Consciousness question

[HypnoPsi]

Um, because it's gone? Just a thought.

Is the newsreader annihilated when I turn off the television?

Consciousness is a perfectly straightforward informational process. It only seems odd because you are observing it from the inside, and as such, cannot directly compare it with any other examples.

How is consciousness "a perfectly straightforward informational process"? Who or what is the "I" or "you" that is observing it from the inside?

If it's so straightforward then what demonstrable pattern or activity is the cause of consciousness and unconsciousness?

Why aren't we permanently non-conscious machines or p-zombies? Can you explain how a certain activity or pattern creates consciousness (and how it's absence or interruption extinguishes consciousness) or is it not just the case that this is post hoc ergo procter hoc reasoning on your part?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Nobody has ever produced any reliable evidence of any such thing, despite 5000 years of recorded claims. We would be extremely foolish not to dismiss it out of hand.

That there is no absolute proof of ghosts is true, but it is unscientific to "dismiss it out of hand".

Because damage to the brain causes damage to the mind, while the converse is not even remotely true.

Hogwash. PTSD, repeated psychological abuse and severe stress can absolutely effect changes in brain functioning and physiology. http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/behavior/ptsd_4/
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

What do you mean when you suggest that "consciousness creates brains"?

I'm talking about the ultimate nature of what we call "matter/energy". Why assume consciousness is the epiphenomenon or emergent property of M/E? Why not the reverse? Why not another source altogether?

How does it happen that we get two consciousnesses associated with one brain if we sever the corpus callosum?

I see no evidence that split-brain patients actually have two consciousnesses. Two separate processors, yes, definately - but we know nothing more than that.

Why do brains persist when consciousness is gone? Why does consciousness create brains and not cabbages?

If there is something about consciousness we're not aware of that generates matter/energy (or another consciousness doing it such as a God/Source), then it's generating a lot more than just cabbages and brains.

How is it possible to get drunk, then?

That's a subjective assessment. I think it is cognition (neural activity as it appears in consciousness) that is altered when we drink. But what are you saying here? Add alcohol to our neurochemistry and we've created a new type of consciousness?

Or are you talking about Berkelian idealism? In that case, why is there a physical universe? Why are consciousnesses individual and separate, able to communicate only through physical means?

I have no idea if Berkley's view is right, why there is a physical universe or why we are here as bodies.

All I know is just as we don't believe matter/energy can be created or destroyed because we have no evidece for such we have no reason to believe that consciousness can be created or destroyed either.

Materialistic atheists belive that the brain produces consciousness but that's just another faith no matter how dressed up the models, theories and anecdotes. I want to know what actual real, solid, evidence there is for some specific type of neural activity or pattern generating consciousness (and it being extinguished when such activity or pattern is interrupted).

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm talking about the ultimate nature of what we call "matter/energy". Why assume consciousness is the epiphenomenon or emergent property of M/E? Why not the reverse? Why not another source altogether?

As I've pointed out, there is no doubt at all that consciousness is generated by the brain. The fundamental nature of all existence may be up for grabs, but that is not.

I see no evidence that split-brain patients actually have two consciousnesses. Two separate processors, yes, definately - but we know nothing more than that.

Sure we do.

They can look at a picture, and say they don't know who it is - and at the same time, write down the persons name. Their consciousness is split in two. Impossible if consciousness creates brains.

If there is something about consciousness we're not aware of that generates matter/energy (or another consciousness doing it such as a God/Source), then it's generating a lot more than just cabbages and brains.

You have two different concepts there. The latter one, involving God, is Berkelian Idealism, and it is unfalsifiable and unsupported by any evidence.

The former, the idea that individual consciousnesses create matter and energy, is simply false.

That's a subjective assessment.

No it isn't. Under materialism, it's a perfectly straightforward matter of biochemistry.

I think it is cognition (neural activity as it appears in consciousness) that is altered when we drink. But what are you saying here? Add alcohol to our neurochemistry and we've created a new type of consciousness?

I'm not saying that. I'm asking how can we possibly get drunk if brains are created by consciousness. Your answer, so far, does not connect with your premise at all.

I have no idea if Berkley's view is right, why there is a physical universe or why we are here as bodies.

Yeah. Neither did Berkeley.

The problem is far more fundamental than that, though. If you assume that everything is the product of the one Consciousness (the mind of God, as Berkeley had it), you still haven't explained anything, because we don't experience one Consciousness; we experience billions of separate, individual consciousnesses. You're even further from an explanation than under materialism, because now you have to explain the existence of consciousness and the existence of the universe.

All I know is just as we don't believe matter/energy can be created or destroyed because we have no evidece for such we have no reason to believe that consciousness can be created or destroyed either.

We have unimaginably vast amounts of evidence for exactly that.

Every child ever born, every person who ever died, is evidence that consciousness is created by material processes and that the destruction of those processes destroys consciousness.

It works every time, without fail.

Kill someone, and they never show any signs of consciousness ever again.

Materialistic atheists belive that the brain produces consciousness

Yes. So do people of most religions, and many idealists and dualists. What of it?

but that's just another faith no matter how dressed up the models, theories and anecdotes.

No. No faith is involved at all. Just evidence. No brain, no consciousness. Works every time. Damage the brain, damage the consciousness. Apply alcohol, and consciousness goes wobbly. Apply more alcohol, and consciousness goes away for a while.

I want to know what actual real, solid, evidence there is for some specific type of neural activity or pattern generating consciousness (and it being extinguished when such activity or pattern is interrupted).

Simple: If there is no neural activity, there is no consciousness. EVER.

 

[PixyMisa]

That there is no absolute proof of ghosts is true, but it is unscientific to "dismiss it out of hand".

No it isn't. You have no evidence? Then go away.

Edit: And your statement "there is no absolute proof of ghosts" is fraudulent. There is no evidence for the existence of ghosts at all.

Hogwash. PTSD, repeated psychological abuse and severe stress can absolutely effect changes in brain functioning and physiology. http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/behavior/ptsd_4/

Which is a physical process, not a mental one. Which proves my point.

 

[PixyMisa]

Is the newsreader annihilated when I turn off the television?

How does that relate to the subject?

How is consciousness "a perfectly straightforward informational process"?

It's a reflection of the information processing being carried out by the brain.

Who or what is the "I" or "you" that is observing it from the inside?

Uh, it's I, or you. You just said that. Pay attention when you're talking.

If it's so straightforward then what demonstrable pattern or activity is the cause of consciousness and unconsciousness?

It's an overall accumulation of brain processing. It doesn't relate to one specific part of the brain (though some parts are more significant than others) or to one specific pattern of activity. But if there's no activity, there's no consciousness.

Why aren't we permanently non-conscious machines or p-zombies?

We are p-zombies.

Can you explain how a certain activity or pattern creates consciousness (and how it's absence or interruption extinguishes consciousness) or is it not just the case that this is post hoc ergo procter hoc reasoning on your part?

Yes.

 

[Iacchus]

How have you concluded brains produce consciousness? Why, for example, didn't you conclude consciousness creates brains?
_
HypnoPsi

Yeah, that's funny. I think these folks would conclude a similar notion with just about everything (with respect to evolution) except for the brain. Surely there has to be an available resource for something to exploit in order for it to develop, correct? Why is that so hard to understand? Take for example our eyes. Without the medium we call light, we would have no need for eyeballs whatsover now would we? Obviously they developed to exploit the resource we call light.

 

[Iacchus]

HypnoPsi, the reason why conciousness would go away when one is unconcious (a self defining term by the way) is simply that the brain has severly reduced activity, and those activities that produce the concious effect are not in effect. Namely, it is the same reason a computer process "goes away" when you turn off a computer.

I dream almost all the time when I'm sleeping and am well aware that I am. And this is in context with the dream itself, not of something I'm aware of going on outside of it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yeah, that's funny. I think these folks would conclude a similar notion with just about everything (with respect to evolution) except for the brain. Surely there has to be an available resource for something to exploit in order for it to develop, correct?

No.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Because it's wrong, that's why.

 

[DreadNiK]

No.

Because it's wrong, that's why.

Yup.

No different from "everything had to come from something, therefore goddidit." Totally fallacious...

 

[Mercutio]

Yeah, that's funny. I think these folks would conclude a similar notion with just about everything (with respect to evolution) except for the brain. Surely there has to be an available resource for something to exploit in order for it to develop, correct? Why is that so hard to understand? Take for example our eyes. Without the medium we call light, we would have no need for eyeballs whatsover now would we? Obviously they developed to exploit the resource we call light.

And since you couldn't possibly generate your own body heat, you must absorb it from the sun. Except that you can generate heat, through cellular metabolism. And you can produce this thing we label consciousness through your behavior, both public and private. (I disagree slightly from Pixy, and will say that "consciousness" comes not just from our brains, but from the language we use to describe our behavior. I don't really think he will disagree.)

Hypno, the idea of consciousness as projected can only be held if you have a profound ignorance of what is known about the brain and sensory systems. The idea of consciousness as generated by us is perfectly consistent with over a century of evidence in psychophysics, physiological psychology, sensation & perception research, not to mention consistent with what physics knows about energy. The projection idea is not consistent with these data at all.

