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

[siti]

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

...and finds he cannot, after all, exclude the brain.

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

Which part of "No" did you not understand?

 

[Nous]

...and finds he cannot, after all, exclude the brain.

He obviously doesn't suggest that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains. Brains are just objects made of quanta, like everything else is.

Which part of "No" did you not understand?

Then please explain what is the physical origin of energy.

 

[SpiritQuest]

What is energy?
The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I Ch. 4: Conservation of Energy

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “ " —always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

 

[Nous]

It is an abstract thing . . .

If you notice earlier in this thread, a couple of people claimed that one can see energy.

 

[siti]

He obviously doesn't suggest that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains. Brains are just objects made of quanta, like everything else is.

And consciousness is an effect of quantum reality working on the quantum reality of the brain.

Then please explain what is the physical origin of energy.

Energy doesn't have an origin - it just is - (First Law of Thermodynamics). But it is physical.

 

[Nous]

And consciousness is an effect of quantum reality working on the quantum reality of the brain.

Prove it. Stapp doesn't say that.

Energy doesn't have an origin - it just is

Then there should be no problem with consciousness not having an origin.

But it is physical.

Define "physical," then prove that energy is "physical". @SpiritQuest just quoted Feymann noting that energy is an abstract entity.

 

[leibowde84]

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

No, just that it is a possibility. We don't know enough about consciousness to count it out. I am not an expert on neuroscience.

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?

Again, I am no expert. I am merely saying that we cannot definitively say that brains are not responsible for consciousness ... your assertion that it was logically not possible.

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?

I won't, sure. But, I am not an expert. And, we don't know what future discoveries will bring in regards to this understanding. This seems like the argument from ignorance that many creationists employ. That, because we don't have a demonstrable theory for how life or the universe arose out of nothing, it is reasonable to assume that God, a supernatural force, is responsible.

 

[siti]

Prove it. Stapp doesn't say that.

"Can any purely physical account explain it? If by a physical account one
means a quantum mechanical account then the actualization is an integral part
of the physical account, and is thus explained by that account. But it cannot
be explained within the ontology of classical mechanics. For classical mechanics
has no events that are actualizations of potentia, and no concept of a potentia
that is a mere objective tendency for an actualization to occur.

Is the material of which the brain is made crucial, or is it only the functional
aspect that is critical? The material must support the quantum theoretic
generation of the possible templates, and the actualization of one of them. The
conscious process is a real process of quantum actualization, not a simulation of
that process in which this actualization does not actually occur." - Stapp, same paper p.22-23​

Then there should be no problem with consciousness not having an origin.

If consciousness is fundamental it doesn't need one. But that does not mean it is not an integral part of physical reality (as Stapp indicates in the first paragraph of the above quote).

Define "physical," then prove that energy is "physical". @SpiritQuest just quoted Feymann noting that energy is an abstract entity.

Following Stapp, if energy can be accounted for by "a quantum mechanical account" then it is "an integral part of the physical account, and is thus explained by that (physical) account". Are you suggesting that energy is not accounted for by the "quantum mechanical account"? I haven't read the Feynman quote, but do you suppose that he is suggesting that energy is not accounted for by the quantum mechanical account of reality?

 

[Evie]

And consciousness is an effect of quantum reality working on the quantum reality of the brain.

Energy doesn't have an origin - it just is - (First Law of Thermodynamics). But it is physical.

What energy. Or spirit projected into an ancient mind a profound truth unproven as an absolute truth until 1522. In 760 BC Isaiah 40:22 states 'it is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth'. Just how did such a conception enter that human mind?

 

[Evie]

T

What energy. Or spirit projected into an ancient mind a profound truth unproven as an absolute truth until 1522. In 760 BC Isaiah 40:22 states 'it is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth'. Just how did such a conception enter that human mind?

he earth was believed flat until proven round in 1522.

 

[Evie]

T

he earth was believed flat until proven round in 1522.

No human brain possessed that profound truth. So how did the mind of Isaiah conceive of it?

 

[siti]

Sorry Evie but that is incorrect. For one thing the idea of a spherical earth was well-established in Classical antiquity - it was known to at least some Greek thinkers at least as early as the 6th century BC and was well-established in Greek thought by the time of Aristotle in the 4th century BC. In the medieval period most scholars believed the earth to be spherical. By 1522, Magellan's successful circumnavigation only provided more compelling evidence to what most people in Europe and the Middle East already knew. The idea of a flat earth being the common understanding before that was (like most of the Bahai understanding of anything as far as I can make out) a myth invented in the 19th century but was not a true reflection.

In any case, what does this have to do with the current topic?

