Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Update On The Law Of Emotional Balance


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 thebigideas

thebigideas

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 10:13 PM

Looks like they updated this free book with empirical research.

www.ofgrandeur.com

What do you guys think of the ideas presented?

#2 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 15 December 2010 - 11:29 PM

www.ofgrandeur.com

What do you guys think of the ideas presented?

Based on the first page of its first chapter, I think it’s old-fashioned, pre-scientific mysticism of the animist kind. As it’s presented in a scientific-looking way, but isn’t valid science, it’s pseudoscience.

From the scribd document:

I propose that all living cells are homeostatic system than experience primitive emotions and have a primitive consciousness. Consciousness is a form of energy that permeated the entire universe and I call this energy “emotional energy.”


In science – physics, chemistry, and biology – energy is a precisely defined term, not a metaphor as the word is commonly used to describe emotions. The basic mechanics of biological cells are well developed. The difference between living and dead – that is, the presence or absence of metabolism – is well explained in chemical and mechanical terms, without the need to use undefined concepts such as consciousness.

When DNA is properly organized it acts like a container and can retain some emotional energy in its sense strand. This is how dead matter becomes living matter.

Were this true, cells without DNA (such as red blood cells) would be dead matter, and dead cells could be made living by adding DNA. This isn’t true.

The use of the term “sense strand”, suggesting a connection between “conscious” and “sensible”, is scientific nonsense. In molecular biology, “antisense” and “sense” refer to which of paired strands of DNA translate into RNA that translates into protein. In the next pages of the introduction, the author further uses the phrase “DNA sense strand” in a way that suggests he’s unacquainted with basic microbiological terms and concepts.
  • Ken likes this

#3 thebigideas

thebigideas

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 16 December 2010 - 02:41 AM

Based on the first page of its first chapter, I think it’s old-fashioned, pre-scientific mysticism of the animist kind. As it’s presented in a scientific-looking way, but isn’t valid science, it’s pseudoscience.

From the scribd document:

I propose that all living cells are homeostatic system than experience primitive emotions and have a primitive consciousness. Consciousness is a form of energy that permeated the entire universe and I call this energy “emotional energy.”


In science – physics, chemistry, and biology – energy is a precisely defined term, not a metaphor as the word is commonly used to describe emotions. The basic mechanics of biological cells are well developed. The difference between living and dead – that is, the presence or absence of metabolism – is well explained in chemical and mechanical terms, without the need to use undefined concepts such as consciousness.

When DNA is properly organized it acts like a container and can retain some emotional energy in its sense strand. This is how dead matter becomes living matter.

Were this true, cells without DNA (such as red blood cells) would be dead matter, and dead cells could be made living by adding DNA. This isn’t true.

The use of the term “sense strand”, suggesting a connection between “conscious” and “sensible”, is scientific nonsense. In molecular biology, “antisense” and “sense” refer to which of paired strands of DNA translate into RNA that translates into protein. In the next pages of the introduction, the author further uses the phrase “DNA sense strand” in a way that suggests he’s unacquainted with basic microbiological terms and concepts.


You seem to be confused about a few things, so let me help you out

"dead cells could be made living by adding DNA" - Incorrect assumption derived from only reading a few pages of the book. The book never says that dead cells could be made living by adding DNA.

"The use of the term “sense strand”, suggesting a connection between “conscious” and “sensible”, is scientific nonsense. In molecular biology, “antisense” and “sense” refer to which of paired strands of DNA translate into RNA that translates into protein." - Since it does not appear that you are putting much time or thought into this I will help you out - http://en.wikipedia....rand_hypothesis - The peer reviewed article is linked inside the Wiki page.

"Were this true, cells without DNA (such as red blood cells) would be dead matter" Are you calling red blood cells living cells and if so what evidence do you have to support this?

"the author further uses the phrase “DNA sense strand” in a way that suggests he’s unacquainted with basic microbiological terms and concepts." - Its obvious that you really don't know what you are talking about. Could you please explain how the use of DNA sense strand suggests that he or she is unacquainted with basic microbiological terms and concepts.

I believe the author was referring to people like you when he said "The ideas contained in these books are the result of an ongoing academic project in addressing assumptions and misconceptions held by the academic community in the fields related to emotions. These books challenge currently accepted ideas related to emotions and serve to substitute those ideas with compatible new ideas."

"The basic mechanics of biological cells are well developed. The difference between living and dead – that is, the presence or absence of metabolism – is well explained in chemical and mechanical terms, without the need to use undefined concepts such as consciousness." - You havn't said anything here and it appears you are just hand waiving with smoke and mirrors. None of what you have said conflicts with what is being said. Maybe you should understand what you comment on before commenting on it?

"In science – physics, chemistry, and biology – energy is a precisely defined term, not a metaphor as the word is commonly used to describe emotions." - Could you please define what energy is? There doesn't seem to be a percisely defined universal explanation that fully explains what energy is. Maybe you can point it out to us - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy - Thanks

#4 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 16 December 2010 - 09:38 AM

In science – physics, chemistry, and biology – energy is a precisely defined term, not a metaphor as the word is commonly used to describe emotions.

Could you please define what energy is? There doesn't seem to be a percisely defined universal explanation that fully explains what energy is. Maybe you can point it out to us - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy - Thanks

Energy is the potential to do mechanical work.

In terms of 3 fundamental physical properties – mass ([imath]M[/imath]), displacement ([imath]x[/imath], also known as position), and duration ([imath]t[/imath], AKA time) – work ([imath]W[/imath] is defined symbolically (where [imath]\Delta[/imath] means “change in”) as
[math]W= F \cdot \Delta x[/math]

where
[math]F= M \cdot a[/math]

[math]a= \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}[/math]

[math]v= \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}[/math]

Energy and work share the same units of [imath]M \cdot x^2 / t^2[/imath], Joules in SI units.

In words, work is the force applied to an object multiplied by the distance the object is moved.

The wikipedia article you cite contains, if you follow the appropriate links, this fundamental definition, but being an encyclopedia article, not an introductory science textbook, describes many other contexts involving the concept of energy, not just its precise definition.

Were this true, cells without DNA (such as red blood cells) would be dead matter

Are you calling red blood cells living cells and if so what evidence do you have to support this?

Yes, I am calling red blood cells living cells.

Despite their lack of DNA, mammalian (I should have been more precise in my previous post by stating “cells without DNA (such as mammalian red blood cells)”, as the red blood cells of some other classes of animals do contain DNA.) red blood cells perform work (metabolize), transporting molecules (most importantly oxygen) across their membranes, and performing limited self maintenance and repair. In humans, red blood cells live – have metabolism – about 100 days, then are attacked by immune system cells, killed, and removed from the blood.

The life of red blood cells is described in many textbooks and encyclopedia articles, such as this wikipedia article section.

the author further uses the phrase “DNA sense strand” in a way that suggests he’s unacquainted with basic microbiological terms and concepts."

Its obvious that you really don't know what you are talking about. Could you please explain how the use of DNA sense strand suggests that he or she is unacquainted with basic microbiological terms and concepts.

The way the author uses the term “sense strand”, such as (from page 18 of 152)

The labeled chromosomes will become the first DNA sense strand in the original
cell.


along with the absence of any reference to the term “antisense strand” (without which, wordplay unintended, the term “sense” makes no sense) suggests a lack of acquaintance with the meaning of these terms in molecular biology. Sense and antisense strands are short sections of an entire genome involved in producing proteins, while chromosomes are large recognizable sections of the genome. Equating the two shows unfamiliarity with their concepts, in the same way someone saying “this diesel engine will become a piston” would show their lack of familiarity with practical engine mechanics.

