Consciousness

[DBT]

So according to the available evidence, just as I have been describing for a number of years on this forum, and its earlier incarnations, the following picture emerges;


Piecing together the currently popular theories suggests the following general picture for how the brain creates consciousness, proceeding from the neuron to society:


Neural circuits organize statistical input and output: The brain is processing sensory input and generating motor output on a continual basis, functioning basically as a statistical information processing and prediction machine.

Memory constructs a dynamic model of the world: One aspect of how the brain works is that it generates an interactive dynamic model of the world based on the statistical information received from the senses. This model includes an understanding of the environment, a representation of the physical body itself (body image; the way you know your hand is yours and not somebody else's), a representation of other beings in the social world (parents, friends, society, animals), and ultimately a representation of oneself. The representation of oneself may be an extension of social modeling reflected back onto oneself (the purported owner of one's perceptual experiences); it may also be the "actor" responsible for the observed behavior represented by the body image (perception of "agency").

Information integration unifies coherent perception: One aspect of the "conscious field" is that it appears unified, complete, coherent, and self-aware, even though experiments show it is not. This may be made possible by extensive feedback pathways within the brain, which exchange information between brain areas, unify perception into a single coherent point of view, and drive the brain's representation of the body's identity toward a consistent model of goal-directed voluntary action.

Episodic memory creates identity through personal narrative: In humans in particular, "one-shot memory" is able to store an episodic record of the events we experience along with causal models and explanations. This "episodic memory" is organized into a multi-layer narrative on many time scales. Our knowledge of our own personal history forms our identity of who we are, which further supports our understanding of that entity, which is being aware, experiencing perceptions, and causing actions — our "self."

Social structure reinforces a model of reality and agency: Society and human culture further reinforce this "mutually developed" model of who we are, who other people are, who they think we are, what we think they think of us, etc. There are many levels of recurrent nesting of representations of our personal and social identities, both within our own brain and distributed across the brains of our family, community, and social relations.

Language codifies social reality and supports transmission of cultural beliefs: All of this is brought into a crisp structured social-conceptual framework using language. Language is a culturally-transmitted conceptual system with a spontaneously developed sequential coding scheme (words and grammar). Language allows society to operate within a common belief system that is kept synchronized across individuals. This belief system includes concepts such as personal responsibility, intentional action, truth, knowledge, and other core belief frameworks that provide a foundation to our conscious experience.

Thus the brain plays a role in generating and maintaining a model of the world that includes "us," and also includes "us" believing we are having self-aware experiences. In modern human society, this is further supported by a shared reality and belief system that we acquire from infancy through cultural transmission, human language, episodic memory, and personal identity.

If only you understood how little your are saying with this.

So the irony of your position still escapes you. You with your 'we know nothing about consciousness, therefore it could be a disembodied 'signal' which the brain 'receives' - which is completely without merit if you examine the evidence....which you don't, instead just brush everything aside with flippant remarks and reasserting your claim.

The article I quoted is an overview of our current understanding of the brain, its functions, flaws, and features in terms of conscious experience, sight, sound, hearing, thought, action, etc..based on the available evidence.

And pretty much exactly as I've been trying to point out to you.

But of course you have your own religion so cannot even consider the facts, everyone who doesn't hold your beliefs doesn't understand, according to you.

 

[ryan]

So according to the available evidence, just as I have been describing for a number of years on this forum, and its earlier incarnations, the following picture emerges;


Piecing together the currently popular theories suggests the following general picture for how the brain creates consciousness, proceeding from the neuron to society:


Neural circuits organize statistical input and output: The brain is processing sensory input and generating motor output on a continual basis, functioning basically as a statistical information processing and prediction machine.

Memory constructs a dynamic model of the world: One aspect of how the brain works is that it generates an interactive dynamic model of the world based on the statistical information received from the senses. This model includes an understanding of the environment, a representation of the physical body itself (body image; the way you know your hand is yours and not somebody else's), a representation of other beings in the social world (parents, friends, society, animals), and ultimately a representation of oneself. The representation of oneself may be an extension of social modeling reflected back onto oneself (the purported owner of one's perceptual experiences); it may also be the "actor" responsible for the observed behavior represented by the body image (perception of "agency").

