View Full Version : The "Mind Is What The Brain Does" or Is It?


Kunga Dorji
08-06-15, 02:28 AM
Our world view is dominated by the creed of scientific materialism- which presents the view (unproven) that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon contingent upon neural activity.

Recent research into the experiences of individuals who have survived rescuscitation challenges that view.

It is understood that, post cardiac arrest, neural activity ceases about 20-30 seconds after the last heartbeat.

However information from this study clearly demonstrates that conscious awareness persists much longer.

The original research article is referenced here:
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { }http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html

They refer to this peice of research:
www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2814%2900739-4/fulltext


P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }The largest ever medical study into near-death and out-of-body experiences has discovered that some awareness may continue even after the brain has shut down completely.


P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }But scientists at the University of Southampton have spent four years examining more than 2,000 people who suffered cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria.
And they found that nearly 40 per cent of people who survived described some kind of ‘awareness’ during the time when they were clinically dead before their hearts were restarted.
One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.
Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.
“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.
“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.
“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for".

[/quote]


IE the experience lasted a minimum of 6 minutes- well past the 30 seconds for neural shutdown.


“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

and

P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }Dr Parnia believes many more people may have experiences when they are close to death but drugs or sedatives used in the process of rescuscitation may stop them remembering.

Now from article 2:


key points

P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }
• Widely used yet scientifically imprecise terms such as near-death and out-of-body experiences may not be sufficient to describe the actual experience of death. Future studies should focus on cardiac arrest, which is biologically synonymous with death, rather than ill-defined medical states sometimes referred to as ‘near-death’.


and

P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest. Dr Parnia concluded: “This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating. In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.


While we are dealing with only one case- the implications of this one case are staggering.
This material is just not compatible in any way with the scientific materialist view of the world.

IT is pretty much "game over" for that theory.

More later. I am still hunting the next reference from the published literature :)




P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

Fortune
08-06-15, 03:15 AM
Well that is certainly intriguing.

BellaVita
08-06-15, 03:32 AM
Thanks for sharing, Kunga Dorji - very interesting.

Wonder what scientists are going to discover about this in the next 50 years.

Kunga Dorji
08-06-15, 08:50 AM
Our world view is dominated by the creed of scientific materialism- which presents the view (unproven) that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon contingent upon neural activity.

Recent research into the experiences of individuals who have survived rescuscitation challenges that view.

It is understood that, post cardiac arrest, neural activity ceases about 20-30 seconds after the last heartbeat.

However information from this study clearly demonstrates that conscious awareness persists much longer.

The original research article is referenced here:
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { }http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html

They refer to this peice of research:
www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2814%2900739-4/fulltext (http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2814%2900739-4/fulltext)



P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }But scientists at the University of Southampton have spent four years examining more than 2,000 people who suffered cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria.
And they found that nearly 40 per cent of people who survived described some kind of ‘awareness’ during the time when they were clinically dead before their hearts were restarted.
One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.
Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.
“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.
“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.
“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for".




IE the experience lasted a minimum of 6 minutes- well past the 30 seconds for neural shutdown.

and

Now from article 2:


key points


and


While we are dealing with only one case- the implications of this one case are staggering.
This material is just not compatible in any way with the scientific materialist view of the world.

IT is pretty much "game over" for that theory.

More later. I am still hunting the next reference from the published literature :)


[/quote]

Actually I was wrong-- the total time of the experience of the man with the cardiac arrest was a minimum of 3 minutes - not 6, but it was still well past the cessation of neural activity.

mildadhd
08-06-15, 08:57 AM
Consciousness is last observed in the PAG (BrainMind)




P

KarmanMonkey
08-07-15, 11:04 AM
I've been occasionally picking at an article on quantum physics and the brain for over a year now, and one of the things they've basically proven is that a lot of what goes on in the brain does not relate to the linear neural interactions; that much of what we consider higher thought and experience happens elsewhere or otherwise, and the brain may be more-or-less an interface between the mind and body.

