Neurobiology and the Tetragrammation

Frater 639

Antonio Damasio (born February 25, 1944 in Lisbon, Portugal) is a University Professor (an award based on multi-disciplinary interests and significant accomplishments in several disciplines) and David Dornsife Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Southern California, where he heads USC's Brain and Creativity Institute. Prior to taking up his posts at USC, in 2005, Damasio was M.W. Van Allen Professor and Head of Neurology at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics from 1976 to 2005. He is also Adjunct Professor at the Salk Institute.

Any practicing magician will find a lot of useful information on the link below. ** I recommend his books.**

His ideas on our genetic blueprint, how emotions and feelings interface, our corresponding analysis, and how they are perceived materially, can be understood from a standpoint that our biochemistry and subsequent perspectives can be directed by will, as magick and mysticism aims to put into practice. It is also a very eloquent and modern take on the Formula of the Tetragrammation, if we choose to view it that way.

Enjoy!

I'd love to hear some feedback on some of the topics. I think it would make for some great discussion.

I love the comment on the link called "How Our Brains Feel Emotion" -- the guy's screename leaving one of the comments on that topic is Johnwaugh93.

**(http://bigthink.com/antoniodamasio)

oldfriend56

@Frater 639 said

Any practicing magician will find a lot of useful information on the link below. ** I recommend his books.**

His ideas on our genetic blueprint, how emotions and feelings interface, our corresponding analysis, and how they are perceived materially, can be understood from a standpoint that our biochemistry and subsequent perspectives can be directed by will, as magick and mysticism aims to put into practice. It is also a very eloquent and modern take on the Formula of the Tetragrammation, if we choose to view it that way.

"

Hey thanks for this! He is quite a materialist however, I find his definition of consciousness quite limiting and believe he is defining consciousness solely as what you would refer to as 'rauch' consciousness. To me he is saying that mind is consciousness and consciousness is mind. Am I misunderstanding him?

I'm not so sure consciousness is just mind. thoughts?

Frater 639

@ldfriend56 said

Yes. He doesn't look at the mind vs. body "problem" as a dichotomy -- most doctors that are bridging the gap between neuroscience and psychology don't make that error anymore -- which is directly related to approaching the consciousness question in a less reductionary way.

He's very much a scientist correlating consciousness to the materialist's world i.e. in the language of SCIENCE via modern technology and research. But he's more of a fallibist -- he KNOWS that we CAN'T MEASURE many things because of LIMITED technology -- and he doesn't pretend that the materialist's model has all the answers at this point. When you read him, you'll see that very clearly.

What do you think about the mind and body? Is this something that you believe to be separate?

Try this book:

www.amazon.com/Self-Comes-Mind-Constructing-Conscious/dp/0307378756

@ldfriend56 said

No, consciousness isn't easily reduced to anything. There are different forms of consciousness. There are also different states in which the mind operates. It would be irresponsible to say "it is just mind". Do you think it accurate to reduce consciousness to any one way of describing perception?

Language is just SO LIMITED when it comes to describing qualitative values...

oldfriend56

@Frater 639 said

No, consciousness isn't easily reduced to anything. There are different forms of consciousness. There are also different states in which the mind operates. It would be irresponsible to say "it is just mind". Do you think it accurate to reduce consciousness to any one way of describing perception?

Language is just SO LIMITED when it comes to describing qualitative values... "
"

Well it appears he is reducing consciousness to the brain and defines consciousness as the ability to determine that one exists, rational or intellectual consciousness. Personally i believe the mind and the body are distinguishable, but that does not mean necessarily that they are separate.

Currently, the model of the mind that makes the most sense to me is the 'extended' mind. Minds are 'fields' and are not local. "the khabs is in the khu, not the khu in the khabs"

Frater 639

@ldfriend56 said

I can see how that conclusion could be jumped to from the few short clips that were shown. Again, he is attempting to look at the brain and consciousness through the lens of science. I believe it is important to check results with the scientific method -- the earth wasn't flat after all.

@ldfriend56 said

Interesting. I think, if we're going to make the leap to speculation, we can definitely look at it as a field and a point. People have been comparing the mind to the quantum model for a long time. I think that there is definitely some value to look at memes from a field information theory POV -- using (say) the EM field consciousness model and whatnot.

Some of my own experiments involve working with this model; however, we're a long way from published quantitative evidence from a clinical research facility.