Information integration unifies coherent perception: One aspect of the "conscious field" is that it appears unified, complete, coherent, and self-aware, even though experiments show it is not. This may be made possible by extensive feedback pathways within the brain, which exchange information between brain areas, unify perception into a single coherent point of view, and drive the brain's representation of the body's identity toward a consistent model of goal-directed voluntary action.

Episodic memory creates identity through personal narrative: In humans in particular, "one-shot memory" is able to store an episodic record of the events we experience along with causal models and explanations. This "episodic memory" is organized into a multi-layer narrative on many time scales. Our knowledge of our own personal history forms our identity of who we are, which further supports our understanding of that entity, which is being aware, experiencing perceptions, and causing actions — our "self."

Social structure reinforces a model of reality and agency: Society and human culture further reinforce this "mutually developed" model of who we are, who other people are, who they think we are, what we think they think of us, etc. There are many levels of recurrent nesting of representations of our personal and social identities, both within our own brain and distributed across the brains of our family, community, and social relations.

Language codifies social reality and supports transmission of cultural beliefs: All of this is brought into a crisp structured social-conceptual framework using language. Language is a culturally-transmitted conceptual system with a spontaneously developed sequential coding scheme (words and grammar). Language allows society to operate within a common belief system that is kept synchronized across individuals. This belief system includes concepts such as personal responsibility, intentional action, truth, knowledge, and other core belief frameworks that provide a foundation to our conscious experience.

Thus the brain plays a role in generating and maintaining a model of the world that includes "us," and also includes "us" believing we are having self-aware experiences. In modern human society, this is further supported by a shared reality and belief system that we acquire from infancy through cultural transmission, human language, episodic memory, and personal identity.

DBT, I went to your website you linked at the top, and before any of what you cut out begins, it has, "This is very much a topic of ongoing research, and while some clues have started to emerge, the big picture of how the brain does this has not yet been worked out.".

And even before that, there is, "Whether the brain can even create consciousness is still heavily debated".

Maybe you are just going to have to come to grips that your certainty is unjustified.

 

[untermensche]

I see this as the last desperate gasp of somebody who has nothing to add.

If humans have no physiological explanation of consciousness then pointing it out is insight, not whining.

Pointing out the obvious is not insight.
And writing the same lame comment that "shutup, we dont know" is whining.

What we can do is following the evidence. The evidence points at the brain.
The conciousness is working through the brain and nowhere else. This is obvious.
So the obvious way forward is to investigate how the brain works.

The decade of the brain was the 1990's.

Massive amounts of money was allocated for research on the brain. Everybody and his brother was going into neuroscience.

Certainly one of the goals was to provide a physiological explanation for consciousness.

Some 27 years later we are not one step closer to understanding how a bunch of cells produces a "being" that can experience.

If you have some new idea you think will work, great.

But idea after idea, from some of the best minds on the planet, have failed.

I am not arrogant enough to think I will come up with an idea that yields fruit.

So asking where we go is not an easy question.

 

[untermensche]

If only you understood how little your are saying with this.

So the irony of your position still escapes you. You with your 'we know nothing about consciousness, therefore it could be a disembodied 'signal' which the brain 'receives' - which is completely without merit if you examine the evidence....which you don't, instead just brush everything aside with flippant remarks and reasserting your claim.

The article I quoted is an overview of our current understanding of the brain, its functions, flaws, and features in terms of conscious experience, sight, sound, hearing, thought, action, etc..based on the available evidence.

And pretty much exactly as I've been trying to point out to you.

But of course you have your own religion so cannot even consider the facts, everyone who doesn't hold your beliefs doesn't understand, according to you.

No that is not "our" understanding.

It is the understanding of some.

And others have a very different understanding.

You have demonstrated in no way that your understanding understands anything about consciousness. It doesn't even know what it is.

 

[WAB]

Unter ..... you're right about not trusting anyone else's word. Thanks.

Y'r'lcome. I don['t trust anyone's word period. It's all about evidence. I will take the words of process which I can follow to demonstrate what you say you found.

Okee-doke.

I'm interested.

I'm restraining myself at the moment, and staying on the down-low, because I don't want to get in trouble with Ray and the owners of this fine place, and I'm also increasingly tired of pulling my cyber foot out of my cyber mouth.

With all of my egomanaical humility in full operational swing, I await the prestige. < The bunny being yanked out of the hat.

