(Part 2) Best books about neuropsychology according to redditors
We found 1,006 Reddit comments discussing the best books about neuropsychology. We ranked the 238 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
24. Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts
7 mentions
Penguin Books
Here's an image from Connectome that illustrates the pruning between age 2 and age 4.
That one is too hard to predict for me to bother trying.
I will note that it's possible that the post-rock band Tortoise was right that "millions now living will never die" (awesome album, btw). If we invest in the research required to make AI do good things for humanity rather than accidentally catastrophic things, one thing that superhuman AI (and thus a rapid acceleration of scientific progress) could produce is the capacity for radical life extension, and then later the capacity for whole brain emulation, which would enable people to make backups of themselves and live for millions of years. (As it turns out, the things we call "people" are particular computations that currently run in human wetware but don't need to be running on such a fragile substrate. Sebastian Seung's Connectome has a nice chapter on this.)
You might be interested in Consciousness and the Brain by Dehaene. It details a lot of the recent experiments that scientists have been using to probe consciousness.
close. but i think you mean [The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Man-Who-Mistook-Wife/dp/1491514078) I'm glad you mentioned this, because its a great read from a brilliant neuroscientist that is fantastic at communicating his work.
> i would like to read up on this.
There are a whole bunch of interesting books on neuroscience (and psychology), written for us laypeople. Some really wild facts to read and think about. I think one of the craziest that I learned is that we essentially "hallucinate" our world, because we have discovered that the optic nerve simply cannot transfer all pixels of data from our retinas. Instead there are several channels of "pieces" of our visual picture, such as curves, edges, movement, color, etc., and the brain reconstructs it somehow into the HD picture that we perceive we are seeing.
Anyway, I cannot recall for sure if it was the book I read about with the brain activity reaching into conscious awareness or not, but you might check out Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. Also, a lot of modern psychology 101 books have tons of interesting observations.
That is why there’s a book literally called “A Field Guide to Earthlings”
(someone else on this subreddit recommended it, and yes it's a good read)
A Field Guide to Earthlings: An autistic/Asperger view of neurotypical behavior https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EPYUV2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_NFAXBbFYHDK61
This is cheap, accurate, well-written, and comprehensive. A little dull, by moments, but a great bedtime read.
Farnswirth is right - it's one of the deepest problems in science.
If you like popular science books, you should read Christof Koch's [Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist] (http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Confessions-Reductionist-Christof-Koch/dp/0262017490/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412913491&sr=8-1&keywords=christof+koch), which is all about the science of consciousness, and also a memoir of one of the leaders of the field.
If you have a literary bent, you should read Giulio Tononi's [Phi] (http://www.amazon.com/Phi-A-Voyage-Brain-Soul/dp/030790721X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412913611&sr=8-1&keywords=giulio+tononi) - Tononi is a leading neuroscientist who's proposed one of the best modern theories of consciousness. It's a weird, weird book, but very informative and beautiful too..
Both of what you describe hearing from the neuroscientist and ex-nun sound much more like a few off the cuff anecdotes than actual well researched positions that you should count on as meaningful in deciding whether you personally continue with the practices described in TMI.
To start with the ex-nun. In what sense is she a meditation expert and what is her understanding of TMI? As has been already stated elsewhere on the thread TMI is not a novel system that has been dreamt up complete with trademarks and a mystical backstory. It's a modern synthesis of very well established meditation approaches from both Tibetan and Theravadan schools that have a long historical pedigree. Mindfulness of breath, body scanning, metta, walking meditation and the like are all staples of Buddhist meditation across the world. In that regard stating that there is no enlightenment to be gained by following it really needs some further clarification on her part. What about the system makes enlightenment impossible?
On the neuroscience front maybe Minsky is considered outdated, I have no way of knowing personally, but I do know that the attention/awareness distinction is what Culadasa considers the core of how his approach differs from others. If your ex boss failed to comment on that then I'm sceptical he's given the book a thorough reading. The scientific backing for attention and awareness being separate but related in the way Culadasa describes is discussed in great detail in The Master and his Emissary so you could look into that if you want.
What role science can or should play in your decision is seems very important to you. Some of the blurb for TMI may have bigged up the science side of things a bit much. Certainly prior to the recent unpleasantness that was the main criticism that we heard about the book and Culadasa. However, those of us who are familiar with the system know that TMI is a meditation book that also contains some very well thought out theoretical models to explain what you experience if you follow the meditation instructions. Currently science has great things to say about the benefits of basic levels of mindfulness but is not ready to endorse ideas around awakening. If you want to do practices that are rigorously evidentially backed up then you can take a course like MBSR or MBCT. However, these courses are short and they do not offer a detailed long term progression. In fact, the aim is that at the end of them you go off and seek out your own personal practice. You'll also note if you take a course that they are teaching you the same basic techniques you find in TMI: mindfulness of breath, body scan, metta and so on.
The scientific speculation that is in TMI is useful insofar as it can help demystify the experiences that occur in deep meditation and thus help people find a clear and well mapped route through the territory. Ultimately the book has become popular through word of mouth because it delivers on what it promises and so each copy sold inevitably leads to a high number of personal recommendations to others. If you want to pursue the benefits of advanced levels of mindfulness then it is still one of the best options out there despite Culadasa's recent controversial behaviour.
I'm sympathetic with your view, but I do think the people who espouse it generally do a woeful job of coming up with concrete, putative examples of situations where getting the 'philosophy' wrong has led to any scientific blunders (forgetting any nonsense from the pre 20th century, before anybody starts banging on about phlogiston).
Note that it is fairly easy to point to discussion sections where scientists produce some meandering bumble of tautologies. But the methods and results are generally more sound..
Oh, and you're certainly not alone. For example, you may find some common ground in something like Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. It is interesting to note, however, that Peter Hacker's thesis is in some sense the opposite of yours. He thinks there is a fundamental chasm between philosophy and science, but that the former can give you some useful tools for doing the latter (much like maths provides science with useful tools)
Small talk may seem like a pointless waste of time, but it's not. Someone with asd brains work differently to most neurotypicals, the way we interpret and understand words and social interaction are naturally different, but that doesn't mean we're ever more or less correct in how we approach a conversation. That's an important thing to accept.
​
Small talk is important because it shows respect for the person you're speaking to. When someone starts a conversation with someone no one can accurately know what mood they're in, what they're comfortable talking about in the moment and if it's a stranger there's even more to learn. Their built up beliefs of certain concepts or words may trigger negative responses. People see things in different ways, some people will tolerate different things to others. Small talk enables people to naturally learn what role they should play in a conversation, a deep monologue in some situations just isn't appropriate, even if it's what's going through your head.
​
It's certainly tough to develop a filter between your brain and what you communicate, without feeling like you're being artificial or not true to yourself. There will be many people you meet in life that will notice your personal issues, offer support, will sit and talk to you. It shouldn't be expected of however. Some people lack the patience or skills and talking about such things, it can make them feel uncomfortable, or can give them the impression (like you said) , that the person is "self absorbed" or overly "negative".
​
For me it's definitely a struggle interacting with strangers in real life situations. I have to be tactile in what I say, but at the same time not be too quiet that the conversation dies in a one on one situation. But it's very important not to drown out the other person. I think it's best to see it all as a skill that is worth learning. I'm sure you are capable, I think it's more that you've got to see the importance of it. The fact you wrote this post shows your self awareness, and that you care about it. Which implies you don't have malicious intent when and if you upset people.
​
This is a good book. It may help.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Field-Guide-Earthlings-autistic-neurotypical-ebook/dp/B004EPYUV2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540844926&sr=8-1&keywords=field+guide+to+earthlings
​
Just remember, being careful about how you talk about depression doesn't trivialise how important it is and to what extent it affects your life. A lot of people are aware of that, and by taking a more tactile approach, you may find more support and reassurance than the alternative, which is to let it become your outward personality also.
Cryonics does have a basis in science, you know, and I’ve had my own arrangements for cryonic suspension with the Alcor Foundation since 1990, funded by life insurance. Cryonicists want to develop “medical time travel” or an ambulance ride across time to try to benefit from the better medical capabilities of future societies.
Refer to:
1. General but outdated background information on the idea, mainly of historical interest now:
The Prospect of Immortality (1964), by Robert Ettinger:
http://www.cryonics.org/book1.html
2. “Cryopreservation of rat hippocampal slices by vitrification” (a peer-reviewed scientific paper):
http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/hippo_published.pdf
>Microscopic examination showed severe damage in frozen–thawed slices, but generally good to excellent ultrastructural and histological preservation after vitrification. Our results provide the first demonstration that both the viability and the structure of mature organized, complex neural networks can be well preserved by
vitrification. These results may assist neuropsychiatric drug evaluation and development and the transplantation of integrated brain regions to correct brain disease or injury.
3. Mike Darwin’s Chronosphere blog:
http://chronopause.com/
Mike goes back nearly to the beginnings of cryonics in the late 1960’s, and his blog offers a metaphorical gold mine of information, including references to a lot of scientific papers, about the field and its current but probably surmountable problems.
4. MIT neuroscientist Sebastian Seung defends cryonic suspension as a feasible scientific-medical experiment in his book Connectome, and I have it on good authority that he plans to speak at Alcor’s conference in Scottsdale, AZ, this October:
http://hebb.mit.edu/people/seung/
http://www.amazon.com/Connectome-How-Brains-Wiring-Makes/dp/0547508182
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100220308/Aschwin-de-Wolf-s-review-of-Connectome-by-Sebastian-Seung
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/New_Cryonet/message/2609
http://www.alcor.org/blog/?p=2492
http://www.amazon.com/Synaptic-Self-How-Brains-Become/dp/0142001783/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311384751&sr=8-1
Also look it up on Google books.
It covers topics with enough depth for you to actually learn something, while keeping things way more brief and interesting than a typical textbook, plus it has a bunch of very helpful illustrations. It does all that while still teaching you a substantial amount of the science, experiments, terminology and theories.
Don't forget that it's also 12 dollars.
As the saying goes, this book is like a good skirt. Long enough to cover the material, but short enough to keep things interesting. Enough said. I can't recommend it enough.
This book has received a 4/5 (69 reviews) on Amazon: A Field Guide to Earthlings: An autistic/Asperger view of neurotypical behavior.
Not sure how appropriate it would be for a young adult such as yourself. Alternatively, you might want to check out your college's disability services office (if you aren't already registered) and see if they have any resources. Some schools offer peer mentoring programs and opportunities to engage with folks across the neurological spectrum.
