Can brain anatomy and function account for psychiatric conditions? – A New Vision for Mental Health

Can brain anatomy and function account for psychiatric conditions? – A New Vision for Mental Health
— Read on www.newvisionformentalhealth.com/2022/09/26/can-brain-anatomy-and-function-account-for-psychiatric-conditions/

—-Here she is going a little deeper…

So good !

👽

Rp The role of mind in neuroscience

After failing to find anatomical or functional correlates of a variety of psychiatric conditions, Dr. Sarah Durston (neuroscientist and Professor of …

The role of mind in neuroscience

—— If you are not as concerned about the philosophical side and want to hear just about the biological side of mental disorder and diagnosis from the research stand point, start at 18:30.

Very interesting….and validating as a philosopher and clinician.

Rp and Comment on if Can consciousness be simulated?

David Chalmers in his book: Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, eventually gets around to addressing the 800-pound gorilla in …

Can consciousness be simulated?

—-
The Two Routes version of the problem:

Reality can only be encountered and negotiated. If reality arises beyond that scope, it merely verifies the truth of the initial statement of reality as what is happening.

consciousness arises as it does, having properties that appear in whatever manner that we deal with in what ever way we do, just as everything else also deals in the same way; that is, in the manner that it does.

However, this does not argue that it has no value, cannot be known as a means to get something else done, or is a moot point.

The Real question hudden within the question of consciousness has to do with what we can use it for.

Encasing the Real question is that true question, the question that spoils the party, and grabs people up to attend a different party. Most people at the party, though, will think that the party’s over and think that they have to go home. But in actuality there is another party that they’ve just missed. 

Because the whole discourse on consciousness is nothing different than having a discourse about television sets, atoms, computers, parties, or shirts, or even fashion or hearing aids. As we may want to know what a hearing aid is in its reality, what we are really asking is how we can use it to establish ourselves in the world as a known being; we are equating thus being with doing.

Im not going into all of the extended possibilities here, though.

This is also to say that such discussions about what consciousness is whether or not technology one day will be able to embody consciousness, is really interesting. Things that arise in reality are interesting; this is true.

This is why we can say that no one really cares about what it’s true because it’s not very interesting. And in general, if I’m in any sort of career that Hass to do with thinking about philosophical subjects, I’m probably not gonna be very interested in finding out the truth of what I’m doing and report on it. The simple reason is, once I begin to report upon what I’m doing, I’m probably not gonna end up making very much money from it or be able to pay my rent and have social credit. Because what I may be doing, is doing that is not only very interesting, but is very important.

In as much as I would have to talk about the interest that is involved in what I’m doing, I lose interest, credit, and this has to be very important and interesting because I wouldn’t be doing it unless it was.

Rout.

The key situation involved in the two routes has to do with a recognition of what is actually occurring. And this has to do with knowledge. It doesn’t really have to do with what I do when I go out with my friends at night. Or what I do to make a living. It has to do with the truth of the situation. Whether or not I get intoxicated from drinking beers and have fun with my friends is not as interesting about all the details about the truth that I went out last night and drank some beers and had fun.

So it is, the catch with reckoning epistemology to find out actually what is happening truthfully in our academic efforts, is that I’m not making an argument to say that there’s something wrong with the reality of the situation. I definitely Am not suggesting that we don’t deal with reality every day, or that we shouldn’t have to, or that we don’t have to because there’s another way to be.

Offense.

What really grates on peoples nerves is that if I say that there’s nothing wrong with the reality of the situation, it often tells people that I’m making an argument about what is true or false, and then they will tell me a bunch of things that’s really wrong with reality. Such as gangster dictators invading a country that they have no business in. 

😁. Of course they will. And inasmuch as their interests are very important they indicate that they are oriented in reality to find the truth of being.

Upon reckoning what is actually happening, though, our relationship with technology changes, And the question posed here, in the link, is changed at its root.

That’s all for now.

xxx

The Moment of Decisive Significance: Enlightenment and the Christ Moment

The moment of enlightenment is only initially an awareness of being. After that moment it is an awareness of how so few are aware. The real issue of enlightenment has to do with what comes after.