I may or may not post one of my whackadoodle poems in the poetry thread. Probably not. We shall see.

 

[DBT]

So according to the available evidence, just as I have been describing for a number of years on this forum, and its earlier incarnations, the following picture emerges;


Piecing together the currently popular theories suggests the following general picture for how the brain creates consciousness, proceeding from the neuron to society:


Neural circuits organize statistical input and output: The brain is processing sensory input and generating motor output on a continual basis, functioning basically as a statistical information processing and prediction machine.

Memory constructs a dynamic model of the world: One aspect of how the brain works is that it generates an interactive dynamic model of the world based on the statistical information received from the senses. This model includes an understanding of the environment, a representation of the physical body itself (body image; the way you know your hand is yours and not somebody else's), a representation of other beings in the social world (parents, friends, society, animals), and ultimately a representation of oneself. The representation of oneself may be an extension of social modeling reflected back onto oneself (the purported owner of one's perceptual experiences); it may also be the "actor" responsible for the observed behavior represented by the body image (perception of "agency").

Information integration unifies coherent perception: One aspect of the "conscious field" is that it appears unified, complete, coherent, and self-aware, even though experiments show it is not. This may be made possible by extensive feedback pathways within the brain, which exchange information between brain areas, unify perception into a single coherent point of view, and drive the brain's representation of the body's identity toward a consistent model of goal-directed voluntary action.

Episodic memory creates identity through personal narrative: In humans in particular, "one-shot memory" is able to store an episodic record of the events we experience along with causal models and explanations. This "episodic memory" is organized into a multi-layer narrative on many time scales. Our knowledge of our own personal history forms our identity of who we are, which further supports our understanding of that entity, which is being aware, experiencing perceptions, and causing actions — our "self."

Social structure reinforces a model of reality and agency: Society and human culture further reinforce this "mutually developed" model of who we are, who other people are, who they think we are, what we think they think of us, etc. There are many levels of recurrent nesting of representations of our personal and social identities, both within our own brain and distributed across the brains of our family, community, and social relations.

Language codifies social reality and supports transmission of cultural beliefs: All of this is brought into a crisp structured social-conceptual framework using language. Language is a culturally-transmitted conceptual system with a spontaneously developed sequential coding scheme (words and grammar). Language allows society to operate within a common belief system that is kept synchronized across individuals. This belief system includes concepts such as personal responsibility, intentional action, truth, knowledge, and other core belief frameworks that provide a foundation to our conscious experience.

Thus the brain plays a role in generating and maintaining a model of the world that includes "us," and also includes "us" believing we are having self-aware experiences. In modern human society, this is further supported by a shared reality and belief system that we acquire from infancy through cultural transmission, human language, episodic memory, and personal identity.

DBT, I went to your website you linked at the top, and before any of what you cut out begins, it has, "This is very much a topic of ongoing research, and while some clues have started to emerge, the big picture of how the brain does this has not yet been worked out.".

That's right, it has not yet been worked how the brain forms its conscious sensation. I have been saying that from the beginning, several forums and countless threads.

Just as I have pointed out that because it's not currently understood how the brain forms conscious sensation does not mean that nothing is understood.

It is quite clear that the brain is the agent of consciousness based on the evidence we have, and the article (and my numerous descriptions to that effect) reflect our current understanding of brain function based on accumulated evidence....this is true regardless of our poor understanding of how the brain forms consciousness.

And even before that, there is, "Whether the brain can even create consciousness is still heavily debated".

Well, that's not quite true. The overwhelming consensus amongst neuroscientists being brain agency.

It's quite obvious that consciousness only exists in relation to a brain, and not just any brain, but a functional brain engaging in conscious activity....the latter being profoundly effected by changes to brain architecture and chemistry.

 

[DBT]

So the irony of your position still escapes you. You with your 'we know nothing about consciousness, therefore it could be a disembodied 'signal' which the brain 'receives' - which is completely without merit if you examine the evidence....which you don't, instead just brush everything aside with flippant remarks and reasserting your claim.

The article I quoted is an overview of our current understanding of the brain, its functions, flaws, and features in terms of conscious experience, sight, sound, hearing, thought, action, etc..based on the available evidence.

And pretty much exactly as I've been trying to point out to you.

