Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
cintune
climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:57pm PT
|
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
|
Do you or your gut bacteria control how you [(sub)consciously] feel today...?
Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve
There is increasing, but largely indirect, evidence pointing to an effect of commensal gut microbiota on the central nervous system (CNS). However, it is unknown whether lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus could have a direct effect on neurotransmitter receptors in the CNS in normal, healthy animals. GABA is the main CNS inhibitory neurotransmitter and is significantly involved in regulating many physiological and psychological processes. Alterations in central GABA receptor expression are implicated in the pathogenesis of anxiety and depression, which are highly comorbid with functional bowel disorders. In this work, we show that chronic treatment with L. rhamnosus (JB-1) induced region-dependent alterations in GABAB1b mRNA in the brain with increases in cortical regions (cingulate and prelimbic) and concomitant reductions in expression in the hippocampus, amygdala, and locus coeruleus, in comparison with control-fed mice. In addition, L. rhamnosus (JB-1) reduced GABAAα2 mRNA expression in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, but increased GABAAα2 in the hippocampus. Importantly, L. rhamnosus (JB-1) reduced stress-induced corticosterone and anxiety- and depression-related behavior. Moreover, the neurochemical and behavioral effects were not found in vagotomized mice, identifying the vagus as a major modulatory constitutive communication pathway between the bacteria exposed to the gut and the brain. Together, these findings highlight the important role of bacteria in the bidirectional communication of the gut–brain axis and suggest that certain organisms may prove to be useful therapeutic adjuncts in stress-related disorders such as anxiety and depression.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
|
Largo writes: Perhaps what Ed and others want is for consciousness to be something other than what it really is in our actual lives. He wants consciousness to exist “as it is in itself” (as a mechanism, not an experience), “independent of perspective” (when consciousness is and always be beholden to the perspective of the person having the experience), “ with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience,” which is like saying: “While consciousness is known only through our direct experience, our investigation of consciousness should first and foremost eliminate experience.”
which is wrong by miles at least as far as I'm concerned... I don't "want" consciousness to be anything, I'd like to understand it... I hypothesize with the complete willingness to get it wrong, and then modify my assumptions leading to that hypothesis, to refine it... how do I know I'm wrong? by quantifying... and that can be rather soft quantification... like looking at all the replies on a SuperTopoForum thread where the OP might pose a question; do I agree or disagree? do the respondents have view point I haven't considered and is valid and "defeats" my hypothesis.
To do this I have to have a "hypothesis" and a method for arriving at it, and the hypothesis must be testable.
That is what I "want"...
...what do you "want", Largo?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 29, 2011 - 05:39pm PT
|
You (and I suspect this is endemic to many philosophers) keep looking for some secret alchemy that will transmute one noun (meat) into another noun (experience) when in all likelihood both are simply attributes of the same verb.
Tis is the stonewalling on principle that I mentioned before - it does not answer the vastly different qualitative differences between consciousness the merely physical qualities found in material things. As mentioned, a new coin "shines." Luminosity and a new coin are "simply attributes of the same" person, placed or thing. A meat brain and subjective experience cannot be clumped together in the same way. The amazing thing to me is the persistent idea that if consciousness is NOT a simplistic attribute of meat, it must be "secret alchemy." Where in the world does that belief come from, or that philosophers are proponents of same. Curious . . .
If a mechanistic/materialistic/reductionistic model can entirely explain subjective experience (consciousness), then what, at this time, keeps us from building machines that could carry on this very thread by themselves, and could relate to us the subjective experience of doing same? This might shed light on the hard questions according to those proposing a strictly mechanistic model.
And Ed, when I said you "wanted" experience to be different than it is, I simply meant that you seemed to want it to be something and only something you can quantify. I know we can quantify the biology thought by some to "create' consciousness, but how do we quantify experience itself. And if we can't, how might we proceed with the on-sight if we ruled out bullsh#t, priestcraft and alchemy? I'm totally open to suggestions. Since I have no answers, I have no preferences on the route taken.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:43pm PT
|
Largo asks: If a mechanistic/materialistic/reductionistic model can entirely explain subjective experience (consciousness), then what, at this time, keeps us from building machines that could carry on this very thread by themselves, and could relate to us the subjective experience of doing same?
they already do... in the sense that we cannot distinguish machine generated reality from the actual thing itself...
...how do I know you have experiences, anyway? how could I tell you weren't a machine?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:45pm PT
|
Consciousness likely evolved out of an initial ability to self-locate in an organism's environment - a capability necessary to both predator and prey.
Largo: ...but how do we quantify experience itself?