Why do you think this theory holds weight? Is it based on empirical evidence? If so, what evidence do you find convincing and why?

oldfriend56

@Frater 639 said

of course - the scientific method - however when it comes to consciousness, science tends to base consciousness on an assumption that the mind is the brain. so philosophy comes in at that point. Fair point though, I did just listen to a few of his videos and have not reviewed his full work

Some of my own experiments involve working with this model; however, we're a long way from published quantitative evidence from a clinical research facility."

Oh I agree, we are quite a long way from any scientific consensus or even scientific evidence. Although Rupert Sheldrake does quite a good job of presenting his argument, and to be honest when he delivers his argument I find myself not being able to argue with him much. This is a great talk! www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

Why do you think this theory holds weight? Is it based on empirical evidence? If so, what evidence do you find convincing and why?"

First it does align with my own personal experience as well as (soft) research in these areas (for example, studying liber AL and other systems of ordering) and at the end of the day, I find the arguments and the evidence Rupert Sheldrake presents unsurmountable.

Frater 639

Happy Mercury Day!

@ldfriend56 said

Agreed. Except I would say "the majority of the scientific community" instead of "science" -- science is the unbiased measurement of data/probability against a hypothesis and a subsequent experiment. I think the assumption that "mind" is the brain, is really difficult to tease apart -- the word "mind", to me, is a symbol that means many different things depending on the plane of approach.

Let's just split into four for the topic's sake -

Splitting it into four -- mind can mean genetic predisposition and its direct influence on behavior, analysis, and emotion (and with epigenetics we are proving that we evolve as we live, as our DNA flourishes and behaves differently depending on the environment, neuroplasticity, etc.), it can mean emotional/feeling disposition (adrenal system, the amygdala, basal ganglia, etc.) -- the bodily "feeling", which is seperate from the "reaction", it can mean analysis, thought, including group thought (observation and subsequent conclusions based on previous conclusions, also biases and conditioned responses), and it could also mean the physical or "brain" (in the materialist sense), which of course is a soupy mixture of all three.

I think the mind **is **the "brain" from one approach. I think the term "mind" is rather sloppy, sort of like how people threw around the word apoplexy when describing death. What do you think about the term "mind"?

@ldfriend56 said

Let me say that I understand his work and I agree (from a certain POV) with some of the conclusions that he draws. His work on morphogenetic fields was what I was alluding to earlier with field information theory -- it is a convenient model for many things magick. He's also bridging the idea of epigenetics when it comes to these "fields" interacting with our DNA blueprints -- this is starting to be proven in the "hard" scientific community, giving popularity again to the idea of soft inheritance that Lamarck (and Bergson) both argued for -- which almost seemed to be killed by strict Darwinists at one point...

However, he is mired in academia -- which means he spends more time apologizing about his theories to the "harder" scientists, to try to win them over. Which is admirable. Same goes for Damasio, who shares MANY of the same theories that Sheldrake does. He just doesn't say it as loud.

Philosophy and magick both have their place in our understanding as we move forward -- they more or less contribute to the "science of inductive reasoning" using factors of probability, experience, intuition, etc. -- which paves the way for the "hard" experiments...would you agree?

Can you elaborate on "your personal experience" and your study of systems of ordering? Would you consider yourself a structuralist? Are you interested in religion to practice it or just to observe for an intellectual apprehension?

oldfriend56

@Frater 639 said

yes - thank you I should have marked my words a bit clearer, and specifically it "materialism" which appears to be the dominant operating paradigm in academic culture.

I think the assumption that "mind" is the brain, is really difficult to tease apart -- the word "mind", to me, is a symbol that means many different things depending on the plane of approach. "

interesting I look forward to reading this

Let's just split into four for the topic's sake -

Splitting it into four -- mind can mean genetic predisposition and its direct influence on behavior, analysis, and emotion (and with epigenetics we are proving that we evolve as we live, as our DNA flourishes and behaves differently depending on the environment, neuroplasticity, etc.), it can mean emotional/feeling disposition (adrenal system, the amygdala, basal ganglia, etc.) -- the bodily "feeling", which is seperate from the "reaction", it can mean analysis, thought, including group thought (observation and subsequent conclusions based on previous conclusions, also biases and conditioned responses), and it could also mean the physical or "brain" (in the materialist sense), which of course is a soupy mixture of all three. "

Sure, I can see how the mind is a construct of not just brain functions but bodily functions. The whole system creating an input/output feedback loop - That is a pure materialistic construct of the the mind/body conundrum. It's still assuming the the body/brain is the source, rather than just the content of mind.