When we understand Christ in its proper scope, we see that ‘enlightenment’ is the attempt by the individual to uphold and maintain It as a prolonged state of being. The way it is maintained Is through the justification of the offense.

The Christ moment, and the ideal of enlightenment, is a moment of being conscious that when come upon represents a moment of decisive significance.

In this moment, the awesomeness and apprehensive feeling of dread might bring the individual to fall back into its history to thereby join and retain the consistency of what they know and knew to that state of fear and trembling. The coupling of the Christ moment with the fall back (revolt) into the fear of the awesomeness of the tremendous mystery that is come upon in that moment, yields righteousness, what some could call “ego inflation”. Enlightenment is the form of consciousness understanding itself and its view as something that everyone else is supposed to likewise know.

On The other hand, when the Christ moment, it’s awesomeness and the accompanying state of fear and trembling, is come upon in curiosity, then the motion is one of compassion instead of righteousness. For the self, it continues the motion of curiosity and acceptance, but this self is not the primary aim. The motion is into otherness. Difference.

For, instead of understanding how intellectually or ethically wrong and spiritually poor everyone is around, such that they need to be educated into the righteousness of proper knowledge, The Christ moment fades into just one moment in the potential of human consciousness. Enlightenment disappears as some thing that was never to be found. The meaning of awareness changes.

The awareness that remains is not enlightened awareness, neither is it Christ being; rather it is a true human compassion for those people Who have come upon and yet not followed through such a moment.

It is a true understanding of what it is to be human.

Read The Moment of Decisive Significance: A Heresy

…and much more affordable paperback!.

An object oriented journey through the Gospels.

The Reposting Human Consciousness Post

This article provides some insight on how and why the explanation of human consciousness might be the reason for a paradigm shift of science away …

Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism

—- He has some really good extrapolated points.

I think the shorter version of what he is saying, so far as ‘the whole of correlations do not a mind make’, I think concerns my hard problem of consciousness as distinguished from Chalmers hard problem; Chalmers hard problem I think it’s just a very difficult problem, and not hard in the sense of the word that we understand hard beyond the meaning that is “very difficult”. My Hard Problem of consciousness actually indicates a significance of the problem of consciousnes that must be come to terms with before any other problem of consciousnessness has any skin in the game. Without addressing my Hard Problem, the rest become merely an idealized word game.

I keep saying it here in there in various posts of mine, but here it is again:

The hard problem of consciousness is that there is no way to absolutely be convinced that someone else’s brain has anything to do with one’s own consciousness, or consciousness whether or not it is mine or someone else’s. That is, I am only able to be convinced because I’m already convinced.

In other words, it is merely that I believe that I have a brain in which my consciousness resides and that when I look at another human being with a brain, what they find out goes on there, actually has to do with my consciousness.

It may, but then does it really have to do with a brain ? and then as well, does it have to do with my brain (do I have a brain)?

These are the hard questions because Typically They are answered with answers that have wiggle room, for a word, that are soft answers. 

We love soft questions and soft answers because it never requires us to really think, it never requires us to really reflect upon what is actually occurring. On The contrary, it only requires of us to a stay one dimensional, that is to say, non-reflective. we get to have opinions, we get to argue all sorts of great ideas. It’s all really interesting.
x

There is plenty that people could say to convince me through various proofs that working on someone else’s brain, or doing anything to someone else’s brain has to do with my brain and by extension my consciousness, but the only way that I could understand the equation is to already believe that it is the case.

In other words, I have to already understand that there is a correlation between my consciousness and someone else’s brain that has to do with consciousness.

This hard problem that I am elaborating upon is no different than this authors post of the correlation between electrical activity in one’s brain, say, and consciousness itself.

I would also beg to differ in his use of the idea of “materialism”. For Sure I know what he’s talking about when he refers to materialism, but this materialism he refers to, and then also references it to a true Philosophy, (even as I tend to agree with his definition of philosophy) it’s just one type of materialism, and in fact, it is an “Old materialism”. That is, the “new materialism” is of a different sort.

However, in so much as the correlation pointed out by my hard problem of consciousness is no different than the correlation he makes note of between brain activity and consciousness itself, I would then have to point to that problem in which he is inherently involved with is in fact an “old” materialistic problem.