The basic mechanics of biological cells are well developed. The difference between living and dead – that is, the presence or absence of metabolism – is well explained in chemical and mechanical terms, without the need to use undefined concepts such as consciousness.

You havn't said anything here and it appears you are just hand waiving with smoke and mirrors. None of what you have said conflicts with what is being said [in [i]Of Grandeur[/i]]. Maybe you should understand what you comment on before commenting on it?

What I said in the quoted text conflicts what’s said in Of Grandeur. I’m saying that how biological cells function is explained satisfactorily by conventional, mechanical, biological theory, without the need for a theory in which each cell is be permeated by “emotional energy” “absorbed by a valid nucleotide combination”. The author of Of Grandeur is saying that it is not. According to her or him, a cell in the same purely mechanical state as a living cell is not living without “emotional energy”. According to me, and to every molecular biologist I know, if a cell – even a cell assembled artificially – has the same mechanical state as another living cell, it is a living cell.

Although I’ve not read it in its entirety, I believe I recognize the main idea underlying Of Grandeur as a very old one, that of “vital energy”.

I don’t mean to discount the usefulness of this concept in meditation and health, but think it’s important to understand that it’s metaphorical, not physically real. It’s may be useful to think that we’re animated by “emotional energy”, but such an explanation is a simplified way to understand the complicated mechanical biological processes that really produce life.

Physics and other sciences don’t own the word “energy” any more than philosophy, religion, and everyday conversation does. It’s important, however, to avoid confusing its use in science to describe objectively real, scientifically testable phenomena, with it’s non-scientific uses. In this regard, IMHO, Of Grandeur and similar pseudoscientific writings fail badly.
  • Ken and JMJones0424 like this

#5 Ken

Ken

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 16 December 2010 - 02:28 PM

Energy is the potential to do mechanical work.

In terms of 3 fundamental physical properties – mass ([imath]M[/imath]), displacement ([imath]x[/imath], also known as position), and duration ([imath]t[/imath], AKA time) – work ([imath]W[/imath] is defined symbolically (where [imath]\Delta[/imath] means “change in”) as
[math]W= F \cdot \Delta x[/math]

where
[math]F= M \cdot a[/math]

[math]a= \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}[/math]

[math]v= \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}[/math]

Energy and work share the same units of [imath]M \cdot x^2 / t^2[/imath], Joules in SI units.

In words, work is the force applied to an object multiplied by the distance the object is moved.

The wikipedia article you cite contains, if you follow the appropriate links, this fundamental definition, but being an encyclopedia article, not an introductory science textbook, describes many other contexts involving the concept of energy, not just its precise definition.



Yes, I am calling red blood cells living cells.

Despite their lack of DNA, mammalian (I should have been more precise in my previous post by stating “cells without DNA (such as mammalian red blood cells)”, as the red blood cells of some other classes of animals do contain DNA.) red blood cells perform work (metabolize), transporting molecules (most importantly oxygen) across their membranes, and performing limited self maintenance and repair. In humans, red blood cells live – have metabolism – about 100 days, then are attacked by immune system cells, killed, and removed from the blood.

The life of red blood cells is described in many textbooks and encyclopedia articles, such as this wikipedia article section.



The way the author uses the term “sense strand”, such as (from page 18 of 152)

The labeled chromosomes will become the first DNA sense strand in the original
cell.


along with the absence of any reference to the term “antisense strand” (without which, wordplay unintended, the term “sense” makes no sense) suggests a lack of acquaintance with the meaning of these terms in molecular biology. Sense and antisense strands are short sections of an entire genome involved in producing proteins, while chromosomes are large recognizable sections of the genome. Equating the two shows unfamiliarity with their concepts, in the same way someone saying “this diesel engine will become a piston” would show their lack of familiarity with practical engine mechanics.



What I said in the quoted text conflicts what’s said in Of Grandeur. I’m saying that how biological cells function is explained satisfactorily by conventional, mechanical, biological theory, without the need for a theory in which each cell is be permeated by “emotional energy” “absorbed by a valid nucleotide combination”. The author of Of Grandeur is saying that it is not. According to her or him, a cell in the same purely mechanical state as a living cell is not living without “emotional energy”. According to me, and to every molecular biologist I know, if a cell – even a cell assembled artificially – has the same mechanical state as another living cell, it is a living cell.

Although I’ve not read it in its entirety, I believe I recognize the main idea underlying Of Grandeur as a very old one, that of “vital energy”.

I don’t mean to discount the usefulness of this concept in meditation and health, but think it’s important to understand that it’s metaphorical, not physically real. It’s may be useful to think that we’re animated by “emotional energy”, but such an explanation is a simplified way to understand the complicated mechanical biological processes that really produce life.

Physics and other sciences don’t own the word “energy” any more than philosophy, religion, and everyday conversation does. It’s important, however, to avoid confusing its use in science to describe objectively real, scientifically testable phenomena, with it’s non-scientific uses. In this regard, IMHO, Of Grandeur and similar pseudoscientific writings fail badly.



You've made a clear and, in my opinion, correct distinction between Physical Energy and Metaphorical Energy. Physical Energy can be directly and indirectly measured. Metaphorical Energy can not be observed, either directly or indirectly. It is simply a meta-physical "wish" statement offered as an explanation without empirical evidence.

Since there are no empirical data supporting the theory, no hypothesis can be generated to test the theory through controlled experimental research.

#6 thebigideas

thebigideas

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 16 December 2010 - 05:24 PM

Energy is the potential to do mechanical work.

In terms of 3 fundamental physical properties – mass ([imath]M[/imath]), displacement ([imath]x[/imath], also known as position), and duration ([imath]t[/imath], AKA time) – work ([imath]W[/imath] is defined symbolically (where [imath]\Delta[/imath] means “change in”) as
[math]W= F \cdot \Delta x[/math]

where
[math]F= M \cdot a[/math]

[math]a= \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}[/math]

[math]v= \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}[/math]

Energy and work share the same units of [imath]M \cdot x^2 / t^2[/imath], Joules in SI units.

In words, work is the force applied to an object multiplied by the distance the object is moved.

The wikipedia article you cite contains, if you follow the appropriate links, this fundamental definition, but being an encyclopedia article, not an introductory science textbook, describes many other contexts involving the concept of energy, not just its precise definition.



Yes, I am calling red blood cells living cells.

Despite their lack of DNA, mammalian (I should have been more precise in my previous post by stating “cells without DNA (such as mammalian red blood cells)”, as the red blood cells of some other classes of animals do contain DNA.) red blood cells perform work (metabolize), transporting molecules (most importantly oxygen) across their membranes, and performing limited self maintenance and repair. In humans, red blood cells live – have metabolism – about 100 days, then are attacked by immune system cells, killed, and removed from the blood.

The life of red blood cells is described in many textbooks and encyclopedia articles, such as this wikipedia article section.


I believe that you possess a decent amount of knowledge when it comes to the topic being discussed. But I believe that you are still making some fundamental errors. I reread what was written in the book and it appears that the author has either changed or rearranged parts of the original text yesterday or I initially misread a few things.

