the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[Belz...]

YOU just said that consciousness IS brain behavior. Right there in that quote I included. That is your quote…isn’t it???...and those words do actually mean what they say…don’t they? Perhaps YOU should learn the meanings of the words YOU use or stop using them.

Stick the the topic of the thread, annnnoid, and to my argument with you. Everything you wrote in your post is irrelevant. You continue to either not understand or misrepresent what that argument is.

So answer the question then. How is it possible to explicitly exclude the possibility of unknown forces being involved in any of these events if we can neither measure them nor explain them?

Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle. If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain. An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Sounds like a decent experiment to me. Has anyone detected that force yet?

Posted about this earlier - that force cannot exist, we understand reality well enough to be able to rule out any possible force that could carry such information. It's a hard one to get your head around but we really do know this is the case for any claimed "unknown" force that could operate on a macro level.

Therefore this "consciousness" signal would have to be via one of the known "forces" all of which we can detect. There is simple no evidence that there is such a transmission happening, if there was we would detect it in many, many different experiments not related and totally unconnected to any understanding of the brain.

 

[Navigator]

Of course, it would only be a start, but it's a requisite to the "brain as a radio" theory.

In relation to radio, what is this 'unknown force' you are alluding to?

 

[Navigator]

This is really the heart of the question - do we assume the physical and develop an explanation of subjective experience, or, do we assume subjective experience and develop an explanation of the physical?

In relation to consciousness there is no such thing as objective experience as far as I can tell...although I am ever open to any examples anyone has.

Subjective experience of material universe... it exists. We are experiencing it from within it and that is that.

 

[Navigator]

As I pointed out earlier, there is a practicing cognitive scientist who has posted on this very thread who has confirmed the accuracy of this statement

Who was that - which post?

…but no one even knows what ‘consciousness’ is…

That's easy. I am.

 

[Belz...]

In relation to radio, what is this 'unknown force' you are alluding to?

Well no one knows, but it's clear we're talking about souls, here.

 

[Navigator]

Actually what we find (in some decision tests) is that the motor neuron activity related to the decision starts first and then the consciousness becomes aware of the decision.


http://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/

The article seems to be addressing the subject of 'free will' in relation to consciousness, and it appears that the subconscious is more the thing making the decisions.

Of course another question which may need answering might be:

Q: Is the subconscious part of consciousness or a separate and controlling entity?

The article mentions 'predictions' related to the 7 second delay but doesn't appear to elaborate.

All in all though, I don't think it makes a great case for proving that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain although it raises some potentially interesting questions as to the role of the subconscious in all this.

 

[LarryS]

In short, that the brain receives input from an unknown, possibly supernatural source. It's basically the soul theory.

I don't think this is 'soul theory' - reads like an incoherent rehash of the physicalist paradigm. 'Soul Theory' (I'll humor you and use the term) states that consciousness is primary and the objective world is a derivative - the objective world are symbols created by conscious agents.

 

[The Man]

It’s truly funny how frequently these extraordinarily selective ad-hoc rationalizations are trotted out as if they somehow support some sweeping neurological revelation. I think the most relevant point is found in the words “in some decision tests”. I could very easily add a pile of additional qualifications that render the conclusions so often plucked from these dumb studies all-but meaningless. The first question to ask is: Provide an empirical definition of ‘decision’. Right there this, and every other study utterly collapses.

…but that doesn’t ever seem to stop ignorant skeptics from leaping on this stuff as if it’s some kind of conclusive evidence against free will, God, subjective experience, idealism, the supernatural, paranormal activity…and your mothers pink underwear.

That parts of our brain activity, including parts of decision making, occur unconsciously is hardly "some sweeping neurological revelation" and I certainly never posited it as any "conclusive evidence". So rant about your mama's pink underwear to someone else.

 

[The Man]

BTW, that is now under scrutiny: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/a-neuroscience-finding-on-free-will.html#

Under scrutiny is part of how science gets done and don't forget the topic of the thread. That we can observe how the different parts of the brain are involved in the process, whether unconscious or similarly the result of random fluctuations, still demonstrate the process happening in the brain.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think this is 'soul theory' - reads like an incoherent rehash of the physicalist paradigm. 'Soul Theory' (I'll humor you and use the term) states that consciousness is primary and the objective world is a derivative - the objective world are symbols created by conscious agents.