But I like his argument so far is one adheres to the old version of materialism. 

xxxxx

Repost: Mark Solms’ theory of consciousness

I recently finished Mark Solms’ new book, The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness. There were a few surprises in the book, and it…

Mark Solms’ theory of consciousness

—- I am posting this mostly because anything that has to do with proposals about consciousness I am interested in and I feel like other people are probably interested in them.

also because this is like a bookmark for ideas that I want to come back to. I don’t know if I ever will, but at least I have this bookmark. And this guy and his book in this post has a link to the website where it has a bunch of other interesting articles on the various aspects of consciousness and neuroscience.

One in particular that I’ll mention: subjectivity and objectivity is not the same as subjectivity and object oriented ontology.

At least so far as my work is concerned with orientation upon objects, and that I only use Graham Harmons object oriented ontology as a sort of backstop from which I can begin to talk about Orientation, The idea of the subject and the object, I argue, I am beginning to argue, is based in phenomenology.

In short, everything empirical is all good for the modern religion, Be at phenomenology, which is self is an argument about empiricism, I support for it, or empirical science.

so when I read about neurology and about consciousness having to do with the brain and everything, it is difficult for me to read these as authority. Because I see that they are relying heavily upon phenomenology as the basis of such neurology empirical science.

In my work I’m beginning to develop this in the context of truth as opposed to reality. And this is to say that, first we have to understand the opposition as a unity, as an assumed unity, before we begin to really be able to contemplate the truth of the matter.

Anyways… Enjoy!!! 

x

The Difficult Problem of Consciousness.

David Chalmers and Sean Carroll

David Chalmers and Sean Carroll
— Read on better-questions-than-answers.blog/2019/02/10/david-chalmers-and-sean-carroll/

WIKI has this about the Hard Problem.

I have a difficulty being tactful and respectful in how I address arguments, and what usually happens is that I don’t get heard because people get offended, I guess. Lol.

So. For a while I’ve heard of this “Hard Problem” Of Consciousness that Chalmers came up with, and I’ve always wondered about it. Specifically, I don’t think it’s very hard. I heard the term “the hard problem of consciousness” and I thought it was not what Chalmers is saying, I thought he was saying something else until I actually read about what he was talking about. And then it bothered me why he would be calling it the hard problem when it is just really a very difficult problem.

What I mean can be found when you read the wiki definition and then when you read his little interview I guess on the post I just reposted. He doesn’t mean that it’s a hard problem, he means that it’s a difficult problem.

When I heard the term “the hard problem” I thought it meant something that was actually hard, as in dense with substance. His hard problem is just a very difficult problem; it is not dense with substance, it is dense with we don’t know what it is right now but eventually we probably well.

And I don’t have a PhD and I haven’t written a bunch of books that everyone knows my name and so I’m kind of fighting uphill here.

The hard problem of consciousness is how it is that someone can operate on a brain and then I intuitively know that that must be the same situation with my brain. The hard problem of consciousness is that which has inpenetrable substance; like a cement wall. It is hard. The hard problem is why I think that something that is happening to someone else biologically, physiologically coordinates with what’s happening with me and consciousness.

There is a subtle difference here and I think the difference is is that Chalmers is assuming that consciousness works in the brain; he is a conventional philosopher. Rather he’s a philosopher that’s taking certain assumptions and casting them out onto all existence, with the only proof that it’s apparent. Of course, he is a scientist Of philosophy or something of that sort. His very difficult problem is really like a puzzle, like sudoku or something, really difficult problem to solve – but it will be solved eventually.

And I am not saying that there’s anything wrong with science, but what he’s posing as a philosophical question is really just a scientific question which poses an amount of difficulty. And this is to say that his hard question of consciousness is just a really difficult question to answer but indeed one day science will come up with how it is so.

But the actual hard problem is why I would think that that explanation that may happen in 10 years or 50 years or 500 years has anything to do with my conscious awareness of the situation as I am talking here into this phone about it. This is not a recourse to subjective experience; in the contrary, Chalmers’ pondering is based in subjectivity. Rather, my hard Problem confronts the nature of reality and thought (subjectivity) as opposed to letting it be given to the common assumption. It is a logistical question. Hard as in solid; not hard as in just inconvenient to a particular thought-world.

If we are to get anywhere, I’d say, at least we need to be less assertive about the commonality of ideas, and more precise and careful about what terms we use to talk about them.

The Field Of Consciousness.

“To say that “consciousness knows us” is to point to a actual ‘thing’ that is outside of knowledge. It appears to me that you are saying that knowledge knows about “things“ out there in the universe that exist separate from us (the knower/thinker) and knowledge is some sort of conduit through which this thing that is me (us-thinker) knows of that other thing that is this other thing.

And so it appears that you’re saying “consciousness “ is indeed a thing like these other things that knowledge knows, but it is a thing that is outside of knowledge’s ability to know as we, say, might know a chair or a rock.

I don’t think that there is anything that substantiates consciousness. To say “brain” or “body” derives the same contradiction.

The enigma in your formulation indicates what I call a particular “orientation upon objects”.

It is an enigma because of the original assumption, or beginning assumption that knowledge is a process as opposed to a physical thing, to use a term. That there is something in me that is receiving knowledge or storing knowledge and then there’s something out there that gives up knowledge about it self, or something of that sort.”

And so when we say “consciousness “it is an enigma to try to find ‘what it is’ because of the assumption involved when I say “is”. The assumption here, as I say, is that things exist in this necessary manner that is assumed. This assumption brings about the enigma like we are talking about. So you say “Consciousness knows us”, because your assumption is there has to be some “thing “that is originating the knowing of some sort, so to speak.

I doubt this. I upset this orientation. This originary-essentialism.

I do not think there is anything knowable that is doing any knowing. Knowing is that through which consciousness “becomes available”. Essence is a part of the whole. It is a field.”

–Cedric Nathaniel. PH.

Will Self’s trip into the Bardo

Will Self’s trip into the Bardo

Will Self’s trip into the Bardo
— Read on syntheticzero.net/2018/04/25/will-selfs-trip-into-the-bardo/

Excellent little venture into the alternity of alternation.

Further commentary:

Will Self is a pretty insightful guy. Got some great social commentary and questions.

What is mostly interesting to me is the psychotropic stuff he talks about.

One of the points he makes is that while the experiences can be quite provoking and intense, often bringing us to the point of insanity (from hindsight), it really means nothing.

He points out of Huxley and Watts and Leary is that when these guys came upon this stuff they immediately thought it was indicating some more significant reality, something more substantial. But also, that you have to pull out your intense and meditation bowls and set the scene and all and have transcendental experience — Like me, his point was that shouldn’t such drug experiences involve the world? I mean the world not set into any particular stage for the scene?

Self seems to have issue with the experience itself in a number a ways, but then basically tells us that it means nothing and that the experience itself is basically nothing in the whole scheme of universal existence.

How seasonably fashionable ! Whoa! Will; you mean you are saying that existence is based upon nothing. that we alone and alienated in the universe, having no availability to truth of it all?

Love you Will, but it sounds like you were a nihilistic punk rocker from the 70s and 80s. Oh wait; he says that of himself.

My point is that, no, it does not mean it all amounts to nothing and has no essential linking to anything outside of the bare experience of nonsense. My point is that IT IS ALL significant and links inseparably to everything that occurs in the universe. But not as an overdetermined “spirituality” or “universal consciousness”. Those are over-determined inspirational ideals manifested through the great God Reason, the church of which it sounds Will is a congregant, a particular denomination that poses itself as “not” that other incorrect stuff.

But of course, everyone has got to make a living. Even if they are unable to pull itself out of its own dogmatic sleep: It would seem the people he critiques as to the psychedelic experience where correct, even for Self’s appraisal. I wonder if he ever looked at it this way?

The question that is posed by the very appearance of Self is how might one behave in exactly a determined manner? It is not spiritual. And it is not ‘nothing’.

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Taxshila Teachers

Learning is knowledge transfer to brain known as learnography

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind. Beauty. Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

Lifesfinewhine

The Life & Ramblings Of A Zillennial

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts change your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia