Alex wrote:
> [Alex]
> Perhaps the 4D version of the "light" cone would be
> clearer:
>
> x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = 0
>
> The important thing about this equation is that it
> neither describes a cone nor light.

bj: It attains its operational meaning in re: the propagation of
light.

Alex: It describes the> null geodesics between the origin and the
rest of> space-time.

bj: And how does this relate to mind/body issues?

>
> bj: Frankly, this whole notion re: mind & extension
> strikes me as so much warmed-over Descartes.
>
> [Alex]
> In a standard 3D space only one bit of information can
> be at a point, in 4D space an infinity of information
> can be at zero distance from a point.

bj: And how would you support these assertions?

Alex: Descartes had > no intimation of this possibility.

bj: Well, since "information" and 4D space-time are 20th century
concepts, that would seem clear enough. My objection had to do,
however, with the hoary notion that mind is unextended stuff, which
we have from Descartes.

Brian Flanagan wrote:
> bj: Actually, I am proposing that the secondaries occupy "physical"
> dimensions along with x, y, z, t; state space is usually thought of
> as the place where Schrodinger's equation, e.g., hangs out.
> The "physical" status of state space has been the subject of much
> discussion.
APJ: Thanks for the clarification. Do you think that a non-extensive,
non-causal state space is not "physical"? In this case, could
entangled waveforms (which are, in one sense, non-extensive and
non-causal) be "physical"? If not, experimentally measured entangled
populations of particles would not define a waveform??

> bj: I prefer to switch to the more abstract Heisenberg formulation
> at this juncture, and refer to the vector status of colors. We can
> then avail ourselves of the fact that neural nets are typically
> modelled as matrices operating upon vectors (PM Churchland,
> 'Neurocomputational Perspective"). So we have the same
> math at both the quantum level and the neural level, which in turn
> would seem to make a kind of sense if the form of neural processes
> follows the function of the underlying quantum processes. Given the
> fractal character of dendritic arborizations, we might expect to
> find this self-similarity across spatial (& temporal?) scales.
APJ: I suspect that at this point our disagreement about isomorphism
or not between processes in different spatio/temporal scales
reappears. I think, with Robert K. Stonjek, that your assumption of
isomorphism or self-similarity between processes in the classical
brain and in the quantum mind (conscious processing) goes against
empirical evidence. My position is that the quantum mind works with a
different coding of information, in terms of non-extensive and
non-causal relations. Classical processes such as oscillatory
synchrony, coincidence detection, and membrane gating of ions are
necessary to prepare the brain for and to trigger quantum computing,
but once this computing is set it uses a different coding (that I've
called "entanglement waveforms" in the absence of a better term).

Best Regards,

Alfredo Pereira Jr.

Hi Leon, et al,

In the context of our derivation and use of categorisations to talk about
consciousness etc, there is a TETRADIC perspective that works better than
the TRIADIC and is a development of the DYADIC. This is in the realm of
UNIVERSAL categories; you need a context-determined qualifier to derive a
good sense of meaning from these universals and as such you move from
categories of fours to categories of eights.

In all of the discussions on consciousness or anything else for that matter
all possible meaning is determined by the methodology used to derive that
meaning and in us as a species that methodology seems to be rooted in how
our sensory systems process data and the recruitment and abstraction of
those processes, reflected in the intergration within the brain, into
abstract data processing in the form of objects and relationships
identifications that seem to dominate the brain and from that the mind. (the
abstract concept of objects/relationships being derived from the more
concrete, brain level distinctions of WHAT and WHERE, with 'what' being
differentiated to include 'who' and 'which', and 'where' being
differentiated to include 'when' and 'how')

The dominant influence on us as a species has been the visual system and the
dyadic, triadic and tetradic roots are there where the dyadic and triadic
reflect more stable, static, categories (or in treating dynamics too
'casually') whereas the tetradic introduces dynamics as a clear category in
the form of stable oscillations.

The use of a tetrahedron-structured model allows for the overlaying of
triadic perspectives and demonstrates a pattern of meaning derived from the
processing of 'randomness' in that the brain will isolate and exaggerate
data to derive 'meaning' - to derive a parts-list of the sensation under
study. This isolation reflects the 'capturing' of data from 'out there' and
from complexity/chaos studies we know that this sort of capturing leads to
the emergence of a pattern within the enclosure - the Sierpinksi gasket.

The tetrahedron structure reflects our sense of taste to a good degree and
our brain does practice keeping what is useful from past developments and
intergrating what is kept with new developments. In the visual system,
despite an apparent TRIADIC perspective, the focus is more on TETRADIC
perspectives in the form of:

constructive processing - WHITE - Red, Green, Blue
destructive processing - BLACK - Cyan, Magenta, Yellow

We then combine these with the opponent processing in the cones of the eye
which takes such excitory connections of yellow-blue, red-green, white-black
combined with the inhibitory connections to black to process data.

The TRIADIC cell structure in the eye for light processing, of sensory cells
(reflect neuron dendrites), bipolar cells (reflect neuron soma), and
ganglion cells (reflect neuron axons) combined with the DYADIC bias in
rod/cone distinctions as well para-fovea/fovea areas for input gives us a
sophisticated system from which we can recruit and abstract properties and
methods for the processing of ALL data. (Note that intense direct light
access to the ganglions can set-off hormones that act to re-set the body
clock and as such 'bypass' the more specific sensory cells.)

Thus it is possible to identify the roots of logic, mathematics, and meaning
derivation in general as being embedded in these sensory basics - for
example, if we take the Sierpinski gasket and 'refine' it out pops Pascal's
triangle and our concepts of self-referencing through recursion and even our
formalisation of the concept of the integer (through Peano's use of
recursion of the empty set).

The visual system has a 'rigid' need to differentiate X from Y and as such
this rigid process reflects the rigidity of A/NOT-A and the possible source
of the concept of the excluded middle. What is of interest is that this
'middle' is the source of POTENTIALS and the A/NOT-A reflect
particularisations of this pool of potentials. At the 'high' level of
physics this A:MIDDLE:NOT-A
forms the representations of the state vector.

The set of potentials reflects the realm of the 'everyday' and the vision
system, combined with the attention system, allows for the zoom-in,
encapsulation, and processing of, everyday data which gets distorted through
exaggerations as we try to derive a parts-list of the data in question - we
seek high-precision details.

When we zoom-up to the level of general information processing in the brain,
if we use the concept of self-referencing through recursion of the
WHAT/WHERE dichotomy, we can derive an ordered list of general qualities we
can use to generate meaning; these qualities reflect the entanglement of
what/where (aka object/relationship) distinctions to give us complex
expressions of meaning that we can share with all other members of the
species and even with other species - as long as they use the same general
methods in information processing - neurons and the use of recursion.

The qualities derived serve as the basics with which we describe reality and
that includes our descriptions of consciousness; IOW all we can say is
already encoded in the METHOD used to derive meanings we use to communicate.

