The Brain as a filter, receiver/reducing value for Mind/Consciousness has strong support

Materialist's often claim that if Consciousness/Mind were separate from the brain we wouldn't have the kind of correlations we see if brain damaged patients. They often see the brain as a computer even though the brain is far more complex than a regular computer is. No dualist is saying that the brain is a simple filter, receiver or reducing value for the Mind and Consciousness. How the brain which is physical and Mind/Consciousness which is non-physical and how they interact with eachother is called the Interaction problem. If we can find a brain area that the Brain, Mind/Consciousness can interact with eachother the frontal lobe is possibly the key area to look. Some interesting reading here as well about the anterior insular cortex a part of the brain and how it might act as a filter for certain conscious information. https://interestingengineering.com/scientists-discovered-gateway-to-consciousness-in-brain

More blows to the view that the Mind is what the Brain does!

One of those now is the fact that dreamless sleep does not makes consciousness disappear. "When it comes to dreamlessness, conventional wisdom states that consciousness disappears when we fall into a deep, dreamless sleep". But researchers have come up with a new way to define the different ways that we experience dreamlessness, and say there’s no evidence to suggest that our consciousness 'switches off' when we stop dreaming. In fact, they say the state of dreamlessness is way more complicated than we’d even imagined. Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not-switch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists?fbclid=IwAR1KALtkggRqhuV_LN6-B17EWbfJPTFh7t95LDLYv48ThpWmdftL7gEy52w Another blow is now scientific evidence showing that the Claustrum (region in the brain) is not the seat of Consciousness. It is not the so called elusive on and off switch of Consciousness. "Two studies published earlier this year suggest that the claustrum’s moment has passed. A study on five epileptic patients at Stanford University demonstrated that zapping the claustrum on both sides of the brain had no effect on their subjective experience.4 Corroborating this, a study on mice from investigators at the University of Maryland showed that deactivating the claustrum resulted in no apparent loss of consciousness.5 Based on these data, it seems that the claustrum may be yet another red herring in the hunt for the seat of consciousness". Source: http://nautil.us/issue/79/catalysts/where-is-my-mind?fbclid=IwAR1KALtkggRqhuV_LN6-B17EWbfJPTFh7t95LDLYv48ThpWmdftL7gEy52w

Happy Canada Day

I hope all Canadians me included have a wonderful Canada Day. All Canada day events will be online this year because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Which does suck but nothing anyone can do about that. In other news I have just come across another article on the split brain experiments where they continue to show scientific evidence of one locus of consciousness. That when you split the brain you don't have two consciousness but one unified consciousness which is compatible with the filter/receiver analogy of consciousness/mind/brain.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945219303922?via%3Dihub

Internet analogy as it pertains to the Mind and Consciousness

Hi there guys hope everyone's weekend is going great. I was just thinking about a interesting new 21st analogy for brain/mind/consciousness.I still like the radio and tv analogies as well but I think this one is more up to date. This is different then the Materialist computer analogy that the brain is hardware and the mind is software and that consciousness is just some grand illusion of the brain. In this analogy all three are important, the brain is hardware and also software, mind/consciousness is the internet. This would explain why Neuroscientists can take pictures from the brain and see images like going into the computer and seeing images from the internet like google. Of course the internet did not originate from the computer instead the internet is access through a router/modem and the originator comes network towers. Those network towers in this analogy are from the other dimensions/ that are connection to this modem/router which is the soul made up of a different type of matter. The brain is merely a interface for the mind and consciousness in this view.


One of the biggest problems with Physicalism is that it tries everything to one substance. We know that the brain exist, that the mind exist and that consciousness exist. These are three things, not one. First you say that consciousness is just a grand illusion somehow generated by the brain and that the mind is just what the brain does. Nice and easy story there but it doesn't mean its true.

Does creating Artificial Memories prove that memories are somehow stored in the brain?

No it doesn't as artificial memories are nothing like a real memory. That is why they are called fake memories. The hopes of many Materialist scientist's is that this will eventually lead to proving the engram theory of memory. That memory is physical traces stored in the brain. However previous failure of this theory should make these scientist's pause that the theory may be wrong. We also have evidence mentioned previously in this blog about terminal lucidity patients who have their memories return to them shortly before their death. This strongly indicates that memories are not stored in the brain.

