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

[Nous]

I'm not going to play your silly games, so go troll elsewhere.

I've stated precisely what your silly claims imply: "If it measures the environment in some way and reacts as such, that would constitute "conscious" in my book." Thermostats measure the environment. Therefore thermostats are conscious in your book.

Your silly claims are definitely not found in any scholarly literature.

This is supposed to be a discussion on science that should be adult.

Then act like one.

 

[idav]

Define "physical".

Then explain how a "physical interaction" implies having a memory.

This is called a straw man argument. No one here has said or implied that "animals would have the same amount of memory capabilities" (same as what?) if consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon.

So in trying to make an argument that consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, free will) is a product of brains, begin with a proposition that you can show to be a true fact. (You will be able to link to the evidence demonstrating it to be a true fact.) Then proceed with your deduction, like this:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: [. . . ]

You misunderstand but I will put in logical form.

Memory implies physical interaction of some sort.
Consiousness is dependent on memory.
Therefore consciousness is dependent on physical and interaction.

Plants are an example of interaction without being aware of moment to moment, so to say memory doesn't necessarily imply consiousness but it's a necessary component.

It isn't the interaction of light hitting our eyes that makes consiousness but rather the memory of things seen that produces awareness.

 

[Willamena]

So a thermostat is conscious in your book.

Measurement doesn't occur in the device, but in reading the device.

 

[Nous]

You misunderstand but I will put in logical form.

Memory implies physical interaction of some sort.
Consiousness is dependent on memory.
Therefore consciousness is dependent on physical and interaction.

Identify your middle, subject and predicate terms there, and the copula.

Which of the premises do you claim is a fact that you can substantiate?

Your second premise implies that infants who do not have memories are not conscious. Is that what you want to say?

 

[Nous]

Measurement doesn't occur in the device, but in reading the device.

What does that mean?

A thermostat is a component which senses the temperature of a system so that the system's temperature is maintained near a desired setpoint.​

Thermostat - Wikipedia

To "sense" the temperature of a system is to measure the temperature of that system.

 

[Willamena]

What does that mean?

A thermostat is a component which senses the temperature of a system so that the system's temperature is maintained near a desired setpoint.​

Thermostat - Wikipedia

To "sense" the temperature of a system is to measure the temperature of that system.

A sensor gets read.

 

[Nous]

A sensor gets read.

Wow.

Thermostats can be constructed in many ways and may use a variety of sensors to measure the temperature, commonly a thermistor or bimetallic strip.​

Thermostat - Wikipedia

All you had to do is just continue reading the article. You would have learned that sensors measure

 

[QuestioningMind]

The clumsy Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this") denotes the fallacy of inferring causation from correlation. I am unsure if such fallacious reasoning is the primary method by which people infer that something in brains produces consciousness. In any case, there is no need to bother with that kind of argument here.

It would seem that one really needs to be able to argue that the properties of brain components or processes logically give rise to mental phenomena (self-consciousness, free will, beliefs, etc.). But it also seems that we already know that they don't--e.g., there is just no amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena.

So what are any arguments that something in the brain produces consciousness?

Is there any logical or empirical reason to dispute that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon (like energy)?

Can you cite an example of consciousness being present without a brain? I won't go as far as to say that a brain is required for consciousness, but the only examples of consciousness I've ever encountered have indeed required a brain. The evidence is not conclusive, but it certainly suggests that a brain is a fundamental requirement.

Not sure what you mean by "...we already know that they don't--e.g., there is just no amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena." Who calculated what amount or complexity of neural electrical activity is required for consciousness and concluded that the human brain falls short?

 

[idav]

Identify your middle, subject and predicate terms there, and the copula.

Which of the premises do you claim is a fact that you can substantiate?

Your second premise implies that infants who do not have memories are not conscious. Is that what you want to say?

Did I not use proper sentence syntax. I'm not understanding your first request.

Memory needing some sort of interaction can be well established. What can't be established is having memories of other people's or past lives with any sort of objectivity.

I'm not trying to say when a person blacks out but continues functioning that they aren't conscious. However there is a fine line between an animal being purely reactionary vs actually retaining memory and being able to recall and use it. Babies could even be in between those states until the brain is more functional.