The book referees to emotional energy as emotional electricity. The book explains that only living cells with DNA having consciousness and feelings.


The way the author uses the term “sense strand”, such as (from page 18 of 152)

The labeled chromosomes will become the first DNA sense strand in the original
cell.


along with the absence of any reference to the term “antisense strand” (without which, wordplay unintended, the term “sense” makes no sense) suggests a lack of acquaintance with the meaning of these terms in molecular biology. Sense and antisense strands are short sections of an entire genome involved in producing proteins, while chromosomes are large recognizable sections of the genome. Equating the two shows unfamiliarity with their concepts, in the same way someone saying “this diesel engine will become a piston” would show their lack of familiarity with practical engine mechanics.



This is taken directly out of the link you provided - "DNA normally has two strands, i.e., the sense strand and the antisense strand. In double-stranded DNA, only one strand codes for the RNA that is translated into protein. This DNA strand is referred to as the antisense strand. The strand that does not code for RNA is called the sense strand because it has a similar sequence to the messenger RNA (mRNA). Both the sense DNA strand and the mRNA transcript are complementary to the template DNA strand. Note that the DNA strands called "sense" and "antisense" are sometimes switched in older textbooks."

What I said in the quoted text conflicts what’s said in Of Grandeur. I’m saying that how biological cells function is explained satisfactorily by conventional, mechanical, biological theory, without the need for a theory in which each cell is be permeated by “emotional energy” “absorbed by a valid nucleotide combination”.


Unfortunatly, conventional, mechanical, biological theory do not completely understand consciousness or where it truely beings in complex organisms like humans. Simple organisms without brains appear to respond to their environments as if they have some form of consciousness and experience some type feelings that compel them to perform specific actions. The book does not conflict with what you are saying, it is simply providing ideas to fill in gaps. This book addresses these gaps in conventional, mechanical, and biological theory.

The author of Of Grandeur is saying that it is not. According to her or him, a cell in the same purely mechanical state as a living cell is not living without “emotional energy”. According to me, and to every molecular biologist I know, if a cell – even a cell assembled artificially – has the same mechanical state as another living cell, it is a living cell.


The author is not saying this, the author is saying that these cells do not have a consciousness and do not experience feelings.



Although I’ve not read it in its entirety, I believe I recognize the main idea underlying Of Grandeur as a very old one, that of “vital energy”.

I don’t mean to discount the usefulness of this concept in meditation and health, but think it’s important to understand that it’s metaphorical, not physically real. It’s may be useful to think that we’re animated by “emotional energy”, but such an explanation is a simplified way to understand the complicated mechanical biological processes that really produce life.

Physics and other sciences don’t own the word “energy” any more than philosophy, religion, and everyday conversation does. It’s important, however, to avoid confusing its use in science to describe objectively real, scientifically testable phenomena, with it’s non-scientific uses. In this regard, IMHO, Of Grandeur and similar pseudoscientific writings fail badly.


I recommend reading the book so you are fully aware of what the author is explaining. I believe you are throwing an unwarrented " pseudoscience" on the book without giving it the appropriate attention it may deserve.

#7 Vox

Vox

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 17 December 2010 - 05:01 AM

Looks like they updated this free book with empirical research.

www.ofgrandeur.com

What do you guys think of the ideas presented?


My personal opinion: If you look the word; "emotion" it contains the word motion and that indicate the basic. Emotions are just motions of “states” which occur in mind. They are not attached to the mind itself and it is wrong to say that there would be so called emotional balance. Mind is still when there is no emotion at all that is actually so called emotional balance. As soon as any emotion will arise, emotional balance is lost due e motion ongoing.

Any time you feel something, for example "happy" or "sad" you are not "emotionally balanced".."e-motion" is ongoing

#8 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 17 December 2010 - 11:57 AM

Maybe the term emotional energy throws people off since this is normally associated with the brain. Emotion is an orientating function by which reality can be interpreted and interacted with. The data processing is usually done at an unconscious level. The animal smells food and if it gets the right feeling it eats.

Positive feelings create an attraction, while negative feelings create a repulsion.

Emotion seems to have extrapolated from the basic schema associated with chemical reactions. Say one is attracted to another person they will have a good feeling about them. This causes an attraction like two chemicals. But before the two units can bond closely, they need to climb an energy hill. There is a state of tension before there is intimacy. If they do bond, emotional energy is given off, leading to a lowering in emotional potential. The man and women may walk together as a unit bonded by emotional EM. The one heart of the two shares electrons.

One way to look at the theory, emotion is an extension of chemical laws, with the chemical laws coming first. To call the chemical laws emotion sort of starts at the end to label the beginning, which can sort of create confusion. It is like defining the model-T car in the lingo of the 2011 Corvette. The electronic package may only be the wire to the headlights. Or the model T security system may be the screw that removes the stirring wheel. Yet in the mind, one starts to think about an on-board computer, etc., so it seems way off.

But if one starts at the beginning, one can see how basic schemas continue to extrapolate. That one wire of the Model-T eventually becomes the onboard computer of the 2011 vet.

Relative to groups of people, culture creates a common emotional ambiance. The culture of the cell would have its own common ambiance that allows the entire cell to work as a unit.

#9 thebigideas

thebigideas

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 17 December 2010 - 04:39 PM

Maybe the term emotional energy throws people off since this is normally associated with the brain.


It is emotional electricity. Energy is too much of a loaded term to use and it throws hard science people into a whirlwind of confusion.

Emotion is an orientating function by which reality can be interpreted and interacted with. The data processing is usually done at an unconscious level. The animal smells food and if it gets the right feeling it eats.


This is a great example for why I support the book. "Data processing is usually done on an unconscious level" = The book addresses this directly. The brain is like the public sector and the rest of the body is like the private sector. When the private sector needs help with a serious issue it goes to the police, judges, congressmen, senators, or the president aka original cell described in the book. The brain is the same way. When a normal living cell with DNA in the body (private sector) is emotionally unbalanced it goes to the brain (public sector) for help to correct their own emotional imbalanced. Police, judges, congressmen etc can be represented by structures in the brain like the hypothalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, etc). If the police can't handle the problem then they request assistance from the army or a congressmen for more funding, or if it gets serious enough the president is notified. Our active consciousness plays the role of president of this system. The consciousness of the original cell (president) is very complex because it has all of these other structures in the brain communicating with it. A living cell with DNA in the private sector doesn't have all the brain structures communicating with it so it has a primitive consciousness. The original cell (president) doesn't generally bother itself with normal bodily functioning because it is too concerned with the big issues like (finding food, going into sunlight, swallowing aspirin, etc). You can say that most data processing is done on an unconscious level by other cells in the body and brain that are automated and maintain their own emotional balance as long as the president ingests the required resources for them to do their job.