I definitely think in these terms. In fact, my favorite explanation of magic in Doctor Strange was this same notion of programming experience. A book you might enjoy regarding the nature of experience is called Visual Intelligence by Donald Hoffman (linked below) which is about how the brain constructs reality according to rules, not facts. There's also a few good interviews with him on this subject (also linked below).
I find myself circling around a couple of ideas about magic from the standpoint of being locked in my brain in a programmed universe. The first is that I can learn to operate outside of my brain ( instead of relying on my input sensory devices like eyes/ears etc) and work perhaps astrally or I can put a lot of hard work into inferring what the rules of experience are and looking for the source code while only having access to the gui, so to speak.
In any case, I can't figure out where the basis for ritual fits in here. I could actually go on and on with this subject. I kind of have this notion (very rough) that I wish I could work on with others, that cultures around the world were given keys of knowledge and a basic truth and when combined, they form a complete practice of sorts. The Magicians sort of touched on this in the books regarding the Five Tertiary Circumstances, that to correctly execute a spell you had to know the phase of the moon, nearest body of water etc. But I would venture to say that my list of Circumstances would be more like: Astronomical position, local mineral composition, state of your inner energy channels, correct use of mudras (or similar channeling tool) etc.
I haven't learned a lot about sigils but I am interested in them after reading how they work for you.
https://www.amazon.com/Visual-Intelligence-How-Create-What/dp/0393319679/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=5PQZVRDXP99B4MXR4D9T
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
This was discussed in detail in a really great book called "Head Trip: Adventures on the Wheel of Consciousness." Recommended!
Some excellent popular book options are:
The Tell Tale Brain - V.S. Ramachandran
Phantoms in the Brain - V.S. Ramachandran
Synaptic Self - Joseph LeDoux
Also mentioned by other posters, Norman Doidge and Oliver Sacks.
All of these are really approachable for beginners and I enjoyed them all greatly as an undergrad way back when.
This debate reduces to the debate over the "hard problem" of consciousness: what sorts of arrangements of matter can produce "qualia" or "subjective experience"? It's a highly polarizing debate; one side wants to avoid any sort of dualism, whereas the other side suggests that experience might be a fundamental property of the universe. After lots of thought I'm more in favor of the latter approach, which has received some attention recently with the work of Giulio Tononi.
If Tononi's approach eventually yields results (likely decades away), we might be able to make quantitative statements about what a crustacean actually feels; whether it actually experiences anything like what we'd call pain or whether it's more of an automaton.
Phi: A Voyage from the Brain to the Soul by Giulio Tononi. A wonderful story exploring consciousness from both biological and philosophical perspectives.
Hi there,
Some suggestions for ya!
The Quest for Consciousness by Christof Koch. Minimal neuroscience background required, but the more you know, the more you'll derive from this book. Focused on illustrating how complex networks can manifest behaviour (and consciousness). Outside of Koch's regular pursuits as an electrophysiology, he worked alongside Francis Crick (ya that one), to study arousal and consciousness. It's a fantastic read, and it's quite humbling.
Rhythms of the Brain by Gyorgy Buzsaki. Written for neuroscientists and engineers as an introductory textbook into network dynamics, oscillations, and behaviour. One of my favorite books in the field, but it can also be the most challenging.
Treatise of Man by Rene Descarte. Personal favorite, simply because it highlights how far we've come (e.g. pineal gland, pain, and animal spirits).
Synaptic Self by Joseph LeDoux provides the fantastic realization that "you are your synapse". Great circuit/network book written with a lot of psychological and philosophical considerations.
Finally...
Physical control of the mind--towards of psychocivilized society by the one and only Jose Delgado. (In)Famous for his experiments where he stopped a bull charging at him through amygdala stimulation- along with some similar experiments in people- Delgado skirts the line between good intention and mad science. It's too bad he's not taught more in history of neuroscience.
Recommended reading:
On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert Burton.
> You recognize when you know something for certain, right? You "know" the sky is blue, or that the traffic light had turned green, or where you were on the morning of September 11, 2001--you know these things, well, because you just do.
> In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton shows that feeling certain―feeling that we know something--- is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. An increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. In other words, the feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen.
> Bringing together cutting-edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain challenges what we know (or think we know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason.
https://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/031254152X
The Ego Tunnel by Metzinger
Consciousness and the Brain by Dahaene
Self Comes to Mind by Damasio
Consciousness and the Social Brain by Graziano
a) My family was supportive of adoption in general, but terribly ignorant about the difficulties that kids from the system have.
b) Do one, do both, do neither. It is your life, live it as you wish ;) Maybe that is glib, but I'm certainly not in the position to tell you how to populate your nest.
c) Kids who come from the foster care system have generally experienced pretty tough things, often from extended periods of time. Ultimately, these kids need a new home, a new family, a forever family because the court has decided that their biological family is unable to provide a safe, healthy environment - AND - that there are no other family willing or able to take the kids.
The training that you receive as a foster partner will hardly scratch the surface of what is required to deal with the kids and their sometimes extensive needs. Just the logistics of it all can be overwhelming. And the behaviors they exhibit can be downright terrifying or just make no sense. Most of these behaviors, in one way or another, can be attributed to chronic exposure to abusive, unsafe, environments. Kids develop ways to cope with these situations that are unsafe, unhelpful or downright bizarre outside of that context.
I would suggest starting down this path by reading a few books, in particular:
Beyond Consequences, Logic, and Control: A Love-Based Approach to Helping Attachment-Challenged Children With Severe Behaviors
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Consequences-Logic-Control-Attachment-Challenged/dp/0977704009
The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog: And Other Stories from a Child Psychiatrist's Notebook--What Traumatized Children Can Teach Us About Loss, Love, and Healing
http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Raised-Psychiatrists-Notebook--What/dp/0465056539/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377749374&sr=1-1&keywords=the+boy+who+was+raised+as+a+dog
Good luck.
A very interesting book I read that talked exactly about this was "The Head Trip: Adventures on the Wheel of Consciousness" by Jeff Warren.
amazon link
I read about this in the book. You know that optical illusion with the hole on a grid which disappears when you line up the hole with the blind spot in your eye? Things like that happen all the time, and expectations are a part of the "fabric" of reality as you know it. The different during dreams is that expectations don't have sensory reality to keep it in check, so you end up shuffling through existing patterns of thought.
Phi was pretty cool.
I'm glad to hear that dp/dr didn't seem to bring you down through all your time of having the condition. Do you remember when you began to disassociate? did you have a panic attack or did it seem to come on slowly? dp/dr is a very strange illness that affects people in different ways.
you mention wanting to run and hide away and sleep it off. I've been there before, and capitulating to that won't help - trust me. you gotta get out and do things that you enjoy in spite of how anxious you feel. at first it's extreeeeemely difficult, but you'll get there, anyone can. a lot of sufferers ruminate and try to come up with the 'answer' to this spiritual crisis that we find ourselves in, but really, you can't 'think' your way out of dp/dr. you gotta get on with your life. it will become more bearable, hang in there buddy.
check out this video. I don't so much like this guy as he's always trying to sell you his 10-hour DVD thing for an extortionate amount of cash, but his youtube vids can actually be quite useful. But try not to get bogged down in reading about dp/dr too much, it's helpful to reassure yourself that others suffer from it and they recover, but having it constantly on your mind all the time will make it worse. STAY AWAY from dpselfhelp.com (I'm deleting my account there soon), unless you plan to read the 'recovery stories' section, but again, different things work for different people. You will find most people who recover from this combine 'acceptance' and 'distraction', that is, they accept the feelings of dp/dr and let the anxiety be without fighting it (let go of that internal struggle against the way you're feeling and just let it be) and that they distract themselves by engaging in social activities (socialising with friends has helped me enormously over time) and doing things they normally enjoy. for me its making music, i'm trying to make an EP at the moment which takes a lot of work because there's a lot of processes involved (writing, producing, recording, mixing etc) and i can take my mind off of how i'm feeling. the more i do this, the more distant DP becomes. sure i have some relapses and some weeks are better than others, but generally i'm starting to come out of it.
this suggestion is a bit of a long shot, but it might work, or be helpful for anyone still reading. you mentioned that you've always been a sensitive person. People with DP/DR tend to be like this. Would you describe yourself as caring, creative and somebody who tends to overthink things a lot? are you generally quite anxious, depressed and lethargic, find it hard to get out of bed? do you by any chance have quite youthful facial features? if so then you might want to look into zinc deficiency/copper toxicity. I recently found out that i may be zinc deficient, and that a 'copper personality' that some nutritions are starting to become aware of these days (characterised by the traits i mentioned above, and caused by a build-up of copper in the brain) may be linked to dp/dr. i've been taking zinc supplements and i think it's helped me tremendously. obviously it's not going to work for everyone, but look into the 'copper personality' and copper toxicity if you can relate to the questions above.
The difference between DP and DR, is basically that depersonalisation involves estrangement from one's internal self, and derealisation involves estrangement from the outside world. DP sufferers feel detached from their emotions (they may describe feeling 'numb'), from their thinking process (they may describe feeling as if their head is 'full of cotton wool' or that their mind has gone 'blank') and DR suffers often feel as if the world around them appears fake or unreal, like they were in a dream or a movie or something. They may also report that people seem cartoonish and strange. However they tend to cross over. I suffer mainly from DP but i get episodes where i feel like I'm in a dream-world all of a sudden. DP/DR suffers are often obsessed with existential, philosophical, metaphysical and hypochondriacal (health) issues, such as the meaning of life, how the mind works, whether or not the world is real (solipsism etc) and whether they have a health issue like brain tumours or permanent damage to the brain (as most suffers get drug-induced DP/DR, usually from smoking cannabis or taking LSD/MDMA). DP/DR does not arise as a result of brain damage, or at least there's no scientific link. It's generally accepted to be just an anxious state of mind brought on by trauma (a lot of people's dp/dr is onset before/during/immediately following a panic attack) and it's reversible. There have been people who have suffered this condition for 20 or so years and have recovered (but don't scare yourself into believing that you'll suffer like this - it really depends on the person and a lot of these people had no idea what they were even suffering from, and once they learned about it, recovery soon followed - which should be the case for you now that you're aware of dp/dr) which shows that it's not a permanent condition at all.
sorry for my incoherent waffling and such but i hope this has given you some insight, and i think you'll recover soon.