No, you're thinking about idealism, here.

What I meant is that the "force" in question is clearly meant to be the soul.

But you knew that already, Larry.

 

[annnnoid]

Stick the the topic of the thread, annnnoid, and to my argument with you. Everything you wrote in your post is irrelevant. You continue to either not understand or misrepresent what that argument is.

Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle. If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain. An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.

Dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge………….

The topic of the thread is CONSCIOUSNESS and where it comes from and whether or not Chopra can get away with claiming it comes from where he say it comes from (quite obviously…if science could explain what it is and where it comes from Chopra’s claims would vanish in an instant).

…but not according to you. The brain behavior that YOU called ‘consciousness’ has become misleading and irrelevant.

So we’ll stick to whatever-the-hell-it-is that you generously refer to as an argument. No more about consciousness…unless you bring it up.

In reference to your ‘argument’…

Question #1: Can currently available scanning technology measure / detect all ‘behavior-in-the-brain’ that occurs?

Question #2: Can science currently explain all behavior-in-the-brain that occurs?

Posted about this earlier - that force cannot exist, we understand reality well enough to be able to rule out any possible force that could carry such information. It's a hard one to get your head around but we really do know this is the case for any claimed "unknown" force that could operate on a macro level.

Therefore this "consciousness" signal would have to be via one of the known "forces" all of which we can detect. There is simple no evidence that there is such a transmission happening, if there was we would detect it in many, many different experiments not related and totally unconnected to any understanding of the brain.

This argument was emphatically and utterly demolished on a previous thread that similarly argued against paranormal events. I have a friend who is a theoretical physicist who reviewed each and every claim…and dismissed each and every claim…until there were none left and the thread – and the dumb arguments that supported it - self-destructed.

If you’d like to resurrect them I can easily run them past him again. They won’t last any longer than they did the first time.

Who was that - which post?

It was MuDPhuD. I’d have to locate the post but when I pointed out that neuroscience has no idea how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness he very explicitly agreed this was correct. No equivocation what-so-ever.

That parts of our brain activity, including parts of decision making, occur unconsciously is hardly "some sweeping neurological revelation" and I certainly never posited it as any "conclusive evidence". So rant about your mama's pink underwear to someone else.

I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention the number of times those very studies have been used as a simplistic argument to support the illusion of subjective experience and against free will. And yes…such stupid claims can quite reasonably be categorized as ‘a neurological revelation’ if for no other reason than that was precisely how these studies were heralded when they first came out.

 

[The Man]

The article seems to be addressing the subject of 'free will' in relation to consciousness, and it appears that the subconscious is more the thing making the decisions.

Of course another question which may need answering might be:

Q: Is the subconscious part of consciousness or a separate and controlling entity?

The article mentions 'predictions' related to the 7 second delay but doesn't appear to elaborate.

All in all though, I don't think it makes a great case for proving that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain although it raises some potentially interesting questions as to the role of the subconscious in all this.

Does it support some external consciousness received by the brain, the topic of this thread? Does it perhaps support the combination of conscious and unconscious processing that happens in the brain? As more of the asspects are directly identified and mapped in the brain, perhaps even modeled and translated from brain activity what is really left to be received by a 'radio brain'?

 

[Belz...]

Dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge………….

If you ever get around to addressing my argument, there will be no dodging by me. Meanwhile, if you continue to speak of other, irrelevant things, you may as well talk about pineapples.

…but not according to you. The brain behavior that YOU called ‘consciousness’ has become misleading and irrelevant.

Again you misunderstand my objection. Whether or not we understand how consciousness arises is irrelevant to my argument. It's not what the argument is about. It is about brain activity, which is broader than consciousness. The physical and logical principle applies.

Question #1: Can currently available scanning technology measure / detect all ‘behavior-in-the-brain’ that occurs?

You mean, can they detect all neurons firing? Yes.

Question #2: Can science currently explain all behavior-in-the-brain that occurs?

Irrelevant to my argument. You continuously try to squeeze your beliefs into the discussion, when we're talking about logic and science.

If you think my argument is worded in a way that is difficult to understand, feel free to ask for clarification. In the meantime:

Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle. If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain. An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.

 

[tsig]

Dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge………….

The topic of the thread is CONSCIOUSNESS and where it comes from and whether or not Chopra can get away with claiming it comes from where he say it comes from (quite obviously…if science could explain what it is and where it comes from Chopra’s claims would vanish in an instant).

