Who wants a soul?

[chaz wyman]

Chaz: The radiation from the brain is NOT organised and contains no information about thoughts and feelings.

MGL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ughts.html

Chaz: Speculation. From the UKs answer to the National Inquirer.

MGL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12990211

Chaz: Interesting but not relevant.

MGL: As you objected to the daily mail link here is another irrelevant bbc reference that contradicts your claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16811042

Chaz: You already linked that. As I said "interesting but not relevant".
So in the context of "Who wants a Soul", which one of my claims do you think this article contradict exactly?

This is actually a different link. You can tell becasue the URL's both end in a different number. To double check you can even click on the links.
The claim it contradicts is the one I quoted you making in my first comment which somehow mysteriously disappeared from your last comment.

In case it is still not obvious which claim I am referring to I will repeat it:

You said: "The radiation from the brain is NOT organised and contains no information about thoughts and feelings."

So in the context of my posting of references that contradict this claim, please explain why they are irrelevant.

This line of evidence is not relevant to the idea of the SOUL.
We were in discussion about transmissions from the brain containing information; and out in the universe at a distance commensurate with the speed of light.

The article you linked is concerned with;" gathering electrical signals directly from patients' brains."
And "In a 2011 study, participants with electrodes in direct brain contact were able to move a cursor on a screen by simply thinking of vowel sounds."

[MGL]

Re: Researchers have demonstrated a striking method to reconstruct words, based on the brain waves of patients thinking of those words

This line of evidence is not relevant to the idea of the SOUL.
We were in discussion about transmissions from the brain containing information; and out in the universe at a distance commensurate with the speed of light.

The article you linked is concerned with;" gathering electrical signals directly from patients' brains."
And "In a 2011 study, participants with electrodes in direct brain contact were able to move a cursor on a screen by simply thinking of vowel sounds."

If I may summarise my understanding of the relevant part of the thread in which you made the claim:

Tillingborn was suggesting that:

a) there was information about our thoughts in the brain waves emanating from the brain.
b) any particular brain wave emanated from a living brain perists for some time outside the brain even after it has died.
c) information about our thoughts maybe "out there" in the universe

You objected on the following grounds:


1) the field\wave is too weak to be detected even at short distances
2) the field\wave does not contain any information about our thoughts


It is still not clear to me why you think my references contradicting point 2 are irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that correlating brainwaves with thoughts using devices that are connected directly to the brain somehow privides no evidence for the idea that brainwaves contain information about our thoughts?

Or are you suggesting that your own claim - claim 2 ( brain waves do not encode thought ) is irrelevant to your objection because claim 1 ( brain waves are too weak ) is sufficient by itself to reject Tillingborn's suggestion?

Or are you suggesting by the expression "The radiation from the brain" you are only refering to the state of that radiation after it has left the surface of the skull and are excluding the state of that radiation before it leaves the surface of the skull? If you are suggesting that the information encoded in the radiation is effectively corrupted by the time is leaves the skull then perhaps you are right, but it is not obvious to me that this was what you meant.

[chaz wyman]

Re: Researchers have demonstrated a striking method to reconstruct words, based on the brain waves of patients thinking of those words

This line of evidence is not relevant to the idea of the SOUL.
We were in discussion about transmissions from the brain containing information; and out in the universe at a distance commensurate with the speed of light.

The article you linked is concerned with;" gathering electrical signals directly from patients' brains."
And "In a 2011 study, participants with electrodes in direct brain contact were able to move a cursor on a screen by simply thinking of vowel sounds."

If I may summarise my understanding of the relevant part of the thread in which you made the claim:

Tillingborn was suggesting that:

a) there was information about our thoughts in the brain waves emanating from the brain.
b) any particular brain wave emanated from a living brain perists for some time outside the brain even after it has died.
c) information about our thoughts maybe "out there" in the universe

You objected on the following grounds:


1) the field\wave is too weak to be detected even at short distances
2) the field\wave does not contain any information about our thoughts


It is still not clear to me why you think my references contradicting point 2 are irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that correlating brainwaves with thoughts using devices that are connected directly to the brain somehow privides no evidence for the idea that brainwaves contain information about our thoughts?

Or are you suggesting that your own claim - claim 2 ( brain waves do not encode thought ) is irrelevant to your objection because claim 1 ( brain waves are too weak ) is sufficient by itself to reject Tillingborn's suggestion?