I think the mind **is **the "brain" from one approach. I think the term "mind" is rather sloppy, sort of like how people threw around the word apoplexy when describing death. What do you think about the term "mind"?"

I think mind is a word that can be most commonly understood for the portion of our faculties that we perceive, grade, evaluate our shared environment with. In everyday language it is a 'thinking' tool that reflects our experience. I do not believe that the experience itself, the 'rawness' of being (which in your model grounds itself in everyday experience as "it can mean emotional/feeling disposition (adrenal system, the amygdala, basal ganglia, etc.) -- the bodily "feeling", which is seperate from the "reaction") is the mind however.

oh excellent - this should mark another interesting discussion between us

However, he is mired in academia -- which means he spends more time apologizing about his theories to the "harder" scientists, to try to win them over. Which is admirable. Same goes for Damasio, who shares MANY of the same theories that Sheldrake does. He just doesn't say it as loud. "

Ah - well we have two different POV's here entirely. I think Rupert Sheldrake is more valuable making those arguments direct to the heart of academica than anything else. He is the only one who takes it head on in quite an articulate manner. I think that is important because I also understand mind to mean something potentially quite collective in nature. You mentioned minds could be modeled like a 'point and a field', whereas I would closer come to describe it as a 'field of points'. Rupert is quite aware of the role his argument is having in our 'collective mind' or 'field of points', which i believe has a very clear dialectical property that is measurable. Rupert is, in my mind, quite a champion in the conflict of idea collectively that has far more import on society than most are aware of. In this sense I believe he acts more like a philosopher than a scientist.

Philosophy and magick both have their place in our understanding as we move forward -- they more or less contribute to the "science of inductive reasoning" using factors of probability, experience, intuition, etc. -- which paves the way for the "hard" experiments...would you agree?"

yes, quite a contribution indeed, we agree here

Can you elaborate on "your personal experience" and your study of systems of ordering? "

ha! in hind site after I wrote that, I realized 'systems of ordering' was quite a dry way to express my meaning.

Well my personal experiences range from the everyday, to the personally adventurous, to the ecstatically artistic, to the deeply mystical, to the intellectual/conceptual. Of course I am 45 years old, so certain experiences I attribute to different moments in my life. For example, in my 20's...sheesh, you get the picture.

Would you consider yourself a structuralist? "

First time some one has ever asked and the first time I ever had to consider this....no

Are you interested in religion to practice it or just to observe for an intellectual apprehension?"

Oh for quite sometime, just to experience it. I've been fortunate there to have quite some profound experiences, many of which arrived from grace, from a distinct number of religious systems (from the archaic to the fraternal to the modern)

I'm at a uniquely intellectually active moment in my life, so at this stage I am more in a reflective mode, piecing together the points in my journey and wishing to do no more than articulate them well enough so that others can see what I mean. I enjoy the sport of this, philosophy to me is a quite sportsman's like game

Frater 639

Happy Jupiter Day!

@ldfriend56 said

Ok. See below.

@ldfriend56 said

But we perceive, grade, and evaluate our shared environment based on our "rawness" (emotional feelings) of being -- at least, it is a convenient model -- and it is supported by data that correlates with our recent neurobiogical models. Our thought-forms are directly related to our raw feeling.

From an Eastern "mystical/spiritual" perspective, this is why the yogi aims to control klishta/aklishta vrittis (colored or raw-emotion infused thought patterns). From a Western "medical/physiological" perspective, thought-forms combine with chemical releases from the adrenal system which "colors" thought-forms and also creates memories. This can be considered both input/output from a "mind" perspective (collectively and individually) with material correlation.

The more that we return to these thought-forms, the more they affect our behavior -- which is physically/materialistically measurable through long term potentiation (synaptic "highways" getting larger when viewed by EEG) seeing the way we think -- and it directly affects our neuroplasticity. This is backed up conveniently by quantitative data that corresponds with qualitative conditions in modern "hard" scientific research.

So, we have raw feeling dictating (to a certain degree) mind -- also our genetic predisposition contributes to this as well. Now, we can dispute it, but we had better come up with a better model that can describe the phenomena more eloquently. That "source" for mind that you mentioned can be ontologically ideal like a God, group-mind, what have you -- but we need to consistently show, in any functional model, that it is likely that when A happens, B will probably happen shortly thereafter. Convenience, relevance, and probability I think are the main factors when choosing a model. What do you think?