There is a branch of science that seems to be reverting to the old philosophy that the mind is greater than the wrinkly ball of meat in our heads.

Personally I'm thrilled by the fact that people are looking for answers in places outside neurons; it's been clear to me for years that neuroscience was unlikely to ever find the answers to the big questions like "Where does thought come from?" and "How can I know something intuitively without lived experience?" and "Why would I suddenly have a thought with seemingly no connection to my present sensory experiences?"

I work in a mental health unit, and unfortunately many of my colleagues see the chemical imbalance theory as proven fact, when more and more evidence shows that the view is limited if not completely wrong. I'm hoping this emerging research serves to open some minds.

Fortune
08-07-15, 10:56 PM
KarmanMonkey, do you have a link to the article you mention?

Fortune
08-08-15, 12:01 AM
To clarify: I am asking because I want to read the article, I'm not asking people to prove anything. :)

SB_UK
08-08-15, 09:01 AM
Just thinking about consciousness.

What if we (that's the underlying nature which we're projected from) are simultaneously aware of ALL events however it's our nerves (ie sensors) which of those very large number of events occurring - we can register.

ie we're potentially aware of everything - it's just that our nerves provide a selective window in that part of everything that we can register.

What's the point here ?

Well - we kinda' assume that we can only become conscious of what our nerves can register ie our nerves define what is our reality - but what if our nerves simply 'shield' ie filter out stimuli and leave us with the little that remains.

So ... ... ... don't know -

- we have the scope to become more and more sensitive ?

That is - that our underlying ghost in the shell, is trying to put ncreased sensitivity into the shell such that the shell becomes aware of the full majesty of events comprising reality.

So - the nerve is a selective filter - but that these selective filters can become more and more sensitive - giving rise to our 'sensory' perception of reality.

Oooo - that fits in with highly sensitive people ADDer thingies that we're supposed to (but rarely) talk about here.

It (once again) - though in a slightly diferent way - places the emphasis of evolution on QUALITY and not just (bleughhh!) survival.

Survival just ain't living.

So - from a different perspective.

There's a simultaneous series of events occurring in the Universe at any given Planck time - and consciosuness is simultaneously aware of them - since consciousness is the Planck by Planck state of the phenomenological Universe
- and what we are - is 'the Universe trying to know itself' or more simply -

this underlying shifting projected phenomenological reality which (of course) underlies us - trying to put in place a neural structure which is sensitive enough to make out all of the events which occur.

-*-

Not thought about that before - but it's a nice idea.

Completely turns the idea of a neurone on its head - because the neurone (recognition) is being forced by an underlying consciousness into recognition of that which the underlying consciousness projects.
It sweetly explains why ADDers appear to be Highly Sensitive People.
Ties the sensitivity to the cerebellum.

And explains why we 'take longer to learn better' -
connecting the cortical cerebellar loops of learning (automatising) into a different more efficient structure which is consistent with our capacity to 'feel' more.

-*-

Or from an evolutionary perspective

- there's an underlying structure called consciousness which projects what we call reality ie 'stuff' with a structure we can make out like dogs, receptors and balloons ... ... and we are projections of it also -
it is fundamentally creative ie results in layered complexity -
so the 'bit' of consciousness which runs through us actually connects us to all structures in the Universe.

So - it - simultaneously aware of ALL events occurring - which projects us - has decided to try and create an 'us' which can actually make out all that it's aware of.

So - consciousness knows the lot- but what it needs to do is put in 'receivers' of sensory information ie nerves which we can use (via the cerebellum) to attain awareness of that which our underlying consciousness is aware of.
The nerve as simply a window in on what consciousness is constantly aware of - ie a way of us 'seeing' what it (within us) sees.

That all makes sense - but what's the point in this point ?

