[questor]

Since you are studied in science, expert in cellular function and have a special insight, I see nothing else I can offer. Good luck.

[Essay]

Questor,
Really I welcome your participation on Hypography and hope this thread at least, has been educational; and given you pause-for-thought. I hope you hang around; you're a great motivator.
...& I apologize in advance for this cheap shot....

Thoughts form involuntarily." -Questor
Well this explains a lot about your posts on this forum.
...ooops, sorry....
===

Hermes,
Thanks for pointing this out:
..."there is little chance that any biochemical process is involved in mental processes." -HTP

...although I would opt for the word "unique," rather than "involved;" thus...
...there is little chance that any biochemical process is unique to mental processes.
.
.
.
...meanwhile:
HTP,
I'm up to "Senses:"
I especially liked the vector concept: "This short, immediate "history" of Dasein is vital to provide a vector...."
& your comment on understanding the diagrams, "...but as a continuous and parallel flow of information."

Your post is an interesting read. It's incredibly ponderous, until you have a clear picture of the actors (definitions), and then suddenly it reads quickly. I guess that's just like all stories, eh?
It's also very helpful that I'd thought much about these ideas before reading your post.
I sometimes still find your sentences more meaningful if I replace Dasein with Homeostasis.

btw: I'm not getting your site very well; it cuts off the pictures (I only see the left hand inch of graphic and wide textblocks). Everything is the width of a newspaper column??? Is that my browser in need of updating?

also, regarding your good answers on the previous page:
I use homeostasis only as a metaphor for some computer/electronic characteristic that must (IMHO) be established before AI can emerge.

...but for biologicals, I think homeostasis is the critical factor driving Dasein (or am I not being metaphysical enough?).

~~

p.s. For an illustration of cognitive networks in action (and insight into their structure and relationships), see the works of:
Drew Weston, "The Political Brain"
Book TV - The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation
&
Steven Pinker, "Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature"
The Stuff of Thought 201554-1 : C-SPAN Video Library | Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.
...especially the section on profanity!

[HydrogenBond]

There are two ways to explore consciousness. One is from the outside, where we explain consciousness in terms of brain functions we can observe from the outside. It is the scientist looking at the brain to see what ticks for each task. The other way to explore is from the inside. For example, the ability to anticipate the future is something we can observe from the inside, since anyone can do this task. Being a common internal observation we include that as part of the explanation. Even if we knew nothing of the external biochemistry of the consciousness, which we really don't, this type of internal observation is still possible.

One thing about human consciousness, is it is conscious of being conscious. There is an extra degree of separation that animal consciousness may not have. For example, we drop a book on the floor and it makes a loud sound. Both animals and humans might jump and react to this noise. What the human can also do, is notice the inner details of the conscious response, like the heart beating faster, the muscles in the body tense, the imagination generating images in attempt to offer an explanation. This extra ability is the extra degree of separation that allows humans to be conscious of the conscious reaction an animal has. Using only external data, this subtle difference may not be obvious since we are not even sure where memory is located, yet the human can also access other aspects of memory, that appear to blend together within the external data. Internally one can see the difference.

This extra degree of detachment is ideal for collecting data from within. You can witness the reaction and stand outside it and see it in the second person to collect additional data that may be hard to differentiate with external observation. We can make observations internally that external science is not even close to seeing in any detail.

For example, picture an apple in your mind. Anyone can do this internally. External data would see this in the most nebulous way, maybe isolating the visualization to broad brain locations. Yet this giant paint brush is the data we will use, even if the tiny paint brush can tells us about the details that the big brush can't see. Yet this is often assumed to be useless data, simply because the big brush is not yet that functional.

[questor]

I would suggest that parties interested in this subject read this:
Biochemistry of Neurotransmitters
use Google to search for information on intracellular chemistry. This applies to ALL cells in the body.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Originally Posted by Essay

Questor,
Hermes,
Thanks for pointing this out:
..."there is little chance that any biochemical process is involved in mental processes." -HTP

...although I would opt for the word "unique," rather than "involved;" thus...
...there is little chance that any biochemical process is unique to mental processes.

Hehe I agree with you there Yes, what I said was not clear at all. And in relation to Questors link...

Originally Posted by questor

I would suggest that parties interested in this subject read this:
Biochemistry of Neurotransmitters
use Google to search for information on intracellular chemistry. This applies to ALL cells in the body.

This is good information, and I have long since forgotten all these details, perhaps it would do me good to learn again. But cellular biochemistry, right up the the actions of all the neurons in the brain, is just a computational system. So knowledge of the science may help in visualising this system in the first place, but is ultimately unnecessary since it could just as easily be represented by other abstractions; a flow chart or a computer program.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

There are two ways to explore consciousness. One is from the outside, where we explain consciousness in terms of brain functions we can observe from the outside. ......

This extra degree of detachment is ideal for collecting data from within. You can witness the reaction and stand outside it and see it in the second person to collect additional data that may be hard to differentiate with external observation. We can make observations internally that external science is not even close to seeing in any detail. .....

I agree with what you say here H-bond. I believe that through internal observation, to some extent coupled with external evidence and scientific awareness, a model of consciousness may be built. The only caveat being that for proof it should be experimentally tested.

