This starts with the postulate that “timing is generated within the brain.” It completely ignores the possibility that the timing is generated elsewhere and the brain is simply a conduit for the timing signals. Or that the brain is only one of the receptors for the timing signals and not related to the birdsong at all but is simply a side effect.


Well this is just plain silly when viewed in the face of the postulate that the brain controls behavior. It says quite clearly that the patient affects the changes in the brain by focusing. Isn’t “focusing” a behavior? Which would mean that “the behavior controls the behavior.” So which is it? The brain controls the patient or the patient controls the brain?


There is an assumption of cause and effect here. But the evidence does not indicate any reason to conclude that assumption (that the brain reduction caused the memory loss) is fact. One could also assume that the memory loss caused the brain size reduction. Or that there is no cause-effect relationship at all – i.e. both symptoms could be the effects of a third factor.


Again, only a “link” between the two, not a cause-effect relationship.


Ditto.

And after reading the others, I realize that there is some fuzziness in differentiating between the data (the stuff that is stored), the medium (what holds the stuff) and the actions (how the medium is manipulated during the read/write operations).

In summary, there is no overriding reason to assume that the brain is the storage medium. Only that the read/write operations have some effect on the brain. (And precious little to indicate even that much.)

Based on my own experiences, I am inclined to believe that changes in the brain are by-products of the read/write operations, just as changes in the insulation is a by-product of the heat and EM fields produced by electricity flowing through am insulated cable. Yes, the changes exist and appear to be somewhat permanent. But those changes are not the primary cause, primary effect or primary function of the system. They are just by-products.

_______________________

Just some rabble-rousing comments.

Sky when you start with a conclusion, you can always justify it . . . . I sure am glad science does not work that way.

Then maybe I don't understand what is meant by "science". I was under the impression that all of science is based on determinism as a postulate.

If that's not the case then I've been egregiously misled and maybe you can straighten me out.

I have come to realize there is little chance of anyone straightening anyone out that holds such beliefs.

I wish it did start with a possibility or several possible solutions and explore from there. They would do much better. "Science" is full of contradictions and different opinions.

When I mention my scientific authorities you guys just ignore them as if these were not respected men of science with valid theories... why? Just because you don't agree or understand them?

Try starting with a number of possible solutions where none are apparent. Then explore further from there and watch the pieces fall together.

(I have heard that if you don't have the ability to stretch your mind and imagine the possibilities or believe in them, you will not be able to see them when they present themselves as right in front of you.)

You Billyclub, have made up your mind about certain things and have ceased to consider any other options. In fact, you run from them. You will never discover the truth when you close the door like that.



I think that is what you have done. I think that 80% of science has done that.

jb

I don't "believe" that science is married to determinism. I was given that as a definition by someone whom I respected as a scientist, just as I respect you as a scientist. Now if the other scientist misled me, or I misunderstood, then I think of myself as having a moral obligation and an ethical responsibility to correct the misunderstanding. That's all I'm trying to do. I'm not asking you to try and change my beliefs because I don't think that will happen. I'm just asking you to give me a definition that I can use to communicate with you and avoid the problems of miscommunication.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117110834.htm

Great article.

Also these articles are laymen in the extreme, the sources at the bottom are a great place to go if you really want in depth analysis. The research paper is the place to go, fo sho.

There is a difference between hypothesis, and conclusion.


JB have I really made up my mind? . . . . go back and quote me . . . Also I don't know any scientists who are not willing to talk about anything (I do mean anything), but there entire craft is based on what can be wiled out . . . without effects that can be measured its all just sci fi.

Which I love sci fi, and just because its sci fi, does not preclude it from being real, or close, or just sparking the imagination and fueling the fire.


But remember there is a difference between accepting something as possible, and integrating something as belief.


Personally I think when someone has reached a conclusion about something not well understood, its they who have closed off there minds . . . .

By its very nature conclusions are shutting the door, sealing the container, writing the label.

If all this is true, does that mean that some of the best knowledge died many years ago?

Wouldn't you like to download the mastermind of the Mayans times?

Or the Greeks?

The Romans?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117110834.htm


So what are the ramifications of this study on your beliefs sky?

Also when you read those articles, it does not state all of the research data, if you are truly interested you should go to the sources and read the actual research data.


New scientist is ok (its free is why I am always posting links to it sadly you would have to pay to view the links to most of the stuff I could show you) . . . but really the authors of the research know there stuff. The person writing these articles are laymen, and are summarizing to a great extent, and many times get stuff wrong, or only point out small amounts of research data to make a single point that will get hits for the article.

Sherrie,

I agree that there is a type of distributed memory in
the nerves which extend throughout our body. This is part
of the system we have which produces perfectly beautiful
motions such as musical or artistic performances and
athletic prowess.

The evidence though of memories being physically stored
in the brain is overwhelming.