In the meantime this book is great for anxiety/panic (and even involves a section on obsession and 'feelings of unreality'). it's called 'hope and help for your nerves' and really helped me through my initial anxiety. I would highly recommend getting it on audible as an audiobook as this woman has a very soothing and reassuring voice. It's from 1962 but it's amazingly relatable and i can't stress enough how much this woman has helped me. Another, more clinical book worth getting is this one which also helped me. It was written by a group of psychiatrists in london who dedicate their study to Depersonalisation Disorder, that is, the disorder in itself, not as a symptoms of another mental health issue such as PTSD or depression. it contains reassuring information about how they understand the illness works.
TL;DR: just keep going, don't let dp/dr stop you from doing what you love, do those things regardless of how anxious/freaked out/unreal you feel. get busy, let the anxiety wash over you like a wave. stay away from dp/dr forums and don't worry - you're not going to go crazy.
Thank you for taking the time, really fascinating to see.
"Rather, aging is an opportunity to express a more rounded out personality as the tug towards becoming authentic becomes more persistent and real."
How does aging cause re-align our switch to authenticity? Does reflection on aging ground our perception of becoming? Are there daily aspects of life we can focus on to improve our consciousness and its awareness of aging/becoming?
I'm sure its one a lot to pick apart. For anyone interested in neuroscience regarding the hemispheres of our brain (and it relates to authenticity a tad bit: https://www.amazon.com/Master-His-Emissary-Divided-Western/dp/0300188374 and I'm reading 'Presence' currently and its diving into the authentic self---but nothing in the context of aging and becoming.
Those are really all you'll need; from there you will find things on your own or from professors.
No, it's not that unusual. But it's not in the average, "HAY GUISE!" category. I do think it is weird, tho--imo, it's more fuck-with-your-mind than just a normal [crazy] dream.
And I don't know what reality-testing you're doing, but it sounds, to me, like you're doing it wrong? I mean, I can't imagine how I would ever be able to materialise a sandwich in front of me in my waking life. Unless you're saying you can't materialise sandwiches in your dreams because of this, I guess--I can see how that would be possible. What about reading written material, then looking away, then re-reading it? Does it stay consistent? That would be highly impressive to the point of nigh-unbelievable [to me personally] if you said you could do that in a dream.
Tbh, if you want to know more about it, you should read some books or even talk to people in /r/LucidDreaming; I'm not an expert. What I can say from my personal observations is that there do seem to be correlations between different personalities and the kinds of dreams people have.
The best example I can come up with off the top of my head that I didn't just make up: Researches have found memory & dreaming are somehow related. I've read it hypothesised that dreaming might be a mechanism which assists in memory storage. Also, psychopaths are known to both have poor memories as well as, for the most part, actually not experience dreams, or have very weak/pale ones. This is highly unusual, as you may already know, since even though many people can't remember their dreams this is not an indication of them not having dreams; everyone dreams, so it is said. However, psychopaths aren't considered to have the most normal personalities, anyway. (Iirc, these tidbits were cherry-picked from The Head Trip & The Psychopath Test.)
So anyway, as a lay person, I make wild personal speculations about how whatever it is that gives rise to personality also gives rise to types of dreams & dream experiences, but it's just for my own amusement & I haven't looked into it deeply enough to make some kind of insightful statement to you about this kind of "uncanny valley of waking consciousness" dream. But I guess usually that kind of thing seems to pop up when one's life is highly routine..? So perhaps trying something new & breaking out of your comfort zone could be in order?
I mean, if you like.
Food for thought: http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/
Having dyslexic kids, I am obviously a fan of explicit, systematic, phonemic-based instruction. The way my mind processes the "reading war" is this; we all become whole word readers eventually, which is the ultimate point of reading instruction - reading fluently, essentially by memorization, without having to decode every single word. But, before you get there, you need a thorough, systematic, explicit, phonemic based approach in order to become that whole word reader. Those who excel naturally with reading will develop into readers either way; for the 30-40% of kids who struggle with reading development, they will only benefit from a phonemic approach.
If you really want to dive deep into the science behind the reading brain, http://www.amazon.com/Proust-Squid-Story-Science-Reading/dp/0060933844
Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff-Smith, Parisi, Plunkett, Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development
A nice overview of connectionist theory and what neural networks can tell us.
I'd recommend this one to start with:
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Consequences-Logic-Control-Attachment-Challenged/dp/0977704009
I find audio to be much more efficient actually. I can fully keep up with audiobooks at 3x speed and actually find that I absorb more of the information that way than when I read visually. I can actually zone out and visualize what's going on in my head when I'm listening to something, whereas I can't really do that when I'm too busy focusing on the words printed on the page. I can actually go through an entire audiobook in one sitting, but have a hard time finishing any regular book within a month.
I'm a really heavy auditory learner though, and suffer from chronic fatigue/fibromyalgia, along with possibly borderline add (which seems to be a common INTP thing), so stationary reading and focus is incredibly difficult for me. I just cannot parse printed words nearly as well as I'd like to, even though I have a fairly solid grasp on the language. I even have text-to-speech apps and browser extensions installed on all my devices it's so bad.
That being said, I actually did share your perspective for the longest time, and basically deprived myself of knowledge because I was too ashamed to resort to audiobooks; they just didn't feel 'genuine' to me. It actually took a good while (read: several years) for me to say "fuck it" and just start resorting to audio as my primary resource comfortably without all the guilt. I can honestly follow highly complex technical lectures for hours when on video/audio, but trying to read a dense textbook just gives me anxiety and puts me to sleep after a few pages -- I have no idea why. I recently "read" a really good book that actually talks about reading difficulties and the development of reading in the brain, but I'm having a hard time figuring out whether any of it actually applies to me (despite relating to a lot of it). Awesome read nonetheless -- highly recommend it.
So yeah, I think it's cool that people can naturally get that kind of sustained experience with just text, and I'm totally jealous of it, but hell, everyone should just do what works best for them, cause silly stigmas like this are just annoying. I have to practice a lot to be able to even remotely match the level of engagement I get from an audiobook with text, and even then it mostly only works with simple stuff, so enjoy what you have cause I know my selection of material (that I can actually get through) is quite limited.
Hello, cognitive neuroscientist here. As you may guess, I find it rather preposterous that you suggest that "consciousness exists externally and independently from the brain." In my field, we study the relationship between brain states/events and behavior, many of these states which require the conscious phenomenological experience (perception) of stimuli.
It may be the case that you have a fundamentally different definition of conscious ness than the ones that are often used in experimental settings in my field. In my case, I'm referring to consciousness as the ability to attend to, perceive, and ultimately recognize that you have perceived. For example, you can present people with stimuli for periods of time that are so brief, that there responses to those stimuli are effectively random (they're guessing), which we could then infer that the stimuli weren't consciously perceived at all. In fact, we can even "shut off" parts of the brain in real-time and see the effects on behavior using a method called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Here's a concise paper on the topic. Pay particular attention to the section "creating virtual patients", as well as figure 3.
Here is another more recent paper that seems to discuss consciousness from a broader perspective.
Here is another even more recent paper that seems to directly assess your question. This one seems more technical, but try to stick through it. With this paper, be sure to look at the references! It seems like it could be a good source for you. In fact, if you see any other papers in the reference list that you find interesting, let me know and I'll get them for you :) It appears that this researcher is generally interested in consciousness, and has a trade book available that seems right up your alley here.
That all being said, I think it's very important to note that you seem to be making a claim (consciousness exists outside of and independently of the brain) that has no real empirical evidence to support it. What evidence can you bring to me that would change my view? I have given you one of many sources that demonstrate the casual manipulation of conscious perception via manipulation of the synchronous activity of the brain. How would your perspective respond to the vast literature that has reported similar findings (both in TMS studies and with lesion patients)? According to your perspective, would we have to manipulate some unknown source literally detached from the body of the person being studied do observe these disruptions in conscious perception? Overall, I'm not certain how your perspective can hold up empirically. In order for your idea to be taken seriously from a scientific perspective, it first needs to be falsifiable (able to be demonstrated false). I'm not sure how this can be accomplished here, unless I'm missing something.
Finally, I would highly suggest that you do more basic reading in cognitive neuroscience. I would suggest this textbook.
Please take the time to read the information that I have provided for you. Afterwards, if you have any questions, let me know :)
Reminds me of this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0977704009/ref=redir_mdp_mobile
After /u/hopeless_poet was gifted the book [Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143126261/ref=aw_wl_vv_dp_3_6?colid=2A05ZAVPIGIXE&coliid=I3RXBO7N8BX5IE) his body itched with the desire to observe a brain himself. The thought of a stranger strapped onto a table, squirming and pleading for release, a sharp scalpel in his hand so carefully cutting through skin and bone, so transfixed in the process that the ear-wrenching screams were nothing more than background noise -- it was a thought that fueled him, a thought that controlled his existence and made it impossible for him to concentrate on his everyday life activities. He longed for the blood, for the fragile organ that, like magic, manages to give functionality to such disgusting, undeserving creatures. This desire soon overpowered him and he began to drive endlessly into the night, stopping only when he had found a good location, and proceeding to walk the streets in search for the perfect test subject. At last, after tireless weeks of searching, he found her. She, too, walked the streets at night, but her intentions were much more appalling. She was the scum of society, a pathetic drug addict willing to sell every inch of herself in attempt to satisfy her foul habit. His disgust and anger rose as he watched her - she wouldn't be missed by anyone, nor would her disappearance even be noticed. It was easy to subdue her and he did so quickly and efficiently, making sure no one saw or heard. He threw her in the truck of his car carelessly, like he would any other useless object. He brought her into his house and dragged her down to the basement that he had been perfecting for weeks in preparation for this moment. A single lightbulb swung silently in the middle of the room like a pendulum, serving as a reminder that his victim's time was running out. Directly below it was a metal table with restraints attached and next to it lay all the tools he would need. He strapped her onto the table, as he had done so an in-numerous amount of times before in his thoughts. His tools lay in front of him, glistening in the little light there was. She pleaded with him to let her go, she could give him money, drugs, sex. "Shut up, you pathetic whore," he growled as he punched her. The begging stopped. He picked up his scalpel...
HOPELESS_BRAINSURGEON. COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU. DECEMBER 2017.
I would highly recommend these book to help draw out the debatable distinction:
>Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness (Alva Noe, 2009)
>Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind (Evan Thompson, 2010)
Rambling musings it is!
