• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Consciousness is NOT caused by the brain

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
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.

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
Fair enough.

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.
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.

Conscious subject: Emotions
Brain: Chemicals and bioelectric currents
Adding to facts to make them magical enough to fit your belief system; very common. Those chemicals and currents are the emotions.

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

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
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.

Hippocampus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Henry Molaison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOVA | How Memory Works

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.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: I pray to a God that I do not believe in that you are trolling.

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.
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:

http://www.spelling.hemscott.net/prefix2.html

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.
And all of the above are tied to the brain.

I am getting tired and bored of your "consciousness is affected by brain, therefore brain produces consciousness" simplistic sophomoric fallacious argument.
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.

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?
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.

Even the one of most leading materialist philosophers and proponents of neurophilosophy Thomas Metzinger knows the difference between neural correlates and phenomenological states.
Yeah, I'm sure that you are being taken seriously by denying known fact, promoting quantum mysticism, etc.

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....
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I feel like I'm administering medicine to the dead to be honest.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
However, we do not routinely send information tens of thousands of times faster than the speed of light:
But the new experiment shows that direct communication between the photons (at least as we know it) is simply impossible. The team simultaneously measured several properties of both photons, such as phase, when they arrived at their villages and found that they did indeed have a spooky awareness of each other’s behaviour. On the basis of their measurements, the team concluded that if the photons had communicated, they must have done so at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light — something nearly all physicists thought would be impossible. In other words, these photons cannot know about each other through any sort of normal exchange of information.
Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer : Nature News
I think the above represents a problem which has come up more than once in this discussion. You are relying on your interpretation of somebody else's interpretation conveyed through popular media to a general audience (with all the sensational trimmings). Have you actually read "The speed of quantum information and the preferred frame: Analysis of experimental data" by Scarani, Tittel, Zbinden, & Gisen (Physics Letters A 276; 2000; pp. 1-7)? Their opening says quite a bit (emphasis added):
"The tension between quantum mechanics (QM) and relativity manifests itself in two classes of theoretical problems. The first class of problems can be labelled “the search for a covariant description of the measurement process”. Possibly the best-known example is the impossibility of a causal description of the collapse in an EPR experiment that would be valid in all frames; but there are many other examples, even for one-particle measurements, as widely discussed by Aharonov and Albert. The second class of problems is linked with some structural problems of quantum relativistic theories, like the definition of a position operator that fulfills “basic” requirements"

Now, not only is the issue that you label as evidence falsifying QM called "theoretical", but no indication is given that the issue is with relativity, and only relativity, rather than involving problems in quantum theory. Even better, the authors specifically state right there, in their paper, that the issue isn't some problem with relativity, nor does their study show this. It's framed in terms of relativity(emphasis added):
"if two events are space-like separated, there is always a frame in which the two events are simultaneous...However, the operational definition of [the speed of quantum information] involves events (detections), that can be parametrized by using the standard relativistic formalism; in other words, a speed of quantum information can be defined formally in any frame."

In other words, to support your point about QM falsifying relativity, you indirectly cited a study which is all about the capacity of relativity to include QM.
 
Last edited:

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
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.

Like I said you missed the point of the thought experiment :D A thought experiment is hypothetical, like Einstein's thought experiment of riding a beam of light, he did not actually ride a beam of light you know ;) A thought experiments sets up a scenario to test a logical possibility and they are highly effective means of getting knowledge.

Descartes evil demon thought experiment is not actually saying evil demons exist, it is saying what if all my thoughts were controlled by an evil demon. The demon imagery is irrelevant, the point of the thought experiment is what if all my thoughts were controlled by something else. You can replace that something else with anything: a supercomputer, a computer gamer or another person.

The brain in the vat experiment is not saying the brain produces consciousness, it is saying what if consciousness was produced by something, could we know what produces it? So it argues that we could not know it and the brain in the skull cannot be the producer of consciousness because we do know it.

If you still don't get it, let's just give it a miss aye...

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.

Again, a sophomoric argument which has been long debunked in neurophilosophy and is now considered an outdated argument. Look up type type identity theories of the mind. In logic the principle of indiscernability of identicals says that is x is y, then x has exactly the same properties as y.
To say chemical reaction is the same as love violates the logical principle, because they have different properties; one is quantitative physical process and one is qualitative experiential process. They are not the same thing.

If the mind was just controlling the brain for example it would be possible to see for every phenomenological state like love a neural and physical correlate such as the firing of certain synapses and releasing of certain chemical hormones. So a neural correlate does not entail the conclusion that the brain is controlling the mind or the mind is controlling the brain. That is why it is called a "neural correlate" It is impossible to tell what causes what from this alone. Hence it is an inconclusive argument.

The analogy of the radio is used to show that it is possible that the mind is controlling the brain. As even if impair a radio, I will impair its ability to receive music, but this does not mean the music was produced by the radio. Hence if it was true that the mind was controlling the brain, the fact that the brain's impairment leads to losing connection with the mind would not contradict it.

So basically you need to come up with a better argument for why the brain is producing consciousness, because this argument you are currently making is near universally regarded to be a bad argument, even by contemporary materialist philosophers.

Adding to facts to make them magical enough to fit your belief system; very common. Those chemicals and currents are the emotions.

