Junius, there are immense practical problems in demonstrating mere 'correlation' between brain activity and any particular behaviour or perception, let alone any deep thought. Generally speaking though the clinicians and and researchers using MRI and other imaging techniques are always working towards their holy grail and, in my opinion, they seem to be getting some very interesting results. I take the view that if you can show that a repeatable pattern of brain activity [per imaging method] *always* correlates with a particular behaviour or reported experience, then you will have established an "identity" between the two. I believe these kinds of identities are being discovered, albeit in a very limited extent so far. The key point, I think, is to recognise that if a particular pattern of interaction [AKA a cell assembly, 'singularity', repertoire, or whatever] appears consistently and time and again then it can be said to 'exist'. IE it is real - relatively speaking - and resists any tendencies in its environment to either destroy it or at least radically transform it. If this be the case, and I think it is so, it is completely reasonable to believe that such intermittently repeatable activity patterns are dynamic logical structures capable of representing things other than what the patterns themselves are. As I see it this is precisely the function of the brain with all its mind-boggling complexity: that is, by means of incredibly many, small, dynamic logical structures to effectively embody all the relevant information about the person's world. As I have been saying for several years now, this set-up allows the human brain to represent a person and his/her world. This is done by representing: * currently significant features of the world, * currently significant features of "self", and * currently significant relationships between self and world. Because the world is ever changing, the representations have to be maintained as up to date as possible. This requires a never ending cycle of checking and comparison between, on one hand, recently created representations and predictions of immediate future, and on the other hand the newest representations. This endless process is what *actually* happens in the head rather than the abstract straw-man concept of "infinite series of observers of observers". What we have [what our experience is] rather than the philosophers' conjecture of an endless infinite recursive series, is a practical instantiation of the model of self in the world where the process of update and resubmission creates for us the subjective impression of changes and time. That is what "UMSITW" is all about. Cheers Mark

I'm not very happy with the approach here to correlates of consciousness. Correlates don't necessarily tell us much about what they correlate with. Thunder is a correlate of lightning, but understanding it as a wave in the air will not tell us much about either the lightning flash or the electrical charge which is the common cause of both thunder and lightning. The gamma or '40 Hz' synchrony is perhaps the most commonly mentioned correlate of consciousness, but although it might lead somewhere eventually, it is not immediately clear what this fluctuation in electrical potential tells us about consciousness. Simon

Hi Rich, OK, I guess I shouldn't say "explains everything" without classifying that with "that is important". We don't know why the surface of the strawberry has causal properties that make it reflect 650nm light – we just know that it does. And we don't need to know the whys to be able to engineer and construct ever better quality HD TVs. And the idea is that the same is true for phenomenal properties as is true for causal properties. We know, absolutely, that in addition to causal properties, something in our brain also has ineffable properties blind to cause and effect observation – but not blind to subjective introspection. We know, absolutely, that somehow the introspective properties can be unified together, via the corpus callosum, so that we can experience them all together, know definitively the difference between red and green, and so on. And, just like we can now engineer and make ever better quality HD TVs, by knowing these causal properties, we soon will be doing the same engineering type things with phenomenal properties and phenomenal realities, and so on – once we discover what the neural correlates are that have these ineffable properties. We won't know why they have these phenomenal properties we experience, just like we don't know why the strawberry reflects 650 nm light, we will just know that when we reproduce the right neural correlate that has red, it will always have the same red in all minds, and that we will soon be merging minds – sharing all this stuff, in a much more effing way than mere causal property based HD TVs allows us to share things. Brent Allsop

Brent, in response to your posting no.6, my stance is that dualism of any flavour is at best a restating of the problem of consciousness. Cartesian dualism claims that there are 2 completely different substances: mind and matter. A major problem with this theory is interaction, as Descartes notes: how does mind act on matter and vice versa? Property dualism has it that there is one substance with 2 completely different properties: mental and physical. You claim that this theory "explains everything" but go on to say: "...whatever it is neurons, the corpus callosum, and all, are doing to unify these properties into the same conscious awareness working space." This is a mystery not an explanation. The explanatory gap is as wide as ever. cheers Richard