All perception is hallucination, not in the sense that it has no grounding in sensory input, but in that it is a creation of the brain (I visited this in the last paragraph of my 4th response). To illustrate this, my favorite is Adelson's illusion – something that you simply cannot experience as it truly is, precisely because your brain creates the image incorrectly (in 3D, for one thing). The dots are the same color, as are the squares beneath them, but you cannot see that – even though you can prove it to be true. For a better, and more amusing exploration of this, watch the first 7-8 minutes of this presentation by Donald Hoffman. Continue to around the 15 minute mark to get his user interface theory of perception and finish the video to hear his theory of consciousness. Now, I've followed Hoffman for a long time, but I don't buy his grand theory. Still, I do appreciate the rigor of his approach (you can find other videos that dig deeper into the mathematics), and he's always had a good handle on visual perception – his book, Visual Intelligence is a delightful read.
What's the alternative to claiming that the brain creates the illusion of an experiencer? Are we to assume there actually is an experiencer? If so, how does that experiencer experience? Such an assumption just leads us to an infinite regress.
Be very careful about extrapolating function from the functional impact of damage to specific brain regions. There is a distinct difference between being involved in a function and being 'responsible' for that function. We also know that certain drugs can send consciousness on a holiday – general anesthesia comes to mind. Hell, we bid it a good night when we go to sleep.
When you understand what Rama stated in that video, you will understand what I am stating, because they are almost identical.
You're missing the point of the narrative. Creating a narrative for cleaning out the chicken coup is no different from the Capgras patient who rationalizes that the man who looks exactly like his father is an impostor because he doesn't get that feeling when he sees him. The linguistic mind is trying to make sense of the situation and creates the most reasonable story it can. That narrative defines who we are.
Eh, I think Jill is somewhat 'out there' – led by a priori beliefs to reify this 'soul' from the experience created by the brain – a damaged brain (changed hardware brought about a change of experience, by the way). She does, however, get a number of things correct in her talk. I agree with her general assessment of the right hemisphere as being about nothing more than now (although that now is actually a little in the past). It is in the richly linguistic hemisphere on the left side that we have a past and a future – that narrative (some might call it a soul).
I don't mean to imply that's what consciousness is, although I don't think there actually is such a thing. I think it's as Rama described – consciousness is an emergent property of interacting neural modules. It's not located anywhere in the brain, nor is it some mystical thing occupying the body – it's not a thing, at all, but our symbolic brains find that assumption hard not to make. It's just an illusion created by recursive symbolic representation – experience and its integration with the narrative.
It's clear that I need to make another point more clear. It is impossible to describe an experience, and nobody ever does it. We describe our memory of our experiences. That's all it is possible to do. This is a point I've tried to make less directly, but I think it needs to be asserted, with emphasis! This yanks us right back to that pesky narrative and the obvious reason why the 'unity' you mention isn't fractured in the cases thus explored, but I'm certain that you are aware of schizophrenia (at its root, probably a problem with time perception) and multiple personality disorder (multiple narratives), which do fracture that sense of unity.
There are also cases in which stroke patients will state that a paralyzed arm isn't actually hers, but belongs to her sister. There are cases in which a patient will desire an amputation at a precise location of a limb because, he will say, it doesn't belong. There's even Cotard's syndrome, in which the afflicted individual will believe himself to be dead. In every case, something has gone wrong with the underlying hardware of the brain.
So, getting back to my point about what we actually describe, Jill's left hemisphere has created a story about her experience. It's part of the narrative of Jill Taylor, but it isn't the experience. It's her memory of the experience or, more accurately, it's her current memory (has been through numerous edits) of the experience.
I'm firmly a materialist. I'm also very comfortable with not knowing, with absolute certainty, how the brain works its magic. Any good scientist ought to be comfortable with saying, “I don't know.” Not knowing is half the fun – gives us a mystery to solve, and humans love mysteries. Unfortunately, system one thinks it can solve all of them as quickly as I can snap my fingers.
I may not really know how the nuts and bolts create what they do, but I have no doubt that they do. I see no reason to inject another mystery in an attempt to solve this one. The human brain is incredibly complex and we're still in the early stages of exploring it.
If you are interested in how our brains process text in general, pick up a copy of Proust and the Squid.
And it's not even just color, it's everything. Everything we see is first filtered, interpreted, and processed by our brain. Our eyes only really see a small circle right directly where we look. Our brain constructs the remainder, puts it together, and keeps it coherent. Assuming it's working correctly of course.
There is a really great book called Visual Intellegence: How We Create What We See by Donald Hoffman that explains a lot of how our brain processes what we see. There are also many stories in the book of people who had brain trauma, or who had been born with brain differences, that caused strange visual problems. One I remember was a woman who could only see in snapshots, or stopmotion. Only one frame a second or so.
I think you'd really enjoy this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Head-Trip-Adventures-Wheel-Consciousness/dp/1400064848
After reading the chapter on lucid dreaming I had a lucid dream that night. Now it only happens rarely but the book does give you some tricks that help make it happen more often. Way interesting stuff even if you don't lucid dream.
Here was the deal for me.
I was always terrible with math all the way up till high school. Seriously, It was typical for me to make all A's except for B's and C's in math. I took algebra I in the 8th grade, and pretty much failed (I should have failed, but no child can be left behind!). They made me retake the class in the 9th grade.
During the 10th grade, I had a terrible year (academically and personally, but we'll stick to the academic part). My parents are both college graduates with high hopes that I too would graduate from college. They were concerned that I wouldn't have a shot at a decent school if I kept going the way I did. It really stressed me out because I hated disappointing my parents, but even more so I hated when people underestimated me.
I thought to myself, "How can I show them I'm smart. I know I learn physics! Physicist are smart!... what the hell is physics anyways?" I bought one book and rented another. Both of these greatly peaked my interests into the science fields.
From that point on, I started truly applying myself to school (particularly to improving my math skills). I don't naturally excel at mathematics, but since I have a will to learn it, I can. I'm close to graduating with a BSME, and have made A's in all my math courses.
TLDR: You don't need to naturally excel at math to be good at it. You need time and a will to learn it.
Principles of Neuroscience is a grad-school level book. I would not recommend shelling out $100 for it.
This book, Cognitive Neuroscience by Michael Gazzaniga, is a great book for someone at your age. It's super cheap and very easy to understand.
If you go with a textbook from an author like Kandel or Purves or Bear, you are going to be jumping straight into the deep end and might easily get discouraged.
We've actually been discussing this in class last week. I've been pondering on this, because I remember being suggested to be mindful of learning styles when it comes to language learning. My professor suggested reading [this book] (https://www.amazon.com/Proust-Squid-Story-Science-Reading/dp/0060933844).
She said that reading was a human invention, as opposed to, say, sound. For instances, babies do not need to learn how to hear sound, but humans have to learn how to read a certain language/character system (I'm not quite sure if I'm using the terms correctly).
Hopefully, this can be edifying. I hope to be able to read this, since I haven't yet!
I actually disagree pretty strongly with the Language Instinct take on language acquisition (I sympathize more with the empiricist/emergentist camp--see Re-thinking Innateness) but I agree that Pinker is important/influential nonetheless
Man, I feel you here.
Parent of an abused foster (adopted) 13yo daughter here, whose behaviors are very similar to what you mention (multiplied by 140lb body with hormones and the vocabulary of a sailor).
Three Major Points to start:
A. Try to reduce the frequency of the meltdowns.
There are two books you should buy and read right away. The Connected Child and Beyond Consequences. (Links below) Ignore the fact that they are 'for' adoptive families. They are fantastic for bio families too. The basic idea is to promote attachment, show love, use consistency and help your child learn who she is. I can, in no way, do justice to these books in summary so I'm not gonna try. This does not mean they get away with everything. This does not mean you're going to fix everything overnight. It does, however, mean you're going to change how you parent to a totally new model that might not feel natural at first. The more you do it, the better the bond you have with your child.
The style was once explained to me as "General Patton meets Mr. Rogers". Firm, high expectations, but calm and loving all the time.
B. When a meltdown of your daughter does happen.
Just doing the stuff above, you'll still have plenty of issues. That doesn't mean it's not working.
It all boils down to natural consequences. Break all the crayons, can't color anymore. Trash the house, clean the house. Throw a 5 minute tantrum while I was going to be playing video games, kid does chores I would have done for 5 minutes so I can play video games. Threaten to kill self or kill me? Cops are called.
Un-natural consequences (otherwise called punishments) cause their own problems.
By using natural consequences, you don't enter into a secondary battle for control of trying to impose punishments that the child finds unlogical.
C. When you lose your cool during a meltdown
This will also happen, as parents, we're not perfect.
When things go south - Reconnect Quickly.
Be the one that shows the example of remorse and show how you can make up for it. This doesn't mean the child gets away with what they did, though.
All the other stuff you need to do:
Get Help / Don't be Embarrassed: Realize when you need help. In combat, if things get hairy, you ask for help, you don't just wait until 3/4 your men are dead before telling someone above you that you're in trouble.
This means you must remove any stigma you might have from this situation and put your ego aside. Doesn't mean you're a bad father. There are tons of resources you should pull from.
First, surround yourself with a circle of support. Family and friends are very important.
Second, find resources in your community. Could be private therapy, could be from a county mental health organization. Could be a church group. I promise you that there is help out there that people just like you go to.
Care for yourself / Respite
The harder things are at home, the less patience you have. The less patience you have, the harder things get.
You need time for you (and your SO if you have one).
Find ways to recharge. Kid stays with grandparents, friends (with people you trust can handle you child and understand the situation), babysitters, overnight camps, etc.
You can't care for your child if you're totally out of steam.
Ask yourself, what if you couldn't physically control her.
I've been struggling with this in the last few years. If you can only use your mind to parent, and can't physically touch the child (even just to move them into time out, for example), it changes how you will parent them. Start thinking like that, and then add on the fact you can move them in time out as a bonus.
Lastly, realize you're not alone. There are many families that struggle with this type of problem, and it is possible!
http://www.amazon.com/Connected-Child-healing-adoptive-family/dp/0071475001/
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Consequences-Logic-Control-Attachment-Challenged/dp/0977704009/
Meditation goes against our survival instincts; it requires your left-brain to let down its guard for long enough that your right-brain can widen/deepen your awareness. The left-brain sees this as a completely "pointless" and potentially dangerous task and so puts up a fierce resistance. (And even the right-brain would rather be scanning for external threats than experiencing internal bodily sensations – which explains the 'monkey mind' worrying that tends to rush in to fill the void of threats.) See: McGilchrist's The Divided Brain: Book; [Video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI):
A descent selection so far from the other comments. I'll throw in a few, as well:
​
​
Some of the above is specifically related to atheism, while others I've used to help shape and inform my understanding and my worldview. Out of the entire list, the Carl Sagan book and the Sean Carroll book rank highest, for me, in level of importance. Those books didn't just change what I think, they changed how I think, and I am forever indebted to them.