Or are you suggesting by the expression "The radiation from the brain" you are only refering to the state of that radiation after it has left the surface of the skull and are excluding the state of that radiation before it leaves the surface of the skull? If you are suggesting that the information encoded in the radiation is effectively corrupted by the time is leaves the skull then perhaps you are right, but it is not obvious to me that this was what you meant.

DIRECT BRAIN CONTACT, sums up the problem.

Such evidence is drawn from a continually acting physical object; the brain.
It is evident that these (ahem!) transmissions, require the persistence of a living material structure and do not have any independent existence. Outside the body, without the help of machines which create representations of thoughts and feeling, there is no information to be had from that body of evidence
Such evidence points to the existence of a specialised physical structure, not an incorporeal essence.

[MGL]

DIRECT BRAIN CONTACT, sums up the problem.

Such evidence is drawn from a continually acting physical object; the brain.
It is evident that these (ahem!) transmissions, require the persistence of a living material structure and do not have any independent existence. Outside the body, without the help of machines which create representations of thoughts and feeling, there is no information to be had from that body of evidence
Such evidence points to the existence of a specialised physical structure, not an incorporeal essence.

So, as far as I can tell you are claiming all or some of the following:

1) Information conveyed\transmitted by some medium does not exist in that medium until a machine that can create representations from it captures it.
2) A specific brain wave only exists as long as the strucure that generated it exists. Thus if the structure is destroyed, any brain wave that it emitted, no matter how far it has travelled, will immediately cease to exist.
3) A specific brain wave only exists for as long as the process in the brain that generated it. Once that process has ceased, the brain wave it gave rise to no longer persists as a coherent entity. Any residual energy can no longer be considered as constituting the same wave carrying the same potential information.
4) Information about a thought captured by a device in a brain wave can only be captured if that device has direct contact with the material structure generating the brain wave. Without this direct contact, no information capture is possible.

If I am on the right track with any of these:

Are these constraints universal to all types of material structures and radiations or do they exclusive apply to brain structures and brain waves only?
Are these constraints conceptual or do they reflect some deeper laws of nature?

If the latter applies, do you have any references to support this?

[chaz wyman]

DIRECT BRAIN CONTACT, sums up the problem.

Such evidence is drawn from a continually acting physical object; the brain.
It is evident that these (ahem!) transmissions, require the persistence of a living material structure and do not have any independent existence. Outside the body, without the help of machines which create representations of thoughts and feeling, there is no information to be had from that body of evidence
Such evidence points to the existence of a specialised physical structure, not an incorporeal essence.

So, as far as I can tell you are claiming all or some of the following:

1) Information conveyed\transmitted by some medium does not exist in that medium until a machine that can create representations from it captures it.

No.

2) A specific brain wave only exists as long as the strucure that generated it exists. Thus if the structure is destroyed, any brain wave that it emitted, no matter how far it has travelled, will immediately cease to exist.

The point is that the information is immediate, there is no 'travelled' anywhere.

3) A specific brain wave only exists for as long as the process in the brain that generated it. Once that process has ceased, the brain wave it gave rise to no longer persists as a coherent entity. Any residual energy can no longer be considered as constituting the same wave carrying the same potential information.

Yep, just heat, and white noise.

4) Information about a thought captured by a device in a brain wave can only be captured if that device has direct contact with the material structure generating the brain wave. Without this direct contact, no information capture is possible.

There is no thought "captured', there are images produced by scanners which point to certain brain areas associated with types of thinking.

If I am on the right track with any of these:

Are these constraints universal to all types of material structures and radiations or do they exclusive apply to brain structures and brain waves only?

No, radio waves for commercial transmission are designed to include information such as music, for example, brain waves are not of this sort.. Such electromagnetic energy detectable from outside the brain are not organised for transmission, but an epiphenomenon which is a chaotic by-product of electrical signals between brain cells.


Are these constraints conceptual or do they reflect some deeper laws of nature?

This is not a question.

If the latter applies, do you have any references to support this?

[tillingborn]

DIRECT BRAIN CONTACT, sums up the problem.

It makes it an awful lot easier, but not all brain activity is on the surface. In at least some (and in practise very nearly all) cases what is being measured is the cascade effect of neurons firing which the machine is not in direct contact with.

