, at least imagine that I empathize with them. It is so educating a matter to see how you have essentially overcome what could have potentially otherwise led to major anit-social states. Never forget, Tsyoiko chan, that your Martian brother is always right here for you !

With that, I'd like to touch on the visual matter just a little more, here.

As these some 12 different kinds of ganglion cells① are stimulated by the chemical processes due to the photons interaction, they in turn pass on the information to the cones and rods, as mentioned before. What more likely appears to be happening, is that light is taken in by parts--not as a whole--in a constant movie-like effect. (which also correlates with Microsaccade events)

These twelve distinct componants of visual intake (due to the 12 different ganglion cells which come first in order) travel to somewhat distinct visual brain regions--some conscious, some not.② Some very fast processing is done to put all the parts together to get a whole. This element will be seen as I point out a few visual cortext damage cases below.

Also, as I had mentioned in my earlier post there is all the 'chatter' after that, but one interesting thing is the difference in difficulty of 'top-down' visualizing. Top-down events are like 'searching for Waldo' events ('bottom-up' are like finding a red balloon among a large number of only blue ones) and take some 22-34 Hz in the signal exchange and processing with the prefrontal cortex area. Bottom up events take 35-55 Hz, and color identification 60 Hz.③

An Italian boy was eventual understood to be blind in one eye by his parents at the age of 6. Ophthalmologists could find no reason for that blindness at all, the eye was perfectly normal, and there appeared to be no brain damage at all. In time, however, it was learned that in infancy, the boy had had a small eye infection, and had been prescribed to wear a bandage over that eye for about two weeks.

What had happend then, is that since at that point in time neurons and dendrites are still developing and 'settling' into maps, the cortical cells which were in that eye's target were 'seen' as not being there, and were thus largely taken over by those of the other eye, and possibly some other somatosensory functions. That eye was still working, only the receptors had been re-wired (plasticity) to other functions, so the signals ran to a dead-end street.④

One stroke victim in her 40s had had cells damaged in a highly localized area of the visual cortex. While she could see all stationary objects just as well as anyone else, she could not see moving objects. (cf with above studies showing differentiated parts being later merged to make a singe view) Pouring tea was very difficult, as it appeared frozen to her. Talking with people was hard--she couldn't see mouths move, nor catch facial expression change--and she had to be very, very careful when walking in a crowd or tyring to cross streets. She had to lean on auditory input much more.

Blind Sight patients are blind to a certain object in a field of view, although they can point to it if asked to guess where that object is--even though claiming to not see it. The brain components of visual intake appear to be there, but the consciousness of actually seeing the object is not, therefore there is recognition of something without awareness of it--it's not seen.

Agnosia is a condition characterized by the ability to see objects without being to identify them or see correlation with other objects, while prosopagnosia which is kind of an opposite to Blind Sight, is that condition in which faces can be seen, and are registered fully, but cannot be recognized. So here we have awareness without recognition.​

We know there can be problems with the retina or with the chords and such too, which impare vision--and of course with the simple shape of the eyeball...I wear glasses. Yet, the main thing here, is that even with the light coming in properly, with all else held constant, if the visual cortex area is not fully functioning correctly, we have problems that reach all the way down to our very essence of self: the conscious. Also, it is very much a material thing. I will proceed to another area in this embedding next.





① See post#6--also there are 10 different types of bipolar cells, and 27 different amacrine cell types...all which differentiate visual signals; ②All within the visual cortex, of course--The Movies In Our Eye in SCIENCE Vol 316, April '07, pp54-61, by F. Werblin & B. Roska; ③Neural Networks Debunk Phrenology in SCIENCE Vol 316, June '07, pp1578,1579 on studies by Womelsdorf et al. and Saalmann et al.; ④Also supported by studies done by M. Sur & J. Rubenstein in Patterning and Plasticity of the Cerebral Cortex, SCINECE Vol 310, Nov '05, pp805-809, and, by S. Strittmatter of Yale University School of Medicine as reported on in SCIENCE, Mutant Mice Reveal Secrets of the Brain's Impressionable Youth, Vol 309, Sep 30, p2145.
 
I had this whole long thing written out yesterday but I lost it.