Connectome by Sebastian Seung is good
​
I am sorry for your loss.
I have recently started this book and am finding it useful. I think I remember reading that dpdr can be quite common in situations such as yours.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Overcoming-Depersonalization-Feelings-Unreality-Books/dp/1845295544
It sounds like what you mean by "how", goes into more detail than the "how" that science offers at this point. A blueprint for arranging neurons such that a consciousness arises doesn't exist yet. Although, there are a bunch of people trying to figure out how to reproduce a consciousness. Connectome was a good read about where science currently stands on the subject circa 2012.
That is a really good question, and I have no good answer for you. In a pure form of the merged design, every single bit of memory would double as a very simple CPU and all calculations would involve those computational bits working together, so the system would be massively parallel (in the brain, every neuron can be connected to up to 15,000 others, each connected to another 15,000, increasing the number of connections exponentially). In addition, the networked nature of the system would likely mean that resources could be re-assigned from one task to another easily. As such, lots and lots of different ideas of how to solve a problem could be running concurrently. Decision making could be a process of one candidate "eating" another idea's resources through some method of comparison in order to approach consensus (maybe brain resources voting themselves from one project to another, sort of like some bacterial decision-making processes have been suggested to work: see ~8min for basic discussion of quorum sensing for triggering virulence http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html), or some higher-level part of the brain governing the decisions by weighing the options separately, possibly reassigning "votes" like the alternative voting system in politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE). I like more emergent methods due to their simpler underlying design so I favor the first option, but I don't have enough knowledge to claim it to be more likely.
A few years ago some simple learning robots figured out how to lie (of a sorts). They were designed to do three things at the same time: move, shine a light when near "food", and avoid poison (a floor patch which lowered internal score or drained batteries). The behavior code was varied randomly between the different robots, and the most successful of each round were then "mated" and used to populate the next trial. The robots first learned to associate the blue light from other robots with the presence of food - very basic communication. Then the robots quickly learned to not shine the blue light when they were near food - they did better when other robots didn't know they were on to a good food source. Some even started shining the blue light when they were near poison - luring in unsuspecting companions. http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other
No conscious thought needed, just a simple algorithm that measured food gathering success, correlated trends against its other behaviors, and adjusted those behaviors accordingly. This ties in with the issue of the importance of the unconscious mind in conscious decision making - if you get a chance to read On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not , it takes a neuroscience look at how much of our supposedly conscious choices are made before we're even aware we have a choice to make.
The move to more and more parallelization in programming in general, and the availability of GPUs as computational resources is very interesting, and has started AI research down this path. Instead of one or two CPUs doing complex work on a small number of concurrent threads, the CPU hands off a large dataset and simple rote tasks to a large number of smaller compute units (SIMD). Search Google for "AI GPU" "CUDA" or "OpenCL" and you'll find a ton of info (including this fairly recent item: AI Researchers to Simulate Honey Bee Brain with GPUs ). Not the same as merging storage with processing, but a step in that direction.
Came expressly to post that link.
His book The Master and His Emissary is illuminating and presents compelling arguments.
None of which, as far as I can see, is at odds with this study.
There are a plethora of books on consciousness.
From the science side of things the neuroscientist Antti Revonuso has a book "Consciousness: the science of subjectivity" which has a good mix of the philosophy and science of consciousness. Christof Koch, probably one of the leading neuroscientists who study consciousness, has a few books as well. The Quest for Consciousness is one of his, which has lots of neuroscience particularly visual neuroscience in it. That is mainly science, not much philosophy. Another neuroscientist who studies consciousness is Stanislas Dehaene who wrote a good book Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. Click on the image of each book on the left in amazon (which opens up a preview) and scroll to the contents page and see if any of these books are the kind of thing you are looking for.
From the philosophical side there is (among many others) Susan Blackmores "Consciousness: An introduction" (an introductory book David Chalmers recommends) and William Seagers "Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction and Assessment". There is also a great book that has short (5-7 pages) sections on philosophers and neuroscientists and their respective theories of consciousness by Andrea Eugenio Cavanna and Andrea Nani called "Consciousness: Theories in Neuroscience and Philosophy of Mind". The first half of Michael Tye's book "Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind" is great for an overview of 10 philosophical problems of consciousness. It is very accessible and there are summaries of each problem provided. There are also great resources online such as Van Gulick's SEP article on consciousness, which would actually be a great place to start, and use it as a place to lead you to areas you are most interested in. Here is also a brief introduction to the philosophy of mind (the main philosophical discipline that deals with consciousness).
So there's a few links to some books and online articles, which should be more than enough to get you going.
By the way, there is a free masterclass on consciousness with Christof Koch on the World Science U website. You may also be interested in that.
Additionally you may like to check out the subreddit /r/sciphilconsciousness, which is all about the sharing and discussion of content related to the science and philosophy of consciousness.
First, read the wiki on Glossollaia that TheRedTeam posted. Then, if you're still interested, check out one or both of these books: Why We Believe What We Believe and Why God Won't Go Away. Both are written by a neurologist and deal with the neurology of religious belief. They don't go far enough in debunking woo and pseudoscience, but they do give a pretty detailed explanation of what is physically happening in the brain when people experience what they report as 'spiritual experience'. Both are definitely worth a read.
I have a book called the head trip which is not strictly about lucid dreaming. But it does have a chapter on it. It's very well cited so it will give you a lot of jumping points on other books to read. On top of that it just has a very interesting view point on various states of consciousness you go through during the day, While still having a rational approach.
I think it's something like, "These people only think the way they do because they are ignorant and haven't been exposed to the truth yet. This (book|pamphlet) is so self-evidently true that I can't imagine how someone could fail to be convinced."
One book I recently read that shed a lot of light on this general subject area for me was "On Being Certain" by Robert Burton, a neurologist. In some respects this is the most depressing book I've read in years.
>Oh, so you don't agree with the dualistic conception of mind and body? Then how do you explain the fact that you would still be capable of thinking even if your legs and arms were chopped off?
I think you do not understand dualism. The dualism does not exist between brain and the rest of the body. It exists between a disconnected "mind" and the body, which includes the brain.
Even if your dualism revolves around the brain and the rest of the body, you would still be wrong as the brain is part of the body itself and secondly the way we perceive the world is defined by the whole of our bodies and not just the brain. You should read more about how human thought is formed, what affects it and why the idea of dualism is a necessary illusion that the brain creates in order to provide incentive for our actions. This is a good book to start.
Chopping extremities and organs off does not change any of this. Just because I can function with less organs does not mean that something exists within each of us that is somehow separate from the rest of our bodies. It just means that our bodies are capable of functioning with less.
>It can't be a "fact" because slavery has existed, and in some parts still does exist. If it were a "fact" that people controlled their bodies, then slavery, i.e. ownership over other humans, could not be possible. But it is possible.
Slaves still control themselves. They are simply coerced (or brainwashed) in following the orders that others give them.
If you want to oppose slavery, just go ahead and oppose slavery (there's many other perfectly valid reasons to do so). There's no reason to imagine a mind-body dualism in order to do this.
>Where? All I see is that you simply asserted that ownership does not exist. But mere assertion is not scientifically permissible.
When you make anything more than an assertion based on linguistics this might hold some water. Until then, I am content to dismiss your assertions immediately.
>If it is, then aren't we simply arguing over whether or not the dualistic concept holds, rather than the logical implications of holding either view?
You want to argue that mind-body dualism holds? I suggest you start by considering all of these first.
>where the mind can exist without the body (i.e. some advanced life support system that keeps alive a floating head or brain or whatever).
What mind exists? How do you know it exists? How can this "brain in a jar" communicate that it exists? Do you realize how much you must advance into pure science-fiction in order to even make a coherent case for dualism?
>If I hold the mind to be strictly biological, i.e. physical, then am I logically permitted to hold the dualist concept?
No, because you have no means of separating between the two.
>I think that it is impossible for me, or anyone, to own their own minds,
Ah, but then, by your own argument and the use of your language (i.e "own their own minds"), you have already conceded that we do in fact own our minds. That there is something external to our minds that is doing the owning. Do you see how absurd it is to argue with linguistics?
>I don't see any reason why ownership of external physical objects to the body is metaphysically valid, but the body, which is also external to the mind, can't be owned.
Because, again, the body is not external to the mind. You have simply made an arbitrary separation between the meat that does the thinking and the meat that does the acting, even though this is a very very very simplified understanding of how human bodies work and ignores all the many nuances that affect our behaviour which do not lie with the brain or even controlled in any meaningful sense by it.
>I don't know. Maybe the dualist view is wrong, but the fact that one can still think and form thoughts even though they lose a limb somehow gives me the impression that the mind is separate from the body.
It's very easy to get impressions, but it is also unscientific.
>evidence as to what is likely to be the right answer
well. we're not looking for metaphysics in brain scans. we're just... scanning brains. any metaphysical overlay to that would be rather folly =)
(besides... i feel like mentioning this book here.)
>they are not ultimately responsible for their behaviour
again, that's only if we have to frame it in terms of that framework. and i don't think we do. behavior is there, living and breathing, regardless of what models our laws rest on. how we go about having all that behavior, all those agents running around, that's rather a historical affair, innit...
>the ability to transcend causal laws
bit too "grand" language for my taste, there. we have this thing we call "choice", which refers to us trying to figure out what to do in various situations, but it's neither a mechanical thing (it would not require all that effort if it was), nor a uniquely isolated thing (it has to rely on something, otherwise it makes no sense). those are just two quick ways of shutting down extremist/absolutist leanings towards either side, i'd say.
Two things, (1) I'm going to recommend mostly books and not textbooks, since you're going to read plenty of those in the future. And (2) I'm going to only focus on the area of cognitive psychology & neuroscience. With that being said:
Beginner:
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat: And Other Clinical Tales By Oliver Sacks
Brain Bugs: How the Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives By Dean Buonomano
Kludge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Mind By Gary Marcus
The Trouble with Testosterone: And Other Essays on the Biology of the Human Predicament By Robert M. Sapolsky
The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers By Daniel L. Schacter
Intermediate: (I'm going to throw this in here, because reading the beginner texts will not allow you to really follow the advanced texts.)
Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind By Michael S. Gazzaniga, Richard B. Ivry & George R. Mangun
Advanced:
The Prefrontal Cortex By Joaquin Fuster
The Dream Drugstore: Chemically Altered States of Consciousness By J. Allan Hobson
The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning By Keith J. Holyoak & Robert G. Morrison
Altered perceptual stuff like that kinda fascinates me. There are also some pretty crazy stories from neurologists about how brain disorders have altered the perceptions of some of their patients- probably way beyond any drugs ever have.
