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

[Mars Man]

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.

While I can understand the idea you had presented in your # 9 post, and the conviction for it, I would have to ask for a few things, in my efforts to grasp the natural likelihood of any external existence. Could you please define and describe the term 'soul' as you use it, and could you please share the source of that concept, how long you have had it, and by what means you acquired it. In this way, I can work on futher testing it.

It may end up being somewhat like the god-hypothesis matter. We could say, in the most indepth philosophical manner of speaking, that we could neither uphold nor deny the existence of god, yet, in the same breath, we would not be able to say the same for god-models--they can be tested and shown unreal. (that's the other threads, though)

I will yet argue, and proceed by demonstration that knowing exactly what it is that the brain is, the operation of the brain, how that connects to, with, and for the overall body, is the only sure-fire way to come to an understanding of consciousness, self-understanding, will, emotion, idiosyncrasy, and thus personality.

The one really unusual trait of the olfactory system is that it does, in fact, connect straight with cortical area--bypassing the thelamic area that all the other sensory systems project to firstly--and on top of that, the cortical area that it does connect to (project to) is the phylogenetically older (allocortex) area. This means that smell, though it is not now so strong in humans, is a very basic thing that predates neocortical functions.

There are five areas in the cerebral cortex that the system then project to, collectively termed primary olfactory cortex: anterior olfactory nucleus, amygdala, olfactory tubercle, piriform and periamygdaloid cortical areas, and fostral entorhinal cortex. The primary olfactory areas then, along with side signals by the medial dorsal nucleus and thalamus, relay information to the orbitofrontal cortex.​

The primary receiving area is that which deals with emotions. This all shows and highlights the strength and ability that odors have in creating emotional responses and in being recalled with, or in recalling memories that involved strong odorants.

If there is damage to the cribiform plate due to head injury can cause anosmia--the loss of smelling ability. In this case, since the OF neurons can be produced from the stem cells there, it has been shown that some detection can return. There are cases, however, of no return of smell due to such and similar injuries. If the signals produced by the chemicals melting into the mucosa hit a dead-end break in the neuron line, there is no mental recognition of that smell.

Here again, however, other systems which may override this system--plasticity--may cause this system to partly act out a 'smelling'-like function on other input. Something like, for example, 'seeing' an odor, rather than smelling it.

 

[Annubis]

I think the amygdela is my favorite brain part, but then I don't know much about it. I can't wait to hear more... Somtimes I wish I didn't have one. Staying tuned to this post is like watching a suspence movie! Thank you Mars Man!!

 

[Mars Man]

I think the amygdela is my favorite brain part, but then I don't know much about it.

Thanks for your thoughtful expressions there Annubis chan. As I go through some of the other sensory functions, and then some, little by little the amygdala will be drawn out.

However, for you, now, the amygdala is situated right down on the lower front of the hippocampal formation (which, when looking at a side diagram of the brain with the front of the brain to the left, looks somwhat like a swan's shoulder and neck, arched up and curved over to the head in a kind of backwards 'C' shape) and is made up of three specific nuclei. The word amygdala is from greek, and means almond--and that's basically what the structure looks like in shape, an almond.

The amygdala is a part of the limbric system (which will come up in time) and is the key to raw emotion and the handling of it (especially that of a violent or aggressive nature) to other parts of the brain and to certain body parts--such as the somatic motor systems. Damage to this brain unit can cause serious emotional reading malfunctons--where facial and speech expression can not be emotionally read, nor understood.① One can have unusual involuntary motor responses to certain circumstances where a person with a perfectly normal working amygdala would not react at all.

A case in point to remember here, is that total collapse of the amygdala function can leave the person with a very weakend sense of negative emotion, not being able to tell what another person might mean by certain looks or words, or body language. The 'fight or flee' mechanism will be highly dampened--a very dangerous thing.

Please keep this information with you, Annubis chan, so you can remember and share it with those who don't know. This here, and now, was for especially you !!


