Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

gavesako wrote:Unexplained communication between brain hemispheres without corpus callosum

Could the brain be using electromagnetic fields to communicate between hemispheres — the electromagnetic field theory of consciousness?

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/20 ... brain.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First, the corpus callosum is not the only bridge between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. There is also the anterior commissure and the thalamus which could be used as an alternate pathway for communication.

Secondly, it should be somewhat expected that there would be 'synchrony' even if there was no direct connection between the left and right hemisphere. If both the left and right hemispheres are functionally similar, and are presented with the same stimulus (or lack thereof,) there would be little reason to see a major differences in their respective activity.

But I'm no neuroscientist, and neither are you. So, it's best not to jump the gun and use premature research to justify our own metaphysical beliefs.

I'm just here though. I'd love there to be some weird quantum phenomena to explain consciousness-- but so far I have yet to see sufficient evidence (aside from the existence of my own subjective experience of reality) to demand such a thing to explain how a brain functions.

Edit: Also googled later and found that fMRI's temporal resolution is very poor, and it'd be quite impossible to see if there is any communication between the two hemispheres using that technology alone. fMRI's images are over a long period of time, like a time-lapse photograph, so you don't know what-fired-when, and thus one cannot see if one hemisphere's activity caused activity in the other hemisphere.

danieLion wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:...correct me if I am wrong, but the body does have a form of electrical current also, a being is not just matter.

Hi Cittasanto,
"Glia do not communicate with electrical impulses [they do it with calcium ions] (The Other Brain, p. 52)."

Kind regards,
Daniel

did I say that? no.

danieLion wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:...correct me if I am wrong, but the body does have a form of electrical current also, a being is not just matter.

Hi Cittasanto,
"Glia do not communicate with electrical impulses [they do it with calcium ions] (The Other Brain, p. 52)."

Kind regards,
Daniel

danieLion,

I believe Cittasanto was mentioning the neuronal electrical flow.

Alex123 wrote:

intex wrote: from within the first-person perspective I am unable to experience myself as an external object like a 'brain'.

You can't directly see your eyes either.

In other words: No sense can appear to itself.

Alex123 wrote:

intex wrote:According to some, different functioning of the brain is responsible for different states of consciousness. Appearance of lump of flesh called brain can be similar. It is function of neurons, etc, that matters, and part of the cause for consciousness can be nervous system as well.

Of course we may never know the truth with absolute certainty, but there are good reasons for the above.

I agree. I think consciousness must depend on something which is 'beyond', otherwise it would not be anatta. If we regard consciousness as perspectivity, both ends of the perspective are matter: the internal end (eye, ear etc.) and the external end (forms, sounds etc.), so consciousness is 'stuck' between something which is beyond our control and therefore consciousness itself is beyond our control. That's how I see it at the moment.

Greetings

manas wrote: I put this here for others to explain further, as my knowledge of pali is very limited, but I note that there is nothing in the definitions to suggest that consciousness is a product of the brain's activity, but only terms which validate the translation of 'supported here and bound up here'. Consciousness being 'bound up' with the body, however, could explain why the condition of the brain would influence consciousness. But the mechanistic view (now becoming oudated, actually) of matter somehow being able to produce consciousness, does not appear to be supported by the suttas.

Hi manas,

Picking up were you left it, we can look at other senses that are less polemic and obtain some information.

Sound waves induce movement in the internal ear components, each with its function and shape, and those movements generate electrical impulses in the nervous system that are propagated to the brain. All this happens on the rupa skhanda, for me. Any problem in the organ (ear) will affect the other skhandas, by altering the signal or by blocking the signal (deafness). So there will be no vedana originated from the earing rupa . Earing problems will also condition other skhanda, we migth ear "appealing" when the other person said "appaling" and this way we might feel something completely different.

I see the brain as the rupa that supports the sixth sense, in the same way the ear, with all its mechanics, supports earing. If I take substances that alter the chemicals of the brain thoughts will be altered, as signals from the other senses will aso be altered, and I will loose contact with reality. That is how I understood that I should stop drinking alchool. It would be like walking around with a piece of cloth in front of my eyes, changing everyhing I would see. A disease in any of the sense organs will condition my perception of the world, this includes brain tumors, strokes and chemicals problems in the brain.

The leap from rupa to nama is something I don't understand. How electrical signals in the brain condition vedana, sañña, sankhara and viññana is beyond my understanding. But I can easily understand and accept the nama-rupa bound and mutual support relationship.

Metta

Hi Rui Soisa,

Rui Sousa wrote:I see the brain as the rupa that supports the sixth sense, in the same way the ear, with all its mechanics, supports earing.