If we review the physiological processes of the brain that serve to process
information we can identify recruitement and abstraction processes where
these concrete, local, patterns have been re-labelled at the level of mind
and used to categorise the universal; IOW the properties and methods of
physiological processes are used to describe reality and as such are
projected onto reality. One point of interest being that if our *root*
adaptation was to light then light becomes an absolute and even time/space
becomes relative -- sound familiar?
(http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/light.html )

I have made the distinction above of mind FROM brain and this elicits the
question of 'how'? the best I can come-up with stems from analysis of how
sensory systems deal with paradox processing. This analysis leads to the
recognition of 'transcendence' (aka 'mutations', 'phase transitions' -
although the latter is reversible) as a property of neurons where this
process stems from anomolies in synchronisation processes that allow for
'new' perspectives to emerge that totally change the whole system. (see
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html for more on species'
experiencing transcendence/transformation (and possible problems) etc see
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/ideal.html )

As such the 'mind' is a term reflecting the recruitment and abstraction of
local, stimulus/response brain processes to be applied at a 'new' level and
as such a 'higher' level. In  high energy processing we can identify
hierarchic processes developing and so the development of a stratification.
Each stratum can have a degree of autonomy and as such be seen to be
irreducable to lower levels OTHER THAN as the perception of OSCILLATIONS
that have IMPLICATIONS. As such, 'mind' is IMPLIED when we look at the brain
by the oscillations we perceive in the brain that get manifest as mental
behaviours. (we see this in brain oscillation 'anomolies' where too much
accumulate time in one side of the brain as compared to accumulated time
spent in the other side allows for the general characteristics associated
with the brain areas to be reflected in the general expressions of the
mind - too much left and the bias is to mania, too much right and depression
pops out - e.g. see www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/procroysoc.html )

Our reflections on brain/mind/consciousness are manifest in A/NOT-A
oscillations that, unlike the mindless, immediate oscillations we witness at
the sensory levels (see examples in the paradox link above) have been
recruited and abstracted to our dealings with the universal and that
includes our own sense of identity where, if I say "X" and you say "Y", our
brains automatically jump into paradox processing mode - we oscillate
through the method of argument - as we seek to resolve the paradox in that
your saying of "Y" is NOT-A and, since each individual's identity is encoded
in A, the presences of NOT-A is a 'threat' to one's identity.

This form of paradox processing can go on for centuries but of more
importance is identifying its roots - in the 'mindless' sensory processing
of local paradoxes.

The dichotomy of consciousness/NOT-consciousness is thus 'just another'
A/NOT-A process that applied recursively will give us a parts-list of all
possible categorisations that are within the universe of discourse; as such
we can map-out qualities expressing 'consciousness' etc we can infact do
this abstractly deriving qualities from summing yes-no questions such that
from any A/NOT-A dichotomy applied recursive three times we have:

000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111

This set of qualities is a set of SCALAR qualities, focus on expressions of
not-consciousness/consciousness and we can stay in the box but speed things
up by recruiting this set of qualities as analogies to describe differences
of expression WITHIN a single quality (this seems to still be 'brain level'
processing). This process reflects tetration over exponentiation and in the
above set of eight qualities we shift from eight to eight OCTETS of quality.

We can recruit and abstract the qualities formed from analogy to become
stand-alone qualities and so we have jumped from 8 to 64. We can continue to
do this ad infinitum but usually we are limited by being unable to
continually identify differences - the set of qualities becomes a continuum.

ALL thought on consciousness will reflect these patterns - the words will be
infinite in that each unique context is identified by association to the
universal set of meanings contained within all species members through the
use of unique symbols such that each discipline develops its own language
(and if allowed so would each individual, generation etc) but all of the
infinite terms point to the ONE species-level set of qualities derived
through recursion of the brain's WHAT/WHERE dichotomy.

OF Note: from my own analysis of recursion of dichotomisations (where I
focus on three specific disciplines that have their roots in
dichotomisations) the immediate sequence of qualities as shown above
reflects magnitudes, degrees of expressions, and as such can be ordered as a
sort of temperature gauge. Its focus is thus scalar and so there is a sense
of the reversible about it.

When you turn the sequence 'on its head' out pops qualities that reflect
VECTORS and so no longer reversible but possibly repeatable; the qualities
can be used to describe cyclic processes.

The point here is that each quality derived through recursion contains
within it scalar/vector expressions where CONTEXT determines the perspective
OR YOU CAN GET OSCILLATIONS DUE TO PARADOX.
In other words it is possible for us to see cycles where there arnt any as
well as 'meaningful' expressions where they are in fact 'random'.Thus we
have an example of a brain process focused on A/NOT-A development that
contains A/NOT-A in the ONE space (a superposition)... but then
self-referencing ensures the whole is encoded in all parts and the 'root'
whole is the A/NOT-A dichotomy we started with.

Since, to me, consciousness reflects a self-awareness so it is associated
with mind and mind is IMPLICITLY identified in brain through observation of
brain oscillations and their manifestation in mental states. It is possible
for mind to derive abstract terms that are not reducable OTHER THAN as
oscillations in the lower levels - IOW 'higher' level processing can appear
as paradox when we try to interpret from lower levels but higher levels can,
to some degree, influence lower levels (e.g. biofeedback processes etc)

In the reflections upon brain, mind, consciousness, all of the properties
and methods described above need to be taken into consideration (and also
included is the development of metaphysical perspectives from times when we
had no idea what was going on 'in here' - e.g. see
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/angels.html )

BTW, as to category 'coincidences', the general behaviours of fundamental
particles, fermions and bosons, reflect the general interactions of objects
and relationships which are reflected in biases in hemisphere, lobe, neural
network, and neuron processing of information. IOW we can identify a direct
link of us to the beginnings of the universe OR the results of the filtering
imposed on us by our species nature that determines all 'meaning'.
(recalling that it does not matter what level of precision we use, what
scale we are at, etc etc we are always talking 'objects & relationships' and
using self-referencing to derive qualities where the degree of energy input
can allow for a 'transcendence' in perspective but it is a transcendence
that STILL uses objects & relationships distinctions be they more 'abstract'
than those used at 'lower' levels)

Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
Lists:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus

My name is Rybo.  Im responding to generalized invitation by someone i forgt
who.

We are free to think whatever a person chooses to think without damage to their
biologic equipment (hardware).  Freedom of thought ergo freedom
of mind, is humans greatest faculty.

Steer-ability (steerage-way) begins with mind access.

Mind sorts any apprehended (incoming) info of the brain/ body.

Steering the photo/chemical induced waves of emotion (heart) is the immanent
challenge of mind.

The ability to change (steer) our minds is only limited to the
environmental circumstances of our recallable experiences, whether first hand
(direct) or second hand by hearing or reading others experiences.

At a minimum there is always (a priori) 12 degrees of freedom (see vector
equilibrium Synergetics 1 & 2 R.B.Fuller) from any space-time moment.

Minds minimal access is never less than 720 degrees ergo the total
degrees of angle, of minimal polyhedron (polyvertexion, poly-spirit,
poly-viewpoints) system a.k.a. the tetrahedron (tetravertexion,
4-spirits, 4-viewpoints)

Mind and life are both metaphysical ergo the non-existent, perfect
sphere or curvature of pre-time, size and frequency.  Which,
coincidentally, may be identical to gravity's shape.