① It should be kept in mind that optical and auditory signals come back here (so to speak) for emotional processing before going on to prefrontal cortext areas, so if this unit is out, the emotional information is not added.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

While I can understand the idea you had presented in your # 9 post, and the conviction for it, I would have to ask for a few things, in my efforts to grasp the natural likelihood of any external existence. Could you please define and describe the term 'soul' as you use it, and could you please share the source of that concept, how long you have had it, and by what means you acquired it. In this way, I can work on futher testing it.

It's difficult to even do that much. A lot of what I could say could be attributed to evolutionary sub systems and vestages of defense/survival mechanisms. (And that's fine, I'm not one to withhold opinion for fear of disagreement) But to more effectively cut to the chase and keep it short and sweet, that part which I really feel transcends all of it, as best as I can word it as I sit here at my mundane, soul-sucking desk job, is simply a drive inside me and others to 'be' and 'express'. To reach out above social interaction that only satisfies daily utility and strive for new levels of understanding about what's around us. At some point the goals and methods of individual human effort and experience become so far removed from basic developmental and survivalist urges that I have no choice but to try and define them differently.

Where does, say, the need for social interaction that provides a security net for survival and propagation of the species end, and an immovable, steadfast belief in political concepts or religion which empower a person and causes them to perform acts, seek out like-minded individuals, participate in movements and demonstrations (perhaps even to the detriment of their own physical safety or security) etc., begin?

Look at a person like Mother Teresa. Are we to say that her actions were something of a survival instinct; an extreme form of a compassionate, altruistic but ultimately idiosyncratic neurosis of some kind?

I recognize that whatever the answer, it is still contained IN the brain and is necessarily a product of the brain at some juncture. Physiologically I would be completely willing to admit that if there were a soul it would still have to be filtered through the brain in order to interact with the world around it. But much like a pilot is necessarily inside the plane and interacts via the plane, (yet he is different from the plane, is he not?) I do not think in discussing the soul we are dealing with just more complex actions churned out from the same grey, squishy 'perpetual motion' machine which the brain is sometimes casted as.

It may end up being somewhat like the god-hypothesis matter. We could say, in the most indepth philosophical manner of speaking, that we could neither uphold nor deny the existence of god, yet, in the same breath, we would not be able to say the same for god-models--they can be tested and shown unreal. (that's the other threads, though)

I will yet argue, and proceed by demonstration that knowing exactly what it is that the brain is, the operation of the brain, how that connects to, with, and for the overall body, is the only sure-fire way to come to an understanding of consciousness, self-understanding, will, emotion, idiosyncrasy, and thus personality.

Ok but just remember absence of proof is not proof of absence
Also keep in mind that we still know so little about what the brain CAN do (vs. what it does) such that we may fall short even after our best efforts.

I also feel its important to say that I personally do not limit the concept of a soul to some thing which only we hairless apes can enjoy. Anthropocentricity is a major downfall of much of our previous systems of thought and it lingers like a bruise. I feel if a soul exists, it is linked inextricably to energy, and energy is something all life posseses.

 

[Goldiegirl]

Heart and soul. We feel so much emotion in our heart and yet it actually starts in our brain. I can certainly understand why our ancestors thought the soul was in the heart. We need our brain to feel emotions and yet our brain doesn't feel a thing!

 

[Mars Man]

With a number of new threads popping up, some extra work as a team member, among a couple of other things, I was held back from getting back here. My apologies again.

Thank you bakaKanadajin san for your further explanation. From what I could gather from your #29 post, the concept and description of 'soul' that you hold to at the moment is mostly based on what we could say is the general Abrahamic (among others, but I'll focus on this since it is the environment in which we grew up and are springboarding from) faith religious belief-systems' description/prescription of that notion.

If we were to say that soul equates an energy, and that alone, then we would be very, very far from that Abrahamic faith's model. It doesn't apprear as though that is what you are describing.

Throughout my presentation, it will of course be held that the maxim absence of proof, is not proof of absence is to constantly be applied. I will be focusing on the evidence and proof for the understanding that the brain is the person to the full extent, and that downgrading of the brain equates to downgrading of the person--and similarly regarding an upgrade.

