Consciousness: what do we know?

[Iacchus]

Empty words. Show me that consciousness is present on Jupiter. Not in you thinking about Jupiter, but actually there.

Yes, but what is it about Jupiter that makes it cohesive? How does it acknowledge itself as Jupiter in other words? There must be something there to tell it to behave as Jupiter don't you think?

 

[Z]

Would you consider the radio waves that tell your TV how to function a "substance?" 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.

Great analogy... Oh, no, wait - there are no receptors in the brain for EMF or any other radiowave frequencies. Nothing, in fact, except neurons for the reception of biochemical signals. Which, in turn, are generated in the brain.

Wow - an even three! Sorry, Iacchus - you are hereby considered the thread fool.

 

[Mercutio]

Ok, so I wrote:

Do you really want to know? Enough to put in a serious amount of time with some serious sources? If this is what you are asking, I can find some sources for you to read which will show you why the question as you ask it is horribly flawed, but which will also show you the beginnings of the answer to the question you intended to ask.

And your answer to that was:

So, what would be the difference between what I'm saying here and saying that after we die (and drop our bodies) our consciousness endures forever? Wouldn't you have to concede that it must be some form of energy? What else could it be? And one other thing, let's say I knew that the sky was blue, and yet were unable explain (in exact detail) how this was so, does it change the fact that the sky is blue? ... or, that I am unable to see that it is so? Does it make me the least bit delusional for acknowledging what is clearly quite plain to me?

Remarkable. You make a claim about brain signals being "emf" (the short answer, Iacchus, is that they are not. Nerve signals are a self-propogating wave of (mostly) sodium & potassium ions across the semi-permeable membrane of the neuron. They are considerably slower than electromagnetic radiation, and we know an awful lot about them.), I ask if you really want to know about the topic, and your response is an obfuscatory mass of verbal silage that does not even attempt to answer my question.

I also wrote:

If, on the other hand, you can't be bothered with reading, and just want to follow your dreams, and asked this question not for information but just to try, against odds, to challenge what Tricky said...then you must be satisfied with the response that your question is flawed, your understanding is flawed, your explanations of consciousness are impossibly inconsistent, self-contradictory, circular, and contrary to observed evidence. You have a long way to go before your questions are coherent, let alone your answers.

to which you replied:

Yes, and I know that the sky is blue.

Oddly enough, we know a bit about that too. And while I agree that the sky appears blue whether or not you understand the mechanism behind it, what you have had a tendency to do here is the equivalent of denying that science knows anything about why the sky is blue, claiming instead that it is blue because blue is god's favorite color, and that the evidence that blue is god's favorite color is that the sky is blue, and that this was revealed to you in a dream, making it much more reliable than anything science has to say about it, no matter what it is that they say, which you won't read anyway because your dream already gave you the answer.

And the sad thing is, the answers that science could give you are tremendously interesting in themselves--so much more beautiful than the things your dreams have convinced you of. Sorry, man.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but what is it about Jupiter that makes it cohesive? How does it acknowledge itself as Jupiter in other words? There must be something there to tell it to behave as Jupiter don't you think?

No.

 

[Belz...]

Nerve signals are a self-propogating wave of (mostly) sodium & potassium ions across the semi-permeable membrane of the neuron. They are considerably slower than electromagnetic radiation, and we know an awful lot about them.)

Thanks, man. That was quite informative.

 

[Iacchus]

Great analogy... Oh, no, wait - there are no receptors in the brain for EMF or any other radiowave frequencies. Nothing, in fact, except neurons for the reception of biochemical signals. Which, in turn, are generated in the brain.

Wow - an even three! Sorry, Iacchus - you are hereby considered the thread fool.

And by "signal" here, are you referring to an electrical discharge? Why have I heard of it referred to as an "electro-chemical" process in other words?

 

[Iacchus]

Ok, so I wrote:And your answer to that was:Remarkable. You make a claim about brain signals being "emf" (the short answer, Iacchus, is that they are not. Nerve signals are a self-propogating wave of (mostly) sodium & potassium ions across the semi-permeable membrane of the neuron. They are considerably slower than electromagnetic radiation, and we know an awful lot about them.), I ask if you really want to know about the topic, and your response is an obfuscatory mass of verbal silage that does not even attempt to answer my question.

Ions huh? As if to say these don't generate emf when they propagate? How do you know that this isn't in fact what the brain is "tuning" into?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Consciousness is nothing but, ever-present. What else does it entail, except becoming aware of oneself within the present?

 

[Z]

Ions huh? As if to say these don't generate emf when they propagate? How do you know that this isn't in fact what the brain is "tuning" into?

OK...ok... settle down, Court.

Jester, give us a song! Something to liven the mood a bit!

 

[Belz...]

Ions huh? As if to say these don't generate emf when they propagate? How do you know that this isn't in fact what the brain is "tuning" into?

 

[Iacchus]

Amazing. You folks have nothing further to say? Am I take this as a notion that I've been "soundly" refuted, as is so often claimed on this forum?

 

[Z]

Amazing. You folks have nothing further to say? Am I take this as a notion that I've been "soundly" refuted, as is so often claimed on this forum?

I'm sorry - our code of ethics prevents us from engaging in a battle of the wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

[Filip Sandor]

I don't understand why people always confuse emotion - biochemical reactions throughout the body and brain - with thought, which is restricted to the brain. For example, anger is a body-wide reaction, pain is restricted to series of neurons, etc. etc. These are not simply mental phenomena. They are not thoughts. So unless you can come up with better examples of mental phenomena that have limited physical correllation, I'm afraid all you've proven to me is ignorance of how your biochemistry works, Sandor.

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.

At any rate, why should mental phenomena perceive anything? Mental phenomena have no senses nor neural systems to process information; they are processes themselves, much like a program has no ability to perceive - it's a program - a process of data operating within a physical system.

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.

... makes no sense whatsoever. Your own definition is absolutely contradictory. It's not possible to know that something exists 'for sure' if there is no physical evidence and no valid physical theory for its existence.

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

Really, Sandor - what game are you playing, here?

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

 

[Filip Sandor]

Ok, so I wrote:And your answer to that was:Remarkable. You make a claim about brain signals being "emf" (the short answer, Iacchus, is that they are not. Nerve signals are a self-propogating wave of (mostly) sodium & potassium ions across the semi-permeable membrane of the neuron. They are considerably slower than electromagnetic radiation, and we know an awful lot about them.), I ask if you really want to know about the topic, and your response is an obfuscatory mass of verbal silage that does not even attempt to answer my question.

I also wrote:
to which you replied:
Oddly enough, we know a bit about that too. And while I agree that the sky appears blue whether or not you understand the mechanism behind it, what you have had a tendency to do here is the equivalent of denying that science knows anything about why the sky is blue, claiming instead that it is blue because blue is god's favorite color, and that the evidence that blue is god's favorite color is that the sky is blue, and that this was revealed to you in a dream, making it much more reliable than anything science has to say about it, no matter what it is that they say, which you won't read anyway because your dream already gave you the answer.

And the sad thing is, the answers that science could give you are tremendously interesting in themselves--so much more beautiful than the things your dreams have convinced you of. Sorry, man.

Jesus Christ, I am not religious, but what the hell are you talking about???? I don't think ZD is trying to make a case for God or the existence of conscoiusness without matter. So, what the hell are you talking about Mercutio?!? Stop throwing shadows, just be specific and get to the point.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, I did make mention of the "big harddrive up in the sky" in my first post, so I think it may have had something to do with that.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, but what is it about Jupiter that makes it cohesive? How does it acknowledge itself as Jupiter in other words? There must be something there to tell it to behave as Jupiter don't you think?

No.

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 ...

 

[Mercutio]

Jesus Christ, I am not religious, but what the hell are you talking about???? I don't think ZD is trying to make a case for God or the existence of conscoiusness without matter. So, what the hell are you talking about Mercutio?!? Stop throwing shadows, just be specific and get to the point.

Oddly enough, ZD does not enter into this. My post was directed toward Iacchus's ignorant comment. He believes (as evidenced in many threads besides this one) that the brain is a receiver of sorts for emf. He is wrong. I simply shared the briefest fraction of what we *do* know about the workings of the brain. It would take reading only a few pages of even an introductory text to show that the ideas Iacchus holds are wholly without support, and indeed contradicted by piles of observations.

That was my point. I am surprised you did not get it the first time...but then, if you thought I was addressing ZD, perhaps that was not the only thing you missed.

 

[Mercutio]

Ions huh? As if to say these don't generate emf when they propagate? How do you know that this isn't in fact what the brain is "tuning" into?

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?

 

[hodgy]

Mercutio,

Why do you keep responding to Iachuus? You seem like a very clever chap but you are easily goaded by idiots. In fact - I think you like being goaded by idiots.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio,

Why do you keep responding to Iachuus? You seem like a very clever chap but you are easily goaded by idiots. In fact - I think you like being goaded by idiots.

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.