the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[Nick227]

Well as I said before inhibition or suppression of action potential is a function of certain neurons and neurotransmitters. That's the real 'nuts and bolts' of limiting information flow in the brain.

But do you think it's linked to the apparent presence of consciousness in only certain parts of the brain?

 

[The Man]

But do you think it's linked to the apparent presence of consciousness in only certain parts of the brain?

Sure, the brain only has finite computational power (perhaps another argument against a larger external processor). So only some portion of that can be dedicated to higher order processing. As such limiting demand on those resources is crucial to functional operation. So while other (unconscious) processing takes place we not only aren't aware of it, we can't be aware of it without giving up already limited (and perhaps currently overtaxed) higher order resources. In relation to external sensory input in extreme situations it is called 'tunnel vision'. Focusing on particular aspects while ignoring potentially hazardous cues that should be obvious under normal conditions.


Sorry, I'm off for a while.

 

[Nick227]

Correct, but it is not a mystical concept.

Actually, IIT does seem quite mystical. One thing it asserts is that the universe could be considered conscious, but that because the level of irreducibility of information maximises at the level of the brain, so it is the brain that appears to be conscious.

 

[marplots]

Do other animals fit into this analogy?
I'm imagining my dogs have a kind of knock-off, made in China radio that doesn't quite have the fidelity mine has.

 

[Nick227]

Sure, the brain only has finite computational power (perhaps another argument against a larger external processor). So only some portion of that can be dedicated to higher order processing. As such limiting demand on those resources is crucial to functional operation. So while other (unconscious) processing takes place we not only aren't aware of it, we can't be aware of it without giving up already limited (and perhaps currently overtaxed) higher order resources. In relation to external sensory input in extreme situations it is called 'tunnel vision'. Focusing on particular aspects while ignoring potentially hazardous cues that should be obvious under normal conditions.

As I understand it, the brain undertakes considerable unconscious processing of ongoing data, already establishing meaning at this level, and then decides which streams should amplified and propagated across multiple brain modules (consciousness).

But I don't follow how the presence of a brain chemical like GABA could really be central to the creation of consciousness. Isn't it more likely that how neurons are interconnected is more in the central role? If the pattern of interconnection facilitates the generation of more information then wouldn't this be more the nub of it?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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.

Yes, you are wrong. Science and technology are not the same thing. Science can tell you that a technology is possible, but not that we can implement it right now.

…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?

Wrong. Just because we can't detect it now with current equipment, doesn't mean that it CANNOT be detected. It just means we haven't yet built a machine with sufficient resolution.

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

The people who design it are called 'engineers', and the people who build and operate it are called 'technicians'. Scientists do research.

This is called a statement of faith

No, it is a prediction. I could be wrong, but there is no theoretical reason why we can't make a scanner that detects all brain activity. Based on how rapidly the technology is advancing, I predict that we will eventually be able to achieve that goal (assuming that humans don't become extinct before then).

But in any case your argument is silly. We don't need to build a machine that detects the firing of all neurons in order to improve our understanding of how the brain works. We can just look at a few of them, then develop theories that can be applied generally. This is how Science is normally done.

 

[Navigator]

How is consciousness detected in the brain?

Behavioral assessment

Consciousness

Behavioral observation constitutes the standard method for detecting signs of consciousness in severely brain injured patients. It is important, however, to make a distinction between "arousal" and "consciousness". Indeed, a patient can be aroused but show no signs of consciousness, as in VS. Preservation of arousal is therefore a necessary but insufficient condition for consciousness (see Figure 1). Moreover, consciousness should not be viewed as a dichotomous phenomenon but rather as a continuum. It is possible, for example, for a patient in coma to rapidly evolve into VS, gradually transition to MCS, and subsequently lapse back into coma.

Source: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/133/

Obviously the article is about determining if the brain is dead or not = consciousness is no longer there - the 'person' has died...

To those who believe that the brain creates consciousness, the brain is no longer producing and sustaining the consciousness. The brain is dead, thus so is the consciousness it once sustained.

To those who believe that consciousness continues on - leaves the body etc... the brain/body is dead but not so for the consciousness which once used the brain/body.

To those who don't know either way, it is because there is no way to know.