As is my style, I am attempting herein (be it the more productive or effecient way or not) to put forth a large bulk of detailed evidence before going into my argument. I reason that by doing so, a lot of my later explanations and points will then need no further wording--the supporting and connecting evidence will have already been provided.

At that time, I will further question the varying 'soul models' that are out there. So, for now, in my soon to be upcoming post, I will pick up once again with the explanation/demonstration of brain functions.

 

[Annubis]

I have been sitting on the edge of my seat hoping for more... and there was none. None the less I am eager and excited that you have come back to tell us more! YAY!!

 

[Mars Man]

I will recap once I have gotten through the somatic senses. In that the brain is for survival--inanimate life forms don't need such processing centers--on big factor is on food. Sight and smell do come in handy, but sound does too. Sound, however, is a big thing, so I'll treat something else firstly...taste.

'Stick out your tongue, and say. . . ' That's where it all starts. Like the ofactory system, the gustator system is also an old one, and works together with the former. The chemical tastants in food and other items activate the taste receptors in the various papillae on the tongue and the soft palate.

While there are usually considered to be four basic tastes--salty, sour, bitter, sweet--there is also umami (the sensation elicited by glutamate) and some other possible candidates. These are picked up by the tastebuds which mostly lie inside the papillae. The largest number of papillae, however, are assigned to tactile sensation rather than taste.

We will find on the tongue, the fungiform (mushroom shaped) papillae, the filiform (thread like--these are the tactile ones), the foliate (leaf like) on the back sides of the tongue, and the circumvallate (wall like) at the very back top of the tongue.

As touching and chewing and salava carry tastants, they contact with or enter the walls of the circumvallate, foliate and fungiform papillae, they interact with molecules on microvilli (fingerlike processes) of specialized taste cells. The interactions trigger electrochemical changes in the taste cells that send signals to the solitary tract in the brain stem (dorsal medulla) and terminate at the rostral portion of the solitary nucleus.

Axions of second-order neurons then ascend ipsilaterally (on the same side) to the thalamus (in the ventral posterior medial nucleus) from where third-order neurons project to the insular cortex, and the operculum where the primary gustatory cortical areas are located. There are other projections, one main one being that to the oritalfrontal cortex, where, in contact with the limbric system awarness and emotion is processed along with the information.

There is one thing about the tastebuds on the tongue, and the areas involved, that should probably have to be relearned, however. Those next.

 

[Mars Man]

In an article in Scientific American (March 2001, pp 32,39) the authors point out that the 'taste maps' that had usually been shown in biology books (and may yet be found in some texts for lower education) had been known for some time by taste researchers to have been wrong--yet they were there.

According to the authors, an error in interpretation of research done in the late 19th century has been almost impossible to purge from literature. Rather than the usual 'sweet at the tip, salty on the forward sides, sour on the back sides, and bitter at the very back, ' all tastants can be elicited from all the regions of the tongue that contain taste buds. ①

In providing the evidence from studies done by one of the the authors, among others (see ① below), we can see that taste neurons likely work very much like those in the vision area, when dealing with color.

These investigators further demonstrated that the neural distinction among stimuli of different qualities depended on the simultaneous activation of different cell types, much as color vision depends on the comparison of activity across photoreceptor cells in the eye.​

What this boils down to, is that the 'tasting' is occuring in the brain, as a result of recognizing and processing patterns of stimulation. We saw that it was somewhat similar in the ofactory system as well, where a single primary olfactory neuron recieves the ordorants, but one more specifically 'locks in' thus having that assigned ordorant identity--here a cell responds more to a certain tastant, thus basically creating a pattern which can identify it--although it reacts to others too in lesser degrees.

One thing that is interesting here, is that there is an element of plasticity in this sense too. 'Conditioned taste aversion' is such a thing. Animals can learn aversion to certain tastes, and ordors connected to that general taste. In human cases, one good example would be a learned aversion to a taste of some food that had been eaten before a stomach virus which causes strong nausea and vomiting--especially in younger people. It is not exactly the same, but works on the same principle.

