Consciousness

[bigfield]

There is no information that connects the workings of a brain to the production of consciousness. We don't understand the connection in the least.

This is not to say there is not evidence connecting the consumption of certain drugs with changes in human consciousness.

Those drugs work by altering neural activity, such as by binding to chemical receptors. That is evidence that consciousness is a property of neural activity.

Consciousness is one of the things that the brain 'can do', which is why we can alter consciousness by altering the brain.

Saying a "brain does consciousness" does not tell us what consciousness is in the least.

It is not an understanding of consciousness in the least.

It tells us that consciousness is a property of the brain.

And without an understanding of what consciousness is you cannot make statements about what can't possibly affect it.

Since we have a (very basic) understanding of what consciousness is, we can make statements about what can't possibly affect it.

 

[blastula]

That is not an explanation of anything. If I cut off your leg you can't run, that doesn't explain how muscles work.

Of course altering the brain alters what it can do, but how the activity of the brain and the experience of consciousness are connected is completely unknown.

If you don't know what consciousness even is you can't say what can and can't affect it.

We know what the brain is made out of, biological cells, and we know what kind of forces cells interact with, and we also know that if there were other forces or particles that could interact with brain cells, we would have detected them already. It's not a matter of not knowing what we don't know, it's a matter of knowing that we've eliminated the possibility.

 

[untermensche]

Those drugs work by altering neural activity, such as by binding to chemical receptors. That is evidence that consciousness is a property of neural activity.

Consciousness is one of the things that the brain 'can do', which is why we can alter consciousness by altering the brain.

Saying a "brain does consciousness" does not tell us what consciousness is in the least.

It is not an understanding of consciousness in the least.

It tells us that consciousness is a property of the brain.

And without an understanding of what consciousness is you cannot make statements about what can't possibly affect it.

Since we have a (very basic) understanding of what consciousness is, we can make statements about what can't possibly affect it.

You just don't get it.

Nothing you say is in any way an explanation of how consciousness arises and therefore what it is.

You can't even begin to explain it. You can't take one step. Nobody can.

You are pointing to correlations and thinking they are somehow explanations.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not an explanation of anything. If I cut off your leg you can't run, that doesn't explain how muscles work.

Of course altering the brain alters what it can do, but how the activity of the brain and the experience of consciousness are connected is completely unknown.

If you don't know what consciousness even is you can't say what can and can't affect it.

We know what the brain is made out of, biological cells, and we know what kind of forces cells interact with, and we also know that if there were other forces or particles that could interact with brain cells, we would have detected them already. It's not a matter of not knowing what we don't know, it's a matter of knowing that we've eliminated the possibility.

But we don't know the crucial information.

What consciousness is.

We can't make claims about what things can't possibly affect consciousness without even knowing what it is.

 

[bilby]

You are beyond the point of any use. Go away.

After you.

I'm still saying things.

You are doing nothing but soaking in your vomit.

You are still saying the exact same, and demonstrably wrong things. You don't understand why you are wrong, and you refuse to even contemplate trying to find out. Because you are a mindless dogmatist on this topic.

I'm not going anywhere - if you ever feel like checking out how reality works to the point where you can grasp why current physics rules out a non-physical consciousness, I will be here to accept your apology.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not an explanation of anything. If I cut off your leg you can't run, that doesn't explain how muscles work.

Of course altering the brain alters what it can do, but how the activity of the brain and the experience of consciousness are connected is completely unknown.

If you don't know what consciousness even is you can't say what can and can't affect it.

We know what the brain is made out of, biological cells, and we know what kind of forces cells interact with, and we also know that if there were other forces or particles that could interact with brain cells, we would have detected them already. It's not a matter of not knowing what we don't know, it's a matter of knowing that we've eliminated the possibility.

^That.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

^That.

Because I can say, "I'm conscious of my consciousness" the word is just a word. It has no objective existence except as brain behavior.

It's like the word "speed." You can't have speed without an object in motion. "Speed" is just describing behavior, it can't stand by itself.

 

[DBT]

Taking the available evidence into consideration, it's quite clear that the brain is the agency of consciousness, self identity, self awareness, feelings, thoughts, decisions made and actions taken even if we don't yet understand how the brain forms its mental imagery and sensation that makes up 'consciousness.'

 

[untermensche]

You are doing nothing but soaking in your vomit.

You are still saying the exact same, and demonstrably wrong things.

Yet you haven't demonstrated shit.

You reference a video and then bow to it in reverence, and can't defend a word of it, because it is rhetorical nonsense.

The idea that any current data can somehow preclude future data is both unscientific and nothing but a dogmatic faith.

Go away, you add nothing and are incapable of adding anything. You can cheer for bad ideas of others you don't understand but have none of your own.