All can agree that the consciousness is no longer apparent. The body is no longer animated (including the brain) thus the body has 'died'.

But no one really knows about the fate of the consciousness.

So is the answer to my question something along the lines of "Consciousness (inclusive of sub) is that which animates the whole body and scanning the brain and finding nothing animating from any part of the brain would mean the brain is dead...thus Consciousness (inclusive of sub) is the thing which animates the brain/body"?

It could be said that the brain animates consciousness and consciousness animates the brain but this in itself does not settle the idea that consciousness might come from (and eventually return to) an external undetectable source.

 

[Navigator]

We don't need to build a machine that detects the firing of all neurons in order to improve our understanding of how the brain works. We can just look at a few of them, then develop theories that can be applied generally. This is how Science is normally done.

But would such a machine that can detect the firing of ALL neurons not (at least theoretically) be a far greater tool for helping us to understand how the brain works and superior to simply looking at a few neurons firing and developing theories in which to then generalize?

 

[John Freestone]

I was youtubing a debate with Sam Harris and Deepak Chopra and Deepak essentially bought this up. The idea that consciousness exists outside of the human brain, and the brain is just an organ to express it into a material world.
I don't believe it, simply because there is no evidence, but I find it a clever argument in that it is difficult to actually disprove.
For example, if people's brains are damaged in a way that they can no longer feel empathy, its not that empathy originates in the brain, its that the (if you will) projector can no longer project empathy (which still originates in the...metaphysical ether) into the material world.

How do the experts here deal with this particular "theory"?

It's true; you can improve reception by wearing a tin hat.

 

[MuDPhuD]

How is consciousness detected in the brain?





Source: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/133/



Obviously the article is about determining if the brain is dead or not = consciousness is no longer there - the 'person' has died...

it is very difficult to maintain a coherent discussion when all the various meanings of the word "consciousness" are in play and equivocated from post to post and from poster to poster.

Consciousness/unconsciousness

Vs

"Consciousness", the sum of a human's sensations and feelings including self awareness; the sensation of being of an individual


If you as a poster are not clear in your thinking about the difference between these different things called by the same name, then no reader or discussant will be able to respond appropriately and we are doomed to spiral ever downward toward AAH.

To those who believe that the brain creates consciousness, the brain is no longer producing and sustaining the consciousness. The brain is dead, thus so is the consciousness it once sustained.



To those who believe that consciousness continues on - leaves the body etc... the brain/body is dead but not so for the consciousness which once used the brain/body.



To those who don't know either way, it is because there is no way to know.



All can agree that the consciousness is no longer apparent. The body is no longer animated (including the brain) thus the body has 'died'.

This is all confused because you yourself are equivocating meanings even in a single sentence.

But no one really knows about the fate of the consciousness.



So is the answer to my question something along the lines of "Consciousness (inclusive of sub) is that which animates the whole body and scanning the brain and finding nothing animating from any part of the brain would mean the brain is dead...thus Consciousness (inclusive of sub) is the thing which animates the brain/body"?

Here you are talking about consciousness the sense of individual experience but seem very confused about its relationship to the brain.

It could be said that the brain animates consciousness and consciousness animates the brain but this in itself does not settle the idea that consciousness might come from (and eventually return to) an external undetectable source.

If you are not convinced by the evidence that consciousness is the brain functioning (of which there is a great deal, much of which has been brought to your attention elsewhere), then there is very little left to discuss.

Try this: (annoid can play too)
Speaking of consciousness as that "sense of being" you and I each experience, can you name any components of the experience? If you are able to list something we can agree on then we will be able to have a sensible discussion.

 

[LarryS]

Try this: (annoid can play too)
Speaking of consciousness as that "sense of being" you and I each experience, can you name any components of the experience? If you are able to list something we can agree on then we will be able to have a sensible discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'component', I am thinking that when folks use the phrase "sense of being" they mean it as non-reducible.

 

[Navigator]

it is very difficult to maintain a coherent discussion when all the various meanings of the word "consciousness" are in play and equivocated from post to post and from poster to poster.

Consciousness/unconsciousness

Vs

"Consciousness", the sum of a human's sensations and feelings including self awareness; the sensation of being of an individual


If you as a poster are not clear in your thinking about the difference between these different things called by the same name, then no reader or discussant will be able to respond appropriately and we are doomed to spiral ever downward toward AAH.


This is all confused because you yourself are equivocating meanings even in a single sentence.



Here you are talking about consciousness the sense of individual experience but seem very confused about its relationship to the brain.




If you are not convinced by the evidence that consciousness is the brain functioning (of which there is a great deal, much of which has been brought to your attention elsewhere), then there is very little left to discuss.

Try this: (annoid can play too)
Speaking of consciousness as that "sense of being" you and I each experience, can you name any components of the experience? If you are able to list something we can agree on then we will be able to have a sensible discussion.

The thing is -we don't know how deep (or wide) consciousness goes but generally sub consciousness is seen as part of the overall consciousness of the individual and if folk are just speaking about the conscious aspect of consciousness as being 'who we are' then I think they miss the mark - underestimate themselves...and everyone else.

It is like saying that when a person is sleeping, or in deep meditative states or tripping etc - that they are no longer conscious therefore they are not themselves...no - consciousness is not merely what you are when you are conscious.

I don;t think that is the generally understood meaning of the state anyway...even the link I gave in my last link verifies that people are not just talking about consciousness as being in an awake and aware state...

Also - unconscious seems to be confused with subconscious...

 

[LarryS]

I haven't responded to any of your posts because I can't figure out what you are trying to say. In this most recent post you use terms like:
consciousness
sub consciousness
overall consciousness
conscious aspect
who we are
and that's just the first paragraph. It would help me if you worked with a smaller morsel - What are you getting at?

 

[annnnoid]

Try this: (annoid can play too)
Speaking of consciousness as that "sense of being" you and I each experience, can you name any components of the experience? If you are able to list something we can agree on then we will be able to have a sensible discussion.

Fine with me. Infinitely preferable to the unintelligible nonsense that often passes for discussion around here.

…just off the top of my head…

…first question I might ask…is ’sense of being you’ an empirically differentiated scientific reality of any kind?

Are there any ‘components’ of the experience (of the ‘sense of being’) that have been explicitly empirically differentiated? Are there any ‘components’ of the experience that can be explicitly empirically differentiated in real time?

It is also worth exploring why? Why the unique difficulties related to the issue of explicitly defining cognitive activity?

All of this is relevant to the OP…simply because the lack of an explicit understanding of this subject is the reason that Chopra can promote his theories. He can’t be called wrong simply because no-one actually knows what is right.

 

[Navigator]

I haven't responded to any of your posts because I can't figure out what you are trying to say. In this most recent post you use terms like:
consciousness
sub consciousness
overall consciousness
conscious aspect
who we are
and that's just the first paragraph. It would help me if you worked with a smaller morsel - What are you getting at?

People identify themselves and each other with being race religion political scientific cultural nation gender etc - they do this consciously but a big percentage of their self identity comes from more subtle and even subliminal sources.



A person can identify with being a combination of those things.

In relation to 'you are the brain' those who believe this and argue against anything other than this - especially against ideas that promote thought along the lines of religious/spiritual beliefs or concepts, also readily argue that all those other things people think they are, are illusions - something the brain entertains itself with while it lives. You are nothing more than a bunch of neurons firing in the brain. That is 'consciousness'.

Yet what is consciousness? How is it observed within the brain? When do we know it no longer is in the brain? How can we tell that subconscious is not an aspect of consciousness but a separate thing? How can we be certain without the aid of belief, that consciousness is only a product of the brain?

When I said overall consciousness, I include the subconscious as part of the things called consciousness. Part of who I am.

When I say 'an aspect of' I am saying 'a part of the overall thing which altogether makes up consciousness.'

When I see consciousness in others, I see that as a possible extension of my own consciousness even if they see themselves differently even if they behave in a way that I personal would not choose to behave...or have behaved in the past but have chosen not to behave like that anymore.

When I think about humanity, I do not just see a bunch of competing and conflicting brains firing neurons.

When I think about the planet and solar system etc I see the possibility that consciousness inhabits all these material things - and allow this idea to create thoughts and feelings and actions etc - it doesn't matter to me personally that I don't have evidence to support such ideas. I don't even have to BELIEVE the ideas...I am more interested in how the ideas affect me - at a conscious surface level as well as subconscious level. The effect of this also interests me.