But of course you have your own religion so cannot even consider the facts, everyone who doesn't hold your beliefs doesn't understand, according to you.

No that is not "our" understanding.

It is the understanding of some.

And others have a very different understanding.

You have demonstrated in no way that your understanding understands anything about consciousness. It doesn't even know what it is.

No, that is the current understanding of the majority of experts who work in the field of brain research....the only exclusions being those who cling to religious beliefs such as universal consciousness or Cosmic Mind which supposedly the brain taps into.

That there being absolutely no evidence to support these beliefs means that these beliefs are articles of faith.

You are not dealing with science or evidence, which you reject, instead basing your position on faith.

 

[untermensche]

No that is not "our" understanding.

It is the understanding of some.

And others have a very different understanding.

You have demonstrated in no way that your understanding understands anything about consciousness. It doesn't even know what it is.

No, that is the current understanding of the majority of experts who work in the field of brain research....the only exclusions being those who cling to religious beliefs such as universal consciousness or Cosmic Mind which supposedly the brain taps into.

That there being absolutely no evidence to support these beliefs means that these beliefs are articles of faith.

You are not dealing with science or evidence, which you reject, instead basing your position on faith.

You do not speak for the majority of experts.

You do not speak for anyone but yourself.

Presenting papers is never enough. They MUST be defended in some logical fashion. Something you are incapable of doing. Or at least have shown no inclination to even try.

And any real scientist simply says the truth.

Modern science does not even know what consciousness is.

It has no clue what "processes" result in consciousness.

Possibly it is some kind of activity of the brain, but that cannot be said with certainty.

One thing that is known is that alterations of brain function will produce an alteration in subjective reporting.

But all that shows is correlation. It is a million miles from proving causation.

You can't prove causation until you actually know what you are talking about. Until you know which specific "processes" result in the ability to have subjective experience.

You are nothing but a huge pretense to knowledge. You pretend you have some understanding of which processes could possibly result in consciousness.

But you have none.

 

[ryan]

DBT, I went to your website you linked at the top, and before any of what you cut out begins, it has, "This is very much a topic of ongoing research, and while some clues have started to emerge, the big picture of how the brain does this has not yet been worked out.".

That's right, it has not yet been worked how the brain forms its conscious sensation. I have been saying that from the beginning, several forums and countless threads.

Just as I have pointed out that because it's not currently understood how the brain forms conscious sensation does not mean that nothing is understood.

It is quite clear that the brain is the agent of consciousness based on the evidence we have, and the article (and my numerous descriptions to that effect) reflect our current understanding of brain function based on accumulated evidence....this is true regardless of our poor understanding of how the brain forms consciousness.

And even before that, there is, "Whether the brain can even create consciousness is still heavily debated".

Well, that's not quite true. The overwhelming consensus amongst neuroscientists being brain agency.

It's quite obvious that consciousness only exists in relation to a brain, and not just any brain, but a functional brain engaging in conscious activity....the latter being profoundly effected by changes to brain architecture and chemistry.

Allow me to explain my and probably unter's understanding, not so much as a proof that the mind exists but more of a way to define what this very subtle but interesting problem is mostly about.

We will probably always see a correlation between experience and matter, but what kind of "substance" is this experience without including its physical correlate? Is all that exists experiences (monism/idealism)? Is there duality of the two? Where does experience come from, and why does it "supervene" as a whole when its material correlate doesn't? Is selective attention compatible with physicalism?

 

[DBT]

No, that is the current understanding of the majority of experts who work in the field of brain research....the only exclusions being those who cling to religious beliefs such as universal consciousness or Cosmic Mind which supposedly the brain taps into.

That there being absolutely no evidence to support these beliefs means that these beliefs are articles of faith.

You are not dealing with science or evidence, which you reject, instead basing your position on faith.

You do not speak for the majority of experts.

You do not speak for anyone but yourself.

Presenting papers is never enough. They MUST be defended in some logical fashion. Something you are incapable of doing. Or at least have shown no inclination to even try.

And any real scientist simply says the truth.

Modern science does not even know what consciousness is.

It has no clue what "processes" result in consciousness.

Possibly it is some kind of activity of the brain, but that cannot be said with certainty.

One thing that is known is that alterations of brain function will produce an alteration in subjective reporting.

