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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Little electrical-type impulses that have been measured, but they are not uniform from one species of plant to another.

Indeed, if we think about it, plants have to "decide" when to grow, which direction to grow, when to flower, and when to go dormant. IOW, they must in some way be able to measure outside environmental factors to determine what to do next.

That's the gist of it.

But of course, Metis, I think you have to admit that all of what you say could be nothing more than stimulus-response. The billiard ball can do that having been struck by a cue ball with a particular force, direction and just-so English, without being aware. And I think that's the key.

To me, consciousness means not only responding to stimulus, but awareness of your response -- which then allows for the possibility of altering that response.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

And yet I still cannot see it as "consciousness" until there is -- there's only one word for it -- "feedback" that permits a mitigation to what would otherwise be a predetermined reaction to a stimulus.

Feedback is what makes consciousness. We know, and we know THAT we know. The talented actor can his reflex reaction to the doctor's hammer on his knee. He can really change himself based on what he knows -- or on what he imagines he knows . See Hamlet's speech after the actors have left the room:

Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage wann'd,
Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing!

That's the power of consciousness. That's why nature might select for it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I think it is deeper than that. Stimulus-response is not, in my opinion, conscious. What is required is a central nervous system capable of feedback -- that is, the reaction can be "fed back" into the reactor, for further processing.

 

[idav]

I think it is deeper than that. Stimulus-response is not, in my opinion, conscious. What is required is a central nervous system capable of feedback -- that is, the reaction can be "fed back" into the reactor, for further processing.

Yes, the further processing it needs is ability too see events in time, where as a simpler animal would just be a reaction in space with no processing of past present and future.

 

[QuestioningMind]

"Nous, post: 5088384, member: 58816"]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?"

1. All of your examples are from individuals who have brains 2. There's a huge difference between an individual having no brain functions that current science can detect and stating that their brains were not functioning. The latter is an unsubstantiated conclusion.

"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."

Sorry, but that's a completely incorrect statement. Since the amount that we don't know about how the brain works remains vast, it's impossible for you or anyone else to determine the amount of complexity of the neuronal electrical activity that currently exists within the human brain. So how did you come to the conclusion that 'logic' dictates it's insufficient to produce 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."

Who ever claimed that electricity alone is sufficient to create consciousness? You're talking as if the human brain is made out of nothing but electricity. Electrical impulses firing between neurons within the brain is definitely a PART of human consciousness, but to suggest that a human brain isn't producing consciousness simply because when we created the NYC electrical grid its didn't become conscious is just plain silly. The human brain is currently the least understood organ in the human body, but you're suggesting that we understand it so well that we can 'logically' conclude that the amount of neuronal electrical activity that takes place could never produce consciousness. That's simply not the case.

 

[MD]

Anyone who spends time studying neuroscience and neurophilosophy can tell you that there are three main views

a) We think so and one day will prove it
b) We don't think so and it's unprovable
c) We will never know, no point thinking about it

I was once b, but now I'm more along the lines of c. Consciousness will be a mystery for a long time, possibly thousands of years. The brain does not create experience.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm not going to play your silly games, so go troll elsewhere. This is supposed to be a discussion on science that should be adult.

I thought that was an honest question ?.

 

[idav]

Anyone who spends time studying neuroscience and neurophilosophy can tell you that there are three main views

a) We think so and one day will prove it
b) We don't think so and it's unprovable
c) We will never know, no point thinking about it

I was once b, but now I'm more along the lines of c. Consciousness will be a mystery for a long time, possibly thousands of years. The brain does not create experience.

I see, C a lot which to me is plea to ignorance. As if the brain gives us no clues that it's in charge.

 

[metis]

But of course, Metis, I think you have to admit that all of what you say could be nothing more than stimulus-response.

To me, consciousness means not only responding to stimulus, but awareness of your response -- which then allows for the possibility of altering that response.

Which is why it largely depends on how one may define "consciousness". I see it more as a continuum versus being either/or, although there's a point whereas it doesn't likely exist.

Therefore, to me, a plant likely has a low-level of "consciousness" as it is responding to external stimuli, however I don't think it would do too well on a calculus exam.

 

[MD]

I see, C a lot which to me is plea to ignorance. As if the brain gives us no clues that it's in charge.

We have debated this in the past many times and your arguments have been thoroughly refuted over and over again. By myself and other RF posters.

 

[McBell]

Pondering the question of whether consciousness exists can only be done if consciousness does exist.

Except that I can ponder the existence of a Klingon Bird of Prey till the cows come home and it still does not exist outside imagination.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Show me a single example of consciousness occurring without a brain and I'll start to take this nonsense more seriously. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

I've seen it occurring with marginally operating brains. Very recently, in fact.

 

[idav]

We have debated this in the past many times and your arguments have been thoroughly refuted over and over again. By myself and other RF posters.

Thoroughly refuted, like somehow someone has seen passed our ignorance to prove consiousness doesn't come from the brain? I highly doubt it. Would be like saying some atheist has proven universe can't come from god.

 

[Nous]

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

Yes, you have made a lot of claims. You haven't substantiated that any of your claims are true. In addition, you haven't been able to deduce any true conclusion from any of your claims. Do so now.

 

[Nous]



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

If it were true that your 3 statements constitute a syllogism, then you will be able to identify your subject, predicate and middle terms and the copula. Like this:

All M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, all S are P.

Logic is just math. Show your equation.

 

[Nous]

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.

That question was asked and answered a couple of times already. 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?

 

[Nous]

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

Rocks roll downhill. How can they do that without knowing (being conscious of) which way is down?

(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.)

So on what basis do you conclude that plants are conscious? (I definitely don't conclude it, either. Consciousness is obviously not required of an object for it to move.)

 

[Nous]

2. There's a huge difference between an individual having no brain functions that current science can detect and stating that their brains were not functioning.

What is that "huge difference" between "an individual having no brain functions that current science can detect and stating that their brains were not functioning" Provide the evidence that there is such difference (especially a "huge" one).

"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."

Sorry, but that's a completely incorrect statement.

If mine is an untrue statement, then just show where someone "has calculated the amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces consciousness".

Who ever claimed that electricity alone is sufficient to create consciousness? You're talking as if the human brain is made out of nothing but electricity. Electrical impulses firing between neurons within the brain is definitely a PART of human consciousness

OK. What are the properties of electricity and neurons that logically imply that consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, free will) should be an effect?

 

[Nous]

Anyone who spends time studying neuroscience and neurophilosophy can tell you that there are three main views

a) We think so and one day will prove it
b) We don't think so and it's unprovable
c) We will never know, no point thinking about it

Do you not get the impression that there are some people posting on this very thread who believe that there is some fact from which one can deduce that brains produce consciousness?