Earlier in the thread you agreed with me that thinking was in fact a function of the brain, along with sensing, emoting, remembering, etc.
Maybe it appeared to you that I was agreeing. Without the context I wouldn't be able to agree that I was agreeing with you.
However, my understanding at present is that brains cannot 'think' and if you are speaking of automation, then I cannot agree that automation is actually evidence of thinking going on.
Sensing and emoting are not able to be done by the brain alone. It requires a body in order to do these things, and likewise the body requires a brain to do these things, but without consciousness then 'these things' are not really anything in particular, because they require meaning.
It is not difficult to demonstrate that thought is subject to modification by interference with brain circuits, just as is mood, personality, and memory. Take amphetamine and your thoughts will race, you will feel euphoric, in control, invincible. These changes are brought about by amphetamine's interaction with synaptic chemistry at specific types of synapses.
People who's thoughts wander to suicidal ideations can be helped by chemically altering transmission at specific types of synapses with antidepressant molecules. They may no longer be bothered by suicidal thoughts.
This is all relevant only through understanding what is being observed. In order to observe and to understand what is being observed, it requires consciousness. An eye and a brain are not adequate enough for this to happen.
Poking the brain to stimulate and simulate is done by consciousness. "What happens when we do this to the brain" is what consciousnesses ask (who are they asking? They are asking each other/other individual consciousnesses.) and then using body and brain consciousnesses can observe and notate the data.
What you are espousing here is the conduit hypothesis of consciousness, that consciousness exists apart from the brain, and interacts with the world through the brain.
Not necessarily. I have already explained that it could be that way but for the sake of argument I can approach this from the concept that the brain begat consciousness.
My only addition to this is that consciousness thus begotten has not only become into existence as the self awareness of the physical universe, but may well even upon death find itself naturally continuing on after the brain that begat it has died.
Consciousness may stay within existence.
Now in thinking about the possibility I can see that if this were so for all consciousness then depending upon when exactly consciousness first 'became' that self aware thing and then found itself still in existence when its body (thus its birthing chamber) died, then it would have had to deal with that.
More importantly, it has therefor had a great deal of time in which to deal with that. Millions of years.
One of many problems with this idea is that all the contents of consciousness have been shown to reside in and arise from brain function. This you agreed to in earlier posts in the thread.
Simply put, they cannot be 'shown' in any other way. What is observed is observed. What is concluded from the observations is questionable.
Thus, in the absence of the brain, consciousness consists of... nothing. No memory's, thoughts, emotions, or sensations. Why postulate that it exists in the absence of the brain at all?
Because consciousness is able to insist that it does. Imagine a kind of amalgamated consciousness consisting of absolutely every aspect of consciousness which has ever been born into this
universe earth experience. (best keep it local).
That concept alone represents a vast amount of experience and knowledge and data gathered over millions of years.
Lots of time to 'think'.
Now where on earth can consciousness exist independent of a brain?
If the nature of things is that consciousness has always survived the death of the brain, then 'wherever' that might be, consciousness has had millions of years to fine tune even that 'place', just as it has been fine tuning the brain.
What lots of people believe is 'paranormal' (and others call 'woo') are just as likely messages sourced in the ancient networks that consciousness has spent all its millions of years of existence developing.
The postulation is directly linked with the data of experience which occurs to individual consciousnesses. Those who experience such things (non normal things) may not understand what is going on, may assign incorrect agency upon the source of what they are experiencing or may accept that they have brain 'problems' - especially if they assign evil/malevolence/a liar/etc as the source and are then told that 'it is your brain, and medication can help stop that from occurring'.
They are grateful for the meds if it means the scary visions will cease.
This is a silly argument. You are willfully misunderstanding me. Consciousness arises from the activity of neurons connected in circuits. Without the neurons, circuits and activity, consciousness will not exist.
'Silly' is obviously in the eye of the beholder. I find your statement quite silly for it obviousness.
However I am not arguing from that approach, but rather from the fact that consciousness exists and if it did not we wouldn't be doing this.
We wouldn't be doing anything.
You saying the brain made that possible is beside the point because it makes no difference.
It is like saying that your mother birthed you therefore without her you are nothing.
We are saying something very similar, I agree. Our interpretations are very different, however. In my interpretation little me is your awareness, while big me is all the things your brain is doing which you are not aware of.
Whereas I am referring to the 'big me' as not the brain, but an aspect of consciousness which is doing things 'little me; is unaware of.
Those brain things (which I think you might be referring to) I regard as more automations. Not thinking. Doing.
The 'big me' aspect is very aware and able to communicate its awareness. What it is, how it is related, many many things.
The
brain cannot do that. Only consciousness can.
All the words you are using to describe what consciousness does, words like "learned", "think", "aware", "knows", are all words which describe demonstrated brain functions which do not occur in the absence of neural networks that are the brain. Learning in particular is a very clear function of neurons, present in all the phyla from mollusks to man. What substrate can consciousness utilize for such a neural function in the absence of neurons?
To what degree is consciousness able to manipulate neurons? Is what being observed only observable when consciousness is participating? Is the brain in control of consciousness? Such questions can be answered differently depending upon the approach being taken by the one doing the questioning.
Now an estimate of
353,015 consciousnesses are born on this planet each day.
That is a lot of brains hatching consciousnesses, each day.
250,000 - 300,000 people die per day.
Now regardless of the exact number, there is a large population of individual consciousnesses dying each day and if indeed these all survive the death of the brain quite naturally, then this represents rather large additions to the 'pool' of consciousness going through that process
every day.
The only link between the two states (the living in bodies newly born consciousnesses and the 'afterlife' consciousnesses ) seems to be 'the big me' (which you claim is the brain) and this is where all concepts of god ideas and afterlife can be sourced.
I can understand people can have non ordinary experiences which propel them to even think on the possibility of such ideas as afterlife and god might be the case as to why they do, but I have to draw the line that it is the brain doing the non ordinary stuff. I am not saying that it isn't a useful tool in that regard, but that of itself it has no reason (or ability to reason) why it should compile non ordinary experience and invoke these upon the little me.
Whatever is doing so
is conscious and purposeful. I can then ask 'why?' because there is reason behind it. Removing the bias either way in relation to little me's beliefs for or against the idea of afterlife I am left to conclude that big me simply wants little me to know that there is more than meets the eye.
For a start, there is more to little me than little me was previously aware of.
No - a 'brain' cannot do those things. Obviously there is consciousness involved. This is also where concepts of 'higher self' etc derive.
Unfortunately when anyone assigns agency (in this case 'woo') to the process, they are less inclined to want to investigate and this may be a natural fear. 'Woo' itself implies 'mentally imbalanced' and as such is not a good position to be in, especially in regard to the materialist position.
There is adequate reason to approach cautiously because it is evident that mental health issues are predominant among 'woo' in relation to 'god' telling them to do this or some kind of evil suggestion, voices in the head, aliens, spirits, etc and they too have assigned agency to these things, (the devil, demons etc) so the materialist avoids and explains 'the brain did it!' etc whereas the more curious/less fearful can approach with suitable precaution and with science and without the need to be assigning any agency (including 'the brain' ) in the preliminary stages of investigation.
If this 'thing' can speak for itself, then let it do so or continue to ignore it or assign improper and assumptive agency to it.
Ultimately little me gets to choose.
).