In Vibhanga 253 there's indeed a mention of rupa that supports the sixth sense and the mind:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=12799" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta

Dmytro wrote:Hi Rui Soisa,

Rui Sousa wrote:I see the brain as the rupa that supports the sixth sense, in the same way the ear, with all its mechanics, supports earing.

In Vibhanga 253 there's indeed a mention of rupa that supports the sixth sense and the mind:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=12799" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta

Hi Dmytro,

Thank you for the reference.

I have been discussing the concept of Namarupa very much latelly, but not in the context of Paticca-samuppada. For me, it makes much more sense that way: what "becomes" is this bound up and supported bundle of the four elements of rupa and the five elements of nama, both conditioned by kamma.

Rui Sousa wrote: The leap from rupa to nama is something I don't understand. How electrical signals in the brain condition vedana, sañña, sankhara and viññana is beyond my understanding. But I can easily understand and accept the nama-rupa bound and mutual support relationship.

This is very difficult question. How does matter condition mind? Their properties are totally different:
Matter has a location, mind does not.
Matter can be seen, mind cannot.
Matter doesn't know, only mind knows.

If there is one quality, then there might not be a problem. But two different qualities? How can they interact?

Related:

Double exposure: cutting across Buddhist and western discourses, by Bernard Faure & Janet Lloyd

"This book explores the possible relations between Western types of rationality and Buddhism. It also examines some clichés about Buddhism and questions the old antinomies of Western culture (“faith and reason,” or “idealism and materialism”). The use of the Buddhist notion of the Two Truths as a hermeneutic device leads to a double or multiple exposure that will call into question our mental habits and force us to ask questions differently, to think “in a new key.”

"Double Exposure is somewhat of an oddity. Written by a specialist for nonspecialists, it is not a book of vulgarization. Although it aims at a better integration of Western and Buddhist thought, it is not an exercise in comparative philosophy or religion. It is neither a contribution to Buddhist scholarship in the narrow sense, nor a contribution to some vague Western “spirituality.” Cutting across traditional disciplines and blurring established genres, it provides a leisurely but deeply insightful stroll through philosophical and literary texts, dreams, poetry, and paradoxes."

Alex123 wrote:

Rui Sousa wrote: The leap from rupa to nama is something I don't understand. How electrical signals in the brain condition vedana, sañña, sankhara and viññana is beyond my understanding. But I can easily understand and accept the nama-rupa bound and mutual support relationship.

This is very difficult question. How does matter condition mind? Their properties are totally different:
Matter has a location, mind does not.
Matter can be seen, mind cannot.
Matter doesn't know, only mind knows.

If there is one quality, then there might not be a problem. But two different qualities? How can they interact?

I don't konw how they interact, but to see them interacting I just need to take some coffee. (a couple of beers would make the interaction more evident, but also less skilful)

How about the fingers typing? How does that work, exactly? It does happen, though, so there is no "problem." Unless we make one...

A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centipede's_dilemma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kirk5a wrote:How about the fingers typing? How does that work, exactly? It does happen, though, so there is no "problem." Unless we make one...

Science can measure the physiology, kinetics, physics, biochemistry related to movement of fingers. Signal can be altered and that would alter the movement of fingers... If one would drink a lot, or take drugs, or too much anesthetics, etc, that would alter the movement of the body and fingers...

But specifics of interaction between mind and brain... That is a mystery.

Alex123 wrote: Science can measure the physiology, kinetics, physics, biochemistry related to movement of fingers. Signal can be altered and that would alter the movement of fingers... If one would drink a lot, or take drugs, or too much anesthetics, etc, that would alter the movement of the body and fingers...

But specifics of interaction between mind and brain... That is a mystery.

Has science measured intention yet?

kirk5a wrote:Has science measured intention yet?

It's a known field of inquiry; here is an example:

[i]Science[/i], 2004 wrote:"Intention is central to the concept of voluntary action. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we compared conditions in which participants made self-paced actions and attended either to their intention to move or to the actual movement. When they attended to their intention rather than their movement, there was an enhancement of activity in the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA). We also found activations in the right dorsal prefrontal cortexand left intraparietal cortex. Prefrontal activity, but not parietal activity, was more strongly coupled with activity in the pre-SMA. We conclude that activity in the pre-SMA reflects the representation of intention."

kirk5a wrote:Has science measured intention yet?

There is such POV. We can see brain and its workings. We can measure. We can alter the functioning of the mind by altering the brain. At least some mental states seem to correspond, and appear to be causally dependent on the brain. There is big problem with interaction to assume two phenomena (mind & brain).
Some scientists claim that mental state = brain state . So then the science DOES measure intention.