The interaction problem for Substance Dualists and the chemical brain

So how can something non-physical interact with the physical. I think this is a red-herring, especially knowing we don't ask how non-living unconscious things interact daily with physical conscious beings. If you don't take consciousness seriously and don't think it has any subjective qualities (non-physical in the sense of having subjective aspects which I think most substance dualists would say). Then many materialists who thigns such as consciousness is a grand illusion generated in the brain. I mentioned I think the soul is made up of another type of matter, and we do know that their is more than just the matter we are made of that can live. That different form of matter is vibrating at a higher frequency, this is what the evidence for an afterlife strongly points out.


Recently, their was an article in New Scientist where a chemist by the name of Lee Cronin believes using chemistry will help create artificial life as well as explain consciousness. He goes on to say that Consciousness will never will realized in silicon. He seems to be just another materialist who is looking for a biological account for consciousness.

Some links that support the view that the brain filters/receives consciousness

Here they are just some of them

Does consciousness depend on the brain? by Chris Carter


Does Schizophrenia suggest a filter theory of consciousness? by Michael Prescott



https://www.sott.net/article/311387-Drowning-in-a-sea-of-thought-Does-schizophrenia-suggest-a-filter-theory-of-consciousness


The Most unbelievable Eye on earth belongs to a creature with no Brain



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/the-most-unbelievable-eye-on-earth-belongs-to-a-creature-with-no-brain/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_term=20180813&utm_content=1694762271&utm_campaign=NOVA%20Next&linkId=54931092

My review of the book Myth of an Afterlife

I have come across this book by authors Keith Augustine and the late Michael Martin. The book argues that the mind is completely dependent on the brain. Therefore, when the brain dies the mind dies. This is just a partial review of the book as it would take a lot of time to review this book and it's because it's a lot of the same stuff that dualist's already know about. I would just like to refute certain things that have taken my attention. One of the argument's in the book comes from the physics part of it. That it violates known physical laws however those laws are often violated regularly. The problems with the casual closure argument is that number one it has never been shown to be scientifically true. Number two a lot of scientists disagree with this argument and state the universe is actually open. Keith Augustine obviously has no clue what substance dualism actually entails. My view of the soul is that it's an etheric like substance that is made up of a different kind of matter. This etheric body vibrates at a higher frequency than normal matter.


The etheric body (soul) does not get effected by just things as brain damage only the the mind which is largely information based. The split brain experiments doesn't help Keith's case whatsoever as the recent data show no split consciousnesses. On top of that Multiple Personality disorder has been largely discredited.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.htm



What is in question is the degree of the dependency between mind and brain. It doesn't seem as strong as what many of the scientists let on it is. Keith also mentions in the book if the brain is a mere receiver of the mind then why is the brain so complexed?. Has Keith ever heard of the view of a complex receiver. If the brain is a producer or generator of the mind/consciousness than it would equally have to be complexed to do that as well. What evidence Keith states would show that substance dualism is probably false?. I have actually mentioned that strong AI would deliver such strong evidence as how could are mind and consciousness be replicated in a machine if it's destined to go to the afterlife?. However, unfortunately for Keith, Strong AI is looking less and less likely as more and more false predictions come out about when it will happen. So we keep moving forward in time making it less likely. Keith just uses excuses as to why the evidence for an afterlife doesn't work. He is fixated on an agenda to push his view along with the authors and scientists in this book without giving a neutral view on this subject which is rightfully deserves. No dualist denies the fact of interaction between the mind and brain, their is no one way casual street however like Keith Augustine would like readers to believe. Instead we have strong evidence that the mind can also effect the brain.


One of the evidence's that Materialist's use as evidence for dependency of the mind and brain. Is that bigger brains make better minds. That however is not true instead often brain size has nothing to do with intelligence which is one of the key aspect of the mind. If the production theory was true you would actually expect bigger brains to make better minds that is not the case. I know many people with smaller brains than some of my other friends who have bigger brains but those friends of mine with the smaller brains actually are smarter than them they have a high IQ. Another evidence that materialist use is that when the brain is damage the mind is also damaged this is the other line of evidence in favored of dependency we are told. Unlike materialist's though we jump to the conclusion that mind is damaged when the brain is. Instead we point out to the fact that their is a strong correlation between the brain and the mind. However that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the brain causes the mind.


There is two compelling reasons putting instead the evidence for survival and psi phenomenon for a second why it's actually not logical to think that the mind/consciousness must cease to exist when the brain/body does.


1. All physical things are subject to death no other way around that. However, consciousness is largely subjective, we know of nothing else that is subjective in nature. How can something that is largely subjective die?. This in of itself would strongly argue for the existence of an afterlife.

2. If their is no end or beginning to the universe and it's like the cyclic model than eventually you would exist again somewhere in the the universe.

