Looks like they updated this free book with empirical research.
What do you guys think of the ideas presented?
Looks like they updated this free book with empirical research.
What do you guys think of the ideas presented?
I skimmed a few pages, I don't at all agree with the implication that emotion is somehow separate from our brain. People like to feel special, they don't like the idea that everything we think we know, are, feel, etc. is just a mass of connections in their skull, that come together in such a way to give us their perception.
"I skimmed a few pages, I don't at all agree with the implication that emotion is somehow separate from our brain. People like to feel special, they don't like the idea that everything we think we know, are, feel, etc. is just a mass of connections in their skull, that come together in such a way to give us their perception."
You do not seem to understand what is being discussed. Why do you not agree with the implication that emotion is somehow separate from our brain and what evidence is there to support your claims that cells can't have feelings. Seems like you are just hand waiving and using smoke and mirrors in your response.
Well, I don't mean to discount the theory, but I can't be bothered to read that thing with finals. Would you mind explaining to me why you think a cell can feel? To me it just doesn't seem possible, a cell does respond, but the response seems pretty blind, react/don't react, throw in a chemokine with a cell that has a receptor for it and it will go towards the chemokine, stimulate a receptor that activates/deactivates a metabolic pathway and you get just that. There's some modularity, but to say that the cell is "aware" of anything on a level akin to ours seems silly to me.
I looked at it again, briefly, but still, I couldn't find a shred of scientific data in there to support any of the claims. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove the lack of somethings existence, it would be on that author, or you if you're arguing on their behalf, to show evidence that it is true. I'd really like to know how our consciousness is somehow encompassed within the first zygotic cell. If consciousness is separate from the brain, why is it so well associated with our cerebral cortex, and why do animals which lack our brain structure lack a consciousness as developed as our own? Like I said, I'm not a fan of dualism, there is no real basis for it, but feel free to convince me otherwise, I have an open mind.
"There's some modularity, but to say that the cell is "aware" of anything on a level akin to ours seems silly to me. "
Where does the book say that cells are aware at a level akin to ours? That is not written anywhere in the book and based on what I read it appears to not say that.
"If consciousness is separate from the brain, why is it so well associated with our cerebral cortex,"
The book does not say that our consciousness is separate from the brain, in fact it says the opposite. The cerebral cortex is described in the book as adding to our complex consciousness. With the assistance of our cerebral cortex we have a complex consciousness. Cells do not have a complex consciousness because they do not have a cerebral cortex.
"and why do animals which lack our brain structure lack a consciousness as developed as our own?"
Because we have a brain and it adds to the complexity of our consciousness.
I am trying to stay open minded to your comments, but it does not appear that you understand what is being described in the book. Maybe it will be helpful for you to simply say the problems that you have with the ideas presented in the book and I respond to those specific ideas and address them until we remove all of the assumptions and misconceptions.
I'd like it much more if you gave me a basic rundown on what the author is saying, so I have a better idea of what we're talking about. And exactly how are you defining emotions and consciousness, because if we're thinking different things, the semantics game can go for a long time.
Anyways, what evidence is there, what experiments have actually been done to demonstrate that anything in the book actually has some validity to it. I saw experiments the author proposes, but none actually performed.
As far as specific problems, the author says cells will die without the original cell, how do they take account of very old immortalized cell lines which are still around, and come from a person(or animal) who is long deceased? Also, if a consciousness is created when sperm and egg meet, and that original cell is central, how does the author explain aphid clones, or any clone for the matter. If those clones somehow gained a new, equal, consciousness, why don't all clonal cells in our body, stemming from the original cell, gain that same consciousness and lose their dependence on the original?
"As far as specific problems, the author says cells will die without the original cell"
The book does not say this. Cells need the original cell to better maintain their own emotional balance. Cells in the body can live on for awhile without an original cell... vegtables on life support...
"how do they take account of very old immortalized cell lines which are still around, and come from a person(or animal) who is long deceased?"