Why not look at it both ways? I can see a God (Mars) as a group-mind entity (war) but I can also see the effects physiologically individually (hightened serotonin/cortisol release, increased synaptic activity, etc.) and collectively (death and injury) and mentally both personally (PTSD) or collectively (celebration of victory and patriotism). Do you agree with this short synopsis? Which is God and which is group-mind and which is just material and which is only ideal? I'd even make an argument, that the more a group-mind identifies with this "God" (or interacts with this morphogenetic field), the stronger these qualities get over time from the view of epigenetics. Would you come to that same conclusion too? The evidence seems to point that way, so using a little intuition...

Anyway, magick aims to control the same thing as yoga -- bring this union with "God" under will.

Not to say that neurobiological models are the ultimate truth, but it is a model that can be further refined and has helped a great deal in interpreting morphogenetic field theory -- which was modeled on biology and cell cooperation that create systems larger than the sum of its parts, like organs (like the brain! ) and whatnot. So, we need both ideal AND material.

Individually, emotion laden thought-forms are VERY POWERFUL and contribute a great deal to behavior and subsequent action (depression, elation, etc.). Same goes for collective minds through memes (supported by mirror neuron research) -- think patriotism, family, money and other symbols/talismans etc. Magickally, energized thought-forms/spirits/egregores are extremely potent. They can DEFINITELY cause change -- hopefully, in accordance with will. Morphogenetic fields are a great model to explain these changes...is this how you feel? Do you subscribe to morphogenetic field theory and have you tried out your own experiments? I'd love to hear some examples.

But, more importantly, what did my long-winded soliloquy make you think of?

@ldfriend56 said

Well, I think individual mind can be considered a point-field. I think "minds" are point-fields of point-fields - like a gigantic matrix - they alternate based on interaction of positive/negative, yin-yang, taking things in or pushing them out, fire/water, etc. It's getting these to harmonize (align with frequency, to use an electric analogy) that is necessary when creating a successful morphogenetic "field of points". And, of course, there are fields within fields (or, from a qabalistic perspective, sephirot within each sephira) building up into the "ultimate" field that is infinite. However, any field has to have the proper receptacle to magnetize, collectively or individually, to carry the analogy further...and it is a matter of scale and identification...

Rupert is awesome -- I think his views are not unlike a lot of ontological idealism -- so I agree with the philosopher title. I think we need both -- back in the day, Einstein and Bergson had some debates -- two totally different expressions, one more "science" and the other more "philosophical" -- but they had many similar views. So, I share your resonance with some of his ideas.

@ldfriend56 said

Agreed.

oldfriend56

@Frater 639 said

happy saturn day

I think this is going to be another interesting discussion here. At this time I do accept that the mind is not the same as the experience of feelings. I am going to do my best to articulate my position, but this might be a rough exercise

But we perceive, grade, and evaluate our shared environment based on our "rawness" (emotional feelings) of being -- at least, it is a convenient model -- and it is supported by data that correlates with our recent neurobiogical models. Our thought-forms are directly related to our raw feeling. "

Absolutely that our 'feelings' highly influence our thoughts and mind and color our environment, no argument there. I believe the relationship between our mind and feelings is somewhat dialectical (although only in the mind) and personally I also believe that this relationship is analogous with the relationship between the soul and the spirit, meaning that feelings and thinking mind are mundane expressions of the relationship of a higher order of being.

From an Eastern "mystical/spiritual" perspective, this is why the yogi aims to control klishta/aklishta vrittis (colored or raw-emotion infused thought patterns). From a Western "medical/physiological" perspective, thought-forms combine with chemical releases from the adrenal system which "colors" thought-forms and also creates memories. This can be considered both input/output from a "mind" perspective (collectively and individually) with material correlation. "

makes sense

The more that we return to these thought-forms, the more they affect our behavior -- which is physically/materialistically measurable through long term potentiation (synaptic "highways" getting larger when viewed by EEG) seeing the way we think -- and it directly affects our neuroplasticity. This is backed up conveniently by quantitative data that corresponds with qualitative conditions in modern "hard" scientific research.

So, we have raw feeling dictating (to a certain degree) mind -- also our genetic predisposition contributes to this as well. Now, we can dispute it, but we had better come up with a better model that can describe the phenomena more eloquently. That "source" for mind that you mentioned can be ontologically ideal like a God, group-mind, what have you -- but we need to consistently show, in any functional model, that it is likely that when A happens, B will probably happen shortly thereafter. Convenience, relevance, and probability I think are the main factors when choosing a model. What do you think?"

