the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[The Man]

So we are all things to do with the body/form even those things we are not aware of...which all in all I called 'consciousness' which includes subconscious activity and anything else to do with the form and how we make the form react in any given circumstance within the environment of both the form and the environment the form is within.

I use the word "Consciousness" to cover all the states be they well known or fairly mysterious

OK, seems a bit broad and perhaps confusing but to each their own.

 

[Navigator]

Depends on what you mean by "need", and who or what would have this "need". Certainly a formless consciousness that required some 'receiver' would have such a "need". Otherwise just the ability to be situationally and/or self-aware probably does provide some survival advantages. As such one is likely to find different levels of such self and situational awareness in different animals with brains.

I mean 'need' as in that it is a requirement. If brains in glass containers were able to be kept alive, would those brains develop consciousness?

With the addition of bodies, did this provide the requirement for brains to develop the notion of being the awareness of 'self'.

It is often said 'we are the brain' but we don;t actually consciously identify with being a brain...we more often identify with being IN a body but certainly if we identify with being anything, we identify with being the body not the brain.

 

[Navigator]

Sorry, I can make no sense of this. Could you please try to make your point more directly?

I will try.

Self identity is not a matter of just being aware because it includes memories experiences of the past, and lots of other things perhaps too numerous or unnecessary to mention...

Consciousness is about self identity rather than simply 'being aware'.
While it is broad - it is naturally broad in order to encompass everything which goes along with being aware/conscious.

I googled 'what is consciousness' and got this:

1. the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
synonyms: awareness, wakefulness, alertness, responsiveness, sentience


2.
a person's awareness or perception of something.
"her acute consciousness of Luke's presence"
synonyms: awareness of, knowledge of the existence of, alertness to, sensitivity to, realization of, cognizance of, mindfulness of, perception of, apprehension of, recognition of

So there is an accepted broadness to the word which goes beyond just 'being awake or being aware'. It also seems to encompass things to do with awareness like being aware of thoughts and ideas and imaginative picture formed in the minds eye...

 

[The Man]

I mean 'need' as in that it is a requirement. If brains in glass containers were able to be kept alive, would those brains develop consciousness?

I figured as much, hence the question. So required by whom or what?

As for your brain jars I surmise it would depend on the developmental capabilities of siad brains and the developmental pressures applied.

With the addition of bodies, did this provide the requirement for brains to develop the notion of being the awareness of 'self'.

Again the same surmise above still applies.

It is often said 'we are the brain' but we don;t actually consciously identify with being a brain...we more often identify with being IN a body but certainly if we identify with being anything, we identify with being the body not the brain.

Unless I'm mistaken the brain is generally IN the body for those that we find can self-identify, heck even for some of those that can't.

 

[The Man]

I will try.

Self identity is not a matter of just being aware because it includes memories experiences of the past, and lots of other things perhaps too numerous or unnecessary to mention...

Consciousness is about self identity rather than simply 'being aware'.
While it is broad - it is naturally broad in order to encompass everything which goes along with being aware/conscious.

I googled 'what is consciousness' and got this:

1. the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
synonyms: awareness, wakefulness, alertness, responsiveness, sentience


2.
a person's awareness or perception of something.
"her acute consciousness of Luke's presence"
synonyms: awareness of, knowledge of the existence of, alertness to, sensitivity to, realization of, cognizance of, mindfulness of, perception of, apprehension of, recognition of

So there is an accepted broadness to the word which goes beyond just 'being awake or being aware'. It also seems to encompass things to do with awareness like being aware of thoughts and ideas and imaginative picture formed in the minds eye...

Sorry Navigator I'm out of time right now but I will get back to you.

 

[annnnoid]

Yes, you know like someone correcting a typo and ignoring the actual argument.

Misleading, but not surprising, coming from you.

Exactly, it's completely worthless in the context you use it.

I'm not saying you did. I'm saying that this is the belief behind your "arguments".

No, that's not what I said. I granted that we don't track individual neurons (yet).

No. Again you have zero understanding of the issue. That much is clear.

Is there some kind of difference between those billions of cells and synapses that cannot be measured and this brain activity that you insist can be measured? Is all that cellular activity suddenly NOT brain activity?