We have our original cell which is the construct or base of our consciousness. Think of our original cell as the owner and general manager of a hotel, but in his will he says that if he dies he wants his hotel torn down, but until it is torn down some of his employees can work as long as money is coming in to pay their salaries. (Money in this example is the nutrients/stimuli needed for the cells in the heart, legs, etc to maintain their emotional balance). When the original cell divides into living cells with DNA and those cells divide into living cells with DNA its equivalent to people interviewing with the general manager and getting a job. Eventually lets say that the hotel has a few trillion rooms and there are a few trillion employees. The general manager can't manage all of these employees directly so he hires a huge team of specialized employees (the structures in our brain) who will manage the few trillion employees. The function of these specialized employees is to help the general manager keep his hotel running. The general manager only gets notified of a problem when it is an extremely big problem. From the general managers perspective his specialized employees are the source of information (emotion), but this is not accurate and in reality these specialized employees are organizing the information sent by all the hotel employees. We believe these brain structures are the source of information, but they are not the initial source of emotion. Emotion is an emergent property of cellular processes. Now some employees come and go, but the general manager will be their the entire life cycle of the hotel (original cell is a brain cell... coincidence that human braincells live 110+ years?) The general manager makes decisions based on the feedback from his specialized employees. Follow how the body and brain communicate with each other and it matches up perfectly to what is being described. We only believe that certain parts of the brain are the sources of our emotions because these parts of the brain organize and handle most of the emotional communication going on in the body. Localization plays a huge role in this because each part of the brain can match to address the emotional needs of certain parts of the body. If the original cell dies then there is no one to take its place and the human becomes a vegetable who can only be kept alive with life support equipment. The body can still be alive and kicking for awhile without a brain.

Positive feelings create an attraction, while negative feelings create a repulsion.

Emotion seems to have extrapolated from the basic schema associated with chemical reactions. Say one is attracted to another person they will have a good feeling about them. This causes an attraction like two chemicals. But before the two units can bond closely, they need to climb an energy hill. There is a state of tension before there is intimacy. If they do bond, emotional energy is given off, leading to a lowering in emotional potential. The man and women may walk together as a unit bonded by emotional EM. The one heart of the two shares electrons.

One way to look at the theory, emotion is an extension of chemical laws, with the chemical laws coming first. To call the chemical laws emotion sort of starts at the end to label the beginning, which can sort of create confusion. It is like defining the model-T car in the lingo of the 2011 Corvette. The electronic package may only be the wire to the headlights. Or the model T security system may be the screw that removes the stirring wheel. Yet in the mind, one starts to think about an on-board computer, etc., so it seems way off.

But if one starts at the beginning, one can see how basic schemas continue to extrapolate. That one wire of the Model-T eventually becomes the onboard computer of the 2011 vet.

Relative to groups of people, culture creates a common emotional ambiance. The culture of the cell would have its own common ambiance that allows the entire cell to work as a unit.


Well said. You are definitely starting to get the gist of what is being explained and I applaud you for taking the time to try and understand it.

#10 thebigideas

thebigideas

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 18 December 2010 - 06:41 AM

Taken directly from the book:

“Both information and physical substrate problems point to one solution; that consciousness is a property of a cell, not a group of cells. No one special cell is implicated. It is proposed that all neurons are conscious, or sentient, to a degree; that the single subjective 'soul' is a confabulation.”
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htm
Jonathan CW Edwards
University College London


“Electrochemical messages are passed between brain cells. Similar signals are passed to every cell in the body… What Freud termed the 'subconscious' mind is actually a measurable physical process. In other words, there is no 'mind-body problem'. Your body is your subconscious mind.”
Candace Pert
Georgetown University


"when concurrent to suprathreshold synaptic input, small electric fields can have significant effects on spike timing. For low-frequency fields, our theory predicts a linear dependency of spike timing changes on field strength. For high-frequency fields (relative to the synaptic input), the theory predicts coherent firing, with mean firing phase and coherence each increasing monotonically with field strength. Importantly, in both cases, the effects of fields on spike timing are amplified with decreasing synaptic input slope and increased cell susceptibility (millivolt membrane polarization per field amplitude). We confirmed these predictions experimentally using CA1 hippocampal neurons in vitro exposed to static (direct current) and oscillating (alternating current) uniform electric fields. In addition, we develop a robust method to quantify cell susceptibility using spike timing. Our results provide a precise mechanism for a functional role of endogenous field oscillations (e.g., gamma) in brain function and introduce a framework for considering the effects of environmental fields and design of low-intensity therapeutic neurostimulation technologies."
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/11/3030
Thomas Radman, Yuzhuo Su, Je Hi An, Lucas C. Parra, and Marom Bikson
Department of Biomedical Engineering, City College of the City University


#11 Ken

Ken

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 18 December 2010 - 10:00 AM

Taken directly from the book:

“Both information and physical substrate problems point to one solution; that consciousness is a property of a cell, not a group of cells. No one special cell is implicated. It is proposed that all neurons are conscious, or sentient, to a degree; that the single subjective 'soul' is a confabulation.”
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htm
Jonathan CW Edwards
University College London


Nice, rather romanticized, statement BUT how is this "conscious" state measured? It's entirely a metaphysical concept. Science deals with the physical universe.

A philosophical discussion has it's own validity, but that has no relevance to the validity of direct observation of the physical relationships that exist in biological (or other) systems.

“Electrochemical messages are passed between brain cells. Similar signals are passed to every cell in the body…


True.

What Freud termed the 'subconscious' mind is actually a measurable physical process. In other words, there is no 'mind-body problem'. Your body is your subconscious mind.”
Candace Pert
Georgetown University


That's simply a metaphysical opinion offered without any supportive data. The jump from neurophysiology to speculative explanatory concepts is simply unacceptable within the methods of Science. The burden of supporting data is on the individual making such claimed connections.



"when concurrent to suprathreshold synaptic input, small electric fields can have significant effects on spike timing. For low-frequency fields, our theory predicts a linear dependency of spike timing changes on field strength. For high-frequency fields (relative to the synaptic input), the theory predicts coherent firing, with mean firing phase and coherence each increasing monotonically with field strength. Importantly, in both cases, the effects of fields on spike timing are amplified with decreasing synaptic input slope and increased cell susceptibility (millivolt membrane polarization per field amplitude). We confirmed these predictions experimentally using CA1 hippocampal neurons in vitro exposed to static (direct current) and oscillating (alternating current) uniform electric fields. In addition, we develop a robust method to quantify cell susceptibility using spike timing. Our results provide a precise mechanism for a functional role of endogenous field oscillations (e.g., gamma) in brain function and introduce a framework for considering the effects of environmental fields and design of low-intensity therapeutic neurostimulation technologies."
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/11/3030
Thomas Radman, Yuzhuo Su, Je Hi An, Lucas C. Parra, and Marom Bikson
Department of Biomedical Engineering, City College of the City University


There is nothing in that quoted statement that carries one from the neurophysiology to the metaphysical notions you are espousing.

Let's just say that I find it unconvincing to cherry-pick the electrophysiology of the Nervous System to attempt to justify a philosophical argument, especially when there is nothing in the quote that suggests that possibility or intent.

Obviously, sentient cognition and self-awareness are not questions to be easily answered by the methodology of Science, just as issues of divinity and religious belief lay outside the defined realm of Science. But, I am convinced that the kind of unsupported speculation about unmeasured kinds of energy that you suggest is too far from any objective data to be advanced as some sort of reconciliation between two very different methods of inquiry.
  • Turtle likes this

#12 thebigideas

thebigideas

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 18 December 2010 - 04:12 PM

Nice, rather romanticized, statement BUT how is this "conscious" state measured? It's entirely a metaphysical concept. Science deals with the physical universe.

A philosophical discussion has it's own validity, but that has no relevance to the validity of direct observation of the physical relationships that exist in biological (or other) systems.


If you read the link provided it helps support the argument that consciousness in humans is the result of consciousness in individual cells. We are dealing with the most difficult questions in science and you can't expect everything to be wrapped so nicely or another party would have already given us the answer. This conversation went from ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR CELLS TO BE CONSCIOUS to its possible for cells to be conscious. Score 1 for the thebigideas...