[1] ? That we can (in time) become completely aware of every everything - now that would be distracting.
?? To be completely aware of all events overseen by consciousness would seem like sensory overload though -
aha!
I think that the dynamcs of the neurone ie the optimal rate at which a neurone wants to fire - will define our reality ... ...
- meaning that if a neurone were being excited beyond a certain optimal level - that it'd die off

--> explaining way nerves die when a limb is cut off - too much stimulation - exceeds a given level and the nerve celll can serve no purpose - dies.
Or deep brain stimulation where simply atttaining a certain level of repetitive stimulation kills the area which we have associated with some human problem - eg PAG and pain.

-*-

General point.

There's definitely some level of increased sensitivity operating here - but I'm not too sure how granular evolution will drive sensory awareness - would it be nice ? to be simultaneously aware of all Universal evolutionary interactions.
Yes - the thought does rather leave one feeling tired.

But that's because of the tiredness of ADDers expressing the increased attention which comes with out new brain/mind types ?

Don't know - maybe we're where this 'pattern' ends ... ... perhaps we're expected to create more complex patterns for ourselves - rather than sense ever more intricate patterns occurring in external reality external to the human mind.

-*-

Summarising what's important about the idea above.

We're simultaneously aware of all Universal events - because we are consciousness.
But only via the nerve do we become self-aware where self defines Universal events.
The nerve is currently - in ADDers - offering a greater level of consciousness awareness than we've had previously - with the underlying motivation of consciousness to increase Universal complexity - and the model of the model is the model (mind) over reality (reality minus mind) represents what you'd expect from a creative, evolutionary approach which results in step-wise integrals.

'model' of 'model' - is the 'integral' of a 'function'.

'mind' of 'reality' - the 'story' of the 'evolutionary process'.

SB_UK
08-08-15, 09:16 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaj407ofjNE

So - in a less woo woo way !!


consciousness -> projects 'structures' in reality
noumenology -> phenomenology

In humans we've this problem.

Because we're 'founded' on consciousness.

Now we figure that nerve defines what we 'see'.

But that's not right.

It's more consciousness driving us to 'see' ever more of what 'it' does.

-*-

That places increased sensitivity as the obvious 'thing' that evolution would drive us towards - and what has happened in ADDers.

-*-

So - we can trace the systems we're more sensitive in - by just looking at HSPs.

But the obvious ones are sound and sight (hate loud noises eg fireworks, sight - hate aggressive, blunt images eg 3d computer games etc) ... ...

-*-

What do nerves do ?
They only do 1 thing.
Learn.

What is the reward system ?
For the most part - it's just 'learning'.

Who do kids hate school ?
Because they're not learning.

Learning IS the very definition of rewarding
- so how/why does school get it so wrong ?

The understanding that learning is sequential - ie you don't expose people to eg high wire across the Grand Canyon until they can ?? walk ??
- however - making the progression (learning) from first walking to high wire walking is reewarding <- motivation

... ... ... what's the trick ?

Simply - to realist that 'learning' is FUNDAMENTALLY rewarding with a capital FUN ... ... and that becoming 'better' is also -
the flipside of this idea of course is that as we become better - that which is below us - becomes 'painful' ie bedtime reading some dull book to a child sending parent to sleep instead of child.

- that we can easily envisage changing society in a way in which human beings becoming better (actually through cerebellar automatising learning) and become ever better - ie 'work' for 'fun' -
[repetition is all important in educating the cerebellum ie 'babbling' in all of its many forms]
and all that's required is a global understanding of what makes us tick - ie that we're neurone people and not genome people - that we want to learn and become better -

and then to remove that thing which makes us U$ELE$$.

Stinky money makes the world go down.

Potential world moving composers of the next genre of music go into infuriating payday loan advertising earwiggy jingles that burrow deep inside and corrode the consciousness/brain/mind.

SB_UK
08-08-15, 10:10 AM
So - is it enough just to suggest that the mind is a perfectly ordinary (to be expected) product of evolution - and not to get too hung up on how the brain generated mind.