Brain / body ergo physical (energetic, energy) [having time-size and frequency] 
is poly-vertexial, i.e. having many corners, spirits, viewpoints
within a semi-closed structural system [skin of protein.

Soul is a specific pattern of interelating spirits that contains RNA and DNA. 
Viruses contain eiter RNA or DNA, not both, and are an inbetween,
quasi-bio-organism.

Mind is likend to a quantum particle in that both appear to be 
non-deterterministic, i.e. both operate within confines of Hesinsbergs
uncertainty
principle.

Rybo

Free full article at
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/3/1586:

Guiding the study of brain dynamics by using first-person data:
Synchrony patterns correlate with ongoing conscious states during a
simple visual task

Antoine Lutz, Jean-Philippe Lachaux, Jacques Martinerie, and
Francisco J. Varela

Abstract:
Even during well-calibrated cognitive tasks, successive brain
responses to repeated identical stimulations are highly variable.
The source of this variability is believed to reside mainly in
fluctuations of the subject's cognitive "context" defined by his/her
attentive state, spontaneous thought process, strategy to carry out
the task, and so on ... As these factors are hard to manipulate
precisely, they are usually not controlled, and the variability is
discarded by averaging techniques. We combined first-person data and
the analysis of neural processes to reduce such noise. We presented
the subjects with a three-dimensional illusion and recorded their
electrical brain activity and their own report about their cognitive
context. Trials were clustered according to these first-person data,
and separate dynamical analyses were conducted for each cluster. We
found that (i) characteristic patterns of endogenous synchrony
appeared in frontal electrodes before stimulation. These patterns
depended on the degree of preparation and the immediacy of
perception as verbally reported. (ii) These patterns were stable for
several recordings. (iii) Preparatory states modulate both the
behavioral performance and the evoked and induced synchronous
patterns that follow. (iv) These results indicated that first-person
data can be used to detect and interpret neural processes.

Neuroimage 2002 Feb;15(2):345-52 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

"Conscious and subconscious sensorimotor synchronization--prefrontal
cortex and the influence of awareness."

Stephan KM, Thaut MH, Wunderlich G, Schicks W, Tian B, Tellmann L,
Schmitz T, Herzog H, McIntosh GC, Seitz RJ, Homberg V.

Department of Neurology, Heinrich-Heine-University Dusseldorf, 40225
Dusseldorf, Germany. KlausMartin.Stephan@...

One of the most compelling challenges for modern neuroscience is the
influence of awareness on behavior. We studied prefrontal correlates
of conscious and subconscious motor adjustments to changing auditory
rhythms using regional cerebral blood flow measurements. At a
subconscious level, movement adjustments were performed employing
bilateral ventral mediofrontal cortex. Awareness of change without
explicit knowledge of the nature of change led to additional ventral
prefrontal and premotor but not dorsolateral prefrontal activations.
Only fully conscious motor adaptations to a changing rhythmic
pattern showed prominent involvement of anterior cingulate and
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. These results demonstrate that while
ventral prefrontal areas may be engaged in motor adaptations
performed subconsciously, only fully conscious motor control which
includes motor planning will involve dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

PMID: 11798270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

"btapj" wrote:

> APJ: You are criticizing Alex Green's view, not mine! I have
> proposed, with Brian, to consider a higher dimensional STATE space,
> where ONLY four (or three) dimensions are extensive.

bj: Actually, I am proposing that the secondaries occupy "physical"
dimensions along with x, y, z, t; state space is usually thought of
as the place where Schrodinger's equation, e.g., hangs out.
The "physical" status of state space has been the subject of much
discussion.

APJ:
The additional ones, corresponding to qualia, are NOT EXTENSIVE.

bj: I think Pereira means "secondary" qualities. The "primary"
qualities of extension in space and duration in time are represented
in physical theory as the traditional x, y, z, t coordinates of space-
time--which coordinates Weyl speaks of as parameterizing color.

APJ:They refer to  different waveforms (not wave frequencies) of
entangled quantum  "hidden" variables putatively present in networks
of intra-neuronal proteins (as calmodulin, some kinases, etc.).

bj: I prefer to switch to the more abstract Heisenberg formulation at
this juncture, and refer to the vector status of colors. We can then
avail ourselves of the fact that neural nets are typically modelled
as matrices operating upon vectors (PM
Churchland,  'Neurocomputational Perspective"). So we have the same
math at both the quantum level and the neural level, which in turn
would seem to make a kind of sense if the form of neural processes
follows the function of the underlying quantum processes. Given the
fractal character of dendritic arborizations, we might expect to find
this self-similarity across spatial (& temporal?) scales. On the
subject of "hidden" variables, it is ironic to note that the
secondary properties are only "hidden" in plain view--a prime example
of the truth of Wittgenstein's remark to the effect that the things
that are most important for us are hidden from us by the simplicity
and familiarity. (Near quote)

The following is a list of articles on 'binocular rivalry' from
2002. They can be found at PubMed (at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed)

______________________________________

Laing CR, Chow CC. Related Articles

A spiking neuron model for binocular rivalry.
J Comput Neurosci. 2002 Jan-Feb;12(1):39-53.
PMID: 11932559 [PubMed - in process]

______________________________________

Blake R, Logothetis NK. Related Articles

Visual competition.
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Jan;3(1):13-21. Review.
PMID: 11823801 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

______________________________________

Andrews TJ, Blakemore C. Related Articles

Integration of motion information during binocular rivalry.
Vision Res. 2002 Feb;42(3):301-9.
PMID: 11809483 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Many journals are now making older (more than 1-2 years old)
articles free on the web. Unfortunately, it is not possible to make
a metasearch (searching all databases simultaneously) among all the
journals. Among them are the following:

Annual Reviews of Neuroscience
     - at http://neuro.annualreviews.org/

Brain (a Journal of Neurology)
     - at http://brain.oupjournals.org/

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
     - at http://jocn.mitpress.org/

Journal of Neurophysiology
     - at http://jn.physiology.org/

Journal of Neuroscience
     - at http://www.jneurosci.org/

Neurocase
     - at http://neucas.oupjournals.org/

PNAS Online
     - at http://www.pnas.org/

Science
     - at http://www.sciencemag.org/

Stroke
     - at http://stroke.ahajournals.org/

[Alex]
... it is as if we are observing information with
coordinates (x,y,z,t) from a point according to the
equation:

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 + (f(t))^2 = 0

Notice that this set of projections is also a point.

bj: I don't understand this point.

[Alex]
Perhaps the 4D version of the "light" cone would be
clearer:

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = 0

The important thing about this equation is that it
neither describes a cone nor light. It describes the
null geodesics between the origin and the rest of
space-time.  It is the path that would be taken by a
photon through 4D space-time but it exists
independently of any photon, it is a property of the
manifold.

