• 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

idav

Being
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?

Cause normally humans work by classical physics not quantum physics. We don't see thing going through walls because of newtonian physics prohibiting due spooky things like gravity and such.

I'm sure underneath somewhere our atoms are working at a quantum level but they are obviously severely restricted because my body parts don't go through each other and I manage to stay on land without falling through to the center of the earth.

Technology allows us to fight these restrictions but that doesn't mean the mind can do it without the physical help because we are not omnipotent by ourselves.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
But if it is not done by the mind alone it invalidates the given position. For example, levitating with mind is much different than taking a huge rocket to the moon.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Cause normally humans work by classical physics not quantum physics. We don't see thing going through walls because of newtonian physics prohibiting due spooky things like gravity and such.

I'm sure underneath somewhere our atoms are working at a quantum level but they are obviously severely restricted because my body parts don't go through each other and I manage to stay on land without falling through to the center of the earth.

Technology allows us to fight these restrictions but that doesn't mean the mind can do it without the physical help because we are not omnipotent by ourselves.

That is because consciousness holds it all together ;)

Samkhyakarika 17. Consciousness is a different substance not possessed of the properties of the gunas. There are 5 proofs for the separate existence of consciousness:

......

3. Because there must be some intelligence that supervises and coordinates various parts to function as a whole, upon whose absence the parts cease to function e.g. the when consciousness departs from the body, the body begins to disintegrate​
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Self-reference in a physical system is impossible, and here is why, the causes of mental states cannot themselves self-reference the state they cause Again a very ancient Samkhya argument:

Samkhyakarika 17: (Consciousness exists) Because there must be an experiencer of pain and pleasure. Matter, being possesed of the nature of pain and pleasure, cannot itself experience pain and pleasure. Thus a separate experiencer must be posited.
Sure, and matter doesn't do the experiencing. Minds do.

Nyaya refutes: that the properties of pain, pleasure, knowledge, delusion, ignorance are not found in any of the material elements, hence through a process of elimination we find that consciousness is the only locus of these qualities
Therefore, wetness is also an immaterial, all-pervading thing.


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.
What? A brain in a vat would still be concious, probably.

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.
Which is why one says, if one wishes to be pedantic, that love is generated by chemistry. However, because mind "is" a chemical configuration, we can say love, the thing-acting-on-mind, "is" the thing-acting-on-the-chemical-configuration.


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.
We do see such correlates.

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.
Correlation does not imply causation, true. But it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

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.
The radio analogy explains how it is possible for the brain to behave like a radio. It says nothing about whether or not it does.

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.
There is a 100% correlation between chemical changes (e.g. anathesia) and behavioural changes. The other idea, meanwhile, appears unfalsifiable in principle.


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.
Personally, I like the idea of physically-based conciousness because I want me some AI.


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

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.
One could read memories from the brain. However, there will almost certainly be compatibility issues unless you translate them carefully.

It is a basic fact of psychology that we have various states of consciousness. Conscious, subconscious and unconscious.
One of these things is not like the others. Namely, I don't think I can be "subconscious." I have a subconscious, but it's not a state I can be in.


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.
When I dream, I don't remember being concious, unless it becomes lucid.

This would be valid if your knowledge was actually better than theirs on this subject 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
Philosophy means nothing when the results are physically testable. Go. Do the experiment that shows conciousness generated by mind doesn't make sense, and publish the result.

If, that is, there is any experiment you can do. Which there doesn't appear to be. :shrug:
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
But if it is not done by the mind alone it invalidates the given position. For example, levitating with mind is much different than taking a huge rocket to the moon.

Yes and the article about levitation was using technology to do what the OP says is possible just with just mind.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Sure, and matter doesn't do the experiencing. Minds do.

Exactly my point, with the qualification a conscious mind does ;) But if your argument is that mind is just a configuration of matter which produces the emergence of consciousness, you need to explain how a physical process can experience itself?

In other other words how can Vodka become drunk itself lol

Therefore, wetness is also an immaterial, all-pervading thing.

Wetness is indeed immaterial, for it is a quality.

What? A brain in a vat would still be concious, probably.

The brain in the vat would be conscious of a virtual reality, not the reality of the brain in the vat. Like in the Matrix, the people wired to the matrix are experiencing a virtual reality.