…but not according to you. The brain behavior that YOU called ‘consciousness’ has become misleading and irrelevant.

So we’ll stick to whatever-the-hell-it-is that you generously refer to as an argument. No more about consciousness…unless you bring it up.

In reference to your ‘argument’…

Question #1: Can currently available scanning technology measure / detect all ‘behavior-in-the-brain’ that occurs?

Question #2: Can science currently explain all behavior-in-the-brain that occurs?




This argument was emphatically and utterly demolished on a previous thread that similarly argued against paranormal events. I have a friend who is a theoretical physicist who reviewed each and every claim…and dismissed each and every claim…until there were none left and the thread – and the dumb arguments that supported it - self-destructed.

If you’d like to resurrect them I can easily run them past him again. They won’t last any longer than they did the first time.




It was MuDPhuD. I’d have to locate the post but when I pointed out that neuroscience has no idea how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness he very explicitly agreed this was correct. No equivocation what-so-ever.




I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention the number of times those very studies have been used as a simplistic argument to support the illusion of subjective experience and against free will. And yes…such stupid claims can quite reasonably be categorized as ‘a neurological revelation’ if for no other reason than that was precisely how these studies were heralded when they first came out.

Can you cite that thread? I remember one started by Pixey Mixa?? that I followed but I don't remember any "demolishing arguments".

A friendly anonymous theoretical physicist isn't much of an authority.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The topic of the thread is CONSCIOUSNESS and where it comes from

Consciousness is a brain function - it comes from the brain, end of story.

and whether or not Chopra can get away with claiming it comes from where he say it comes from (quite obviously…if science could explain what it is and where it comes from Chopra’s claims would vanish in an instant).

Science has explained what it is and where it comes from, and Chopra's claims are BS.

The only thing we don't know is exactly how it works. But we don't know exactly how any part of the body works - and never will. In Science there is always more to learn!

 

[tsig]

Consciousness is a brain function - it comes from the brain, end of story.

Science has explained what it is and where it comes from, and Chopra's claims are BS.

The only thing we don't know is exactly how it works. But we don't know exactly how any part of the body works - and never will. In Science there is always more to learn!

What we are seeing is woo of the gaps. Whenever a new fact is discovered it just opens up two more gaps.

 

[Belz...]

Can you cite that thread? I remember one started by Pixey Mixa?? that I followed but I don't remember any "demolishing arguments".

"Demolishing an argument" is code for "laughing it off".

 

[LarryS]

I don't think this is 'soul theory' - reads like an incoherent rehash of the physicalist paradigm. 'Soul Theory' (I'll humor you and use the term) states that consciousness is primary and the objective world is a derivative - the objective world are symbols created by conscious agents.

Then I will have to back out - I have no idea what soul theory is or how you are using the radio analogy. Certainly I'm in no position to explain or defend it.

 

[annnnoid]

You mean, can they detect all neurons firing? Yes.

Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong?

fMRI is probably the scanning technology with the highest resolution currently available. The resolution is measured in voxels. A voxel (the resolution limit of current fMRI technology) typically contains a few million neurons and billions of synapses.

So…current technology can scan to a resolution of a couple million neurons (tens of millions of glia) and billions of synapses…any one of which could be active at any time.

So perhaps you could explain how you arrived at the conclusion that science can somehow detect ALL neurons firing.

…and since science most indisputably CANNOT adjudicate neural activity to anything like the resolution you have ignorantly claimed…it is reasonable to conclude that there is a great deal of neural activity that is unconditionally immeasurable.

If it can’t be measured then we cannot explicitly exclude the possibility of unknown forces.

The only question yet to answer is…how much of what you call ‘brain-activity’ can even be explained by science (and since you’re so afraid of consciousness…we won’t even include that in this particular calculation). Would you like to see some information on that one…or can you actually produce an honest answer for once?

This question is also relevant simply because…if brain activity ‘X’ cannot be explained…then brain activity ‘X’ could also be the result of unknown forces.

So far your argument hasn’t even reached the starting line.

"Demolishing an argument" is code for "laughing it off".

Dlorde didn’t find it very funny when all his pet theories got trashed.

Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle. If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain. An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.

How, precisely, does this ‘theory’ exclude the possibility of unknown forces?