How are scintific theories produced?

[effie]

Fair enough. I hope I've made myself clear that I don't think its just a CNS either.
The best you've explained to my understanding is that you think mind is some kind of 'electrical' effect? Which you measure using some kind of scanner with, probably, some kind of computer interface to represent the results of the scan? I still don't understand if you think this 'thing' can live outside a body but I suppose I'll wait for your book to make it to the 'stands'. Hope I've helped in some way.

Arising,

magnetic foci have been traced around all human organs (and brain, of course). Scientists today use these static magnetic fields (magnetic foci) as indicators of disorders (stomach, heart etc). Abnormal magnetic field levels show that a disorder already has appeared or will soon appear. E.g. people who had suffered severe head trauma and organically had recovered fully,were having mental problems. However, their electroenchephalograms (EEG) and their biochemical reactions were absolutely normal. The only abnormality was at the level of their magnetoenchephalogram (MEG).

How is it possible that biochemical and hormone levels are absolutely normal, when the patient has obvious mental problems? Why dont biochemical factors indicate these problems? Why are only the magnetic fields the most reliable index?

Later I will post you some of the titles of the papers that support my version, maybe you could study them and we coud discuss about them.

Those fields are measured with a device called SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQUID). Scientists have measured human magnetic fields in various states of consciousness (various stages of sleep, depression, psychosis, alertness, etc) and have managed to determine which is the normal magnetic activity for each state. Based on those results, they have succeeded in foretelling e.g. epileptic seizures which couldn't be predicted by biochemical or electric activity.

And no, I don't claim that these fields can exist outside the body. they are part of the body, if we don't arbitrarily define body as the material entity.In other words,from my point of view body is a complex entity, composed by matter and fields. Consequently, fields are part of the body.

Indeed, you have helped me a lot. First of all I have been making lots of practice in English and hopefully my English has improved Moreover, I love discussing with you guys. The reason I entered this forum was to discuss those ideas and see how they are received and I am really glad that you spend time on them

Effie

[effie]

Mr Butlin,

I will reply more analytically to your post later. For now, I will only refer you to a paper related to cells' altruism. Amoebas (monocellular organisms), when they starve, form a multicellular worm and start migrating. When they fail again to find food they sacrifice themselves in order to save their kind. That demands some level of consciousness, don't you think? They may not "have appreciation for Socrates", but neither do I

When I find the relevant papers I will post you their titles and, if you are interested, you could read them and see with your own eyes their incredible behaviour.

Thank you very much for your kind and elaborate reply and I will try to be equal to the occasion

Effie

ps You were right, I used the word "conscience" instead of the word "consciousness".

[effie]

Bondi, what can I say? Thank you for your support and kindness. Thank you.

[Arising_uk]

Thanks effie(as I missed the SQUID ref earlier ),
You have helped me understand where a 'philosopher' may help you.

Arising,
magnetic foci have been traced around all human organs (and brain, of course). Scientists today use these static magnetic fields (magnetic foci) as indicators of disorders (stomach, heart etc). Abnormal magnetic field levels show that a disorder already has appeared or will soon appear. E.g. people who had suffered severe head trauma and organically had recovered fully,were having mental problems. However, their electroenchephalograms (EEG) and their biochemical reactions were absolutely normal. The only abnormality was at the level of their magnetoenchephalogram (MEG).

How is it possible that biochemical and hormone levels are absolutely normal, when the patient has obvious mental problems? Why dont biochemical factors indicate these problems? Why are only the magnetic fields the most reliable index?

Okay,
The explanation of why the MEG 'sees' what the EEG does not is probably down to resolution. Both are measuring 'field' effects that are produced when the 'neural' network is doing its bio-chemical-electrical processes. We know that bio-chemistry can produce 'electrical' effects, e.g. photoluminescence. The MEG works because any 'electrical' current 'flowing' produces a magnetic field at 90 degress to the flow and some smart bod realised that we could use new technologies to 'map' this obvious effect. So the Wiki said it takes 50,000 neurons to produce this 'loci' that you are noticing but all you are noticing is an effect produced by neural processing.

I think I understand why this 'magnetic loci' is attractive to Psychiatrists as your basic truth is that all 'mental' disorders are physical so you cannot believe that any 'brain state' could not involve other physical states but I thought this was why Psychology was created? Why can it not be the case that certain 'mental' disorders are purely a function of the CNS?

And no, I don't claim that these fields can exist outside the body. they are part of the body, if we don't arbitrarily define body as the material entity.In other words,from my point of view body is a complex entity, composed by matter and fields. Consequently, fields are part of the body.

