Brain on a Stick
Well, the University of Pittsburgh is into something other than steel. It seems that they have attempted to make a brain in a dish. Here is the abstract from the journal "Brain in a Dish":
"Persistent activity in the brain is involved in working memory and motor planning. The ability of the brain to hold information 'online' long after an initiating stimulus is a hallmark of brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex. Recurrent network loops such as the thalamocortical loop and reciprocal loops in the cortex are potential substrates that can support such activity. However, native brain circuitry makes it difficult to study mechanisms underlying such persistent activity. Here we propose a platform to study synaptic mechanisms of such persistent activity by constraining neuronal networks to a recurrent loop like geometry. Using a polymer stamping technique, adhesive proteins are transferred onto glass substrates in a precise ring shape. Primary rat hippocampal cultures were capable of forming ring-shaped networks containing 40-60 neurons. Calcium imaging of these networks show evoked persistent activity in an all-or-none manner. Blocking inhibition leads to an increase in the duration of persistent activity. These persistent phases were abolished by blockade of asynchronous neurotransmitter release by ethylene glycol tetraacetic acid."
So I wonder at what point do these things become conscious? Are they already, and how will self-awareness manifest itself?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael A. Williams on
-
This is materialist science still operating under the delusion that consciousness and "self awareness" is a by product of the brain. That everything can be explained by electro-chemical processes in the brain. Any "self-awareness" that manifests, if ever, from this experiment will be "coming through" the brain, not from it.
As has been discussed numerous times on this site in other forums and blogs, is the assertion and insight of the philosophical idealist, which we all are of one sort or another, that the brain is a super quantum bio-computer that acts as a relay station for consciousness in the physical dimension.
-
-
Yes, as has been pointed out on this site numerous times, materialism dominates present day science and Blavatsky herself saw the problems with it back in her day.
As for who and where consciousness and brain research is being done concerning "quantum consciousness" and brain function, looks no further than your backyard! I've mentioned Dr. Stuart Hameroff before, and he's Director for The Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. His site is:
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org
There are others around, but I haven't had the time recently to keep up with it all. Dr. Hameroff is a good friend of the eminent physicist Sir Roger Penrose, and collaborates with him on occasion.
-
Permalink Reply by Capt. Anand Kumar on
-
"Brain Wise" of Patricia Churchland published by MIT in 2002 is a good read as it is the only book I have found so far dealing with the nascent subject of Neurophilosophy.
Are electrons self-aware? One may think so, as they know when to orbit the nucleus and when to get out of one atom and barge into another. One may also construe that electrons have no control over this and if a force acts upon them they will behave as per the laws of Physics. WIll not the same apply to Humans whose actions may also be governed by the other forces. Does that make Humans self-unaware?
Materialists, obviously have no answers for such questions presently. But do self-professed non-materialists have them? What are those? Are they complete? Are they understandable? Are they provable? Many trillions of Humans must have passed through this earth. How many of them were self-aware, even by standards of non-materialists?
One hopes that some day Neuroscientists will manage to find the particle (wave) on which the tcp/ip program to connect with universal information management system is embedded.
-
-
I totally agree with you. And that is why your post, "Social Progress... " makes so much sense. We may speculate on the reasons for disguising, in some instances disfiguring, the truth. But the fact remains that the moment Occult Sciences require one to believe, they come in competition with other beliefs and lose their value. History is replete with examples where no amount of brain washing of the people could restrain truth from surfacing.
So, if once there was universal wisdom containing the truth, where and why did it disappear? Does it mean that the Truth had less power than the untruth which prevailed? What is logical is that the so called ancient and universal wisdom with all its allegories, stories, blinds etc. is only indicative of man's quest for truth through countless routes. Had it been found, it would have stood out on its own, in HPB words. Is there a need to mask e=mc2 ? What needs veils, hiding, can scarcely be the truth. But it sure serves the purpose of pointing towards the directions in which not to look.
-
-
I'm surprised to read such responses on a site like this. Especially from two of its leading figures. It is true that pretty much all of us have been conditioned by philosophical materialism essentially from birth. And it's not easy to throw off that yoke, that's for sure.