It's the usual problem of emergence - 'greater than the sum of the parts' - it's relatively difficult to get your head around the mind came to be in modern man - but relatively easy to see how the mind is exactly what you'd expect.

If we see the mind as an integral of individual specifications - then it's also relatively easy to see how the mind would have (when complete) to be a specification of morality - as the completed species level structure would have to be both consistent with any and all individuals.

So - morality as a a core component of mind - by definition of evolution which serves to operate by step-wise integration of integrals.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS... ... .... <- evolution is.

Since S continues to infinity (oo) -

a useful mnemonic for anybody with the initials SB 'd be S8.

:-) however I strongly suspect that people with the initials SB could forget that.

Names are just that difficult to remember.

SB_UK
08-08-15, 10:23 AM
Who do kids hate school ?
Because they're not learning.


Why schools destroy creativity.
(http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language =en)
The understanding that learning is sequential - ie you don't expose people to eg high wire across the Grand Canyon until they can ?? walk ??
- however - making the progression (learning) from first walking to high wire walking is rewarding <- motivationSo ... ... ....

creativity can be understood in the same way as becoming a better tennis player.

Sequential development.

At the cerebellar level.

The neat part here - is that we get to see why schools destroy creativity,

Because automatising education does not occur ie education in which 'you' actually change (eg riding a bike where you can't unlearn how to ride a bike)

- what is offered in school is a transient form of information which is lost soon after it's placed into short term memory

- destroys creativity - because the individual isn't intrinsically becoming better.

Neatly leads back to the classical areas of 'creativity' ie art -
where the cerebellum is definitely involved and in which the conscious mind is bypassed - the individual - through repetition - cerebellarly/cortically becoming intrinsically better -

they become better at their art with experience.

-*-

How to make an individual more creative but not in the classical realms of drawing/art/sculpture - but with ideas.
Same basic thing.

Repetition - repeatedly honing ideas.

Eventually creativity arises - as ideas worth having emerge sequentially.

-*-

Suggestion - we can differentiate learning from 'learning' by how easy it is to unlearn information.

It's impossible to play badly at tennis or be wobbly on a bike after we've become decent tennis players / cyclists; successful learning has occurred.
Note - connection previously to mention of language/programming/maths - potentially occurring in this space ie automatising space where we operate without conscious interference.

Also ... ... to Peripheral/Kunga Dorji's mention of parietal eye and its exceeedingly fast operation.

-*-

Conclusion
:-)
- if it's not fun you're not learning.

The problem with school - learning is individual-dependent.

Some 90 year olds are learning forehands where some 5 year olds have mastered it - transferring mechanical automatising over to 'intellectual' automatising - we need to 'aim' at the level of the individual - or learning will fail.
Too high and learning will fail - too low and learning will not progress.

School needs to work out how to incorporate one of these.
http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/xl/godoggo-remote-fetch-automatic-tennis-ball-launcher-for-dogs-xl.jpg

Self-directed learning as all important - but not possible in the current outdated structure of educational establishments.

SB_UK
08-08-15, 11:38 AM
Re: The "Mind Is What The Brain Does" or Is It?

So out there - there's a general feeling that there are brain type things like playing tennis and mind type things like coming up with ideas -

and they're partitioned.

With our kids - they only get to move onto the next stage of swim training ('brain') when they're good enough - but the same should apply to 'mind'.

There's no point in subjecting any child that isn't ready to 'brain' or 'mind' training - it's strange though that 'brain' training (ie progression when you're ready) hasn't been incorporated into 'mind'.

With 'mind' you just have to progress dependent on your age.

Any attempts to keep children back at school carries such a stigma that the kid generally won't learn even if held back - will probably just be on a priority route to failure.

Education (establishment) has become very dull indeed.

Why ?
Ultimately money - which feeds the wrong reward system.

