Leaving aside, for the moment, that experiencing things and interpreting them pretty much is consciousness, we can directly affect consciousness itself by affecting the brain. Damage or changes to certain areas, or introduction of foreign chemicals, results in predictable and measurable changes to the consciousness of the subject.
This is consistent with the idea that the brain produces consciousness.
It is not consistent with the idea that the brain is a receiver for something that exists independently.
No, it's not consistent with the idea the brain produces consciousness. It is consistent with the idea that the brain modulates the object(s) of experience. The brain may produce consciousness, but this research does not show that.
I'm not suggesting the brain is a receiver for something else.
Not only from the above. Why do you attempt to restrict the reasoning ?
Let's not forget that if something other than the brain is generating consciousness, that thing must be able to interface with the brain. So where is it ?
Actually, that's exactly what we can assume. That's how science works: we use the best explanation we have until we can find a better one.
Let's review this again: every single piece of evidence we have points to the brain being the sole source of consciousness, though the exact mechanism is still a bit murky to us. So what's the most rational conclusion we can tentatively arrive at ? That the brain is indeed the sole source of consciousness, or that there's something else involved ?
It seems to me like you _want_ there to be something else, but you won't quite articulate it because you don't want to be labeled a dualist.
No, it's not consistent with the idea the brain produces consciousness. It is consistent with the idea that the brain modulates the object(s) of experience. The brain may produce consciousness, but this research does not show that.
As PixyMisa has already pointed out, messing with the brain can go so far as to make you believe you are dead. Certain drugs can remove one's ability to differentiate between their own body and that of their surroundings. Certain other things can cause someone to become entirely convinced that their limbs are not actually their own, that the entire world has been stolen away and replaced with a fascimile, hear colors, see smells, or lose the ability to imagine.
If none of these things count as "altering consciousness" so far as you are concerned, then your definition is faulty.
The brain affects consciousness. This is not disputable. This means that either the brain produces consciousness or the brain interfaces with it in some manner.
But you say:
I'm not suggesting the brain is a receiver for something else.
As PixyMisa has already pointed out, messing with the brain can go so far as to make you believe you are dead. Certain drugs can remove one's ability to differentiate between their own body and that of their surroundings. Certain other things can cause someone to become entirely convinced that their limbs are not actually their own, that the entire world has been stolen away and replaced with a fascimile, hear colors, see smells, or lose the ability to imagine.
Hell, just zoning out when not thinking about anything can cause you to lose the differentiation between self and non-self, and your "level" of consciousnes is very reduced.
No, it's not consistent with the idea the brain produces consciousness. It is consistent with the idea that the brain modulates the object(s) of experience. The brain may produce consciousness, but this research does not show that.
I'm not suggesting the brain is a receiver for something else.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'object(s) of experience' but I get the impression you aren't familiar with the weird types of brain damage that can occur.
Another interesting one is aboulia, the inability to have any self-will or initiative. Not just in the lack of motivation sense, but quite literally. People with severe forms of this disease will literally do nothing unless prompted. For instance, if you give them a hairbrush, they will brush their hair.
Neglect syndromes are also really interesting. People will only shave, groom, and dress one side of their body. Will ignore things on one side of their plate, etc. A weird example of this is that they also ignore one half of all mental images. If asked to draw a clock, they'll only draw one half of the clock.
Some other interesting disorders to investing are agnosia (the inability to attach meaning to symbols), prosopagnosia (inability to recognize faces), pretty much any disorder related to long term, short term, or working memory.
And of course lets not forget anything related to split-brain. Literally cutting someone's consciousness in half via a physical action.
ETA: If the part in the second video where he draws the pan doesn't freak you the frack out, I don't know what would.
...which results in two complete consciousnesses. If there is a better piece of evidence that it stems entirely from the brain, I don't know what it is. I don't know why I didn't think of it before.
Actually, that's exactly what we can assume. That's how science works: we use the best explanation we have until we can find a better one.
Let's review this again: every single piece of evidence we have points to the brain being the sole source of consciousness, though the exact mechanism is still a bit murky to us. So what's the most rational conclusion we can tentatively arrive at ? That the brain is indeed the sole source of consciousness, or that there's something else involved ?
It seems to me like you _want_ there to be something else, but you won't quite articulate it because you don't want to be labeled a dualist.
“We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”
Of course…that was written by a bunch of neuroscientists (and confirmed by a bunch more)....but what do they know! Doubtless you, with your vast credentials, know better. As Robin said…lay it on us!