Try again, slightly abridged.

The universe.. swirls, moves, affects, is affected, etc., at random, in chaos, guided only by the most basic of physical laws. Planets collide, planets are created, galaxies collide, life, death, etc.

Whether you believe in apriori design or not, it is perfectly designed in principle, because it permits all realities and possibilities to exist provided circumstances materialize sufficiently. There is no bearded grandfather in the clouds patting life on the bottom and helping it along, this much is clear. But even for the believer, it does violence to the very idea of God and creation if creation requires constant maintenance and upkeep. No area of the universe exists behind orange pylons with a sign that says "Sorry, currently under construction to serve you better".

The human experience is the same. On this planet, via circumstances rooted in energies still moving as a result of the big bang, we develop. The brain: all possibilities exist; people born with mental difficulties, mental aptitudes, geniuses, dimwits, people with half a brain, brain tumors, ALL of these possibilties must exist in a world without limitation. Regardless of whether we deem these possibilities and mainfestations to be good or bad, they exist. Some have brown eyes, some have green eyes, some have no eyes. These are all a necessary function of the concept of 'eyes'.

Generally speaking however, there is a 'norm'; there is a loosely defined average which allows most of the world's population to share the same joys and sorrows, to nod in agreement on certain things.

Here, we see that light affects the glands of the brian via the eyes, the circadian rhythms regulating our hormonal responses to the environment, neurons and synapses fire away happily creating the experience of life for us, thought, emotion, etc. Here, existing in tandem with all these wonderful physiological and neurochemical processes which are star dust energies condensed to slow vibrations, Mars Man boldly asks, is there a soul?

This is where I paused yesterday and the reason why I lost my previous post. It's tough to answer. Obviously its difficult via science to prove the existence of something that is so intangible. I think it's really something you end up having faith in based on experience. You may or may not be able to point to the day you decided you believed, but even if you could, that day probably wasn't a snap judgement but the critical mass of a series of previous events.

We here in the West have to remember that we lead a unique way of life. It's the most detached, individualistic, hedonistic and insulated way of life to have ever existed on this planet. The average Westerner lives 10X better than royalty did just a couple of centuries ago and struggles far less relatively speaking. Yet we struggle spiritually. Organized religion has failed many of us.

I'm a firm believer in the hierarchy of needs. I think before you can worry about this soul business, this that and the other thing, you have to be fed, watered and clothed. Before you can sleep you must secure shelter. So once you have fulfilled all these needs you are able to migrate upwards and start to gratify your spiritual needs, the need for community, romance, validation as an individual, and finally the need to give back or what's otherwise known as 'agape'.

Living in the West with all its distractions, products, services, and concordant issues with job status, money, social capital and so on, prevents us from ever really reaching the top. People in other parts of the world which are free of major warfare and relatively developed (to the surprise of most Westerners) are extremely satisfied and happy with what they have. They quickly move up the ladder and find a greater sense of community whereas we become increasingly detached.

My point in saying all this is that I do not believe we really answer the spiritual call, and perhaps the 'powers that be' have designed it this way, for an unawakened populous is a sure source of income if its constantly scared into buying things. We're on a treadmail trying to reach that light at the end of the tunnel. Those before us, those of the Eastern tradition who have delved deeply into the essence of the human experience, tell us there is indeed a soul. I would consider their findings far richer than anything I could hope to find on TV on Sunday mornings here in the West, or in the self help section of a local book store. That is just the blind leading the blind.

So despite the volumes of scientific discourse on how the brain operates, I think it falls short of where we should really be looking for the soul. And we as a people (we in the West) have fallen further away from this search despite moving forward in terms of technology and utility.

I've met others who have rebuked all of it and moved towards a life of contemplation, and they are much happier. As absurd as that seems, the result is clear and I cannot deny it. I think this is a true modern-day leap of faith and the only way to really find out.

Tsuyoiko said:
Now I know that it's all in my brain I can rationalise. Although I can't control the fact that I have these illnesses, I can try to control the symptoms as they arise, and the more I know about what's causing them the easier that is.

When I feel myself starting to panic I ask myself "What's the worst that can happen?" While my brain gets busy answering that question I can already feel myself calming down.