Any objective measurement of the length of such a
path, made by a probe sent along that path, would
produce a distance measurement of zero meters and a
time measurement of zero seconds.  In view of this I
would consider that there is no space between the
origin at (0,0,0,0) and an event at (x,y,z,t) in the
direction of the event. Eg: the projection of zero
meters in Minkowski space-time is correct. In other
words, (0,0,0,0) and (x,y,z,t) have no separation
along the null geodesic.


bj: Frankly, this whole notion re: mind & extension
strikes me as so much warmed-over Descartes.

[Alex]
In a standard 3D space only one bit of information can
be at a point, in 4D space an infinity of information
can be at zero distance from a point.  Descartes had
no intimation of this possibility.

Best Wishes

Alex




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

The Human Nature Review now offers a free toolbar to search the web
at specific search engines of your choice. To mantion a few, you can
search for pdf articles at Adobe, PubMed, "FindArticles", Cogprints,
BBS and much more.

Go to http://human-nature.com/ and go down on the page to download
and costumise your Toolbar.

Sincerely,
Thomas Zoëga Ramsøy

A search for blindsight articles has provided this updated link for
2002. They can all be found at PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=&DB=PubMed)

_________________________________

Dodds C, Machado L, Rafal R, Ro T. Related Articles

A temporal/nasal asymmetry for blindsight in a localisation task:
evidence for extrageniculate mediation.
Neuroreport. 2002 Apr 16;13(5):655-8.
PMID: 11973465 [PubMed - in process]

_________________________________

Wust S, Kasten E, Sabel BA. Related Articles

Blindsight after optic nerve injury indicates functionality of
spared fibers.
J Cogn Neurosci. 2002 Feb 15;14(2):243-53.
PMID: 11970789 [PubMed - in process]

_________________________________

Ward R, Jackson SR. Related Articles

Visual attention in blindsight: sensitivity in the blind field
increased by targets in the sighted field.
Neuroreport. 2002 Mar 4;13(3):301-4.
PMID: 11930127 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

_________________________________

Sahraie A, Weiskrantz L, Trevethan T, Cruce R, Murray D. Related
Articles

Psychophysical and pupillometric study of spatial channels of visual
processing in blindsight.
Exp Brain Res. 2002 Mar;143(2):249-56.
PMID: 11880901 [PubMed - in process]

_________________________________

Weiskrantz L, Cowey A, Hodinott-Hill I. Related Articles

Prime-sight in a blindsight subject.
Nat Neurosci. 2002 Feb;5(2):101-2.
PMID: 11788836 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

J O U R N A L    O F    C O N S C I O U S N E S S    S T U D I E S

                          Volume 9, No. 4, April 2002

Abstracts & selected full text: http://www.imprint-academic.com/jcs
Enquiries: sandra@...
Full text e-service (JCS subscribers and pay-per-view):
    http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/imp/jcs
Subscription renewals: http://www.imprint-academic.com/renew
Print edition mailing to subscribers this week

                              REFEREED PAPERS
John G. Taylor
     From Matter to Mind
Johnjoe McFadden
     Synchronous Firing and Its Influence on the Brain's
Electromagnetic Field:
     Evidence for an Electromagnetic Field Theory of Consciousness

                                   COMMENTARY
Susan Pockett
     Difficulties with the Electromagnetic Field Theory of
Consciousness

                                    INTERVIEW
Christopher Frith and Shaun Gallagher
     Models of the Pathological Mind

                         CONFERENCE REPORT
Peter Århem, Hans Liljenström and B.I.B. Lindahl
     Evolution of Consciousness: Report of Agora Workshop in Sigtuna,
     Sweden, August 2001

                             BOOK REVIEWS
Benny Shanon
     Entheogens: Review of Thomas Roberts' Psychoactive Sacramentals
David W. Salt
     James McClenon, Wondrous Healing: Shamanism, Human Evolution, and
     the Origin of Religion
John Thurmer
     Helen Oppenheimer, Making Good: Creation, Tragedy and Hope
--
Keith Sutherland

                            JKB SUTHERLAND, PUBLISHER
      JOURNAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES       HISTORY OF POLITICAL
THOUGHT
                    CYBERNETICS AND HUMAN KNOWING        POLIS
                IMPRINT ACADEMIC, PO BOX 1, THORVERTON EX5 5YX, UK
        TEL: +44 1392 841600.  Fax: 841478.  EMAIL:
keith@...

                      WWW:  http://www.imprint-academic.com

In a message dated 05/06/02 9:23:24 PM, rstonjek@... writes:
>(snip)
>The reason for the use of the term colour is used because the analogue
>of electrical charge came in three rather than the conventional two forms.
> If there were only two, it would have been called positive and negative or
>just plus and minus in place of the red, blue and green colours.  The
'colour'
>name is just as arbitrary as the quark names eg 'up', 'down', 'charmed',
>'strange' etc.

Is it a coincidence, then, that attributes of electromagnetism (Light, color)
and of particulate matter (protons, quarks) each have three fundamental
primary analog aspects that, together, in various combinatorial aspects,
describe the properties of their entire individual manifolds, and that there
are seven phases orders (colors, qluons, sounds) that are expressed by these
primaries in each realm of nature?

Could it be that all apparently separate levels or manifolds of reality
(i.e., zero-point energy, electrical-light energy, mass-energy) are all based
on the same fundamental "(spin)ergetic" source that always resolves in any
subsequent sub manifold and superior manifold (apparently existing at
different phase orders of frequency) into the same seven fold numerical
separation of their different phase order attributes (light's seven secondary
colors, quark's seven gluons, sound's seven whole note harmonics, etc.)?

In any event, how does knowing all this explain or have anything to do with
describing the source and location of consciousness and its causal
relationships to mind, brain, matter, etc.?

Unless these questions can be answered and explained scientifically through
science's present reductive methods of indirect symbolic mathematics and
direct observations, I'm inclined to favor a holographic field theory which
is consistent with the above ideas, and that (starting from the zero point
and extending to beyond the galactic limits) ties together in one causal
chain, all the 10 multidimensional coenergetic fields of inner and outer s
pace...  And, further, explains the interrelationships of all conscious and
unconscious phenomena in between without contradicting any of the classical
and modern theories of science (limited to the different levels of both the
microcosm and the macrocosm they apply to).

In this model -- which can only be "proven" (besides mathematically) by a
synthesis of both deductive and inductive reasoning based on first person
(subjective) and second person (objective) observations -- consciousness (in
its fundamental aspect of pure awareness) would be an a priori attribute of
the primal (pre big bang) zero-point, alone. In addition, since the
zero-point is absolutely static as well as non local, these properties are a
highly persuasive way to understand and explain how the awareness is able to
discriminate between almost infinitely subtle variations in field frequency
so as to experience uncounted multitudes of finely separated hues, chroma's
and shades of light, musical sounds, touches, tastes, odors, ideas, etc.

It follows that all information transferred coenergetically through all the
interdependent, multidimensional fields of both implicate and explicate
orders of space (consisting on the microcosmic level of mind-memory and
brain-body) surrounding all coadunate, non local, and non consubstantial
zero-points of multidimensional space  both metric and non-metric -- would be
of a purely holographic analog nature... e.g.; As carrier frequency phase
orders of modulated wave interference patterns that inductively resonate from
one field to another.