All that we need for people to become better is a system which doesn't discriminate based on age and in which progression occurs as the individual 'tires' of previous stages - because they, themselves have grown better than that.

-*-

[1] So mind / brain aren't really that different at all.
[2] Mind's just a step up.
That's if we're defining brain as improved mechanical co-ordination capacity eg tennis/carpentry and mind as novel ideas.
[3] Mind understood as exactly what you'd expect from evolution of consciousness.
[4] Mind isn't anything special - what's special is consciousness - which operates by (at emergence) switching from the sum of the parts to greater than the sum of the parts.
[5] So - if we see a model defining the behaviour of a man (consistent with wellbeing), and then force all of these models to be compatible - ie the integral of individual models - then the collective controlling model of each individual will be compatible - giving rise to morality.
Morality should never be in question - it arises as a necessary consequence of mind as an integral of the behavioural models of all human beings.

Covered most of that before -
new stuff - what we're looking for is a form of education which in parallel with riding a bike educates the thinking mind in a way that the information relayed cannot be forgotten - this then permits the individual to scale creativity.
It's no different in principle to becoming better at any mechanical process - from tennis to carpentry to painting.

Current educational establishments don't make you intrinsically better - of greater individual quality; they're simply a test of how capable you are of transiently storing the information conveyed.

But imagine if through repetition 50 times per day - for each day of your life - you were able to store 50 hstorical dates ... ... and regurgitate them without thinking. Is that proper learning.

With proper learning - creativity - or scaling has to be possible.

You become better at sculpture, carpentry, tennis ... ... being able to regurgitate 50 dates - would lead you where exactly ? How would this form of learning scale ?

SB_UK
08-08-15, 11:42 AM
[4] Mind isn't anything special - what's special is consciousness - which operates by (at emergence) switching from the sum of the parts to greater than the sum of the parts.



Perhaps the most difficult, and at the same time the most interesting problem in neuroscience, is the nature of consciousness and its relationship to physical events in the brain.

http://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/about/intro/

Kunga Dorji
08-09-15, 09:35 PM
I've been occasionally picking at an article on quantum physics and the brain for over a year now, and one of the things they've basically proven is that a lot of what goes on in the brain does not relate to the linear neural interactions; that much of what we consider higher thought and experience happens elsewhere or otherwise, and the brain may be more-or-less an interface between the mind and body.

.

That is more or less the assumption that I use as a working model. NOt dissimilar to Huxley's "Doors of Perception" model.

We do need to recognise that all these things are, after all working models, or hypotheses.

The brain is involved in the limiting of perceptions tho those relevant for the survival of the body and the production of behaviours that will facilitate that survival.

Whatever else we thing of the whole spirit- mind- brain- body thing, there is no dispute that the production of behaviours (ie moving the body) is the role of the brain. ADHD is, after all a condition characterised by the persistence of maladaptive behaviours.

Close inspection of the Near Death Experience literature does reveal one very interesting correlation.
Individuals return from these experiences often reporting that despite closed eyes and absence of brain function their perceptions were more vivid than normal.

That is exactly as described in Buddhist texts that were written over 8 centuries ago.

SB_UK
08-10-15, 03:25 AM
What if ?
eg Kunga Dorji, Lunacie

[a] HSPs (ADHD) and autism (HS to communication ie it overloads) are overloaded by information flow.
[b] Information flow is handled by cerebellum.
[c] Cerebellum is able to handle information when parietal eye (superior colliculus) is opened - it's the eye 'in the moment'.

Opening the doors to perception relating to building the appropriate neural machinery to handle the information which the HSs are subject to ?

KarmanMonkey
08-12-15, 11:34 AM
To clarify: I am asking because I want to read the article, I'm not asking people to prove anything. :)

Alas, I'm currently trying to re-find it, as the tablet I had the thing on died on me last week! *growl*

It was a meta-study; basically reviewing a few dozen different research papers. If I manage to find it again I'll pass it along!