The book does not conflict with any of this.
"Also, if a consciousness is created when sperm and egg meet, and that original cell is central, how does the author explain aphid clones, or any clone for the matter."
They have their own consciousness, but they do not have a complex consciousness like the original cell because the original cell is connected to the entire brain while the clones are not connected to the brain in the same way. Think of the original cell as a website domain with a single user that pays the domains bills and all of the other cells are like users that post information on that website domain. The website domain is the central hub where everyone congregates. If the guy that pays the bills die then the website will crash and there will be no other place for all of the users to congregate. Without users the website would have very little information.
"If those clones somehow gained a new, equal, consciousness, why don't all clonal cells in our body, stemming from the original cell, gain that same consciousness and lose their dependence on the original?"
Those clones can never get a new, equal consciousness. Think of the original cell as the manager that tells everyone what to do, but when the manager dies there is no no one that can take the managers place and the sysems erupts into chaos and everyone gets fired.
So you're assuming that there have been no instances of brain trauma caused by accidents, stroke, surgery, disease, etc. which have killed the original cell, where the person lived a more/less normal life? That seems incredibly unlikely.Originally Posted by thebigquestion
Functionally aphid clones are the same as their "parent," what do you mean they don't have a "complex consciousness?" What happens when their parent dies? Do their clonal offspring have even "simpler consciousnesses?" What about the offspring of the offspring, etc? Humans originally came from animals and cells which reproduced clonaly, how many times did the consciousness degrade in the process?Originally Posted by thebigquestion
I'll ask again, can you please explain the theory, and define consciousness, complex consciousness, and emotions for me as you use them?
Lastly, can you address these contentions from Barbara A. Drescher? If they've been resolved in this addition, can you please tell me how?
[/quote]Well, my first response is that it is the responsibility of those making claims to support them with evidence, but setting that aside for a moment, this is a lot like asking for concrete proof to refute the claim that my dog is the head of a secret organization whose goal is world domination. To accept the claim requires unreasonable assumptions (e.g., my dog can communicate in ways unknown to man).
This “theory of emotional imbalance” is not a scientific theory at all. Scientific theories are plausible explanations for events and processes which do not require unreasonable assumptions (such as the existence of things supernatural). The introduction clearly states that a supernatural assumption is required. On page 22, it states that “physical disabilities and natural disasters are factored into a person’s emotional balance before either occurs”. That alone makes this “theory” completely unscientific.
Even if that were not included, the “theory” is completely implausible because it rests on a number of assumptions which are clearly false:
Assumption: There is such a thing as “emotional energy”.
Problem: Although it is popular in alternative and eastern “medicine” to define everything about humans as “energy”, these descriptions rely on a faulty definition of “energy”. Emotion is not energy, nor is it related to energy.
Assumption: Emotion can be described on a single dimension ranging from “sad” to “happy”.
Problem: This definition of emotion does not fit accepted views or definitions of emotion. In a diagram, the positive and negative values are described as “emotions that make you feel sad” and “emotions that make you feel happy”. Emotions don’t make you feel anything; emotions ARE feelings and among those emotions are “happy” and “sad”. Also among them are emotions which do not accompany values of happy or sad such as “anticipation”.
Assumption: Emotion is measured in a way which could be “in balance”.
Problem: Relies on a faulty definition of emotion as discussed above.
Assumption: That there is some biological mechanism which keeps track of “sad” values and “happy” values in a way which could affect life processes.
Problem: People are not characters in video games. We don’t have “counters” which record the emotions we experience. We don’t even record events. Memories don’t work like cameras.
Problem: Although emotion itself does not affect general health, stress and other states related to emotion do. However, not in a linear way – stress, which would clearly fall into the author’s “emotions which cause sadness” category, has both negative and positive effects on health. Biological systems like human beings are much more complex than this “theory” allows.
Problem: People who are sick and in pain usually recover, THEN feel better, not the other way around. This refutes the existence of a biological mechanism which could accomplish the task of leading one closer to or away from death.