It is the idea of the possibility I am engaged with. Beliefs are irrelevant.

I know what it is like to self identify with a gender, with a religion, with a particular race and culture, with a nation, etc...none of these aspects of self identity are satisfying - something - perhaps deep inside the psyche - at subconscious levels - transmits something to the conscious aspect of who I am 'hinting' that I am not what I have thought I am - I am not what others may think I am or tell me I am...and so this propels me to disengage with such self identity and engage with ideas which are much more self satisfying.

 

[Belz...]

Fine with me. Infinitely preferable to the unintelligible nonsense that often passes for discussion around here.

You not understanding something is not necessarily other people's fault.

 

[Nick227]

How is consciousness detected in the brain?


Source: http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/133/

Obviously the article is about determining if the brain is dead or not = consciousness is no longer there - the 'person' has died...

To those who believe that the brain creates consciousness, the brain is no longer producing and sustaining the consciousness. The brain is dead, thus so is the consciousness it once sustained.

You are using terms from separate fields interchangeably and this denudes your statements of meaning.

 

[Nick227]

A person can identify with being a combination of those things.

Which does beg the question... who actually is doing this identifying?

When I think about the planet and solar system etc I see the possibility that consciousness inhabits all these material things - and allow this idea to create thoughts and feelings and actions etc - it doesn't matter to me personally that I don't have evidence to support such ideas. I don't even have to BELIEVE the ideas...I am more interested in how the ideas affect me - at a conscious surface level as well as subconscious level.

Actually, such ideas are currently quite in vogue in neuroscience, so you are more in the mainstream here. Integrated Information Theory, for example, asserts that the brain is merely one part of a much larger system - the universe. And that consciousness appears to be emerging from its activity simply because it represents the maximally irreducible subsystem within the overall system.

I know what it is like to self identify with a gender, with a religion, with a particular race and culture, with a nation, etc...none of these aspects of self identity are satisfying - something

... who is identifying?

 

[Nick227]

All of this is relevant to the OP…simply because the lack of an explicit understanding of this subject is the reason that Chopra can promote his theories. He can’t be called wrong simply because no-one actually knows what is right.

Ah, the OP!

... a debate with Sam Harris and Deepak Chopra and Deepak essentially bought this up. The idea that consciousness exists outside of the human brain, and the brain is just an organ to express it into a material world.

To me Chopra's statement is pretty meaningless. We actually don't know where consciousness exists. The most likely theory is that it is emerging from neural activity but emergence isn't well enough understood to theorise about where emergence actually happens. Quite likely the location emerges with it!

And, given, that all you know is consciousness and that this consciousness is anyway attributing to itself "inside" and "outside", so I'd say Deepak's statement is pretty pointless really, and demonstrates a lack of grasp of the real issues.

Speaking as a fellow "new-ager" I'd say Chopra brings alternative viewpoints into greater disrepute with his quasi-mystical babblings, if such a thing is possible.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Fine with me. Infinitely preferable to the unintelligible nonsense that often passes for discussion around here.



…just off the top of my head…



…first question I might ask…is ’sense of being you’ an empirically differentiated scientific reality of any kind?



Are there any ‘components’ of the experience (of the ‘sense of being’) that have been explicitly empirically differentiated? Are there any ‘components’ of the experience that can be explicitly empirically differentiated in real time?



It is also worth exploring why? Why the unique difficulties related to the issue of explicitly defining cognitive activity?



All of this is relevant to the OP…simply because the lack of an explicit understanding of this subject is the reason that Chopra can promote his theories. He can’t be called wrong simply because no-one actually knows what is right.

I was hoping to hear from you (or navigator, or others) what it is YOU mean by "consciousness", by means of elaboration on your part.

What I think most people mean is this:

The sense of being an individual ---who sees, hears, feels, etc,, --who ponders and decides, ---who acts. This is the best I am able to do I think.
Perhaps you can help me improve on the definition of what it is we are talking about?

The problem I see is not that "consciousness" is undefinable, the problem is that in a given discussion the word remains undefined, and therefore open to equivocation.