This would also imply that, with reference to information transfer, the
brain's neurology is simply a holographic transponder and controller between
the coenergetic fields of both the implicate (subjective) and explicate
(objective) order.

>(snip)
>I don't see colour as a prerequisite for understanding space.  Colour is
>strictly a human interpretation of the frequency (and so the energy) of
>light.  Space can be described using geometry.  Light need not be
>considered.

But, as seems to me, the scientific geometric description of space (as the
source and container of all consciousness and matter) only explains its
tri-metric dimensionality (leaving out the added pseudo metric of time). In
no way can it describe our subjective space.  Therefore, how can it teach us
anything about its causal attributes or relationships -- including its sub
quantum zero-point energy relationships to super quantum energies, or its
relationship to the various aspects and vehicles of consciousness (mind,
memory, thought, perception, qualia, etc.)?

Leon Maurer
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/

Leon Maurer

Hello all,
I'm forwarding a post from the psychiatry-research list. It is one of the
most interesting findings in neuroscience these days, and a good proof that
if a quale (as the belief that depression is being medicated) is just an
illusion, it is an illusion that works surprisingly well (i.e., has a clear
physical effect).
But the right conclusion should be that a quale is real, real on its own way
of being (i.e., possibly a kind of quantum entanglement in the brain), which
is different from beings studied in classical physics.
Best Regards,
Alfredo Pereira Jr.

AGAINST DEPRESSION, A SUGAR PILL IS HARD TO BEAT
from The Washington Post

After thousands of studies, hundreds of millions of prescriptions and tens
of billions of dollars in sales, two things are certain about pills that
treat depression: Antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft work. And
so do sugar pills.

A new analysis has found that in the majority of trials conducted by drug
companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as -- or better
than -- antidepressants. Companies have had to conduct numerous trials to
get two that show a positive result, which is the Food and Drug
Administration's minimum for approval.

What's more, the sugar pills, or placebos, cause profound changes in the
same areas of the brain affected by the medicines, according to research
published last week. One researcher has ruefully concluded that a higher
percentage of depressed patients get better on placebos today than 20 years
ago.

Full text
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42930-2002May6.html

_________________________________________________________________________
Você podia estar baixando sua musica predileta, enquanto lia esse e-mail.
Não perca tempo, tenha acesso rápido a internet com o Super iG.
http://registro.ig.com.br/superig

"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote:
> Alfredo:
> In conclusion, I think the most productive line of discussion would
be: if
> 'qualia' are real, is it adequate to provide their description in
terms of a
> higher dimensional state space?
> RKS:
> I think you have put your finger on the problem right there. You
are assuming that there is a physical relationship between
consciousness and space.  No-one else in consciousness studies is
saying that at all.

bj: No, Michael Lockwood, e.g., in his 'Mind, Brain & Quantum' argues
for very much the same sort of identity theory as I do, which can
also be found in Russell, Feigl, and, in embryo, in Chalmers, as I
have indicated in my paper, "Are Perceptual Fields Quantum Fields?"
At any rate, in questions of science, the authority of a thousand is
not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

RKS:
The arrangement of neurons has nothing to do with the subjective
appearance of perceived objects any more than a gif image takes some
shape inside my computer's memory.

bj: Curious, then, that the work of Valois & Valois demonstrates the
existence of an isomorphic image of the visual field in the visual
cortext of Macaques. Curious, too, that our retinas have evolved so
as to capture visual images.

bj:
> This assumption needs at least some evidence of some kind, even
philosophically.  Most people would say that what we perceive (the
universe that can be perceived) is one sort of reality that can be
described in terms of space and dimensions, and the mind is another
reality that has nothing to do with spatial extension.  The brain
exists in space, but that is a separate issue.

bj: What most people believe is not at issue, and to assert that
there exist two orders of reality is to beg the question. We are left
with the fact that these "two" orders of reality, to paraphrase Wm
James, attend one another closely.

RKS:
> You ask if three dimensions are enough.  I ask if geometry has
anything whatsoever to do with consciousness.

bj: We have Wigner's "unreasonable efficacy of mathematics" with
respect to the physical world, together with the fact that we
perceive colored geometrical patterns. And then there is the fact
that Euclid wrote the first "scientific" treatise on vision.

RKS:
> For the case to hand, If Brian or others start with "Assuming that
consciousness has a spatial extension.."  you have admitted that you
are assuming it without debate.  I can only respond that I think it
is an outrageous assumption, but that would, at that level, be my
opinion.

bj: Can you name anything in the visual field which does not have
spatial extension?

RKS:
> Also, Kaluza-Klein came up with a five dimensional manifold.  I
checked in the book "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku and he specifically
says that when the Kaluza-Klein theory died, in the 1920s, it was a
five dimensional manifold.  It stayed dormant for 60 years, so when
it re-emerged, Kaluza and Klein were long gone.  Several people have
spoken of ten dimensional Kaluza-Klein ~ where does this come from??

bj: From string theory. See, e.g., Witten's "Toward a Realistic
Kaluza-Klein Theory" in 'Modern K-K Theories' (Applequist).

<dralexgreen@y wrote:
> [Alex]
> Phew! You are one of the few people who has caught on
> to this concept in a reasonable time. It is indeed
> being suggested that consciousness is a space. Ryle
> was wrong.

bj: Yes, and so is CL Hardin. And so are the eliminativists.

Alex:
> When you observe your conscious experience it APPEARS
> to consist of qualia laid out in space and time.  What
> we are trying to explain is how brain activity can be
> transformed into this "apparent" space and time.

bj: As Wigner, Weyl, and Einstein make clear, it is the business of
science to construct a theory which accurately models our sense data.
If our current theories do not adequately model that data, so much
the worse for those theories. It is simply perverse to deny the
reality of sense data upon which there exists widespread
intersubjective agreement because they do not fit
mistaken "scientific" preconceptions.

Alex:
> Our experience of consciousness has information
> arrayed vertically and horizontally, it seems to be
> observed from a point, it appears to extend through
> time, it is as if we are oberving information with
> coordinates (x,y,z,t) from a point according to the
> equation:
>
> x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 + (f(t))^2 = 0

bj: It is worth noting that the Calabi-Yau spaces of string/M-theory
are thought to be both projective and Riemannian.

Alex:
> Notice that this set of projections is also a point.

bj: I don't understand this point.

Alex:
> In my version of this realism, (x,y,z) are coordinates
> of actual brain components, probably in the thalamus.
> In Brian's version analogous coordinates could
> describe the position of parts of a quantum field
> which is not localised in a specific part of the
> brain.

bj: Well, I am a believer in distributed parallel processing, but I
would again point to the work of Valois & Valois so far as localising
the visual image.