I don't mean to take away from what you've said, as it's obviously foundational to your ability to cope with mental illness. But I would say the dialogue within yourself that helps you rationalize things and the ability for you to handle your mental illness is an interplay between your soul, your essence, and the confines of the chemically imbalanced brain it's filtered through. The fact that you can even separate yourself from the illness conceptually, says something.
 
I would say the dialogue within yourself that helps you rationalize things and the ability for you to handle your mental illness is an interplay between your soul, your essence, and the confines of the chemically imbalanced brain it's filtered through.
I don't see why it's necessary to invoke a soul that's separate from my brain. What would that interplay explain that can't be adequately accounted for without it?
 
The wider implications for whether a soul exists or not vary in importance based on the individual asking. If you see no purpose in it then that's fine. For me, if there was some reason why I'd want to believe in a soul as it relates to mental illness, it would be that I'd be able to take solace in the knowledge that I'm not confined or trapped by the deficiencies of my brain and that there is an unspoiled, salvagable 'me' in there somewhere.

It also leads to discussions on the afterlife, the nature of the human experience (even the very existence of that human experience) and my other things which again, may or may not present something of interest to the one asking.
 
Thanks for your reply bakaKanadajin :)

For me, if there was some reason why I'd want to believe in a soul as it relates to mental illness, it would be that I'd be able to take solace in the knowledge that I'm not confined or trapped by the deficiencies of my brain and that there is an unspoiled, salvagable 'me' in there somewhere.
I've come to accept the 'deficiencies' of my brain as part and parcel of who I am. I don't even really view them in a negative sense anymore. I'd rather use words like characteristics or traits, than refer to them as deficiencies or shortcomings. That sounds strange, I know. But without these illnesses I wouldn't be me anymore. If I was cured, who knows what else I'd lose? It seems doubtful that each part of my personality is distinct. When I start to panic, the world comes into sharp focus and my powers of observation and insight are enhanced. When I feel depressed, I start to analyse every miniscule thing that's happening around me. Those skills of observation and analysis serve me well, and I doubt if I would have them in the same degree if not for my illness. So I take the rough with the smooth.

But to get back on topic...😊

The wider implications for whether a soul exists or not vary in importance based on the individual asking...
It also leads to discussions on the afterlife, the nature of the human experience (even the very existence of that human experience) and my other things which again, may or may not present something of interest to the one asking.
How important it is to a given individual is irrelevant to whether it exists or not in reality. The question has always been a very important one to me, which is why I sought hard for an answer. And that answer is that there is nothing about the human mind that can't be explained in terms of the brain.
 
Very interesting thread indeed. It is very intriguing to think that we are only our brains or neurons, if I'm reading you right. Perhaps we are, in a sense, just a brain in a vat of life-sustaining liquid. The move The Matrix touches upon this idea. What if a scientist has taken our brain, put it in a vat, and hooked up wires to certain parts of our brain to simulate the electric signals and impulses we receive from all five of our senses? Certainly if this were true, any number of realities could be conjured up instantly. And, to the poor brain, it wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This whole forum, my fingers typing, the keyboard, and everyone here could just be the result of some mad scientist pumping electrical impulses into the visual and tactile parts of my brain.

A man named Descartes thought much about this. He figured, how can what we perceive as reality really be real? Since my senses can deceive me, and they often do (such as Goldiegirl having a vacuum talk to her) how can it be possible in any way to trust our senses? Therefore, Descartes concluded, the only truth in the world is the brain or thinking. "Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)," was how he put it. He reasoned that the only thing he knows to not deceive him is his thinking, the only finality in the universe. The entire universe around us could be a result of our thinking.

This brings into play another interesting idea: Solipsism. Basically, what Solipsism states, is that my (I will explain why I used "my" and not "our" later) brain has created the entire universe, stars, planets, people, and conditions around me. None of you are real and are a result of my awareness. In a sense, I am a god. That is the basic idea behind Solipsism. The reason I used "my" is because the Solipsist believes he is the only mind in existence, in a sense a god, and everyone else is a figment of his imagination. The only bad thing about Solipsism is that you cannot prove or disprove it. You could tell the Solipsist, "But there are plenty of Solipsists who have died throughout the ages," but he could simply reason that is because he created them and he is the true Solipsist. Anyways, I think I've typed enough. Cogito, ergo sum!
 
