I’ll try to rephrase the question:
Dr. Novella has explained that our awareness is simply a result of our conscious functioning. that is, that most functioning of consciousness is executed at a level that our awareness doesn’t notice (which is obvious, because we know we don’t have to think about all the things that consciousness achieves in order for them to be achieved) He also indicates that the “mind”, that is, our awareness, is simply a result of the brain’s functioning. And that the mind doesn’t create brain states, but is, again, caused by them. One evidence of this is that before a person is aware of making a decision, the brain is operating. (I’m not sure how we can know that whatever the brain is doing several seconds before a decision is made is actually determining that decision, but, anyway…) All we ever know of the content of a person’s thoughts (which are determined by brain activity/state) is what they report to us. We don’t have a way to study the brain to know what they’re thinking, and even if we did, we can’t know what is causing a person to think that way because we don’t know what information is actually being processed when we study the pre-awareness brain activity.

So, what i’m wondering is: on what basis do scientists believe that we will be able to know the nature of a particular person’s conscious experience, if most of what comprises it is unavailable for reporting by the very person experiencing it?

If Stephen Hawking were unable to “report” (reporting is one of the basics of consciousness) then how could we ever access his brain directly to learn what his thoughts were? Especially since many of his thoughts are thoughts that no one’s ever had before, so we couldn’t compare his brain states to other people’s brain states. Thanks to modern technology we will hopefully not lose communication with Hawking while he’s alive, since we’re already able to implant electrodes directly in the brain to allow communication. And it seems we’ll continue to improve our technology to allow reporting/communication.

It’s easy to confuse “reporting” with the ability to actually know another person’s thoughts directly from studying their brain, since we are studying a person’s brain when they tell us what they’re thinking. Studying a person’s brain directly means: examining the brain through whatever technology appropriate. But, either way, since not even Stephen Hawking knows how his brain comes up with the thoughts he has, but can only report what knowledge he has that contributes to his thoughts, how does Dr. Novella believe we can ever learn the content of conscious thought by studying the physical brain? What sort of technology could make this possible? What are the leading research scientists saying about this aspect of consciousness?

Brain causes mind, mind causes brain, who cares? It’s not important to science, only philosophy. But I would like to know what those studying the brain’s physiological means of consciousness are saying about this aspect.

I am now 72. I have taken a lesson from my grandmother. I use the TV as entertainment, I don’t make it a lifestyle. I read alot, garden, write stories, paint with oils, and enjoy the fresh air. Many of my friends and neighbors are tired, depressed and have glazed over eyes from constant TV fare. As I said, just an observation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance

So what is happening is that physiology is adjusting the tendency for a neuron to fire, and then a blip of noise causes the activation threshold to be reached and the neuron fires. There is no information content in the specific blip of noise that caused the neuron to fire, the “information content” is in the rest of the neural network that is primed to respond to that neuron firing.

Depending on the status of the rest of the neural network, that blip of noise coming a few microseconds earlier or later could have large effects or no effects.

If we’re only aware of our brain’s processing, and do not cause it (I agree that there’s no way for something supernatural to affect the physical world) as when the brain is active several seconds before a decision is made, and a person is only conscious of that decision after the brain has made it, then how can we learn what information is being processed to make that decision? We can locate and describe the brain activity, but how can we learn what specific information is being considered by the brain in its decision-making process if the person who’s making the decision can’t report on that consideration?

thanks

Met any disembodied brains lately?

There can be lesions that occur over time, but in terms of what is “causing” WMH. Increased lesions seem to be caused by what ever is causing WMH, not the other way around. Some WMH are reversible and go away over time. The lesions that are found on autopsy don’t go away. In experimental animals, vessel occlusion reliably causes WMH in a few minutes.

The association with migraine is all consistent with it being ischemic preconditioning. There is no apparent lesion with migraine either. Migraine is triggered by nitroglycerine, which also triggers ischemic preconditioning. Sildenafil also triggers migraine.

Migraine is thought to be an example of spreading depression. To me, spreading depression sounds a lot like a transition from a normal state to an ischemic preconditioned state that is triggered by an acute ATP shortage (due to potassium overload for example) that is propagated from the initially triggered cells to adjacent cells.

I very strongly suspect that the propagation of spreading depression and migraine is due to a local reduction in nitric oxide (which is why Sildenafil and nitroglycerine trigger migraines, they both lower the NO level through a rebound effect). Lowering NO level is one way that ischemic preconditioning can be triggered.

““Ineluctable”– a new word for me.”

How old are you anyway!!!
On the other hand, I came across a word yesterday on this blog that I had to look up but I can’t quite remember what that word was.

I only have access to the abstract, but I don’t see anything in it about brain changes that correlate with cognitive decline in the elderly.