But, it seems that the "Church of Scientism" has taken hold here. A modern idolatry of science that puts it on the highest pedestal as the final arbiter of what's the "true" nature of reality.
I've some important matters to attend to this morning, but I'll return a little later for a more in depth, but not too lengthy, rebuttal.
Yes, Einstein came up with E=MC2, but he also said this: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, the do not refer to reality."
-
-
Thanks, Joe, for your response. This turned out a little longer than I expected.
Science has long become the "Church of Scientism," with it's own set of beliefs, dogmas and assumptions about reality. Once, centuries ago, it was attacked and repressed by the Church of Rome, it now has morphed into doing the same thing. Anything outside its orthodoxy and paradigm is attacked, ignored and/or repressed. Or rather, nowadays, attempts at repression.
The "Church's" Pope is, of course, Stephen Hawking, with its arch Deacons and Bishops being Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Christopher Hichins and the like. Their "God" is "Randomness", their "10 commandments" the Laws of Physics, and their writings pretty much worshiped as "atheist gospel." Stray from them and you might run into some "tough sailing" as a professional scientist.
To quote from Dr. Roger S. Jones, retired physics professor from the University of Minnesota, who has given a scathing critque of his profession, says: "Who can deny that the scientific establishment has become a modern priesthood? The pronouncements of scientists are respected and accepted by today's public just as the doctrines of the church fathers were respected and accepted by people a thousand years ago...The church fathers would have given their eyeteeth to command for midieval Catholicism the kind of obedience and blind faith that we freely lavish on science today."
The bedrock of all sciences is physics, and Dr. Jones goes on to point out that it is filled with subjective bias, while pretending to be "objective." The very fact of choosing quantative discriptions as being more meaningful than qualitative descriptions is itself a bias. From there he shows(too lengthy to quote or summarize) that "pure measurement is not objective, which means that science is not objective. From there he dismantles the notion that science's ability to "predict" events based on the laws of physics gives it any special superior place.
To think that science simply describes what is physical reality "is to ignore all the choices, conventions, definitions, assumptions, beliefs, and tacit knowledge built into science, all of which could have been selected in countless ways, other than the traditional way of science." - Dr. Jones
A short while back, someone posted a video here of Arthur M Young explaining that science is only dealing with secondary causes, not primary ones. He notes, as have others, with the possible exception of quantum physics, which has begun to scratch the surface of the primary - metaphysical/spiritual. Yet, materialist science goes on its merry delusional way, now telling the world they're "wrapped everything up." All the technological wonders give a false sense that science has a firm grip on the infinite.
The practical fact is that 90% of the research grant money, both private and public, is controlled by people who are members in good standing of the Church of Scientism. Taking their marching orders from that establishment, only adherents to the philosophy of materialism will get funded. Thus virtually perpetuating guaranteed experimental results that "verify" reductionist/materialism.
Surprisingly, some funding does get through to some open minded scientists. I've mentioned Dr. Stuart Hameroff earlier and there's also Dr. Gary Schwartz, who's done important Afterlife experiements in the past, and is currently doing more.(there are many more around the world, but still a minority) Both of these distinguished gentlemen are at the University of Arizona in Tucson, in Joe's own backyard, as it were. It might be possible to get an appointment with these guys and see if they'd give an interview for Theosophy.net.
There is more to go into, but I'll sum it up: the point is not to lose heart and give in to the materialists and give them more credit than they're worth. They may seemingly hold the upper hand now, but when examined closely they're dealing from a fairly weak deck. I ran across this the other day: "Science has made my life comfortable, metaphysics and spirituality has made my life meaningful."
The issue of why so many contradictions and paradoxes in the wisdom traditions, East and West, is really for another forum. But, what of the many similarities? And, infinite spirit would have infinite ways of experiencing it, certainly.
As for the accusation of "foo-foo" and "woo-woo" in many wisdom traditions, I can only reply that one person's "woo-woo" is probably another person's spiritual truth. I could quote from an advanced physics textbook or research paper and it would be complete "foo-foo" and "woo-woo" to most everyone here reading it. To a trained physicist, it would make perfect sense.
