Any Arguments by which to Conclude that Consciousness Is a Product of Brains?

[Nous]

Yes I can cite evidence but I am done trying. I tend to swap Brain and Mind quite often but you are right scientifically Brain is usually the hardware and mind the equivalent of the software. There is of course overlap but I digress.

I only started this because at first you rudely dismissed my information, I don't really care to try and change your mind.

I "rudely dismissed" your "information"? I don't know when that was.

If you can cite any evidence by which to logically conclude that the various phenomena of consciousness are effects of something happening in brains, I'd say you have a responsibility to cite it. Obviously no one else here has been able to cite any such evidence.

 

[Nous]

By the way, @siti, do you suggest or believe that what you quoted from Stapp's paper above is inconsistent with what he argues in his paper, Compatibility of Contemporary Physical Theory with Personality Survival:

Abstract Orthodox quantum mechanics is technically built around an element that von Neumann called Process 1. In its basic form it consists of an action that reduces the prior state of a physical system to a sum of two parts, which can be regarded as the parts corresponding to the answers ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to a specific question that this action poses, or ‘puts to nature’. Nature returns one answer or the other, in accordance with statistical weightings specified by the theory. Thus the standard statistical element in quantum theory enters only after the Process-1 choice is made, while the known deterministic element in quantum theory governs the dynamics that prevails between the reduction events, but not the process that determines which of the continuum of allowed Process-1 probing actions will actually occur. The rules governing that selection process are not fixed by the theory in its present form. This freedom can be used to resolve in a natural way an apparent problem of the orthodox theory, its biocentrism. That resolution produces a rationally coherent realization of the theory that preserves the basic orthodox structure but allows naturally for the possibility that human personality may survive bodily death.
​

?

 

[siti]

...do you suggest or believe that what you quoted from Stapp's paper above is inconsistent with what he argues in his paper, Compatibility of Contemporary Physical Theory with Personality Survival:

No I don't and I said as much when I quoted it (my bold):

Stapp talks more explicitly about consciousness and its possible QM explanation, and states (for example):

"What is consciousness? It is a sequence of actualizations of functional patterns of brain activity. These functional patterns are expressed in terms of a projected body-world schema, and each actualized pattern is 'facilitated' for use in later executive events."
...which is pretty much what I said in my previous post and more accurately typifies where I agree with his reasoning. Of course he has carefully avoided identifying the brain as the actual origin of the 'actualizations'

I also made it clear that I don't agree that assuming a non-physical origin is warranted - we simply don't know enough about how quantum mechanics really works - especially in living systems - to make this leap. You are correct to point out that we can (again with my bold and my parentheses)

deduce that there is an explanatory gap between what's happening [as far as we currently understand it] in brains and the production of consciousness.

and that it seems very likely (though this is an induction - based on observations made so far - not a deduction) that

no amount, configuration or complexity of matter results in deterministic machines acting willfully.

But there is absolutely no way we can deduce that the explanation of consciousness (if and when we do find it) will necessarily be non-physical or that it will not be sufficiently explained by a clearer understanding of quantum mechanics. Personally, I don't think an appeal to super-physical explanation is even our best guess. Our best guess IMO is that 'mental' properties are a fundamental aspect of 'physical' reality - for the reasons I stated in my earlier post. And that is neither an inductive theory nor a deduced fact - it is an abductive conclusion of reasoning on the likely explanatory power of the available possible explanations.

 

[leibowde84]

You've misrepresented what I've said. We actually do know the products of functioning of biological cells and electrochemistry, and none of it logically entails the various phenomena of consciousness as effects.

But, we don't know nearly enough about the interconnectedness of neurons to definitively claim that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm afraid that on the subject introduced by the OP, I'd rather just ask a rejoinder question: has anybody, anywhere, every produced a single bit of evidence of any sort of consciousness whatsoever without a functioning central nervous system?

Yes, see the OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

I've read the van Lommel stuff 'til I'm sick of it. Everybody and his dog reads far more into it than is actually there, and they do so because they ignore far too much that actually IS there. Those things include:

• Length of time for supposed "clinical death" (almost always minutes, sometimes tens of minutes, never ever days, weeks months and years)
• The fact that nobody actually knows precisely what life is, and yet claims to know what death is (you think you know what happens in the microtubules of neurons at every moment -- that ALL activity has actually stopped?)
• That the "experience" was "life-changing." Every profound experience -- even those that are well-understood to be false -- is "life-changing." Everything in our experience lays down traces in our neuro-circuitry, and the more profound (even when false) those experiences are, the more deeply the traces are laid down.

I put it to you that you cannot answer "Yes" to my question, because you cannot state that there was no function in any of those central nervous systems during "clinical death." And the reason you can't is that the longer that "clinical death" lasts, the less likely it is that it will ever be reversed. And that doesn't actually take much time at all.

 

[leibowde84]

I "rudely dismissed" your "information"? I don't know when that was.

If you can cite any evidence by which to logically conclude that the various phenomena of consciousness are effects of something happening in brains, I'd say you have a responsibility to cite it. Obviously no one else here has been able to cite any such evidence.

This is a clear example of a logical fallacy. The current lack of evidence for the brain creating consciousness in no way proves that the brain cannot create consciousness. If you want to claim that the brain cannot create consciousness, it is up to you to prove where consciousness comes from.

All you have shown thus far is that, as of yet, science has not been able to explain how consciousness arises.

 

[Nous]

No I don't and I said as much when I quoted it (my bold):

OK, just wanted to clarify.

As far as I'm aware, the language the Stapp uses in your quote from his paper in response to Chalmers is unusual, if not unique, among his statements about consciousness. (He is actually answering Chalmers' question: What is conscious experience?)

I also made it clear that I don't agree that assuming a non-physical origin is warranted

What does "non-physical origin" mean? Define it. And to whom are you responding? Does energy have a "non-physical origin"?

 

[Nous]

But, we don't know nearly enough about the interconnectedness of neurons to definitively claim that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain.

Really? What is the gap in our knowledge of "interconnectedness of neurons"? And how would greater knowledge concerning "interconnectedness of neurons" provide an explanation of the production of consciousness?

 

[Nous]

I've read the van Lommel stuff 'til I'm sick of it.

Wow. Perhaps you need to look into what your nausea is about--it can't be a direct result of "the van Lommel stuff".

Did you read any of the other information at the links of those OPs? The 2 papers by Dr. van Lommel were a minor portion.

• Length of time for supposed "clinical death" (almost always minutes, sometimes tens of minutes, never ever days, weeks months and years)

• Ah, so you're going to repeat the straw man argument: "But they aren't really, really, stinking dead!" I quoted one of Dr. van Lommel's papers specifically addressing this straw man argument. As he notes in what I quoted from him: during cardiac arrest, the measurable electricity of the brain ceases within 20 seconds. During (and, as Dr. Parnia explains, immediately after resuscitation from) this state, the having of complex, coherent experiences, formation of memories, engaging in logical thought processes, and especially veridical perceptions not gotten through the person's sense organs are unexplained.

Your question was about consciousness "without a functioning central nervous system". The answer to your question is emphatically "Yes". You will find several specific and confirmed examples noted in the OPs of that thread. I am certain that taking in this information will upset you further, but you should inform yourself.

 

[Nous]

I "rudely dismissed" your "information"? I don't know when that was.

If you can cite any evidence by which to logically conclude that the various phenomena of consciousness are effects of something happening in brains, I'd say you have a responsibility to cite it. Obviously no one else here has been able to cite any such evidence.

This is a clear example of a logical fallacy. The current lack of evidence for the brain creating consciousness in no way proves that the brain cannot create consciousness. If you want to claim that the brain cannot create consciousness, it is up to you to prove where consciousness comes from.

This is a clear example of you misrepresenting what I said. There is not even the vague suggestion in what you quoted where I indicated "X proves Y".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wow. Perhaps you need to look into what your nausea is about--it can't be a direct result of "the van Lommel stuff".

Did you read any of the other information at the links of those OPs? The 2 papers by Dr. van Lommel were a minor portion.

• Ah, so you're going to repeat the straw man argument: "But they aren't really, really, stinking dead!" I quoted one of Dr. van Lommel's papers specifically addressing this straw man argument. As he notes in what I quoted from him: during cardiac arrest, the measurable electricity of the brain ceases within 20 seconds. During (and, as Dr. Parnia explains, immediately after resuscitation from) this state, the having of complex, coherent experiences, formation of memories, engaging in logical thought processes, and especially veridical perceptions not gotten through the person's sense organs are unexplained.

Neurobiologist Dick Swaab claimed that Lommel's book ignores scientific knowledge, including some conclusions from his own research. He further argued that Lommel does not refute neurobiological explanations, gives no scientific basis for his statements and borrows concepts from quantum physics without ground (Quantum mysticism). According to Swaab, Van Lommel deviates from the scientific approach and his book can only be categorized as pseudoscientific.

Dutch physician and anesthesiologist G. M. Woerlee wrote a chapter by chapter examination of Lommel's Consciousness Beyond Life. According to Woerlee the book is full of "tendentious and suggestive pseudoscientific nonsense", and the picture of the functioning of the body as proposed by Lommel is not consistent with medical knowledge. Woerlee concluded that the book is a "masterly example of how tendentious and suggestive interpretation of international scientific literature, vague presentation of basic medical facts, together with ignorance of some basic statistical principles leads to incorrect conclusions."

Jason Braithwaite, a Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience in the Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham, issued an in-depth analysis and critique of Lommel's prospective study published in the medical journal The Lancet, concluding that while Lommel's et al. study makes a useful contribution, it contains several factual and logical errors. Among these errors are Lommel's misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the dying-brain hypothesis, misunderstandings over the role of anoxia, misplaced confidence in EEG measurements (a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) reading is not evidence of total brain inactivity), etc. Jason concluded with, "it is difficult to see what one could learn from the paranormal survivalist position which sets out assuming the truth of that which it seeks to establish, makes additional and unnecessary assumptions, misrepresents the current state of knowledge from mainstream science, and appears less than comprehensive in its analysis of the available facts."

Your question was about consciousness "without a functioning central nervous system". The answer to your question is emphatically "Yes". You will find several specific and confirmed examples noted in the OPs of that thread. I am certain that taking in this information will upset you further, but you should inform yourself.[/QUOTE]

 

[Nous]

Neurobiologist Dick Swaab claimed that Lommel's book ignores scientific knowledge, including some conclusions from his own research. He further argued that Lommel does not refute neurobiological explanations, gives no scientific basis for his statements and borrows concepts from quantum physics without ground (Quantum mysticism). According to Swaab, Van Lommel deviates from the scientific approach and his book can only be categorized as pseudoscientific.

Dutch physician and anesthesiologist G. M. Woerlee wrote a chapter by chapter examination of Lommel's Consciousness Beyond Life. According to Woerlee the book is full of "tendentious and suggestive pseudoscientific nonsense", and the picture of the functioning of the body as proposed by Lommel is not consistent with medical knowledge. Woerlee concluded that the book is a "masterly example of how tendentious and suggestive interpretation of international scientific literature, vague presentation of basic medical facts, together with ignorance of some basic statistical principles leads to incorrect conclusions."

Jason Braithwaite, a Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience in the Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham, issued an in-depth analysis and critique of Lommel's prospective study published in the medical journal The Lancet, concluding that while Lommel's et al. study makes a useful contribution, it contains several factual and logical errors. Among these errors are Lommel's misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the dying-brain hypothesis, misunderstandings over the role of anoxia, misplaced confidence in EEG measurements (a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) reading is not evidence of total brain inactivity), etc. Jason concluded with, "it is difficult to see what one could learn from the paranormal survivalist position which sets out assuming the truth of that which it seeks to establish, makes additional and unnecessary assumptions, misrepresents the current state of knowledge from mainstream science, and appears less than comprehensive in its analysis of the available facts."

So you can't quote anything that Dr.van Lommel has said that is erroneous? I haven't come across anything he has said that is erroneous.

By the way, this was my statement to you:

Your question was about consciousness "without a functioning central nervous system". The answer to your question is emphatically "Yes". You will find several specific and confirmed examples noted in the OPs of that thread. I am certain that taking in this information will upset you further, but you should inform yourself.

Have you read any of the examples noted in those OPs in which during clinical death people had conscious experiences, logical thought processes, formed memories, and had confirmed veridical perceptions not gotten through their senses?

 

[siti]

OK, just wanted to clarify.

As far as I'm aware, the language the Stapp uses in your quote from his paper in response to Chalmers is unusual, if not unique, among his statements about consciousness. (He is actually answering Chalmers' question: What is conscious experience?)

Correct - that whole section of the paper is a response to Chalmers (but then is there a serious consideration of the origin of human consciousness that is not a response to Chalmers?) and is replete with references to the brain that painstakingly, almost contortedly, refuse to acknowledge the vital role of the brain in the production of consciousness whilst reluctantly acknowledging that consciousness could not possibly work without it. It honestly reads like an apologetic - like Stapp is actually unsure of his otherwise "brain-less" (pardon the term which is honestly not meant to be derogatory at all) origin of consciousness and feels the need to defend it in the face an obvious and clear consensus to the contrary. In most of his other writing on the subject, he simply avoids the serious question of how consciousness could possibly work without a brain when it is abundantly clear that even the most anomalous indications still produce brain-bound mental evidence - memories of the anomalous cognitive experience for example. How do they get into the brain if the brain is 'dead' when they happen? And its OK with me that he avoids it - its not the question he is seeking to answer - but the passage I quoted from suggests that he has serious trouble excluding the brain when he does try to answer it.

What does "non-physical origin" mean? Define it. And to whom are you responding? Does energy have a "non-physical origin"?

No - energy is fundamentally physical and is inextricably and very coherently related to matter (as you well know). If consciousness is "like energy" then, like energy, it should be both physical and coherently related to matter in some way. But I'm not sure this is a tremendously good analogy anyway. I am still trying to figure out how best to explain in words what I am talking about, but Whitehead talked about mental and physical poles of each actual occasion of experience. Its something like that - and every event, occasion, process...etc, has both. Human consciousness is (part of) the mental pole of a human 'being' (which is really not a being but a process - a physical process with a mental pole). Like I said, its hard to put into words, but I know what I mean.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you can't quote anything that Dr.van Lommel has said that is erroneous? I haven't come across anything he has said that is erroneous.

I provided the citations to 3 people who did make the claim to error. I'm not going to re-type their findings.

Have you read any of the examples noted in those OPs in which during clinical death people had conscious experiences, logical thought processes, formed memories, and had confirmed veridical perceptions not gotten through their senses?

You continue to use the term "clinical death" like some kind of magic incantation. Look again at what Braithwaite said: "a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) reading is not evidence of total brain inactivity."

Look, you can ask me to do all the science you want, and I won't be able to. I'm not a gifted scientist. I suspect, though, that neither are you. The one thing I would ask is simply this: of all the "gifted scientists" in the world who are actually looking at these sorts of issues -- how many are coming down on one side, and how many on the other? And by my count, it doesn't look very good for my consciousness wandering around smelling the rose a week after I'm dead.

Or the week before I was conceived.

 

[leibowde84]

Really? What is the gap in our knowledge of "interconnectedness of neurons"? And how would greater knowledge concerning "interconnectedness of neurons" provide an explanation of the production of consciousness?

The following is a plausible hypothesis of how the brain creates consciousness with many different aspects working together to form our experience of reality:

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

1. 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.
2. 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").
3. 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.
4. 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."
5. 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.
6. 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.

How Does The Brain Create Consciousness?

 

[Nous]

Correct - that whole section of the paper is a response to Chalmers (but then is there a serious consideration of the origin of human consciousness that is not a response to Chalmers?) and is replete with references to the brain that painstakingly, almost contortedly, refuse to acknowledge the vital role of the brain in the production of consciousness

What exactly about "the vital role of the brain in the production of consciousness" does he "refuse to acknowledge"?

He answers Chalmers' questions in a way that is entirely consistent with the orthodox QM interpretation that he has explicated profusely during his career.

In any case, I thought that all of this was supposed to demonstrate the error of my claim in #236, that Stapp "does not propose that consciousness is a product is activity happening in brains--even at the level of quanta."

it is abundantly clear that even the most anomalous indications still produce brain-bound mental evidence - memories of the anomalous cognitive experience for example. How do they get into the brain if the brain is 'dead' when they happen?

Addressing that issue is mostly the whole point in the third OP here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics? In short, as Professor Forsdyke explains, memories don't "get in" brains.

What does "non-physical origin" mean? Define it. And to whom are you responding? Does energy have a "non-physical origin"?

No - energy is fundamentally physical

Now respond to the question I asked: Does energy have a "non-physical origin"?

I asked that question because you indicated that there is some problem or conundrum with consciousness having a "non-physical origin".

 

[Nous]

I provided the citations to 3 people who did make the claim to error.

In all that you quoted there isn't a single instance noted of anything that Dr. van Lommel has ever said that is erroneous. And obviously you haven't pointed to anything van Lommel has said that is erroneous.

You continue to use the term "clinical death" like some kind of magic incantation. Look again at what Braithwaite said: "a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) reading is not evidence of total brain inactivity."

That's correct. That's why it's a straw man argument to suggest that a presumed flicker of unmeasurable electricity somewhere in the brain accounts for the complex, coherent experiences, use of logical thought processes, formation of memories, and veridical perceptions not gotten through the sense organs.

Right?

And Dr. Rudy's patient did not have even a flicker of electrical activity in his brain, after 20 minutes of having no heart beat or blood pressure. Right?

Did you inform yourself of any of the examples of consciousness in the absence of functioning CNS, which you asked for?

 

[Nous]

The following is a plausible hypothesis of how the brain creates consciousness with many different aspects working together to form our experience of reality:

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

1. 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.
2. 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").
3. 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.
4. 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."
5. 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.
6. 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.

How Does The Brain Create Consciousness?

That's an answer to a question asked on Quora. Obviously not a single citation to the literature is provided, nor does it provide any explanation of how consciousness is produced by any phenomena such as neural circuits, memory or "information integration".

Quotes from the next two answers to the question (my bolding):

Yohan John, PhD in Cognitive and Neural Systems from Boston University

Does the brain create consciousness? I'm not so sure. At the very least, I know that no neuroscientist has caught the brain 'red-handed' in the act of creating consciousness.​

And:

Craig Weinberg

In my view, to ask how the brain creates consciousness is like asking how an abacus creates math. The brain has its own context which has little to do with us. We use the brain, and our awareness is limited and shaped by its function, but there is no reason to suppose that any part of the brain even knows that we exist.

Many have understood that there is a problem with connecting the activities of neurons or molecules with direct experiences such as colors and flavors. I grew up with a materialistic view and was unaware that there were other possibilities, except for religious views. I did not know that many philosophers throughout history had intelligent arguments which brought materialism into doubt, but eventually I began to develop questions about materialism on my own. The most problematic issue in my mind was why something like a brain or a body should feel anything at all, when all of its functions can be explained without any such feelings. Without knowing it, I had stumbled upon what David Chalmers famously called "The Hard Problem" of consciousness.

Since that time, I have put together a synthesis of ideas from many different disciplines to come up with a solution that I think might be crazy enough to be on the right track. If I'm right, the brain does not create consciousness, nor do cells or molecules, but rather consciousness or sense is the fundamental condition of all possible existence (including physical objects, information, and subjectivity).​

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-brain-create-consciousness

So, if you are claiming that the answer you quoted is more "plausible" than what I have bolded here, please state that argument.

By the way, Yohan John links to a highly interesting paper on the "integrated information" hypothesis of Tononi and Koch (subsequently noting that "Tononi and Koch seem to have bitten the bullet and accepted a form of panpsychism)":

Abstract: If you’re a materialist, you probably think that rabbits are conscious. And you ought to think that. After all, rabbits are a lot like us, biologically and neurophysiologically. If you’re a materialist, you probably also think that conscious experience would be present in a wide range of alien beings behaviorally very similar to us even if they are physiologically very different. And you ought to think that. After all, to deny it seems insupportable Earthly chauvinism. But a materialist who accepts consciousness in weirdly formed aliens ought also to accept consciousness in spatially distributed group entities. If she then also accepts rabbit consciousness, she ought to accept the possibility of consciousness even in rather dumb group entities. Finally, the United States would seem to be a rather dumb group entity of the relevant sort. If we set aside our morphological prejudices against spatially distributed group entities, we can see that the United States has all the types of properties that materialists tend to regard as characteristic of conscious beings.​

If Materialism Is True, the United States Is Probably Conscious - Eric Schwitzgebel

 

[leibowde84]

Does the brain create consciousness? I'm not so sure. At the very least, I know that no neuroscientist has caught the brain 'red-handed' in the act of creating consciousness.

If I'm right, the brain does not create consciousness, nor do cells or molecules, but rather consciousness or sense is the fundamental condition of all possible existence (including physical objects, information, and subjectivity).

These quotes prove my point. Even these experts admit that they don't KNOW that the brain is not responsible for consciousness. They use phrases like "I'm not so sure" and "If I'm right". My argument is that we cannot definitively say that the brain is not responsible for consciousness. That's it. We don't know enough about the brain to count it out.

 

[Nous]

These quotes prove my point. Even these experts admit that they don't KNOW that the brain is not responsible for consciousness. They use phrases like "I'm not so sure" and "If I'm right". My argument is that we cannot definitively say that the brain is not responsible for consciousness.

So you don't argue that what you quoted is a more "plausible" account of the production of consciousness.

What experiments do you propose to test the hypothesis that the various phenomena of consciousness (intentions, beliefs, unified awareness, free will or causal efficacy) are somehow produced by something happening in brains?

Regardless of what unimaginable process you propose by which brains supposedly create consciousness, you won't be able to account for the evidence of complex, coherent experiences, engagement in logical thought processes, formation of memories and having veridical perceptions that are not gotten through the senses, during clinical death. Right?