If we're truly limited by the construction of our brains, self-improvement wouldn't exist. There are many things, even for the mentally healthy, that people would like to change about themselves. There is always a way to change, it's a matter of not succumbing to the ego and repeating our past mistakes. It's the reason why smokers quit smoking despite having effectively wired themselves to respond to nicotine. Active change is desired.

Somewhere, something is driving that change. Ok so someone hacked up a lump of blood and that scared them, but after that initial jolt there's a force which reminds itself of the desire, the will, the need to quit. After a certain amount of time you have to cease arguments for self-preservation and survival (saying that quitting has to do strictly with a fear response from seeing evidence of injury, e.g that lump of blood or a blurry chest x-ray).

What about people who persevere against the fight/flight response of their brains and prevail despite overwhelming odds?

We are constantly overriding the hard wiring of the brain despite being seemingly limited to its confines. There are some things humans do that really don't appear connected with our innate patterns of human behaviour or even the culture imparted to us from our respective social groups.
 
Whether the mind id a construct of something ethereal or is part of the wiring of our brains, there isn't yet enough evidence to say. I would guess that self improvement and desire are all part of our wiring. The plasticity of the brain has become the subject of a lot of study these days. Here I'm guessing that the new neurons that our brains are always producing even into our eighties might be what enable us to change. Train your mind. Change your Brain is an easy to read book on some of the recent discoveries of the brain in regards to our ability to improve.
 
I hardly know what is meant by the soul, I mean, were certain parts of the brain to be either rewired (using a magnet that has helped a few people become less depressed, it's still a new technique that is under trial), or removed, the results can be astounding. A guy who was mild mannered, self-controlled, and generally happy couldn't control his rage or impulses after a bar of steel flew into his head and damaged the frontal cortex, and when we look at any part of what we would call ourselves, all parts are in constant change, there's nothing of which we can say, this is the unchanging soul.
 
Thanks for sharing and joining in there folks ! That was a nice read there, BakaKanadajin san--I can understand the flustration at having lost the original.

Again, as on another thread, I apologize for having not been able to get back here sooner, to keep the flow going. As for presenting data and evidence, upon which to argue for the conclusion given in that abstract of a form in the OP, I could envisage at least some 5 pages to come. I am confident that almost all points raised since my last post, will be covered. (and some have, to a small extent, already, in the OP--for example, Descartes didn't understand the brain very well, and plasticity is a major function of some of the brain, and the general roots for religious belief-systems' concept of 'soul' or 'spirit' are steeped in ignorance on this point.)

Yes, Half-n-Half san, you're reading correctly. I have major concerns about Solipsism, however, because all evidence very clearly appears to say that my mother (for example) had consciousness separate from mine, and yet prior to mine, some of which, nevertheless, overlapped--therefore, I was not in existence before a certain point in time in her consciousness, but always was conscious of my existence from the point of having become conscious of it--except when I sleep, or the few times I have lost consciousness. Anyway, that's a bit too early for the flow at present. (if not totally off-topic)

I will pick up with the next segment of data--smelling

'Just follow your nose!,' might be some advice to 'act in accordance with a 'gut' feeling, that could be heard from time to time. That might be due to the sense of smell's seemingly being a very basic and fundamental information gathering method. There is some truth to that.

Inside the nasal cavity, just up above the turbinate structures, we have a patch of olfactory nerves (fascicles; also called cilia) situated in mucous membrane called the olfactory epithelium. These patches of about 6.45 sq. centimeters each, contain several million① of these cilia in each olfactory (hereafter OF) epithelium. Along with these odorant sensing cells there are also glial-like supporting cells and basal cells--these latter being stem cells that differentiate into OF cells as they die off.②

Odorants (chemical compounds of generally 15 to 300 molecular weight) hit this area with the some 10% of air that flows across the epithelium naturally--a strong, deep draw will bring a little higher percentage, maybe, or at least increase odorant hits.③ Almost all compounds are lipid soluble and are of organic origin, so they 'melt' into the epithelium and the 'keys' fit into the receptors (OF neurons) that allow that particular 'key.'