We may not have the technology to perfectly measure consciousness or emotions, but we also don't have the technology to claim that it is implausible for consciousness and emotion to be balanced at the moment of their destruction. Technically most things can't be proven 100% without a doubt. But we are talking about reasonable doubt based on what we currently accept as empirical evidence. Based on what is acceptable to the scientific community there is no way for a flying spaghetti monster to have created the earth. But based on what is currently accepted as empirical evidence it is plausible to conclude that individual cells have some primitive consciousness, cells experience some form of feelings, consciousness and emotions are the result of electricity, and this electricity is governed by the conservation of charge.

If you form the question like "how is this conscious state measured" I believe you are shooting yourself in the foot and asking a question that is too big right now... so it must be cut down a little. Let us divide and conquer. We may not be able to measure a conscious state perfectly at this moment, but we may be able to measure changes in this conscious state (emotions and feelings) and the result will allow us to better answer the question of how this conscious state is measured. If we approach consciousness as each human's base consciousness comes from a single cell, and our complex consciousness is the result of trillions of cells sending electric charges either directly or indirectly to this single cell, then we may be able to find a new way to answer the big questions like how is this conscious state measured.

That's simply a metaphysical opinion offered without any supportive data. The jump from neurophysiology to speculative explanatory concepts is simply unacceptable within the methods of Science. The burden of supporting data is on the individual making such claimed connections.


I am confident that this metaphysical opinion is offered with supportive data in the book this quote was taken from. I googled the quote and it came from "Your Body is Your Subconscious Mind" by Candace Pert, Ph.D.



There is nothing in that quoted statement that carries one from the neurophysiology to the metaphysical notions you are espousing.

Let's just say that I find it unconvincing to cherry-pick the electrophysiology of the Nervous System to attempt to justify a philosophical argument, especially when there is nothing in the quote that suggests that possibility or intent.

Obviously, sentient cognition and self-awareness are not questions to be easily answered by the methodology of Science, just as issues of divinity and religious belief lay outside the defined realm of Science. But, I am convinced that the kind of unsupported speculation about unmeasured kinds of energy that you suggest is too far from any objective data to be advanced as some sort of reconciliation between two very different methods of inquiry.


Remember, we are trying to answer the most difficult questions posed to the scientific community. We can't look at a single piece of supporting research and say, BAM! QUESTION SOLVED, but we can take supporting research from 100s of sources and paint a picture of what is possible and was is clearly impossible. The author is not trying to prove the Law of Emotional Balance without a reasonable doubt, the author is trying to show that the Law of Emotional Balance may in all reality be a solution to these problems if we begin to view the Law of Emotional Balance without assumptions or misconceptions.

#13 Ken

Ken

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 18 December 2010 - 10:22 PM

If you read the link provided it helps support the argument that consciousness in humans is the result of consciousness in individual cells. We are dealing with the most difficult questions in science and you can't expect everything to be wrapped so nicely or another party would have already given us the answer. This conversation went from ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR CELLS TO BE CONSCIOUS to its possible for cells to be conscious. Score 1 for the thebigideas...


The play is under review. ;)

Obviously we view Science from very different perspectives. The single characteristic that most scientists accept as unique to science is that it empirical, that it is based on publicly observable and measurable data. Phenomena that are proposed an being non-empirical, non-observable, and non-measurable are not the subject matter of Science.

We may not have the technology to perfectly measure consciousness or emotions,


Sorry, but in my opinion you don't even have common definition or description among those who accept the metaphysical concept. Simply put -- can you provide a definition of this thing that you call consciousness? Would it hold common acceptance as the sole definition?

Compare that to the extremely high level of agreement about the frequency of firing of single nerve fiber among neurophysiologists.

but we also don't have the technology to claim that it is implausible for consciousness and emotion to be balanced at the moment of their destruction

.

1. Similar questions about your second term. It's one thing to talk about behavioral patterns during an adrenalin or noradrenalin stimulation. The patterns of behavior are clearly and distinctively different.

2. What is balanced between them? Atomic weight, mass, temperature, pressure, electrical potential? Do you have any evidence that they actually have "moments of destruction"? Are you just substituting two words for the same idea of death? Do their "destructions" occur only simultaneously?

Technically most things can't be proven 100% without a doubt. But we are talking about reasonable doubt based on what we currently accept as empirical evidence. Based on what is acceptable to the scientific community there is no way for a flying spaghetti monster to have created the earth.


I don't argue that. Science is NEVER about 100% certainty. It is an effort to reduce uncertainty; its goal to move towards ever-elusive certainty. That's fundamental to the entire methodology of Scientific investigation.


But based on what is currently accepted as empirical evidence it is plausible to conclude that individual cells have some primitive consciousness, cells experience some form of feelings, consciousness and emotions are the result of electricity, and this electricity is governed by the conservation of charge.


How can one conclude from empirical evidence the plausibility of an undefined, unmeasured, and unobserved explanatory construct?

If you form the question like "how is this conscious state measured" I believe you are shooting yourself in the foot and asking a question that is too big right now... so it must be cut down a little.


It is the fundamental question underlying ANY scientific investigation. A working rule of thumb for Science is "If you can't measure it, forget it" or at least leave it to the other methods of inquiry.

Let us divide and conquer.


Let us not. :P

If you think speculative, arm-chair, wool-spinning will "conquer" the orderly investigation by Science of phenomena of the physical universe you have failed to see that while all methods of inquiry have validity, they do not share the same realms of investigation.

We may not be able to measure a conscious state perfectly at this moment,


Are you suggesting that without any commonly accepted definitions you can even measure it imperfectly? :rolleyes:

but we may be able to measure changes in this conscious state (emotions and feelings) and the result will allow us to better answer the question of how this conscious state is measured.


That is a self-contradictory statement. B)


If we approach consciousness as each human's base consciousness comes from a single cell, and our complex consciousness is the result of trillions of cells sending electric charges either directly or indirectly to this single cell, then we may be able to find a new way to answer the big questions like how is this conscious state measured.


Repeating undefined terms by their own use is hardly a path to enlightenment. Their are billions of neurons, not trillions, and I know of no loci within the Central Nervous System that receives direct input from every other neural structure. That's just wrong-headed neuroanatomy.

And by-the-way, you've changed your argument from one stating that "we may be able to measure changes in this conscious state (emotions and feelings)" to what sounds like an acknowledgement that you have no "big answers" about how this epiphenomena would be measured.

I am confident that this metaphysical opinion is offered with supportive data in the book this quote was taken from.


The only kind of supportive "data" that a metaphysical opinion has is a conviction that the argument is logical. The definition of data, just like the definition of Fact, is different in each of the three methods of inquiry.

I googled the quote and it came from "Your Body is Your Subconscious Mind" by Candace Pert, Ph.D.


That sounds like you have fallen into the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. :D

Remember, we are trying to answer the most difficult questions posed to the scientific community.


Not really. It is an impossible question for Science to contend with based on the defined grounds of study of the material universe, posed by those whose focus is on the metaphysical.

We can't look at a single piece of supporting research and say, BAM! QUESTION SOLVED,


But what you are doing, in essence, is taking supporting beliefs (in lieu of evidence) and saying that the answer to the improper question is solved. And the answer is an undefined, unmeasured, hypothetical explanation.

but we can take supporting research from 100s of sources and paint a picture of what is possible and was is clearly impossible.