 

[Nous]

Can you cite an example of consciousness being present without a brain?

Examples of people having complex, coherent experiences, forming memories, engaging in logical thought processes and having veridical perceptions (from an out-of-body perspective) when their brains are not functioning can be found in the OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

Not sure what you mean by "...we already know that they don't--e.g., there is just no amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena." Who calculated what amount or complexity of neural electrical activity is required for consciousness

No one has calculated the amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces consciousness, because, as the sentence states, there is no amount of complex of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces consciousness.

Humans can make highly complex electrical configurations (see the electrical grid of NYC). None of that complexity or amount of electrical activity logically leads to the idea that consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, free will, etc.) arises from that configuration at some point. Electricity does not have any properties that logically leads to the idea that consciousness will be an effect at some point.

 

[Yerda]

What do you argue other than that something about “electrodes stimulating certain parts of the brain” causes this experience? By saying “will result in the same experience every time,” you are saying that the experience is an effect of the electrode stimulation of “certain parts of the brain,” no?

From what I've heard it looks that way.

If I were able to go back in time and show my laptop to someone back in the 1930s, plug the battery in, turn the laptop on and take him for a cruise around the internet, then take the battery out so that it all died, then plug the battery back in, get online again, he could utilize the principles of cum hoc ergo propter hoc and conclude that the battery produces the internet. Is your argument going to be different than that?

Maybe. I haven't thought it through yet.

If I were to take a cable and stick it into the back of your laptop and start stimulating it electrically and each time I did so a segment in the bottom right of the screen flashed green would you argue it was definitely not caused by the impulses I was sending?

I know of no properties possessed by electricity ("zapping") or biological cells such as neurons that can logically produce intentions, beliefs, awareness and self-awareness, free will, etc. Do you?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If it is the case that mucking about with the brain can alter the experience a person has, is that not an indicator that the brain state is responsible for the experience?

 

[Nous]

Did I not use proper sentence syntax. I'm not understanding your first request.

A syllogism consists of 3 terms (and a copula), and a deduction (a valid conclusion) requires certain configurations of those 3 terms: Syllogism - Wikipedia

I asked for an argument. You have not made an argument.

Again, begin with a fact that you can substantiate, then make a deduction.

Memory needing some sort of interaction can be well established.

Did you read the OPs at the thread on NDEs? What do you claim was the "some sort of interaction" in the brain of Dr. Rudy's patient who not only observed but remembered seeing Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo talking in the doorway with their arms folded?

 

[Nous]

What do you argue other than that something about “electrodes stimulating certain parts of the brain” causes this experience? By saying “will result in the same experience every time,” you are saying that the experience is an effect of the electrode stimulation of “certain parts of the brain,” no?

From what I've heard it looks that way.

Why don't you link to this study?

Assuming that you have correctly described it, how is the conclusion (based on correlation) that that particular repeatable experience is produced by electricity different from the conclusion of the 1930s person who infers that the battery of my laptop produces the internet?

If I were to take a cable and stick it into the back of your laptop and start stimulating it electrically and each time I did so a segment in the bottom right of the screen flashed green would you argue it was definitely not caused by the impulses I was sending?

No, I wouldn't. Let me make an analogy: even by assuming that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon, which is received (and transmitted) by brains, one can also assert that a functioning brain (like a functioning TV set or internet-receiving computer) is necessary so that third parties can observe any effects that consciousness might cause. (Is that clear? If not, I'll try again.)

I'm not sure I understand the question.

What are the properties of electricity or of a biological cell that logically lead to the idea of consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, free will, etc.) arises from them?

If it is the case that mucking about with the brain can alter the experience a person has, is that not an indicator that the brain state is responsible for the experience?

That would be an example of inferring causation from correlation, would it not?

 

[idav]

A syllogism consists of 3 terms (and a copula), and a deduction (a valid conclusion) requires certain configurations of those 3 terms: Syllogism - Wikipedia

I asked for an argument. You have not made an argument.

Again, begin with a fact that you can substantiate, then make a deduction.