Which is why one says, if one wishes to be pedantic, that love is generated by chemistry. However, because mind "is" a chemical configuration, we can say love, the thing-acting-on-mind, "is" the thing-acting-on-the-chemical-configuration.

It is equally possible the mind experiences love and the chemical configuration is its correlate.


We do see such correlates.

Correlation does not imply causation, true. But it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

Correlation suggests there a relationship between the mind and the body and this is impossible without the mind and the body being the same substance. Hence why Indian philosophers say the mind and the body are the same substance: matter. Mind is subtle matter and body is gross matter, and mind necessarily precedes body because subtle always precedes gross.

The radio analogy explains how it is possible for the brain to behave like a radio. It says nothing about whether or not it does.

No we don't actually know if it does or not. There is some indication it does from Karl Pribream's research that says memories are non-local.

There is a 100% correlation between chemical changes (e.g. anathesia) and behavioural changes. The other idea, meanwhile, appears unfalsifiable in principle.

Yes, I do not dispute there is correlation.

One could read memories from the brain. However, there will almost certainly be compatibility issues unless you translate them carefully.

Nobody has ever. If memories are really stored in the brain, surely we find the areas in the brain where they are stored. However, as Karl Pribream shows that there is no single location where the memories are stored, every cell in the brain can receive the memory. He himself does not believe the memories are stored in a physical brain at all.

One of these things is not like the others. Namely, I don't think I can be "subconscious." I have a subconscious, but it's not a state I can be in.


When I dream, I don't remember being concious, unless it becomes lucid.

You are conscious in all states. You are conscious during waking, during dreaming and during sleeping. How do we know? Because you yourself say "I was dreaming or I was not dreaming" or I was asleep or I was not asleep. Your consciousness is aware of all states. It is present at all times: past, present and future. There is no point when you are not conscious.

However, your conscious mind is not aware of all three states simultaneously, it can only be present in one state or the other at a time. However, we know that there is a subconscious mind too where all your recent thoughts are bubbling like your plans for the days, the events that happened in the day, the thought they triggered random memories. If we put our mind in a free and mindful state, we become aware of this subconscious aspect too. There is then the unconscious mind containing very deep habit patterns and memories and deep-seated thought, that you do not become aware of unless you allow your mind enters into deep states of consciousness.

We know that consciousness is present lucidly in all states from measuring brain waves in meditation. Beta, alpha, theta, delta and gamma. Delta and gamma are stated of deep unconsciousness, but they can be consciously entered through meditation. Therefore, we find consciousness is continuum and pervading every state.

Philosophy means nothing when the results are physically testable. Go. Do the experiment that shows conciousness generated by mind doesn't make sense, and publish the result.

If, that is, there is any experiment you can do. Which there doesn't appear to be. :shrug:

Epistemology does not have to be based on experiment. I accept rational argument and logic as a valid epistemology too. Some things cannot be experimentally proven, they require logical reasoning. As far as I am concerned as materialism is illogical I am not going to wait for experimental validation to show materialism is illogical, reason has already told me what I need to know.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How can relativity include QM?

Perhaps if you would read the studies you are relying on, you would learn.

Relativity is falsified as far as I am concerned.
Yet you have reached this conclusion through an interpretation of research you haven't read.

Einstein set up the EPR to falsify QM and he his theory ended up getting falsified instead :D

He didn't, and it didn't.

The fact that Relativity is still defended is just plain politics.
So you have said. The problem is that you seem to be describing a political motive behind research you haven't read at all. How can you say the the various academic works published via various media by physicists is the result of politics or anything else, if you haven't read them (but rely instead on summaries for general audiences found here or there, such as on wikipedia)?
 
Last edited:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I thought the point of string theory was to make quantum mechanics and general relativity work together.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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

Let's look at this argument a little more closely.

As you stated earlier, treating time as distinct from space still works pretty well most of the time (just as using classical mechanics to model macroscopic systems/phenomena is easier than using QM and pretty much gives the same answers). However, Einstein (and others), demonstrated first through theoretical and computational work and then empirical investigation that the "classical" view of time was inadequate and flawed, because it produced inaccuracies in models for things like celestial orbits, or measurements of the speed and motion of light. The framework of Newtonian mechanics predicts that, like everything else, the speed of light should be obey the additive property of velocity, and (as it has no mass) gravity shouldn't have any effect on it. However, neither is true. Special relativity took care of the first issue, and general the second.

