Can the mind control the brain?

[Raudorn]

Hi there, I'm not quite sure if "Sleep and Health" would be the right forum instead. Excuse me, if I'm wrong. Additionally I want to mention, that I'm not an expert on the following issue, so don't trust me! As far as I know, most of the tasks our brain does, like controling the body functions, coordinating our senses, but not interpreting them, keeping us alive, are not only done subconcious, but done by the (in terms of evolution) oldest part of our brain. This part isn't accessable by our concious mind. (luckily ) Other tasks, like interpreting what our eyes see, our ears hear etc. are done semi-concious. We can't control them willingly, but influence them over time. As babies we have learned slowly to cope with our world. If this world was a different one, seeing would not quite be the same as we know it (within this world). The whole progress of seeing is partly determined by the physical shape of our body and partly by what we've learned as babies. Long story short, under special circumstances our vision can be changed a little bit. For example the two images our eyes create are molted into a single field of view by our brain. Some people (Ok, until now I have only heard of myself) can willingly split this single image back into two, which overlap. I'm quite sure there are other example of this small impact of our mind to our brain. I invite you to discuss (and to some cookies, I have them here... somewhere... one sec... Ah, here!)

[Stupified]

The image we see is inverted on the retna of our eyes (check terms and spelling). I've heard of experiment where they use lenses to flip the image right-side-up. The subject now sees the world upsidedown but eventually adjusts and starts seeing normally. Untill they take the glasses off and then they see everything upsidedown again. I don't know what my point is but it is interesting.

[Abra]

The eyes-out-of-focus is a good example. Reminds me of the Magic Eye books. If you can manipulate focus willingly, then you don't have to put your nose all the way to the book before pulling back to see the hidden image. We can also alter bodily functions through meditation. Blood pressure goes down, brainwaves go deeper, breathing and heart rate become deeper and slower. Just because we are consciously relaxing.

[Mystic7]

The eyes-out-of-focus is a good example. Reminds me of the Magic Eye books. If you can manipulate focus willingly, then you don't have to put your nose all the way to the book before pulling back to see the hidden image. oh yeah those secret eye images. I guess you can also get secret code words hidden within text if you change your minds eye. And Rebecca is not so bad what's wrong with her??

[Mystic7]

I'm quite sure there are other example of this small impact of our mind to our brain. I invite you to discuss (and to some cookies, I have them here... somewhere... one sec... Ah, here!) watch out for the cookie monster.

[Grod]

watch out for the cookie monster.

[Raudorn]

We can also alter bodily functions through meditation. Blood pressure goes down, brainwaves go deeper, breathing and heart rate become deeper and slower. Just because we are consciously relaxing. Yeah, that's a good example. Our thoughts affect our heart rate and breathing. Did you ever read a really good book and suddenly realised your heart beats fast, because the protagonist is in danger? Sometimes I'm getting angry just by thinking about something, that really bugs me. Well, I don't know how to use this to achieve any goal, but it sure can be useful (somehow). Oh, I accidentially locked the cookie monster into the basement.

[Abra]

oh yeah those secret eye images. I guess you can also get secret code words hidden within text if you change your minds eye. And Rebecca is not so bad what's wrong with her?? Her voice, high-pitched. The annoyance of the voice alone outweighs her coolness. X____x

[thegnome54]

Changes in brain function over time are a manifestation of cerebral plasticity. These changes occur as a mechanical effect of the data being input into the system - as you mentioned, a different world (different inputs) would create a different brain. That being said, I see no reason to separate the brain and "mind". It seems like a false dichotomy, or worse - an invention (what is this 'mind' thing, anyways?). The brain as a biological machine is capable of undergoing all of the changes mentioned, as well as producing emotions and higher thought. Under my definitions, your question can be rephrased as 'can the brain control the brain'? I suppose the answer would be 'yes', then, although it's very likely that the idea of 'control' is an illusion created by the brain - the brain's mechanical functioning (which results in your actions) is not really the result of conscious decisions, but rather the other way around. (Yes, that means that I believe free will is an illusion)

[Xaqaria]

The eyes-out-of-focus is a good example. Reminds me of the Magic Eye books. If you can manipulate focus willingly, then you don't have to put your nose all the way to the book before pulling back to see the hidden image. We can also alter bodily functions through meditation. Blood pressure goes down, brainwaves go deeper, breathing and heart rate become deeper and slower. Just because we are consciously relaxing. Some people are capable of specifically targeting things like heart rate, and quickly alter them. Many sharp shooters can do this and use it to improve their aim.

[Mystic7]

I believe free will is an illusion What am I going to do next? What is going to happen next? If you can't tell me. Then that illusion is pretty real anyway. Because the fact you don't know, outweighs your own thoughts about what you think you do know. As you can't back your own belief up with much result in the real world. Free will being an illusion remains merely an idea inside your own mind. An idea, without any source of reference other than your own blatant decisions about reality.

[thegnome54]

What am I going to do next? What is going to happen next? If you can't tell me. Then that illusion is pretty real anyway. Because the fact you don't know, outweighs your own thoughts about what you think you do know. As you can't back your own belief up with much result in the real world. Free will being an illusion remains merely an idea inside your own mind. An idea, without any source of reference other than your own blatant decisions about reality. Not really, actually. I'm basing my belief on the concepts of causal determinism and true randomness - it seems clear that one of these must exist (they are mutually exclusive), and if either exist, free will cannot. In order for free will to exist, you need to be able to make non-random, non-predictable decisions. This is contradictory by nature, so unless you postulate some non-physical body to provide free will, you have little grounds to stand on. Plus, if you argue for a soul of some sort, this soul would have to break the laws of physics in order to release the body from the limitations of causal determinism.

