Chimp / Bonobo brains

[sbu]

Bonobos and Chimpanzees are nearly identical species with 99.6% shared genom and yet these two species exhibit quite distinct social behavioir, Chimpanzees being considerably more aggressive than Bonobos. Social wise Bonobos behave a lot more like Humans.

A neuroimagaing study Chimp, bonobo study sheds light on the social brain has shown that some of the brain anatomy differences betweens Chimps and Bonobos correlates surprisingly well with the areas of the human brain linked to social behaviour:

The results showed that bonobos have more developed circuitry for key nodes within the limbic system, the so-called emotional part of the brain, including the amygdala, the hypothalamus and the anterior insula. The anterior insula and the amygdala are both implicated in human empathy.

"We also found that the pathway connecting the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex is larger in bonobos than chimpanzees," Rilling says. "When our amygdala senses that our actions are causing someone else distress, we may use that pathway to adjust our behavior in a prosocial direction."

Chimpanzees have better developed visual system pathways, according to the analysis. Previous research has suggested that those pathways are important for tool use, a skill which chimpanzees appear better at than bonobos.

How does this finding fit in with transmitter theory? Does your social behaviour depend on your brains anatomy - what's external consciousness doing then?

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by sbu

How does this finding fit in with transmitter theory? Does your social behaviour depend on your brains anatomy - what's external consciousness doing then?

I don't understand why there is a question. The transmission theory does not say the brain doesn't influence consciousness. You don't need to look at apes. Among humans brain tumors, brain damage, mental illnesses, other diseases like rabies, and even puberty all influence behavior. None of this contradicts the assertion that the brain does not produce consciousness.

A much better question is how do physicalist explanations of consciousness explain psi and evidence for the afterlife like mediumship (Mrs. Piper, proxy sittings, drop in communicators, and cross correspondences), shared near death experiences and veridical NDEs, shared death bed visions, multiple witness apparitions, and children with past life memories?

[4vektor]

so in the filter/transducer/flux-capacitor model what happens to one's consciousness when you obliterate the filter with all its parts that so drastically influence said consciousness down to the finest minutia. really that's a rhetorical question bc we don't know. but it doesn't sound good to me. seems reasonable that you just get unrecognizable meaningless raw consciousness noise and coherent individual consciousness, that requires this incredibly complex device called the brain to coalesce and have conscious experience, is wiped out.

does not seem logical to me that "we" persist in any way remotely like we are here if the brain is so intricately tied in, i.e., the brain is not really all that necessary, once it's junked we can still do pretty well w/o it, in fact maybe better. if it was a simple device like a transceiver, maybe. i'd like to believe it, but i just don't buy it. a proposed model of how consciousness interacts with this filter, as in maybe someone would write down an equation, something, anything, would be good. i haven't seen one.

[edragone]

How strong is the implication between those brain regions and empathy, and what is the degree of difference between chimp and bonobos in those areas?

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

so in the filter/transducer/flux-capacitor model what happens to one's consciousness when you obliterate the filter with all its parts that so drastically influence said consciousness down to the finest minutia. really that's a rhetorical question bc we don't know. but it doesn't sound good to me. seems reasonable that you just get unrecognizable meaningless raw consciousness noise and coherent individual consciousness, that requires this incredibly complex device called the brain to coalesce and have conscious experience, is wiped out.

does not seem logical to me that "we" persist in any way remotely like we are here if the brain is so intricately tied in, i.e., the brain is not really all that necessary, once it's junked we can still do pretty well w/o it, in fact maybe better. if it was a simple device like a transceiver, maybe. i'd like to believe it, but i just don't buy it. a proposed model of how consciousness interacts with this filter, as in maybe someone would write down an equation, something, anything, would be good. i haven't seen one.

I don't understand this. Irreducible Mind has a number of proposed theories, but people still talk about no proposed theories. It's like questioning why you failed the course when you never bought the textbook, did the homework, or went to the classroom.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Iyace

I don't understand this. Irreducible Mind has a number of proposed theories, but people still talk about no proposed theories. It's like questioning why you failed the course when you never bought the textbook, did the homework, or went to the classroom.

he has equations in this book? he has theories or conjectures?

i'm interested. since you took the course, read the textbook, went to class and know something about the subject, how about giving a summary of couple of paragraphs instead of just citing the existence of the book.

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

he has equations in this book? he has theories or conjectures?

i'm interested. since you took the course, read the textbook, went to class and know something about the subject, how about giving a summary of couple of paragraphs instead of just citing the existence of the book.

See, now you want me to do the homework FOR you.

Here, you can buy the book from Amazon:

Amazon.com: Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century (9781442202061): Edward Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly: Books

The last chapter, "Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century", goes into some of Myers proposed theory of human personality, and some other proposed theories he has. Explaining them to you now would be utterly useless, as the entire book is a build of observational phenomena (which you may or may not be aware of) that support his proposed theories.

If you can't be bothered to pick up the book, read it, and have an honest discussion with me about it, then I won't be bothered to write out all the relevant studies and theories for you.

The first sign that people have absolutely no knowledge in parapsychology, or any other related fields, is the blatantly false statement that there are " No nonlocal-mind theories ". This is like someone coming on a biology forum, commenting on threads, and then saying something stupid like: " Well, evolution is just a theory, ya know?". How can you expect to contribute in any meaningful way to this discussion if you haven't even read one of the pinnacle works of this forum's topic?

Edit: This wasn't specifically directed at you, 4vektor, but a general statement that a lot of self-proclaimed "Skeptics" tout a bunch. I know you said that you haven't SEEN a theory of nonlocal mind, but that's not because there aren't some out there. It may well because you just aren't looking in the right places. I've directed you to some material that should remedy that statement. The book also goes greatly into the survival of the personality as well, after death. So you might be interested in that based on your previous statement.

[Kamarling]

Does this help?

Metaphysical Speculations: Memories and the brain

[sparky]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

filter/transducer/flux-capacitor

Do you need a Heiseberg-compensator on that?

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Iyace

See, now you want me to do the homework FOR you.

Here, you can buy the book from Amazon:

Amazon.com: Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century (9781442202061): Edward Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly: Books

The last chapter, "Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century", goes into some of Myers proposed theory of human personality, and some other proposed theories he has. Explaining them to you now would be utterly useless, as the entire book is a build of observational phenomena (which you may or may not be aware of) that support his proposed theories.

If you can't be bothered to pick up the book, read it, and have an honest discussion with me about it, then I won't be bothered to write out all the relevant studies and theories for you.

again with the "not going to do your HW for you" and "go read his book" bit. listen. i don't feel like buying and reading his entire book. i am not asking for another regurgitation of all the observation phenomena that may call us to question explanatory power of mainstream paradigm, that's pretty old to me by now and not interesting.

i want to know how far have we gone with developing the theory of how this alleged "filter" mechanism works. just asking basic questions. what is theory (or theories) about how consciousness interacts with this "filter"? meaning a scientific theory, not a philosphical theory. so is there a mathematical model, equation? falsifiability/verifiability?

if you you know the subject and read the textbook and did your HW, you should have no trouble giving a short but informative summary. if you can't do that, then you don't know the subject. it's not even a technical subject. why can i post a couple of paragraphs about higgs field but you can only chastise me tell me that discussing subject is useless with me bc i didn't read the book. give me a break.