Now, this in no way is meant to encapsulate the entirety of relativity or its importance physics, but rather to illustrate an issue with the idea that QM somehow "falsified" relativity. Relativity didn't just provide an accurate model for planetary orbits or show provide a framework for understanding Eddington's observations of the 1919 eclipse (the effect of the curvature of space on light and how this entails that light should be deflected by things like planets/moons). Like QM, it demonstrated fundamental problems with the classical framework and corrected them.

Yet you assert QM has falsified relativity, because according to your interpretation of various summaries or explanations of research you haven't read leads you to believe that the results of EPR, Bell, Aspect, and others demonstrate not just that there is some incompatibility between the two theories, but that one falsifies the other.

The issue, however, is that the various problems within the classical/Newtonian framework which were solved by relativity aren't a part of, nor can they be, QM. In other words, quantum theories consist of a framework of interpretation which varies quite a bit between physicists, a formal, mathematical abstraction which is much more consistent, and various methods of experimentation (also much more consistent between researchers). The mathematical models and the underlying theory have been enormously successful at predicting observations given some experimental method. But all of this, every bit of it, is true of relativity too.


There is one big difference though. Experiments in quantum mechanics consists of preparing some system and ending up with some results, and using the formalisms of QM both as a integral part of the experimental design, and even more so to represent what took place during the experiment and what the result was. What it doesn't involve is observing whatever it is that these mathematical abstractions are supposed to describe, or even if they are supposed to describe (rather than represent).

Imagine a giant coin machine. You can take all the coins you have, providing the are real coins, and poor them into this machine. You can't see what happens, but after a little while a certain number of dollar bills will come out. The amount which comes out is always equal to what you put in, but as there are different ways in which the same amount of money can be divided in bills (e.g., 5 $1 bills vs one $5), you can't know exactly what bills you will end up with, just what the total value will be. Also, given your extraordinary forensic mind when it comes to mathematics, you have formulated a good predictive model based on previous observations (i.e., other times you poured coins in) and your knowledge of combinatorics, probability, etc., you also have a pretty good idea given n number of x coins (of any type, and any combination of these types and amounts), how the machine will end up breaking down the total value of the coins you put in and outputting particular numbers of particular bill amounts ($1, $5, $10, etc.). You don't know what's going on inside the machine, though, because you can't see it, and although there is a certain regularity (predictability) to the way your coins are translated into bills, you aren't sure exactly how your calculations describe what's going on in the machine nor how nor why (does the machine randomly and arbitrarily divide the total amount of value of the coins into bills? Does it have a more general, but still not determined system? Does it start to turn the coins into bills almost immediately, or does it wait until no more coins are added to start dividing the total value into bills?).

In many ways, this is analogous to quantum research. We have inputs and outputs and mathematical models and symbols which work pretty well in a sense (akin to the way you know certain things about what will happen if you put a certain number of coins into the coin machine). But as all we can do is describe the before and after, that's all we can know for sure about what the models (the math) does: describe the before and after.

However, even with these restrictions, we can still show that it appears (despite measurement problems) that measurements in one region of "space" are related instantaneously to those in another region of space. And certain interpretations of this phenomenon appear to violate certain interpretations of relativity. However, different interpretations of either or both do not. Meanwhile, QM cannot account for a number of other observations which relativity does.

So why is it that the observations/experiments which relativity explains, but QM doesn't, don't matter (and don't "falsify" QM), but certain interpretations of certain measurements of QM violate certain interpretations of relativity?
 
Last edited:

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Exactly my point, with the qualification a conscious mind does ;) But if your argument is that mind is just a configuration of matter which produces the emergence of consciousness, you need to explain how a physical process can experience itself?
Because the physical process does not experience itself - the mind does not "experience" chemistry. The mind experiences itself - it experiences thinking, and knowing that it is experiencing.