You will find, Larry, that this bunch is an unqualified waste of time. You have been accused of heresy (idealism, dualism, whatever-ism). How do you plead?
The radio analogy might be too close - another image might be I'm walking thru a park on a warm summer day, eating a popsicle - I drop it and and a few minutes later someone else comes along and declares "I've seen this before, ants create popsicles."
Which would be relevant if we only had one datapoint, or a handful. We have an enormous body of observational and experimental evidence, and every single thing points to the same conclusion. There is not a single piece of contrary data to be found. Contrary claims, yes, but none of those claims has ever been backed up with evidence.
No, that's not at all equivalent to what I said, nor is it accurate, given that we actually have some idea of how it arises; especially since we know how to alter it.
Why don't you ask yourself the question: why do you, annnnoid, want so badly for consciousness to be mysterious ?
Only because we don't have any consensus about what is meant by "consciousness". Until we can produce a functional definition of consciousness for the purpose of research, you might as well be saying "we have no idea how garlgorfurgen emerges from the physical activity of the brain", it's just as meaningless.
“We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”
Of course…that was written by a bunch of neuroscientists (and confirmed by a bunch more)....but what do they know! Doubtless you, with your vast credentials, know better. As Robin said…lay it on us!
You will find, Larry, that this bunch is an unqualified waste of time. You have been accused of heresy (idealism, dualism, whatever-ism). How do you plead?
I plead guilty of being skeptical of the current inference that consciousness is totally explained by the brain.
For example, I am holding a cup of coffee, I can feel the warmth, smell the aroma, taste the exactness of the roast, I can remember great places with great coffee over the years. . . what is being experienced? I'm not experiencing the cup itself - research shows that the object of experience, the 'what' of experience, resides in the brain. What is the 'substance' of the experience? Again, not the cup, the substance of experience is brain wave activity.
However the research does not attend to the 1st person experiencer, it does not attend to how awareness is generated - the research assumes awareness - it doesn't generate it.
Only because we don't have any consensus about what is meant by "consciousness". Until we can produce a functional definition of consciousness for the purpose of research, you might as well be saying "we have no idea how garlgorfurgen emerges from the physical activity of the brain", it's just as meaningless.
By the same token, since we don't have a consensus re consciousness, all we can say is "we know garlgorfurgen emerges from the physical activity of the brain"
For example, I am holding a cup of coffee, I can feel the warmth, smell the aroma, taste the exactness of the roast, I can remember great places with great coffee over the years. . . what is being experienced?
Again, the precise mechanism for generating consciousness isn't known, because the brain is a very complex machine and people frown upon doctors cutting bits out of it while the owner is still alive, so our information on exactly what pieces are necessary for the subject to still be considered conscious is limited.
But we know - this isn't speculation or wishful thinking, we know - that messing with the brain messes with consciousness. In the space of the last few posts alone, dozens of examples have been provided, including two videos that you don't even have to do any Googling for. We know enough to conclude that consciousness is created by the brain; asserting that it isn't does not fit with observed data.
Unfortunately for annnoid, personal incredulity, ignorance, and quote-mining are not actual arguments against this.
However the research does not attend to the 1st person experiencer, it does not attend to how awareness is generated - the research assumes awareness - it doesn't generate it.
Brain activity. Brain waves are just electrical noise.
However the research does not attend to the 1st person experiencer, it does not attend to how awareness is generated - the research assumes awareness - it doesn't generate it.
Now the people on that list range from those who are clearly better informed on the subject and quite possibly smarter than me in general, to a few complete idiots, but it's not a short list.
Some interesting people to follow are Douglas Hofstadter, Daniel Dennett, Christof Koch, Susan Blackmore, and Giulio Tononi.
No, that's not at all equivalent to what I said, nor is it accurate, given that we actually have some idea of how it arises; especially since we know how to alter it.
It's a quote he found, from a neuroscientist. Don't remember which one. Obviously it's not true, but it's all he's got, which is why we see it so often.
Once you've done that, let me tell you this: it's quite fair for someone to examine their own motivations on a topic like this. For instance, when I was dead-set against abortion, I had to look deep down and think about whether, beyond my perceived "reasons" to be against it, I had some latent religious teaching getting in the way. I did. Once I realised it, I got rid of that, and all my objections to abortions dissapeared.
People who keep saying that there must be "more" to consciousness might have a similar problem. I'm simply suggesting to annnnoid that he does this introspection to determine that. I'm not holding my breath, mind you.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