[Brent] Since you referred to these two theories, using their proposed names, it sounds like you agree that these are good names for these theories, even though you think they are 'barking up the wrong tree'? In other words, do you plan on using these two names to refer to the way David Chalmers, et al, and myself think about consciousness in these two competing ways? [Lenny] No. Because, I don't think that those names have any descriptive meaning, or refer to anything more than a guess about how consciousness works in conjunction with matter... Or, that they actually describe the way you or Chalmers, et al think about the true cause and nature of consciousness and its relationship to mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc. As far as my own views There is no overall dualism—since the entire cosmos and its physical universe, along with its ubiquitous consciousness, is one unified thing in essence (like a particle is actually a standing wave form) Yet, it's also perfectly obvious to me, that there are infinite dualisms in nature—which are simply opposites—such as the dualisms of subjectivity and objectivity; consciousness and matter, attraction and repulsion; positive and negative, up and down, in and out, day and night, emptiness and fullness, beginning and end, absolute and relative, involution and evolution, etc., etc., etc. All of which simply tells me that the entire cosmos is rooted in cyclic law, and that everything in our universe is subject to periodic change... Just as they are also subject to linear motion (vs. non linear motion, or static position) in both time and space. All my scientific thinking is based on those fundamental principles and the apparent contradictions they incur. [Brent] Also, your argument or asking: "how separate physical substances could express each of those millions if not billions of subtly different color frequencies in the brain's neural system?" is not at all convincing to me. It is well documented that the human mind has a very limited ability to distinguish between colors. A very simple camera can easily represent far more colors than we can distinguish. Certainly there are far more total diverse types of chemical compounds, gazilions of different types of protean chains alone, than in a simple camera, and so on. Certainly The total number of distinguishable colors could easily be mapped to a very insignificantly small subset of all of this in a gazillion different ways? [Lenny Where is that "well documented" evidence proving that "the human mind has a very limited ability to distinguish between colors"? As far as I know—from my many years of experience as a fine artist and expert colorist and special effects motion picture producer (as far advanced as the most highly developed computer animation and special effects movie making systems today)—the human eye is sensitive to, and the mind can store, distinguish and compensate for far more subtle colors, tints, shades, contrasts, etc. than any camera (analog or digital) can record (since much of color vision is psychological adaptation) Therefore, its perfectly obvious to me that the conscious mind—coupled resonantly through the harmonics of the radiant EM fields generated by the electrochemistry of the brain's neurology—can store near infinite amounts of frequency modulated visual information (not limited only by the physical light frequency spectrum) that can be, instantaneously, directly transmitted (by simple phase conjugate adaptive resonance processes) down through the highest order harmonic fields in the Planck volume—to the single point of observer awareness in the center of our head. (I would need another few paragraphs to prove that such a geocentric conscious reference point is absolutely necessary for survival of any sentient being, and at least several pages to logically prove why such intermediate higher order harmonic fields of mind and memory must exist between the brain and that zero-point of visual consciousness.) Thus, our discerning and discriminating consciousness can easily distinguish the difference between the finest frequency modulations (in the range of the visible light detected by the retinas), and can exactly determine the subtlest color, tint, or shade of any single pixel point in the overall image perceived (whose resolution is limited to the number of rods and cones in the eye retinas plus all the spaces between them). And, it's also a demonstrable fact that our consciousness can also invent its own color, tint or shade (in the lowest frequency working mind field) to compensate for any inconsistencies in the image that is not consistent with the memory (stored in the longer term, higher frequency fields) of similar scenes observed in the past. In fact, the consciousness itself can also create and experience colors that are not even there—as has been demonstrated numerous times by printed or animated optical illusions. (Which most scientists seem to think are neurological functions, since all they can measure is the feedback resonance of the brain wave field transferred back to the neurochemistry, whose secondary effects, only, can be seen in an fMRI image). This shows how science is constantly misled by their indirect observations and materialist biases and presumptions. Very few of them understand how the mind unconsciously, due to its subjectively (subliminal awareness/will) controlled variable oscillation frequency, psychologically fills in the gaps between the individual frames of a motion picture in order to experience it as continuous linear motion. So, I can't wait to hear the logical technical explanation (such as any engineer would need to replicate it) of how the brain alone can accomplish all that by some equally simple and direct physical-chemical process? Where is the empirical evidence that the brain can map a distinctive color frequency modulation to a particular protein? And, how does that explain the process whereby that protein creates the conscious experience or qualia that allows our center of individual visual awareness to distinguish it from any other similarly "colored protein"? As far as I know, seeing is a psychological process, not a physical one. So, far, all your assumptions (I wouldn't call it a theory) has done is initiate another infinite regress or impossible condition to describe brain processes, that completely bypasses the real problems