 

[untermensche]

Taking the available evidence into consideration, it's quite clear that the brain is the agency of consciousness, self identity, self awareness, feelings, thoughts, decisions made and actions taken even if we don't yet understand how the brain forms its mental imagery and sensation that makes up 'consciousness.'

That is the best possible guess, but not demonstrable.

And it tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what scale or even possible dimension it is generated in.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Taking the available evidence into consideration, it's quite clear that the brain is the agency of consciousness, self identity, self awareness, feelings, thoughts, decisions made and actions taken even if we don't yet understand how the brain forms its mental imagery and sensation that makes up 'consciousness.'

That is the best possible guess, but not demonstrable.

And it tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what scale or even possible dimension it is generated in.

And the same thing can be said about "speed" when we see something moving.

 

[bilby]

You are still saying the exact same, and demonstrably wrong things.

Yet you haven't demonstrated shit.

You reference a video and then bow to it in reverence, and can't defend a word of it, because it is rhetorical nonsense.

The idea that any current data can somehow preclude future data is both unscientific and nothing but a dogmatic faith.

Go away, you add nothing and are incapable of adding anything. You can cheer for bad ideas of others you don't understand but have none of your own.

It's OK, I realize that you don't understand, and it's quite alright not to understand. These are fairly advanced ideas, and not everyone is smart enough to grasp them.

If you want to fondly imagine that absolutely anything might be possible, then I can't stop you from believing such nonsense. But the fact that science works does indicate that we have, in fact, ruled out some possibilities.

If you think that perpetual motion machines MIGHT turn out to be possible, due to some unknown force or energy, then you are simply wrong. The same is true for non-physical consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

Yet you haven't demonstrated shit.

You reference a video and then bow to it in reverence, and can't defend a word of it, because it is rhetorical nonsense.

The idea that any current data can somehow preclude future data is both unscientific and nothing but a dogmatic faith.

Go away, you add nothing and are incapable of adding anything. You can cheer for bad ideas of others you don't understand but have none of your own.

It's OK, I realize that you don't understand, and it's quite alright not to understand. These are fairly advanced ideas, and not everyone is smart enough to grasp them.

If you want to fondly imagine that absolutely anything might be possible, then I can't stop you from believing such nonsense. But the fact that science works does indicate that we have, in fact, ruled out some possibilities.

If you think that perpetual motion machines MIGHT turn out to be possible, due to some unknown force or energy, then you are simply wrong. The same is true for non-physical consciousness.

Physical is just a label placed on the things we can detect.

If our brains are "detecting" consciousness, even if we can't detect it any other way, then it is "physical" as well.

 

[bilby]

It's OK, I realize that you don't understand, and it's quite alright not to understand. These are fairly advanced ideas, and not everyone is smart enough to grasp them.

If you want to fondly imagine that absolutely anything might be possible, then I can't stop you from believing such nonsense. But the fact that science works does indicate that we have, in fact, ruled out some possibilities.

If you think that perpetual motion machines MIGHT turn out to be possible, due to some unknown force or energy, then you are simply wrong. The same is true for non-physical consciousness.

Physical is just a label placed on the things we can detect.

If our brains are "detecting" consciousness, even if we can't detect it any other way, then it is "physical" as well.

EXACTLY.

And we have an extraordinarily well tested physical theory, that tells us that the only way our brains could do that is through one of four forces. Gravity is far too weak; The Strong and Weak interactions are too short-range; and the electromagnetic interaction is easy to detect - and we don't detect it during 'out of body' experiences, or at death, or unconsciousness, when dualists hypothesize that the 'soul' leaves the confines of the body. Consciousness can therefore ONLY be a characteristic of physical brains, and cannot be a separate entity that can exist in the absence of a living brain.

 

[DBT]

Taking the available evidence into consideration, it's quite clear that the brain is the agency of consciousness, self identity, self awareness, feelings, thoughts, decisions made and actions taken even if we don't yet understand how the brain forms its mental imagery and sensation that makes up 'consciousness.'

That is the best possible guess, but not demonstrable.

Of course it is. I provided quotes and links to studies that involve electrical brain stimulation, chemicals, masking, etc, the last time this subject came up, which clearly show a direct relationship between brain state and its conscious experience.

And it tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what scale or even possible dimension it is generated in.

Obviously it does tell us something, that consciousness is a form of electrochemical brain activity and that it is a physical process.

 

[untermensche]

That is the best possible guess, but not demonstrable.

Of course it is. I provided quotes and links to studies that involve electrical brain stimulation, chemicals, masking, etc, the last time this subject came up, which clearly show a direct relationship between brain state and its conscious experience.

And it tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what scale or even possible dimension it is generated in.

Obviously it does tell us something, that consciousness is a form of electrochemical brain activity and that it is a physical process.