But all that shows is correlation. It is a million miles from proving causation.

You can't prove causation until you actually know what you are talking about. Until you know which specific "processes" result in the ability to have subjective experience.

You are nothing but a huge pretense to knowledge. You pretend you have some understanding of which processes could possibly result in consciousness.

But you have none.

It's not about me personally but the current evidence, research and what the researchers themselves are saying.

It is you who ignores anything and everything that does not comply with your preconceived, unfounded beliefs. Which is indeed about you and your unwillingness to accept what is understood.

A small sample;


Linking information

''As a general rule the more primal areas of the brain, such as the brain stem and cerebellum act a bit like the camera. Like the camera, they are purely responsible for receiving individual pieces of information from our sensory organs and don’t care for linking this information together. As you move higher up the brain, links form between different aspects of our sensory experiences. This linking begins in mid-brain structures (such as the thalamus) then these links are made more intricate and permanent in the cerebrum.

Tononi believes that it is this linking of information that is the basis for consciousness. As cells become more interlinked, information can be combined more readily and therefore the essence of complicated thought can be explained. The more possible links between cells, the more possible combinations there are and therefore a greater number of ‘thoughts’ are possible.

There may be more neurons in the cerebellum than the cerebrum, but because they are not as extensively linked to each other, they cannot form as complicated thoughts as the cerebrum. When information is relayed upwards from the cerebellum in the brain, it is passed to neurons that have more connections and can therefore make more abstract links. Perhaps a neuron responsible for telling the colour red links with a neuron responsible for the representation of a round object, giving you the notion of a red apple. If you multiply this process up a couple of times, cells soon hold a lot of combined information – smell, taste, colour etc. all come together to create your representation of the apple''

Quote;
Scientists have struggled for millennia to understand human consciousness - the awareness of one's existence. Despite advances in neuroscience, we still don't really know where it comes from, and how it arises.

But researchers think they might have finally figured out its physical origins, after pinpointing a network of three specific regions in the brain that appear to be crucial to consciousness.

It's a pretty huge deal for our understanding of what it means to be human, and it could also help researchers find new treatments for patients in vegetative states.

"For the first time, we have found a connection between the brainstem region involved in arousal and regions involved in awareness, two prerequisites for consciousness," said lead researcher Michael Fox from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre at Harvard Medical School.

"A lot of pieces of evidence all came together to point to this network playing a role in human consciousness."

 

[ryan]

"A lot of pieces of evidence all came together to point to this network playing a role in human consciousness."

DBT, I don't think any rational philosopher would disagree with this. This doesn't say anything about what the consciousness is; it only says what its physical correlate does.

 

[untermensche]

It's not about me personally but the current evidence, research and what the researchers themselves are saying.

You are the one putting it forward. YOU are the one who must not just present it as gospel, but defend it.

You won't even try.

No scientist worthy of the name ever says the evidence speaks for itself. The evidence is one thing and the subjective interpretation of it is another.

''As a general rule the more primal areas of the brain, such as the brain stem and cerebellum act a bit like the camera. Like the camera, they are purely responsible for receiving individual pieces of information from our sensory organs and don’t care for linking this information together. As you move higher up the brain, links form between different aspects of our sensory experiences. This linking begins in mid-brain structures (such as the thalamus) then these links are made more intricate and permanent in the cerebrum.

The control of the body by consciousness requires underlying "programs" to create coordinated movement. It also requires the sensation of proprioception so that consciousness can know where the body is as well as the cerebellum.

Just because consciousness does not have full control does not demonstrate it has none.

For consciousness to operate effectively a good memory system is needed. But that memory system operates below the level of consciousness. But when we want to remember something, like remember a persons name, we "will" the memory to arise somehow.

I won't repeat the details of the philosophical arguments about creating a sensation for consciousness to experience if consciousness has no ability to act on it. You've ignored the argument completely every time I've made it.

Tononi believes that it is this linking of information that is the basis for consciousness. As cells become more interlinked, information can be combined more readily and therefore the essence of complicated thought can be explained. The more possible links between cells, the more possible combinations there are and therefore a greater number of ‘thoughts’ are possible.

The essence of consciousness is experience. It is not the thought. It is the experience of having a thought.

"Interlocking cells" to explain the ability to experience is as empty a phrase as "brain" to explain the ability to experience consciousnesses.

