The Brain and Consciousness

[spacecowboy342]

It's about not coming up with extra stuff. The problem is that scientists come up with extra stuff to test for all the time through thought experiments, hunches, or even fiction. They disregard that that dosnt pan out and keep that which does. The razor is nothing more than a piece of rhetoric in discussions. Scientists don't really huddle over their projects thinking about the razor, they follow hunches, create what if scenarios to test, go through grand thought experiments complete with gods and aliens that don't live in this universe... All to get fresh perspectives on what they are looking at. The razor only shows its head in discussions like this.

Consider Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, specifically dealing with the transit of Mercury. We know Newton's laws work perfectly on terrestrial scales, yet it constantly failed to predict the transit of Mercury as it was always a little off. There were attempts to ad hoc ideas to it. such as hypothesizing a planet, they called Vulcan which was supposed to be in an orbit always unseen from earth whose gravity was perturbing the orbit of Mercury slightly, but Einstein thought there must be a simpler solution than inventing a planet for which there was no evidence and came up with the elegantly simple idea that gravity wasn't attracting objects but was bending space and time.

[spacecowboy342]

You should spend some time reading hawking, green, suskind, and others. They often give very detailed accounts and history of how ideas come to fruit and their personal interactions with other famous scientists, the arguments they have had, and the manner in which things like string theory, Hawking radiation, and many other concepts come about. You will see that everything starts with an assumption or an idea. True most dont pan out, but if our scientists walked around with Occam's razor stamped on their foreheads nothing would ever get accomplished, new ideas would not get formed, and scientific progression would grind to a screeching halt. Like I said the razor is really not that important other than to make a snap judgment on something when you don't have much information.

But assumptions for which no evidence can be found don't make it very long

[Lilly]

However, there remains a major problem with the materialistic position that the brain simply creates consciousness.

Something as immaterial as consciousness arising from unconscious matter has yet to be explained. This is a major issue. The simplistic notion that 'Brain=Consciousness' is not a factual given by any means.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Lilly

[StarMountainKid]

Something as immaterial as consciousness arising from unconscious matter has yet to be explained. This is a major issue.

The cells of the internal organs are unconscious, also, but organized together our organs perform their tasks. I think the unconscious brain cells can be thought of in a similar way. The brain is its neural organization. One of this organization's purpose is consciousness. This is one of the characteristics or abilities of the brain that has evolved over time, even though any single neuron does not of course have consciousness.

There was an article posted here somewhere recently that stated that any sufficiently complex system will develop some level of consciousness simply from its own complexity.

I think consciousness is just what the brain does, is one of its abilities arising from its structure. I don't think there is any real magic involved. If we look at the 'problem' of consciousness from the viewpoint that it's some kind of ethereal process, a mystery obviously not explainable by materialism, we'll never understand consciousness.

I think this is imposing a hypothesis on the nature of consciousness instead of trying to understand consciousness by studying the brain itself. Some kind of universal consciousness in which the brain is a receptor, and all these other theories and beliefs people come up with are all pure speculations out of their imaginations.

All these speculations do not contribute to the actual understanding of consciousness. It's all just daydreaming. Understanding that consciousness is a process the brain itself creates is maybe not as romantic or mysterious as all these imaginings, but I think is actually more awe inspiring than assuming some Supernatural Cosmic Process for consciousness.

[Lilly]

There was an article posted here somewhere recently that stated that any sufficiently complex system will develop some level of consciousness simply from its own complexity.

Then how come my computer isn't conscious? If any computer does indeed become conscious I'll certainly support this position. Until then I'm standing with the premise that consciousness has yet to be explained.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Lilly

[Rlyeh]

As of now we know that consciousness does continue when brain function as we currently define it stops.

Can you show us a conscious person with no brain function?

Are you describing energy without berions? Here I thought you were a materialist. I'm proud of you actually. That is not meant to be condescending, I'm am glad you can see this.

And here we see your straw man materialist only accepts energy as baryons. Edited April 26, 2014 by Rlyeh

[StarMountainKid]

Then how come my computer isn't conscious?

How do we know computers don't have some level of consciousness? Supercomputers, perhaps. Do you think a computer will some day be able to pass the Turing Test?

Another way to look at it is, consciousness doesn't really exist in and of itself. It's like a magic trick. From the audience point of view it's magic and inexplicable. From back stage the trick is ordinary and easily explained.

Let us ask the question, who is the who who is conscious? There is no "me" who is conscious. this is a logical impossibility. If there is a "me" who is conscious, then we must explain the consciousness of the "me" separate from what the "me" is being conscious of.

Then we must explain the consciousness of the "me" who is conscious of the "me" who is conscious of the "me" who is being conscious. This leads only to an infinite regression, and not an explanation of consciousness.