Alex:
> Geometry can be applied to every physical system ever
> found (even Schrodinger's equation is geometric). Why
> is it assumed that consciousness should be any
> different? The onus is on those who claim that
> consciousness does not occupy a space to prove their
> hypothesis by experiment.

bj: Frankly, this whole notion re: mind & extension strikes me as so
much warmed-over Descartes.

apjmaop wrote:
> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> > You (Alex Greene and Brian Flanagan-APJ) are trying to introduce
> > a totally unproved and unsubstantiated
> > hypothesis to explain a mystery that you believe exists.
>
> APJ: I hope this is not a battle of words. Scientific hypotheses
are by definition unproved; if proved they are called "theories".

bj: Actually, I am more nearly of the opinion that scientific
theories cannot be proven in the sense of mathematical theorems.
Rather, they can be supported by evidence and reason, and falsified
by making testable predictions. In this wise, I would like to mention
that I have recently looked up Crick & Koch's "Gamma hypothesis," and
find myself in agreement with it thus far. On my view, the visual
field, e.g., is not only bound together by phase relations, but
actually consists in a kind of wave front built up by constructive &
destructive interference pattersn a la Fourier. (Happily, Pereira and
I have a history of disagreeing without becoming disagreeable.)

APJ:
Perhaps Brian's
> hypothesis is unsubstantiated but this is what we are supposed to
be discussing here.

bj: Actually, the hypothesis grew out of a multitude of observed data.

APJ:
> Neither Brian nor Alex have ever referred to the mind/brain problem
as "a
> mystery". On the contrary, they are trying to develop a rational,
> scientifically-based approach to it. The existence of 'qualia' is,
as
> everyone should know, a controversial philosophical issue with good
> arguments held by each side (Chalmers and phenomenologists at one
side, Dennett and eliminativists at the other).

bj: Yes, though it is important to remember that no one really denies
the existence of primary qualities. It is only the troublesome
secondary qualities which some try to deny, perhaps believing
themselves to be "scientific" in doing so, which is curious, given
the contributions of Maxwell, Schrodinger, Helmholtz et al., to color
science.

APJ:

> Let me recall what is Flanagan's hypothesis as he summarized in a
previous
> SCR post:
> "Say we have a product space between 4D space-time and a 6D
manifold of
> additional spatial dimensions, such as is contemplated in Kaluza-
Klein
> and/or string/M-theory. If the secondary properties occupy the
additional
> dimensions,...."
> My interpretation is that he is proposing a state space where:
> a) four dimensions correspond to classical/relativistic space/time,
> b) the other dimensions correspond to "hidden" or internal
variables in
> quantum theory (as those modeled in gauge theory), and
> c) 'qualia' are embedded in the later ones.
> Flanagan's hypothesis can be classified as a case of a
relationalist
> approach to space that proposes the necessity of higher dimensional
spaces
> in order to accomodate both primary (extensive, classical) and
secondary
> (non-extensive, as quantum non-local relations) qualities of
natural beings
> and processes.
> Flanagan's hypothesis is not dependent on string theory. Kaluza-
Klein space
> has been related to string theories but it is a historically
independent
> approach. And Brian admits that the hypothesis may be interpreted
in the
> context of David Bohm's concept of "hidden" variables, quantum
information
> as implicate order, unseparability, etc.
> In conclusion, I think the most productive line of discussion would
be: if
> 'qualia' are real, is it adequate to provide their description in
terms of a
> higher dimensional state space? How do the extra dimensions relate
to the
> classical/relativistic four? Is this hypothesis experimentally
testable?
> How?

bj: Yes, precisely. Although gauge theory is thought to be dual to
string theory, gauge theory is relatively free of controversy, and so
perhaps that path would be most inviting.

--- In MindBrain@y..., "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rstonjek@b...> wrote:
> Wordsmyth:
> Thanks to all for a lively discussion.
RKS:
> interesting observation, stranger.  As the conversation was between
> Brian Fanagan, on as 'Sentek1'

bj: Nothing sinister, I assure you; I use both of the following e-
mail addresses: wordsmyth@... & sentek1@.... You can
reach me at either one.

Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote:
>You are assuming that there is a physical relationship between
>consciousness and space.  No-one else in consciousness studies is
>saying that at all. The arrangement of neurons has nothing to do
>with the subjective appearance of perceived objects any more than a
>gif image takes some shape inside my computer's memory.
APJ: You are criticizing Alex Green's view, not mine! I have
proposed, with Brian, to consider a higher dimentional STATE space,
where ONLY four (or three) dimensions are extensive. The additional
ones, corresponding to qualia, are NOT EXTENSIVE. They refer to
different waveforms (not wave frequencies) of entangled quantum
""hidden"" variables putatively present in networks of intra-neuronal
proteins (as calmodulin, some kinases, etc.).
Therefore I fully agree with you that the spatial arrangement of
neurons has nothing to do with "the subjective appearrance of
perceived objects". This is an important part of my claim in the
paper "The Quantum Mind/Classical Problem".

>Most people would say that what we perceive (the universe that can
>be perceived) is one sort of reality that can be described in terms
>of space and dimensions, and the mind is another reality that has
>nothing to do with spatial extension.
APJ: This is exactly what I wrote in the abovementioned paper.

> You ask if three dimensions are enough.  I ask if geometry has
>anything whatsoever to do with consciousness.  Even if there were an
>electromagnetic-like aura around the human head, you would still
>have to show that its spatial shape or position in space has
>something, anything to do with the experience of consciousness.  If
>it does, and we can show some evidence of a solid argument for it,
>THEN we ask the question you propose.
APJ: I agree with you; again you are arguing against Alex, not
Alfredo.

> For the case to hand, If Brian or others start with "Assuming that
>consciousness has a spatial extension.."  you have admitted that you
>are assuming it without debate.  I can only respond that I think it
>is an outrageous assumption, but that would, at that level, be my
>opinion.
APJ: In my paper I explicitly argued against consciousness having a
spatial extension, and even said I am in agreement with Descartes,
Ryle and dynamicists as Tim van Gelder on this issue!!

> Also, Kaluza-Klein came up with a five dimensional manifold.  I
>checked in the book "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku and he specifically
>says that when the Kaluza-Klein theory died, in the 1920s, it was a
>five dimensional manifold.  It stayed dormant for 60 years, so when
>it re-emerged, Kaluza and Klein were long gone.  Several people have
>spoken of ten dimensional Kaluza-Klein ~ where does this come from??
APJ: This is all discussed in Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe",
but is not relevant for our discussion here since I am not advocating
that consciousness is extensive.

Best Regards,

Alfredo Pereira Jr.

[Alex]
Phew! You are one of the few people who has caught on
to this concept in a reasonable time. It is indeed
being suggested that consciousness is a space. Ryle
was wrong.

When you observe your conscious experience it APPEARS
to consist of qualia laid out in space and time.  What
we are trying to explain is how brain activity can be
transformed into this "apparent" space and time.

The transformation we are seeking is between brain
activity and what consciousness APPEARS to be/what we
BELIEVE it is, not between brain activity and what we
think consciousness should be/ought to be.

Our experience of consciousness has information
arrayed vertically and horizontally, it seems to be
observed from a point, it appears to extend through
time, it is as if we are oberving information with
coordinates (x,y,z,t) from a point according to the
equation:

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 + (f(t))^2 = 0

Notice that this set of projections is also a point.
In my version of this realism, (x,y,z) are coordinates
of actual brain components, probably in the thalamus.
In Brian's version analogous coordinates could
describe the position of parts of a quantum field
which is not localised in a specific part of the
brain.

