Cérebro e Consciência: Interessante Teoria

Mind exists outside of physical world – will you agree?

http://www.ted.com/conversations/22404/mind_exists_outside_of_physica.html

Jan 10 2014 –  by Pabitra Mukhopadhyay –

However, our ideas of consciousness, mind, intelligence, information processing etc. with respect to environments (and I am not even talking about ‘rich internal life’ or qualia) are unfairly based on neuronic hierarchy of sentience. Like for consciousness to be handled by a scientist, his/her field has to be neuro-biology. In order to discuss consciousness and mind legitimately we are supposed to be within the boundaries of cognitive sciences – and these do not offer much of explanation at all.

If I understand it correctly, consciousness is all about being aware of the environment to start with, intelligence is the capacity to interact with it to survive at the most basic level and mind is the information processing software of conscious life. It is very unclear to me why sentience has to be sole territory of neurons, brains and nervous systems. There is much evidence of hormonal sentience of plants.

It appears to me that we tend to monopolize the ideas of consciousness, mind and intelligence in an anthropocentric way where human brain figures as the last word.

Minha opinião e comentário postado na conversação do TED (foi dividido em dois posts):

Louis Morellthumb  January, 18 -2014 – 10:13 AM

Well, I am currently choosing a theory of the mind that comes from outside cognitive sciences and the anthropocentric self-projection. This definition came from calculus, when applying comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems. First, was discovered an unknown system that fits as the evolutionary link between living and non-living. But, the link is an astronomical system, and despite the fact that it is half-mechanical and half-biological, the problem was, 30 years ago, to figure out why and how it was transformed or produced from itself a copy at microscopic dimensions and as biological system. Solving this problem, the researcher found a natural living software inside all systems and called it “the universal mind”.

Of course, the process used in that “self-reproduction”, must be the genetic process in its primitive state. Then, it was revealed: the astronomical system is a closed system, which attacked by entropy have its degradation beginning at its periphery, producing fragments that are driven internally towards its center, the nucleus. But, the periphery was under radiation producing energy, in shape of light, emitting photons. Those photons worked like bits-information from the old system and at a new environment ( like the surface of an internal planet) those photons joining again reproducing at microscopic scale and with mutations evolving its biological properties. The photons worked as the ancestors of biological genes, the whole as the genome, but the picture of this genome is identical to a diagram of software that we build for operating a hardware. The crucial difference is that the natural software is a living thing. Evolution has worked in same way that worked the evolution of ours computers: the primitive first hardware did easier to get more informations from the external world, these informations went to a human mind that feels the necessity of improving the software, but then, need a more powerful (cont.next post)

Louis Morelli – January, 18, 2014 – 10:19 AM

… powerful hardware, a process of feed-back.

So, every natural system – from atoms to galaxias to plants to animals to humans –  are composed by descartable hardware and a living software, and this includes the human brain as a system. This software is under evolution, its first amd primitive shape was the light wave emitted by the Big Bang, expanding, penetrating dark inertial matter and imprinting the code for life. Finally, the whole description of this software mind was described thousands years ago: there is a universal soul that was sleeping at atoms, dreaming at galaxies, began waking up at plants and animals, and now is an embryo of consciousness being nurtured inside this kind of egg that is the human head.

The big question is: knowing that the hardware becomes old and “dies”, what happens with this living software? Of course, our wish is that the software must survival, then, our research will be guided to find this result. Because now, we are not more watching the results revealed by an investigative method that worked by itself without human interference, then we can’t avoid the anthropocentrism. We are focusing natural light because it started the process and we are suspecting that the acceleration of synapses is producing a kind of luminous plasma. If so, our mind must be like bubbles containing light and dust of a cosmic ocean of light. When we are alive,  these bubbles are inside our heads, when the hardware dies, the bubble explodes becoming the ocean itself. Since that the ocean is the whole and known non boundaries, this theory fits with what people that had experience visions after-death are talking about. I am crazy looking to all theories, but I hope that you appreciate this theory, because we are in need of more people doing the research, more minds thinking together. Cheers,

Resposta do Autor ao Meu Comentario:

thumb

Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 50+

Jan 18 2014: For a theory that seems too descriptive to me and I honestly am making no sense of it. Please appreciate that when I am saying ‘theory of mind’ I am asking it on the foundation of science and not the way psychologists (human psychologists or psychiatrists) use it. I am not sure psychology or psychiatry is science at all.
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

It is acceptable to me that ‘mind’ is a concept akin to scientific concepts the way Arkady argued. Only problem is scientific concepts have practical applications with predictable results. ‘Mind’ as a concept does not appear to be so.

It is difficult even to feel complacent that science will one day find out how exactly mind works. First reason being there seems to be no branch of science presently studying the ‘mind’ concept. Second merely knowing the exact architecture of brain or the physical basis of neurons can predict behavior, not mind.

That makes perception, cognition, attention, emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships floating without solid scientific foundation.

Now please re-read my question and try answering.

Minhas respostas:
thumb

Louis Morelli

To: Pabitra Mukhopadhyay – 30 – jan- 2014

1) You says: “For a theory that seems too descriptive to me and I honestly am making no sense of it.”
My comments: When reading you I have the suspect that you are coming to this issue with a previous preference, with bias founded upon something that you want to believe. If i am right, yours attitude would explain why you think my theory is too descriptive. There are no limits on descriptions when talking about mind because “mind”is the most complex phenomena observed here and now by a limited brain. So, mind must have inserted into it all aspects of this Universe and probably, beyond the universe. There is no way for applying Occam’s razor on this issue. If you think that you will already understood or will understand what mind is before yours death, forget it. If you wish to study this phenomena, you need be very patient and truing to know every detail of the Universe where mind emerged ( or the universe that mind created…). It is ggo trying to understanding others’ theories because they are discovering things that you didn’t.  Then, you conclude that you are not making sense of my theory. Of course, you don’t know nothing about it, about 30 years of research that you never made. The appeal to “don’t make sense” is yours Occam’s razor,  a tool that is not appropriated by an student of consciousness.
2) You says: ” Only problem is scientific concepts have practical applications with predictable results.”
My comments: Which practical applications and predictable results had quantum theory or general relativity or evolution theory at the time they were launched? The study of mind need be supported by the real facts of this natural world, despite knowing that our brains and scientific resources will not reach tomorrow the whole knowledge about the mind. Id you does not follow the search and lessons step by step, you will fall into a belief system of the mind and then, you will go far away from the final knowledge.

To: Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30- jan- 2014

3) You says:  “Now please re-read my question and try answering.”
There is no answer to yours affirmation that “mind exists outside the physical world”. Because nobody can prove its answer, as you can’t prove that affirmation. You should ask: My theory today is….. which is yours theory? Why? These should be an optimal initiative from yours, let’s go changing informations and knowing what others are getting about a phenomena that will be solved only if and when the first human can go outside the physical world that is this universe observable by our limited sensors. My method of investigation is not “officially scientific” and I started with no previous concepts. The final result is suggesting that consciousness and human body is explained by an observable phenomena here and now: the mind of Bill Gates ( existing outside computers) the software windows ( a production/reproduction of something existent in the mind of Bill Gates that are projected inside the computer) and the computer’s hardware ( the physical human brain). Remembering that there is an evolutionary process of feed-back between hardware and software, that hardwares are discarded and changed but the software is not, it is growing, becoming complex.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

Tags: , , ,