Attila wrote:Is your reply not casuistic?
I don't think it was. Sorry if so.
If I linked you to papers on neuronal matrixes would you even read it?
FYI, a neuron bundle (more precisely, a bundle of peripheral axons) is simply what's more commonly called a nerve.
It's odd, fairly inaccurate, and not at all descriptive to define it as a "bio-electromagnetic matrix."
I just wonder because you made no attempt to answer to my inquiry; what is information in physical terms.
I didn't notice any inquiry, sorry. Information is an ordered sequence of material that transmits or records a message. Like the nucleotide sequence UUA which when read by RNA roughly translates into "insert HO2
[i.e. Leucine] here."
A neuron is a cell that has an electromagnetic polarity
Neurons transmit information electrochemically, which is not quite the same thing as electromagnetically. Unless what you're talking about is ephaptic coupling. Is it?
which is changeable, the walls of those cells are neutral. You get collections of neurons which are positively or negatively charged, so the whole thing forms a matrix of such charged particles.
A neuron has a semi-permeable membrane that allows some electrically charged particles (ions) to pass through and blocks others. The ions that usually matter most for neurons are calcium (++ [double positive charge]), potassium (+), sodium (+), and chloride (-).
Each neuron has an axon, a long sort of tail which extends out from the cell and through which impulses are carried. Axons contact other cells (neurons or otherwise) through a junction called the synapse. When a neuron fires, the exchange of positive and negative charged ions across the neural membrane causes an action potential which when it reaches the end of the axon releases neurotransmitter molecules across the synapse which in turn activate receptors in the other cell.
That's what a chemical synapse looks like anyway. In an electrical synapse current is passed, not neurotransmitters, and voltage changes in the first cell induce a corresponding change in the second.
And neurons connect to form neural networks, which are a little more complicated than simply a "matrix" of "charged particles."
it’s a little bit like a computer processor is mostly a collection of transistors, each one is switched either on or off or the gate is closed/open, the collection denotes what the processor does ~ the calculations it makes etc.
Sure if you want to look at it that way. But that seems awfully mechanistic, squared off, and unnatural, not to mention grossly oversimplified. I prefer to see the process for what it is - living cells communicating with other living cells in a vast and beautifully complicated oceanic network of interaction and negotiation.
If you want a more detailed explanation google for some papers on the issue.
I think I'm comfortable with my clearly basic and limited grasp of the subject for now. And if I get the itch to learn more, I know where to look (which probably won't be a Google search). But thanks for the offer.
You're ignoring mounds of evidence uncovered by neuroscientists over the past few decades as well as the fascinating and cutting edge work being done on the origins of consciousness in the body's interactions with and embedment in the world
I am not and I don’t disagree with any of it in terms of being the source of sensory input [i am not taking anything away from them],
That's gracious of you. However, a lot more is being talked about and done in the world of neuroscience than only sensory input
. You know they can take a peek inside your brain and see what it looks like when you think about "roast chicken" or "cuddly puppies" or "Beethoven" or "sexy parts," right? We're learning the "language" of the nervous system. It's extremely complicated and it may be a while before we can even ask for directions to the nearest tourist attraction or public toilet, let alone read a newspaper, but it's happening. And it's marvelous.
but I do question weather or not that adds up to consciousness. Essentially they are saying that consciousness is electromagnetic, a frequency and or a field which is frankly ridiculous.
Who is saying? Johnjoe McFadden and who else? The "electromagnetic theory" of consciousness is hardly the most widely accepted. In fact, it's fringe at best. So let's be sure we're not beating up strawmen.
The key to the argument is in understanding what info and qualia are.
I think the difference is you're interested in some "argument" which you think is proven by deductive reasoning, equations, and ever-increasing abstraction. I'm interested in what is
The reason why I added ‘mind’ to the equation below;
*Object > info > Qualia < > info < > consciousness < > mind.
Is that consciousness responds to sensory stimuli, so it seams reasonable to assume the premise;
a) if we cannot state that consciousness is literally in the neuronal matrixes, then there is something else acting in response to them. I.e. mind ~ the mental or whatever you wish to call it.
b) that as consciousness occurs as a response to physical stimulus, then consciousness itself is a relationship between that other something [mind] and sensory input.
If you or anyone else can explain any of the elements* away then do so!
Whatever. I guess this just goes way over my head.