Of course the act of recall of a memory can be impeded
with drugs, lack of oxygen, effects of aging, anything
which interferes with the function of the brain - but
most particularly with brain trauma. So, I don't see any
disagreement there.

As far as Sky's comment on the word "mind" being a noun...
It is a noun which identifies the act of memory recollection
essentially...

from Merriam-Webster for example...

Main Entry:
mind Listen to the pronunciation of mind
Pronunciation:
\ˈmīnd\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English gemynd; akin to Old High German gimunt memory, Latin ment-, mens mind, monēre to remind, warn, Greek menos spirit, mnasthai, mimnēskesthai to remember
Date:
before 12th century

1: recollection , memory <keep that in mind> <time out of mind>2 a: the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b: the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c: the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism

You probably think of a conclusion as final. I don't. I'm just putting together a thumbnail sketch of the whole and looking for the missing parts. If said "conclusion" or speculation proves to be way off track or wrong at some point it is replaced by a better one.

When I express my ideas, I call them "conclusions" because they work. I don't get lost in the details, I work the entire picture. (That's the same way a paint a picture.)

At the conclusion of the picture, I work on the details. I'm not there yet.

It is difficult to explain my world view because it consists of more than just observing this physical reality and declaring what I will or will not believe. I trust my feeling more than I trust science and the petty arguments of mankind.

In looking at the details of a thing you sometimes cannot see the whole thing and how it all works together.

jb

Your Brain physically changes when you experience a new experience .. with that saying your brain and mind correlate. A persons mind grows with experience ONLY .. in my opinion a person who is dumb is a person with minimal life experience unless they have some sort of pathogen. Yes i will say that its only partially true .. there are alot of other things going on such as chemical and hormones giving different responses changing the way a person things but, cognition in general is all about experience.

if you're interested in this topic check this out .. http://www.scribd.com/doc/20936/How-To-Control-Your-Brain-At-Will .. download it and read.. im sure you'll find this interesting .

Ok. I honestly tried to take everything there at face value.

And I understand that type of article can’t go into the details of the entire experiment and the complete chain of evidence that led to the conclusion. (The conclusion being "To learn something, in other words, to successfully process new information, nerve cells make new connections with each other.")

So what the article says to me is that nerve cells react to (unspecified) stimulus and that the reaction is composed of "new connections". Ok, I have no problem with that. Then the conclusion is that "memory" is composed of the "connections". Ok, I have no problem with that as a definition. I agree that there can be cellular changes, which could be called "memory", that operates on a stimulus-response basis.

But that’s as far as it goes.

What is doesn’t explain to me is how I could remember being outside of my body, if memory is dependent upon a body. And it doesn’t explain how I could remember past lives if memory is dependent upon a body.

The only explanation it offers for those two experiences is that I didn’t experience them.

So what I see in that article is a conclusion that contradicts my experience. I don't know any better way to state that.

I haven't read this and I don't plan on it. But I'd like ask a question nevertheless: What is it that is doing the controlling? "Control your brain" is a predicate. What exactly is the subject? Does it have any elements or components? If so what are they?

Mind = mis-diagnosis of brain faculties

The evidence is completely overwhelming against the existence of the immaterial "mind". Philosophy of the mind is dead. There have been case after case of clearly supporting evidence which proves that the mind is dependent upon the brain for it's formation and sustenance.

There is no way to prove the mind exists. However, should one believe that it exists, then does indeed have "products" of it's existence. The problem is, if the brain does not develop properly or gets damaged enough, the mind is no longer producing it's evidence of it's own "existence".

If there is such a thing, it exists within the brain, as a faculty.

The "blank slate" idea, and the traditional "ghost in the machine" are futile chases against what is a physiological construct. Completely physiological.

Genetics and environmental influences both determine the type of "mind" that one lives with.

I am ninja...

You cannot see me...



The irony of the mirror...



There are some people who refuse to accept documented proof in lieu of personal opinion or the desire to believe something else...

If it brings good upon the face of the earth... do it!

Peace Out!!!

Then you would not mind naming your source for this "completely overwhelming evidence" against the existence of the immaterial "mind". I intend to study it very carefully.

We will see how overwhelming it is.

jb

I would like to think (as the brain is often fond of doing) that the "mind" is something the brain "generates" while it's either awake or dreaming. The term mind is also synonymous with "consciousness" and mental "awareness," but only when the brain is not in sleep mode (although you could argue that dreaming is another form of consciousness or awareness, differing only in degree of acuity and source of input, i.e., conscious perception has a higher degree of acuity and derives its input from stimuli outside of the body, while dreaming has a lower degree of acuity and receives input from within the body's internal memory tissue). Agree / Disagree?

Just remember that some people are more easily overwhelmed than others Jeannie.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?highlight=memory,human&rid=neurosci.chapter.2165