The “big” premise: It is not possible to die in a state of “emotional imbalance” as the theory defines it.
* If it were true, no young child would ever die after a long illness or a life of abuse.
* If it were true, only men with happy childhoods would be killed in action during war.
* If it were true, it would be impossible to kill someone that one has tortured unless that person had an unusually high store of happiness prior to torture.
* If it were true, suicides would only be successful if one had an unusually high store of happiness prior to experiencing the events which eventually led to suicide.
* Decades of research on longevity have revealed only one unifying factor among those who live more than 100 years: an exceptional ability to cope with grief. According to this “theory”, these people are ripe for death. They manage to feel strong emotions of all kinds, yet those emotions do not persist for long periods which, according to the theory, should translate to maintaining a relatively balanced emotional state.
I hope that is enough for you to work with because, frankly, I find the whole thing ridiculous. It certainly is not based on anything we know about emotion, biology, physics, or anything else in the natural world and I have no interest in pursuing questions of the supernatural.
"So you're assuming that there have been no instances of brain trauma caused by accidents, stroke, surgery, disease, etc. which have killed the original cell, where the person lived a more/less normal life? That seems incredibly unlikely. "
Kind of difficult to fight an assumption with an assumption.... This book appears to go to war against assumptions.
"Functionally aphid clones are the same as their "parent," what do you mean they don't have a "complex consciousness?"
The book claims that there is a difference. The difference is the original sense strand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorta...and_hypothesis
"What happens when their parent dies?"
The cell can still live on for awhile.
"Do their clonal offspring have even "simpler consciousnesses?What about the offspring of the offspring, etc?"
Its possible. Its more accurate to think of things as a military chain of command. There are privates, captains, generals, and the President (original cell). All cells report to their superiors in order to recruit help to address their own emotional imbalances. If the general can't handle the mess, he sits down with the president and requests additional funding or reinforcements.
"Humans originally came from animals and cells which reproduced clonaly, how many times did the consciousness degrade in the process?"
Once you understand the above comments this is no longer a question that needs to be addressed.
"I'll ask again, can you please explain the theory, and define consciousness, complex consciousness, and emotions for me as you use them?"
Will take hours to copy and paste the theory. Writing a few bits will only misconstrue what is being said. Its better for you to read the information, bring up objections and have me address those objections.
"Lastly, can you address these contentions from Barbara A. Drescher? If they've been resolved in this addition, can you please tell me how?"
Check out the Q and A section in the book and the additional thought section. I read the same online message board and each was addressed so it appears that the author read the comments on that forum and answered them all in the book so that he or she would not have to answer these assumptions or misconceptions repeatedly. Its quite unreasonable for me to copy and paste 50 pages of information in a post, especially since each of the conflicts raised needs several paragraphs to pages to fully explain. Barbara A. Drescher does not appear too know what she is talking about and her comments appeared to be filled with an insane amount of assumptions and misconceptions.
Fair enough, thank you for replying. I'll give it a fair read when I have a bit more time.
Very general impression from a quick skim-through. It sounds like a lot of conjecture that's very thin on evidence. The author doesn't identify him/herself, which is a bit odd for a "book". There's a list of 100 university professors who were consulted for comments on the book, presented as if this is a sort of endorsement, but there's no indication of what the extent or nature of their feedback actually was. Were their names used with permission? There's no references that I can see, and no footnotes, which makes verification kinda awkward. The general comments on cells, DNA and emotional energy... well they seem to be plain wrong- even unnecessary (life from lifelessness does not need to be explained in this manner), though perhaps I'm misreading them. It all seems a bit strange to me.Originally Posted by thebigquestion
Bigquestion, I have to say that it does look just a touch suspect when an entirely new user comes along and, with their first post, gives us a link. It's a bit more suspect when that user solicits commentary and, despite presenting themselves as being independent of that link, seems quick to vigorously defend the content.