It really doesn't work if you cherry-pick from research you don't understand, that deals with a physiological system that you don't understand, whose fundamental organization has you befuddled. There are people in this world who can take disparate data and synthesize highly likely explanations about a variety of concepts, but (to paraphrase VP candidate Bensen) "I know (of) Stephen Hawking. I've read Stephen Hawking, and you my friend are no Stephen Hawking". :D


The author is not trying to prove the Law of Emotional Balance without a reasonable doubt,


Confused terminology once again. A Law in Science is acknowledgement that a theory has been so well supported by empirical testing that stands above other less well tested theories. It is not certification that in the end it will be somehow universally TRUE, just that after repeated testing it has not been undercut by data -though that could happen tomorrow.

When the term Law is used in different ways it suggests some self-aggrandizing attempt at falsely implying credibility.

the author is trying to show that the Law of Emotional Balance may in all reality be a solution to these problems if we begin to view the Law of Emotional Balance without assumptions or misconceptions.


Since Emotions, Emotional Balance, and Consciousness all suffer from the same lack of uniform definition, lack of any physical metric, and rely solely on non-critical acceptance its hard to see those notions as not being impressive examples of both assumption and misconception.

I have a feeling you may disagree. :)
  • JMJones0424 likes this

#14 thebigideas

thebigideas

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 19 December 2010 - 02:05 AM

Sorry, but in my opinion you don't even have common definition or description among those who accept the metaphysical concept. Simply put -- can you provide a definition of this thing that you call consciousness? Would it hold common acceptance as the sole definition?


Subjective experience, awareness, and the ability to experience feeling. Protists, protozoa, respond to various forms of stimuli either positively or negatively. Evidently they must "feel" something. They exhibit aggressive behavior, for example Lacrymaria olor is an extremely aggressive single celled protist. As for stress, they do feel physical stress, in that some protists will form cysts when environmental conditions become adverse for their existence. Therefore placing them under physical stress. When cells receive a stimulus they have a programmed response. Whether its stress or whatever. Signal binds to receptor on cell surface and gets transmitted to the nucleus which responds by producing certain proteins and ultimately the cell responds in a certain way. An amoeba, a single celled or unicellular organism, exhibits choice in selecting food. It has no brain in the way that we think of a brain but instead must have some sort of bio- receptors to distinguish what is food and what is not food. It is capable of making a choice and is a single cell. Cells behave strange when you put ethanol into the medium. Tissue Cells Feel and Respond to the stiffness of their substrate. “Every brain cell has its own individual consciousness, which no other cell knows anything about.” – William James. There is no mechanism for access to information held in several cells other than through signals converging on a single cell. Functionally, neurons are as separate as people, capable of exchanging information but not pooling it. What we know of the brain indicates that binding could not occur between cells linked by discrete signals but might occur in a cell.

What is balanced between them?


Their electrical charge. I am basing this on the law of conservation of charge.


How can one conclude from empirical evidence the plausibility of an undefined, unmeasured, and unobserved explanatory construct?


It is defined and observed based on the data I provided in my last post. The measured part is based on the law of conservation of charge.

It is the fundamental question underlying ANY scientific investigation. A working rule of thumb for Science is "If you can't measure it, forget it" or at least leave it to the other methods of inquiry.


Science is pointing towards the ability to measure emotions in humans. The use of fMRI and other technology will also assist in the ability to measure emotions. If feelings are based on electric charge then it is possible that we will one day be able to accurately measure the feelings of cells. The receptors on cells, the opening of sodium pores, and the use of ion pumps show the need for electrical balance in cells and in time this may bridge to our understanding of feelings.

If you think speculative, arm-chair, wool-spinning will "conquer" the orderly investigation by Science of phenomena of the physical universe you have failed to see that while all methods of inquiry have validity, they do not share the same realms of investigation.


Of course they will not conquer the orderly investigation of science of phenomena, but it can compel towards the implementation of new promising investigations. Let us follow the evidence and not exclude the cherry picking that leads us out of the box.

That is a self-contradictory statement.


Ahh, you appear to be confused. Measuring a conscious state and measuring changes in this conscious state are two separate things, but you seem to not realize a difference.

Their are billions of neurons, not trillions


I am not only counting neurons. I am counting all living cells with DNA.

and I know of no loci within the Central Nervous System that receives direct input from every other neural structure. That's just wrong-headed neuroanatomy.


I agree and this was never said. You have a misconception of what is being discussed.

And by-the-way, you've changed your argument from one stating that "we may be able to measure changes in this conscious state (emotions and feelings)" to what sounds like an acknowledgement that you have no "big answers" about how this epiphenomena would be measured.


Ahh, you appear to be confused. Measuring a conscious state and measuring changes in this conscious state are two separate things, but you seem to not realize a difference. We may not know the base value to start, but we may be able to measure the changes in this base value. You do not seem to consider dips after action potentials, opening of sodium pores, peptide functionality, and other electrically based changes that occur.

The only kind of supportive "data" that a metaphysical opinion has is a conviction that the argument is logical.


This is a generalized assumption that automatically closes yourself off to a tremendous amount of empirical research. If classical physics fails to explain quantum mechanics do you throw out quantum mechanics? Of course not, you investigate and attempt to update the outdated rules to explain the the empirical research.

That sounds like you have fallen into the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.


Seems like you have fallen into the logical fallacy of assuming something is right or wrong without even attempting to study conflicting opinions based in areas outside your expertise.

Not really. It is an impossible question for Science to contend with based on the defined grounds of study of the material universe, posed by those whose focus is on the metaphysical.


Should we drop the study of emotions and consciousness because we can't perfectly quantify either and the study of either will never live up to the rigorous demands of the currently defined grounds of study of the material universe. QED changed the game and rules and in the future other empirical evidence force the same to occur. Is studying psychology a waste of time? The topics of discussion are not impossible questions for science, but maybe they are for your definition of science. And your definition of science is far to old fashioned.

But what you are doing, in essence, is taking supporting beliefs (in lieu of evidence) and saying that the answer to the improper question is solved.


Incorrect and a huge misconception. The question is not solved, but the question deserves to be asked, addressed, and answered.

It really doesn't work if you cherry-pick from research you don't understand, that deals with a physiological system that you don't understand, whose fundamental organization has you befuddled.


This is what we call projecting.

Confused terminology once again. A Law in Science is acknowledgement that a theory has been so well supported by empirical testing that stands above other less well tested theories.


ohh, by all means please enlighten us with the well supported theory, (explaining consciousness and emotions), that has been so well supported by empirical testing that it stands above other less well tested theories.


Since Emotions, Emotional Balance, and Consciousness all suffer from the same lack of uniform definition, lack of any physical metric, and rely solely on non-critical acceptance its hard to see those notions as not being impressive examples of both assumption and misconception.


Anything plausible without 100% proof is an assumption. Most psychologists would say that you seem to be at war with the study of emotions and consciousness. This is very pessimistic and close minded. We may not be able to perfectly study emotions and consciousness at the moment, but innovation changes the game and rules all of the time.

#15 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 19 December 2010 - 03:31 AM

...
Anything plausible without 100% proof is an assumption. ...