Geometry can be applied to every physical system ever
found (even Schrodinger's equation is geometric). Why
is it assumed that consciousness should be any
different? The onus is on those who claim that
consciousness does not occupy a space to prove their
hypothesis by experiment. Of course, no such
experiment could be performed which means that such
hypotheses are not scientific.

You also said: "you would still have to show that its
spatial shape or position (of the field) in space has
something, anything to do with the experience of
consciousness".  This can be shown by describing our
conscious experience as a manifold and comparing the
properties of the field with those of the manifold
(see equation (1)).

You said "the mind is another reality that has nothing
to do with spatial extension".  This statement verges
on mysticism. Please prove how something can exist
outside of space and time.

Best Wishes

Alex



------------------------------------------------
--Previous post:
> RKS:
> I think you have put your finger on the problem
> right there. You are assuming that there is a
> physical relationship between consciousness and
> space.  No-one else in consciousness studies is
> saying that at all. The arrangement of neurons has
> nothing to do with the subjective appearance of
> perceived objects any more than a gif image takes
> some shape inside my computer's memory.
>
> This assumption needs at least some evidence of some
> kind, even philosophically.  Most people would say
> that what we perceive (the universe that can be
> perceived) is one sort of reality that can be
> described in terms of space and dimensions, and the
> mind is another reality that has nothing to do with
> spatial extension.  The brain exists in space, but
> that is a separate issue.
>
> You ask if three dimensions are enough.  I ask if
> geometry has anything whatsoever to do with
> consciousness.  Even if there were an
> electromagnetic-like aura around the human head, you
> would still have to show that its spatial shape or
> position in space has something, anything to do with
> the experience of consciousness.  If it does, and we
> can show some evidence of a solid argument for it,
> THEN we ask the question you propose.
>



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> You (Alex Greene and Brian Flanagan-APJ) are trying to introduce
> a totally unproved and unsubstantiated
> hypothesis to explain a mystery that you believe exists.

APJ: I hope this is not a battle of words. Scientific hypotheses are by
definition unproved; if proved they are called "theories". Perhaps Brian's
hypothesis is unsubstantiated but this is what we are supposed to be
discussing here.
Neither Brian nor Alex have ever referred to the mind/brain problem as "a
mystery". On the contrary, they are trying to develop a rational,
scientifically-based approach to it. The existence of 'qualia' is, as
everyone should know, a controversial philosophical issue with good
arguments held by each side (Chalmers and phenomenologists at one side,
Dennett and eliminativists at the other). Of course Brian and Alex are
assuming the reality of 'qualia' - if it doesn't exist the whole discussion
is void. However, they are not proposing a philosophical discussion about
the existence of 'qualia', as we know of several philosophers who are doing
far better in this business.
Let me recall what is Flanagan's hypothesis as he summarized in a previous
SCR post:
"Say we have a product space between 4D space-time and a 6D manifold of
additional spatial dimensions, such as is contemplated in Kaluza-Klein
and/or string/M-theory. If the secondary properties occupy the additional
dimensions,...."
My interpretation is that he is proposing a state space where:
a) four dimensions correspond to classical/relativistic space/time,
b) the other dimensions correspond to "hidden" or internal variables in
quantum theory (as those modeled in gauge theory), and
c) 'qualia' are embedded in the later ones.
I can't see any philosophical deficiency here. As all of you probably know,
even in Newtonian physics there is a distinction between absolute and
relational properties of space. Leibiniz and his followers (E. Mach, H.
Reichenbach) have tried to reduce space to a system of relations abstracted
from empirically perceived objects and processes. Based on some aspects of
general relativity some contemporary philosophers have been advocating a
view similar to Newtonian absolute space, e.g. J. Earman who considered
space an empty arena, with intrinsic properties, where physical processes
occur.
Flanagan's hypothesis can be classified as a case of a relationalist
approach to space that proposes the necessity of higher dimensional spaces
in order to accomodate both primary (extensive, classical) and secondary
(non-extensive, as quantum non-local relations) qualities of natural beings
and processes.
Flanagan's hypothesis is not dependent on string theory. Kaluza-Klein space
has been related to string theories but it is a historically independent
approach. And Brian admits that the hypothesis may be interpreted in the
context of David Bohm's concept of "hidden" variables, quantum information
as implicate order, unseparability, etc.
In conclusion, I think the most productive line of discussion would be: if
'qualia' are real, is it adequate to provide their description in terms of a
higher dimensional state space? How do the extra dimensions relate to the
classical/relativistic four? Is this hypothesis experimentally testable?
How?

Best Regards to all,

Alfredo Pereira Jr.

_________________________________________________________________________
Você podia estar baixando sua musica predileta, enquanto lia esse e-mail.
Não perca tempo, tenha acesso rápido a internet com o Super iG.
http://registro.ig.com.br/superig

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Pitchford" <ian.pitchford@...>
To: <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: [evol-psych] Working the web: Human genome


> Working the web: Human genome
> The web helped decode human DNA, and kept it in the public domain, says
Kate
> Mathieson
>
> Kate Mathieson
> Guardian
>
> Thursday May 9, 2002
>
>
> On June 26 2000, a draft of the human genome - the set of instructions
required
> to make a human - was published, the culmination of two decades of
research.
> The Human Genome Project (HGP) is now close to announcing that the
sequence is
> complete. Its scale is staggering. Every cell in our body contains 3
billion
> letters of DNA sequence, written in an alphabet of A, C, G and T. The DNA
> sequence from just one cell would fill 200 phone directories. The HGP has
> depended on international collaboration, so dealing with the sequence
online
> has made a huge difference to the project's pace. Scientists are
generating
> powerful information in the field of genetics: they need powerful tools,
like
> the net, to allow everyone to engage with the latest developments. The
human
> DNA sequence is online (see below).
>
> Full text
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4409424,00.html
>
>
>
> __________
>
> Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart
> by Marc Bekoff, Jane Goodall
> Hardcover: 256 pages; Publisher: Oxford UP; ISBN: 0195150775; (April 2002)
> AMAZON - US
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195150775/darwinanddarwini/
> AMAZON - UK
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195150775/humannaturecom/
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Pitchford" <ian.pitchford@...>
To: <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:04 PM
Subject: [evol-psych] Body Heat