of explaining consciousness and mind... Such as: What, where and who is our individual consciousness? What is the nature of the cause of our experiences? What is awareness and will? Where and from what do they originate? What is the power of the will based on? What is the mind made of? How does the mind connect to the brain? I could go on an on with many such unanswered questions. So far, all we've gotten is a series of assumptions and blind beliefs, along with much gibberish, much like blowing in the wind—that have no rational basis or logical ground to stand on. Methinks, that anyone who believes that god or nature would chose such a complex chicken before the egg process to fill the gap between consciousness and matter, when the whole of existence in this cosmos is based (from its primal beginning up until the smallest particles evolve into the largest galaxies of the physical universe) on radiant energy fields. Nothing in the physical universe could exist without those intermediate, information carrying spacetime fields (along with their harmonics and ZPE sources)—as their fundamental roots. QED. [Brent] How about the idea of effing the ineffable, in particular? Do you think we will ever be able to know, effingly, what someone else represents 700nm light with, and how it compares to what we represent it with - ever - in any way - even if only theoretically? Can we at least agree on this as a possibility? [Lenny] If your coined word "effing"'s non slang meaning is (as the opposite of "ineffable") being able to explain something in words Then I don't think we can ever know, through words alone, how anyone experiences the frequency of a particular color, tint or shade (which can only be represented as a modulation of an electromagnetic field). However, since the electromagnetic field of the brain and the mechanisms of detecting, producing, processing and carrying a modulated image in it, is the same for all human beings of equivalent health The simplest way to know (without explaining in words) of how a 700nm wavelength is experienced by someone else—is to look at a color of that same reflected wavelength and subjectively experience it personally. Remembering, however, that if their physical functions, past experiences and psychological natures are different than yours, they will see the color differently, in accord with their own natures. However, since it would also look different in different backgrounds, on different object textures, angles of view, incident lighting, etc – you would have to make certain that you are both looking at that colored object in the exact same scene and background, with the same exact lighting conditions, that your eye lenses have the same clarity and focus, that neither of you have any defective retinas (color blindness, etc.) and that you both have the same level of health of the brain's visual cortex. Naturally, any difference in physical condition anywhere along the path of electrochemical processing of the signal will result in a different experience of the color. E.g.; Since I have a cataract in one eye and a clear lens in the other, I can easily see the slight difference in overall color frequencies processed through each of the eyes (with the cataract eye shifting all colors toward the yellow end of the spectrum). So, it is very questionable if any of us can actually know the exact color anyone else experiences, even though we all receive the same color frequencies at the surface of their eyes. The differences could be as subtle or as much as the differences between our individual fingerprints. All that, of course, along with other observational and mind experiments, firmly convinces me that the brain has nothing to do with the actual experience of consciousness, other than—if damaged, or structurally different anywhere along the perceptive path—modifying the frequencies carried by the inner astral light field experienced reflectively at our single point of visual consciousness in the center of our head—which is entangled with the eternal self conscious center of our soul (monadic field) located in our naval plexus. In any event, this analog electromagnetic process of image perception works the same way for everyone—even though there may be many functional differences along the path between the sensory receptors and the conscious perceiver (Incidentally, the process by which this point of visual consciousness detects, holographically reconstructs, and perceives the hologram image in the mind-memory fields, by coherent radiation and reflection, is thoroughly explained on my blogs and in my canonizer camp.) So, if you are not convinced now that pure perceptive/responsive consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc) is fundamental and totally separate from, yet dependent on the mass-energies that compose the mind-memory fields, brain, body, senses, and every cell composing all sentient beings in both the vegetable and animal kingdoms of nature It would appear that you are so conditioned by your lifelong religious beliefs in materialism and a personal God, as both the creator and savior, coupled with a possibly inbred or conditioned antipathy of any contradictory heresies... That it may either take another lifetime, an irrefutable scientific proof, or a sudden intuitive leap of direct transcendental revelation to change your present mindset, and convince you otherwise. As for my own thesis regarding the origin of consciousness, mind and matter, and their roots in pre cosmic absolute space, along with explaining the way consciousness actually works Since all of it is fully outlined and illustrated in my canonizer camps and argued on the web sites below—I would appreciate any serious comments or logical scientifically proven, point by point refutations. IOW, if you or anyone else can show me convincing mind or direct experimental evidence, or any other logical scientific alternative that would contradict this fundamental view of total reality, I will be happy to change or modify my thesis wherever necessary. So far, after more than 30 years of waiting—I am sticking with my guns... The first model of which is dated 1975, and hasn't changed much since physicist/engineer, Dr. Philip Perchion (1924-1984) and I first worked out the basic physics and metaphysics. Leon (Lenny) Maurer http://dzyanmaster.wordpress.com http://knol.google.com/k/how-it-all-began#

