Consciousness question

[HypnoPsi]

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.

First, assuming you have some understanding of periodicity, I think you'll find that brians are made of the same fundamental stuff as tables and chairs and candybars; namely protons, neutrons and electrons and some EM radiation thrown in for good measure.

Why do you have no doubt that consciousness is generated by the brain? I see no qualifying statement or reference here... What actual evidence is there? (Anecdotes, models, theories, arguments from authority or conviction don't count as evidence.)

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.

I am well aware that separate processing occurs in each hemisphere of the brain. I'm asking what actual evidence you have that a split-brain patients consciousness is split in two rather than just their cognitive faculties?

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.

Hold on a second. I'm not claiming to know where or how the whole universe came into existence and I'm not very into Berkley. (And if it's our individual consciousnesses that's doing it then it's not at any level we're aware of.) I'm asking what actual evidence you have that matter, as neurons, creates consciousness? We've already covered that you have faith in this. I'm asking why?

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

Really? I'll certainly agree the my cognitive faculties are affected by alcohol as much as anyone else on a night out, but I'm not convinced my consciousness is - even if I should be flat out under the table.

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.

The universe has (fairly) stable and well established laws which can be easily verified by running into a brick wall or picking up a red hot poker. Whatever is generating and sustaining the universe we don't seem to have any direct awareness or control of it. Why that is, I don't know. Neither is this relevant to the issue of why you have faith that matter produces consciousness and not the other way around or something beyond both?

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.

Don't we? In most eastern religions individual consciousness is viewed as an illusion due to the transient nature of thoughts (and, in my view, many Christian mystics seem to basically end up saying the same thing as well).

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.

Not really. Materialism teaches that M/E cannot be created or destroyed and that it has thus existed for eternity and will continue to exist (in some form or another) infinately. That's an untestable, unfalsifiable, metaphysical, faith. (And I, of course, would absolutely defend someone's right to place their faith in that.)

And therein lies the crux of the issue - materialists feel justified in this belief solely because they have no evidence that M/E can be created or destroyed. If the logic is valid (and it is) then it applies to consciousness also until we have demonstrable and replicable evidence that it definately can be created or destroyed.

Since materialistic scientists seem both disinklined and unable to examine the issue of how an eternal/infinate M/E universe can exist why should noetic scientists be expected to examine how consciousness can exist eternally/infinately?

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.

What specificially makes you think that physical death proves that consciousness ceases to exist (and/or begins with birth)? This view isn't even a scientific theory since it doesn't generate any testable hypothesis. I think you need to be more specific about exactly what it is you think that generates consciousness in the first place.

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.

Unobservable by our instruments and senses does not necessarily prove that consciousness is "gone".
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Unobservable by our instruments and senses does not necessarily prove that consciousness is "gone".

Nor that there are no pink unicorns, or the inexistence of santa...

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

Actually, whether you like it or not, qualitative evidence is still qualitative evidence (particularly when it's independently verified by separate/independent witnesses). That there is nothing replicable on-demand is certainly true.

The word "evidence" doesn't apply, either in common English or in science, solely to that type of evidence which is gained in controlled experiments, no matter how much you might wish it did. You, for example, are using circumstantial evidence of non-responsiveness after death to conclude that consciousness ceases to exist.

Thump your table with your fist and after a second or two the shock waves will stop. By your logic we should believe, due to circumstantial evidence that the energy involved has ceased to exist.

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

Wrong. Psychological abuse need not - and often does not - involve any direct physical abuse at all in order for it to result in a physical effect in the brain.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wrong. Psychological abuse need not - and often does not - involve any direct physical abuse at all in order for it to result in a physical effect in the brain.

Then you dont understand well how things works. Say somebody shouts at a child. Physical air enters his/her auditive system, its transformed in electrochemical impulses which change the architecture of the neurons.

You see? Only physical processes.

 

[Mercutio]

First, assuming you have some understanding of periodicity, I think you'll find that brians are made of the same fundamental stuff as tables and chairs and candybars; namely protons, neutrons and electrons and some EM radiation thrown in for good measure.

When was the last time you accidentally took a big bite out of a table?

I think your argument works against you here--the very fact that, although your table does have legs, it does not run away when you attempt to take that bite out of it, indicates that these "same fundamental stuff...namely protons, neutrons..." may be arranged in ways which differ tremendously from one another.

