• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Consciousness: what do we know?

Mercutio said:
Bottom line? Your notion of the brain as a receiver/transmitter is foolish, ignorant, and contrary to everything we know about the brain.
Click to expand...
An amaterialist could point out it is an amplifier/processor. That is, Thought, enhanced to HPC level, in the homo sap brain-as-perceived.
 
hammegk said:
An amaterialist could point out it is an amplifier/processor. That is, Thought, enhanced to HPC level, in the homo sap brain-as-perceived.
Click to expand...
Hammy, I usually understand you, even when others do not. But I am afraid I do not get this one. Could you give a bit more detail? I mean, whether or not it is "material", we can manipulate and measure what a neuron does, and I do not see what you post here as compatible with that.

It is as likely to be my understanding as your explanation, I admit. Still, could you humor me with more detail?
 
The ions that control 'what the neuron does' are QM level events. If I understand the situation we do not have sufficient numbers of ions to rely on statistics; ergo, what is in control, ion by ion? For an idealist, Thought (and dare I suggest qualia) is/are available. That's one reason I like Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM.

Make sense? :)
 
Interesting reading. One thing that occurs to me regarding the discussion of consciousness arising from the mind versus the mind being a conduit for consciousness is: Why must it be only one or the other? We don't really understand consciousness, though we have learned a great deal about how the brain works. Why presume that those are the only two possibilities?
 
Iacchus said:
And, are you suggesting we should make a special exception to the brain that, unlike everything else, it didn't evolve to exploit the available resources? So, which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too can you?
Click to expand...
No, Iacchy. That was nothing close to what I suggested. I said there are many things that are not conscious. Humans (what with their big brains) are one of the very few exceptions. You are the one who claims consciousness is everywhere. It was a stupid claim, but unless you wish to retract it, then you are going to have to show it, not make pointless diversions.

Iacchus said:
Would you consider the radio waves that tell your TV how to function a "substance?"
Click to expand...
If such things existed, I might consider them a substance. Do you think you are being controlled by radio waves Iacchus? That's one of the hallmarks of insanity, you know.

Iacchus said:
Obviously we wouldn't be able to watch TV if there was nothing there would we? I believe most of us would refer to this as emf.
Click to expand...
And I believe a brain is not a TV. I see others are trying to explain this to you. Of course, you will not learn because you are opposed to knowledge, but perhaps there are those here who will. My thanks to all those there who make the patient explanations. The bit about how nerve signals propagate was particularly good.

Iacchus said:
Yes, but what is it about Jupiter that makes it cohesive? How does it acknowledge itself as Jupiter in other words?
Click to expand...
It doesn't acknowledge anything. It is a planet. Even in the unlikely event that there were life on Jupiter, it would still be a planet, not a thinking being. This is why you are wrong about consciousness being everywhere. Consciousness is associated with brains. No brain, no consciousness. Is that really such a difficult concept even for such a feckless intellect as yours?

Iacchus said:
There must be something there to tell it to behave as Jupiter don't you think?
Click to expand...
No, I think that would be anthropomorphizing Jupiter. Anthropomorphizing is common in ignorant people who have no concepts for dealing with things outside of their limited experiences.

But please, do keep contributing. We learn so much, although not from you.
 
Beth said:
Interesting reading. One thing that occurs to me regarding the discussion of consciousness arising from the mind versus the mind being a conduit for consciousness is: Why must it be only one or the other? We don't really understand consciousness, though we have learned a great deal about how the brain works. Why presume that those are the only two possibilities?
Click to expand...
We don't presume that those are the only two possibilities. We only evaluate what we have observed. So far, the observation that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is the only concept with any evidence to back it up (the "conduit" one is pretty much a religious faith). Sure, there could stuff we don't know, but until there is evidence for it, pure conjecture gets us nowhere.
 
Well....the problem is there is evidence, but it's all subjective personal stuff that isn't really testible. I've had experiences that I can't explain other than delusion but see no reason to presume that I'm delusional just because I've had experiences that I can't otherwise explain - particularly since they are experiences much like many other people have described. For example, I can't say that I've ever seen a ghost but I can say I have seen something which fits the description of a ghost rather nicely and that I know of no other rational reason to explain what I saw.