Questions Physicalists have a very hard time answering

There are numerous questions physicalists have a hard time answering. One of them is the fact that I can easily imagine life without consciousness. That would definitely signal a strong scientific confidence that Physicalism is right.However, we don't have that we have subjectivity an inner life that at least humans possess. What evolutionary advantage is there in having conscious beings instead of zombie like humans?. Another is the fact that I can easily imagine the earth being just a tad closer to the sun. If that was the case life would not exist. It would be too hot on earth. Let's put aside the overwhelming evidence for psi and for an afterlife to the side for a moment. Physicalist's claim that consciousness ends when physical life ends when the brain stops. However, consciousness is subjective in nature. How can subjective have an ending. Be that a temporary ending or a permanent ending like Physicalist's insist it must. Well, I just wanted to share these questions with you. I have been thinking about them for a long time now. Physicalists never have any proper answers to these questions. Though many of them seem to be very certain of their positions. They never have any doubt in their convictions. So what about Idealism?. Well, it seems to suffer the same problem that Physicalism does and that is assuming everything is reduced down to one single substance. Instead of matter/energy being primary, we have consciousness as primary. Substance Dualism seems to be the best answer as it doesn't make reality be simple. After all, reality isn't so simple. As new discoveries like Quantum Physics are teaching us.


On a side note, the weather here has been downright awful, with constant rain and more coming too.

New study provides strong evidence that their isn't two separate streams of consciousness

It looks like the evidence that materialist's have been touting as powerful evidence against substance dualism. Which it would be if true. That is if there is two separate consciousnesses when you split the Corpus Callousum. However a new study has now provided strong evidence that clearly shows that two separate consciousness is very unlikely. It is welcome news, for Substance Dualist's such as myself who strongly support this view. This particular evidence for two consciousnesses in a brain was used in a new book called the Myth of an Afterlife well it looks like now that interpretation of the evidence is wrong. There is no consciousness split when you split the brain.

This experiment is expected to be repeated several more times says the researcher Yair Pinto.

Here is the study here.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.htm


Dr. Yair Pinto talks more about the evidence showing that when you split the brain you still get one consciousness.

https://knowingneurons.com/2018/01/10/split-brain-split-person/

Happy New Year!!!

I hope you had an awesome Christmas and may 2017 which is now here be awesome as well. I need to address something that I consider important. There is a case of a man who apparently lives with 10 percent of his brain intact only. Neurologist Steven Novella, questioned this because this would be possible evidence against the view that the brain somehow produces the brain. He tries to go with a materialist explanation to explain this case. However, numerous scientist's are rather puzzled by this particular case and are having a very hard time finding a materialist explanation for it. Michael Prescott does a great job of dismantling the superplasticity explanation that Steven Novella is using.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2015/08/brainy-thoughts.html

On the same topic, an article titled "Is your Brain really Necessary"?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/07/26/is-your-brain-really-necessary-revisited/#.WGxivxsrLIV

Interesting case here as well of a lady who has above average IQ even though she is a hydrocephalic.

http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/ep/sharon-parker-the-woman-with-the-mysterious-brain/

What we know about our brains, minds and why Dualism is far from dead!

It's often claimed by materialist's that Dualism is dead!. That couldn't be farther from the truth. What we know about consciousness is that it's got no particular location in the brain. If their was a specific region in the brain that gave rise to consciousness we could possibly find things such as though neurons, memory neurons and so on. ( You know the things that consciousness has). However, when we look at the brain we never find a thought neuron or memory neuron etc. Instead, what we find is neurons and mirror neurons as well. These neurons we are told somehow give rise to consciousness when you get enough of them connected. Again, their isn't anything like consciousness this subjectiveness we all have. How could physical objects such as neurons give rise to subjective experience?.


It's really like magic which most materialist's accuse dualists of when they propose that may actually be a immaterial soul. But it has nothing to do with MAGIC whatsover!. Instead it has to do with providing an explanation. This explanation is that the immaterial soul is made up of a different kind of substance then what our physical bodies are made up of. Without a doubt neurons have strong correlation with mind/consciousness the same with brain regions. However it is truly a big stretch to say that mind/consciousness is generated by the brain. The Mind is what the Brain does, doesn't hold up when we look at it with an open mind.

Why Consciousness probably is not an illusion!

I have been hearing this often that consciousness is probably an illusion produced by the brain. The problem with this view is that your not only supposing that subjective consciousness, internal feeling you are someone but your mind is attached heavily to your consciousness. That mind features things such as memories, personality and so on. So you would also have to say those are also illusions generated by brain processes. Going down this dangerous road you are ignoring all of the evidence from psychology of mental states and their reality. As well as all evidence that is the mind. You might then start pondering that the brain too is an illusion. This view brings up a lot more questions than it can answer. That is why I do not endorse this view.