Also, because the actual realization of taste is in the brain, the placebo effect can be created as well, where a taste can be 'tasted' by a substance which does not have the chemical properties, thus does not have that tastant. It's very much in the brain.






① Dr. D.V. Smith and Dr. R.F Margolskee of department of anatomy and neurobiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine and professor of physiology and biophysics and pharmacology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine;

 

[Goldiegirl]

Our brain when starved though changes into survival mode, and food we once considered bad, foul, or inedible will when eaten (during starvation) will cause our wonderful brain to release all kinds of 'feel good' chemicals.

 

[Revenant]

I've read that food that is presented well will taste better than the very same food that is not presented as well.

 

[Mars Man]

I have also heard of the testing of that idea about how food looks and what how that might trick the brain--both through studies reported on, and from experience in the food industry.

I haven't heard about the 'survival' kick-in matter, but can see how that would be--survival is the whole matter of the brain's basics, and even to a large degree the, what we usually consider, extras such as reciprocation and altruistic leanings. (as Revenant had touched on in another thread, as well...it'll come up again, eventually in this one)

 

[Goldiegirl]

I am sorry MM, I can't think of the exact part of the brain. It is one of the oldest parts it's small and is located at the base of the brain by the spinal cord. I'll have to look it up. Perhaps you just know?

amygdala, part of the limbic system. It's our oldest part of the brain.

 

[Mars Man]

I am sorry MM, I can't think of the exact part of the brain. It is one of the oldest parts it's small and is located at the base of the brain by the spinal cord. I'll have to look it up. Perhaps you just know?

amygdala, part of the limbic system. It's our oldest part of the brain.

I'm not real sure, however, the basic nerves regarding taste do project primarily to the solitary nucleus which is just below the pons (the cerebellar peduncles area). This section is ventral to the basal ganglia (meaning anterior to) and just below the midbrain and just above the base.

I would tend to think, however, that it might be something with the limbric system, which is basically made up of the hippocampal formation, the amygdala (Annubis's favorite), the limbric association cortext (where projections go to), ventral striatum, thalamus, hypothalamus, epithalamus and some periaqueductal gray matter and reticular formation. This is an older part of the brain in one major way, so this might be the general system--since it deals with emotion and triggers (such as fight or flee, etc.).


Neuroanatomy--Text and Atlas chapters 1, 16;

 

[Goldiegirl]

Yep, that's the part. I was reading and it said it's the old part that goes all the way back to our humble beginnings.

 

[Annubis]

Re-embodiment

I came across some great research from a time when I was studying the possibility of embodying virtuality:

This Quote is from a publication distributed for art galleries in Canada.
The Source:
Moser, Mary Anne. "Bioapparatus", The Banff Centre for the arts, Banff, 1991.
Inside are discourses and discussions based on virtual realities and the mind/body cartesian duality.

The Discussion I will quote is by David Rokeby in response to Dorit Cypis when discussing the topic "Re-embodiment", on Pages 40 and 41 of Moser's book.

"The body largely defines our subjective point of view, and so perhaps what is really meant by trusting the body, is trusting in our accumulated subjective experiences.
"In this context, re-embodiment becomes the act of reclaiming subjectivity. The body is then seen as a subjective reference point, an anchor which projects one from external manipulation, a point of relative stability from which one can explore and invent. This reclaimed body warns us when we are over-extended (both mentaly and physically) and may form the foundation of what we call sanity. It also is the basis of our identification with other humans, a sort of lense through which compassion, and respect for others' subjectivity is focuses. Most importantly, it is perhaps only within the complex subjectivity of the body that we can question and resist our desire for all-embracing models."

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for that though provoking piece there, Annubis san. I wish it were possible to see more context, since there appear to be some terms which are used in slightly different from common ways. As I will argue for once much has been laid out here, Descartes was in error (as were earlier Greek philosophers) on the mater of dualism, and I cannot tell exactly (with the amount of quote given) how that concept is being related to, or pointed against virtual reality.

Perhaps you might know the work against which that one is arguing--since it is a counter point.

I'll be back here tomorrow with the next segment--a pretty involved one--with the auditory system. One of the more interesting things, among the many, is that in reality, the ear system is as much a speaker system as a reciever system. Therefore, although there is a reason why the speaker effect is usually not there, in cases (though very, very few) of structural inadequacy, a person can hear the voice of thought coming out of the ear, in a kind of 'loop circuitry.'

 

[Annubis]

Duality

Sorry Mars-san. When I mentioned cartesian duality, I was using some jargon to express the common belief that there are always opposites. "cartesian" in this case is based on the coordinates of a map. As in "la carte". The opposites being North/South, East/West. The word is widely used when discussing dualities.

My post was to keep us aware that "we" are not only the mind and the neurons, and that the body plays a large part in how our mind works, as you are pointng out with your detailed descriptions of how the senses work.

Charlotte Davies, another Canadian, created an interactive virtual reality environment whith interactive sound and a vest filled with sensors which track the breath and movement of the torso. The experience is realistic because the body is a part of the experience.

Also, experiments have been done to understand how the mind reacts to body stimulus. If a special vibrator runs along the arms or neck in a certain pattern, our mind can be tricked to believe that our head is inside our body and that our arms are very long. The body is vital to how we percieve the world.

Typically, virtual realities lack these kind of body experiences and rely solely on the head as Kate Moran states: "When I was in the virtual reality, something was missing - my body. The feeling of disembodiment was particularly acute when I looked down and tried to see my legs and feet... I was not attached to the space I was in."

Further more,
The quote from my previous post was a response to this statement by Doris Cypis: (which includes some examples of cartesian dualities at the end)
"Tapping into our body's wisdom offers the possibility of remembering, re-sensing, reposessing our fragmented selves. Trusting our body, we move from denial to responsibility, shame to pleasure, claiming others to mutual respect and compassion."

 

[Annubis]

cartesian coordinates:
Cartesian coordinate system - Wikipedia

When using the term cartesian duality:
Sorry... not North/South etc (though they are also a cartesian duo), but linear two dimentional coordinates such as x/y. In other words, two-dimentional being the buzz word, having only two sides, and usually opposites.

 

[Mars Man]

Now I can more clearly see some of the term usage in that quote; thanks for that extra input. Interestingly this will broaden out the discussion and presentation on this theme--for which reason it might be good that I pick up the pace somewhat...hee, hee, hee....I've been a bit lazy (as well as busy with other stuff these days).

What will be fun (and tricky) will be looking into the details of this:

My post was to keep us aware that "we" are not only the mind and the neurons, and that the body plays a large part in how our mind works, as you are pointng out with your detailed descriptions of how the senses work.​

As we work on downwards from the top, and then once again try to work from the bottom up again, we will find levels at which the specific claim, "'we' are not only the mind and neurons" holds true, and other levels at which it does not hold true. And the real tricky part is arriving at a balanced understanding of the whole.

I know it will take some time and development to begin to reach the point where we can start discussing and debating some finer detail, yet for now, I still (of course) adhere to the conclusion of the OP title.

I'm quite confident that we will find, in the course of time and study, that rather than it being the case that the body (as opposed to central nervous system [CNS]) affects how our brains work, it is far more precise an understanding that our brains arrange themselves in congruence with what they 'understand;' and a part of that is from feeling out the body.

Yes, what is fun, is that the neural system can be 'tricked,' and in fact, tricks itself at times.① I fully understand the sense of having a virtual reality set up which forgets to accomodate part of the sensing that the system does, by not attaching virtual reality to the non-neural portions of the body. That would be a trip inside the mind.

However, in that the higher art forms are surely, usually efforts to manipulate elements of the external reality in order to create a certain internal reality, the final putting together of that is the neural system alone--a brain-dead patient would have no more response to a virtual reality set up than they would to the 'actual' reality.


① There is evidence that some of the tricking may be caused, in some cases, by certain bacteria, and in non-human cases (for now) certain parasites. Coughs and Sneezes Spread Mind Diseases, NewScientist, 6 Nov.'04, pp40-43;

 

[Mars Man]

The textbook Neuroanatomy--text and atlas by J.H. Martin, 3rd. Ed., points out, on page 191, that. . .

'the complexity of the auditory pathways derives from the particular properties of natural sounds, with their diverse frequency characteristics, multiple sources of origin, and large dynamic ranges.'​

It also adds, 'an added measure of complexity is imposed on the human auditory system by the demands of understanding speech.' The point being that cortical connections due to that, make a difference, and not that speech sounds in themselves differ any from the many natural sounds around us.

We have the folds of cartilage which make up the pinna--so called because our visual ear parts seem to be just kind of 'pinned on'....hee, hee, hee...JOKE !! American JOKE!!.... What is interesting, is the thought that our far ancestors, pre H. Erectus, say, may or could have had pointed tips to the ears--a much better design, actually. So one problem is, why do we not look like Spock, the Vulcan on the Starship Enterprize? (also see Scientific American If We Were Built to Last, pp50-55, March '01)

Sound waves are reflected and attenuated by the pinna, and to some degree enter the auditory canal. They then hit the tympanic membrane (ear drum) where in the air filled middle ear (to which the eustachian tube is connected) a mechanical process takes over with the malleus, incus, and stapes (hammer, anvil, and sturrup, respectively).

The vibrations of the ossicles (just mentioned structures) act upon what is generally termed the membranous labyrinth, especially affecting the round window (or oval window [which the president of the USA is looking out of...or at least would like to be in a position to look out of {thus in our heads} JOKE!! American JOKE !!...]) of the cochlea--a little snail shell of a member.

The ossicles increase the pressure which had come throuh the air filled cavities because now the waves must travel through a liquid filled cavity. The liquid in the scala media (with which we are more concerned here, for sending signals to the brain to get sound) is perilymph, a fluid resembling extracellular fluid and cerebrospinal fluid. Then we have the 'hair' nerves.

 

[Annubis]

I wanna hear more about the pointed ears and the little snail shell of a member... -I'm serious!! But if you are too busy, I understand... you must really have a lot to say in this thread and I don't want to stop you because of my little snail shell and pointy ear curiosity. hehe

 

[Mars Man]

Well, there's not that more to the pointed ear thing, other than that that particular style is better at catching sound--and thus fairly common in life forms with outer ear cusps (pinna). Also, some people can move their ears some, but more mobility would have been a plus too.

Now that little 'snail shell' of a body is the inner ear component. It is shaped, at least looking from one angle, very much like your common spiral snail shell. On the one side, there are semicircular canals which are largely for balancing, they contain cilia which sense angular acceleration (while the utricle and saccule to which they connect sense for the linear acceleration). One the 'other end,' so to speak, there is the cochlea, with the organ of corti and the cochlear duct.

In the organ of corti there are the two kinds of cilia which form the auditory transductive apparatus, along with the basilar membrane (upon which the cilia rest) and the tectorial membrane (which cover them). The two types are the inner hair cells, and the outer hair cells. The inner cells are arranged in a single row, while the outer hair cells are arranged in 3 or 4 rows.

There are more outer cells compared to inner cells (some 12,000 to 3,500) and the inner cells are responsible for frequency and other fine discriminations in hearing. The reason for that is basically a more direct connection with the cranial nerve XIII. I will go into a little more detail there, before going on into the brain projections and other systems that tie in with this system.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Dull jobs really do numb the mind

Just found this article suggesting that changes in brain state can be detected in individuals performing repetitive tasks.

 

[Revenant]

From the evidence that I've seen, it seems that for people with a normally functioning brain, that happiness and good ethical behavior are very closely related. A happy person is most likely to be sociable and kind (traits that I might be lacking in).

The happiness set point is malleable (neuroscience!), which is of great hope, but so far the best technique for pushing one's set point towards a happier disposition is a challenging skill, that being meditation.

Meditation requires great focus, and from other findings in neuroscience, the greatest changes in the brain are the result of focused sustained attention, and gaining great control over one's attention is also difficult and requires perseverence. So.... it's a lot like exercise, we know it's good for us, but getting the motivation to do it is a challenge.