Kunga Dorji
08-13-15, 02:19 AM
What if ?
eg Kunga Dorji, Lunacie

[a] HSPs (ADHD) and autism (HS to communication ie it overloads) are overloaded by information flow.
[b] Information flow is handled by cerebellum.
[c] Cerebellum is able to handle information when parietal eye (superior colliculus) is opened - it's the eye 'in the moment'.

Opening the doors to perception relating to building the appropriate neural machinery to handle the information which the HSs are subject to ?

I will reply to this in a different thread. The neurological issues involving superior colliculus and cerebellum are far more complex than that.

SB_UK
08-13-15, 02:56 AM
I will reply to this in a different thread. The neurological issues involving superior colliculus and cerebellum are far more complex than that.
And there's the substantia nigra again ! within the superor colliculus

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Cn3nucleus.png

Neurological mechanism of the 'thrifty gene'
1. ADDers are more sensitive and so self-medicate under over-stimulating bombardment
2. ADDers are also ketone-adapted ie hyper-sensitive to insulin (fat producing)

A recipe for disaster - both driven through stress to eat high sweet, high fat foods - and less capable of 'handling' these through being born keto-adapted.

But but but - you can't simply suggest that a little known and little loved biochemical has taken the place of lovely sugar in pulling our mortal coil.

Sugar has never been a wise choice.
Fat has always been the better choice - the new kid on the block.

ADD - comes in as a shift to a better fuel, more neurologically sensitive and pro-social.

Peripheral's - homeostatic, sensory and emotional three.

-*-

So - and particularly amongt the poor (note - the meek he seeks) - epigenetic selection (see Surani, 2015 Cell paper - other thread here) - in poverty for a novel metabolic engine - the rest occurs by virtue.
This paper shows how heritability in the diseases we perform complex genetics on - can be explained by epi-allele persistence ie epigenetic re-programming doesn't occur at these loci.
The environment can be inherited.
And there's only 1 environment which is sufficient to merit memory - and that's food availability management - since it is only food in a warm climate - which regulates survival.

The key pan-genomic mechanism as promoting survival - of epi-genetic selection of genomic machinery.

To alter (progressively select) the genome towards ever greater efficiency.

Efficiency from a materialist perspective on the genomic engine considering its power supply - would be a carb to fat (ketone body) shift.
Carbs are awful from a survival perspective.

Keto-adapted - a novel biochemical engine.
Since aerobic respiration (via superoxide radicals) is OUR big killer (cellular ageing) - this is a good thing.

However we're born with a reward system tied into glucose flux and so can't box ourselves out of this cardboard bag.

Ask an average person what is healthy - and they'll identify the ketosis lifestyle - so fasting, food restriction, zero carbs, zero animal protein, long distance exercise, soluble fibre ... ...

- so we could just stop there.

But I'm pretty sure we're going straight from needing to eat to not needing to eat via the brain taking a leaf out of the gut - gut as the second brain - and (the brain that is) becoming the 'first' gut ie generating ketones for the body to use - particularly by the biome - whose incredible collective genome - human beings haven't been considering as they study the human genome and figure that that's all we are.

10 x more bacterial than human are we - with NO mechanism to set up a bacterial culture of that complexity ex vivo.

Evidence - :-)
What does Stephen Hawking eat ?
And we can tell it's working - because nobody has ever experienced his longevity with that terrible disease.

So - ketone bodies well proven to extend longevity.
We can shift to the vegan ketosis lifestyle - but I've this absolute belief that upon completion of mind - that we should eliminate the need to eat {period}.

SB_UK
08-13-15, 04:11 AM
I will reply to this in a different thread. The neurological issues involving superior colliculus and cerebellum are far more complex than that.
How about

[1]
Model of the control of saccades by superior colliculus and cerebellum.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10444693

[2] ADHD
We found that the average microsaccade and blink rates were higher in the ADHD group
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698914001187

[3] What does increased microsaccade rate (governed by cerebellum mean - it's just a sensory/motor function after all ie the exact same as the cerebellum's role in bodily balance ... ...)