Such evidence points to the existence of a specialised physical structure, not an incorporeal essence.

Absolutely. Any talk of an incorporeal essence is mumbo-jumbo. The brain is a physical object, all events that contribute to consciousness are physical events and, like all physical events that depend on electricity, they generate a field.

The point is that the information is immediate, there is no 'travelled' anywhere.

That's an interesting point, how does the firing of neurons create conscious experiences if the information doesn't travel? Can conscious experiences really be the result of a single event?

There is no thought "captured', there are images produced by scanners which point to certain brain areas associated with types of thinking.

No, radio waves for commercial transmission are designed to include information such as music, for example, brain waves are not of this sort.

As I understand it music is made by generating sound waves; these then do mechanical work on a microphone, moving a magnet in a coil of wire creating a current. This can be recorded in a number of ways or it can be used to agitate charged particles so that they create an electromagnetic field. This can then be received by an antenna, agitating and thereby charging the constituent particles which in turn generates a current that can be used to move a magnet in a coil, creating sound waves. It is a moot point whether the music is transmitted. No one knows how thoughts are generated; to some people they are the equivalent of music that somehow writes itself. I think that is fanciful. What seems certain is that there is a stream of physical events which is associated with conscious events and in my opinion probably is consciousness.

Such electromagnetic energy detectable from outside the brain are not organised for transmission,

Well, they're not intended for transmission, as far as we can tell, but the mechanism is essentially the same; jiggling charged particles about generates an electric field.

but an epiphenomenon which is a chaotic by-product of electrical signals between brain cells.

That's one possibilty. The problem with epiphenomenalism is the causal link.

[chaz wyman]

[

The point is that the information is immediate, there is no 'travelled' anywhere.

That's an interesting point, how does the firing of neurons create conscious experiences if the information doesn't travel? Can conscious experiences really be the result of a single event?

Sorry but I have to say Dah. I'll rephrase that "there is no 'travelled anywhere" outside the brain

There is no thought "captured', there are images produced by scanners which point to certain brain areas associated with types of thinking.

No, radio waves for commercial transmission are designed to include information such as music, for example, brain waves are not of this sort.

As I understand it music is made by generating sound waves; these then do mechanical work on a microphone, moving a magnet in a coil of wire creating a current. This can be recorded in a number of ways or it can be used to agitate charged particles so that they create an electromagnetic field. This can then be received by an antenna, agitating and thereby charging the constituent particles which in turn generates a current that can be used to move a magnet in a coil, creating sound waves. It is a moot point whether the music is transmitted. No one knows how thoughts are generated; to some people they are the equivalent of music that somehow writes itself. I think that is fanciful. What seems certain is that there is a stream of physical events which is associated with conscious events and in my opinion probably is consciousness.

So - nothing.

Such electromagnetic energy detectable from outside the brain are not organised for transmission,

Well, they're not intended for transmission, as far as we can tell, but the mechanism is essentially the same; jiggling charged particles about generates an electric field.

No, not the same in any way. and the signal is too weak to be detectable more that a 1cm from the body.

but an epiphenomenon which is a chaotic by-product of electrical signals between brain cells.

That's one possibilty. The problem with epiphenomenalism is the causal link.

I was not talking about "epiphenomenalism". . I was using the word to indicate that though you might be able to know that there is some electrical activity inside a living organism, it does not contain information (outside the body) about what the signal does, is for, or any information contained within the body. The fact that you might be able to detect a tiny bit of electromagnetism a centimetre from the brain, it is simply incidental.

[tillingborn]

Sorry but I have to say Dah. I'll rephrase that "there is no 'travelled anywhere" outside the brain

No, not the same in any way. and the signal is too weak to be detectable more that a 1cm from the body.

What does the brain do to generate an electric field that is different from any other lump of matter?
So which is it? There is no signal, or it is too weak for present technology to detect at a distance of more than 1cm?

What seems certain is that there is a stream of physical events which is associated with conscious events and in my opinion probably is consciousness.

So - nothing.

So the alternative is dualism which involves 'an incorporeal essence'.

[chaz wyman]

Sorry but I have to say Dah. I'll rephrase that "there is no 'travelled anywhere" outside the brain

No, not the same in any way. and the signal is too weak to be detectable more that a 1cm from the body.