So please, a straight answer: are you in any way associated with this site/book? The author, or even a friend? If you are, then that's fine. Once it's above board, we can continue this discussion.
From the link:
"I proposed that all living cells with DNA are homestatic systems that experience primitive feelings and have primitive consciousness. Consciousness is a form of electricity that permeates the entire universe and I call this electricity, 'emotional electricity.' When DNA is properly organized it acts like a container and can retain some emotional electricity in its sense strand. This is how dead matter becomes living matter. If DNA is not properly organized, it cannot retain any emotional electricity. Nucleotides are like software codes, but for consciousness and feelings."
This sound suspiciously similar to ideas espoused by Apophis Reject with just a bit more pseudoscientific language to lend credibility. Where do we begin, cells experience "primitive feelings" or this unqualified "emotional electricity" that "permeates the entire universe"? For these ideas to be science, we should have a means to quantify them scientifically. How do we quantify the emotions of a cell or this pervasive "emotional electricity" of the universe? How do we test these ideas, which do not seem to have well defined parameters?
To test a cell for emotional output, we would first need to know how a cell experience and express emotions. I presume that such emotions cannot be quantified by human expression with the ability to response to human stimuli. To test for emotional electricity, we would first need to know what type of energy it is or whether it is energy at all. This all seems to be a backdoor introduction of religious dogma to me, which I tend to avoid for reasons obvious to the rational mind. If not, you may need to do a little more research in support of your ideas.
I am not associated with LINK DELETED, but I am a firm believer in what it is trying to do. LINK DELETED is trying to help the scientific community approach consciousness and feelings from a new perspective. In reality, we do not fully understand consciousness and emotion and that is because we are trying to approach it from a classical physics perspective. This is like trying to approach quantum mechanics from a classical physics perspective.
I understand what is being discussed and the focus of the book is on dispelling assumptions and misconceptions that are held by the academic community. I am only trying to help remove the assumptions and misconceptions.
Please provide me with your opinion of why you believe the ideas are incorrect and also please provide your empirical support. I will then respond with why those are assumptions or misconceptions. Once we remove all of the assumptions and misconceptions we can have a serious discussion on the ideas proposed.
We claim that people have to provide evidence to support their claims, but the author is trying to say that based on what we are currently using as empirical research, there are more than one explanation and there could be explanations that we have never considered before. If you actually understand what is discussed in the book you will see that the author is not in conflict with what the academic community is presenting, the author is just viewing what is presented in a new way and providing the evidence to support the new perspective.
The ideas presented in the book overlap with conservation of electrical charge. Maybe the reason why we don't fully understand emotions and consciousness is we are trying to approach them in a classical physics sense. What happens when you approach quantum mechanics like you approach classical physics? Just because we can't measure emotions or consciousness at this point in time or perfectly explain how DNA store emotional electricity, that does not mean that emotional electricity does not exist. Maybe its easier for you to just say what you disagree with and provide empirical support for why you disagree with it. I will answer your conflicts. The book appears to be more focused on dispelling assumptions and misconceptions and showing that based on currently accepted empirical research there can be other explanations then the one you assume is true. What part of the book conflicts with your current beliefs and why? We perceive a difference in our emotions so we know that something is there and this is basis enough to claim that emotions can be quantified, even if we currently do not possess the technology to quantify them. Maybe you should read more than a few pages of something before you come to a conclusion. It doesn't seem that you really know what you are talking about and instead all you are doing is saying.... I have a problem with X, but I am not going to explain why I have a problem with X. The author seems to be addressing the fact that people, like yourself, make huge assumptions and hold huge misconceptions of reality. I am trying to help you remove those misconceptions by asking you directly, what part of the ideas presented do you have a conflict with and what empirical evidence do you have to support your conflict.Originally Posted by DrmDoc
You are asking questions, but not raising conflicts for why it is not true.Originally Posted by DrmDoc
Seems like you cope with your environment by throwing labels on things that you do not understand. Maybe do a little leg work and understand what you are commenting on before you throw out blanket negative accusations.Originally Posted by DrmDoc
When we don't understand what something is, do we begin with a philosophy [emotional electricity] and build around that idea or do we begin with something tangible with proven connections? The only proven and provable connection to what consciousness and emotions may or may not be has been the brain. If we want our ideas to have a sound basis, we have to start on the ground with tangible, testable models rather than in the clouds with unqualified ideas--in my opinion.Originally Posted by TheBig
Taken from the question and answer section in the book:Originally Posted by DrmDoc
Question - "How can we talk about amounts of emotions when there are no quantitative ways to measure them? Can you tell me how many units of happiness you personally experienced today?"
Answer - It is true that there is not yet any quantitative way to measure all of the feelings a person has experienced before his/her death. One view of how science works is that you can postulate an idea (“hypothesis”) and then see what logical consequences follow from that idea. Then you can test the consequences to see if they are true. For example, physicists postulated the existence of electrons to explain the behavior of charged beams in magnetic fields. Testable consequences flowed from this postulation, although the original knowledge of electrons was very imperfect.
Even without a perfect quantitative way of measuring feelings, experimental evidence could still validate or invalidate the Law of Emotional Balance.
If I understand correctly, although we can't observe a cell's emotional output and have no way of determining whether it has that quality, this doesn't suggest that it does not have emotions. In physics we have predictive models whose outcomes either support or deny our conclusions. In biology and neuroscience, I am not aware of any predictive model that applies to the activity of a single cell, which suggests that it has an emotive quality. Does the author offer such a model? Further, is there a predictive model for the existence of this pervasive emotional electricity that is not generated by brain function?Originally Posted by thebigquestion
An assumption. We may be able to observe it and we may be able to build a case for a cell's primitive emotional output by observing how it responds to its environment or to stimuli.Originally Posted by TheBig
Lets not assume this is impossible to make. More importantly, just because a model does not exist currently, that doesn't mean that it won't be made in the future. Maybe we don't fully understand emotions and consciousness because we have not made a predictive model for the existence of this pervasive emotional electricity that is not generated by brain function. Logically the model presented in the book is plausible, but now the mission appears to be to create a causal step by step model to accurately prove it.Originally Posted by TheBig
All of this aside, the ideas described in the book do not conflict in any way with existing empirical support for any other ideas. Show me evidence that the model presented in this book is implausible. If you can't then you are only assuming it is incorrect and you don't actually know its incorrect. Guilty until proven innocent? Where is the evidence to support the changes made, well they are in the book.
Please note that this discussion has been moved to the Pseudoscience subforum, which I think is most appropriate.
I ask again, what is that model? In your response to my prior comments, you quoted an analogy by the author that equates the validity of his ideas to the postulate of electron particals. In my response I said that we have predictive models that support the existence of said particals, whereas, such predictive models do not appear to exist for the author's ideas. Your comment here suggests that the author provides a model but not one that is predictive. One may only conclude that his ideas are rooted in belief and subjective experience rather fact or objective evidence. If so, belief and subjective experience isn't evidence in science that support a conclusion empirically.Originally Posted by thebigquestion
If cells express emotions or emotional electricity exists, the author should provide us with a predictive model for these ideas short of tangible, testable evidence. Rather than have the reader disprove an authors theories, I think it is author's onus to support his or her position with evidence acceptable to science. Furtherstill, the notion that the lack of a predictive model for emotional electricity is why we may not fully understand emotions and consciousness is not acceptable. To build a predictive model, we must have some idea of its nature as we have with theoretical particals. Is it electricity or some quantum partical as yet unobserved? If we accept the author's ideas, then we are accepting notions that infer emotions and consciousness in everything and everywhere, which is not supported by the only testable model for these qualities we are capable of fully understanding--humanity.