Cognitive Neuroscience, by Michael Gazzaniga
> Please do not "transplain" philosophy to me. I grouped them together only in reference to their being irrelevant to this discussion about biology. Go to a subreddit on philosophy if you really want to argue that either of their views change biological facts, and send me a link when you've posted the argument. I disagree, but this is not the place to discuss it.
There are already philosophical works which show how philosophy can influence biological studies and change intepretation of them. For examle https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X
https://www.amazon.com/Out-Our-Heads-Lessons-Consciousness/dp/0809016486
Ironicly, there is a book about this. A Field Guide for Humans is meant for autistics, but it really breaks down why people do what they do. There is a lot more to learn however. Small talk? It establishes a baseline (emotional mostly) with which to evaluate the following conversation. Negotiation? How do you establish trust where there is none. But the best advice I can give is to say as little as you can and make what you say mean something. I love the wikipedia page on Laconic Phrase for its examples. Also, read up on some unknown but important historical characters. Edward Bernays and [Diogenes_of_Sinope](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes of Sinope). Also, did you know about the Sky Pirates of WW2 or the Department of War Math?
Or you could just get a degree in pure mathematics and people will assume you are smart. Or learn Unix, grow a beard and nod knowingly and quietly chuckle whenever you are asked a question.
The Master and his Emissary: the Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Ian McGilchrist. Life changing
The Head Trip: Adventures on the Wheel of Consciousness - By Jeff Warren
At first is sounds like some kind of new-agey spiritual garbage. It's actually a science book about the human brain. I bought it in a clearance bin and LOVED it.
It's a non-fiction, soft science book. I say "soft science" because it's not concerned with presenting detailed figures, or numbers. It's a lot like "A Brief History of Time" in the way that it represents complicated scientific ideas in really understandable ways.
It's about the human brain, and the various "states" it can be in. Stuff like your normaal alert state. Stuff like REM state while sleeping. Stuff like hypnagogia when you're on the verge of falling asleep and start having weird disjointed thoughts.
Or that dreamy state when you naturally wake up in the middle of the night.
Or when you "zone out" after driving on the highway for 4 hours.
Or lucid dreaming.
Really, really interesting stuff. I think the title of the book caused people to misunderstand what it is so nobody bought it. It's really enlightening and interesting stuff.
But I feel like everyone is going to list the usual classics here and this will get buried. Ah well. If one person reads this book I'd be overjoyed.
Amazon Link
>Hacker is a philosopher with apparently very little understanding of neuroscience. Hacker simply isn't qualified to even be talking about neuroscience the way he is. Kandel's written fucking textbooks on the subject. And don't say "argument from authority," I'm sure you can see how these accomplishments are relevant.
Hacker is criticizing a definition of a psychological term not a neurological term, not research nor experiments or their results, just their interpretation and definition of the phenomena. There is a difference between studying the brain/neuroscience and defining psychological vocabulary, expertise regarding the brain/neuroscience does not ensure expertise regarding psychological concepts. So, following this differentiation, Hacker is perfectly within his domain, the domain of psychological concepts and their definition, which is a subset of the philosophy of psychology. Can you not see how these two areas are not identical, and not even necessarily related? It is the same for someone who knows about different kinds of vehicle but knows nothing about how engines work, and it is like an automotive technician defining driving as "any movement of the vehicle". Clearly that definition is too broad, hence, criticism of the definition results. Kandel is like an engine technician with a definition of vehicle that reads 'anything that can move', I hope this example illustrates how, while Kandel can no doubt be an expert in one area, this doesn't make in infallible in another related, yet separate area, thus, he is not immune from sound criticism. And while Hacker is not an expert in the design of neuroscientific experiments, nor in neuroscience generally, he is an expert in the domain of psychological terms, which a part of cognitive neuroscience, and this is largely where his criticisms are aimed, in his area of expertise, so to dismiss Hacker because he is a philosopher and not a neuroscientist, hence not competent in the area we are discussing is to be mistaken.
More to the point, Hacker has written numerous articles and books with neuroscientists who agree with his positions, with whole chapters dedicated to the history of cognitive neuroscience's development in specific areas, such as memory see:
https://www.amazon.ca/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X
https://www.amazon.ca/History-Cognitive-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/1118346343/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466490478&sr=1-2
http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/CovertCognition.pdf
Your criticism amounts to a car technician yelling at a automotive salesman "you know nothing about how cars work! How can you tell me the definition of a car!" The domains are related but not identical, expertise in one is not expertise in the other.
>And don't say "argument from authority," I'm sure you can see how these accomplishments are relevant.
I never said that, he is no doubt an authority on neuroscience, but not an expert on the definition of psychological terms. As I have said above, definitions are not empirical matters, science does not discover what memory is, we first define it, as Kandel has, and then using this definition we discover empirical facts (such as whether a given creature does indeed remember something).
>Yes, your leg muscles have slightly optimized the schema which controls running. They have learned how to run better.
So any change in performance is learning, gotcha, and when I get slower I guess I learn that too, and when I limp because I'm sore I guess I'm learning as well, and you can see how this cascades it calling every change in behaviour a form of learning, which is no definition at all.
"performance changes as the result of experience, which justifies the term memory"
Milner, B., Squire, L. R. and Kandel, E. R., 1998. Cognitive neuroscience and the study of memory. Neuron 20, 445–68.
>The keywords being you and I, since neuroscientists don't debate it.
They do, see Hacker's work with the well known neuroscientist Maxwell Bennett: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Bennett_(scientist)#Awards_and_lectures
>So far, a field of strawmen....
Please read the quotation provided from Kendel's work.
>No, their handicap is affecting their memory, as the electrical shock was to the slug. The difference being the inability to hear acts as a filter for stimuli, whereas the shock works more directly as an input.
Right, a performance change as a result of experience, so deafness is caused by experience, causing a change in performance, but you admit its not memory, hence you reject Kendel's definition, hence you agree with Hacker.
>Oh there's a new one: false dichotomy. See last point.
This is actually funny, I've provided the source, it confirms what I have said and Hacker has said all along. There is no false dichotomy, you just assumed there was because you thought it wasn't his definition.
>As I said, it's as bad an analogy as the broken leg one.
It's not an analogy. It's an example of how a broken legs falls under his definition of memory. There's nothing analogous about it, it's literally using his definition to make an example of how poor it is.
>Which is hilarious, because you're building strawmen with his work!
See above quote, no strawmen involved.
/u/NeverWasNorWillBe (in full 2 months ago as I cliqued),
>What's the point of posting this here?
"for me to poop on"- el, Triumph, the comic dog:
>Introduction
>Beneath the soil of Jackson
>Whom the gods love dies young
> -Menandes
>As I walked down the steps of her apartment, my mind went back over the years. My mind went back to things that have been and that I have done, the things of my life and the things of this day. I will write of this, someday. I will tell what happened here. But time is needed for its meaning to grow clear, to become part of the perspective that gives life meaning. Time is needed for the images to be reflected in the history of my life.
>My mind went back to the things I must say here - back to an image, to a terrible image, to a vision of my future and my purpose. My mind went back there.
>She lay there dead. ...
~Evan H. Walker (pbuh)
Giulio Tononi has been claiming something similar for a while now (the book is only the latest incarnation).
not everyone in the scientific and philosophical community completely agrees with your first clause
>I don't disagree with you as much as it might have sounded like I do, I just don't think the issue is as clear cut as you make out.
And why not?
>The modules need not be physically localized, I don't think that's what people suggest. The modules could be physically and functionally discrete while being stretched out across the brain (like the visual system).
"Could be".
>Well, there's a large burden of proof on the opposite opinion too. I find the claim that a general domain 'blank slate' learning model could develop language simply from experiencing it equally unlikely.
You'd be surprised at what domain-general algorithms can do given a lot of data:
See: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data (long video)
And: Rethinking Innateness
The issue is not what you find intuitively plausible, but what is demonstrably true.
>The genome certainly encodes many complex behaviors such as precise motor skills.
Where does the genome encode precise motor skills? I'm not aware of newborns with highly developed motor skills.
>The delicate and precise physical structures of the eye, the skeleton, the vascular system, and the functions provided by the autonomic nervous system are certainly hard-wired.
You'd be disregarding self-organization in biology if you said that.
>The systems can be of the 'machine learning' type, but still be genetically encoded if their parameters and weights are innate.
Again, given that we know the neocortex develops along reaction-diffusion lines, the question is: how? How is that even physically possible?
It can be helpful to sit down and try to draw a photorealistic image. Seriously. I suggest doing it right now. Draw your desk and everything on it exactly as they are, without using grids, measurements, perspective lines, or other "cheats" that Renaissance artists developed. Just draw precisely what you see.
You may have perfect penmanship and eye-hand coordination, but you'll probably still discover that what you've drawn doesn't match what you see in real life. You will almost certainly get angles and proportions incorrect (even artists who've be practicing mindfully for years get these wrong if they aren't careful or don't use aforesaid "cheats").
What's going on there? Interpretation. Your brain looks at all the shapes and colors presented to it by your eyes. Then it identifies the objects you're seeing, and it retrieves data it knows about them. For example, it knows what your desk would look like from any angle. It can guess the hardness and texture of your desk. It knows where the desk ends and the object on it begins. It know what those objects look like from different angles. What they likely feel like, how heavy they likely are, where their centers of mass likely are, etc. It's making assumptions about what color everything would appear under bright daylight, under artificial light, or in shadow.
All of this information is noise. It distracts you from drawing only what you see. Instead of blindly copying what your eyes have gathered, you find yourself influenced by your brain's interpretations. It's very, very hard to bypass this; Even when you know you're being fooled (such as in the case of optical illusions), it can be very hard to ignore your brain's faulty assumptions. Our brain's visual system is marvellously intelligent and advanced, and it stick its fingers in everything we see.
Artists have to overcome all that, and that takes a lot of practice and a certain amount of cheating—like using rulers, blocking in with abstract shapes, drawing silhouettes, sometimes even drawing upside down!
If you want to learn more, research in the field of computer vision provides some fascinating insights into the way human visual intelligence works. A good book on the subject is Visual Intelligence by Donald Hoffman.
That's going to be of limited help with RAD in an adolescent. Try this.
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Consequences-Logic-Control-Attachment-Challenged/dp/0977704009/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409185480&sr=1-4&keywords=reactive+attachment+disorder
I'll have to check out The Master and His Emissary some time. It was mentioned in 79 - Professor Andrew Gurevich. They also discussed The Alphabet Versus the Goddess which I've read and enjoyed. It relates neurology and linguistics.