Why is the idea of experience being a [distributed and recursive] cascade of chemical and electrial processing seeking equilibrium so difficult to accept? If 'experience' were something other, more ethereal, then how would alcohol and various substances be able to alter our "subjective experience" in a matter of minutes?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 06:50pm PT
|
So although many of us agree on a scientific or evolutionary basis for consciousness we still can not answer to the larger questions and writings in Largo's initial post.
I would disagree to some extent. Even though we are just learning the basics, one can reasonably posit 'subjective experience' is an evolved form of the recursive processing necessary for primitive, predatory self-location / awareness. The details may elude us; the idea itself is pretty simple.
|
|
malabarista
Trad climber
Portland, OR
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 07:51pm PT
|
Most people resist the idea that universe "reduces" to information. They think it somehow cheapens their existence. I don't agree with this at all. if the universe is "just information" then anything is still possible. Virtual universes within virtual universes. Anything goes, as long as it's in the code...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:21pm PT
|
I don't rule out a 'computational' model entirely, but would point out we don't have the slightest clue what [meaningful] 'computation' or a 'cognitive architecture' (i.e. a vast and very dynamic distributed network) in the brain looks like beyond some understanding of the hierarchical signals generated by various aspects of the brain.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:27pm PT
|
Largo's original post is super easy to understand.
Consciousness is super easy to understand.
All it takes is a good brain .......
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:30pm PT
|
FM:
"Every philosophical question that has a culturally dependent and translated answer."
Definitely. Language is a subtle tool. That's why I keep asking what people mean by the words.
Seems to me a room full of people each using their own personal meanings are wasting time trying to discuss.
I gave a proposed definition for existence, to wit:
"Something, anything "exists" if that object can be shown, on interaction with another object, to have been affected in any way."
At first blush this sounds restricted in a Newtonian sense to physical objects. On further thought, I think it extends even to ideas or models.
If a consideration of the concept for "experience" can by a logical process lead to an effect on another concept, say "qualia", then we might say the two exist. They can support an interaction.
But before we can construct this logical process describing the interaction, we need a commonly shared meaning for the two words.
IMO we don't have these commonly agreed upon meanings, so I feel justified in challenging whether these undefined entities exist.
They don't exist in the sense needed for a useful discussion.
All of my objections are overcome if one does not insist upon discussion being useful,i.e. showing promise of leading to a result.
In that case, philosophical discussion becomes functionally equivalent to a dance.
Two people engaging in an activity that does not actually go any place. Done only in the hopes of affecting the other person.
DMT:
When someone says something exists that they can't begin to describe , but I am some how defective because I won't carry on a discussion about this mystery - I see no reason to let the issue be framed in this way. It won't lead anywhere.
A question. The only thing that seems to be known about this, whatever, is that it is beyond science. Interesting. How is it we know it is beyond science?
Is this knowledge magically obtained?
The consciousness I described is not beyond science. Maybe our problem is that this strange thing is co-opting an english word that is used in our normal world.
Why not avoid confusion and invent a new word for the strange thing?
How about..............?
Yes, there is this thing I call my infused spirit. I can't describe what it is that infuses it but I feel raised to really high energy combined with ultimate peace when I contemplate it.
There you go.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:34pm PT
|
Consciousness is never outside the realm of science.
It's idiots who don't do the experiment say that .....
|
|
beef supreme
climber
the west
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 08:50pm PT
|
it's over matter.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 09:21pm PT
|
BES'1st writes: "Computation exists only relative to some agent or observer who imposes a computational interpretation
on some phenomenon. This is an obvious point."
not sure about this, if by "computational" you mean "algorithmic" then the DNA/RNA algorithms for protein production certainly exist without interpretation.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 09:21pm PT
|
Mind is the construct that humans have appointed and anointed themselves to feel superior to the rest of creation.
That's what I said earlier!! Thanks Timid T.
|
|
Patrick Oliver
Boulder climber
Fruita, Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 09:45pm PT
|
I couldn't agree less
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 09:56pm PT
|
What is Mind?
is a surprisingly useful question to get people to reveal how they think.
But I would leave questions about mind to philosophers and study the brain instead.
"Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami."
Well, sure! But that is like selling your soul to the Devil.
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 10:33pm PT
|
werner your reference to others as idiots
suggests that you've been insincere to yourself.
and that your boldy presented opinions that you attempt to mask as fact
are held feebly in your heart.
ore else,
my mind takes over when my feet get tired of journeying.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 11:48pm PT
|
The concept of "mind" interpreting itself is pretty interesting. How would it know when it was successful? I am not sure there is an end game here. Pursuit seems to be where growth takes place.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!