Detached9

I read from two sources that consciousness has been detected in the frontal lobes. One is called <u>Mysteries of The Mind</u> the other one I don't recall off the top of my head. Does anyone have any further information on this?

Don't lobotomies mess with (or was it remove) the frontal lobes? If it does, does that mean the one who had the lobotomy no longer is conscious? Does your brain adapt?

tronvillain

What would "consciousness has been detected in the frontal lobes" even mean?

excreationist

Lobotomies just involve the frontal lobes being severed a bit.

<a href="http://208.245.156.153/archive/output.cfm?ID=1234" target="_blank">Lobotomy Information</a>

I haven't read much on the subject, but as far as where the seat of consciousness is in the brain, the <a href="http://www.phil.vt.edu/assc/newman/" target="_blank">thalamus</a> theory makes a lot of sense.

tronvillain

I think there being a "seat of consciousness" at all is fairly unlikely.

excreationist

Then how is it possible for us to associate different aspects of experience together unless there are places in the brain that process these elements simultaneously?
e.g. we can learn to associate the smell of smoke with fire, or sounds or shapes with concepts and objects, visuals with taste and temperature and words with the passage of time and sequences of events.

Francois Tremblay

I thought consciousness was an emergent property of the brain. Wasn't that the latest hypothesis ? Though I'll admit ignorance of the subject...

echidna

So how does a Consciousness Meter work ?

tronvillain

excreationist:
A brain is not a computer, though a computer could run a program that would simulate a brain. Given the structure of the brain, the most obvious way to learn to create an association between two things is to create connections between parts of the regions related to those things. Now, what does this have to do with consciousness?

excreationist

Ok... that would be how we learn... and what about when we're recalling a lot of things... e.g. we might smell smoke and think that something is burning... maybe it is in the kitchen... did I set anything going in the kitchen? Yes, and burnt food is bad so I'd better go and switch it off. Along the way you might see a cockroach on the floor. You might have associated cockroaches with negative emotions and that the solution is to take them outside or kill them with a shoe or insect spray. But you don't have enough time. Then you step on a nail and you decide that it is important enough to solve that problem now. Using the triggered associations, you decide to pull the nail out. Then you are reminded of your quest to turn the stove off by the smell, which is getting stronger. Then you hear the telephone, which startles you, but it shouldn't take very long to turn the stove off so you decide to go to the stove first. Then you turn off the stove, answer the phone, say you have to call them back, try and save the burnt cooking, check your bleeding foot, search for some tissues, use the tissues on your foot, then on to lower priority takes - you remember the cockroach... you decide to use some insect spray, then can't find it so you just get a shoe and on your search for the shoe you find a photo of your friend. This triggers memories of the time when you lost the photo. So now it has been found. So you put the photo on the kitchen table and take the shoe and search for the cockroach. It isn't in sight so you look around the general area. Then eventually you give up and do something else.

To me, that behaviour can only be explained by some kind of "central executive" that looks at the priorities (associated emotional intensities) and triggered behavioural patterns/memories and directs the body about what to do.

I mean you can't be walking towards the stove to turn it off while part of your brain wants to kill the cockroach right now. There needs to be some coordination of your course of action. It would be like a fresh split-brain patient where the left arm and right arms have different minds of their own.... and they might fight against each other. We are impulsive sometimes but usually there is something directing the "big picture" - so we can coordinate our actions based on priorities and prerequisites for longer-term plans.
As an analogy, what about this? Say that there are 100 builders and they all want to build a different building - e.g. a house, tower, tourist attraction, cinema, club, bank, maze, etc. Then they set about building it all at the same time, using enough bricks to only build one of those possibilities. If they had a vote on what to build and centrally planned it all, then it would be centrally organized. If they split up into three groups and each voted on what they wanted, then combined these three buildings together, there wouldn't be central planning, but on the other hand, it wouldn't be a very coherent building.

Associating all elements of experience together simultaneously just means that our consciousness is unified (i.e. there is a "seat" of consciousness), not just a bunch of a few completely isolated parts.

tronvillain

I never said they were isolated, I'm just not sure a "central executive" is required. Indeed, I don't see why one would be required to accomplish what you describe, or how one would even work.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>