Now, that's not evidence for you or anybody else, but it's evidence enough for me to be rather more open-minded about the possibility of such a thing existing than I was prior to that particular experience. So....I willing to conjecture the possibility of some form of consciousness existing outside the body. I find it interesting speculation and I wonder if there isn't some theory that might fit with both our scientific testable observations and my own personal experiences. Oh, well, thats probably just my imagination running wild. Sorry.
 
Mercutio said:
Oh, and another benefit--I occasionally teach about these topics, and I have found that in the past year or two I have not come across any question in class that I have not previously answered here. Responding in writing here allows me to practice a response I use later in class, so it benefits both me and my students.
Click to expand...
Wonderful ... ;)
 
Iacchus said:
Wonderful ... ;)
Click to expand...
It is an ill wind that blows no good...

Yes, Iacchus, other people benefit from your willful ignorance. Of course, they could also benefit from your learning, but your path is the willfully ignorant one...too bad for you, really.

I suppose I hope that you actually are learning from your time here, and are merely trolling. Hazard of the job, I guess; I cannot refuse to care when my students do poorly. If you are being honest in your willful ignorance, all the more pity.
 
Iacchus said:
And do you realize that the only thing that binds the Universe together, exists as a direct result of the process of recognition? There is not one thing about this relationship between "all things," that does not entail some form of communication between one thing and the next. Indeed, without a means to interact, at the very deepest level, there would in fact be nothing ...
Click to expand...
What, and nobody has any comment about this? Hmm ...
 
Iacchus said:
What, and nobody has any comment about this? Hmm ...
Click to expand...
Should we? I did not comment about the itch I had in the sole of my foot either, because it was equally irrelevant. If it would make you feel better, I could comment on it. It was a particularly irritating itch.
 
Mercutio said:
If you look around enough, you will see comments from people, to the effect of "I have learned a great deal from this thread, but only from people who are correcting [troll in question]." I no longer have any real hopes that Iacchus will ever admit his mistakes, even if he sees them, but the comments from others have come just often enough to keep me answering.

Oh, and another benefit--I occasionally teach about these topics, and I have found that in the past year or two I have not come across any question in class that I have not previously answered here. Responding in writing here allows me to practice a response I use later in class, so it benefits both me and my students.
Click to expand...

Ok - fair points all, first paragraph especially.
 
Filip Sandor said:
I'm sorry, I should have said isolate and catagorize different kinds of qualia you know of, my mistake; I just thought people would be better able to recognize the qualia of strong emotions, so I used examples of such. We (smart people) know that qualia correlates to many physical things, but in itself, it is not a physical thing.
Click to expand...

Ah, qualia. The thing that dualists and immaterialists think really matters, and materialists think don't matter at all.

Yes, but consider the possibility that a non-physical sub-system of an unknown kind may exist on the other end for qualia. Now eliminate that possibility logically.
Click to expand...

Simple enough - eliminate all that is inconsistant with observation. Non-physical things cannot be observed, and may therefore logically be eliminated.

So until you had read/ heard your first neurobiology lesson you had no idea your mind existed, right?
Click to expand...

Self-awareness, a natural property of any conscious system (brains, computers, etc) allows for perception of the 'mind' from within. But no, until I (or you, or anyone else) first were taught about the brain, you had no idea a brain existed at all.

I think you're a smart guy, so you should be able to figure it out. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah - willfully ignorant antagonist/comedy relief. Got it.
 
Iacchus said:
What, and nobody has any comment about this? Hmm ...
Click to expand...

The only sensible comment is that you appear to be confusing 'interact' with 'communicate'. The former is a function of any physical system; the latter requires an intelligent system on one end and/or the other.
 
Mercutio said:
There is an evoked potential generated by nerve signals; it is this that is measured by an EEG, for instance. Note that to detect it, you need sensitive electrodes placed in direct contact with the head. Note also that your comment is inconsistent--a signal which is generated is an outgoing signal, whereas one that is tuned into would be an incoming signal. In either case, the evoked potential is much much to weak to be any sort of a signal, is summed across a huge number of neurons such that any evoked potential gives no information about any particular neuron, and is quite demonstrably not the means by which neurons signal each other. (That would involve neurotransmitters, about which we also know a great deal.)

Bottom line? Your notion of the brain as a receiver/transmitter is foolish, ignorant, and contrary to everything we know about the brain.


Was that clear enough, Filip?
Click to expand...

Hey sorry, sometimes I read too fast a lot of these posts get repetative and I miss the names. My bad, sorry Mercutio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom