Consciousness question

[Dark Jaguar]

Time for another analogy. Where is a computer program located? In this bit of RAM, or this one? Where is the story of a book located? This page, or this page? It is the COLLECTIVE processes of the brain that seem to generate conciousness. Testability? Well, when we damage the brain, conciousness seems to vanish.

You can shut off a TV and be sure the reporter is still there because that's testable.

However, if you shut off a computer, is the application you were running still "there"? Perhaps the data and the mechanism by which it can run is, but it isn't currently running. It seems conciousness can be thought of in the same terms. The "program" may still be there if you "shut off" a brain (for as long as that brain lasts), but with no activity, the program is not running. Just as a program that isn't running can't DO anything at all, conciousness can't do what it does at all, which is be aware.

 

[Iacchus]

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?)

Consciousness is the only thing that exists which is capable of explaining such things and giving a detailed account. In fact it would seem to be that much closer to the true nature of reality in that regard, as it is more intimately bound with its cause, rather than just the effect. It is capable of observing and detecting how things happen which, is only one step removed from doing these things for oneself. Indeed, look at all the things man has created, as a result of his being conscious.

 

[Iacchus]

However, if you shut off a computer, is the application you were running still "there"? Perhaps the data and the mechanism by which it can run is, but it isn't currently running. It seems conciousness can be thought of in the same terms. The "program" may still be there if you "shut off" a brain (for as long as that brain lasts), but with no activity, the program is not running. Just as a program that isn't running can't DO anything at all, conciousness can't do what it does at all, which is be aware.

Of course you do realize that in order for a computer to function, there has to be an ideal computer in existence somewhere to tells us such things are possible, don't you think? Isn't this pretty much how everything works? So, what happens to this ideal computer when you shut the physical computer down? It's still there isn't it? In fact, wouldn't it be reasonable to assess that it's always been there from the get-go?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Yes, I do know that. What relevance does it have?

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.)

Already provided.

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?

Already provided.

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 faith. Evidence. Already provided.

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.

This is a fact that has been recorded since the day we invented writing. If it doesn't convince you, it is simply because you have decided to ignore inconvenient facts.

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?

You still haven't answered the question. If consciousness generates matter, why should there be laws of physics at all? Why wouldn't the universe be different for every instance of consciousness?

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).

No, we don't. Duh. That's what the mystics are saying too.

Not really. Materialism teaches that M/E cannot be created or destroyed

That's not materialism. That's physics.

and that it has thus existed for eternity and will continue to exist (in some form or another) infinately.

That's not materialism, that's just false.

That's an untestable, unfalsifiable, metaphysical, faith.

No. It's a falsifiable theory. Create some matter ex nihilo and prove it wrong. Or simply show a reaction (chemical, nuclear, whatever) where the sides of the equation do not balance.

(And I, of course, would absolutely defend someone's right to place their faith in that.)

No faith. Evidence.

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.

No.

Conservation of energy follows from our observations. There is not a single instance where it has been observed to be false.

Conservation of consciousness is contrary to our observations. There is not a single instance where it has been observed to be true.

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?

The universe isn't eternal or infinite.

What specificially makes you think that physical death proves that consciousness ceases to exist (and/or begins with birth)?

We know that death ends consciousness because that particular consciousness goes away. It's not hard. You die, you're gone.

And vice versa with birth. No sign of any consciousness before-hand, and then bloop! Here it is, screaming and pooping all over the place.

This view isn't even a scientific theory since it doesn't generate any testable hypothesis.

Sure it is.

Here's one: We will never have any communication with the dead.

Easily falsifiable if it were wrong. But we don't have any communication with the dead.

I think you need to be more specific about exactly what it is you think that generates consciousness in the first place.

The brain.

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

Yes it does.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

What is in between the self dissipating and ceasing to exist? What makes you believe that the ego is some kind of substance with a clear ontological status?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yet you seem to think that brains produce consciousness...

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

I do not "think" anything, thats where the evidence leads.

And yes, I believe so, but in the end what I believe, what anyones believe its irrelevant and useless. Evidence so far points to the extincion of the function called consciousness.

You are unable to see it because for you this consciousness is somehow a substance, and not a function.

