INTERACTION WITH Dr. CLIFTON. K. MEADOR ON TWO VISUAL CORTICES AND THE LINKAGE WITH THE FLICKER THOUGHT EXPERIMENT OF SCHRODINGER …IN CHAPTER SIX B OF `SIX WORDS`
Two Visual Cortices :
Occipital and Parietal Lobes of the Cerebral Cortex
Notes to SK Sagar
Monday, February 17, 2014
The Occipital visual cortex is at the back of the head. It receives visual images from the retina of the eye. The nerve pathways from the medial retina (closest to the nose) cross back of the eye at the optic chiasm. Thus the images from the left medial retina crosses to the right occipital lobe and the images from the right medial retina cross to the left occipital lobe. The left medial retina thus sees objects laterally out in the left visual field; likewise the right media retina sees objects laterally in the right visual field.
The lateral retinal nerves both go back to the occipital lobe on the same side of the brain. These lateral retinas “see objects” in the central visual fields. (Central vision),
Thus a destructive lesion to the occipital lobe, say on the right side of the brain, will cause complete blindness to the entire left visual field. The person, so blinded, will “see” nothing to the left of his nose. These lesions to the occipital lobe are quite rare but give an opportunity to study some details of vision.
Now, take a person with a destroyed right occipital lobe and shine a point of light at him from the blind left visual field. Ask the person to point at the light source and he will do it with great accuracy with his hand even though he cannot “see” it consciously.
These light images go to the opposite parietal visual lobe of the brain, located on the top and lateral side of the brain. These visual cortices of the parietal lobe see form and shape and motions. These are all unconscious visions – not seen in the conscious mind. If we did not have these unconscious visual abilities, all sorts of objects and insects and whatever would fly into our eyes. Our conscious vision is too slow to care for our eyes by averting our heads. The parietal lobes “see” objects even though the person may be blind from a destroyed occipital lobe.
I am not sure how this all fits with the flicker experiment but though this back ground would be helpful in our discussions.
Best to you, Clifton
From S.K.Sagar to Dr. Clifton Meador ( 26th Feb 2014) :
Sorry for this delayed response…. But this was a difficult one.
I have read your notes a number of times with deep interest. Your analysis is perfect, and makes it clear about the physical connection – in time and space – between the right side of the brain and the left visual field, and between the left side of the brain and the right visual field.
Now, how does all this fit with the flicker experiment ?
Consider Charles Sherrington`s passage (Extract from page 111 of my book):
“It is not spatial conjunction of cereberial mechanism, which combines the two reports…it is as much as though the right-eye and the left-eye images were seen each by one of two observers and the minds of the two observers were combined to a single mind……etc“
What – I believe – Sherrington is trying to say is that `even though there may be a physical connection – in time and space – it is not this spatial conjunction (presumabely this connection in time and space) which combines the two reports.` I think we have to see it in the light of the nature of the thought experiment, which provides us with an initial condition that there is a suitable contraption which allows only every second flash to reach the right eye, and every other flash to reach the left eye, so that every eye receives only thirty flashes per second, which are not enough to remove the sensation of flickering.
So if there are two observers ( each with both eyes open ) and the same contraption is used, which allows only every second flash to reach one of them, and every other flash to reach the other one, each observer will see only thirty flashes per second and the flickering sensation persists.
Now if the contraption is removed and there are sixty flashes per second, the flickering sensation goes and each observer sees a continuous light even if he chooses to close one of the two eyes. Which means that there is a mind that does the connection between the eyes of an observer, and it is the same mind that does the connection between the two observers, except that physically this connection – between two observers – does not materialize for the simple reason that their consciousnesses are each in the singular.
Thus in each of the two examples, ie your analysis and the flickering light thought experiment, the common denominator is that there is an `intelligent field` which we call as the `mind`, which designs and builds this physical connection.
As Sherrington says “Contemporaneity of action rather than structural union seems to provide their mental collaboration“.
My favourite Sherrington Passage is the one that appears on page 112 starting with “Are there thus quasi independent sub brains based on the several modalities of sense ?……and ending with the line ….Matter and energy seem granular in structure, and so does `life`, but not so `mind`.“
In between this para there is this line “the single nerve cell is never a miniature brain“.Now it is true that a single nerve cell inside us is never a miniature brain, it is just one out of trillions and trillions of them, each one though aware in the singular is just an insignificant part of us and we in turn are conscious in the singular, but our consciousness is the sum total of the awareness of these individual cells.However when we consider a single celled `independent` creature such as a `paramecium`, it looks as if this single cell is indeed a miniature brain, for it can swim toward food, retreat from danger, and negotiate obstacles. This is curious. But strengthens my viewpoint about the ever present intelligent field, and how a mind when it encounters a certain biochemistry acquires a component of this intelligent field and gets awareness.
With all this I have a long way to go to develop a full understanding of the subject …It is extremely complex …but it is at the heart of my book. It is my good fortune that you are taking so much interest in my book. I stand to gain immensely from these interactions with you.