I am going to play devil's advocate on this.Originally Posted by DrmDoc
*Fine print* I believe that you have seen enough pseudoscientific models that it is justified that you are highly skeptical of such ideas and as such it is only reasonable for you to draw your current conclusions. If it has four legs, gallops, and sounds like a horse, then it is in all likelihood a horse.... However, let us say that by some strange turn of improbable events it is a Zebra... I am a reasonable guy, open minded, and logical and as a consequence I sympathize with your position. I also have no problem conceding a position if adequate support is presented to the contrary. I have personally perceived that every person who has died has lived an emotionally balanced life. But to jump and say that there is a Law of Emotional Balance is kind of a stretch and let’s face it, even if there was emotional balance in these people's lives, it is highly plausible that the emotional balance in these circumstances are the result of a tendency and not a universal law. There are billions of people who have very strange beliefs that are the result of what they have perceived. We have to take the perceptions of others with a grain of salt because let’s face it, some people have psychological and physiological problems and their perceptions can't be trusted to reflect reality... Especially if those perceptions or beliefs differ from what is currently accepted by the scientific community. We must also incorporate selective reasoning, self-fulfilling prophecies, and delusions.
*The reasoning for the belief and model*
Is the belief in a Law of Emotional Balance or emotional electricity plausible and if so does it match up with anything that is currently accepted by the scientific community?
Strangely it does...
Reverse engineering explanation: Proposed models do not perfectly explain what consciousness and emotions are, despite the fact that thousands of respected scholars have looked at those models from practically every angle. Hypothesis: Maybe those models are incorrect and emotions and consciousness are a form of electricity. If emotions and consciousness are a form of electricity then they must follow the same properties of electricity. Conservation of charge = no net electricity can be added or subtracted from the universe. Further, the law of conservation of charge dictates that a charged particle cannot turn into photons or pure energy; only neutral particles or pairs of oppositely charged particles can do so. If emotions are electricity then they must be kept in balance before turning back into pure energy. If emotions and consciousness are electricity then consciousness can only disappear once it is electrically neutral. All things with consciousness can only die emotionally neutral or emotionally balanced. All living cells with DNA appear to have a form of consciousness. There is technically a Law of Emotional Balance that applies to living cells with DNA. Human's are made of living cells with DNA and one of those cells could hold the consciousness for each person. Humans' complex consciousness is the result of other cells interacting with that one cell through electrical charges, but even if they interact with that one cell, the consciousness for that one cell can only die emotionally balanced. Human die emotionally balanced.
Straight forward explanation: Observation: People appear to die emotional balanced. This is justification for starting the journey to see how people appear to die emotionally balanced. There are no coincidences in life, and everything in the universe, including life, consciousness, and emotions can be understood scientifically even if they currently are not perfectly understood scientifically. Hypothesis: There could be a universal law in place that forces all people to die emotionally balanced. If there is a law that forces people to die emotionally balanced then what mechanisms can enforce such a law if it was true? Strangely there are mechanisms in place that could uphold this law if emotions and consciousness are electricity. Based on what we know about consciousness and emotions it is possible that they are a form of electricity. If emotions and consciousness are electricity then they would be forced to follow conservation laws. If consciousness and emotions are electricity then conservation of electrical charge could be the mechanism that explains why people appear to die emotionally balanced.
I believe I am being reasonable. If you believe I am being unreasonable then please explain to me how I am being unreasonable.
Let's examine your observation: Do you honestly believe that people who suffer violent or traumatic deaths (e.g., soldiers in combat and murder victims) die emotionally balanced? If I understand this "emotional balance" idea, then traumatic deaths are obvious exceptions. This sort of exception to a "universal law" suggest that it may not be so universal.Originally Posted by TheBig
Let's consider your hypothesis: If a universal law is truly universal shouldn't it apply universally without exception? I hardly think a person who dies screaming or an animal that dies kicking and shrieking is experiencing a state of any sort of balance other than death.