Lets not engage in these pointless adhominems accusing each other of intentions we cannot prove. I could equally say to you the reason you want to believe you are just a meat machine, is because you lack magic in your life and would prefer that death is the final end. I cannot prove that, as much as you cannot prove that the reason I believe the brain does not produce consciousness is because I want to believe in magic.

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 brai

Why not? If memories are stored in the brain like one would store information on a hardrive, it should be possible to get a brain and read their memories :shrug:

We already know memory is not stored any single location in the brain by neuroscientists like Karl Pribriam. Look up his holographic theory of the brain.

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:

It is a basic fact of psychology that we have various states of consciousness. Conscious, subconscious and unconscious. It is possible to consciously become aware of the subconscious and the unconscious. Hence our consciousness is not limited to what we are consciously aware of, it in a fact a continuum of consciousness. The Indian schools argue similarly: consciousness is present in waking, dreaming and deep sleep states.

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.

We will actually get somewhere, if you stop incessantly repeating your claim that the brain produces consciousness, and actually try to prove it ;) Or it better we just call it a day.

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.

This would be valid if your knowledge was actually better than theirs on this subject :facepalm: Okay Doorsofperception, myself with first class degree in philosophy, and all the experts in neurophilosophy and philosophy of mind with several Phds both 20th century and 21st century are all ignorant, and you are all knowing with your 5 classes of philosophy ;)

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 have neither advanced any arguments to prove why consciousness is produced by the brain other than an outdated fallacious one that only establishes relationships of correlation and not causality, and nor have you debunked any of the arguments I advanced for why brain cannot cause consciousness in the OP. You are not actually arguing anything, just screaming and shouting your claim "THE BRAIN PRODUCES CONSCIOUSNESS"

Please now actually produce better arguments to support your position or attempt to refute my own, or lets just call it a day dude :)
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Like I thought, not one single shred of evidence, not one single logical argument, your whole "reasoning" hinges on me only having taken 5 philisiphy classes. Well know what? Maybe you should have taken some real classes that taught you about facts instead of mindless ponderings!

When you have brain scans, scientific studies, empirical evidence, hell even something to support that psychology and science is wrong let us know. I mean, c'mon. You get on my case for saying some people are wrong yey you say all science, all psychology, and the entire western wolrd is wrong? What a joke.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Now, not only is the issue that you label as evidence falsifying QM called "theoretical", but no indication is given that the issue is with relativity, and only relativity, rather than involving problems in quantum theory. Even better, the authors specifically state right there, in their paper, that the issue isn't some problem with relativity, nor does their study show this. It's framed in terms of relativity(emphasis added):
"if two events are space-like separated, there is always a frame in which the two events are simultaneous...However, the operational definition of [the speed of quantum information] involves events (detections), that can be parametrized by using the standard relativistic formalism; in other words, a speed of quantum information can be defined formally in any frame."

In other words, to support your point about QM falsifying relativity, you indirectly cited a study which is all about the capacity of relativity to include QM.

How can relativity include QM?

Relativity is falsified as far as I am concerned. Einstein set up the EPR to falsify QM and he his theory ended up getting falsified instead :D

The fact that Relativity is still defended is just plain politics. This argument that QM does not falsify relativity because QM deals with the quantum and Relativity deals with 4D spacetime, is like saying Relativity does not falsify Newtonian mechanics, because Newtonian Mechanics deals with 3D space and not 4D spacetime :D
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Like I thought, not one single shred of evidence, not one single logical argument, your whole "reasoning" hinges on me only having taken 5 philisiphy classes. Well know what? Maybe you should have taken some real classes that taught you about facts instead of mindless ponderings!

When you have brain scans, scientific studies, empirical evidence, hell even something to support that psychology and science is wrong let us know. I mean, c'mon. You get on my case for saying some people are wrong yey you say all science, all psychology, and the entire western wolrd is wrong? What a joke.

Sigh, ok let's call it a day. Leave it to somebody else who knows their stuff to argue :D
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
How can relativity include QM?

Relativity is falsified as far as I am concerned. Einstein set up the EPR to falsify QM and he his theory ended up getting falsified instead :D
How does a thought experiment debunk an active testable theory?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
The government controlling our consciousness remotely is no joke! Only foil hats can interfere with the programming of our brains, well that and brain trauma. :)

That's ok, since apparently I can simply choose to teleport to Mars!
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
It's not a thought experiment, it is an actual experiment that has been carried out several times lol
Then you wouldn't mind citing these experiments.
It didn't actually indicate that the theory was false, just pointed out that it was incomplete.
It will certainly be incomplete till someone provides the theory of everything.
That's ok, since apparently I can simply choose to teleport to Mars!
Right, quantum tunneling FTW!
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Th
Right, quantum tunneling FTW!

Here's what I don't get; this position is so easy to prove. All the OP has to do is levitate for us, teleport for us, move something with his mind, read you thoughts, any number of things that would suggest he is right. So why can't he, nor any others with similar thoughts?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Here's what I don't get; this position is so easy to prove. All the OP has to do is levitate for us, teleport for us, move something with his mind, read you thoughts, any number of things that would suggest he is right. So why can't he, nor any others with similar thoughts?
That doesn't "prove" anything. Those things can be accomplished in ways other than mental manipulation.
 
Top