BM Brain Theory vs. Neuroscience

[SpeedOfSound]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

This ones my fave, large image though.

This is not a gif and those circles are not moving. Autistics interestingly cannot see optical illusions, which gives us insight into why the brain uses data as it does.

I think this one is the saccadic movement of your eyes tricking the motion detection module.

I would predict that autistics would see the dark dot in the square illusion. That one is more retinal than visual processing. It's amazing but these illusions paint a picture of the visual system and show illusions at every step of the way. I think the pop idea of illusions is that our higher mind gets confused. Not so with these things. This is raw low level process.

Poses a hell of a problem for mentalism.

[The Dagda]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

This ones my fave, large image though.

This is not a gif and those circles are not moving. Autistics interestingly cannot see optical illusions, which gives us insight into why the brain uses data as it does.

I think this one is the saccadic movement of your eyes tricking the motion detection module.

A friend of mine at work couldn't see this moving, he wasn't autistic though it would be interesting to look at the differences in activation of his brain compared to both autistics and those who can see this illusion.

To observe that it is still minimise your picture, and take a selection only moves as a large part of the image..

[GrahamH]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

This ones my fave, large image though.

This is not a gif and those circles are not moving. Autistics interestingly cannot see optical illusions, which gives us insight into why the brain uses data as it does.

I think this one is the saccadic movement of your eyes tricking the motion detection module.

I would predict that autistics would see the dark dot in the square illusion. That one is more retinal than visual processing. It's amazing but these illusions paint a picture of the visual system and show illusions at every step of the way. I think the pop idea of illusions is that our higher mind gets confused. Not so with these things. This is raw low level process.

Poses a hell of a problem for mentalism.

I like that image. It does seem to remain static if I really fix my gaze. Any movement of my eye results in spinning.

[SpeedOfSound]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

This ones my fave, large image though.

This is not a gif and those circles are not moving. Autistics interestingly cannot see optical illusions, which gives us insight into why the brain uses data as it does.

I think this one is the saccadic movement of your eyes tricking the motion detection module.

A friend of mine at work couldn't see this moving, he wasn't autistic though it would be interesting to look at the differences in activation of his brain compared to both autistics and those who can see this illusion.

To observe that it is still minimise your picture, and take a selection only moves as a large part of the image..

Is your friend on any kind of medication? Contacts? Drinking problem?

[colubridae]

Even the seemingly most basic question is unanswered. Why do we have brains at all? The idea that the CNS externalises experience could be reasonable as far as accounting for sense organs. But what are brains for? Indeed, what is chemistry for? We don't experience it directly. We can only access it via science. We can envisage any number of worlds where there is rich experience but no chemistry and no brains, if 'its all mental'.
...
Consider dreams. We experience an externalised world without using our eyes, retinas or optic nerves. If 'its all mental' we don't need these chemical/mechanical organs in order to experience.

So, LI, what are brains for, in your model? If we can sort that out we can start to discuss how your model accounts for any aspect of neuroscience.

I have been trying to close in on this with him for a very long time. All I get is that externalization thing and this insistence that there is no transform between types when it's all mental.

Yesterday with the lateral inhibition illusion I think for a moment I had a chance of breaking in his conceptual brick wall. He said he would sleep on it. I haven't read the post beneath yours. I'm too afraid. I don't know if I can take another disappointment...

Be prepared for continual disappointment.


LI is as wedded to his misconceptions as is any theist.

You have tried to convince him with sound argument.

The simplest argument is that his ‘hypothesis’ (though complete) fails to explain the optical illusions given.

Neuroscience explains many (not all yet) of the illusions.

He will claim that his ‘hypothesis’ explains them. It does not; it is allowed by his ‘hypothesis’ because his ‘hypothesis’ makes no explanation of anything. It is simply mysticism dressed up as pseudoscience (basically ‘philosophy’).