-
-
Thank You Michael, not only for considering me as a leading figure, but also for your considered response. May I draw your attention to the fact that Non-materialists (Philosophers, Ancient Wisdom Specialists, Spiritualists etc.) have certain unfair advantage over the materialists, for example:
1. Freedom of Interpretation:- Non-materialists can interpret any text in any way they chose claiming this is the esoteric meaning.
2. Freedom of Verification :- Non-Materialists can in one sentence claim that even material science supports this and in the next sentence demolish the material science. You have yourself quoted Einstein saying he is not sure about nature of Reality and then go on to say that scientists claim to know the nature of Reality. Why does non-material scinece needs the support of material science? Why can't it stand on its own. We have seen in the "Traditions & Science" thread that ancient wisdom as available to us, contains only tiny fragments on which no workable theories can be developed. If someone has them, please enlighten us.
3. Freedom of Secrecy :- Non-materialists can always get out of any argument by claiming that beyond this is a secret. One Theosophical Mahatma claimed to have sorted out the secrets of the universe long ago. But never went on to reveal it. If one thinks that Stuart Hammeroff is on the right track, what stops one from helping him. leading him further to exact nature of consciousness if it is known. If Stephen Hawking's theory is misleading or plain wrong, please tell us what is the correct theory.
If two contrasting theories can be conveniently described as "two aspets of the same Reality", why materialism and non-materialism cannot be the two aspects of the same Reality? Particularly when one considers infinite aspects of the infinite.
If Non-materialists have the truth, one wonders why it has not prevailed over humanity. Or, should one concede, that "Truth Shall Prevail", or Satyamev Jayate in Sanskrit is wrong?
-
-
Thanks, Capt. Anand, for your response. Frankly, I thought I was through with this matter for now! lol Well, I'll try a few quick responses to your comments.
Non-materialists, as you call philosophical idealists, do not have an advantage over materialists. It's the materialists who, in one form or another, control the main publications, the purse strings for research money, and the "blind faith" of most of the general public, as Dr. Jones points out.
I've never heard of non-materialists in general saying they can interpret any text in any way they want to. On the contrary, it's the deconstructionists who say that, an offshoot of reductionism/materialism. Non-materialists point to eternal verities and eternal spiritual "laws" behind the physical. Materialists poo-poo this.
It is my impression that Einstein was a philosophical realist, close to a materialist, but left the door open for the transcendent. Today's mainstream physicists disown this and certainly Hawking and his followers think they've summed everything up. For brevity sake, I didn't spell out the difference there. - I haven't followed the 'Traditions and Science" forum, so I don't know what ground you've covered. But, I disagree that only tiny fragments exists from the wisdom traditions and that no working theories exist.(of course, that depends on what you mean by "tiny fragments") There's plenty of practices that work very well, both West and East, if done with due diligence and dedication. That's a whole other forum or three even.
The reasons for "secrecy" in the West in the past was mainly because of the repression of the Church and the fact few were ready to really understand deeper understandings. Nowadays, all the secrets are out. What's is "secret", as such, is how are these applied for results. As for Dr. Hameroff, I don't speak for him. I gave his website. Study what he's saying and reseaching and if you have any questions, disputes or suggestions, contact him directly. - Dr. Hawking has been rebutted very well by numerous people. In fact, one of our own members, Christopher Holmes, published an excellent rebut to him on this very site. Perhaps Joe will be so kind as to re-publish that now. There's not time for me to go into my few thoughts on Hawking, as that's he's brilliant in a narrow band of intelligence, seemingly blind in other areas. - As for this Theosophical Mahatma, I know nothing about him and certainly don't defend him or anyone else who claims to have the "secrets of the unverse" and yet won't reveal them.
Yes, the non-materialists and materialist can co-exist with mutual respect and be of even greater help to the world. It's the materialists that are seeking to destroy the non-materialists(re Richard Dawkins activist atheism). Non-materialists only want the materialist science to recognise it's limits and proper place as a servant, not a master.
In a nutshell, the materialists have the "upper hand," so to speak, because most people wouldn't understand what we're talking about and aren't interested. And, because materialist science can produce technological wonders that razzle and dazzle people. Plus, it can produce weapons of incredible destruction, giving nations more tools for power.
Anyway, that's it for now and off the top of my head. Best to you, Capt. and much peace, prosperity and understanding.
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