Just because the brain is involved it does not mean that is where consciousness originates.

We've been through this before.

The brain could just be some kind of "receiver" of consciousness.

And none of the current science would change.

Because current science has no idea what consciousness is, not even a conception of it. All science knows is a little about how the brain works but nothing to connect any of those workings with consciousness beyond the unenlightened; disruption of normal workings produces a disruption of consciousness which tells us nothing about what consciousness is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Because current science has no idea what consciousness is, not even a conception of it. All science knows is a little about how the brain works but nothing to connect any of those workings with consciousness beyond the unenlightened; disruption of normal workings produces a disruption of consciousness which tells us nothing about what consciousness is.

Consciousness is a word we've invented that describes an active brain as compared to a dead brain. Science certainly knows and understands what is consciousness. If the brain were discovered to be some kind of strange and unknown "receiver" - you'll have to describe what you mean - science about the brain would most certainly change.

 

[fromderinside]

Because current science has no idea what consciousness is, not even a conception of it. All science knows is a little about how the brain works but nothing to connect any of those workings with consciousness beyond the unenlightened; disruption of normal workings produces a disruption of consciousness which tells us nothing about what consciousness is.

Consciousness is a word we've invented that describes an active brain as compared to a dead brain. Science certainly knows and understands what is consciousness. If the brain were discovered to be some kind of strange and unknown "receiver" - you'll have to describe what you mean - science about the brain would most certainly change.

Imagine , if you will, a person surrounded by other people, those most likely to kill her. If possible would she not construct a model through which she could navigate these individuals, these groups, so as to assure as best she can they do not kill her, actually find her useful and harmless? Consider that this model operates on received inputs and is constructed so as to project such benign and attractive outputs she can confirm with her own processing capacities. Its not real time, its is after the fact as are all human interactions. and it isn't certain, but, it is built up on experience and it becomes, as much as possible, a part of her appreciation by others.

Would you not be tempted to call this visage, this charade, something important like consciousness, even though it is neither proactive nor simultaneous nor part of her actual nervous system processes, rather it is a defensive charade partly defined genetically as maps for social processing among humans with little or know particular brain source, but rather, a consequence of brain function among humans using its capabilities to present safe place in action and presence. One might even say consciousness is a social thing consisting of the interacting things and people about one from whcih we seem to enjoy taking the "I" view about it's function.

Of course all this presumes she is, and those around her are, nothing more than machines operating on historical data in an attempt to be as current as possible - As the late Daniel Wegner might have postulated.

 

[DBT]

Of course it is. I provided quotes and links to studies that involve electrical brain stimulation, chemicals, masking, etc, the last time this subject came up, which clearly show a direct relationship between brain state and its conscious experience.

And it tells us nothing about what consciousness is or what scale or even possible dimension it is generated in.

Obviously it does tell us something, that consciousness is a form of electrochemical brain activity and that it is a physical process.

Just because the brain is involved it does not mean that is where consciousness originates.

We've been through this before.

The brain could just be some kind of "receiver" of consciousness.

And none of the current science would change.

Because current science has no idea what consciousness is, not even a conception of it. All science knows is a little about how the brain works but nothing to connect any of those workings with consciousness beyond the unenlightened; disruption of normal workings produces a disruption of consciousness which tells us nothing about what consciousness is.

Most fridge owners do not know how their refrigerator works, yet it is clear to them that it is indeed the mechanism of the fridge that cools the air inside it.

Just as it is clear that most of the brains activity is unconscious information processing that regulates both bodily functions and forms conscious sensations in relation to body and external environment, even if we don't know precisely how the sensations of consciousness are being formed by the brain.

 

[fromderinside]

No consciousness, no unconsciousness. Get with the program. Can you say machine function?

 

[Kharakov]

What if all of the natural world is a detailed simulation that allows us many ways of interacting with other consciousnesses?

Our brains could be part of the simulation that gives us direct access to our consciousnesses, rather than being the "direct cause" of our consciousnesses.

 

[Treedbear]

What if all of the natural world is a detailed simulation that allows us many ways of interacting with other consciousnesses?

Our brains could be part of the simulation that gives us direct access to our consciousnesses, rather than being the "direct cause" of our consciousnesses.

This is where things get silly. What's needed is a good application of Occam's Razor. Why make the problem more complex than the evidence before us? We have a mass of neurons that are capable of extremely complex interactions. Now let's say there is some way to connect to another dimension or natural process we have no clear conception of but is the origin of consciousness. Ok, but then you still need to explain what causes consciousness! It's just placing it conveniently beyond our capability of ever discovering or even asking anything about it. Kind of like the argument for God as "The Uncaused Cause". By definition it doesn't need an explanation. Unless you have some other source of evidence for such a theory it's pure woo.