.
...meanwhile:
HTP,
I'm up to "Senses:"
I especially liked the vector concept: "This short, immediate "history" of Dasein is vital to provide a vector...."
& your comment on understanding the diagrams, "...but as a continuous and parallel flow of information."

Your post is an interesting read. It's incredibly ponderous, until you have a clear picture of the actors (definitions), and then suddenly it reads quickly. I guess that's just like all stories, eh?
It's also very helpful that I'd thought much about these ideas before reading your post.

I am happy and thankful that you find it interesting and have taken the time to understand it! I guess it is a bit ponderous. It is hard for me to see that, having read everything many times and it being clear in my own mind. I believe it to be correct; but at the same time I doubt my own thinking, hence I think there may be some flawed premise or illogical leap in there somewhere.

I sometimes still find your sentences more meaningful if I replace Dasein with Homeostasis.

Hahaha. I sometimes have the same experience when reading books. As I said, the concept of homeostasis has not been in my mind at all regarding this matter, but I can see where you are coming from. Perhaps there need be more regulatory feedbacks? So far the model avoids biological correlates, but perhaps you are right and it needs something else along these lines...

btw: I'm not getting your site very well; it cuts off the pictures (I only see the left hand inch of graphic and wide textblocks). Everything is the width of a newspaper column??? Is that my browser in need of updating?

It's hosted on google sites.. It seemed fine in Firefox, and now I am using Chrome. What type/version browser are you using? Actually, google sites can be a bit confused at times.

also, regarding your good answers on the previous page:
I use homeostasis only as a metaphor for some computer/electronic characteristic that must (IMHO) be established before AI can emerge.

...but for biologicals, I think homeostasis is the critical factor driving Dasein (or am I not being metaphysical enough?).

~~

Maybe I follow you... you mean in a synthetic Dasein homeostasis is a foundation for sentience, but in a biological Dasein it is the driving force?

Maybe I don't follow... I don't think there is any functional difference between the biological and synthetic processes.

p.s. For an illustration of cognitive networks in action (and insight into their structure and relationships), see the works of:
Drew Weston, "The Political Brain"
Book TV - The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation
&
Steven Pinker, "Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature"
The Stuff of Thought 201554-1 : C-SPAN Video Library | Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.
...especially the section on profanity!

I have read some Steven Pinker before. Knowledge of other neural functions and their interrelations is certainly important for constructing a complete instance of Dasein (a mind). I guess that would be the next step. For now I really want to verify the logic of the core process.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by questor

This [biochemistry] applies to ALL cells in the body.

Again, I just can't resist:

Your point above is another illustration of how "thoughts" cannot depend intrinsically on intracellular biochemistry.
===

Thanks also HTP; more later....
~

[questor]

Since life itself depends upon biochemical reactions, how can one possibly say they have no connection to thought? Nothing in the body would exist
or have activity without biochemistry, no thoughts, no life, no nothing.. Before discussing a subject, it behooves one to LEARN about the subject, to learn what science already has discovered about the subject. This information is readily available on the internet.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Originally Posted by questor

Since life itself depends upon biochemical reactions, how can one possibly say they have no connection to thought? Nothing in the body would exist
or have activity without biochemistry, no thoughts, no life, no nothing.. Before discussing a subject, it behooves one to LEARN about the subject, to learn what science already has discovered about the subject. This information is readily available on the internet.

Yes of course there is a connection, but I argued that there is not the immediate or direct connection you have been implying. There would also be no consciousness without the elements, protons, electrons etc.. At some point you have to recognise what is relevant to the task at hand, and what is just going to bog you down.

The neuro-biochemistry you cited before in a link is good stuff, and at some level it is important to this line of study. But only at the foundation, and it is possible to generalise the action of all that biochemistry by likening neurons to transistors/a computational procedure. Scientists do this all the time (create generalised models that is) because it lets you make conceptual progress rather than trying to beat out a trillion chemical reactions in your head Providing the model is sufficiently accurate in its representation, its as good as "reality".

Also, not everything can be learned from the net (yet), and not everyone learned what they know from it either

[questor]

The neuro-biochemistry you cited before in a link is good stuff, and at some level it is important to this line of study. But only at the foundation, and it is possible to generalise the action of all that biochemistry by likening neurons to transistors/a computational procedure.

Do I understand that you wish to build a computer to synthesize the act of thought without understanding the particulate and biochemical basis of thought?

[Essay]

Originally Posted by questor

... Nothing in the body would exist
or have activity without biochemistry, no thoughts, no life, no nothing....

Right, ...what Hermes said; and I'd just like to add:

Questor,
The semantic key here, and in the analogy below,
is the idea of "intrinsic or unique."

Since "the biochemistry" applies to ALL neurons cells, there can be nothing intrinsic or unique to the biochemistry that generates thoughts;

...just as the intrinsic, unique properties of electronics (resistors, capacitors, coils, transistors, etc.) do not lead to computations.

bbl ...off to lunch.
~

p.s. BSc in Chemistry w/ Minor in Biochem.(pre-med) + some post-grad. studies
...and that was before there was an internet! ~sorry....