[Abra]

Not really, actually. I'm basing my belief on the concepts of causal determinism and true randomness - it seems clear that one of these must exist (they are mutually exclusive), and if either exist, free will cannot. In order for free will to exist, you need to be able to make non-random, non-predictable decisions. This is contradictory by nature, so unless you postulate some non-physical body to provide free will, you have little grounds to stand on. Plus, if you argue for a soul of some sort, this soul would have to break the laws of physics in order to release the body from the limitations of causal determinism. I agree with you about free will, after some thought. But I doubt the acceptance of the fact would influence much. Thoughts and actions are based off of previous thought, which can be influenced by genetics and the environment's interactions with the individual. We base our thoughts off of past reasoning and logic. Sure I can do whatever I want, but what I do will be based off of what I've learned and how I interpret it (along with the current situation). That is what we see as "free" will, although it's not necessarily what free will is defined as. If you ask me, I believe the definition is what needs to be altered, as that seems to be the part that's contradictory.

[O'nus]

Hi there, I'm not quite sure if "Sleep and Health" would be the right forum instead. Excuse me, if I'm wrong. Additionally I want to mention, that I'm not an expert on the following issue, so don't trust me! *Cough*AnotherReasonWhyWeShouldHaveAScienceForum*C ough* As far as I know, most of the tasks our brain does, like controling the body functions, coordinating our senses, but not interpreting them, keeping us alive, are not only done subconcious, but done by the (in terms of evolution) oldest part of our brain. This part isn't accessable by our concious mind. (luckily ) Other tasks, like interpreting what our eyes see, our ears hear etc. are done semi-concious. We can't control them willingly, but influence them over time. As babies we have learned slowly to cope with our world. If this world was a different one, seeing would not quite be the same as we know it (within this world). The whole progress of seeing is partly determined by the physical shape of our body and partly by what we've learned as babies. Long story short, under special circumstances our vision can be changed a little bit. For example the two images our eyes create are molted into a single field of view by our brain. Some people (Ok, until now I have only heard of myself) can willingly split this single image back into two, which overlap. I'm quite sure there are other example of this small impact of our mind to our brain. I invite you to discuss (and to some cookies, I have them here... somewhere... one sec... Ah, here!) I think what you are describing is binocular rivalry. To simulate binocular rivalry, use your right hand to hold a cardboard cylinder from a paper towel roll against your right eye. Hold your left hand, palm facing you, roughly four inches in front of your left eye, with the edge of your hand touching the tube. At first it will appear as though your hand has a hole in it, as your brain concentrates on the stimulus from your right eye. After a few seconds, though, the "hole" will fill in with a fuzzy perception of your whole palm from your left eye. If you keep looking, the two images will alternate, as your brain selects the first visual stimulus viewed by one eye, then the viewed by the other. The alteration is, however, a bit biased, you will probably perceive the visual stimulus you see through the cylinder more frequently than you will see your palm. The bias occurs for two reasons. First, your palm is out of focus because it is much closer to your face, and blurred visual stimuli tend to be weaker competitors in binocular rivalry than sharp pattersns, such as the surroundings you are viewing through the tube. Second, your palm is a relatively smooth surface with less contrast and fewer contours than your comparatively rich environment. In the laboratory, we carefully select the patterns viewed by the subjects to elminate such bias. What do you think..? (Ref to SCIAM) ~

[Raudorn]

Ah, thanks O'nus. This seems to be a more feasible explanation. I could recreate the effect of the "perforated palm" pretty neatly. When I wasn't concentrating, what I saw switched between both states. When I split the image like I told before I stabilized one of the two states without flipping back to the other. I think the reason for the "split image effect" is, that my left eye is very dominant. My right eye has a very high diopter value in comparison to the left one. So my sight is mainly dominated by my left eye, while my right eye contributes only little to things I can see with both eyes. I think this also is the reason to my crappy depth perception. It takes longer to "know" where a ball is flying to and I'm having more trouble hitting it, especially when it's flying directly towards me. It is as bad as my friends depth perception closing one eye while playing. (Yes I do wear glasses and no, they can't compensate this sufficiently)

[Harrycombs]

^^ If have that type of thing too I believe, just inverted. If part of my right eye is blocked by my hand, it looks sort of transparent and I can see the very blurry image of what my left eye see behind it. I could never notice this when I was younger, because my left eye and right eye were equal then. I have found that without covering one eye, I can do this when I try to. Most of the time, I am only looking the my right eye, because left one barely does anything at all.

[thegnome54]

That is what we see as "free" will, although it's not necessarily what free will is defined as. If you ask me, I believe the definition is what needs to be altered, as that seems to be the part that's contradictory. This is essentially the argument of "responsible determinists", which assert that free will, as in "people can do what they want to do", exists, and so they should be held responsible for their actions. I think this is a bit silly, though, because you can't hold a machine responsible for doing what it has been programmed to do simply because the machine thinks it has chosen to do so by itself. The best way to put it, I think, is that 'the illusion of free will exists'. This does mean that no one can be held responsible for their actions, but I'm not sure you want to get into that discussion (I don't think it matters).