On 28 October 2013 00:10, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> http://medicalxpress.com/news/**2013-10-neural-brain-harder-** >>> disrupt-aware.html<http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html> >>> >>> We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed >>>> in the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and >>>> which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists >>>> Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative >>>> Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step >>>> closer to answering this question. >>>> >>>> Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known >>>> visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual >>>> images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry >>>> happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains >>>> cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches >>>> back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images >>>> are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to >>>> enter our consciousness. >>>> >>>> Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static >>>> picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. >>>> Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in >>>> a 'motion <http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/> area' that >>>> specifically processes visual >>>> motion<http://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/>. >>>> The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not >>>> have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the >>>> amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer. >>>> >>>> So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously >>>> processing motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of >>>> the moving image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, >>>> zapping had no effect. >>>> This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between >>>> conscious and unconscious motion representation in the >>>> brain<http://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/>. >>>> Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be >>>> disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the >>>> rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more >>>> resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. >>>> Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and >>>> noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the >>>> question of how this neural stability is achieved. >>> >>> >>> Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make >>> sense *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually * >>> conscious???* >>> >> >> If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be >> different if the conscious state is different. >> > > Sure, but consciousness does not supervene on neurochemistry, since we can > change our neurochemistry voluntarily. > Then we would see the neurochemistry changing contrary to the laws of physics, but we do not, despite your gross misinterpretation of the term "spontaneous neural activity". > We can change each others neurochemistry intentionally. That aside, > certainly ordinary animal consciousness correlates to neurochemistry, so > that conscious states would be *represented* publicly as different > neurochemical patterns (and also different facial expressions, body > language, vocal intonation, smells that dogs can detect, etc...lots of > expressions beyond just microphysical containment). Changing the brain > chemistry changes consciousness, but this study shows that the brain > chemistry fights back. Being conscious is to resist noise being introduced > from the microphysical level. It is top-down as well as bottom up. We are > not mere puppets of neurochemistry, neurochemistry is also our puppet show. > > > >> Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in >> the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be >> evidence of supernatural processes. >> > > This study alone should convince you that this iron law you have adopted > is obsolete. The fact that it does not only shows that you are not looking > at evidence, but ideology. This experiment shoes conclusively a change in > the microphysical public brain which is actively ignored by the top down, > macrophenomena of private physics. > I can't see how you would think the article shows what you think it shows. It claims that there must be something different about the brain when it is processing information consciously, which is what you would expect if consciousness does, in fact, supervene on neurochemistry. What you need to support your case is the opposite effect: consciousness is different while the brain is the same. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
