Conceptual Issues page 4 Nature Network
5 March, 2014 at 3:26 am in Employment
I recognize that conceptual discussions are important to understand science. Questions and answers that we pose to and get from nature depend on our conceptual framework. At the same time, I recognize that many scientists do not have time or disposition to engage in these discussions. Creating a new topic on Conceptual Issues is an attempt to satisfy everybody, since members who are not interested (if this is not an empty set) can skip this topic, while those who are interested (not an empty set, as seen in Discussion Styles) can develop ideas here. This is an invitation to express your concepts of mind, cognition and consciousness, and their relations with measurable/observable brain activity and behavior. neurons do not replicate mental states of other people; they just register body movements and support the imitation of the same kind of action. that a much more intricate phenomena. The mirror system seems to be activated by recognized intentions, not by simple body movements. I don think there would be an agreement, how the mirror mechanism is working (is that a kind of simulation on the basis of the skills of the motor system, as originally proposed, or not), what would be the scope and purpose of this system. But, broadly speaking, it is closer to the experiences to say that the mirror system recognizes mental states, than that it recognizes body movements. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. I am open to learn, but not agreeing with your interpretation. A comment on the Ramachandrans text that you indicated: first, it is not fair to replica tag heuer carrera discuss the in a vat scenario without reference to philosopher H. Putnam, who created this thought experiment. Second, the idea that mirror neurons reflect the intentions of other people seems to me to be mistaken for two reasons. The first one is that peoples or of view are states still not accessible to other people observations (perhaps some day they will be, with very sophisticated technology). The second one is that Rama reasoning seems to be fallacious. I quote him: "Iaccomo Rizzolati and Vittorio Gallasse discovered mirror neurons. They found that neurons in the ventral premotor area of macaque monkeys will fire anytime a monkey performs a complex action such as reaching for a peanut, pulling a lever, pushing a door, etc. (different neurons fire for different actions). Most of these neurons control motor skill (originally discovered by Vernon Mountcastle in the 60 but a subset of them, the Italians found, will fire even when the monkey watches another monkey perform replica breitling uk the same action. In essence, the neuron is part of a network that allows you to see the world the other persons point of view, hence the name "mirror neuron."" The fallacy is clear in this paragraph. If the mirror neuron controls motor skills, it is assumed to reflect other people/animal overt behavior. If it does not (the owner of the neuron is just watching), then (Rama concludes) the neuron is reflecting other people/animal of view (or The forgotten possibility is that the neuron could be equally reflecting other people/animal overt behavior, but generating only a sub threshold membrane potential, which is not sufficient to initiate an imitative movement. There are several ways to conceptualize the problem. My approach (not very different from your idea) is that consciousness is subjective experience with informational content. The content is embodied in brain activity and can be studied empirically. The conscious subject is the whole living body (Merleau Ponty view). Conscious experience is the process by which the action of the living body is controlled by the patterns in the brain. Physiology studies the structures that support experiences, not the experiences themselves. Experiences are singular and could hardly be explained scientifically. This is why the consciousness story is more directly appraoched by philosophy (phenomenology and eastern wisdom are good guides here), arts and religion, than by science. The first processing steps (activation of neuronal receptive fields, formation of local field potentials, activation of memory registers and motor plans, etc.) are all automatic and unconscious. The endpoints of (some of) the distributed processes emerge to consciousness in an integrated form (which, I think, is physiologically related to the calcium waves in astrocytes). Phenomenologically we know that this integrated form always includes behavioral alternatives. In my view (that follows E. Morsella approach) the of conscious experiences is between the integration process in the brain and the activation of skeletal muscles that execute the action plan. This neuron muscle system involves several feedback loops (endocrine and immune effectors may also be included in the picture). Somehow these loops interact with the integrated pattern that was formed in neuro astroglial networks and the best behavioral alternative (or the one that seems to be better at the moment). In the above picture, it is the whole body that decides, not the brain alone. This is my conjecture Regards, Living processes make use of the movement of ions to integrate tissue function. by the EEG is generated by the movement of ions in and out the neuronal membrane. increase in kinetic energy causing an electron to jump to a less stable sub shell of energy). Such changes may be related to quantum information and computation. The traditional problem is how properly quantum processes could occur in the wet, hot and noisy brain. Technically speaking, how to obtain superposition and entanglement in such conditions? And how to get multiparticle superposition and entanglement supporting the integration of information from several brain circuits into a holographic like pattern? In the past, some attempts have been made to conceptualize quantum computing in the ion channel context, but it is hard to imagine how zillions of ions crossing neuronal membrane channels all over the brain could get entangled. Recently it was discovered the close interaction of neurons and astrocytes in brain activity. The consideration of astrocytes opens a new possibility for entanglement, since there is a population of calcium ions trapped in gap junctions in these cells (the similarity of this system with ion trapped quantum computers was described in my paper published in Quantum Biosystems; please check the group bibliography). if an action leads to the activation of a injured muscle that feedbacks a signal that is interpreted as pain by the brain, the continuation of that action is probably inhibited. In this situation there is a very complex interaction between the quantum computing system that supports integrated conscious processing (the neuro astroglial system), and the feedback circuits that involve the whole body (the neuro muscular endocrine immune replica hublot big bang system). Neurons, of course, are the interface between the two systems. Abstract: Contrary to the widely held view that our conscious states are necessarily private (in that only one person can ever experience them directly), in this paper I argue that it is possible for a person to directly experience the conscious states of another. This possibility removes an obstacle to thinking of conscious states as physical, since their apparent privacy makes them different from all other physical states. A separation can be made in the brain between our conscious mental representations and the other executive processes that manipulate them and are guided by them in planning and executing behavior. I argue here that these executive processes are also largely responsible for producing our sense of self in the moment. Our conscious perceptual representations themselves reside primarily in the posterior portions of the brain cortex, in the temporal and parietal lobes, while the executive processes reside primarily in the prefrontal lobes. We can imagine an experiment in which we sever the association fibers that connect the posterior regions with these prefrontal regions and, instead, connect the posterior regions to the prefrontal regions of another person. According to my hypothesis, this would produce in the latter person the direct experience of the conscious perceptual states of the first person.