What makes you think that?

 

[Iacchus]

Of course you do realize that in order for a computer to function, there has to be an ideal computer in existence somewhere to tells us such things are possible, don't you think? Isn't this pretty much how everything works? So, what happens to this ideal computer when you shut the physical computer down? It's still there isn't it? In fact, wouldn't it be reasonable to assess that it's always been there from the get-go?

What I'm suggesting is that there's an ideal or, spiritual realiy, that interacts with and, ultimately governs the physical world. This is where everything exists "in principle" and, the respective information is maintained ... in fact not altogether different than the harddrive on a computer.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

And what sustains this ideal reality? Is there an ideal ideal reality that tells this ideal reality how to function?

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

I disagree. In Buddhism and Christian and Hindu mysticism you find that the no-self and no-thought state is considered the highest level of attainment.

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.

Reductions of what type of activity? And why do you conclude that is consciousness? If you're honest with yourself here you will recognise that you are limited in what you can realistically claim to know.

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 . . .

Look, you're saying that the thalamus either creates consciousness or has a large role in it's formation. I don't know what metaphor your getting at with your cameras and aircraft, but I do know, first, that correlation is not causation and, second, that absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You have not proven that anything in the thalamus or anywhere produces consciousnes or that consciousness is completely dependent upon some specific activity or pattern. How could you ever accomplish such a thing? You can't. It's an impossible task.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

So? My statement stands. There is no evidence for the existence of ghosts.

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.

All evidence is circumstantial. But there is no evidence for the persistence of consciousness after death.

If you claim that there is, show me.

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.

No.

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.

I know that. The point is that it is a physical process. The changes to the brain are an accumulation of the effects of measurable physical processes.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Time for another analogy. Where is a computer program located? In this bit of RAM, or this one? Where is the story of a book located? This page, or this page? It is the COLLECTIVE processes of the brain that seem to generate conciousness.

Why have you concluded that consciousness is a collective process? Let's be clear here about something - your brain is nothing more than protons, neutrons and electrons with some EM radiation thrown in for good measure. Why specifically do you think that macro-scale activity is necessary to generate consciousness? Why not something a little bit smaller? Are insects conscious? Do you disagree with Daniel Dennett's theory about theromostats being intentional systems with beliefs about the world?

Testability? Well, when we damage the brain, conciousness seems to vanish.

"Seems to vanish"? Do you have anything other than this circumstantial evidence? When I thump a table the shockwaves diminish within a second or two and the energy transferred from my thumping the table to the shockwaves "seems to vanish". Appearances can be deceiving.

The bottom line is, as with matter/energy which we don't believe can ever be created or destroyed having no evidence for such we have no reason to believe that consciousness can ever be created or destroyed.

You can shut off a TV and be sure the reporter is still there because that's testable.

And my bumping into a table should reduce my mass and increase the table's mass. How's that testable?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

What direct and non-circumstantial evidence do you ahve that consciousness is a "reflection" of the information processing being carried out by the brain?

If I take your brain away, it doesn't happen any more.

(And why do you call it a 'reflection' at all rather than just the information processing itself?)

Reflection is a description of the type of processing that gives rise to consciousness. Follow the link.

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 you.

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

There isn't anything else, so if you don't accept any of those, that's your problem.

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

Sure there's a difference. But p-zombies are conscious.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In Buddhism and Christian and Hindu mysticism you find that the no-self and no-thought state is considered the highest level of attainment.

So, if you value this, you should understand that for Buddhism there is not such a thing as "a consciousness". Its not real. Period.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Consciousness is the only thing that exists which is capable of explaining such things and giving a detailed account. In fact it would seem to be that much closer to the true nature of reality in that regard, as it is more intimately bound with its cause, rather than just the effect. It is capable of observing and detecting how things happen which, is only one step removed from doing these things for oneself. Indeed, look at all the things man has created, as a result of his being conscious.

Yes, the reality we find ourselves within is better thought of as a collection of laws and regulations rather than as material or physical. We have no ideas whatsoever what M/E is. All we know is that we can measure it. Thinking that it causes consciousness is to put the horse before the cart entirely.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

What is in between the self dissipating and ceasing to exist? What makes you believe that the ego is some kind of substance with a clear ontological status?

