Neuroscience: A Pathway to Enlightenment?

[Animus]

That this is my first post I will introduce myself. My name is Ryan and my handle was initially chosen arbitrarily, but due to its multiple definitions works for its current purposes. It can be a synonym for hatred, a part of Jungian theory or a synonym for mind, intellect, bravery, will, spirit or intent. I also have a youtube channel Rybot9000 where I spontaneously post disconcerted and aimless mumblings.

In addition to introducing myself I would like to briefly explain how I got here. I will first say that a few years back I stumbled upon an intriguing video entitled "What the BLEEP do we know?". With increasing fascination I became engulfed in fantasy of reptilian-hybrid geopolitical corporate demons responsible for 911. It wasn't long however before I realized to question everything I had consumed. I began consuming information from scientists and philosophers, but typically as authority. I naturally discovered this by influence of Buddha more or less. Still I find myself drawn to the intrigue of neuroscience which has been a healthy portion of my intellectual diet. Actually seeing the physical correlates of mind make clearer the truth about it.

Many of you are undoubtedly aware of Benjamin Libet's experiments on human consciousness. Recently another group has performed a similar experiment. John Dylan-Haynes of the Bernstein Center in Germany wrote an article in Nature Neuroscience entitled Unconscious Determinants of Free Decisions. A lecture video given by Haynes is also available on videolectures.net.

The interesting thing to say about Haynes' work is that they are able to predict above chance a subject's decision to choose left or right. This ability to predict above chance can occur as early as 10s before the subject claims to be aware of making a decision. This is far longer than Ben Libet's ability to predict 300ms prior to awareness. The difference being that Libet was monitoring activity in the motor cortex and Haynes used classifiers to analyze activity in the prefrontal cortex and pareital lobes. This suggests to me that the conscious awareness of having made a decision follows from having made the decision. However I am somewhat uncertain how an awareness of deciding could then decide otherwise. It seems unlikely that any degree of awareness of one's mind could antecede the state of their own mind. Therefore it matters little what neuroscience discovers in regards to awareness of deciding.

It has come to my attention that religious organizations have begun an offensive on neuroscience. They have come to the realization that evolution is of little threat to the absolute dissection of the human soul. It is impossible to imagine the phenomenology of achromatopsia (inability to perceive colour) or proposagnosia (inability to recognize faces) or that of a bat. But it is equally difficult to do so for a suicide bomber or serial rapist. That is just a general fact about our perception, we are only aware of our own awareness. Yet we are forced to imagine for the sake of argument. Religious zealots are stumbling head on into reality that is far more ego-punishing than Darwin's interesting idea. That we are apes is perhaps a threat to a literal interpretation of creation, but that the soul can be divided, usurped, the will rendered inoperable, perception skewed and entire character rendered null as a new malevolent, egotistical and maniacal monster consumes their form. These are the observations of clinical neurology of which there are living examples. A few zealots may be willing to espouse that these unfortunate subjects are choosing to be in a subdued state. Others may suggest that they are repaying old debts. However all must ultimately admit that the mind and brain are one and the same.

Everything which happens to the brain has an effect on mind. Initially one would be skeptical and say this is merely a correlation. A skeptic would demand evidence of causal necessity. That causal necessity is provided granted one is willing to accept monism. The mind and brain are not separate things which share a causal influence on each other, they are the exact same thing. Therefore they will only ever correlate with each other and never cause each other in an observable manner. Such that if the brain's structure is disrupted the mind will share a correlation independent of will. Will itself being a representation of the brain. When people see the way the mind works, consisting of billions of cells woven together it should be apparent that the ego is false. A mere representation or symbol of some information with implied relevance.

Neuroscience may be a way for people to come to some realizations philosophical or evolutionary jargon doesn't provoke. Unfortunately there is plenty of room for misinterpretation.

On a final note I rather hope you found this post thought-provoking and I am interested in seeing how my involvement with this forum develops.

Salaam

[Dan Rowden]

Welcome to the board.

I think you'll find there's few here who will argue freedom of will as a true reality, but some whom might argue the ways in which the illusion arises.