My take is that you have problems within your field and you are 'looking outside' to find the solutions to the contradiction that your basic truth causes you with respect to the evidence and results. I have no doubt that what you are pointing to will assist the profession of Psychiatry in prolonging its existence and that many with physical mental problems will be helped by this research but think that with respect to Philosophy of Mind that it is a flawed model of Mind.

Indeed, you have helped me a lot. First of all I have been making lots of practice in English and hopefully my English has improved Moreover, I love discussing with you guys. The reason I entered this forum was to discuss those ideas and see how they are received and I am really glad that you spend time on them
Effie

My pleasure as its rare to have such fun across disciplines.
a_uk

[effie]

Why can it not be the case that certain 'mental' disorders are purely a function of the CNS?

Because in MANY cases patients have mental disorders without any CNS or other physical disorder.
Here are some of the papers I talked to you about:

Cohen, D., Palti, Y., Cuffin, N. and Schmid, S.J. (1980) Magnetic field produced by steady currents in the body, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 77: 1447- 1451.

Okada, Y.C. and Nicholson, C. (1988) Magnetic evoked field associated with transcortial currents in turtle cerebellum, Biophysical society, 53: 723-731.

Lopez, L., Chan, C.Y., Okada, Y.C. and Nicholson, C. (1991) Multimodal characterization of population responses evoked by applied electric field in vitro: Extracellular potential, magnetic evoked field, Transmembrane potential, and current- source density analysis, The journal of neuroscience, 11: 1998- 2010.

Liboff, A.R., Williams, T. Jr, Strong, D.M. and Wistar, R. Jr. (1984) Time- varying magnetic fields: Effect on D.N.A. synthesis, Science, 223: 818-819.

D. Stoffers, J. L. W. Bosboom, J. B. Deijen, E. C. Wolters, H. W. Berendse, and C. J. Stam (2007) Slowing of oscillatory brain activity is a stable characteristic of Parkinson's disease without dementia, Brain, 130: 1847 - 1860

I am really pissed off, because I cannot find the most important article. I cannot remember if I had it in a printed version or in my computer. I have thousands of papers and it's the first time I cannot find the one I want I'll search again tomorrow and post the title then.

My take is that you have problems within your field and you are 'looking outside' to find the solutions to the contradiction that your basic truth causes you with respect to the evidence and results. I have no doubt that what you are pointing to will assist the profession of Psychiatry in prolonging its existence and that many with physical mental problems will be helped by this research but think that with respect to Philosophy of Mind that it is a flawed model of Mind.

Firstly, the ideas are not mine. I wish I had come up with them, but I just "ruminate" them
Second, I think that philosophy of mind does not care for the identity of mind, as it only explores its functions, as psychology mostly studies behaviour and not mind as a physical entity.

My pleasure as its rare to have such fun across disciplines.

I hope that you mean you enjoy discussing with me and not that you laugh at me

[effie]

Mr Butlin,

Here's the article I talked to you about. I find it extremely interesting.

Bonner J.T. (1963) How slime mold communicate, Scientific Amer., 209: 84-93.

Effie

[Arising_uk]

Because in MANY cases patients have mental disorders without any CNS or other physical disorder.

You mean no disorder that we can currently detect? What kind of 'mental disorders' that have no apparent physical disorder are you thinking about?
As the way I view things, I could have some 'mental disorders' as the 'mind' 'sending' confusing 'signals' 'through' the CNS. Or even 'confused' 'loops' within the CNS.

Here are some of the papers I talked to you about:

Thanks for your time but unfortunately its been a long time since I've had easy access to the academic journal system. But I see what I can access.
Thoughts:

Cohen, D., Palti, Y., Cuffin, N. and Schmid, S.J. (1980) Magnetic field produced by steady currents in the body, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 77: 1447- 1451.
Okada, Y.C. and Nicholson, C. (1988) Magnetic evoked field associated with transcortial currents in turtle cerebellum, Biophysical society, 53: 723-731.

These two appear to be about the results from mag-scanning experiments. The first appears to say that they can find steady magnetic 'currents' across the whole body. The second appears much more specific and identifies what I assume is a region of the 'brain' but notices some kinds of 'transfer or 'cross' currents' occuring?

Lopez, L., Chan, C.Y., Okada, Y.C. and Nicholson, C. (1991) Multimodal characterization of population responses evoked by applied electric field in vitro: Extracellular potential, magnetic evoked field, Transmembrane potential, and current- source density analysis, The journal of neuroscience, 11: 1998- 2010.
Liboff, A.R., Williams, T. Jr, Strong, D.M. and Wistar, R. Jr. (1984) Time- varying magnetic fields: Effect on D.N.A. synthesis, Science, 223: 818-819.