Phineas Gage revisited

I just came across some new information on Phineas Gage. It looks like according to neuroscientist, Dean Burnett most of the extreme claims of Phineas Gage personality changes were made after his death. So their was no way for Phineas Gage to refute them. There is no doubt of course that his personality was affected. It the degree of which it was that is in question. So your saying so what?. There are thousands of other cases of personality change. Well the cases are also probably not as dramatic as many neuroscientist's let on they are, especially knowing the fact that these other cases are similar to the Phineas Gage case. Neuroscientist Dean Burnett is no dualist neither is he a materialist as far as I know. His book however was reviewed by csicop which is a skeptical organization and they gave his book praise. Even if he is a materialist that doesn't mean he cannot be honest. He is brave enough to admit that's what materialist's often claim that personality couldn't survive death because of dramatic personality change, well when a neuroscientist comes out and admits that their is indeed personality change but not the degree that materialist's pertain it to be. Many of these materialist's are neuroscientist's themselves but when he admits that other neuroscientist's can overstate cases, it's important to get this out there. I should also point out, there are also neuroscientist's, who are dualist's as well along with belonging to other views too. It should be noted however that a dramatic effect on his personality did happen but not to the extreme level that many materialist's who were trying to fit the data in with the view that personality itself is caused by the frontal lobe. The point is yes there is a strong correlation with the frontal lobe of the brain and personality and other brain structures have strong correlations with other mental functions. But that doesn't not equal the type of casuality that materialist's pertain that mind is what the brain does. This case is considered to be a dramatic example of mind-brain dependency. However, as I have clearly shown here it is not.


https://books.google.ca/books?id=-Nr_CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT134&lpg=PT134&dq=The+Idiot+Brain:+A+Neuroscientist+Explains+What+Your+Head+Is+Really+Up+To+phineas+gage&source=bl&ots=BQ_B3s8F-L&sig=Ru5uz2g56qCoAGiqFUjPSINAqlw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzw73anZbNAhVIw4MKHfwVBdYQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=The%20Idiot%20Brain%3A%20A%20Neuroscientist%20Explains%20What%20Your%20Head%20Is%20Really%20Up%20To%20phineas%20gage&f=false


The Strange case of Phineas Gage

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27225153_The_Strange_Case_of_Phineas_Gage

Why Free Will is Not an illusion created by the brain!

There is a lot of experiments that materialist's use to support their view that free will is illusory. These experiments however are often misinterpreted to support that view. There are three big reasons why the experiments don't provide that free will is illusory. This is taken from brain blogger all credit goes to W.R. Klemm, DVM, PhD. (I realize he isn't a dualist but he makes good points when it comes to free will not being illusory based on experiments purported to show it. So here we go.

1. The timing of a free will event requires introspection as well as other research hows that introspection estimates of event timing are not accurate.
2) Simple finger movements may be performed without much conscious thought and certainly not representative of the conscious decisions and choices required in high-speed conversation or situations where the subconscious mind cannot know ahead of time what to do.
3) The brain activity measures have been primitive and incomplete.

There are some more obvious issues as well that many scientist's have glossed over when examining the data.

Decisions are not often instantaneous (certainly not on a scale of a fraction of a second).
Conscious realization that a decision has been made is delayed from the actual decision, and these may be two distinct processes.
Decision making is not the only mental process going on in such tasks.
Some willed action, as when first learning to play a musical instrument or touch type must be freely willed because the subconscious mind cannot know ahead of time what to do.
Free-will experiments have relied too much on awareness of actions and time estimation of accuracy.
Extrapolating from such simple experiments to all mental life is not justified.
Conflicting data and interpretations have been ignored.

We should not underestimate the true power of the subconscious mind, and it is the subconscious mind that shares duties with the conscious mind. This have been known for decades from research done in psychical research and parapsychology.

Why Gilbert Ryle is wrong about Substance Dualism

Gilbert Ryle in his book about the soul he said that Substance Dualism makes the mind body interaction superstitious. On top of that that their is a ghost in the machine. I don't know where he came up with such a strawman. No dualist would say that their is a little man in the brain pulling the strings. Most dualist's would see the soul as immaterial, taking the form of what the body looks like. An appeal that scientist's would dive into pure superstition is outright false. Also, I should add psychology often looks that internal states as very important along with sociology. The last post I made mentioned some powerful arguments for dualism. The very strong correlation between the mind and brain does not point towards a clear arrow of causation. What it does show however that the mind very strongly correlates with the brain. This bothers materialist's as they want to go a step farther and called for causation. This is what is called stretching the data so it appears to fit that view. Of course, I should add they don't like being called materialist's. Even thought that is clearly what their position is, that all their is to reality is physical, no non physical stuff at all.