These OF neurons are also bipolar. The chemosensitive ends (unmyelinated axons) create a signal which travels up the neuron, through the cribiform plate (ethmoid bone--a very porous bone separating the oral/nasal cavities from the brain) and into the olfactory bulb (OFB). Here they merge together with Periglomerular cells (also called interneurons because they simply run between neurons only), Tufted cells and Mitral cells. These latter two project through the olfactory tract to the primary olfactory cortical areas (OFC--which usually is for Olfactory Cortex).​

And with that, I suddenly got a whiff of lunch...so I'd better get to it, and then come back here afterwards!



① Some estimates are as high as 50 million. see: Physiology of Behavior 7th Ed. by N.R. Carlson, 2001;
② The olfactory system is one of the greater cell reproducing areas, and was the first area to be found to do so;
③ Keep in mind that some odorants travel up from the oral cavity when eating or breating with the mouth too;
 
This brings into play another interesting idea: Solipsism.
I just realised something scary ☝

Whenever I can't choose between two unprovable ideas, I usually appeal to Ockham's razor; don't multiply entities beyond necessity. But surely in this case, Ockham's razor would require me to decide in favour of solipsism. 😲
 
If we're truly limited by the construction of our brains, self-improvement wouldn't exist.
I disagree. As Revenant has already said, the brain is to some degree plastic, and remains so throughout life. If it were otherwise, learning wouldn't be possible. In contrast, isn't the soul usually seen as an unchanging essence? So actually, mind=brain seems to me to allow for self-improvement more than the existence of a soul.
 
Yes, Half-n-Half san, you're reading correctly. I have major concerns about Solipsism, however, because all evidence very clearly appears to say that my mother (for example) had consciousness separate from mine, and yet prior to mine, some of which, nevertheless, overlapped--therefore, I was not in existence before a certain point in time in her consciousness, but always was conscious of my existence from the point of having become conscious of it--except when I sleep, or the few times I have lost consciousness. Anyway, that's a bit too early for the flow at present. (if not totally off-topic)
Well, actually, that is the major problem with Solipsism. A true Solipsist would say that all the people who have lived before him are simply the result of his over-active mind. Your mother was never "alive" before you, you simply created a story behind her to convince yourself she was. The Solipsist's mind wants to create challenges for itself. That is the reasoning behind a Solipsist not being able to play the piano like Beethoven or paint like Picasso. If his mind knew all those things, life would be an utter drag.
I just realised something scary
Whenever I can't choose between two unprovable ideas, I usually appeal to Ockham's razor; don't multiply entities beyond necessity. But surely in this case, Ockham's razor would require me to decide in favour of solipsism.
This post made me chuckle 😊.
 
By self improvement I mean those moments where we truly take stock of our lives and strive to increase our happiness and right the wrongs we've done to others. Not necessarily just adaptation or learning as it pertains to the survival requirements of the brain. Mind=brain allows for change and adaptation but what allows for, or drives real, tangible growth as a person?

This is clearly a topic, much like the existence of God, which is not proveable via science so I think proponents of the soul will have a hard time participating. I already feel at a loss for sources outside of experience and mere observation.
😌

As for Solipsism and Ockham's razor, I think the most probable scenario is that the physical evidence of evolution points to the likelihood that my mother does exist and I came from her 20-something years ago. If I was the figment of someone elses imagination I'd cease to exist the moment they died. But so far *knock on wood* that person apparently hasn't died yet. If I follow it correctly, at some point, the mind where I'm contained and sourced from (where we're all from) must cease.
 