Wetness is indeed immaterial, for it is a quality.
A better example would be viscosity.
It is equally possible the mind experiences love and the chemical configuration is its correlate.
But why would you think so without evidence of some external force?
Correlation suggests there a relationship between the mind and the body and this is impossible without the mind and the body being the same substance.
They are "the same substance," in that one is an abstract effect generated by the other. The mind isn't made of substance at all, since it's an abstract pattern.
Hence why Indian philosophers say the mind and the body are the same substance: matter. Mind is subtle matter and body is gross matter, and mind necessarily precedes body because subtle always precedes gross.
Considering matter-in-general pervades a very large portion of the universe, compared to us, wouldn't it make more sense to assign them the other around?
No we don't actually know if it does or not. There is some indication it does from Karl Pribream's research that says memories are non-local.
Nobody has ever. If memories are really stored in the brain, surely we find the areas in the brain where they are stored. However, as Karl Pribream shows that there is no single location where the memories are stored, every cell in the brain can receive the memory. He himself does not believe the memories are stored in a physical brain at all.
Of course memories aren't stored in a single location - even computer memory isn't stored like that, and it's a lot denser. However, we know memory is stored in the brain from the cases of amnesia caused by brain damage.
You are conscious in all states. You are conscious during waking, during dreaming and during sleeping. How do we know? Because you yourself say "I was dreaming or I was not dreaming" or I was asleep or I was not asleep.
I can form memories without being concious, though. Importantly, I can also dream and not form memories. (Or forget them so quickly I don't realize I had them in the first place.)
If we put our mind in a free and mindful state, we become aware of this subconscious aspect too.
How do you know? That is, how do you know that what you're becoming aware of is the subconscious?
There is then the unconscious mind containing very deep habit patterns and memories and deep-seated thought, that you do not become aware of unless you allow your mind enters into deep states of consciousness.
How are you avoiding observer biases and placebo effects, not to mention possibly hallucinogenic results?
We know that consciousness is present lucidly in all states from measuring brain waves in meditation. Beta, alpha, theta, delta and gamma. Delta and gamma are stated of deep unconsciousness, but they can be consciously entered through meditation. Therefore, we find consciousness is continuum and pervading every state.
They can voluntarily entered through meditation. What makes you think you remain concious of yourself, considering that AFAIK, the intended effect is to collapse the sense of self?
Some things cannot be experimentally proven, they require logical reasoning.
I don't think there's anything meaningful that can't, in principle, be experimented on.
 
The brain and consciousness are connected and apart of each other. They maybe seperate entities but they are very much connected in the physical realm.

Conscious I’d

I’ve been learning a lot about our science into the conscious mind.

Now to explain myself of knowledge that delves into the human psyche, I’m a little bit exposed to psychology in college, some exposure to hypnosis even going along into classes. But I did not stop there, I went out to learn more about the human psyche and read up on different techniques used in hypnosis. I’ve got beside me a book just read that comes with a cd on using regression for Physical, Emotional, and Spiritual Healing. My step mother had become hypnotherapies years ago to help people stop their bad habits. That influenced me a great deal. Brian L. Weiss, M.D. published his book called “Mirrors of time”. I was able to obtain and read this book with the cd. While reading this book, I was surprised to read about parts of the book explaining the principles behind the technique of hypnosis. What even surprised me more was he uses psychotherapy and hypnosis as his tools in helping out clients of his, so he does this for a living.

In Brian L. Weiss’s book, he wrote in Chapter Nine, “Hypnosis is actually a type of focused concentration while someone is relaxed-which is something we all experience, every single day. Now in Chapter Eight, he writes “you should not listen to the CD while driving a car. Occasionally, you may go too deep and fall a sleep while listening; this effect can be minimized by not listening at night or when tired, or by listening while sitting rather than lying down.

What I noticed is that his suggestion is to not be too relaxed and there by getting a controlled setting of how deep you may go into hypnosis. However, from what I’ve learned and what is written inside his book the deeper you relax in hypnosis and go down into a relax state the better to speak to your subconscious, and that is what hypnosis is about. It’s about going deep into a relax state in order to directly link to the subconscious part of yourself. From what I have been told the subconscious can work weather you’re aware of it or not, it’s more like a subliminal thing. It sounds like in Brian’s book suddenly he is making it out like reaching sleep will cause the subconscious mind to stop. However from what he mentions in going deeper and that others believe R.E.M. is just another deep state of relaxation, than the suggestions should still reach the subconscious mind weather your asleep or not.

The fact is while driving there are those who use subliminal recordings to speak with their subconscious mind while driving and have found them quite effective.

I’ve listen to the cd that Brian L. Weiss has made and it is very good quality recording with very helpful techniques on self healing using the subconscious mind. I do not agree with how to use the cd though and feel that if one were to sleep during it would be the most beneficial outcome from it.

The subconscious mind seems to be a very influential part of ourselves and can be easily affected on a subliminal level.
 
Top