Dan

P.S. With respect to one point you made, I think you'll find this video of interest, if you haven't already seen it:

Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind

[Animus]

Thanks Dan.

Welcome to the board.

Perfect... I've spent considerable time arguing free-will is false with the incredulous. To debate the reason why it is would definitely be a welcome change.

I think you'll find there's few here who will argue freedom of will as a true reality, but some whom might argue the ways in which the illusion arises.


Dan

I believe I have seen it. Pretty much anything starring Ramachandran is something I've seen. But I'll definitely check it out in a bit to make sure. I'll probably watch it again anyway.

P.S. With respect to one point you made, I think you'll find this video of interest, if you haven't already seen it:

Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind

[Leyla Shen]

Animus:

I haven't given your entire post the attention it deserves, but I did find what follows below thought-provoking and decided to comment, particularly in relation to the second paragraph italicised below:

You wrote:

It has come to my attention that religious organizations have begun an offensive on neuroscience. They have come to the realization that evolution is of little threat to the absolute dissection of the human soul. It is impossible to imagine the phenomenology of achromatopsia (inability to perceive colour) or proposagnosia (inability to recognize faces) or that of a bat. But it is equally difficult to do so for a suicide bomber or serial rapist. That is just a general fact about our perception, we are only aware of our own awareness. Yet we are forced to imagine for the sake of argument. Religious zealots are stumbling head on into reality that is far more ego-punishing than Darwin's interesting idea. That we are apes is perhaps a threat to a literal interpretation of creation, but that the soul can be divided, usurped, the will rendered inoperable, perception skewed and entire character rendered null as a new malevolent, egotistical and maniacal monster consumes their form. These are the observations of clinical neurology of which there are living examples. A few zealots may be willing to espouse that these unfortunate subjects are choosing to be in a subdued state. Others may suggest that they are repaying old debts. However all must ultimately admit that the mind and brain are one and the same.

Everything which happens to the brain has an effect on mind. Initially one would be skeptical and say this is merely a correlation. A skeptic would demand evidence of causal necessity. That causal necessity is provided granted one is willing to accept monism. The mind and brain are not separate things which share a causal influence on each other, they are the exact same thing. Therefore they will only ever correlate with each other and never cause each other in an observable manner. Such that if the brain's structure is disrupted the mind will share a correlation independent of will. Will itself being a representation of the brain. When people see the way the mind works, consisting of billions of cells woven together it should be apparent that the ego is false. A mere representation or symbol of some information with implied relevance.

But this argument is itself a causal rather than ontological reduction properly and logically belonging to emergent materialism, which makes it necessarily dualistic rather than monistic. It therefore provides no logical context for the absolute claim “therefore, the ego is false.” Clearly, this "ego” still exists to the extent that it can be thus subjected to clinical investigation.

That is, what are strictly its physical properties in reality cannot be determined by virtue of your argument.

[Animus]

Leyla:

It is not within the context of existence which I state the ego is false, but in it's perceived quality.

Dan Dennett has proposed consciousness is an illusion, and by this I take him to mean fraudulent. For how could one say "Consciousness does not exist", by making such statements one asserts consciousness does exist. It exists within reference to it. How could one say this being which as-of-yet has no consciousness, will indeed develop a consciousness it will not have. How could one say this being is decieved into being conscious, when consciousness doesn't exist. Indeed illusion, properly defined, implies consciousness.

What I intended to say, however unforunately erroneous in my delivery, is that the ego is decietful, fraudulent, or a charlatan. Just as Kent Hovind is a false scientist.

I appreciate your criticisms and look forward to more. After-all, I did not come here to convince you of anything, but to have my convictions shaken.

Shalom

[Leyla Shen]

PS:

However all must ultimately admit that the mind and brain are one and the same.

Steady on. If I admitted that, ultimately, I’d immediately commence creating my enlightened self a la Dr Frankenstein, wouldn’t I? Or would I?

Have you?

[Leyla Shen]

It is not within the context of existence which I state the ego is false, but in it's perceived quality.

Yes, I got that part. I just missed the logical connection(s) between it and the surrounding context and, therefore, the whole point of it. It imparts nothing new, ya know?