As for Solipsism and Ockham's razor, I think the most probable scenario is that the physical evidence of evolution points to the likelihood that my mother does exist and I came from her 20-something years ago. If I was the figment of someone elses imagination I'd cease to exist the moment they died. But so far *knock on wood* that person apparently hasn't died yet. If I follow it correctly, at some point, the mind where I'm contained and sourced from (where we're all from) must cease.
I think you're missing the point. The point of Solipsism isn't that someone else is the "over mind" that created the universe. It is that YOU are the creator, having created your mother, me, and all those around you. Can you really know 100% that the people around you have awareness and consciousness just like you, and are not made up? In a sense, your brain has purposely forgotten your god-like state so that you may experience your universe as a normal person. Your brain has tricked yourself into thinking there were others before you. All of the great musicians, artists, theories, mathematics, and so on are what you possess in your "true" brain; your mind has simply "forgotten" them so that you do not become bored. You are not the figment of someone else's imagination because they are the figment of yours. Of course, if Solipsism were true, I would be the solipsist, having created you, sir bakaKanadajin. This is what I meant before that Solipsism cannot be proven or disproved.
 
Well, as this thread develops, I intend to show as clearly, realistically and logically as I can, and in all fairness to other considerations, that--as the conclusion-like title states--we are the brain, the neurons, and when that total and completely inclusive system breaks down, we break down. When that single genetically and biologically formed organ's cells all die, all that makes us dies.

The concept of soul or spirit that is under more direct focus here, is that concept, as brought out by religious belief-systems of old (pre-Judaic, even, but reinterpreted as time went on, and so on....) that 1. an individual human's (as opposed to animal) consciousness is something beyond and independent of our physical selves, and 2. the higher respected elements of altruism, judgement, and various attachements that humans show capacity of, are non-physical elements.

By the process of elimination, and presenting the data first, I am working to support my argument rather than by presenting the argument firstly. It's very much like this: here's the data, the facts, and statistics...and here's the most substantiated and universally accepted conclusions on that. The cumulative results of those conclusions lead to this best evidenced understanding--understanding A. In that understanding A is THE most informed and substantiated and valid one between the two choices of understandings A and B, understanding B, then, is incorrect, inaccurate, and is the least substantiated.

Unfortunately, this is not a subject which can (and should never be) handled in a handful of posts, even. I encourage you all to follow along over the period of time...and of course join in, as you are doing. (simply, it happens to be that I will be making what might seem to be run-on posts about detail which doesn't seem to have much bearing, for some time to come)
 
I think you're missing the point. The point of Solipsism isn't that someone else is the "over mind" that created the universe. It is that YOU are the creator, having created your mother, me, and all those around you. Can you really know 100% that the people around you have awareness and consciousness just like you, and are not made up? In a sense, your brain has purposely forgotten your god-like state so that you may experience your universe as a normal person. Your brain has tricked yourself into thinking there were others before you. All of the great musicians, artists, theories, mathematics, and so on are what you possess in your "true" brain; your mind has simply "forgotten" them so that you do not become bored. You are not the figment of someone else's imagination because they are the figment of yours. Of course, if Solipsism were true, I would be the solipsist, having created you, sir bakaKanadajin. This is what I meant before that Solipsism cannot be proven or disproved.

Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like a twisted kind of rationalism; it's all about the speaker's mind and no one else's, except the supoosition that this mind (brain, body, person) actually exists is itself in question let alone the purity or provability of the incoming knowledge.

So what happens when two solopsists meet each other? I think one would have to try and kill the other to prove he was the product of his own mind and not someone else's. Last man standing is the true solopsist.
 
By self improvement I mean those moments where we truly take stock of our lives and strive to increase our happiness and right the wrongs we've done to others. Not necessarily just adaptation or learning as it pertains to the survival requirements of the brain. Mind=brain allows for change and adaptation but what allows for, or drives real, tangible growth as a person?
Plasticity I'd guess. Possibly some of the most difficult mental training that the Buddhists undertake are meant to change the person's character, and the changes that have been observed in the brains of Buddhist adepts during various kinds of meditations are both incredible and astounding.

Our sense of fairness was probably brought about via evolution, and empathy comes as part of that. The human race might not have survived without wiring for empathy, attachments, and fair play.... I mean if you can't trust your hunting partner to play fairly, then it's each man for himself, trying to track down food that is fast on it's feet, and fending off predators on one's own. Would humanity have done well were every man for themself with bare technology in the wild? And when it came to bands of men vs bands of men, those that could trust each other probably did far better than those groups that harboured a lot of suspicion, lack of empathy, and lack of attachments.
 
Back
Top Bottom