 

[Evie]

Sorry Evie but that is incorrect. For one thing the idea of a spherical earth was well-established in Classical antiquity - it was known to at least some Greek thinkers at least as early as the 6th century BC and was well-established in Greek thought by the time of Aristotle in the 4th century BC. In the medieval period most scholars believed the earth to be spherical. By 1522, Magellan's successful circumnavigation only provided more compelling evidence to what most people in Europe and the Middle East already knew. The idea of a flat earth being the common understanding before that was (like most of the Bahai understanding of anything as far as I can make out) invented in the 19th century but was not a true reflection.

In any case, what does this have to do with the current topic?

It may have been theorised and believed as being round. spherical but was not an accepted fact till proven by sailing round it. And it is relevant to topic of the brain and consciousness and the energy factor. Isaiah conceived of it purely in his mind without all the experimentation by the Greeks etch. How can you explain that?

 

[Evie]

A

It may have been theorised and believed as being round. spherical but was not an accepted fact till proven by sailing round it. And it is relevant to topic of the brain and consciousness and the energy factor. Isaiah conceived of it purely in his mind without all the experimentation by the Greeks etch. How can you explain that?

lso. Magellan was killed by Phillipine natives during the voyage and it was the next in command Spaniard Juan Sebastian Elcano who continued the trip and on Sept. 6th 1522 arrived at Seville completing the circumnavigation. Charles 1 of Spain in recognition of the feat gave Elcano a coat of arms with the motto Primus Circumdedistime in Latin. 'You went round me first'

 

[Evie]

A

lso. Magellan was killed by Phillipine natives during the voyage and it was the next in command Spaniard Juan Sebastian Elcano who continued the trip and on Sept. 6th 1522 arrived at Seville completing the circumnavigation. Charles 1 of Spain in recognition of the feat gave Elcano a coat of arms with the motto Primus Circumdedistime in Latin. 'You went round me first'

A proven fact

A

lso. Magellan was killed by Phillipine natives during the voyage and it was the next in command Spaniard Juan Sebastian Elcano who continued the trip and on Sept. 6th 1522 arrived at Seville completing the circumnavigation. Charles 1 of Spain in recognition of the feat gave Elcano a coat of arms with the motto Primus Circumdedistime in Latin. 'You went round me first'

i take it by no reply that you are unable to explain how in 760BC Isaiah conceived of such a profound truth purely and solely by it being conceived in his mind.

 

[Nous]

No, just that it is a possibility. We don't know enough about consciousness to count it out.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I am merely saying that we cannot definitively say that brains are not responsible for consciousness

Exactly like we can't definitely say that elephants can't hide in mouse holes.

Name some process occurring in brains that could logically produce volition--the ability to choose between available options.

 

[Nous]

"Can any purely physical account explain it? If by a physical account one
means a quantum mechanical account then the actualization is an integral part
of the physical account, and is thus explained by that account. But it cannot
be explained within the ontology of classical mechanics. For classical mechanics
has no events that are actualizations of potentia, and no concept of a potentia
that is a mere objective tendency for an actualization to occur.

Is the material of which the brain is made crucial, or is it only the functional
aspect that is critical? The material must support the quantum theoretic
generation of the possible templates, and the actualization of one of them. The
conscious process is a real process of quantum actualization, not a simulation of
that process in which this actualization does not actually occur." - Stapp, same paper p.22-23​

That's a good example of Stapp not saying that "consciousness is an effect of quantum reality".

Following Stapp, if energy can be accounted for by "a quantum mechanical account" then it is "an integral part of the physical account, and is thus explained by that (physical) account".

Show us that energy is "accounted for by a quantum mechanical account".

 

[Evie]

M

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Exactly like we can't definitely say that elephants can't hide in mouse holes.

Name some process occurring in brains that could logically produce volition--the ability to choose between available options.

Maybe you can explain how profound knowledge came into a human mind centuries and centuries before it was even considered true let alone a proven fact. From what place of all knowing could it have come? Back in 760BC when Isaiah of the Bible stated in scripture 40:22 'it is he that sitteth on the circle of the earth'.

 

[Evie]

Al

M

Maybe you can explain how profound knowledge came into a human mind centuries and centuries before it was even considered true let alone a proven fact. From what place of all knowing could it have come? Back in 760BC when Isaiah of the Bible stated in scripture 40:22 'it is he that sitteth on the circle of the earth'.

the scientific words cannot explain the transference of knowledge into a human mind. Cannot explain the source of the knowledge let alone the transference. Knowledge that had no existence in terms of being historical knowledge.

 

[Evie]

S

Al

the scientific words cannot explain the transference of knowledge into a human mind. Cannot explain the source of the knowledge let alone the transference. Knowledge that had no existence in terms of being historical knowledge.

Such knowledge, completely unknown at that point in time, had to have come from somewhere. A place which possessed all knowledge? But science will not accept that. A universal consciousness perhaps? Or is there another possibility?