For instance, I saw or understood nothing that substantiates the idea that the belief in an immortal soul is any more the product of false ego than, say, the belief that working to amass material possessions is. Are these both not the product of the perceived quality of the ego even if only as a matter of degree? If not, why not?

What I intended to say, however unforunately erroneous in my delivery, is that the ego is decietful, fraudulent, or a charlatan.

Yet you pointed to oh-so much more.

Even the zealots of which you speak will tell you the same thing, albeit in different terms. What’s apparently not so easy is to deliver the required insight, especially where it is conceived to be most wanting. Would you care to have another go?

Just as Kent Hovind is a false scientist.

Probably why he hasn’t appeared in my consciousness.

Shalom

Careful, I might shake more than your convictions, laddie…

Och aye the noo!

[Animus]

PS:

However all must ultimately admit that the mind and brain are one and the same.

Steady on. If I admitted that, ultimately, I’d immediately commence creating my enlightened self a la Dr Frankenstein, wouldn’t I? Or would I?

Have you?

lol... well...

To be honest I'm not really sure what the story of Dr. Frankenstein is. All I know is Dr. Frankenstein created a monster known as "Frankenstein's Monster" or "Frankenstein" for short. I've never exposed myself to the complete work.

What I will say is that there is dynamic non-linear causation, such that any new cause like the statement "Mind and Brain are one and the same", is incorporated into a system which already has a state different from other systems. So it is really quite unpredictable. How that new cause relates to the existing framework is anyone's guess.

[Animus]

It is not within the context of existence which I state the ego is false, but in it's perceived quality.

Yes, I got that part. I just missed the logical connection(s) between it and the surrounding context and, therefore, the whole point of it. It imparts nothing new, ya know?


For instance, I saw or understood nothing that substantiates the idea that the belief in an immortal soul is any more the product of false ego than, say, the belief that working to amass material possessions is. Are these both not the product of the perceived quality of the ego even if only as a matter of degree? If not, why not?

I see no fault in the above statement. Both would be the product of ego.

What I intended to say, however unforunately erroneous in my delivery, is that the ego is decietful, fraudulent, or a charlatan.

Yet you pointed to oh-so much more.

Now wait a minute. I hope this isn't intended to be a slight upon my usage of language. I stated correctly. I used a term which can be taken to mean "non-existent" or "deceitful". And let's not forget interpreting language is half the battle. I will not claim to be perfect in my usage, as I am not even close. I understand the confusion as I was confused when I discovered "empirical" can be taken as "one's own experience" in addition to its scientifically skewed usage. However, your first statement on this post implies there was no confusion.

Even the zealots of which you speak will tell you the same thing, albeit in different terms. What’s apparently not so easy is to deliver the required insight, especially where it is conceived to be most wanting. Would you care to have another go?

Yes I would. This time in my own terms. The afore employed terminology is not really my cup of tea. I am combining many things into my mind, not just philosophy and religion, but primarily neuroscience and psychology. I would like to explain in the terminology of the brain. Introspectively the ego is a unified entity, as are other aspects of mind. However, the structural organization of the brain is anything but unified. There is no central locus in the brain for anything. We cannot look at the brain and say "There is ego" without pointing at half the brain and we will be confusing it with other stuff. Similarly there is no homunculus, no central command.

I'm working on the assumption you don't know any of this for the sake of timeliness.

A simple neural network: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... xample.png

To understand how a neural network process information is somewhat difficult. I'll only explain the basics. The input layer on the left is where sensory inputs come in. I'm simplifying this. For example the multitude of Retinal Ganglion Cells in the Retina are layer 1 of the entire visual system. They are the input nodes. An RGC receives a photon stimulating it's opsin and that causes cell firing. This information converges on weighted synapses onto a layer 2 node, this is the process of differentiation. As the information filters to the output layer it becomes a representation, a symbol, a thing. From photons to things. Now the real deal is much more complicated, the RGCs project along the optic nerve to the hypothalamus, and also to the superior colliculus. The information is then sent to V1, V2 and so on, and finally the frontal lobes. Differentiation and representation of colour occurs by a colour opponency process. In the fusiform gyrus boundaries are recognized, higher-level things like faces and animals. All using this same basic framework. There is an alternative proposed by Turing, the B-Class network. I suspect the amygdala and like subcortical nuclei work in much the same manner, abstracting rather than reasoning and differentiating.

All of this eventually must come to a point where we call it "conscious" and this has been the work of Francis Crick and Christoph Koch, I'm sure you are familiar with most of this. In addition Antonio Damasio's work on VMPFC patients is highly applicable. In Damasio's studies patients suffering damage to linkages between the VMPFC and Limbic System caused subjects to essentially lose their ego. They retained reason and could naturally figure out what was a winning strategy for his experiments, but it didn't matter to them, money was to be won, but they'd just flip over cards somewhat randomly. Now this may not be as convincing as it seems to me. However, I cannot say knowing this, that the ego has any relevance on the truth at all. While others are unaware of their ego altogether. I'm not saying this will be a linear or even necessary cause for enlightenment, but that it may be able to breach some beliefs.

In regards to absolute monism...

I fail to see how it can be taken any other way. You may be familiar with the caloric theory. Scientists posited a missing parameter only to discover their math was wrong. I'm saying the math is wrong. Brain activity and consciousness occur simultaneously. To be clear, by brain activity I mean everything about the brain, all its physical properties. Certainly portions of it are not conscious, I am generalizing. Consciousness may be little more than one of these networks feeding back into layer 4 or 5 and thus "seeing" itself. This is the information which can raise awareness IMO. But again this vast network of 100 billion cells or more is going to be in an existing state when it receives this information and the results are somewhat unpredictable. Psychology is only able to do so well in this area, Völkerpschologie does much worse.

The real problem of qualia is qualia itself. The concept, the idea. The assumption that it exists as something observable. The task is to remove one's self from one's consciousness and then observe consciousness and we already know that's impossible. I can't observe another person's consciousness and only by the scientific method do I remove myself from my own. All you can see is the brain that I am, you can't experience the brain that I am. It is a peculiar thing, but ultimately intelligible. It seems logical to me that our arbitration of reality is at fault in even supposing such dualistic notions as qualia. How can I logically link together two things which are conceived from the onset to be unlinkable?

Just as Kent Hovind is a false scientist.

Probably why he hasn’t appeared in my consciousness.

Shalom

Careful, I might shake more than your convictions, laddie…

Och aye the noo!

Well... this is about as efficient I'm going to be at expressing my points at this juncture. If there is a chasm somewhere which has not been adequately addressed, then my awareness is not sufficiently developed to perceive it at the moment

Peace

[Animus]

"Och aye the noo!"

hehe, I'm not sure what that means.

Was passiert heute Abend?

[Dan Rowden]

It's a Scottish saying that I believe no Scotsman has ever actually uttered.

[Leyla Shen]

I first heard it from a Scot! But I think he was just trying to impress me. Should have told him, "You had me at 'wee hen."" It is nevertheless, as a complete phrase, largely a matter of legend, I think, on the order of the loch ness monster thanks to the Scottish Enlightenment and a possession of Shibboleth proportion courtesy of the ole Hebrews and the Bible. You know, "slang."

Was passiert heute Abend?

The last few sentences now in focus? Bit of an in-joke, really. Perhaps it'll become clearer as you become more familiar with the members, and me in particular. Of course, it could be that I am the only one who found it funny... :)

Reply to your latest coming ASAP—hopefully tomorrow evening.

Gute nacht.

[Animus]

Last night I read http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ntents.htm

and fully understood it. As a result I no longer feel compelled to follow this line of inquiry.

The document thoroughly explains why these duality seems to exist and why it is erroneous.

[dysfunctionalgenius]

The mountain top is indiferrent to what path a climber takes!

Even though i often entertain the subject of enlightenment myself the truth is i am not sure what it is and i assume the only person who might be able to put in to language is one who has achieved it.

Even then i assume that people who have achieved this state might all describe it a little different from each other as well. As im new to this site i was wandering and sorry for digressing from the threads title as to whether the question could be

What is and or can enlightenment be achieved?