Consciousness is a quality defined by very specific cues we ascribe to human behavior. How do we observe these cues in cell behavior? If we do not or can not observe in other lifeforms the cues that define consciousness, we can not assume those entities possess those qualities. Regarding this emotional electricity concept, there's no evidence for such a force as the progenitor of life or the spark of DNA. Believing or wanting something to be so, doesn't compel it be. To be logical, we must begin with the observed or observable, proved or proven. None of these logical beginnings appear to apply to the author's ideas as I understand them.
Yes I do. The idea that the Law of Emotional Balance does not accurately represent a person’s life generally comes from assumptions derived from only seeing part of the picture of another’s life. It is important to note that different people go through different phases in their lives, and these phases can be comprised of blissful experiences and/or painful ones. We cannot just take a piece of a life and analyze it with the intention of proving or disproving the Law of Emotional Balance.Originally Posted by TheBig
The Law of Emotional Balance maintains the emotional balance of a person over the entire course of that person’s life. Most people maintain their emotional balance on a daily basis; some, however, become emotionally balanced on a yearly basis, or maybe only once in their entire lives.
You might be with a person 16 hours a day, but there are still 8 other hours in the day that may be filled with several different types of emotions. For example, some people are able to make it seem to others that their lives are filled with an abundance of happiness. But behind the scenes, these people experience—unknown to others—large surpluses of sadness.
Unfortunately, “outsiders” form opinions about the lives of others with only part of the information that makes up the sum total of other’s lives. This minimal amount of information leads the “outsider” to the assumption that some people are more “lucky” or “unlucky” than others, and that life is not fair. Ultimately, it is assumptions that lead “outsiders” to the conclusion that some people end their lives with more happiness and some with more sadness. Humans experience countless emotions over their entire lives, and the belief that emotions are not balanced is generally derived from an assumption that it is improbable for emotions to be balanced or there are no mechanisms that ensure emotional balance.
There are no exceptions. Explain why traumatic deaths would be exceptions?Originally Posted by TheBig
YesOriginally Posted by TheBig
You obviously do not understand what is being discussed. Maybe you should understand what you are talking about before you comment on it? Now you may know why the author says that the focus of the book is on addressing assumptions held by people who don't do enough due diligence and take too many things for granted.Originally Posted by TheBig
Could you describe them for us please?Originally Posted by TheBig
Investigate how it responds to stimuli.Originally Posted by TheBig
If we do not or can not observe in other lifeforms the cues that define consciousness for humans than they do not have the same level of human consciousness, but there may be some cues that do define consciousness in cells and those can be found in the responses they show to stimuli.Originally Posted by TheBig
Well science does not understand how life emerged in the universe. Maybe they are looking in the wrong way. If we investigate DNA maybe we will find that emotional electricity is the progenitor of life. Cells appear to communicate through various forms of electrical communication and cells maintain their electrical balance with sodium pores and ion pumps. There is evidence, but judging by your responses it doesn't really look like you are willing to accept any evidence even if it was presented. If emotions and consciousness are electricity then there would be electrical balance due to conservation laws. Emotional balance is observed which supports the hypothesis that emotions/consciousness are electricity.Originally Posted by TheBig
Take your own advice and stop assuming things. Its not painting you in the best light.Originally Posted by TheBig
That is because you don't understand them. Please understand what is being discussed before continuing to add to the conversation. But if you want to continue to be lazy I will continue to do the leg work for you and continue to explain how you are making assumptions and hold misconceptions.Originally Posted by TheBig
I know exactly what we are discussing here, an idea that has no basis in either observed or observable scientifically obtained evidence nor proved or proven fact. This discussion is largely about conjecture and ideas bordering on metaphysical nonsense. As this is not my interest, I will leave this discussion to those of like interest as I prefer more substantive topics. I wish you well.Originally Posted by TheBig
Here's a bigger question. If you're not associated with this website, then why has this post appeared on science and philosophy forums all over the internet?Originally Posted by thebigquestion
Earlier, I said that if we could be above board about this, we could continue to have this discussion. You denied any connection between you and this website. Are you simply their biggest fan, a selfless and determined yet unpaid promoter? I doubt it. To me, the above evidence says you've been dishonest.