There is no "me" who is conscious. There is only consciousness. The "me" is an illusion created I think by our capability of thought. For instance, to say "I" feel pain is incorrect. There is only pain. Consciousness now is the brain experiencing its own neurology, and the brain's consciousness is quite different.

In this sense, we are misdirecting our pursuit of the explanation of consciousness. I think it's the illusory "me" who demands that phenomena conform to its own ideas.

[Beany]

The fact that simple elegant mathematics describes the physics of the universe speaks volumes. There is 0 evidence for any universal consciousness and no known process for it sending or us receiving such consciousness. There is however much evidence for the brain being the generator of consciousness.

How would science attempt to detect a universal, or panpsychic consciousness, do you think? I get there's no evidence, but there wouldn't be any evidence unless someone was conducting research, right. It starts with a hypothesis, which by its very nature is unproven.

[Beany]

How do we know computers don't have some level of consciousness? Supercomputers, perhaps. Do you think a computer will some day be able to pass the Turing Test?

Another way to look at it is, consciousness doesn't really exist in and of itself. It's like a magic trick. From the audience point of view it's magic and inexplicable. From back stage the trick is ordinary and easily explained.

Let us ask the question, who is the who who is conscious? There is no "me" who is conscious. this is a logical impossibility. If there is a "me" who is conscious, then we must explain the consciousness of the "me" separate from what the "me" is being conscious of.

Then we must explain the consciousness of the "me" who is conscious of the "me" who is conscious of the "me" who is being conscious. This leads only to an infinite regression, and not an explanation of consciousness.

There is no "me" who is conscious. There is only consciousness. The "me" is an illusion created I think by our capability of thought. For instance, to say "I" feel pain is incorrect. There is only pain. Consciousness now is the brain experiencing its own neurology, and the brain's consciousness is quite different.

In this sense, we are misdirecting our pursuit of the explanation of consciousness. I think it's the illusory "me" who demands that phenomena conform to its own ideas.

Do you think our consciousness, as individuals, is shaped by our society & culture, that we are a bundle of learned perceptions that filter out some things and recognize others? I'm thinking maybe we've been raised & trained to experience the world in a particular way and then make the erroneous assumption that the universe conforms to that perception.

[spacecowboy342]

However, there remains a major problem with the materialistic position that the brain simply creates consciousness.

Something as immaterial as consciousness arising from unconscious matter has yet to be explained. This is a major issue. The simplistic notion that 'Brain=Consciousness' is not a factual given by any means.

But that is where the evidence points, though not yet conclusive, admittedly, there is no corresponding counter evidence to show any "universal transmitter" of consciousness, nor any evidence that we are receiving same or what it might be that we are supposedly receiving.

http://www.unexplainedmysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=261799

Edited April 26, 2014 by spacecowboy342

[taniwha]

The fact that simple elegant mathematics describes the physics of the universe speaks volumes. There is 0 evidence for any universal consciousness and no known process for it sending or us receiving such consciousness. There is however much evidence for the brain being the generator of consciousness.

Expansion of the universe, also known as time, is a fractal.

The days emerge in the same characteristic way as yesterday and even tomorrow is certain if we apply fractals.

Magnify the scales of the universe and we see the same recurring theme in progress ~ energy weaving creation.

On the laws of probabilities consciousness must be dotted all over the universe.

[spacecowboy342]

Expansion of the universe, also known as time, is a fractal.

The days emerge in the same characteristic way as yesterday and even tomorrow is certain if we apply fractals.

Magnify the scales of the universe and we see the same recurring theme in progress ~ energy weaving creation.

On the laws of probabilities consciousness must be dotted all over the universe.

Irrelevant

[spacecowboy342]

But that is where the evidence points, though not yet conclusive, admittedly, there is no corresponding counter evidence to show any "universal transmitter" of consciousness, nor any evidence that we are receiving same or what it might be that we are supposedly receiving.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=261799

Well I can't make this link work but I posted a topic a few months ago with a vid that will show exactly what I'm talking about

[taniwha]

Irrelevant

Point is the universe is a conscious generator

[spacecowboy342]

Point is the universe is a conscious generator

Perhaps but this is not the same as a "universal consciousness" It just shows that the universe can produce matter which can, under the right conditions become conscious. There is nothing to show any link between the "universe" and our consciousness, other than that we are part of the universe.

[Beany]

Irrelevant

Why?

[Beany]

But assumptions for which no evidence can be found don't make it very long

Is there anyone looking for the evidence?

[StarMountainKid]

Do you think our consciousness, as individuals, is shaped by our society & culture, that we are a bundle of learned perceptions that filter out some things and recognize others? I'm thinking maybe we've been raised & trained to experience the world in a particular way and then make the erroneous assumption that the universe conforms to that perception.

I think you're right in the sense that we mostly perceive ourselves. We impose the filter of our personalities and our learned experiences on our perceptions. Two people looking at a tree have two different perceptions of the tree. The assumption that the universe conforms to our idea of it is demonstrated all the time. All we have to do is talk to someone to discover this!