Consciousness Theoreticians, I've now proposed these changes that we were discussed here for [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/8 Functional Property Dualism] and [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/7 Material Property Dualism]. Unlike what I described above, I added 3 paragraphs 19, 20, and 21 (replacing the old 19 paragraph) to the [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 Representational Qualia Theory] statement. They briefly describe the diverse types of property dualism contained in the sub camps. I completely rewrote and significantly improved our [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/7 Property Dualism] statement, and would very much appreciate any feedback on this new version. (remember to select the include review switch on the side bar to see the newest proposed version). Steven Lehar, I would particularly like to get your feedback on this rewrite since as you know I would very much like to make this Material Property Dualism camp into a camp that you support. Thanks! Brent Allsop

Lenny, I appreciate hearing this different point of view, and you helping me to better understand it. Since you referred to these two theories, using their proposed names, it sounds like you agree that these are good names for these theories, even though you think they are 'barking up the wrong tree'? In other words, do you plan on using these two names to refer to the way David Chalmers, et al, and myself think about consciousness in these two competing ways? Also, your argument or asking: "how separate physical substances could express each of those millions if not billions of subtly different color frequencies in the brain's neural system?" is not at all convincing to me. It is well documented that the human mind has a very limited ability to distinguish between colors. A very simple camera can easily represent far more colors than we can distinguish. Certainly there are far more total diverse types of chemical compounds, gazilions of different types of protean chains alone, than in a simple camera, and so on. Certainly The total number of distinguishable colors could easily be mapped to a very insignificantly small subset of all of this in a gazillion different ways? How about the idea of effing the ineffable, in particular? Do you think we will ever be able to know, effingly, what someone else represents 700nm light with, and how it compares to what we represent it with - ever - in any way - even if only theoretically? Can we at least agree on this as a possibility? Brent Allsop

Brent, Since "red" in its various tints, shades and saturations, is simply the reflection of a particular range of frequencies of light from a surface having complementary color frequency absorption —if we are both looking at the same "Red" surface and seeing the same frequency detected by our retinal rods and cones—how can you say that we are not seeing the identical color, or that the color itself is a physical property of some identical material substance in both our brains? The logic of that is completely beyond my comprehension... Since, I can't imagine how we can jump from a "quality" of light subjectively experienced by pure consciousness (or unconditioned awareness)—that must be absolutely stationary (thus, an immaterial singular point of view) in order to discriminate the exact frequency of the particular "red" we see (as distinguished from millions of other colors)—to an "objective" material substance that must be in constant vibratory motion in itself—which would certainly interfere with the "red" light frequency we experience. I also cannot imagine how separate physical substances could express each of those millions if not billions of subtly different color frequencies in the brain's neural system? As a chemical Engineer and organic chemist with a vast experience in the field of visual information communication—I have no knowledge of any material substances, down to the quantum particles themselves that could have such individually distinguishable properties. It's like you're saying that the color "chromium yellow" or "cadmium red" is a property of the chromium or cadmium compound that reflects it, and that such reflection is also part of a molecular substance in the brain that detects it. This makes no sense whatsoever, and violates every rule of physical- or electrochemistry. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that the camps of "Functional Property Dualism" and "Material Property Dualism" are both barking up trees -- since neither of them understands the real difference between subjectivity and objectivity, nor do they have any logically scientific understanding of the nature of the information of consciousness (that links them together) as distinguished from them both. Nor have they offered any rational arguments explaining how those three independent yet complementary aspects of overall spacetime reality, i.e., subjective consciousness, vibratory information, and objective matter, can be conflated or considered as a single objective or subjective phenomena (qualia)? In any event, considering that "red" or any particular color can be a substance in itself, or that consciousness can be an epiphenomena of either material substance or its neural complexity—is, IMHO, beyond all logical or scientifically philosophical or philosophically scientific understanding.

Hi Rich, Yes, silicon, thanks. I can't see how you can see it as 'worse'. I see no theory out there that comes even close to explaining everything, without myriads of problems. But material property dualism not only explains everything with no problems, it simply has to be true in some form - everything we know already proves it to be true. When you think about a red quale, in the right way, you realize that it, like all ineffable phenomenal properties, are completely blind to any kind of cause and effect observation. The only possibility is that something in our brain, in addition to having the traditional cause and effect properties traditional observation shows us, it must also have these ineffable phenomenal qualities. There is absolutely no 'lack of interaction' of any kind. We can see the causal properties of the neural correlate of red, via cause and effect observation. And we must be able to 'eff' these additional phenomenal properties once we start doing whatever it is neurons, the corpus callosum, and all, are doing to unify these properties into the same conscious awareness working space. And when we ask such a phenomenal working space if a particular new substance being integrated into it for the first time, with the rest of what it phenomenally experiences, surely the results will be very phenomenally consistent, predictable, and causal. Only whatever it is that is or has red, will reliably cause us to experience, know and say: 'yes, that is my red'. And that is what phenomenal causality is. Anything else just can't cause us to experience or behave the same. Brent Allsop

You mean silicon not silicone :) Isn't property dualism Cartesian dualism by the backdoor but worse!? Substance/Cartesian dualism posits two different/immiscible substances and thus suffers from the slight difficulty of lack of interaction and is thus merely implausible/divorced from reality. Property dualism moves the divide into the different properties of a single substance - surely an incoherent sleight of hand?