Oddly enough, something similar to mistaking a table for a candybar is part of the evidence suggesting that it is, indeed, the brain that is responsible for conscious experience. Oliver Sacks's book "the man who mistook his wife for a hat", and other case studies nicely reported by Sacks, Ramachandran, and others, could have contradicted our notion that consciousness is generated (rather than received); but no, so far they are quite consistent with what we have learned about the brain. For one thing...that which we experience as a unitary flow of consciousness is actually several different parallel processes (something we are literally unable to be aware of introspectively).

The study of consciousness is a fascinating topic. There is no need to make stuff up, it is cool all on its own.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

What direct and non-circumstantial evidence do you ahve that consciousness is a "reflection" of the information processing being carried out by the brain? (And why do you call it a 'reflection' at all rather than just the information processing itself?)

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

No... you wrote:

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.

What exactly is the "you" that is observing consciousness from the inside?

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.

Again, theories, models, anecdotes arguments from authority or conviction or circumstantial evidence aren't good enough here.

We are p-zombies.

So there's no difference between unconsciousness and consiousness then? How so?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Yes, and natural selection was clearly a very important part of that. But what of consciousness and psychology? The reason why animals are attracted to each other and produce offspring is psychological. Eventually much more psychology will have to be included in evolutionary theory and, by extension, so will consciousness.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Hold on a second. This projection idea is yours. I'd be more inclined towards saying it is all conciousness in a panentheistic sense.

I'm an amaterialist because I have no evidence the noumenal is actually made of anything definate at all. Consciousness, on the other hand is the first existent of which I'm aware and also that through which I perceive all phenomena. Since I have no evidence of consciousness ever being destroyed or created I have no reason to believe it can be destroyed or created - particularly not by some undefinable thing called "matter".

In the above you seem to be leaning more towards an electrochemical view of consciousness rather than an electromagnetic view. Why? What specifically are you saying creates consciousness?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, and natural selection was clearly a very important part of that. But what of consciousness and psychology? The reason why animals are attracted to each other and produce offspring is psychological. Eventually much more psychology will have to be included in evolutionary theory and, by extension, so will consciousness.
_
HypnoPsi

Heh....HP, get off the computer and start watching those videos. The things you say must happen...are already happening. And the explanations that actually have evidence are so much more exciting than Iacchus's dreams.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Well, Daniel Dennett equates thermostats with neurons (particularly to the sodium-potassium pump in the neuron) as a potential generator of consciousness. But that doesn't explain how they work in concert to create a single consciousness rather than trillions of mini-consciousnesses. (Neither does Dennett adequately explain, in my view, why he even chooses large scale thermostats. Nothing is at absolute zero and for every action there is an equal or an opposite reaction.)

Bottom line, people need to be clearer here about exactly what conditions in the brain (or computers or thermostats) they think are necessary to create consciousness. Then they need to demonstrate it occurring.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Mercutio]

Hold on a second. This projection idea is yours. I'd be more inclined towards saying it is all conciousness in a panentheistic sense.

Mine? No sir. Your words, above: Why are you taking that as fact when it could just be post hoc reasoning? Why do you believe that interrupting a specific type of activity in the brain or in specific neurons genuinely eliminates consciousness (temporarily or permanently) rather than just interrupting it's connection to the body?

The newsreader on my TV screen is, indeed quite literally, made of electrons travelling along the cathode ray tube in the form of EM radiation to create a picture, but pulling the plug on the TV doesn't eliminate him. You have also agreed with Iacchus, who asserts a projection idea of consciousness.

If you do not think it is that, then please have a care with your words.

In the above you seem to be leaning more towards an electrochemical view of consciousness rather than an electromagnetic view. Why? What specifically are you saying creates consciousness?

The question is flawed. In asking what creates consciousness, you already assign it an existant status.

My view is, if you want a school of thought behind it, a radical behavioral view. It is completely consistent with the neurological research, though.

 

[Mercutio]

Bottom line, people need to be clearer here about exactly what conditions in the brain (or computers or thermostats) they think are necessary to create consciousness. Then they need to demonstrate it occurring.

Or demonstrate that the question as you ask it is flawed.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Well.... hold on a second. What are you specifically saying generates consciousness? The sodium-potassium pump? Serotonin? Dopamine? Any other neurotransmitter(s)? Is consciousness the electrical action potentials that travel along each synapse? Or is consciousness the EM field that the brain produces? (Or is consciousness generated by several things together?)

Frankly, you lot don't even seem to agree with each other or even understand very much about what you're trying to argue. Actual evidence for this claim seems a long way away.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Mercutio]

Well.... hold on a second. What are you specifically saying generates consciousness? The sodium-potassium pump? Serotonin? Dopamine? Any other neurotransmitter(s)? Is consciousness the electrical action potentials that travel along each synapse? Or is consciousness the EM field that the brain produces? (Or is consciousness generated by several things together?)