> New Scientist
>
> Body Heat
> Mark Blumberg
> £14.95/$22 Harvard University Press
>
> Reviewed by John Bonner
>
> FUNERAL directors could be the unexpected beneficiaries of global warming.
If
> average temperatures increase by just 1 °C, there will be an estimated
24,000
> more murders each year in the US as Americans become hotter under the
collar.
>
> But temperature change is a life-and-death issue for every inhabitant of a
> small planet teetering on a knife edge between the scorching heat of the
inner
> Solar System and the frigid depths of space. The need to maintain body
> temperature within a narrow range is the biggest single influence on
physiology
> and behaviour, as Mark Blumberg explains in this little gem of a book,
Body
> Heat.
>
> Full text
> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opbooks.jsp?id=ns23426
>
> Body Heat: Temperature and Life on Earth
> by Mark S. Blumberg
> Hardcover: 208 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.99 x 7.47 x 6.28
> Publisher: Harvard Univ Pr; ISBN: 067400762X; 1st edition (April 2002)
> AMAZON - US
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067400762X/darwinanddarwini/
> AMAZON - UK
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/067400762X/humannaturecom/
>
> From Publishers Weekly
> Some species like it hot and some like it cold, and biopsychologist
Blumberg
> explains why in this somewhat jargon-laden exploration of how temperature
> defines the existence of everything on earth, from the Antarctica ice mass
to
> deep ocean bacteria, from babies in the womb to plants that can melt snow.
> Despite clever chapter headings "Then Bake at 98.6F for 400,000 Minutes";
"Cold
> New World"; "Fever All Through the Night"; "Livin' off the Fat" the
author's
> prose can sometimes be heavy going and even patronizing, particularly in
early
> chapters when he attempts to explain the various laws of thermodynamics.
But a
> reader's perseverance will pay off. By braiding together a spectrum of
> disciplines including anthropology, ecology, physics, geography, medicine
and
> psychology Blumberg investigates how extremes of heat and cold dictate
life's
> limits; by book's end, he has constructed an engrossing, fact-filled
account of
> why all life is merely a matter of degrees. Among those facts: why hot
peppers
> make us sweat, how fire walking works, the evolutionary roots of goose
bumps
> and genital hair, and the function of fevers. He also notes connections
between
> temperature and such human conditions as sleeplessness, jet lag, sex
> determination, anorexia and sudden infant death syndrome, information that
> makes the book more than just a collection of intriguing anecdotes. One
hot
> topic not covered is global warming, though Blumberg alludes throughout
his
> otherwise illuminating text to how fragile everything on earth is.
> Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.
>
> Sunday Telegraph (London), April 21, 2002
> A book "that leaves you for a few heady days in possession of a new key to
all
> mysteries."
>
> Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2002
> Written with "that essential gleam that makes books about science
successful
> and appealing rather than dull and exclusive."
>
> Book Description
>
> Whether you're a polar bear giving birth to cubs in an Arctic winter, a
camel
> going days without water in the desert heat, or merely a suburbanite
without
> air conditioning in a heat wave, your comfort and even survival depend on
how
> well you adapt to extreme temperatures. In this entertaining and
illuminating
> book, biopsychologist Mark Blumberg explores the many ways that
temperature
> rules the lives of all animals (including us). He moves from the physical
> principles that govern the flow of heat in and out of our bodies to the
many
> complex evolutionary devices animals use to exploit those principles for
their
> own benefit. In the process Blumberg tells wonderful stories of
evolutionary
> and scientific ingenuity--how penguins withstand Antarctic winters by
huddling
> together by the thousands, how vulnerable embryos of many species are to
> extremes of temperature during their development, why people survive
hour-long
> drowning accidents in winter but not in summer, how certain plants
generate
> heat (the skunk cabbage enough to melt snow around it). We also hear of
systems
> gone awry--how desert species given too much water can drink themselves
into
> bloated immobility, why anorexics often complain of feeling cold, and why
you
> can't sleep if the room is too hot or too cold. After reading this book,
you'll
> never look at a thermostat in quite the same way again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________
>
> Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart
> by Marc Bekoff, Jane Goodall
> Hardcover: 256 pages; Publisher: Oxford UP; ISBN: 0195150775; (April 2002)
> AMAZON - US
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195150775/darwinanddarwini/
> AMAZON - UK
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195150775/humannaturecom/
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Brain, Vol. 125, No. 1, 58-74, January 1, 2002

Seeing, since childhood, without ventral stream: a behavioural study

Sandra Lê et al.

We report the case of a 30-year-old man (S.B.) who developed visual
agnosia following a meningoencephalitis at the age of 3 years. MRI
disclosed extensive bilateral lesions of the occipital temporal
visual pathway (ventral stream) and lesions in the right dorsal
pathway, sparing primary visual cortices. S.B. showed a severe
visual recognition deficit (texture, colour, objects, faces and
words), although movement and space perception were largely
preserved. His remaining visual capacities illustrate the competence
of an isolated dorsal system which essentially functions on the sole
basis of magnocellular afferents (low spatial resolution, high
sensitivity to low contrast and moving stimuli). Patient S.B. also
shows remarkable visuomotor competences, despite his perceptual
limitations. It is suggested that his perceptual capacities
correspond to the visual processing limitations of the dorsal visual
stream, which in this patient have become accessible to perceptual
awareness.

Wordsmyth:
Thanks to all for a lively discussion. I believe I will take a breather now,
however, as tempers appear to be flaring.
RKS:
interesting observation, stranger.  As the conversation was between
Brian Fanagan, on as 'Sentek1'
Alex Green, on as 'dralexgreen',
Alfredo Pereira, on as  'btapj'
and
Colin Hayles,  who does not seem to have arrived but whose Email address is
quite different to yours, I have to ask the obvious question, especially as
there was no 'wordsmyth' registered at SCR:-
who are you?

Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.

Thanks to all for a lively discussion. I believe I will take a
breather now, however, as tempers appear to be flaring.

Welcome One and All from RKS

Alex
If consciousness is regarded as an impossible
regression viewed by an absurd homunculus then all we
can do to describe consciousness is correlate brain
states with subject's reports. The subject's reports
being "subjective" and only of interest because these,
in turn, may correlate with behaviour (subject's
actions).
RKS:
This is not so.  In fact the model that has been suggested by the quantum
camp is that there IS a conscious viewer and that it is placed somewhere in
the brain - physically.  The homunculus argument is coming from your side.
No-one arguing against Brian is suggesting a homunculus of any kind.

Alex:
Brian and I are trying to introduce (or perhaps
resurrect) a descriptive approach to consciousness. I
regard this approach as the first step in explaining
how our "subjective" experience could be generated by
the brain.
RKS:
No.  You are trying to introduce a totally unproved and unsubstantiated
hypothesis to explain a mystery that you believe exists.  In this you are
doing EXACTLY the same thing that religionists do "don't worry that can't
prove that God/spirits/esp/leprechauns exist.  We have an answer to all your
problems.  Just have faith!"

[Alex]
According to the description of mind that I presented
earlier the spatial location of information would
indeed be of critical importance.
RKS:
You really have to show it rather than just say it.

[Alex]
I would propose that there are perhaps two small structures in the brain,
most likely in the thalamus, where information is organised according to
it's position in the world.
RKS:
This is a very tentative hypothesis.  There is really nothing to discuss ~
so far, it is just your opinion.

[Alex]
Thank you Robert for prompting another experimental
test: Microelectrode recording should demonstrate a
topical presentation of data in a nucleus that
mediates consciousness and this topical presentation
should return after a few weeks of prism specs.
RKS:
Glad to be of service.  Look  forward to seeing the results.

Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.