5 Answers

  1. I'm sorry Artyom, but you put the question in such a “form” that the answer to it is essentially impossible (only a “formal” one is possible, that is, about what you can not think in a substantive way, because you can always think abstractly = invent answers). I'm not good at it, I'm sorry.

    Therefore, I will try to answer not by the “form”, but by the essence of the question.

    Understanding is realized on the part of subjects endowed with reason (the ability to meaningfully “realize” something). Nothing else has even “glimpses” of understanding yet. Of course, it is impossible to deny the possibility of realizing “understanding” by inanimate matter on this basis, but so far this is from the realm of science fiction (and not scientific).

    But I can tell you for sure that “neurobiology” does not and cannot have any” understanding ” (only neuroscientists can have it, and most likely it is therefore “different”).

    Thus, the first question (which you should solve for yourself clearly and in detail) is “What is understanding and what is it eaten with?”

    The brain is undoubtedly a “material object” in which a wide variety of biochemical processes take place.both hormonal) and bioelectric processes are quite well studied now (but this does not mean that they are the very “processes of consciousness”, but often this is how “it is considered” for some reason). However, the” dead “brain does not support the vast majority of processes from the word “at all” (in a “coma” state, the brain seems to be “alive” and “healthy”, but it refuses to work like a computer that has “erased” the BIOS and OS, which seems to hint that something similar to these “things” and “starts life in the brain” and this “something” is quite possibly of an “immaterial nature”). Therefore, the question of “intelligent brain activity” rests on another question – about the phenomenon of life as such.

    What is “life” (what “revives” dead matter, even “biological”) is unknown to modern science (there are a lot of hypotheses, including “generally accepted” ones, but none of them has yet been confirmed by any experiment, despite constant attempts).

    “Consciousness “is not a term of “neuroscience” and certainly not of “natural science”; it comes from the “humanities” (primarily philosophy and psychology). The main reason is that this term is “mixed” (porridge made from different things) and is not clearly defined (each “scientific school” has its own definition, and as a rule “open” = incomplete). It is unlikely that you (or anyone else) are able to clearly and objectively describe ” What is consciousness?”. Therefore, I propose to “go down” to the level “below” – to a whole range of different and more specific processes (from “self-consciousness”= ” I “to elementary information processing processes that have long been implemented in “computers”). When you decide, you will be able to consider this (already clearly and in detail).

    Roughly the answer is this:

    • For many processes that are now often included in the concept of “consciousness”, there is a very clear technical understanding of how they are implemented on” silicon chips “and even on” gears “in adding machines or” tic-tac-toe on a checkered sheet ” (and a lot of their various practical implementations). But “neuroscientists” do not yet clearly understand “how they are implemented in the brain “(although there are a lot of”working hypotheses”). But none of the hypotheses is clearly confirmed.
    • For other processes (which are directly related to semantic information)./in the “technical” field, there is not the slightest understanding and understanding of “how to implement them” (there are only conjuring simulations of these processes, such as the same” Alice ” and of course a lot of opinions, how without them?). Neuroscientists seem to be doing better, or rather exactly the same as with the previous group (there are a lot of different hypotheses about “how this can be implemented in the brain”, but there is not a single verifiably confirmed one).
    • What is ” self-awareness “(“I”) and why it is needed is only a guess (and of course a lot of different opinions). But so far there is nothing definite, alas, that would be worth mentioning here.
  2. Modern neuro-sciences have more questions than answers.

    Look at the lectures of George Lakoff, this is an American linguist true, but he talks about this too

  3. Take an interest in the subject “neurosophy”. If you are interested in a technical question. And if you are interested, in fact, in the mind and its interaction with the body, then study the subject “dianetics”.

  4. The article by Sergin and Ivanitsky describes the brain as a mathematical model of an electronic machine operating at a known clock frequency, despite the fact that the method of signal transmission in synaptic contacts is electrochemical, the signal is encoded by concentrations of mediators. What did the measurement of electrical potentials give them other than speculative conclusions? Further, the authors of the article confirm the possibility of hypnosis without any explanation. Where are these hypnotists and the results of their activities? It is completely absurd to turn to philosophy, you want to give an example of a bunch of speculative conclusions.

    Consciousness as the perception of surrounding images and other sensations is a product of brain activity, and not a third-party object. The inputs of sensory systems transmit signals to the areas of associative and instinctive regulation, so in combination with the acquired experience, a picture of reality is formed. An infinite number of combinations of neurochemical signals combined with the physical restructuring of the brain structure give us the ability to create new things.

    Recently, the proceedings of the Brain Institute were published on the page of the Laboratory for the Development of the Nervous System.

  5. I'm sure Sergin and Ivanitsky came closest. In their similar concepts, consciousness and sensation arise as a result of “auto-identification” or “information synthesis”: excitation, for example, of the optic nerve spreads through the brain in a ring-like manner. As a result, the signal does not just cause a reaction (then the whole psyche would break up into these single stimulus-response acts), but is synthesized with memory data.

    In philosophy, Dubrovsky develops similar ideas, in particular, he has an interesting correspondence with Chalmers on the “difficult problem of consciousness”.

Leave a Reply