What do you guys think of the ideas presented?


i assume the assertions implausible. no but really, i assume you are a troll & i'm in the delta-phi co-orbital inter-cranial neuro-electrical range state of emotion just now and inclined to say so even in the alternate theories corner. i will of course eventually discharge & deny ever having said it, as it's very plausible that i would, but i would have to prove it wasn't an *** umption. :pain30:
  • JMJones0424 likes this

#16 Ken

Ken

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 19 December 2010 - 12:38 PM

Note: I just "discovered" that the forum only allows a limited number of quoted blocks. That disrupts my attempt to respond to each statement that I think deserves comment. :rolleyes:

So, I will go through this, after combining some blocks and insert numbers to correspond to numbered responses follow some of the blocks. Its kind of awkward, but bear with me.

If there is a next time, I'll simply divide the response into two separate postings.

KNW


Subjective experience, awareness, and the ability to experience feeling. Protists, protozoa, respond to various forms of stimuli either positively or negatively. Evidently they must "feel" something. They exhibit aggressive behavior, for example Lacrymaria olor is an extremely aggressive single celled protist. As for stress, they do feel physical stress, in that some protists will form cysts when environmental conditions become adverse for their existence.



Why MUST they "feel" something? Why introduce an anthropomorphic concept to a single-celled organism? To "feel" is a description of a human subjective experience. It is a term in common use that actually only describes each individual's perceptual experience. There is absolutely no way that you can be sure that your experience is the same as someone else's, common usage does not open any door to telepathic integration.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor, or Lloyd Morgan's restatement for the biological sciences? Your use of a fuzzy, unmeasured, undefined, term certainly offers explanation beyond necessity.

Again, you fall into Anthropomorphism. Why aggressive? Do you mean active or do you mean it in the human sense? Do they formulate strategies to overcome their "enemies" or do they simply function at a low level of behavioral organization?

And, again. Why use such a human subjective experience term, which opens the door to all kinds of over-generalization and speculation when a simple description of events should suffice? How are you defining "feel"? What evidence do you have that a single-celled organism has the same experience?

Let's step back for a moment and look at interpersonal experience. Can you provide a universally acceptable and complete definition of the subjective experience of Love? It's a commonly used word describing an "emotion". When you are "in love" is your subjective experience the same or different from someone else who states that they are "in love".

Can you even believe their statement just because they said it. Is it even remotely possible that the words are uttered without any real "emotional" state? Or should everyone let you make some Delphic decision as to the validity of all protestations of Love? <_<

1. Therefore placing them under physical stress. When cells receive a stimulus they have a programmed response. Whether its stress or whatever. Signal binds to receptor on cell surface and gets transmitted to the nucleus which responds by producing certain proteins and ultimately the cell responds in a certain way.

2.An amoeba, a single celled or unicellular organism, exhibits choice in selecting food. It has no brain in the way that we think of a brain but instead must have some sort of bio- receptors to distinguish what is food and what is not food.



1. Whether its stress or whatever depends primarily on how you are using the term stress. If its a short-hand description of reaction to environmental threat or its spending sleepless nights worrying about your next mortgage payment seem to me to be worlds apart.


2, OK as long as you are using "choice" to mean acceptance or rejection of substance enfolded by the protoplasm. The problem that I see in your position is that you let those rather loosely applied terms slide you into redefining them as anthropomorphic concepts.

It is capable of making a choice and is a single cell.


That all depends on which definition of "choice" you use. If you are using it to describe some sort of rational, self-initiated, cognitive process you are drift again into Anthropomorphism. If by choice, you simple mean a simple go/no go behavioral pattern then I can accept the statement.

1. Cells behave strange when you put ethanol into the medium.

2. Tissue Cells Feel and Respond to the stiffness of their substrate.

3.“Every brain cell has its own individual consciousness, which no other cell knows anything about.” – William James.



1. What is "strange" about their behavior? Why would it be "strange" for reaction patterns to change when the chemical environment changes? How would you react if ethanol was put in your "medium"?

2. More of the same. How are you defining "Feel" in this statement? And what kind of responses are seem with differing stiffness of their substrate?

3. William James died in 1910, never having had the opportunity to learn the advances in neurophysiology that are available to us today. You appeal to an Authority who simply has no relevance to the subject matter as currently, and only partially, understood.

There is no mechanism for access to information held in several cells other than through signals converging on a single cell. Functionally, neurons are as separate as people, capable of exchanging information but not pooling it.


:o That denies years of research on neural summation resulting in either further neural stimulation or the inhibition of impulse. It is an incredibly inaccurate statement.


1. What we know of the brain indicates that binding could not occur between cells linked by discrete signals but might occur in a cell. Their electrical charge.

2. I am basing this on the law of conservation of charge.



1. Depends on how you are using "binding". And I admit that I am now suspicious of almost every term you use. :D

If by "binding" you are referring to the process more clearly defined as transduction of one form of energy (the stimulus) into another form of energy (a neurochemical event within a cell) you are correct. If by "binding" you mean to something beyond that we simply aren't communicating.

2. How does this law relate to the neurophysiology?

Let's take a reasonably well understood set of events and see where the data leads us.

The receptors of the eye consist of two kinds of cells, Rods and Cones. Rods are easiest to use in this brief description since they only have one light-absorbing pigment while cones (in humans) come in three "varieties".

The Rod pigment, Rhodopsin, is the operative element. When a single quanta of light is absorbed by a molecule of Rhodopsin, the molecule of Rhodopsin goes through a shape change called a Cis-Trans transformation. I'm not an Organic Chemist, but my understanding is that the Cis-Trans transformation results in a small change in electrical potential.

If a sufficient number of such transformations occur, each resulting from a single quantum absorption, then the summed potential changes are sufficient to reach the next neural structure in line - the bipolar cells. Bipolars receive input from, in the case of Rods, usually hundreds of cells. The sufficient number of absorptions has been empirically determine to be on the order of around 7-10 events to ultimately produce a signal within the Central Nervous System. That describes the concept of summation of signals.

On the other hand, signals arising from one Rod may inhibit the passage of signals from another Rod, illustrating the process of Lateral Inhibition or they may result in adaptation where steady states that would produce stimulation fail to occur because of the duration of unchanging supra-threshold stimulation.

The bipolar cell recieves essentially a "mixed-message" and does nothing. The "charges" from the two disputing Rods are not conserved (in the sense of having further influence) they are functionally lost, not conserved.

That is the reality. Now how does your law have any relevance?

1. It is defined and observed based on the data I provided in my last post. The measured part is based on the law of conservation of charge.

2. Science is pointing towards the ability to measure emotions in humans. The use of fMRI and other technology will also assist in the ability to measure emotions.


1. But the ACTUAL measurements completely deny your assertion.

2. Or the intriguiging effort may yet fail. I don't have any problem with competent researchers exploring new ways of understanding the functioning of the CNS. I do have problems with leaps to speculative certainty based on ambiguous data. You shouldn't claim to win the race at the quarter-mile post....you still have to reach goal-line. :)

1. If feelings are based on electric charge then it is possible that we will one day be able to accurately measure the feelings of cells.

2. The receptors on cells, the opening of sodium pores, and the use of ion pumps show the need for electrical balance in cells and in time this may bridge to our understanding of feelings.


1. And then again, we may never be able to measure the claimed "feelings" of cells.

2.Ionic transport across the semi-permeable membranes of neuronic structures says nothing about any speculations about anthropomorphic subjective experience at the unicellular level.


Of course they will not conquer the orderly investigation of science of phenomena, but it can compel towards the implementation of new promising investigations. Let us follow the evidence and not exclude the cherry picking that leads us out of the box.


Certainly, but you haven't demonstrated any tendency to follow the evidence. Your assertions are simple not in correspondence with any current understanding of the subject matter of neurophysiology. As an analogy, I see your effort as akin to trying to explain a Dark Hole by use of Astrology. B)



1. Ahh, you appear to be confused. Measuring a conscious state and measuring changes in this conscious state are two separate things, but you seem to not realize a difference.

2. I am not only counting neurons. I am counting all living cells with DNA


1.
Possibly, but you still haven't given any definition of this term I may be confused about.

And your logic appears to me to fail the sniff test. :) How can you measure change in a state if you can't measure the current status of the state? To see change in "conscious state" must require some knowledge about the current "conscious state".

2. Neat trick since there are no "living cells with(in) DNA.

From Wikipedia:

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA, is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms, with the exception of some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.


And then you say...

Ahh, you appear to be confused. Measuring a conscious state and measuring changes in this conscious state are two separate things, but you seem to not realize a difference. We may not know the base value to start, but we may be able to measure the changes in this base value.


Another neat trick. How do you recognize change when you don't know the starting point. Perhaps I'm merely confused by your verbal gymnastics, or your version of logic?


You do not seem to consider dips after action potentials, opening of sodium pores, peptide functionality, and other electrically based changes that occur.


Funny, I've actually measured such changes. Have you? I don't consider them in the context of this discussion because they add nothing to the argument. They exist. So what?

Again, you've cherry-picked some well-established observation and attempted to shoe-horn it into your pre-existing notions.


This is a generalized assumption that automatically closes yourself off to a tremendous amount of empirical research. If classical physics fails to explain quantum mechanics do you throw out quantum mechanics? Of course not, you investigate and attempt to update the outdated rules to explain the the empirical research.


It's not a case of "outdated rules", it's a case of the failure of classical physics to predict certain observatons. The theoretical explanation of the relationship among pertinent variables is inaccurate, so the choices are reject the theory out of hand, search for any previously unconsidered variables, or modify the theory to reflect the observations.

Describing the process in terms of rules shows some (dare I say it? :P ) confusion on your part as to how Science functions.


Seems like you have fallen into the logical fallacy of assuming something is right or wrong without even attempting to study conflicting opinions based in areas outside your expertise.


We differ once again. I see no fallacy if an argument is based on misinformation about my area of expertise and I point out the substantive errors. You are simply mis-applying the data of neurophysiology in an attempt to buttress your point of view. Your understanding of neurophysiology is based on small snippets of information extrapoloated beyond a reasonable justification.

Anyone with competence in neurophysiology would agree with my assessment.



1. Should we drop the study of emotions and consciousness because we can't perfectly quantify either and the study of either will never live up to the rigorous demands of the currently defined grounds of study of the material universe. QED changed the game and rules and in the future other empirical evidence force the same to occur.

2. Is studying psychology a waste of time?


1. I have stated, several times in this thread, that I have no objection to competent researchers exploring this area. I am not optimistic that they will ever bridge the huge gap between functions and individually perceive perceptual states - but I wish them well with the endeavor.


2. Having chaired a department of Psychology for 28 years I'm hardly the one to suggest that its a waste of time. :P

1. The topics of discussion are not impossible questions for science, but maybe they are for your definition of science.

2. And your definition of science is far to old fashioned. Incorrect and a huge misconception. The question is not solved, but the question deserves to be asked, addressed, and answered.



1. :lol: :lol:

And perhaps your definition of Science is too self-indulgent?

2. A misleading attribution. I'm only asking that the question be clearly defined in advance of the investigation, that rational methods of measurement be employed, that subjective speculation be excluded, and that the methods of Science be applied when the investigation falls within its realm.

Anyone is certainly free to "investigate" from other methods of inquiry without having to meet the unique requirements of Science.

I used to describe this to students as a phenomenon resulting from the day-to-day successes of Science to directly affect human life. The successes have placed Science is a sort of ascendency over methods (Logic and Theology) that may be fulfilling to some, just don't have the current "pizzaz" of cell phones, vaccines, and nuclear energy.

That difference in perceived prestige has led many non-Science investigators to attempt to wrap themselves in a cloak of scientism, attempting to explain Logical arguments or Faith-based beliefs have having some objective evidentiary status confirmed by the data of science.

It's patently silly to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a Deity by evidence from Quantum Physics. And it's equally silly for someone in one of the science disciplines to attempt to dispel a personal belief about religion based on the inability to find any physical location for Hell.

I see your argument as one that attempts to wear that cloak of science, unfortunately the cloak is too small and has huge holes so it really doesn't work. :)

ohh, by all means please enlighten us with the well supported theory, (explaining consciousness and emotions), that has been so well supported by empirical testing that it stands above other less well tested theories.


You still haven't defined those terms. Your examples of empirical testing of non-measurable speculations falls short of any theorizing. In terms of Science you have no "theory". The term means something far different than your usage suggests within the field of Science.


1. Anything plausible without 100% proof is an assumption.

2. Most psychologists would say that you seem to be at war with the study of emotions and consciousness. This is very pessimistic and close minded. We may not be able to perfectly study emotions and consciousness at the moment, but innovation changes the game and rules all of the time.


1. Science offers no 100% proofs. You are badly misinformed about the fundamentals of Science.

Of the three methods of inquiry that I use as a convenient distinction, I would suggest that Theology offers 100% proof based on the "facts" of belief, Philosophy is open to multiple "proofs" based on the internal consistency of the logic, and Science absolutely rejects the notion of 100% proof, for reasons that are obvious to either logic or simple statistical analysis.
Perhaps I can speak to what "most" Psychologists would say with a touch more authority than you? <_<

2. Since you have chosen, as is your right, not to provide any personal information in your profile or statement in the achievement thread I don't know if you have any expertise in the topics we've been discussing. I've been pretty forthcoming about my strengths and weaknesses.

As far as war, I am clearly an empiricist. I strongly believe that Science is only about observed data. I believe that a FACT in Science is based on the "public" observation of multiple observers, where the metrics of the observation are known or defined in advance, where the observations are such that they can be repeated and that the events being studied derive from a clear Operational Definition.

To the extent that alleged variables such as Emotion or Consciousness do not meet those criteria - I suppose you could say I'm at war. I'd rather say that they are just irrelevant to Science until they meet the fundamental criteria for study.

I think we've about reached the point where neither of us is really offering anything new but I'm willing to continue if you are, it's an entertaining discussion.
  • JMJones0424 likes this

#17 Ken

Ken

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 19 December 2010 - 02:29 PM

i assume the assertions implausible. no but really, i assume you are a troll & i'm in the delta-phi co-orbital inter-cranial neuro-electrical range state of emotion just now and inclined to say so even in the alternate theories corner. i will of course eventually discharge & deny ever having said it, as it's very plausible that i would, but i would have to prove it wasn't an *** umption. :pain30:



:D :D :D

I didn't expand on my comments to my students above
, but I do have sort of an issue (minor) with folks adopting the trappings of science because it is seen by many as an effective change-agent for human existence - and then demanding that Science change to the metaphysics that appear to have been less "effective" in providing change. <_<

What's effective, of course, is a matter of personal judgement and reflects personal values.

:wave2: