It is certainly wasted on you as you miss the point completely
The brain in the vat thought experiment is a type of thought experiment popular in philosophy of mind which attempts to show that we cannot know the cause of our own experience. It is irrelevant it is a brain in a vat being stimulated by supercomputer, it could be mind being controlled by an evil demon, or my own version of a computer character being controlled by a computer gamer - what it shows is that in each case it is impossible for the virtual subject experiencing the virtual matrix like reality to know it is the brain in the vat, or for the mind being controlled by an evil demon to know it is being controlled by the evil demon, or for the computer character to know it is being controlled by a computer gamer.
Geez
The evil demon is different than the brain in the vat. For example, it is mythology / pseudo-science vs something we know exists and scientific evidence. Nothing suggests the brain and mind are separate, nothing suggest demonic forces exist. You need to pick one. Also, you need to realize that though experiments do not yeild facts, plus are irrelevant. There is a difference between a valid and sound argument, you'd think a supposed philosophy major would know that.
Fair enough.Strawman, because I never said you don't need a brain. To say that consciousness is not produced by the brain is not the same as saying we don't need a brain
Those currents and chemicals are the emotion, they affect the brain and cause us to experience things like love, pain, empathy, etc. We know that love is caused by chemical reactions, we know that you can see empathy in the brain (and it effects the brain the same way personally experiencing pain does), we know that pain is felt due to the brain, etc. If you are going to **** on decades of scientific / psychological facts you need to support yourself.Nope, not a fact, emotions take place in conscious subjects. The brain does not produce emotions, it produces bioelectric currents and releases chemicals which are experienced by conscious subjects as emotions.
Adding to facts to make them magical enough to fit your belief system; very common. Those chemicals and currents are the emotions.Conscious subject: Emotions
Brain: Chemicals and bioelectric currents
Here are some articles about love specifically since I have them saved. Won't waste time finding more evidence for a fideist. If you truly wanted to get in tune with facts you could do so easily.
Love Is a Chemical Reaction, Scientists Find | PBS NewsHour | Feb. 13, 2009 | PBS
Love, The Thing Called Love - National Geographic Magazine
So why does brain damage affect memory? Again, if you are going to say facts that we know are wrong, you better support it. Also, brain damage and issues cause many other problems such as impaired motor functions, Capgras Delusion, etc. You cannot get someone's brain and read their memories, that is absurd. To have someone's memories you would need to somehow make your brain work in the exact same way theirs does to experience it. Memory is not stored in one specific area to my knowledge, no. But it does require the brain.The brain does not store memories in any physical location in the body. The brain does not store memories at all. If that was true, it would be possible to get somebodies brain and read all their memories
Hippocampus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Henry Molaison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOVA | How Memory Works
I pray to a God that I do not believe in that you are trolling.No brain damage does not affect memory at all in fact, brain damage affects our sensory and motor functions, memories remain intact. This is a proven empirical fact by Karl Pribream and other neuroscientists.
Wow, be consistent for God's sake. Is consciousness awareness or not? How can anyone with a basic understanding of language think that UNconscious = conscious? We are made up by things we are not conscious of, that is the point. So, if you are not consciously choosing to do something, how is it a conscious choice? :thud:Awareness does not just refer to the conscious, we also have a subconscious and unconscious. The brain receives information from our unconscious and subconscious before we consciously do. That does not mean the brain is producing the choice. It is not in fact, it's just a processor. The processor of my computer makes no choices, I make all the choices and the processor processes it. There maybe a slight delay before the choice I make is processed and manfiested.
http://www.spelling.hemscott.net/prefix2.html
And all of the above are tied to the brain.Messing with not just the brain. Consciousness can be affected by emotional and psychological shock, hypnosis or through autosuggesion. It does not prove anything other than the fact for consciousness to operate in the world it requires a functioning brain. In much the same way a radio can be affected by breaking it, removing its parts, throwing water on it etc. For music to operate in the world it requires a functionig radio.
Actually, consciousness is affected by the brain because the brain produces consciousness. Your changing of one word to create a straw man and circular reasoning is invalid, since it is not my argument.I am getting tired and bored of your "consciousness is affected by brain, therefore brain produces consciousness" simplistic sophomoric fallacious argument.
Of course I think highly educated people can be incorrect. Especially considering that knowledge is increasing exponentially. I do not call them idiots, simply outdated. The issue with the hard problem is nobody is willing to agree on a set, scientific definition of what consciousness is.Do you think highly educated philosophers like Nagel, Searl, Chalmers et al who specialize in the subject of philosophy of mind and have more credentials than your 5 classes of philosophy, are all idiots or do not know that conscious experience is indeed affected by brain states and physical states?
Yeah, I'm sure that you are being taken seriously by denying known fact, promoting quantum mysticism, etc.Even the one of most leading materialist philosophers and proponents of neurophilosophy Thomas Metzinger knows the difference between neural correlates and phenomenological states.
Really? Because I just posted a bunch of information supporting my position scientifically (you know, with actual evidence). All you can do is provide thought experiments and valid arguments based on pseudo science.You need to do some more reading in the subject to contribute something more worthwhile in this debate than incessantly repeating, "BRAIN PRODUCES CONSCOUSNESS because that is getting really tired....
Last edited by a moderator: