I was thinking of Siddharta in particular, but most of Hesse's work has to do with the inner mind of man and its ties to the divine.

Ahhh, yes. I've got that on my reading list and I think I might even have my pop's copy somewhere.

quote:

What is the self? How does the activity of neurons give rise to the sense of being a conscious human being?


Well, seriously, first he needs to establish whether it IS IN FACT only the activity of neurons which gives rise to a conscious human being.


Even this most ancient of philosophical problems, I believe, will yield to the methods of empirical science.

Did the 'ancient philosophical problem' ascribe human consciousness to the activity of neurons?

If not (and the answer is not) then he's suggesting a method of pursuit which the 'ancient problem' may or not benefit from ... but one which the 'ancient problem' solution may not depend upon.

Science might very well have valuable answers to Scientific problems, yet fall short or incomplete in answering philosophical questions.


It now seems increasingly likely that the self is not a holistic property of the entire brain; it arises from the activity of specific sets of interlinked brain circuits.

Well, go for it then! It does seem to be thinking of the problem in a sort of RETRO approach to science ... where they used to think genetic characteristics would be the result of one or two genes, and now they suggest that any condition might be the interaction of dozens of genes etc ...

I'd wonder if something as complex as Consciousness didn't arise from a complex holistic interaction more than a few neuron circuit boards ... but cool. Just know where the empirical facts stop and your own assumptions take over.

But we need to know which circuits are critically involved and what their functions might be. It is the "turning inward" aspect of the self "” its recursiveness "” that gives it its peculiar paradoxical quality.

Still, interesting concept. Always eager to learn how complicated rocks are any more 'aware' than simple lifeless rocks!

I wasn't going to bother, but here I am. If you bother to read the whole intro paragraph and understand it's entirity, you'd realize that the ancient philosophical problem is "What is the self?", not the question posed in the second sentence. Obviously ancient philosophers were not concerned with the activity of neurons. Don't let the guy's writing style throw you.

(And as an aside, he's not saying self is ONLY the activity of neurons, rather that the activity of neurons might give rise to consciousness. Don't get hung up on his questions and assume he accepts them as facts, he's merely posing a starting point to test. He's got to start somewhere.)

The point of the whole article is whether or not neurology has a role in helping answer the question, "What is the self?". Clearly his method of pursuit may have relevance to the ancient problem. Or it may not, I suppose it depends on whether or not you start from the possibility that one can actually know the self. Science may fall short or incomplete in answering philosophical questions, but that likely has more to do with a willingness to accept "proof" and "certainty"; and additionally scientific answers usually result in more questions (the never ending search).

Finally, what he's saying about the self NOT being a holistic property of the entire brain is that there is a current understanding or assumption that the self just is, that we lump all of the different aspects of the self (see fourth paragraph) into a single word. His view, that he's testing (he's not saying it's so, but that it's likely so, and needs testing), his view is that all of the different aspects of self may actually be triggered/located in different centers of the brain. Ultimately he views the complex self as a complex system of the whole brain, but ultimately, as the article goes on, it's the introspective nature of the self, self-awareness, that he is most concerned about and focuses on with the discussion of mirror neurons.

Here's a fun one if you have time for a little mental masturbation - Does the Universe Exist If We're Not Looking?. It's a brain stretching, what-if article on the question of existence. Fun if you have a few moments over lunch or something.

I think it's pretty clear from watching humans move about and operate that there's more to the self than introspection and observation, which is what mirror neurons are solely useful for (if I'm reading that right), and I don't think that this guy's arguing any differently. He's looking at a possible explanation for one component of the self, and in a way that is sort of interesting. My ability to learn how to hammer a nail straight by watching my father do it may be closely related to my ability to see someone grieving and feel their emotional pain. While these things share thematic connection, until the discovery of mirror neurons there was no particularly biological reason to suppose that they shared so direct a biological connection.

quote:

I wasn't going to bother, but here I am. If you bother to read the whole intro paragraph and understand it's entirity, you'd realize that the ancient philosophical problem is "What is the self?", not the question posed in the second sentence.

Obviously ancient philosophers were not concerned with the activity of neurons. Don't let the guy's writing style throw you.

I'm not so sure I need to worry about his "writing style" ... though some might.

I 'bothered' to read it. There's something bothersome about his initial approach.

He raised an 'ancient philosophical question' and then the rest of his comment seems to focus on a biological/neurological answer ???

Nothing wrong with that, if both the Writer and the Reader keep in mind the phrase "comparing apples and oranges"

Sometimes the types of answers an investigation gets results from the narrow focus of the questions asked. Sometimes the results in partial answers, or answers which reflect the bias of the question(er) ...

Is Science content to ask questions that knowingly will result in partial or biased answers? That's not for me to decide. (But yeah, I understand the value of a narrowly focused investigation, as long as others understand the value of a broad, all-encompassing one too. Forest versus the tree ... Sound of one handing clapping ...)

***********

It is interesting to recall that for most of human history (or human evolution) ... the issue of "self-awareness" would only have been approached by self-contemplation and self-investigation, a turning of the consciousness WITHIN, not via technology, vivisection, or studying "objects" (including other people, perhaps)

To that extent, the study of Awareness was thru Awareness itself, and not judging neurons like dead doorknobs.

I don't see the same bothersome initial approach. Rama is a neurologist, attempting to use science to investigate the ancient philosophical question of "What is the self?". His assertion seems to be that self-contemplation, self-investigations and turning the consciousness inwards has only gotten so far, and that neurology might be a way to help peel back another layer of the onion and shed some light on the self - particularly the aspect of self-awareness.

The ancient philosophical question is the same as the new scientific one - they're both searching for the "self". It's the means of investigation that are apples and oranges, not the end goal. One may argue that it's impossible to answer a philosophical question through scientific investigation, but as I suggested in my earlier post, that has more to do with where you start in the discussion and what you're willing to accept as proof. If you (not specifically, Indrid) don't think science has any roll in answering "philosophical" questions, then you won't accept his theory on mirror neurons as an element of self-awareness, so the discussion is moot.

For my money, I don't see a separation between the two methods. Or rather I see the two methods are valid to investigating the same question (whether defined as a philosophical or scientific one). Eventually I think the apples and oranges will lead to the same tree (to over extend a metaphor). I find the discovery of mirror neurons and their potential role in self-awareness as fascinating, and see potential to use that knowledge to help add to the inward investigation (through meditation, let's say).

I think we gain from new technology and new ways of exploring questions. To say that the way we did it historically is the only valid way of continuing the exploration seems off, seems to ignore the possibilities. If technology, vivisection and studying objects allows us to discover and explore a facet of the question previously unavailable to us, isn't it worthwhile? Even if that knowledge is rooted outside of the philosophical, it doesn't make it off limits for further meditation and inner contemplation.

quote:

Originally posted by jp:
I think we gain from new technology and new ways of exploring questions. To say that the way we did it historically is the only valid way of continuing the exploration seems off, seems to ignore the possibilities.

I'd agree.

I was just observing that some people (not meaning you, necessarily, because I cannot speak for your thoughts even with all my mirror neurons tickling with countless sparky electrodes!) seem to forget that the QUESTION of human awareness has been here as long as humans have been aware; science and advanced technology have been around for a few hundred years, and neurobiology around for even less time ...

Human awareness may be investigated BY modern technology ... but strip us of every piece of technology we've invented since the Stone Age and you haven't dented human awareness one iota. Some people confuse the tool with the awareness behind the tool.

But people disagree with where real "human intelligence" starts: some think it was tool use or language ... others imagine the first pre-human creature who looked up at the lightning and thought "wow, lightning"

The proper "human" response might be religion, or scientific investigation, or maybe the mute stoned-out realization looking at the next monkey beside you in the cave and thinking "wow, that other monkey saw the lightning too"

I'd suggest that last realization already demands a level of awareness that dumb neurons firing and dumb door knobs neither grasp.


If technology, vivisection and studying objects allows us to discover and explore a facet of the question previously unavailable to us, isn't it worthwhile?

It's "worthwhile" if you feel it's worth being vivisected yourself over, to learn the answer!

Even if that knowledge is rooted outside of the philosophical, it doesn't make it off limits for further meditation and inner contemplation.

No, I suppose you're right.

I wonder how many people practice both the art of the electrode, and of meditation of cosmic meaning.

I've just read this thread from beginning to end, and the bit I found really interesting (except the bit about the number-two-in-the-world-fossil, which was impossibly cool), was the discussion about imagination in very young children.

One of the many things that surprised me when I had a child was that when he was very, very young (say, a year) he only needed a couple of signals to recognise something as 'dog' or 'cat' or whatever. Like elephants: he'd identify something as 'elephant' even when he only saw part of a trunk and part of an ear, or of it was humanoid and blue wearing safari clothes and three inches high (think Ganesh modelled in plastic as a toy by a blasphemer), or pink and circular, or patchwork Elmer in a book - all were, accurately, 'elephant', even if he hadn't seen them before and I hadn't labelled them for him. How do kids do this?

Hive, I haven't read the thread so I'm sorry if this is way off base but kids, even one-year olds, have amazing powers of observation, they drink everything in (you already know this, sorry). The point of my post is: when you described your child recognizing elephants by even the remotest clues I had a groovy feeling-flashback to when I was a child. What comes to mind is what I said - drinking it in and looking for more.

That's it - a tiny clue, and then, BLAM! - elephant! It's amazing, isn't it?

*cluckcluckcluckCLUCKCLUCKCLUCKCLUCKCLUCKCLUCKCLUCK*

wossit?

Hive, can you give a quick point to the pages/articles you're referring to? I haven't read any of the thread since popping in here the other day.

I think Hive's following a rabbit trail from the mirror neurons article, moving from that sort of biochemical self-cognition to cognition as a general human feat.

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
Indrid, if you get the chance, get to your local library and find if they have a copy of "Fossil Legends of the First Americans." I think you'd find it an excellent read.

*bumping so I don't lose this*

And yes, I'm currently going through the entire thread

I want this easy to find again

quote:

Dweller:
That's a tough one to answer because imagination is difficult to quantify, as is intelligence. If we work with the basic definition, "the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality," and intelligence as something similar to "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria," then the answer becomes a bit clearer.

Until recently, imagination was regarded as a function of the right side, the creative or emotional side of the brain. Recent study has shown, however, that the left side of the brain is a vital part of our ability to construct clear images of things both seen and unseen, and so must play an integral role in imagination.

So, a someone that's well-developed in both hemispheres, one that is capable of taking thought and applying it to the world in a meaningful way (and hence intelligent) will tend to be imaginative, I would think.

quote:

Hal:
imagination is something we also develope with time, that and being able to percieve that things aren't nessisarily real.

i don't know what age we start to develope imagination, but i think it's one of the later stages of brain developement....

also isn't there some research into children that are deprived of stimulation lacking imagination?

quote:

Aliens from [somewhere]:
I think that our imagination is a way for us to be artistic. It allows us to create different worlds, different scena1.

1.ability to visualize: the ability to form images and ideas in the mind, especially of things never seen or never experienced directly
2. creative part of the mind: the part of the mind where ideas, thoughts, and images are formed
3. resourcefulness: the ability to think of ways of dealing with difficulties or problems
4. creative act: an act of creating a semblance of reality, especially in literature

quote:

TheBoy:
Oooo. Imagination. Good topic.
I had a number of conversations with my old boss who was a Behavior Analyst about this.
Applied Behavior Analysis is the modern descendent of B.F. Skinner's psychological theories. There is no psychological area more obsessed with Science (with a capital 'S') then ABA.
ABA has a very difficult time accounting for imagination. Everything that the brain does in this model is supposed to be in response to some stimulus. So where do completely original, novel thoughts come from? Creativity is not something that Skinner was able to grasp.

My boss theorized that artists' creative process is a matter of responding to some external stimulus and then responding to that response etc etc until the art/imagination is coming entirely from the loop of responses to internal events and not directly connected to reality. (Which was also his explanation for schizophrenia).

I'm not an ABA, so there are things about it that I don't always agree with, but the ABAs certainly have the empirical Science on their side on most things.

quote:

Cav (after Dweller and Aliens suggested that toddlers have functioning imaginations):
I think that the brain development Hal is refering to is not saying that toddlers and those making incoherent noises haven't developed imagination. More that it comes after a babies senses have begun to become aware of their environment. The response to those dangling mobiles and them benign blobs that keep making weird noises become coupled with an awareness that they disappear from view. And along the stream comes imagination. Imagination is not limited to let's pretend (Though if I were Dweller, I would be checking for lions) but is also the self creations of Where Am I, Where Are they and What's for dinner? Concious preceding unconcious. By the time the kid is toddling they should have their imaginations well under way and stimulated. Unless the aim is to produce a petty bureaucrat.

quote:

aisha:
I was talking to a psychologist once, by no means an expert in brain chemistry but a very intelligent woman, who told me that the chemical reaction in your brain when you're imagining something is similar, but not exactly the same, as that when you see it for real. For example when you think of your mother's face, and when you see a picture of her- the same kind of brain activity is happening. So imagination is kinda like seeing, but different... vision with a twist.

quote:

Cav:
Is it possible that instead of tying hallucinations to the conscious senses, they're perhaps closer to memory? An eye sees a lion. The brain flips it the right way up, shape, colour, aroma and sound are matched to the store and the brain thinks (In the language of your choice) Lion! When you hallucinate you are trying to process the same data retrieval, but the library has gotten it's index cards all over the place? That's for visuals mainly, but it possibly can encompass the other aspects of hallucinations.

quote:

TheBoy:
Actually, what you are describing is psychosis, not hallucinations. Hallucinations are actually extra activity in the sensory centers of the brain. It looks different on scans because it isn't originating from where it is supposed to.
Psychosis is when your brain says "lion" and all of the relevant memories trigger. In a normal brain that's as far as it goes, but in a psychotic brain it can't tell the difference between stimuli originating internally and externally.

Okay, sorry for this, and I can clip it out later when I have a chance to save it somewhere/somehow. I just don't want to lose the thoughts and then have to go back pages to find it again.

Please don't clip it out - it's very useful!