Timeless

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I think there is a serious point here. We all know what a computer malfunction is, and it is not a pretty sight. The brain has presumably only evolved to some sort of optimality in 'normal mode', and to me it is quite surprising that it has any other ways of operating except for obvious fault conditions - such as dementia.

Why is it surprising? It's of great survival value that a person can function even when his brain is messed up.

The fact that you can add one simple chemical - DMT - to a brain, and it does something totally bizarre and different seems highly suggestive that it is not just a physical machine - but there are no knock down arguments here.

It still generates perceptions and thoughts, they are just a bit different. One would expect an electrochemical machine to do interesting things when the chemical mix is changed.

I would be interested to here more about your mystical experiences, and how you interpreted them.

I haven't had all that many exciting ones, and only one drug-induced one, and one fever-induced one. I didn't spend much time interpreting them; I just enjoyed them for the pleasant experiences they were.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Dyson

What do you mean by "anything more than that".

I mean that I don't see any reason to believe that they need special metaphysical interpretation.

Its not like I pretend those experiences are real, they feel real, I'm not adding anything. Also, you can be in that state all the time, in my experience the only thing that is stopping is endless mental chatter.

Yes, I'm sure if you could make your brain stop thinking, your inner experience would be different. I know it be quite pleasant ... for awhile.

Just because some experiences don't fit well into what you deem as "real" you just ignore them?

I don't ignore them. I just try not to don't over-interpret them.

My ex-wife was crazy as a loon and spent three months believing that she was the second coming of Christ. I suggest to anyone in this circumstance that they not put much stake in the fact that the person thinks she is Christ.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Why is it surprising? It's of great survival value that a person can function even when his brain is messed up.


It still generates perceptions and thoughts, they are just a bit different. One would expect an electrochemical machine to do interesting things when the chemical mix is changed.


I haven't had all that many exciting ones, and only one drug-induced one, and one fever-induced one. I didn't spend much time interpreting them; I just enjoyed them for the pleasant experiences they were.

~~ Paul

What is surprising is that there are receptors for DMT in the brain - why did they evolve? There are THC receptors too, and something that LSD binds to.

More generally, what I am trying to get at is that machines don't usually do interesting things when they are damaged - they just work badly or stop working altogether. If when you damaged a car, it suddenly acquired the ability to fly, you would not claim that this was just because it was damaged - you would conclude that for some reason that extra functionality had beed incorporated in it all along.

The fact that a brain can access whole new ways of functioning when it is damaged in certain ways seems to me to be significant. By way of contrast, other types of damage - such as alzheimers - seem to resemble damage to a machine much more closely.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

What is surprising is that there are receptors for DMT in the brain - why did they evolve? There are THC receptors too, and something that LSD binds to.

DMT is produced by the body in small amounts, so the existence of a receptor is not all that suprising.

More generally, what I am trying to get at is that machines don't usually do interesting things when they are damaged - they just work badly or stop working altogether. If when you damaged a car, it suddenly acquired the ability to fly, you would not claim that this was just because it was damaged - you would conclude that for some reason that extra functionality had beed incorporated in it all along.

Software quite often does interesting things when subtle bugs are exercised. Evolution produces organisms that can function with damage. The brain has many subtle, subconscious functions. If something causes these funcctions to become conscious, we would expect interesting results. DMT might do just that, since it is implicated in dream function.

The fact that a brain can access whole new ways of functioning when it is damaged in certain ways seems to me to be significant. By way of contrast, other types of damage - such as alzheimers - seem to resemble damage to a machine much more closely.

I think it is significant, too, but perhaps not in the same way you do.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

There are also problems with the the physicalists model of Alzheimers / Dementia because long-term memory tends to survive brain damage much better than short term memory. Arguably short term memory of what occurred 2 minutes ago, is bigger (or at least as important) evolutionary advantage than remembering the day 70 years ago when our Grandma bought us a ice cream at the seaside. To get around this the physicalist will suggest it is not the memory which is necessarily damaged but the programming or processing of memory.