Phew!
'Multimodal', no idea? 'Multiple modalities'?
But I have the idea that they are electrocuting cell populations to see what happens? And whats happened is "Extracellular potential", which I'm guessing is an 'electrical current' effect because you cannot have a "magnetic evoked field" unless you have one of those. "Transmembrane potential"("Extracellular potential"?) appears to be saying that this is where the 'electric current' is being generated, with the latest figures and analysis?

D. Stoffers, J. L. W. Bosboom, J. B. Deijen, E. C. Wolters, H. W. Berendse, and C. J. Stam (2007) Slowing of oscillatory brain activity is a stable characteristic of Parkinson's disease without dementia, Brain, 130: 1847 - 1860

Very different use of MEG. Psychiatry has found a constant amongst a subset, superset? of those with Parkinson's disease. Its a slowing in the patterns of the magnectic fields generated by the bio-electric 'current' generated by the chemical interactions going on in the CNS?

I am really pissed off, because I cannot find the most important article. I cannot remember if I had it in a printed version or in my computer. I have thousands of papers and it's the first time I cannot find the one I want I'll search again tomorrow and post the title then.

What is it in these papers that interests you effie?

Firstly, the ideas are not mine. I wish I had come up with them, but I just "ruminate" them

Fair enough, I'd not say mine were unique either.

Second, I think that philosophy of mind does not care for the identity of mind, as it only explores its functions, as psychology mostly studies behaviour and not mind as a physical entity.

I'd have a problem with a definition of Phil of Mind that did not include identity. What do you mean by "only explores its functions"?
I understand Psychology to be those who study the problems that the Psychiatrists can't understand, e.g. "Because in MANY cases patients have mental disorders without any CNS or other physical disorder"?

What do you mean by "and not mind as a physical entity"? From my view I know what mind is as a physical entity, its this body. Does that mean I don't think that there is a 'ghost in the machine'? No, but its being run in the CNS. As the above papers appear to prove?

I hope that you mean you enjoy discussing with me and not that you laugh at me

Your English is now good enough to know the truth about this.
a_uk

[effie]

You mean no disorder that we can currently detect? What kind of 'mental disorders' that have no apparent physical disorder are you thinking about?

Psychosis, amnesia, epilepsy, etc. In many cases patients have those mental disorders but have no physiological (CNS) damage.

These two appear to be about the results from mag-scanning experiments. The first appears to say that they can find steady magnetic 'currents' across the whole body. The second appears much more specific and identifies what I assume is a region of the 'brain' but notices some kinds of 'transfer or 'cross' currents' occuring?

Something like this

Phew!
'Multimodal', no idea? 'Multiple modalities'?
But I have the idea that they are electrocuting cell populations to see what happens? And whats happened is "Extracellular potential", which I'm guessing is an 'electrical current' effect because you cannot have a "magnetic evoked field" unless you have one of those. "Transmembrane potential"("Extracellular potential"?) appears to be saying that this is where the 'electric current' is being generated, with the latest figures and analysis?

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think that we can discuss about papers you haven't read. You know how hard it is for me to present my thoughts, so there may be some misunderstandings. I guess that at least paper abstracts can give you the general idea, but we cannot discuss just based on the title

What is it in these papers that interests you effie?

I could give you an extended explanation regarding my interest in those papers, but I don't have the courage. Right now, I feel that "I am filled up with science" and I honestly cannot pay the desirable attention neither to your posts nor to my tasks. Forgive me

I'd have a problem with a definition of Phil of Mind that did not include identity. What do you mean by "only explores its functions"?
I understand Psychology to be those who study the problems that the Psychiatrists can't understand, e.g. "Because in MANY cases patients have mental disorders without any CNS or other physical disorder"?

I meant that psychology and philosopy of mind only study how mind functions and which are its impacts on our behaviour. Neither of them studies the identity of mind, i.e. how we perform intellectual faculties, where is memory stored, etc This task "has been assigned" to neurophysiology. In other words, psychologists in general do not care which mind is, if it is the CNS or the brain or something else. They just study its disorders and then try to fix them. But how on earth are we going to fix something that we don't know???????

The situation is f&%^@# up. Would a plummer try to fix a water closet without knowng exactly what it is and how it functions? Psychologist don't hesitate to try to repair mind, without having the slightest idea regarding which part of it "has broken", they just shoot blindfolded. It's frustrating, really. But you ought to have had clinical experience in order to appreciate the true dimensions of the situation. It's really exasperating. The most impressive and sad fact is that they DON'T CARE to discover mind, they are just happy with how things are...OMG!!!!!!!!!