But I think you mean it may go deeper than this. Our perceptions are limited, but I think the universe we experience is the real universe as it is, at least those parts of it that we can perceive.

Our technology enables us to experience the counter-intuitiveness of QM. I think that demonstrates the limitations of our perceptions. Richard Feynman said no one understands quantum mechanics. It may be impossible for the human mind to understand QM.

There may well be other aspects of the universe that our perceptions and modes of thought or the structure of the mind is incapable of comprehending. We may always be dumbing down the universe to fit our own perceptual and mental limitations.

[Lilly]

I've yet to see any evidence that any computer anywhere is conscious. What I have seen is plenty of evidence that human beings are conscious. I've yet to see any direct evidence as to exactly how we humans achieved consciousness though. It's one thing to say, "consciousness is created by the brain" and another thing to be able to demonstrate exactly how this consciousness arose and came into being.

[StarMountainKid]

What about animal consciousness?

[spacecowboy342]

Why?

Because the fact that there are conscious entities in the universe sats nothing about the universe itself being conscious or beaming consciousness to anyone.

[spacecowboy342]

Is there anyone looking for the evidence?

I tried to post a link to a thread I started on this subject months ago but it wouldn't work. But the short answer is yes there is much research being done on this

What about animal consciousness?

Animals are conscious, just less so than us as their brains are not as complex

[Mikko-kun]

But assumptions for which no evidence can be found don't make it very long

Oh but they do. Because that we are not aware of something existing, doesn't mean it's not there. That why we keep exploring all kinda thoughts, and that why you dont know if there's someone crazy or genius enough (small difference, the latter is braver) going for it. If there's a swat team on my door to raid my apartment and I'm asleep and dont know it, it doesn't mean they ain't there. Of course there's the "but you can prove everything" and "spaghetti monster dont exist", you can always retaliate with a counterargument if you wanna win a debate. But winning a debate is not the same as exploring the world and its aspects, winning a debate is just winning a debate. Overpowering someone else's will to keep the discussion going, no matter if you're right or wrong. I feel the "fight" is already lost if you make debating your aim over exploration, unless it's kind of a sport to you.

About brain and consciousness, I really wouldn't assume brain is the source of our consciousness, I'm close to coming to a conclusion it's not, or if it is it's more like a part of the loop in a cycle that is our consciousness (not a time-cycle but a causality cycle between things around us and us). Despite whatever other people might say, I can no longer dismiss what people have said about group consciousness, universal consciousness and the like. I'm late on that train but better late than never.

If you think of all the brain processes, aren't the processes just that, processes? Things that transform, handle and shape, like a blacksmith reshaping the iron to different things? If so, then where does the iron and the heat of the forge, and the power that fuels the hammer which processes, come from?

[spacecowboy342]

Oh but they do. Because that we are not aware of something existing, doesn't mean it's not there. That why we keep exploring all kinda thoughts, and that why you dont know if there's someone crazy or genius enough (small difference, the latter is braver) going for it. If there's a swat team on my door to raid my apartment and I'm asleep and dont know it, it doesn't mean they ain't there. Of course there's the "but you can prove everything" and "spaghetti monster dont exist", you can always retaliate with a counterargument if you wanna win a debate. But winning a debate is not the same as exploring the world and its aspects, winning a debate is just winning a debate. Overpowering someone else's will to keep the discussion going, no matter if you're right or wrong. I feel the "fight" is already lost if you make debating your aim over exploration, unless it's kind of a sport to you.

About brain and consciousness, I really wouldn't assume brain is the source of our consciousness, I'm close to coming to a conclusion it's not, or if it is it's more like a part of the loop in a cycle that is our consciousness (not a time-cycle but a causality cycle between things around us and us). Despite whatever other people might say, I can no longer dismiss what people have said about group consciousness, universal consciousness and the like. I'm late on that train but better late than never.

If you think of all the brain processes, aren't the processes just that, processes? Things that transform, handle and shape, like a blacksmith reshaping the iron to different things? If so, then where does the iron and the heat of the forge, and the power that fuels the hammer which processes, come from?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, this has been said many times and it is true. It is not evidence of anything. How about we form a hypothesis form evidence we do have instead of believing things for which there is no evidence just because it can't be disproved? If you don't assume the brain is the generator of consciousness though much evidence is there for that assumption then it incumbent on you to explain where it comes from and how we receive it and exactly what it is that is being received. The power for the processes of the brain comes from the food we eat Edited April 27, 2014 by spacecowboy342

[White Crane Feather]

Can you show us a conscious person with no brain function?

And here we see your straw man materialist only accepts energy as baryons.

Thousands of examples exist.

They don't have choice. If materialism is true there is no such thing as something that is not a particle even energy. That's why many and rightfully so have dropped the term materialism and redefined themselves as physicalists. materialism died a long time ago.