Technology mirrors Evolution

60Hz

Rather than the 60Hz refresh rate that LCDs have been stuck with since, well, forever, these new monitors push the refresh rate to 120Hz and even 144Hz. A high refresh rate promises smoother scrolling and less blur in games, but these qualities may not be for everyone.
http://www.maximumpc.com/refresh-rate-2013/

-*-

In simple language - the (micro)saccade is simply the cerebellum doing what it does - though re:light as opposed to other tied sensory/motor regulation schemes eg balance.
Increasing rate - means 'better' signal being requested by cerebellium.

Bit like going from a black and white to a colour TV set.

-*-

Why ?

Internal consciousness construct using nerves as window to make 'us' aware of it (consciousness is aware of all phenomenological events in reality simultaneously - see Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' or fundamental interconnectivity of all structures within reality) - in ADDers we take a step closer to having the sensory capacity to make out its behaviour.

Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."
To see through the eyes of God.
To know the mind of God.

Orthogonal standing waves.

=||
- where as each emergent level completes - and synchrony is established - a new social impulse gives rise to a novel emergent property.

=||=||=||

Resonant synchrony ie on completing basic structure =|| - we observe a 'social impulse' which holds the emergent layer / abstraction layer together - which is why we don't need to worry about our left finger's quark from falling apart.
Resonant synchrony may be considered as in the frame of God - in God's presence.

-*-

Simplify
The saccade/microsaccade is a special trick that allows us, as it increases to upload more information through the optical channel - we need optical channel information to change - as the nerve requires a changing signal to relay information. The ADDer has a faster 'refresh' rate - indicating greater information upload - note attention deficit becomes attention surfeit udner this model - which must require cerebellar contribution - as the master controller of these programmed eye movements.
Ties beautifully in with Markham's 'Intense world theory' - with the sole other requirement of adding that the net drive taking us towards a more granular, high resolution view of the world (why TV's are on an inexorable ppi march) - is that consciousness (an inner force within us) is seeking to increase the window (offered by nerves) of reality which it itself is responsible for,

More simply - we're being driven to be able to witness the resolution of reality.
Ultimate resolution of reality ends with the Planck length standing wave.

=||

= Planck time
|| Planck length (2 waves of a standing wave)

So - Universe has 1 time and 2 spatial dimensions - and the only difference between time and space is their orthogonal relationship.

-*-

Everything we know is a Brief History of Time.

Planck time = the 'first' real (ie structure in phenomenological reality).

SB_UK
08-13-15, 04:18 AM
Re: The "Mind Is What The Brain Does" or Is It?So - all that the mind is - is a desperately curious thing which seeks to obtain as much - ABSOLUTELY AS MUCH - information as is possible.

And to tie it into 1 consistent story.

-*-

That's not what brains do.
It's what minds do.

-*-

And the simplest consistent story of the nature of evolution (reality etc) (using a symbol that people on this forum can remember ) 'd be.

... and simply ... ...

=||= ==||||== ====||||||======... ... ....

ADD er... ... ...

KarmanMonkey
08-13-15, 10:30 AM
The more I read about the brain/mind and our attempts to understand them, the more I'm convinced that we're still in the stone age in that field. We're barely scratching the surface of what mechanisms are happening; we're essentially reverse-engineering a "device" that is more complex than any we have developed ourselves by several orders of magnitude.

It's essentially like handing an iPhone to a medieval alchemist and expecting him to be able to figure out how it works. It's not like the alchemist might not eventually be able to figure it out, but it would be a long process with a multitude of wrong turns.

It's the same way with understanding the mind. Much of what we know emerged from studying brain injuries, and much more is a product of associations rather than actual deep understanding of the mechanisms involved. (e.g. people with problems in their frontal lobes tend to have problems with executive function. Doesn't mean we know how executive function works.)