Personally, I think we're much more than just our ego, but that's just me.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Evidence so far points to the extincion of the function called consciousness.

Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive by any means and you know it.

You are unable to see it because for you this consciousness is somehow a substance, and not a function.

What makes you think that?

Stop trying to tell me what I believe. I've made my position clear. I believe that consciousness cannot be created or destroyed for the same reason that you believe what appears to us as matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed - there's no evidence of such happening.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Yes, I do know that. What relevance does it have?

Well, how many protons, neutrons electrons and much EM radiation do you need to produce consciousness - and why? What about cat's, dogs, rabbits and snakes? What about insects? How and why are you defining what is and isn't conscious? What about Dennett's thermostats? What about my calculator?

What specific properties do you think are necessarty to produce consciousness and why?

Already provided.

Nope, you haven't defined or demonstrated any way in which consciousness is created in the brain at all. You just think it is.

No faith. Evidence. Already provided.

See above. Is Dennett wrong about thermostats in your view? If so, why? If not, then why stop at thermostats. What about a smaller thermostat?

This is a fact that has been recorded since the day we invented writing. If it doesn't convince you, it is simply because you have decided to ignore inconvenient facts.

Is an alcohol based theromostat permanently drunk? What about mercury based ones?

You still haven't answered the question. If consciousness generates matter, why should there be laws of physics at all? Why wouldn't the universe be different for every instance of consciousness?

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why the universe is the way it is let alone why it even exists at all.

Why should there be consciousness at all if it's all just a big machine? Why aren't we permanently non-conscious p-zombies?

That's not materialism. That's physics.

Physics is borne of materialism so that point is moot. Either way, we don't believe that matter can be created or destroyed for the very simple reason that we have no evidence it can be created or destroyed. Until there is clear evidence, as opposed to circumstantial evidence, that consciousness that consciousness can be created or destroyed why do you believe it can be?

That's not materialism, that's just false.

Wrong. Even the energy that produced the singularity that became/was the Big Bang is believed to have came from somewhere.

No. It's a falsifiable theory. Create some matter ex nihilo and prove it wrong. Or simply show a reaction (chemical, nuclear, whatever) where the sides of the equation do not balance.

I'm asking you whether or not you can prove that matter/energy has always existed in some form and always continue to do so?

Conservation of energy follows from our observations. There is not a single instance where it has been observed to be false.

Conservation of consciousness is contrary to our observations. There is not a single instance where it has been observed to be true.

And what exactly makes you think that matter/energy actually exists in the first place when all we have is measurements of something that is, ultimately, indescribable?

The universe isn't eternal or infinite.

My bad, but the energy that created it is supposed to be indestructable.

We know that death ends consciousness because that particular consciousness goes away. It's not hard. You die, you're gone.

And vice versa with birth. No sign of any consciousness before-hand, and then bloop! Here it is, screaming and pooping all over the place.

Prove there is not consciousness before birth or after death?

Here's one: We will never have any communication with the dead.

I think you'll find that it's the survival theory that generates that hypothesis. I'm asking you about what you specifically say creates consciousness and how you're going to prove it.

The brain.

How big does it have to be? And why?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

What I'm suggesting is that there's an ideal or, spiritual realiy, that interacts with and, ultimately governs the physical world. This is where everything exists "in principle" and, the respective information is maintained ... in fact not altogether different than the harddrive on a computer.

The fundamental ground of all being. Yes.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

And what sustains this ideal reality? Is there an ideal ideal reality that tells this ideal reality how to function?

What sustains your physical reality and tells this physical reality how to function?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

So? My statement stands. There is no evidence for the existence of ghosts.

Can't you read? There is no replicable, on-demand, evidence for the existence of ghosts. That's not the same as their being no evidence at all.

All evidence is circumstantial. But there is no evidence for the persistence of consciousness after death.

If you claim that there is, show me.

I don't have to show you anything. I have no evidence for the creation of destruction of consciousness plain and simple. As such, I have no reason to believe it can be created or destroyed.

Again, do you disagree with Dennett about thermostats being intentional systems with beliefs about the world? If so, why? If not, why not?
_
HypnoPsi