Looking forward. Warm regards and best wishes
From Dr. Clifton K Meador to S.K.Sagar( 28th Feb 2014):
Dear SK. Bruce Lipton makes the case that each cell is a “mind”, not sure I agree with all he says,but thought it would interest you to see the book, which you may already know. He posits that the cell membrane is the brain of each cell. Some far out thinking for you to consider. Clifton
Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton
Clifton K. Meador
From SK.Sagar To Dr. Clifton Meador( 15TH March 2014)
Dear Dr. Clifton,
Regarding Bruce Lipton : I started watching the video on `Belief in biology`.. very interesting… its an hour long video and he`s talking too fast. So I decided to buy the book thru Amazon India ..I`ll get it by 19th March…and then I can read it comfortably in the car while going to office.
On his concept…`Each cell is a mind`… I have this to say :
If this were so, it would mean the mind is `something physical`…`something made out of matter such as atoms and molecules`…. But the world of matter must comply with the laws of physics, which on the macroscopic level, ignoring quantum effects are deterministic and mechanical and hence incompatible with free will. The mind I believe – is not the cell itself – but is something within the cell, and gives it intelligence via its intelligent field. It gives the paramecium (a single celled creature) the intelligence to swim toward food, retreat from danger, and negotiate obstacles , thus disobeying the laws of physics… not just Newton`s laws of motion but also the second law of thermodynamics… whereas a dust particle, which is outside the living organism can do nothing of the sort.
And that `something` within the cell …as Descates says ..“is not a physical substance, but a tenuous, elusive ethereal sort of substance, the stuff that thoughts are made of, free and independent of ordinary ponderous matter. The mind is neither perceptible by the senses, nor extended in space. Its intelligent and purposive and its essential characteristic is thought or rather consciousness or maybe just awareness in some cases.Though the human body is an engine, it is not quite an ordinary engine, since some of its workings are governed by another engine inside it – this interior governer—engine being one of a very special sort. It is invisible, it is inaudible and it cannot be taken to bits and the laws it obeys are not those known to ordinary engineers“…Perhaps it’s a` ghost in the machine`.
However, all this leads to a substantial paradox, viz if it is matter at a macroscopic level it cannot have free will, and if it is not matter, then how can it be an engine that is supposed to act as the prime mover of the component parts of the body.
In my opinion this paradox can be resolved by considering this engine to be a quantum level matter, too infinitesimal to be visible or audible but significant enough to be completely indivisible and to follow such laws which are not known to ordinary engineers. Perhaps it is a particle, a different sort of particle – with some sublime properties – manufactured and evolved during its journey through the cosmos in the aftermath of Supernovas. All it needs then is a certain biochemistry, to become life, and on its way it picks up a part of this thing called mind which is of course ever present throughout space and time. This was discussed by me in Chapter TWO pages 15,16, and 20, where I speculated about a certain molecular unit as being a `soul`. This takes care of the `free will` aspect, and satisfies the requirement that free will is a fundamental attribute of the soul. But then there can be only one soul in one body, it cannot be that there are trillions of souls – one for each cell – in one body, if it is to fulfill the requirement of free will. In this alternative the `Soul` is what we call as `I`, it is different from the `mind`, but it doesn`t die, all it needs is another situation, another biochemistry, to become life, and on its way, each time, it picks up the mind to become conscious.
There is however another alternative which does not require a `soul` …but in this alternative …where `there is no soul`…the Mind must play a double role. …..And as Schrodinger says (Chapter Six B page 114) “The conscious mind plays a curious double role, On the one hand it is the stage, and the only stage on which this whole world-process takes place. On the other hand we gather the impression, may be the deceptive impression, that within this world-bustle the conscious mind is tied up with certain very particular organs (brains), which while doubtless the most interesting contraption in animal and plant physiology are yet not unique, not sui generis; for like so many others they serve after all only to maintain the lives of their owners, and it is only to this that they owe their having been elaborated in the process of speciation by natural selection “.
The other difficulty with that concept is that it leads to trillions and trillions of minds in the universe, with each one dying when the cell dies. This does not agree to Schrödinger’s concept of the `oneness of mind` of which I am an outright supporter. The show that is going on in the universe obviously acquires a meaning only with regard to the mind that contemplates it. It cannot be that the mind was produced by that very display that it is now watching, and would pass away when the sun finally cools down and the earth has been turned into a desert of ice and snow (Page 115).
So, at this stage, I am not particularly inclined to agree with the concept that each cell is a mind. But I have an open mind ….and I will read Bruce Lipton`s entire book and then continue the discussion.
Indeed this is an extraordinarily complex subject, but to me the most interesting subject, and is at the centre stage of my book `Six words`, and I am absolutely grateful to you for generating a detailed in depth discussion on it. Perhaps all this discussion with you ( which is far from over)… with appropriate editing …could constitute one chapter of my next book `Interactions with the World`, or maybe you could also include it, in one of your future books.
This letter has been delayed somewhat… reason… conversations are in full swing with several others who are reading my book. Besides I am having to think hard before answering their questions… and it is taking time.
Warm regards and best wishes