The same mumbo-jumbo from lamont, theophilis etc. The have no real stuff; just the usual semantic legerdemain. Pity really, they ought to be able to use their intellect to better effect.

[SpeedOfSound]

You could hear a fucking mental pin drop around here this morning. There is a terrible silence in the BM! They're plotting something!

[SpeedOfSound]

Even the seemingly most basic question is unanswered. Why do we have brains at all? The idea that the CNS externalises experience could be reasonable as far as accounting for sense organs. But what are brains for? Indeed, what is chemistry for? We don't experience it directly. We can only access it via science. We can envisage any number of worlds where there is rich experience but no chemistry and no brains, if 'its all mental'.
...
Consider dreams. We experience an externalised world without using our eyes, retinas or optic nerves. If 'its all mental' we don't need these chemical/mechanical organs in order to experience.

So, LI, what are brains for, in your model? If we can sort that out we can start to discuss how your model accounts for any aspect of neuroscience.

I have been trying to close in on this with him for a very long time. All I get is that externalization thing and this insistence that there is no transform between types when it's all mental.

Yesterday with the lateral inhibition illusion I think for a moment I had a chance of breaking in his conceptual brick wall. He said he would sleep on it. I haven't read the post beneath yours. I'm too afraid. I don't know if I can take another disappointment...

Be prepared for continual disappointment.


LI is as wedded to his misconceptions as is any theist.

You have tried to convince him with sound argument.

The simplest argument is that his ‘hypothesis’ (though complete) fails to explain the optical illusions given.

Neuroscience explains many (not all yet) of the illusions.

He will claim that his ‘hypothesis’ explains them. It does not; it is allowed by his ‘hypothesis’ because his ‘hypothesis’ makes no explanation of anything. It is simply mysticism dressed up as pseudoscience (basically ‘philosophy’).

The same mumbo-jumbo from lamont, theophilis etc. The have no real stuff; just the usual semantic legerdemain. Pity really, they ought to be able to use their intellect to better effect.

Yeah. I know. Mostly I just toss my toys around in the air and then every now and then my teeth get into a little bone. Sometimes I feel bad about that. Usually not though.

They are indestructible chew toys. My St. Bernard should be so lucky as I.

[colubridae]

It puzzles me why they continue their stuff...

I would like them to explain one day...

[SpeedOfSound]

The evidence for conscious perception is strongly pointing at the necessity of feedback and feedforward loops in the cortex. For vision there are about 30-50 cortical modules. There are two theories of visual percepts. One is Crick-n-Koch about hierarchies and the other is the interaction model. Both are very likely included in the whole truth.

Imagine these clusters or modules in the cortex. They are like digraphs or directed multigraphs. They are roughly hierarchical but have much overlap. Imagine now that you look at a red cup. The cup and the light bouncing off of it are now part of the graph. Your V1 area is being continually bombarded with the sensory input.

Now interactive two way loops set up with overlap in all these modules and then end up in your association areas of your higher order thought areas.

It's like a storm of hurricanes all interacting. Some of these loops are synchronized and others not. Little tornadoes spin off continually and grow or fade out. You are, in effect, being electrocuted by the light from the cup in a cool and controlled manner that we feel as consciousness.

My opinion but I am not alone.

[SpeedOfSound]

When you wonder why neuroscientists aren't on Leno trumpeting the news that they have already found the NCC, you might ask yourself why Darwin waited over twenty years to publish.

[Surendra Darathy]

It puzzles me why they continue their stuff...

I would like them to explain one day...

The subjective bubble is mental, therefore what ever the source is it must interface with the mental, this means it must be mental.

This states an axiom that only the mental can interact with the mental. This is supposed to be self-evident, but it is not.

What it really is: Question-begging. Non-sequitur. I don't really care which. What it adds up to is that for LI (a priori) the universe is mental, and that whatever one observes supports that. It must.

There are (at least) two kinds of woo-heads. The ones who are happy to state their position as faith, because faith is pleasing to God, and others, who reason that reason is pleasing to God, and for some reason, find that faith is not pleasing to them.