Not sure if I accept that B must follow A principle in a modeled relationship to the mind/body experience. We both enjoy Rupert - he actually changed my mind here - minds may 'pull us' from the future. Sometimes B happens before A. Do I misunderstand you here?

Why not look at it both ways? I can see a God (Mars) as a group-mind entity (war) but I can also see the effects physiologically individually (hightened serotonin/cortisol release, increased synaptic activity, etc.) and collectively (death and injury) and mentally both personally (PTSD) or collectively (celebration of victory and patriotism). Do you agree with this short synopsis? Which is God and which is group-mind and which is just material and which is only ideal? I'd even make an argument, that the more a group-mind identifies with this "God" (or interacts with this morphogenetic field), the stronger these qualities get over time from the view of epigenetics. Would you come to that same conclusion too? The evidence seems to point that way, so using a little intuition... "

I really like your description of a 'god' being a group mind entity (why didnt you bring that up in the 'Spirits' thread? that would have been very useful there!) I follow with interest your synopsis here

Anyway, magick aims to control the same thing as yoga -- bring this union with "God" under will."

resonance under will

Not to say that neurobiological models are the ultimate truth, but it is a model that can be further refined and has helped a great deal in interpreting morphogenetic field theory -- which was modeled on biology and cell cooperation that create systems larger than the sum of its parts, like organs (like the brain! ) and whatnot. So, we need both ideal AND material."

AGREE!!!! yes - we can also lump 'ideal' in with 'spiritual' and we find ourselves with another 'dialectic' between material and spiritual, mind and feelings, spirit and soul...there is really 'one' relationship there over all (ideally speaking ) would you agree?

Individually, emotion laden thought-forms are VERY POWERFUL and contribute a great deal to behavior and subsequent action (depression, elation, etc.). "

Yes, this is actually something that I become more painfully aware of the older I get

Same goes for collective minds through memes (supported by mirror neuron research) -- think patriotism, family, money and other symbols/talismans etc. Magickally, energized thought-forms/spirits/egregores are extremely potent. They can DEFINITELY cause change -- hopefully, in accordance with will. Morphogenetic fields are a great model to explain these changes...is this how you feel? Do you subscribe to morphogenetic field theory and have you tried out your own experiments? I'd love to hear some examples. "

we speaky same language here my friend.

I had an extraordinary direct encounter with what you are describing here, almost 10 years ago to the date. It lasted everyday for three months. I can't say it happened from experimenting or even asking for it (although my previous years of work and exploration prepared me and it was quite aligned with my true will) I directly encountered with and had a relationship with such a field. What was more incredible was that I was able to attract others to this field, and then they would be able to tap into this experience and help grow the field, and the 'thought form' or 'spirit' around it. Fields of synchronicity were present - as the field grew and because it was of perfect harmony, it become aligned with all other field harmonies.

Changed my life and who I am to this day.

Question, are you familiar with the magician Phillip Farber and his work "Meta- Magick"?

I think you will like it. His approach to magick is very harmonious with my field experience.

Also I would not mind reading an experience of yours here too.

But, more importantly, what did my long-winded soliloquy make you think of? "

perfect harmony

Well, I think individual mind can be considered a point-field. I think "minds" are point-fields of point-fields - like a gigantic matrix - they alternate based on interaction of positive/negative, yin-yang, taking things in or pushing them out, fire/water, etc. It's getting these to harmonize (align with frequency, to use an electric analogy) that is necessary when creating a successful morphogenetic "field of points". And, of course, there are fields within fields (or, from a qabalistic perspective, sephirot within each sephira) building up into the "ultimate" field that is infinite. However, any field has to have the proper receptacle to magnetize, collectively or individually, to carry the analogy further...and it is a matter of scale and identification..."

you are still making sense to me

Rupert is awesome -- I think his views are not unlike a lot of ontological idealism -- so I agree with the philosopher title. I think we need both -- back in the day, Einstein and Bergson had some debates -- two totally different expressions, one more "science" and the other more "philosophical" -- but they had many similar views. So, I share your resonance with some of his ideas. "

yes, I agree we need both. I think the fact that we have both sides of another dialectic leads us to find something more profound than either of them separately.

looking forward to more of this!

enjoy your saturn day