Did you read the OPs at the thread on NDEs? What do you claim was the "some sort of interaction" in the brain of Dr. Rudy's patient who not only observed but remembered seeing Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo talking in the doorway with their arms folded?

I did make an argument though, I had a premise in there followed by "therefore".

I suggested in that thread that quantum mechanics allows for interactions that are out of our usual scope. There wouldn't be any immaterial aspect to it, there are logical explanations for nde's that don't require invoking supernatural.

 

[Nous]

I did make an argument though, I had a premise in there followed by "therefore".

That is a pitifully sad statement coming from an adult. You didn't make an logical argument. Logical arguments do not merely consist of a premise followed by "therefore".

I linked to the Wikipedia article on syllogisms. Were you unable to assimilate any information from it on how to make an argument?

I suggested in that thread that quantum mechanics allows for interactions that are out of our usual scope. There wouldn't be any immaterial aspect to it, there are logical explanations for nde's that don't require invoking supernatural.

If you ever finish knocking down straw men, why don't try answering the questions I asked in the OP? What are any arguments that something in the brain produces consciousness? And: Is there any logical or empirical reason to dispute that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon (like energy)?

 

[idav]

That is a pitifully sad statement coming from an adult. You didn't make an logical argument. Logical arguments do not merely consist of a premise followed by "therefore".

I linked to the Wikipedia article on syllogisms. Were you unable to assimilate any information from it on how to make an argument?

If you ever finish knocking down straw men, why don't try answering the questions I asked in the OP? What are any arguments that something in the brain produces consciousness? And: Is there any logical or empirical reason to dispute that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon (like energy)?

Your not even arguing any of the premises, I made a lot of claims.

 

[idav]



A syllogism consists of 3 terms (and a copula), and a deduction (a valid conclusion) requires certain configurations of those 3 terms: Syllogism - Wikipedia

I asked for an argument. You have not made an argument.

Again, begin with a fact that you can substantiate, then make a deduction.

Did you read the OPs at the thread on NDEs? What do you claim was the "some sort of interaction" in the brain of Dr. Rudy's patient who not only observed but remembered seeing Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo talking in the doorway with their arms folded?

I gave a three line argument similar to your link. Similar to the example, All Men are Mortal, Greeks are Men, therefore Greeks are Mortal.

Here it is again.

Memory implies physical interaction of some sort.
Consiousness is dependent on memory.
Therefore consciousness is dependent on physical and interaction

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The clumsy Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this") denotes the fallacy of inferring causation from correlation. I am unsure if such fallacious reasoning is the primary method by which people infer that something in brains produces consciousness. In any case, there is no need to bother with that kind of argument here.

It would seem that one really needs to be able to argue that the properties of brain components or processes logically give rise to mental phenomena (self-consciousness, free will, beliefs, etc.). But it also seems that we already know that they don't--e.g., there is just no amount or complexity of neuron electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena.

So what are any arguments that something in the brain produces consciousness?

Is there any logical or empirical reason to dispute that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon (like energy)?

Just one question, if I may -- have you (or anyone else reading this) EVER seen an example of consciousness without the presence of an operational brain? One single example will more than suffice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What is the evidence by which one can conclude that plants have consciousness?

They turn towards the direction of the sun. How could they do that without knowing (being consciousness) of where the sun is?

(That question, by the way, may begin to help some of us think a little more carefully about what consciousness actually is -- not just responding to stimulus, which chemical reactions and billiard balls do, but being aware that you have done so. For that reason, by the way, I do NOT suppose that plants have consciousness.)

 

[idav]

They turn towards the direction of the sun. How could they do that without knowing (being consciousness) of where the sun is?

(That question, by the way, may begin to help some of us think a little more carefully about what consciousness actually is -- not just responding to stimulus, which chemical reactions and billiard balls do, but being aware that you have done so. For that reason, by the way, I do NOT suppose that plants have consciousness.)

What plants show are the beginnings of consciousness. Our consciousness would be a more sophisticated version of chemical reactions. Plants can have memory, the Mimosa plant has long term memory. There are levels of consciousness increased by ability to see events in time rather than just space.