• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Actions of Neurotransmitter's

is consciousness an emergent factor or must all probabilities be actualised? the mind is not the brain, consciousness is extracorporal as many a time/experiment has proven, the soul's domain farther still.

its really like trying to figure out how you get from one to ten starting with naught - simple really once you try it, but the FEAR fear of the notion of a distributed self prevents the transition of potential to the kinetic for most, still.

fields me bruthas, fields, and patience, science will get there. but in any case, my Nobel vote goes for BilZ0r / F&B team in the bioneuropsychopharmacokinetic reprognostication and modeling category.

oh, forgot to say, isoprenoid pathway...
 
nanobrain said:
is consciousness an emergent factor or must all probabilities be actualised? the mind is not the brain, consciousness is extracorporal as many a time/experiment has proven, the soul's domain farther still.
Click to expand...

If by "extracorporal" you mean substance dualism, then my friend you are very wrong.

If you mean that consciousness is not localised within the biological entity of the brain, then I would offer cautious agreement.
 
The mind IS the brain.So is the consciousness and the soul.There are 100billion neurons,as there are 100billion galaxys.And there are over 50 neurotransmitters and receptors between them.The human brain is the most complex and sophisticated piece of materia known.A bit more humility and devotion for the Big Creation is in place.

Go and see how many PICTURES you can make with 100billion pieces!Puzzle-d?Now,do you see-SEE???
 
hugo24 said:
So is the consciousness and the soul.
Click to expand...

Soul? Could someone even define what such a mystical word represents? For my part, I believe the brain is much akin to a computer with a vast amount of connections and processing power. Of course the logical operations aren't as simple as 1 and 0, with the cascading and whatnot, but it is quite obvious we are a fuzzy logic phenomenom of evolutionary advantage. Why wouldn't it be contained within the brain?
 
^^extracorporal as in not restricted to / conditioned by the body. if talking neural networks, dont forget the up to 100,000 connections per axon.

using the outdated computer analogy, the potential unicerebral computational power becomes something like 10E10 to the power of 1E5, a fair dinkum processor indeed.

but i prefer the quantum holographic 4-D bioresonator analogy, or the good ol' motorcar:

body is the car
mind is the driver
soul is the driver's mother in law
 
nanobrain said:
^^extracorporal as in not restricted to / conditioned by the body. if talking neural networks, dont forget the up to 100,000 connections per axon.
Click to expand...
Yes, I realize the vast amount of connections, but these connections reside as chemical bonds within the brain. The very flow of informations is restricted to the ability of chemicals to transmit energy in a complex neural network.

nanobrain said:
but i prefer the quantum holographic 4-D bioresonator analogy, or the good ol' motorcar:

body is the car
mind is the driver
soul is the driver's mother in law
Click to expand...

I have not heard of the quantam holographic analogy, but I will admit my knowledge of neurology is lacking. Do you have a good link that explains it?
 
Enlitx said:
Yes, I realize the vast amount of connections, but these connections reside as chemical bonds within the brain. The very flow of informations is restricted to the ability of chemicals to transmit energy in a complex neural network.
Click to expand...

thats like saying the content of a TV program is limited by the TV's circuitry ain't it? and some TV's aren't even on. and most that are, dont realise they are transmitters as well. yes, there is a neurochemical wetware substrate, but is you really your bag o'bones?

linkage 101
 
nanobrain said:
^^extracorporal as in not restricted to / conditioned by the body. if talking neural networks, dont forget the up to 100,000 connections per axon.

using the outdated computer analogy, the potential unicerebral computational power becomes something like 10E10 to the power of 1E5, a fair dinkum processor indeed.
Click to expand...

Of course consciousness is conditioned and restricted by the body - we are nothing if not embodied agents. The nature of the body defines relationships much more fundamental that concious ones - a concept of self and other depends on autopoesis (or at least homeostasis), and thus a "body" of some sort underlies even the most primitive cognition. Merleau-Ponty emphasised this back in the 40s, and his work has been re-evaluated in the light of the failures of computational analogies of consciousness.

Of course, consciousness is equally bounded and defined by the "World" (in the phenomenological sense) in which each of us finds him/herself "thrown".

As for quantum biological attempts to ground consciousness, such as Penrose & Hameroff, they are simply re-locating tired debates about the Neural Correlates of Consciousness to a more mysterian level. These debates tend to veer towards trivial claims - saying consciousness is all about quantum mechanics is just as meaningless as saying it's all about atoms. Leaving one with panpsychic ontolgies - sure, ok, "everything" is conscious, but what then marks out the kind of consciousness that we have, which is clearly of a different nature to the rest of the World?
 
nanobrain said:
thats like saying the content of a TV program is limited by the TV's circuitry ain't it? and some TV's aren't even on. and most that are, dont realise they are transmitters as well. yes, there is a neurochemical wetware substrate, but is you really your bag o'bones?

linkage 101
Click to expand...