Since when is it taboo to read "mein Kampf?" Might be but who actually cares (aside from politicians). Learn basic statistics and learn about the predictive value of IQ tests (how the hell did I even end up having to defend that stuff, I prefer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences).
Actually most of thoses models of cognition with all their "faculties" and spooks are probably nonsense (https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X).
Also that book ("mein Kampf") is mostly about various conspiracy theories regarding WW1, jews etc. I once told my German teacher (back when I was still some "German kid") I read part of it but not all. She said why not? I told her it was too d*amn boring. Then she agreed. Didn't get jailed btw.
"but if you're honestly indexing people by IQ scores- maybe you could use a more nuanced understanding of intelligence."
How would I even do that? "You disagreed, sit down and take this test!" Idgaf about people's actual IQ scores. What matters is what they say and do. Throw in some tit-for-tat.
"One day you'll meet an incredibly attractive interesting girl and you'll want to sleep with her "
I am not ordered around by my ** and will not change opinions based on that. And where I live there are plenty of attractive "girls" so what.
"while talking to her you'll use words like "special", "autistic", and "schizophrenia" to describe crazy dysfunctional things or people you see in the world."
Big deal. If she cannot take some hyperbole then we are just no fit. Both parties move on, done. Also, if she felt genuinly insulted, why would I still want to sleep with her "anyway"? What kind of scumbags do you take men for?
"because she has a brother with autism or Downs and you didn't know."
That's life. If she gets "triggered" by my word-choice (btw who rants on about how bad all kinds of things are when they are attracted to someone lmao) then that's her right. Can't be helped.
"Just a helpful tip to save you from future humiliation. "
How is not getting to sleep with some random person I am attracted to humilating? Are most males humilated most of the time because of a bit rejection!?
Ps:
" could support his claims against biological determinism."
I am not a biological determinist.
"I check my white privilege all the time, thanks very much. That's why"
"post-Brexit Islamophobia in Europe makes the American Jim Crow South seem progressive. ""
//
" let the job market decide what you study at university instead of your political passions."**
Good advice for the kids. Agreed.
Yes, some interesting stuff happens in the brain when we have a spiritual experience or are in a part of group worship, or when we pray.
The article cites Andrew Newberg. He's written many books on the subject, and this is where your argument against your friend comes from - by actually looking at who is making the claim, and what they're actually saying. I'm quoting from a short review found on amazon.co.uk (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-God-Wont-Go-away/dp/0345440331/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Why+God+Won%27t+Go+Away%3A+Brain+Science&qid=1564099866&s=books&sr=1-1)
​
\>>Researchers Newberg and D'Aquili used high-tech imaging devices to peer into the brains of meditating Buddhists and Franciscan nuns. As the data and brain photographs flowed in, the researchers began to find solid evidence that the mystical experiences of the subjects "were not the result of some fabrication, or simple wishful thinking, but were associated instead with a series of observable neurological events,"
​
If this is proof of "God", then this should only be happening in those who are believing in the correct one. It certainly shouldn't happen in both Buddishits *and* a group of Catholics (as the Franciscan nuns apparently are) if the origin is some supernatural being, because they don't believe in the same supernatural beings. Their beliefs are, from what I understand, pretty much mutually exclusive.
​
To put this in simpler terms: Your friend has essentially bought a computer, opened the CD/DVD drive, noticed the size of the hole in the drive tray fits cups from his local fast food joint perfectly, and has decided that this is proof of some link between the computer maker and the fast food restaurant.... Even though the fast food joint acrros the road from that one also has cups that fit.
While there is still much we don't know about the brain and how it works to generate consciousness, we are not completely in the dark and a lot of exciting work is being done. Here is a good article in scientific American about it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/
If you'd like to explore it further I can personally recommend synaptic self by Joseph LeDoux.
Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are https://www.amazon.com/dp/0142001783/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_40PEDb8MH4JXZ
It's a very good book.
I think we are far in the clear at this point in asserting that consciousness is generated in the brain. I don't think it will be long before we can actually read the contents of consciousness digitally.
It's actually both. Deception is integral to NT communication. What can I tell ya? NT's are weird.
Here's a good resource for learning more about how NT's brains function and/or dysfunction.
I've done some more research into this subject now, and I found a book that addresses it from yet another angle. For your interest:
"'The first of its kind, this self-help book will offer guidance, help and solace to the many sufferers of depersonalisation disorder.' Daphne Simeon, Depersonalisation and Dissociation Program, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York Depersonalisation disorder can make you feel detached from life and many people describe feeling 'emotionally numb' or even as if their body doesn't belong to them. It can be a symptom of another problem such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and, particularly, of panic disorder, or of an illness like epilepsy or migraine. It can also occur in its own right and/or as a side effect of certain drugs. "
https://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Depersonalization-Feelings-Unreality-Behavioral/dp/1845295544
I don't really understand what you're getting at with your bullet points. There's a strong suspicion that they'll find it because so far the standard model has been correct at describing the universe on small scales. The reason it's being looked for is that the standard model predicts its existence, even though we haven't seen it yet.
The rest of your comment is exactly the point of QM, because all particles are waves. There are only waves, which coalesce into particles when we observe them (at which point there are only particles). The cognitive bias here isn't so much that we're biased towards particles, but that we're biased towards things existing even when nothing is looking at them.
To go back to the double slit experiment, we understand that electrons exhibit an interference pattern (peaks/troughs of the wave interfere with one another to give bars at the back wall). If we put an examiner on one or both slits, to see which side the electron went through, then we get just two bars at the back wall (as you'd see with a particle). Particles exist as waves until they're examined, and then they settle into behaving like particles again. Further, there is evidence to suggest that this collapsing of wave into matter is directly related to its being observed by a conscious (currently understood to be human, but not necessarily only human).
If this sounds weird and impossible, welcome to the club.
I'd highly recommend reading The Physics of Consciousness if you're curious about learning more. It came out a while ago, but is a pretty good jumping off point for further education (without going to the trouble of getting a PhD).
On the science front, try Beyond Boundaries: The New Neuroscience of Connecting Brains with Machines---and How It Will Change Our Lives by Miguel Nicolelis, and Sebastian Seung's Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are. I'd also suggest looking into the research on biocompatible materials, but I personally don't know of good books in that area.
This is one of my favorite books. Give it a looksie.
> What is consciousness?
Since neuroscience started to research this topic seriously, there's no more reason for mysticism. There's textbooks about it now. I personally read Dehaene's book and it cleared up all of my confusion.
You might want to read more deeply into the notion that reason and emotion are "easily separated." See, e.g,
Robert Burton (neuroscientist), On Being Certain (see also this for a short intro to Burton's book)
Antonio Damasio (neuroscientist), Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain and The Feeling of What Happens
I read a book a couple of years ago: Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. The question you bring up wasn't discussed explicitly, from what I can remember, but here's my sense of it after reading the book. The speed at which you read most likely has to do a lot with how your brain formed while you were first learning to read, and probably can't be changed all that much afterwards.
Depending on your girlfriend's preferences, this could be cool:
http://www.amazon.com/Phi-A-Voyage-Brain-Soul/dp/030790721X
> Read "an aspergers/autistics guide to the neurotypical world"
"A Field Guide to Earthlings: An autistic/Asperger view of neurotypical behavior"
https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Earthlings-autistic-neurotypical-ebook/dp/B004EPYUV2
> pause for thought.
to be pendantic, he paused because his brain entered flight mode then his eyes registered the children and his brain switched to fight mode. he may have had the after thought "RUN, oh shit kids, PICK THEM UP" but in reality his brain automatically acted and "he" was not consciously making any of these decisions
read this book as it completely explains how the human brain works and that our concept of consciousness is actually made up by our brain and decision making is ultimately out of our control
Check out this book it's a good read:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/0345440331
Interesting brain activity happens when people pray especially in the area that helps us distinguish ourselves from our environment.
TL;DRs are fine, but I still encourage you to read the whole article.
For further reading see www.amazon.com/Connectome-How-Brains-Wiring-Makes/dp/0547508182/
Beyond Consequences by Heather Forbes and Bryan Post.
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Consequences-Logic-Control-Attachment-Challenged/dp/0977704009/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451913113&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+consequences+logic+and+control
http://www.amazon.ca/Connectome-How-Brains-Wiring-Makes/dp/0547508182 This was a great book for not only gaining a better understanding of what you're trying to figure more out about, but it also gives a great look into the operations of the brain. I highly recommend.
Thank you thank you thank you!
Would love to hear more about your trials and tribulations this year if you're interested in sharing.
Can PM or reply here (personally, I felt liberated by sharing mine with the world, but I understand if you prefer to keep it private--though who knows, some day you might be doing what I am right now and putting it all on the table).
Looking back, I can see how every experience I had led me to the moment of evolution, but two of them stand out.
WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE & SCENARIOS DESCRIBED BELOW
I don't want to glorify the behavior at all, and will do my best to describe it in non-specific ways, but some details need to be included for the story to be told. If anyone can teach me how to add those Reddit spoiler tags, I will cover any of the graphic stuff. Don't want to harm anyone.
Finding DBT, and the death of my therapist
I was in a very passionate, very loving, yet extremely toxic relationship with a girl and it all blew up last December.
I thought I was going to marry her, our families had met and hung out, I had spent the entire summer breaking my back in the New York City heat on a rooftop building a deck just to impress her dad who was a contractor (working 4-6 hours a day with him while also trying to run my online business).
It all blew up, and I went on a crazy bender trying to escape the pain.
I had a ton of extra money from working non-stop all through December selling Christmas trees, and my NYE "party" if you can call it that lasted until mid-January. Much of it is a blur, or lost to blackouts, but the parts I remember were scary because I had completely lost control of myself.
I was hanging out with friends, and doing normal social stuff, but I felt this inner pain and rage that had me acting like a crazy person. Smoking crack, getting in fights, drinking every day, cocaine, molly, and anything else I could get.
At some point, I knew I needed help, and I had been introduced to DBT before briefly in the past--one skill that had been taught to me for relieving mental anguish (and it worked), so I knew I needed to get more of that.
DBT is a scientifically proven method used to treat a variety of mental conditions, including: depression, anxiety, uncontrollable emotions, drug addiction, PTSD, and so much more. I've dealt with all of those listed. It is especially effective in treating Borderline Personality Disorder, which has no known cure (other than DBT), and if I had to pick a label that says "this is what I have", that's the one I would choose (though I'm not a fan of labels, because no two cases are completely the same).
I started therapy with Dr. Victoria Taylor, and walked into her office one day for the first session.
I have never been met with more understand or compassion. She used a DBT technique I would later learn as being called "validating", which is when you acknowledge someone's feelings and tell them it makes sense they feel that way (it might not be a rational feeling, but if you are thinking irrationally, of course it makes sense you feel the way you do).
It felt like I had been on fire and she poured a bucket of ice water on my head. She told me how DBT is scientifically proven (they're doing independent studies all the time) and that if I committed to the work, my BPD could be cured.
I have since come to realize that people with BPD don't have anything wrong with them at their core level. They, like all people are inherently good, but the conditions in their life (usually an invalidating parent) created a set of coping skills that later became problematic.
For example, I learned at a young age to use drugs to fix emotional pain. It worked for a while. Then it stopped working. Then it started causing problems.
I learned to use violence to end emotional pain inflicted by other people. It worked for a while. Then it stopped working. Then it started causing problems.
This cycle is the same for every destructive behavior any person can engage in (over eating, sitting around the house all day, watching too much TV or playing too many video games).
What I lacked were the exact tools DBT provides, which are:
So there I am, suffering like crazy, still having trouble with drug addiction but trying more and more to work DBT skills into my daily life. Some days I would just cry and cry and cry for hours on end. I would fall asleep on my floor crying and wake up in my clothes, and try to carry on.
It was the worst hell I've ever been through. Worse than jail, or prison or anything else. It felt like I was on fire, but I could call my therapist to get advice at any time (also part of this particular style of therapy) and she would show me the appropriate skill to apply. I would apply it, AND IT WORKED. For a bit. Then I suffered some more. But there was always progress.
Drugs and spirituality
I had stopped using cocaine, and was trying to cut back on alcohol.
I continued smoking weed and doing a lot of psychedelic drugs like mushrooms and LSD. LSD never felt good to me, it's just too intense and not intense enough in all the wrong places--if you've done both mushrooms and LSD, you might understand what I mean.
Now might be a good time to say that I am as skeptical as they come. I have never believed in God or religion or spirituality. I am very practical in my beliefs. If I experience something myself, I still don't believe it as objective fact, because I know how pliable the human mind is. It has been proven that people can create memories to avoid remembering something painful, or sometimes for no reason at all. So I don't take my experience as objective fact. I wish more people knew and accepted this fact: that you can't every know anything with absolute certainty.
If you had told me anything I am about to tell you at another time in my life, I would probably think you're insane. What I'm about to describe needs to be experienced to be fully understood--or at least approached with an open mind. I'll walk you through the logical steps to get you as close as possible to understanding, but you really have to see for yourself some day. If you seek this experience, it will find you at the right time.
Your brain is a computer & data receiver
Through my experience in life, I have come to believe that our brains are basically computers and receivers -- kind of like a radio -- that receives data from the spiritual plane of existence. Your soul or essence has a consciousness of its own outside of time and space, and is the true seat of your consciousness (not your brain).
I'll explain why I feel this way in a minute, so if it sounds whacky, just hear me out...
The Universe we live in is purely mathematic. If you're not convinced of that, check out this documentary.
Also check out the movie Pi if you haven't seen it, cus it's tangentially related and really f&*ng good :)
It has been scientifically proven that our brains are capable of rationalizing and creating a sense of motive behind actions we take, after we take them. I highly recommend everyone reads the book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat: and Other Clinical Tales. It's a little dense, but find the part about split brain tests and read that if nothing else.
Receiving help from the spirit world
There are spirits that are not materialized here in the physical plane of existence. I don't know anything about them, except that I have experienced them.
Two days before my therapist died an untimely death (she was young, apparently healthy, and seemed well), I had two dreams...
I wrote them down on my personal blog because I felt they were premonitions of my own death and wanted people to know I called it (nothing like one last "told ya so" to all the friends and fam snooping through my personal stuff when I'm gone haha).
I believe our dream state is the most open state our minds can be in. So we can receive data from the spirit realm--stuff that is drowned out in our day-to-day existence. Your brain takes that data and makes it into something you can understand.
You might like this book:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Mistook-His-Wife/dp/1491514078/ref=nodl_
>I don't understand spirituality. Feeling of oneness and such. What does it mean? It doesn't make sense to me.
There's a school of thought in cognitive science that your mind has two gross modes of apprehending reality roughly corresponding to the left and right hemisphere - the right deals with the bigger picture and helps orient your attention to things that might be important, and the left thinks in a way that's closely tied to language and that constantly divides things up, categorizes and puts borders around things.
In the West, and especially in any technical field - basically, if you're part of any demographic that reddit skews towards - our education, careers, philosophies and so on have all worked together to train us to approach the world more in the second way: we want everything to have crisp conceptual borders, to be binnable into classical categories, and if you can't describe it with language, well, it's probably not really all that real.
The way most people describe spiritual experience is on the opposite end of the spectrum, so much so that to even call the usual ways of talking about it "descriptions" can seem too generous to people that prefer to look at the world in strictly rational and linguistic terms. The talk tends towards vague feelings, abstruse metaphor, "I know it when I see it", "I can't really describe it to someone else who hasn't also experienced it", and so on. In view of the rational vs. big picture cognitive dichotomy, that might be because this different way of thinking actually takes place in different parts of the brain that are mutually inhibitory with your linguistic faculties.
If you've managed to craft a life for yourself where you get by on your rational faculties, it might be hard to even picture why being able to see the world in the fuzzier and less linguistically mediated way would be useful, so maybe I can illustrate with an example:
Picture a young male redditor 20-24 who's in or recently out of college with an engineering degree, trying to find his way in the world. He's done everything right, focused on school, got good grades, asked for and followed career advice he got online. He's reasonably fit and maintains a fairly disciplined lifestyle. Maybe he's even in his first career-type job, making decent money... but he comes to /r/meditation complaining about anxiety and maybe some underlying feelings that he's not sure of his place in the world. His relationships suck and he has a hard time talking to women. Sometimes he comes off as argumentative, pedantic or excessively detail-oriented and totally misses why this might interfere with attaining the social life he so desperately desires.
Sound familiar?
There are lots of approaches to address any one particular facet of what's wrong with this young man, but one way to take a broader view is to see that he's spent the greater part of his life developing his ability to pick things apart and categorize them and give them linguistic labels, and in so doing he's left behind his ability to relax, to be OK with necessarily imperfect and incomplete explanations for the world and everything that happens in it, to take the broader view, to paint his experiences in colorful metaphors and so on. In other words, he's highly mentally developed and spiritually underdeveloped.
Meditation can make up some of the steps on the road to fixing this. So can traveling, building a new relationship to music, taking time off and living aimlessly for a little while, learning to express yourself artistically, and other favorite pastimes of liberally educated baristas that reddit tends to enjoy looking down on.
I need to do some reading to see how scientifically valid the idea about the two thought systems is, since they tend to be presented in a left-brain/right-brain dichotomy which I know many popular sources overstate the importance of. The wikipedia page on it seems to be pretty well cited, though maybe not explicitly for spirituality versus rationality. There's a book The Master and His Emissary about it that I'm meaning to read that might be interesting if you want to read more about these ideas. If you can't tell though, a lot of the above description cribs from my own life. There's personal truth in it even if that hasn't shown up on fMRIs and in longitudinal studies yet. See if it resonates.
Not an e-book, but really great book written by doctors in currently reading: Overcoming Depersonalisation and Feelings of Unreality: A self-help guide using cognitive behavioural techniques (Overcoming Books) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1845295544/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_h.ORCbFD90YBG
The language ideas, if I recall correctly, are discussed in Wolf's Proust and the Squid. I think she talks about the brain activity needed to read kanji versus latin letters, and more genreally the degree of automatization / abstraction you can achieve with different language / writing systems. It remember feeling like it didn't go super deep but it might be worth checking out!
The blind painter is amazing, to the extent that, honestly, I do also find myself a bit on the skeptical side (maybe being influenced be that video of a blind man drawing a cat, which turned out a lot more like you'd expect...) It's fascinating question though. I'd tend to think that we do have an abstracted representation of spatial information that could be informed by any modality including touch. Abstract from perception anyway, not from the body or motor system.
Do you have $15 and a long attention span? :) http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Intelligence-How-Create-What/dp/0393319679
Very nice. Its nice to see this particular school of philosophy-of-mind getting out there. If you enjoyed this, I would also recommend the fantastic Out of our Heads by Alva Noe, and The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger.
Hello past me! I got my BS in biomedical engineering and now I'm in my first year of a neuro phd program, woo!
Definitely brush up on the basics, maybe borrow an intro neuro textbook from a library (I skimmed through From Neuron to Brain before I started). Yes, you will be taking some "intro" courses the first year, but most of my professors teach the class with the assumption that the students took neuro classes in undergrad, which I did not (plus I graduated from undergrad in 2009...).
If you know what you're interested in and could post it in here, we might be able to come up with some interesting papers or good books to read that are more specific to you. For example, I am interesting in cortical networks and my PI suggested I check out Connectome. I will be honest, I have not read it yet as I have plenty of papers I have to read every week, but I plan on getting to it over the summer.
I have to upvote you because I think it would really help her. However, given that she is initially refusing to go to counseling with him... that she would approach that book and read with with even the smallest open mind is a very, very remote possibility.
An easier book to read might be Why God Won't Go Away which has quite a bit of detail on the inner workings of the brain, and then relates that to spiritual experiences. It takes a very neutral view. At the very least it will introduce doubt into the mind of the most staunch atheist or theist (a 1 or 7 on Dawkins' scale.) It's a very good read, if a little heavy on the physiology of the brain in the first few chapters. It could help her understand at least a little of the other side, even if she doesn't agree with it - I came from the complete inverse and it helped me in the same way.
Is it similar to this book?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Physics-Of-Consciousness-Quantum/dp/0738204366
We already have "dynamic models inspired by a new kind of "developmental connectionism," a marriage of connectionist models and developmental neurobiology, forming a new theoretical framework for the study of behavioral development.". Chomsky would not approve.
Dear OP: I have a book recommendation for you!
The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat by Oliver Sacks (Amazon link)
>individuals afflicted with fantastic perceptual and intellectual aberrations: patients who have lost their memories and with them the greater part of their pasts; patients no longer able to recognize people and common objects; patients whose limbs have become alien
Understand that, of course, even the authors first impulse is "bullshit".
Then he started doing clinical tests and ... just read the book.
Brains ARE weird.