Karl Lashley's 30 year experiments (removing various parts of animal brains - yuk! ) to see how memory affected ability to do learned tasks (memory tended to survive better than expected). He gave up assuming memory was in any particular region but never quite took the leap of assuming memory might not be fully in the brain. If memory survives brain damage (regardless of how it processes or filters memory) it is a step nearer the case for consciousness and identity might survive brain death?

[David Bailey]

While we are on the subject, there are also fascinating suggestions that heart transplant patients acquire some memories and likes/dislikes from the donor!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

There are also problems with the the physicalists model of Alzheimers / Dementia because long-term memory tends to survive brain damage much better than short term memory.

And indeed, short-term memory is what goes first. Ask my mother. Oh, wait, you can't.

Karl Lashley's 30 year experiments (removing various parts of animal brains - yuk! ) to see how memory affected ability to do learned tasks (memory tended to survive better than expected). He gave up assuming memory was in any particular region but never quite took the leap of assuming memory might not be fully in the brain.

How would he study that concept?

While we are on the subject, there are also fascinating suggestions that heart transplant patients acquire some memories and likes/dislikes from the donor!

Utter and unmitigated garbage. There are no memories in your heart.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

And indeed, short-term memory is what goes first. Ask my mother. Oh, wait, you can't.


How would he study that concept?


Utter and unmitigated garbage. There are no memories in your heart.

~~ Paul

I know it sounds crazy, but there is quite a lot of accounts of this, for example:

August SFM: Cellular Memory in Organ Transplants

Hearts contain quite a bit of nervous tissue, I believe, but the really interesting aspect of this is that memories are supposed to be stored in neural nets, in which concepts are represented by patterns of networks that are unique each time they are formed (correct me if I am wrong) - so even a transplant of brain tissues aught not to transfer memories or ideas.

David

[Mike]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

...the really interesting aspect of this is that memories are supposed to be stored in neural nets, in which concepts are represented by patterns of networks that are unique each time they are formed (correct me if I am wrong) - so even a transplant of brain tissues aught not to transfer memories or ideas.

David,

If our memories actually are physical patterns or structures in the brain, would it not follow that if you and I had the same memory of something, that the structure or pattern in each of our brains that is that memory would have to be identical in each brain? (Or at least similar, since even if we experienced the same event, our memories of it would probably be slightly different.)

If you and I were walking down the street side by side and a white dog crossed in front of us, and we each retained a vivid memory of the dog, then the memory of the dog would exist as a physical pattern or structure in each of our brains. The two structures, since they are a closely similar memory, would also have to share a very similar structure. And if that pattern or structure could somehow be transplanted into another person's brain, he or she would acquire the memory of the same white dog that we saw.

If we say on the other hand, that a radically different pattern or structure in each brain may represent a similar memory image, then are we not saying that our memories are not identical to unique brain patterns or structures but that the patterns or structures serve somehow only as a means of "tuning into" a particular memory?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Mike

If our memories actually are physical patterns or structures in the brain, would it not follow that if you and I had the same memory of something, that the structure or pattern in each of our brains that is that memory would have to be identical in each brain? (Or at least similar, since even if we experienced the same event, our memories of it would probably be slightly different.)

I don't think this follows at all.

If you and I were walking down the street side by side and a white dog crossed in front of us, and we each retained a vivid memory of the dog, then the memory of the dog would exist as a physical pattern or structure in each of our brains. The two structures, since they are a closely similar memory, would also have to share a very similar structure. And if that pattern or structure could somehow be transplanted into another person's brain, he or she would acquire the memory of the same white dog that we saw.

What if I'm color blind and you're not? What if I'm scared of dogs and you're not? What if I have a beloved white dog and you don't? What if I tend to represent memories as strings of words and you represent them as visual images? What if ...

This stuff is stunningly complex.

~~ Paul