What does the brain do to generate an electric field that is different from any other lump of matter?
So which is it? There is no signal, or it is too weak for present technology to detect at a distance of more than 1cm?
There is no signal in the sense of a "signal" intended to contain information as with a radio wave containing chat or music. How man times do I need say that?

What seems certain is that there is a stream of physical events which is associated with conscious events and in my opinion probably is consciousness.

So - nothing.

So the alternative is dualism which involves 'an incorporeal essence'.

No, not in any way. that is a complete non sequitur.

[tillingborn]

No, not the same in any way. and the signal is too weak to be detectable more that a 1cm from the body.

There is no signal in the sense of a "signal" intended to contain information as with a radio wave containing chat or music. How man times do I need say that?

What has intention got to do with anything?

So the alternative is dualism which involves 'an incorporeal essence'.

No, not in any way. that is a complete non sequitur.

So where is the flaw in my logic?

And again, what do you think the brain does to generate an electric field that is different from any other lump of matter?

[chaz wyman]

No, not the same in any way. and the signal is too weak to be detectable more that a 1cm from the body.

There is no signal in the sense of a "signal" intended to contain information as with a radio wave containing chat or music. How man times do I need say that?

What has intention got to do with anything?

So the alternative is dualism which involves 'an incorporeal essence'.

No, not in any way. that is a complete non sequitur.

So where is the flaw in my logic?

And again, what do you think the brain does to generate an electric field that is different from any other lump of matter?

All lumps of matter do different things. what are you trying to argue here?

[MGL]

Chaz: No, radio waves for commercial transmission are designed to include information such as music, for example, brain waves are not of this sort.. Such electromagnetic energy detectable from outside the brain are not organised for transmission, but an epiphenomenon which is a chaotic by-product of electrical signals between brain cells. (1)

============

Chaz: DIRECT BRAIN CONTACT, sums up the problem.

Chaz:there is no 'travelled anywhere" outside the brain

MGL: A specific brain wave only exists for as long as the process in the brain that generated it. Once that process has ceased, the brain wave it gave rise to no longer persists as a coherent entity. Any residual energy can no longer be considered as constituting the same wave carrying the same potential information.

Chaz: Yep, just heat, and white noise. (2)

==========

Chaz: the signal is too weak to be detectable more that a 1cm from the body.(3)

=============

MGL: Information about a thought captured by a device in a brain wave can only be captured if that device has direct contact with the material structure generating the brain wave. Without this direct contact, no information capture is possible.

Chaz: There is no thought "captured', there are images produced by scanners which point to certain brain areas associated with types of thinking.(4)

OK, so I think what you meant by:

"The radiation from the brain is NOT organised and contains no information about thoughts and feelings"

is:


(1) A pattern of energy can only be considered as information if it has been generated with the intention of communicating it.

(2) A specific brain wave only exists for as long as the process in the brain that generated it. Once that process has ceased, the brain wave it gave rise to no longer persists as a coherent entity. Any residual energy travelling away from the brain can no longer be considered as constituting the same wave carrying the same organised pattern. The pattern in a brain wave effectively disappears as soon as it leaves the surface of a brain generating it unless it is channeled into a device connected directly to the brain.

3) This residual energy is devoid of any useful content as soon as it leaves the body and is too weak to be detected more than 1cm from the body

4) No information ABOUT a thought is captured by detectors connected to the brain. Thus, if there is a correlation between a thought and a brain wave that brain wave cannot be considered to be carrying information about a thought. Thus, if such detectors could eventually be used to detect the brainwaves of vegetative patients which can be correlated with thoughts, doctors should not consider this as listening to a patient's thoughts and simply consider it as an interesting fact about the relation of thoughts and a particular area of the brain.

[tillingborn]

And again, what do you think the brain does to generate an electric field that is different from any other lump of matter?

All lumps of matter do different things. what are you trying to argue here?

What lumps of matter do and how they do it are two different things. Brains think, light bulbs glow; one is extremely complex the other has by comparison a colossal ampage, but the way they generate electric fields is the same. However feeble, the brain generates a physical electromagnetic field that is part of the cosmos. You are adamant that this is of no consequence, I strongly suspect you are right, but it's a funny old world.

[chaz wyman]

OK, so I think what you meant by:

"The radiation from the brain is NOT organised and contains no information about thoughts and feelings"

is:


(1) A pattern of energy can only be considered as information if it has been generated with the intention of communicating it.