Here is a powerful refutation of Gilbert Ryle's attack on Dualism


https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R30LV9YTM6DI8L?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

Why do we have consciousness at all?.

I can imagine a world where consciousness doesn't exist at all. Why does evolution allow for consciousness instead of zombie like animals?. This has always got me thinking. You could say that natural selection chooses consciousness over being a zombie because it's all about reproducing. Well that seem like a short sighted answer. I mean why all this subjective qualities that apparently consciousness has?. Plus I can easily imagine a different direction of evolution where reproduction is not the main goal.


This is one of the arguments that a materialist fails to answer instead they try to turn it around by saying why do you need a brain if consciousness can do it all?. Well, first of all consciousness uses the brain as a interface for consciousness and mind. I remember neurologist Steven Novella mentioning to me that specific structures effect consciousness. Well specific parts of your television cut off channels in your television set. The hard problem of consciousness is how can you explain the subjective feeling of consciousness. This inner life experience that we all internally experience. How can the brain give rise to subjective experience?.


This is far from an easy question to answer some believe there is really is no hard problem at all like neurologist Steven Novella. Which of course leads to pure denial. While, other honest scientists admit their is a serious problem here and there is right now no good working theory to account for consciousness. However, I think there is many scientists are most likely however are not aware of the transmission theory of the brain. If they were as well as the evidence in favor of it they may be willing to heavily consider it as a theory that can account for consciousness with how it relates to the brain.


On a side note, there is a recent video on skeptiko, that is very interesting. "Can materialistic science answer life's big questions?".


http://www.skeptiko.com/can-science-answer-big-questions-317/


Also, an excellent paper on "The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul".

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24611-the-soul-hypothesis-investigations-into-the-existence-of-the-soul/

Recent finding appears to deliver powerful evidence that mind is probably produced by the brain?

There is a recent finding that has been published that appears to suggest that mind is produced by the brain. I will link to the article at the bottle of this post. However, I think there is another explanation that is just as credible than assuming that the brain has a on and off switch for consciousness. That is that when you stimulate the brain and in this case it was the claustrum, that the brain blocks out consciousness, memories until the blocker's electrical stimuli is turned off then consciousness returns. In this view the on and off switch is just a metaphor. This finding then appears to be consistent with the view that the brain is a blocker/reducing value/receiver/filter of consciousness rather than the producer of consciousness.

Read more here:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/elusive-on-off-switch-found-for-human-consciousness-140707.htm

Why decoding thoughts and other aspects of the mind doesn't show that there origin is in the brain

There has been a lot of progress in neuroscience with fmri's in decoding thoughts and dreams this is usually assumed to support the view that the mind origin is in the brain. However abstracting images from my tv doesn't prove that the origin of those images is coming from my television set. There is a lot of examples of very tight correlations among many different things however doesn't prove that one can't exist without the other. Another analogy next to a tv would be a dvd player it's sort of like what a DVD player does on a TV screen when you pop in a DVD and hit play. Credit to Michael Prescott: I Also like to point there is a new interview on skeptiko featuring Chris Carter which Michael Prescott on his blog has also pointed out today where he states in his view that the evidence for an afterlife is overwhelming. http://www.skeptiko.com/scientific-evidence-of-afterlife-overwhelming-chris-carter/

Refuting an article done by two naturalist scientists

I came across this site lately by two naturalist scientists who challenge view that consciousness may in fact survive the death of the brain. http://philosophyofbrains.com/2011/07/11/against-afterlife.aspx

Abstract: The paper samples the large body of neuroscientific evidence suggesting that each mental function takes place within specific neural structures. For instance, vision appears to occur in the visual cortex, motor control in the motor cortex, spatial memory in the hippocampus, and cognitive control in the prefrontal cortex. Evidence comes from neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, brain stimulation, neuroimaging, lesion studies, and behavioral genetics. If mental functions take place within neural structures, mental functions cannot survive brain death. Therefore, there is no mental life after brain death.

My response: Surprise surprise the volume is being edited by no other than Keith Augustine. Sure mental functions are strongly correlated with neural structures. If mental functions were within neural structures the hard problem of consciousness would be solved. But it isn't. Its an assumption but the two scientists believe they can make a conclusion on the evidence they have gathered over the past decades. They never mention any of the evidence from the other side such as psi, afterlife experiments etc.