So now I'm deleting your links. If you want to to continue discussing this topic, then feel free, but you won't be getting any more hits from this forum.
By the way, this is your cue to claim we're censoring information we fear/don't understand etc.
No you do not and it is obvious by the various assumptions and misconceptions you hold. You simply can't defend yourself because your argument is not supported or you can't find that support. Go ahead and retreat in hopes that someone else can bring up some substance to defend your position.Originally Posted by DrmDoc
I am a big fan of showing various parties that they are hypocrites. I am a fan of showing a scientist who demands proof before accepting a belief to demand proof before accepting a belief.Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Your a moderator. Do what you think is best, but you are making a huge mistake by thinking I am someone I am not. All I have seen so far is a message board of assumptions and misconceptions. I am having a straight forward discussion and trying to present something that deserves to be presented.
Accepting one assumption over another does not make you correct, especially when you can't even support your assumption.
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.”
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.”
"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."
Thomas Radman, Yuzhuo Su, Je Hi An, Lucas C. Parra, and Marom Bikson
Department of Biomedical Engineering, City College of the City University
Speaking of assumptions and misconceptions - your book is riddled with them, ranging from misuses of terminology to inventing new concepts of nature in fields ranging from molecular genetics, embryology and cognitive science through to elementary physics.
Please stop writing about the "DNA sense strand". There is no such thing in the human genome (in the way you are using the term).
"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." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_%...lar_biology%29Originally Posted by Zwirko
As I said, you're labouring under a misconception.
A human chromosome is a single DNA molecule. Genes can - and are - encoded on both strands of that molecule, but generally not at the same time. One gene can be encoded on one particular strand; downstream there could be an adjacent gene on the opposite strand running in the opposite direction. That is, both strands can serve as a template for the transcription of RNA.
It makes no sense at all to describe one strand of the DNA molecule that comprises a chromosome as the "sense" strand and the other as the "anti-sense" strand. You can use such terminology if you want to refer to a single transcriptional unit or to a small DNA that does indeed consist of a sense and anti-sense strand - but NOT in the way that you are using it. It's wrong.
I suggest you don't look at viruses.
“My opinions about single cell cognition and computational ability are partially stated in my 2007 article http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf.
Cognition and decision-making are widely recognized in many types of cells, not just neurons. For example, the August 10, 2010, issue of Nature Immunology was devoted to "decision-making in the immune system." You might also look into decision-making in programmed cell death (apoptosis). Cell differentiation would be impossible if all cell divisions were equal. There is a large and growing literature on asymmetric cell divisions and the role they play in differentiation and tissue development. Even bacteria have asymmetric cell divisions when they form specialized cells, such as spores and nitrogen-fixing heterocysts."
James A. Shapiro, University of Chicago
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics
“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.”
Jonathan CW Edwards, University College London
Professor of Medicine, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htm
“I would point out that the notion that each neuron has a degree of consciousness was proposed by Freud in his "Project for a scientific psychology". This is one in a long line of proposals as to how individual neurons contribute to personal experience: the ideas in this work are in that tradition.”
Thomas G. Bever, University of Arizona
Professor of Psychology
The opinions of scientists and scientific knowledge are two distinct things. They have common ground, but one is not the equivalent of the other. It is a very basic mistake to use one in the place of the other, and a very non-scientific habit.Originally Posted by thebigquestion
Aside from that, these quotes do not imply that cells have consciousness in the same sense that humans have it on the gross scale. It's a given that cells have computational behaviour, and that they have decision making mechanisms. This is not controversial. But here's the thing; the machine I am typing on has these abilities but it shows no signs of consciousness as we know it, or indeed in any form.
|« Cyberia's speculation on Black Holes | 9/11 Conspiracy Theory - Thermate - Debunked »|