On Monday, October 28, 2013 12:40:43 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On 28 October 2013 00:10, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>
> > 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".

That's like saying "We can't change the channel on the TV, or we would see 
some new colors of pixels that are not RGB.". In order to understand why my 
interpretation of spontaneous neural activity is the more correct 
interpretation, you would have to consider the possibility of top-down 
control to begin with. 

If you insist upon a flat picture of physics, where the TV actors and the 
audience at home must all live inside the patterns of the TV screen then 
you will not be able to find any significant truths about consciousness. 
You have to get out of the box, and right now, you are so far into the 
cardboard, you can't even find the box you're in. 

The term "spontaneous neural activity" is not a mistake, nor is it exotic 
or subtle, even if some of the scientists who use it are not aware of the 
implications for its erosion of determinism. Just because neural activity 
on one level is also caused by sub-neural activity on another, does not 
mean that it is not also causing its own activity, or serving the causes of 
the total intention of the person whose brain and body it is.

>> 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.

That makes makes sense. Yet you think that I am the one who doesn't 

> 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.

This is that effect. The brain behavior is staying the same in the regions 
which coincide with conscious attention, despite introduced noise. The 
brain behavior is staying "the same" in regions which coincide with 
inattention, in that they succumb mechanically to introduced noise. 
Consciousness is not difference, consciousness is MAKING the difference 
between difference and indifference. It's not metaphysical, it is 
meta-ontological. Absolutely primordial. Infinitely greater than God and 
Physics put together.


> -- 
> 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.

Reply via email to