For the same reason that you don't need a complete theory of physics to understand that if I punch you in the face, my fist isn't an unknown force, but if you act as if you've been punched and no one's around you, it may point to one.

See what I mean by focusing on typos? The theory that you hinted to. "Your" theory.

You consistently make fundamental factual errors, you fling strawmen around like you’re at a farmers convention, you blatantly contradict yourself, you make extreme claims and produce not a shred of evidence to support them…yet you have the gall to claim that I am the one who has zero understanding of the issue! Sorry dude…the ignorance and incoherence of your arguments has finally exceeded any interest I have in wasting my time responding to them.

I had you on ignore for quite some time…and that is where you’re going again.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, so no one can address my argument. Good to know.

 

[Belz...]

Why 'not really'? Is it because everything is subjective in relation to consciousness?

My comment was about knowledge, not consciousness.

 

[Navigator]

I figured as much, hence the question. So required by whom or what?

Well in relation to 'the brain creates consciousness' that would be the brain.

As for your brain jars I surmise it would depend on the developmental capabilities of siad brains and the developmental pressures applied.

So a brain might not require consciousness (self awareness) if there is no reason to do so and having a body seems to be one reason why brains developed self awareness.

Unless I'm mistaken the brain is generally IN the body for those that we find can self-identify, heck even for some of those that can't.

Yes - I wasn't suggesting otherwise...I was saying that people don't identify as BEING the brain, so why not if indeed we ARE the brain?

Furthermore people identify with being in the body more often than they identify with being the body.

Why would this be the case if it is true - as some declare - that 'we are the brain'?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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

That's a technological problem, not a scientific one. Science tells us that an MRI scanner can detect brain activity. How accurately a particular machine can do it is a matter of technology. As technology improves, so we will get closer to being able to detect all neuron firings.

Extremely high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging

For the first time, researchers have succeeded to detect a single hydrogen atom using magnetic resonance imaging, which signifies a huge increase in the technology's spatial resolution. In the future, single-atom MRI could be used to shed new light on protein structures.

Even if we can ‘observe’ ALL brain activity... how is it possible to exclude the possibility of some unknown force?

Or gnomes. What about gnomes?

How, precisely, is it possible to ‘tell’ if an event is caused by an outside force?

When it is being affected by something, and no known force is present. But there is no evidence for such an unknown force acting on the brain. And no reason for look for one, because we already know what forces cause brain activity.

 

[annnnoid]

That's a technological problem, not a scientific one.

To call this conclusion nonsensical would be an insult to nonsensical conclusions. The last time I checked the folks who design, build, and operate this technology were classified under the general heading of ‘scientist’. And...ALL the technology involved (design, build, and operation) is based on scientific theories.

...but I could be completely wrong about all that. Maybe it's actually economics...or music...or something else entirely, like little green gnomes.

Science tells us that an MRI scanner can detect brain activity.

…and science also tells us that there are vast amounts of brain activity that an fMRI scanner CANNOT detect. So tell us Einstein…which conclusion is correct?

How accurately a particular machine can do it is a matter of technology.

…and the ‘scientists’ who design, build, and operate it (notice that we don't call them 'technologists').

As technology improves, so we will get closer to being able to detect all neuron firings.

This is called a statement of faith. At least you're in the Religion section, so good for you.

Extremely high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging

Presumably you can read? If you’d bothered to lower your eyes a few millimeters to the large letters above the second paragraph you would have found the following statement:

Study retracted

...snip...

When it is being affected by something, and no known force is present. But there is no evidence for such an unknown force acting on the brain. And no reason for look for one, because we already know what forces cause brain activity.

No we don’t...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Belz...]

To call this conclusion nonsensical would be an insult to nonsensical conclusions.

If you ever had arguments to make rather than outright dimissals it would be really peachy. It doesn't help that you never seem to quite grasp what's been explained to you.

No we don’t...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content redacted.

I agree. Wrong statements are quite OK to post on a skeptics forum. How else could we discuss issues?

 

[LarryS]

The brain is an image/representation of a process (like moving legs are an image of running), and an MRI is a partial image of that image. No one took a picture of the stomach and declared we understand digestion.

 

[Navigator]

My comment was about knowledge, not consciousness.