Okay - only in a de facto way. I'm saying that brain waves are the superfluous consequence of brain cells exchanging electrical pulses. When apart from the body they are not organised to render information. Such information as they may contain related only to the fact that with machines we can detect the brain areas from which the emerge, and such inferences as to their thoughts and feelings are consistent with our knowledge of how those areas' functions.
That is not the same as saying that 'information' in a general sense cannot be gleaned from unintentional sources: pulsars, and quasars come to mind..


(2) A specific brain wave only exists for as long as the process in the brain that generated it. Once that process has ceased, the brain wave it gave rise to no longer persists as a coherent entity. Any residual energy travelling away from the brain can no longer be considered as constituting the same wave carrying the same organised pattern. The pattern in a brain wave effectively disappears as soon as it leaves the surface of a brain generating it unless it is channeled into a device connected directly to the brain.
Exactly
3) This residual energy is devoid of any useful content as soon as it leaves the body and is too weak to be detected more than 1cm from the body

4) No information ABOUT a thought is captured by detectors connected to the brain. Thus, if there is a correlation between a thought and a brain wave that brain wave cannot be considered to be carrying information about a thought. Thus, if such detectors could eventually be used to detect the brainwaves of vegetative patients which can be correlated with thoughts, doctors should not consider this as listening to a patient's thoughts and simply consider it as an interesting fact about the relation of thoughts and a particular area of the brain.[/quote]

As I said above, information as to the brain location can render information about the thought or feeling in general terms. Thus waves from the Broca's area inform us that the idea of speech is being invoked by the subject. But that is a long way from the information concerning what the brain would be telling the mouth to say.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, so I think what you meant by:

"The radiation from the brain is NOT organised and contains no information about thoughts and feelings"

is:


(1) A pattern of energy can only be considered as information if it has been generated with the intention of communicating it.

Okay - only in a de facto way. I'm saying that brain waves are the superfluous consequence of brain cells exchanging electrical pulses. When apart from the body they are not organised to render information. Such information as they may contain related only to the fact that with machines we can detect the brain areas from which the emerge, and such inferences as to their thoughts and feelings are consistent with our knowledge of how those areas' functions.
That is not the same as saying that 'information' in a general sense cannot be gleaned from unintentional sources: pulsars, and quasars come to mind..

It sounds to me as though you believe that nothing has meaning unless it's understood. That meaning is only to be found in the sensing and not the radiating. If you are deaf, while another hears, are my words not meaningful. I would say that content is contained in the radiation whether or not anyone senses it.

The OP is tinkering with possibility that may be contained in the unknown (the infinite future), while it seems that you are stuck in the limited words of others (the past to presently finite). The only reason why any particular pattern can be sensed by a machine is because a man hypothesized there being such a pattern that he can sense with a machine and then builds one. This in and of itself does not preclude other patterns or sensors from being a possibility in reality.

He has simply hypothesized something to explore. Personally I quite liked it, as electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light and continually travels infinitely unless scattered, absorbed or reflected. In a sense it is life after death. At least in the sense of possibly affecting something.


(2) A specific brain wave only exists for as long as the process in the brain that generated it. Once that process has ceased, the brain wave it gave rise to no longer persists as a coherent entity. Any residual energy travelling away from the brain can no longer be considered as constituting the same wave carrying the same organised pattern. The pattern in a brain wave effectively disappears as soon as it leaves the surface of a brain generating it unless it is channeled into a device connected directly to the brain.
Exactly
3) This residual energy is devoid of any useful content as soon as it leaves the body and is too weak to be detected more than 1cm from the body

4) No information ABOUT a thought is captured by detectors connected to the brain. Thus, if there is a correlation between a thought and a brain wave that brain wave cannot be considered to be carrying information about a thought. Thus, if such detectors could eventually be used to detect the brainwaves of vegetative patients which can be correlated with thoughts, doctors should not consider this as listening to a patient's thoughts and simply consider it as an interesting fact about the relation of thoughts and a particular area of the brain.

As I said above, information as to the brain location can render information about the thought or feeling in general terms. Thus waves from the Broca's area inform us that the idea of speech is being invoked by the subject. But that is a long way from the information concerning what the brain would be telling the mouth to say.

[/quote]