I would have thought that a better place to start would be Bohm and his work...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

rather than Russian-only quantum biology which doesn't really talk about consciousness at all...
 
nanobrain said:
thats like saying the content of a TV program is limited by the TV's circuitry ain't it? and some TV's aren't even on. and most that are, dont realise they are transmitters as well. yes, there is a neurochemical wetware substrate, but is you really your bag o'bones?

linkage 101
Click to expand...

No, that is saying that the picture on the TV is limited to the instrument creating it. A TV plays a pre-determined sequence of colors that are projected according to the specific method of the TV, but every image projected must follow the specifications of the TV, airing whatever content you desire. That is the key, although the TV allows for a vast combination of color and sound, it still is within the limits of the TV, just as animals must live within the limits of their own brain.

I see it like this, you have a lot of neurons in your cerebrum, allowing for enormous complexity and intellect. Over time, evolution has determined which traits are favorable, and thus you have the human brain as you see it today, nothing more than a really complex computer that uses very poor code. Kill the brain, kill the conscious being, not much more to it. Even if waves form a hologram, it is ultimately a product of neurons.

I am going on three days of no sleep, and I am coked out of my mind, so maybe I am wrong %)
 
The mind is not the brain, the mind is the product of the activity of the brain.

Analogy: Walking is not the leg, walking is the product of the activity of the leg.
 
BilZ0r said:
The mind is not the brain, the mind is the product of the activity of the brain.

Analogy: Walking is not the leg, walking is the product of the activity of the leg.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I assumed the debate was more oriented to the idea that brain function was controlled by the biochemical processes we now know, and not some extra signaling from beyond. I would not argue that the brain produces the mind, but I would argue that the mind does anything other than reflect the state of the brain, as in it is not adaptive and merely a mirror.
 
Psychedelics_r_best said:
I know that neurotransmitters such as Acetylcholine trigger simple electrical signals, via the ion gates (I think), that cause muscles to contract. But how do other neurotransmitters work in your brain to create emotions or feelings such as happiness, sorrow, and concentration?

For example, serotonin is known to be assosciated with happines when it is in supply, but how does the binding of serotonin to receptors actually result in a feeling of happiness and well being?
Click to expand...

I think happyness etc are complex emotions that are likely to involve more that one system.

But the role that neurotransmitters play is not totally unknown, in fact alot is known about how increases in a particular neurotransmitter is going to affect physiological function.

That is why all SSRI's feel markedly similar even though they have drastically different chemical structures is because they all do the same thing.

But in terms of drug design, it can involve complex SAR studies that extend beyond just looking at a few IC50 values. Things like pharmacokinetics, a rats brain is not the same as a human, possible side effects. However another consideration is interactions at receptors that have not been tested. For example an monoamine reuptake inhibitor might have unknown affinities for NMDA receptor or have muscarinic cholinergic activity or maybe even the GABA receptor. It may be an hepatotoxic, cause serotonin syndrome or a potentially life threatening blood disorder.
 
specialspack said:
I would have thought that a better place to start would be Bohm and his work...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

rather than Russian-only quantum biology which doesn't really talk about consciousness at all...
Click to expand...

What is the general feeling within the scientific community? Is this hypothesis supported with a fair amount of evidence or is it merely a conjecture at this point?
 
BilZ0r said:
The mind is not the brain, the mind is the product of the activity of the brain.

Analogy: Walking is not the leg, walking is the product of the activity of the leg.
Click to expand...

Ah - thanks for bringing that analogy up, as it is a common one used in dynamic systems.

Not only is walking not the leg, it is not a product of the activity of the leg.

Rather, it is the product of the dynamic relationship between leg, environment, and the body attached to the leg. Walking would be quite impossible with only one leg, or without a surface to walk on. Equally consciousness would be quite impossible without embodiment, or a world to be conscious in/of.

Thus, mind cuts across traditional divisions between brain/body/world.
 
^ I think you've corrected me on that point before...

But it's still close enough..
 
BilZ0r said:
^ I think you've corrected me on that point before...

But it's still close enough..
Click to expand...

hah sorry dude... i just like to encourage thinking outside of the dualistic overhangs from the computational model of consciousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top