BTAIM knowledge is data which has been organised into a semblance of coherent dictum by and for consciousness.

 

[Nick227]

Just the same, physics cannot currently account for the subjective perceptual experience. This is a real phenomenon.

That statement may be true.

It could equally be that there are still large numbers of people, interested in consciousness, who are attributing qualities to it that are actually illusory. These people then assert that the explanation is inadequate because, metaphorically, we have not found the unicorn yet.

The brain has evolved considerable ability to deceive itself for huge adaptive advantage. Many constructs or concepts right at the heart of our sense of psychological selfhood are actually entirely illusory. But they possess such immense adaptive advantage that the brain protects itself from the conscious realization of the illusion.

This is the "elephant in the room" in consciousness research. And until it becomes more visible and discussed I doubt much consensus will be achieved.

 

[Nick227]

Ironically, the current trend is towards something that is called 'information'...which could easily be argued to have more in common with consciousness than whatever not-consciousness may be.

Correct, but it is not a mystical concept. Like a computer, the brain stores and processes information. Part of that processing involves a technique which we call 'consciousness'.

Well, I think you'll find that Christof Koch, one of the main fans of informational theories of consciousness, does say that the laws of physics will need to be expanded to accommodate this type of theory.

 

[Belz...]

The brain is an image/representation of a process (like moving legs are an image of running), and an MRI is a partial image of that image. No one took a picture of the stomach and declared we understand digestion.

No one here has claimed that we understand the process because we have MRIs. It would really be nice if you made a greater effort to understand the arguments made before commenting.

 

[Nick227]

This is the current consensus position in neuroscience (for the umpteenth time): “ We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”

There are ideas, see for example Mike Graziano here.

It is also the case that many people are attributing qualities to consciousness that are actually not present, merely seem to be.

But I would agree that on this forum there does seem to be a enclave of what might be termed "naive systematists" - people who seem to feel that system behaviour is already accepted as explaining the brain basis of consciousness. When of course it is not.

 

[The Man]

I will try.

Self identity is not a matter of just being aware because it includes memories experiences of the past, and lots of other things perhaps too numerous or unnecessary to mention...

Consciousness is about self identity rather than simply 'being aware'.

Well, you asked for the distinction between conscious and subconscious and/or unconscious. If you wanted the distinction between consciousness and self-identity you should have asked for that.

While it is broad - it is naturally broad in order to encompass everything which goes along with being aware/conscious.

I googled 'what is consciousness' and got this:

1. the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
synonyms: awareness, wakefulness, alertness, responsiveness, sentience


2.
a person's awareness or perception of something.
"her acute consciousness of Luke's presence"
synonyms: awareness of, knowledge of the existence of, alertness to, sensitivity to, realization of, cognizance of, mindfulness of, perception of, apprehension of, recognition of

So there is an accepted broadness to the word which goes beyond just 'being awake or being aware'. It also seems to encompass things to do with awareness like being aware of thoughts and ideas and imaginative picture formed in the minds eye...

Yes there are many things one can be aware or conscious of, including one’s self-identity. However none of that changes the distinction you asked about.

 

[The Man]

Well in relation to 'the brain creates consciousness' that would be the brain.

I am aware of no such "requirement". Similarly I'm not aware of any requirement for me to pick my nose, but I just did.

So a brain might not require consciousness (self awareness) if there is no reason to do so and having a body seems to be one reason why brains developed self awareness.

Well, bodies seem to be a good reason for brains and just central nervous systems in general but again I am aware of no requirement for either or even for those bodies with brains to have what we (or just you) would consider consciousness. Again look to different brain body and cognitive configurations in the animal kingdom.

Yes - I wasn't suggesting otherwise...I was saying that people don't identify as BEING the brain, so why not if indeed we ARE the brain?

People don't identify as a lot of things that they might technically be classified as, so what? Remember suppression is part of neurological function and thus part of the formation of one's self -image.

Furthermore people identify with being in the body more often than they identify with being the body.

Again the brain is in the body.

Why would this be the case if it is true - as some declare - that 'we are the brain'?

Why wouldn't it? What would prevent someone from thinking or identifying as anything they like 'in this body'? While self-reporting is inherently unreliable it is sometimes the only way to get certain information.