 

[Z]

Geez.. now H-P is back with his own BS.

Unless he can show conclusive proof of a consciousness which exists without a material brain, he should shut up and go away.

 

[Imaginative]

If you assume that everything is the product of the one Consciousness (the mind of God, as Berkeley had it), you still haven't explained anything, because we don't experience one Consciousness; we experience billions of separate, individual consciousnesses.

How about each seperate consciosness being the equivalent to a synapse in the brain. How many synapses working together are needed to create consciousness, how many consciousnesses are needed to create reality.

Just a suggestion I wanted to add to this discussion.

 

[Mercutio]

How about each seperate consciosness being the equivalent to a synapse in the brain. How many synapses working together are needed to create consciousness, how many consciousnesses are needed to create reality.

Just a suggestion I wanted to add to this discussion.

Except, of course, that each synapse in the brain (and why each synapse? Why not each neuron? Why not each pathway? Why not each individual packet, or even individual molecule, of neurotransmitter? Why not just the dopamine ones, or just the serotonin? Do you see that your example is quite arbitrary?) is fairly well (and better each year) understood, in terms of quite observable materials and processes. These processes are assumed to be part of reality (whether material or ideal), and so your example is purely circular--starting from reality, we can generate reality...

 

[Iacchus]

No.

Because it's wrong, that's why.

Yes, but isn't the body and all it entails a by-product of everything which is external to it? So, why should consciousness be viewed any differently? Why should it be viewed as an inherent part of the body when, in fact nothing is inherent to the body? At least this would provide us with a source, an alternative reality if you will, based upon intelligence at "its core," rather than saying it mysteriously arises from the body. Indeed, if the body is none other than a reflection of its environment, why shouldn't it be reflective of a conscious environment as well? Which, may help to explain the nature of stucture and, why everything seems to entail one big interaction.

 

[Imaginative]

These processes are assumed to be part of reality (whether material or ideal), and so your example is purely circular--starting from reality, we can generate reality...

Hi Mercutio

Yes, I know that it was a circular argument but what come to mind when I wrote it was the Chinese Ying and Yang philosphy, not that I follow that particular philosphy, just that I understand the concept.

My take on it is the universe being the inert form of consciousness and creatures such as ourselves having the active form of conscious experience.

I'm not going to defend this as it has probably been discussed elsewhere on this forum before, just wanted to get involved in this discussion on some level.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Materialistic atheists belive that the brain produces consciousness but that's just another faith no matter how dressed up the models, theories and anecdotes. I want to know what actual real, solid, evidence there is for some specific type of neural activity or pattern generating consciousness (and it being extinguished when such activity or pattern is interrupted).

First off, it is a fair question to ask what is consciousness. How about sentience, sapience, self-awareness.

It is clear that consciousness is not an on/off phenonmenon. We tend to regard consciousness in degrees or levels of sentience, sapience, self-awareness.

Secondly, consciousness, we have observed, is not rooted in one specific spot, but actually, in different parts of the brain. How do we know?

Because we HAVE seen consciousness in its various forms (sentience, sapience, self-awareness) diminish or completely go away from numerous studies of very specific legions in different parts of the brain.

Consciousness, at its purest, is active communication between the cortex and thalamus. Diminishing the communication between these two parts of the brain have resulted in reduced or complete lack of what we call consciousness.

However, the best description of the location of the consciousness is somewhere within the thalamus.

Here's a couple of useful starting points:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz3a2.htm#introduction
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jbogen/text/Consciousness.html

I have online access to scholarly journals in the field, and a cursory look at published papers all seem to point to the thalamus along with sensory communication with the cerebral cortex as the source of all brain functions that result in consciousness.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Lets remind your own words:

For what it's worth, my own personal theory is that the ego/self becomes dissipated during sleep - and much more profoundly so during anaesthesia.

So... you believe that is "dissipated", so on what grounds do you discuss that its something "in itself"?????

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

IWho or what is the "I" or "you" that is observing it from the inside?

There is no one there.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Materialistic atheists belive that the brain produces consciousness but that's just another faith

Everything we know points to that conclusion. Why is this so hard to see? Because you have an idea and want to prove it. Some of us just see at the facts and conclude from them, not from previous ideas.

Oh, and Im not, by any means, a "materialistic atheist". If you want to label me I would be something like an objective idealist of some sort (in the sense of being aware that all we think and perceive is part of us, and not the world "in itself"). In my own account, Im just me.