Frankly, you lot don't even seem to agree with each other or even understand very much about what you're trying to argue. Actual evidence for this claim seems a long way away.
_
HypnoPsi

HP, I was not arguing *for* anything in that post, just arguing *against* the logic in it. There was no reason given for "each synapse"; I was asking why not any of a number of other possibilities.

Got it?

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

You're talking about neural-networks and cognition. How does this mean consciousness is diminished or extinguished when cognition is simply nerual activity as it appears in consciousness?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no way of knowing that consciousness has truly ceased - you only have conjecture.

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.

There's a lack of responsiveness. What makes you certain that means consciousness has ceased?

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

How so? What specifically do you think there is about or within the thalamus that creates consciousness? How will you test this theory? How do you know for definate that the thalamus produces consciousness? How do you know that it's not just like a television aerial?

You have a lot to overcome here to prove consciousness is actually generated by material processes.

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.

I have access to such journals as well. It's all circumstantial evidence and inference. Nothing more.

It's a faith.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Hold on a second. This projection idea is yours. I'd be more inclined towards saying it is all conciousness in a panentheistic sense.

Why and based on what evidence can you say consciousness is something in a pantheistic or panentheistic sense?

I'm an amaterialist because I have no evidence the noumenal is actually made of anything definate at all. Consciousness, on the other hand is the first existent of which I'm aware and also that through which I perceive all phenomena. Since I have no evidence of consciousness ever being destroyed or created I have no reason to believe it can be destroyed or created - particularly not by some undefinable thing called "matter".

One important flaw of which you refuse to be aware of. Consciousness REQUIRES perception of "matter". Consciousness requires your understanding of yourself, your location, your abilities, language, definitions, concepts, all of which are based on your still continuing life experiences.

Can a baby have consciousness? Does it sense, perceive, and process external stimuli? Then yes. The understanding is limited, but being active in sensing and processing information is conscious enough.

What is a human without a thalamus? Basically a persistent vegative state individual. Are they conscious? Even though they can detect and respond based on cortex activity, they are not concious. They are not actively analyzing the situation they find themselves in, they are not aware of self.

Your conciousness is not independent of your experiences. Quite the opposite. However, detecting matter is not enough. One must process the information and formulate concepts in the brain in order to define self and separate it from what is not self.

 

[Iacchus]

Oddly enough, something similar to mistaking a table for a candybar is part of the evidence suggesting that it is, indeed, the brain that is responsible for conscious experience.

Responsible at least for interpreting its higher aspects, yes.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

I believe that what we think of as "self" disspates in sleep and anaesthesia, yes. I'm definatly don't believe that consciousness really extinguishes though even though memory and experience during such times may be nil.

Don't ask me why, I'm just feeling in the dark like the rest of you. The only difference with me is that I admit it. You lot seem to think you have evidence that matter/energy creates consciousness. I'm just asking you all to be honest with yourselves about the very real limits of what is attainable here.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Yet you seem to think that brains produce consciousness. I would describe brain damage or health more like a volume level.

The bottom line for you here is do you think all experience and awareness ends at physical death?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

You're talking about neural-networks and cognition. How does this mean consciousness is diminished or extinguished when cognition is simply nerual activity as it appears in consciousness?

Because consciouness, by definition, requires cognition. Being "aware" needs information on what is out there to be aware of, as well as how it relates to self, in addition to how to define self.

There's a lack of responsiveness. What makes you certain that means consciousness has ceased?

Well, there are numerous studies of persistent vegatative state patients. As well as neurological activity of patients that are comatose. Both show that there are certain reductions to brain activity that are much higher in conscious individuals.

How so? What specifically do you think there is about or within the thalamus that creates consciousness? How will you test this theory? How do you know for definate that the thalamus produces consciousness? How do you know that it's not just like a television aerial?

First problem, the thalamus doesn't create consciousness. The thalamus is important for brain functions and activity that lead to consciousness.

How to test the theory? Look at patients with damaged thalamus or inhibited cortex-thalamus communication, and measure degrees of consciousness. The results are compelling.

How do I know it not just like a television aerial? You mean a camera attached to a flying aircraft recording images of ground scenery? I don't know where to start . . .

You have a lot to overcome here to prove consciousness is actually generated by material processes.I have access to such journals as well. It's all circumstantial evidence and inference. Nothing more.

It's a faith.
_
HypnoPsi

Or following the evidence. Your call I guess.