It explains nothing.

 

[DBT]

DBT, I don't think any rational philosopher would disagree with this. This doesn't say anything about what the consciousness is; it only says what its physical correlate does.

We basically know what consciousness is, we experience it every day. We are experiencing it right now...the ability to see, hear, touch, smell, think, feel, respond, etc. What we don't is how the brain forms this experience....as I've pointed out at least a thousand times.

Which is what the articles describe; the current research and ideas and theories. Which does not include non material mind/consciousness at large with brain as a receiver, but consciousness as a form of brain activity and agency.

 

[DBT]

You are the one putting it forward. YOU are the one who must not just present it as gospel, but defend it.

What on Earth are you on about? Any reader can see that the articles I post have the researchers themselves talking about their own work and its significance in their own words.

This has nothing whatever to do with me personally.....you try to make it personal because you have nothing of your own. You simply dismiss everyone and everything you disagree with - ''Dennet is wrong'', etc -- and assert your own beliefs.

I've done enough work, why don't you justify your own beliefs by providing evidence for your own position.

But of course you can't. You'd have to turn to Deepak Choptra or some other Guru.

Just face the facts. You don't have a case. Mainstream research on brain/mind/consciousness does not include Universal mind/brain as a receiver. It's not even a contender yet alone in the race.

You won't even try.

Oh, dear, the IRONY.

But why not prove me wrong by providing evidence for your claims?

No scientist worthy of the name ever says the evidence speaks for itself. The evidence is one thing and the subjective interpretation of it is another.

Every single researcher I have quoted bases their assessment of their work on the evidence they have available to them. The evidence, being accessible, testable and repeatable, has its own characteristics, features and behaviours, which is true for all observers. Hence not a subjective interpretation (there may well be mistaken interpretations of complex interactions)

 

[untermensche]

...I've done enough work...

Posting research you can't defend and don't seem to understand is not work. A child could do it.

And you have done nothing to address my main point.

There is no scientific explanation or identification of the physiological "processes" that result in consciousness. The talk about radios and transmissions is just a side argument in support of this main point.

The arguments about mechanisms existing as quantum effects is to demonstrate it is possible the explanation is beyond our abilities to observe.

And of course in all your tedious research that doesn't address my main point is the claim that consciousness arises due to physiological "processes".

So put up or shut up.

In your own words.

What is the physiological "process" or "processes" that results in consciousness?

I don't want any talk about regions of the brain or tracts of "information" flow or functional units. That is pretending to understand.

I want the facts.

How does the activity in cells result in consciousness? Result in the ability to have a lifelong unified subjective experience. Step by step. All the way to the end.

In other words you can't just at the end of a few observations say: "And then consciousness happens".

The brain gets so complex and the information the brain is dealing with is so complex therefore: "Consciousness happens". It is pretending to know something not actually knowing it.

When you can explain the physiology to the end you have an understanding of what consciousness is.

 

[ryan]

DBT, I don't think any rational philosopher would disagree with this. This doesn't say anything about what the consciousness is; it only says what its physical correlate does.

We basically know what consciousness is, we experience it every day. We are experiencing it right now...the ability to see, hear, touch, smell, think, feel, respond, etc.

We can't even detect it yet and thus doesn't seem to be physical, so that limits us quite a bit to know what it is. It also has its own structure. It extends through time and space instantaneously. Why does it correlate to brains? Can it separate from the brain? Does it correlate exactly to the brain? Is the consciousness an intrinsic (panpsychism) property of matter or is it extrinsic? There's lots left to ask.

Which is what the articles describe; the current research and ideas and theories. Which does not include non material mind/consciousness at large with brain as a receiver, but consciousness as a form of brain activity and agency.

The article takes a stab, but only a stab, at the unifying problem I was talking about,

"Information integration unifies coherent perception: One aspect of the "conscious field" is that it appears unified, complete, coherent, and self-aware, even though experiments show it is not. This may be made possible by extensive feedback pathways within the brain, which exchange information between brain areas, unify perception into a single coherent point of view, and drive the brain's representation of the body's identity toward a consistent model of goal-directed voluntary action."

And that is just to try and explain the physical correlation to the consciousness which still doesn't even attempt to say anything about the consciousness itself.

 

[DBT]

...I've done enough work...

Posting research you can't defend and don't seem to understand is not work. A child could do it.

It's not for me to defend, It is the research and the situation as it currently stands. As it currently stands, nobody is taking your position of non material consciousness/brain as receiver seriously.

That was the point of posting the articles. I have already given descriptions of my own, over and over, just to be ignored. Just as what is being said in the articles is being ignored.

You are only interested in what you want to believe and disregard everything that doesn't agree, Dennet, et al.

Did you see any propositions for non material consciousness/brain as receiver within these articles?

You did not because it has no foundation. It is new age philosophy.

And you have done nothing to address my main point.

There is no scientific explanation or identification of the physiological "processes" that result in consciousness. The talk about radios and transmissions is just a side argument in support of this main point.

The arguments about mechanisms existing as quantum effects is to demonstrate it is possible the explanation is beyond our abilities to observe.

And of course in all your tedious research that doesn't address my main point is the claim that consciousness arises due to physiological "processes".

For a start, quantum processes within the brain is not being disputed. It would be surprising if there wasn't, but that is not the same as your claim; consciousness outside the brain and the brain as a receiver of consciousness.....which has nothing to support it.

 

[untermensche]

Posting research you can't defend and don't seem to understand is not work. A child could do it.

It's not for me to defend

At least you admit you have not defended it. Not even considered it.

It is up to you to defend if it's conclusions are questioned.

No data speaks for itself. Don't ever say it does in public. You will be laughed at.

And you have done nothing to address my main point.

There is no scientific explanation or identification of the physiological "processes" that result in consciousness. The talk about radios and transmissions is just a side argument in support of this main point.

The arguments about mechanisms existing as quantum effects is to demonstrate it is possible the explanation is beyond our abilities to observe.

And of course in all your tedious research that doesn't address my main point is the claim that consciousness arises due to physiological "processes".

For a start, quantum processes within the brain is not being disputed. It would be surprising if there wasn't, but that is not the same as your claim; consciousness outside the brain and the brain as a receiver of consciousness.....which has nothing to support it.

My claim is that the idea (brain as some kind of receiver of consciousness as opposed to a generator) cannot be ruled out because we do not know what consciousness is.

It is a side argument in support of my main point which is not meant as a belief in anything.

All you have to do to rule it out is explain what consciousness is.

To the end. From cell to experience of a calm cool evening at the beach.

 

[DBT]

We basically know what consciousness is, we experience it every day. We are experiencing it right now...the ability to see, hear, touch, smell, think, feel, respond, etc.

We can't even detect it yet and thus doesn't seem to be physical, so that limits us quite a bit to know what it is. It also has its own structure. It extends through time and space instantaneously.

Doesn't 'seem' to be physical? That doesn't mean a thing. How something 'seems' is not a foundation for science, logic or reason.

It extends through time and space instantaneously.

Where on Earth do you get that from? If you mean entanglement, entanglement is not mind or consciousness.

Why does it correlate to brains?

There is nowhere else, mind/consciousness can only be related to brain activity. Causing changes to brain activity alters mind/consciousness. It is a physical process.

 

[DBT]

It's not for me to defend

At least you admit you have not defended it. Not even considered it.

It is up to you to defend if it's conclusions are questioned.

No data speaks for itself. Don't ever say it does in public. You will be laughed at.

That's ridiculous, that you with your own untenable position, consciousness radio brain receiver, based on new age philosophy, the stuff of Deepak Choptra, can seriously repeat such nonsense over and over, ignoring research and whatever researchers are saying, doesn't do your credibility any good whatsoever.

It's a waste of time.

If you have evidence and a rational argument to justify your claims, just provide these and be done with it.

Don't just keep repeating assertions; ''we don't know anything about consciousness therefore consciousness could be external''

It's not even an argument.

Here is another example of current thought;

Quote;
''Due to the intrinsic electrical properties and the connectivity of thalamic neurones two groups of corticothalamic loops are generated, which resonate at a frequency of 40 Hz. The specific thalamo-cortical loops give the content of cognition and the no specific loop, the temporal binding required for the unity of the cognitive experience. Consciousness is then, a product of the resonant thalamo-cortical activity, and the dialogue between the thalamus and cortex, the process that generates subjectivity, the unique experience we all recognized as the existence of the "self".