People get caught up in the old philosophical confusion between faith and "justified true belief".

Yes, it's a semantic game.

It's why we consider metaphysics as an error. If we stop trying to say what the universe is, and go back to describing how it works, then metaphysics is retired.

What "is" it with which we interact? What "are" we while interacting with it? Sure, the Standard Model names a bunch of "particles" and a bunch of "interactions" (exchanges of other kinds of particles?). "Particle" is a noun. That's its function in the discourse we use to describe the physics. In the mathematics, there are more precise symbols.

To a physicist, the verb "to be" functions more like mathematical equality, and less like an ontologic commitment.

[Little Idiot]

You could hear a fucking mental pin drop around here this morning. There is a terrible silence in the BM! They're plotting something!

Not plotting anything, just very very busy today.

Probably going to be busy all this week infact, so dont expect much from me.

I will however offer an answer to the question about optical illusions you raised yesterday...before you go jumping to assumptions that you have me defeated

[Little Idiot]

It puzzles me why they continue their stuff...

I would like them to explain one day...

Would you listen and contemplate if I were to tell you?

[SpeedOfSound]

You could hear a fucking mental pin drop around here this morning. There is a terrible silence in the BM! They're plotting something!

Not plotting anything, just very very busy today.

Probably going to be busy all this week infact, so dont expect much from me.

I will however offer an answer to the question about optical illusions you raised yesterday...before you go jumping to assumptions that you have me defeated

Got the old worldview all patched up and back on the road again did you? Very good.

[Little Idiot]

It puzzles me why they continue their stuff...

I would like them to explain one day...

The subjective bubble is mental, therefore what ever the source is it must interface with the mental, this means it must be mental.

This states an axiom that only the mental can interact with the mental. This is supposed to be self-evident, but it is not.

I have only one axiom, and I think I only need one.
The mental can only interact with the mental comes, for me, from the meaning of mental. Mental means to do with the mind, as opposed to the non-mental which means not to do with the mind.
Its a simple enough word, with a simple enough meaning. Most dictionaries agree with merriam-webster
"of or relating to the mind"
Not suprising given
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin mentalis, from Latin ment-, mens mind.

Presumably you will dismiss this as more woo.
But it is very obvious that the mental is to do with the mind, and as I dont accept dualism between mental and non-mental it follows that only the mental can interact with the mind.

From your own logic (below) it looks like you have to dismiss this meaning of mental, or you too have to accept that the universe is mental.

What it really is: Question-begging. Non-sequitur. I don't really care which. What it adds up to is that for LI (a priori) the universe is mental, and that whatever one observes supports that. It must.

There are (at least) two kinds of woo-heads. The ones who are happy to state their position as faith, because faith is pleasing to God, and others, who reason that reason is pleasing to God, and for some reason, find that faith is not pleasing to them.

Thats obvious, reason stands in oppositin to faith.

People get caught up in the old philosophical confusion between faith and "justified true belief".

Yes, it's a semantic game.

It's why we consider metaphysics as an error. If we stop trying to say what the universe is, and go back to describing how it works, then metaphysics is retired.

You cant write off the work of finding "the highest possible form of human expression of reality" so easily. This is by definition of being a human expression achievable, as long as one is a human.

What "is" it with which we interact? What "are" we while interacting with it? Sure, the Standard Model names a bunch of "particles" and a bunch of "interactions" (exchanges of other kinds of particles?). "Particle" is a noun. That's its function in the discourse we use to describe the physics. In the mathematics, there are more precise symbols.

To a physicist, the verb "to be" functions more like mathematical equality, and less like an ontologic commitment.

Sadly, western minds are fooled by their tool, and see it as their master rather than servant. Science limits its own expressions of truth because it uses ever improving estimation anf hypothesis. This is a hard limit on what science can do, not what the human can do.

You do see that, right?