Anyway, I will have to close the subject, at least for now. I'll try to come back with a more "philosophical" issue (I have plenty of them, but right now I lack the appetite), and I truly hope that you will want to participate in that one, too. You are very kind and patient, so thank you very much for our discussions and I'm sorry for the retreat.

[Arising_uk]

Fair enough effie,
For myself if the title of a scientific paper doesn't pretty much explain whats going to go on inside then its not a scientific paper.

I agree that Psychology has got itself in a muddle but think its due to them trying to apply their theory of mind rather than have a theory about communication and then 'listen' to their patients.

From your words apparently the 'battle' between Psychology and Psychiatry is still going on? And it looks like the Psychiatrists are sticking to their guns and placing themselves firmly in the 'physical' camp but are still stuck with Cartesian Dualism with respect to Body and Mind? Hence they are looking for the 'next' incarnation of where they think Mind 'is'. Apparently its now in 'magnetic loci' which, to me, means 'we' can look forward to being bombarded by strong electro-magnectic sources in the near future. As in many institutions around the world they are still cutting, electrocuting and chemically 'coshing' 'us' based upon their last interpretations. I agree that the MEG could be a useful diagnostic tool but to then assume that this is where mind 'is', is to my mind to misunderstand the physics behind the tools they are using, and to be woefully ignorant of the computational aspects of 'neural nets'.

You say that the role of identifying the mind has fallen to neurophysiology but I think this is only in the field of Psychiatry as elsewhere Neuroscience is a multi cross-discipline field.

Thanks for the chat and the thoughts. I look forward to any others and wish you a quick return to optimal mental functioning

a_uk

[effie]

From your words apparently the 'battle' between Psychology and Psychiatry is still going on?

Lol, no. the batle between me and psychology and between me and psychiatry is still going on I think that both those disciplines cannot solve their issues. Too many years have passed and consequently radical changes must take place. And by "radical changes" I just imply a paradigm shift/change of basic truth, not a revolution or something .

I agree that the MEG could be a useful diagnostic tool but to then assume that this is where mind 'is', is to my mind to misunderstand the physics behind the tools they are using, and to be woefully ignorant of the computational aspects of 'neural nets'.

I don't ignore the role of neural nets. Clearly CNS in general plays a major role, denying it would be an extremely foolish thing to do. CNS is not mind, though, and that will be proved in the following years. I promise you that.

Thanks for your attention and good words and I will try to pull myself together soon

[Arising_uk]

Hi effie,

CNS is not mind, though, and that will be proved in the following years. I promise you that.

I look forward to it. As I say I don't think 'mind' is just CNS either.

And for a nice touch of synchronicity I read reviews on these books in the New Scientist today.

Supersizing the Mind:Embodiment, action and cognitive extension.
Andy Clark OUP ISBN:9780195333213

Out of Ours Heads:Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. Alva Noe, Farrar, Straus and Giroux
ISBN: 9780809074655

Looks like we're on topic at least
a_uk

[effie]

Thanks for the references, arising You have become my teacher, you provide me with homework Since your past references have been very useful, I'll pay attention to these ones, too. Thanks again

[Arising_uk]

Thanks for the references, arising You have become my teacher, you provide me with homework Since your past references have been very useful, I'll pay attention to these ones, too. Thanks again

My pleasure effie.

No more than you are too me.

a_uk

p.s. the ' 'Greek' Islands ' won me over long-ago. Nothing so Blue and White(but mainly "Blue" ) could not produce clarity of thought.

[effie]

Yes, Greek islands are extraordinary, they provide plenty food for thought I was born and raised in the greatest Greek Island (Crete), but I don;t leave there anymore Maybe that's why my thoughts are too foggy and my mind so confused right now

[bus2bondi]

Lol, no. the batle between me and psychology and between me and psychiatry is still going on I think that both those disciplines cannot solve their issues. Too many years have passed and consequently radical changes must take place. And by "radical changes" I just imply a paradigm shift/change of basic truth, not a revolution or something .

not a revolution!?? yes it is. Revolution simply means change. It can take whatever form, but i think your revolution should be taken in a large measure.

In the philosophical counceling section of the forum, there are some threads in the rhealm of psycology.

You are like a living breathing answer to alot of what was brought up within those threads. Someday the entire psychological establishment will be revolutionized. You are one of those people allready doing that, by the type of person you are, the questions you ask, and the theories you challenge and present.

Brains are amazing things. I love to think about my own brain. Last night i was posing all sorts of different hypothesis about it. You'd laugh hard at some of them but essentially, which one is correct?