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

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ooh, neat. What do you mean by distributed?

Not all animals have a single brain or one located in a skull.
Even some of the basic functions of our brains are performed well away from our brain.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Actually Parnia is not referring to any "mysteries of the human brain," but to the evidence that contradicts what has been assumed (by some people) about the brain causing consciousness. And that assumption is definitely, unequivocally, not maybe, that when cerebral functioning is so impaired as it in during and after resuscitation from cardiac arrest, people should not be having complex, coherent experiences, forming memories, engaging in logical thought processes, and (even with a fully functioning brain) shouldn't ever be having veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective.

Again, all you're saying here is that based upon what we know so far a person SHOULDN'T have complex thought processes. That doesn't mean that when we learn more about how this mysterious organ works that our current assumptions might be proven wrong. We've been redefining when actual death occurs for a long time. At one time a person was considered dead when they stopped breathing or their heart stopped. Today we understand that we can measure brain functions even after these bodily functions have ceased. Today we consider a person to be dead once we can no longer measure electrical activity within their brains. That doesn't mean that ten/twenty years from now we won't discover that the brain continues to function on some level we're currently unable to detect for several seconds or even minutes after all measurable electrical activity has ceased. We simply don't know.

During (and immediately after resuscitation from) clinical death, a person should be having no experiences, much less coherent ones that include logical thought processes, and which the person can subsequently recall . . . if consciousness were a product of brain functioning.

Since when the brain actually stops function is debatable, how about providing an example of consciousness that exists without any connection to a brain whatsoever? That is to say, you're claiming that a person with a functioning brain who possesses consciousness will continue to possess consciousness even after the brain has stopped functioning. Can you give me an example of a consciousness that existed prior to ever having a brain? If consciousness exists without brains it seems reasonable that you should be able to cite such an example.

 

[Falvlun]

Not all animals have a single brain or one located in a skull.
Even some of the basic functions of our brains are performed well away from our brain.

Interesting. I knew that some animals have multiple ganglia regions, but didn't know humans had something similar. Are you considering things like the spinal cord, and endocrine system to be part of this distributed brain, or is it something else?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Interesting. I knew that some animals have multiple ganglia regions, but didn't know humans had something similar. Are you considering things like the spinal cord, and endocrine system to be part of this distributed brain, or is it something else?

I would suggest muscle memory is part of this distribution. As it short circuits the normal brain link.
Yet is under our control.Unlike say breathing which normally adjusts itself.

 

[HonestJoe]

Here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

I fail to see how any of the various NDE accounts support any concept of and an external source for consciousness or counters the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain. While some (though not all) NDEs involve periods of little or no brain activity, every patient obviously has brain activity before and after that point. As far as I’m aware, there has never been anything to support the idea that the memories the patients report afterwards were generated during the actual period there was no brain activity rather than the periods of brain activity (often intense brain activity) immediately before or after that. Everything I’ve seen about experiments to specifically identify that have been inconclusive to date (though it isn’t an easy area to work in).

The other problem with this idea of some kind of external force is that there has never been any kind of consistent definition or hypothesis presented and (inevitable) literally zero evidence that such a force could exist, let alone that it actually does. The idea that there is some kind of energy that has been passing to the minds of every single conscious being throughout history and yet we’ve never had the slightest hint that it exists strikes me as unrealistic at best.

 

[Nous]

Cardiac death and brain death are different things. Someone in cardiac death is not necessarily brain dead, and vice versa. I assume you know this, but your post above seems to conflate them.

I certainly didn't conflate any terms that I didn't use. I didn't use either "cardiac death" (what's that? "clinical death"?) or "brain dead". Nothing I said implies that clinical death is anything other than clinical death:

Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain human and many other organisms' lives.[1]

[. . .]

At the onset of clinical death, consciousness is lost within several seconds. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds.[2]​

Clinical death - Wikipedia

Obviously the having of complex, coherent experiences, forming of memories, engaging in logical thought processes, and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective during clinical death is inexplicable if consciousness were a product of brains. As Dr. van Lommel succinctly explains:

The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain. Parnia et al. (2001) and Parnia and Fenwick (2002) write that the data from several NDE studies suggest that the NDE arises during unconsciousness, and this is a surprising conclusion, because when the brain is so dysfunctional that the patient is deeply comatose, the cerebral structures, which underpin subjective experience and memory, must be severely impaired. Complex experiences such as are reported in the NDE should not arise or be retained in memory. Such patients would be expected to have no subjective experience, as was the case in the vast majority of patients who survive cardiac arrest, or at best a confusional state if some brain function is retained. The fact that in a cardiac arrest loss of cortical function precedes the rapid loss of brainstem activity lends further support to this view. An alternative explanation would be that the observed experiences arise during the loss of, or on regaining consciousness. The transition from consciousness to unconsciousness is rapid, and appearing immediate to the subject. Experiences that occur during the recovery of consciousness are confusional, which these were not. In fact, memory is a very sensitive indicator of brain injury and the length of amnesia before and after unconsciousness is an indicator of the severity of the injury. Therefore, one should not expect that events that occur just prior to or just after loss of consciousness should be clearly recalled.​

http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Near-Death Experience_Consciousness and the Brain.pdf

Dr. Parnia further explains why people do not become suddenly alert and mentally functional with the ability to be aware and recall one's surroundings immediately after resuscitation from clinical death, especially when a person has been clinically dead for any extended period at all.

Near Death Experiences explained by science

• Out of body experiences can be caused by stimulating the right temporoparietal junction of the brain

Obviously all incidents of veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective, such as those of Pam Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's patient, are proof that such perceptions do not originate from signals transmitted to and from the sense organs

No part of Pam Reynolds' brain was being stimulated when she was anesthetized and her eyes taped shut at the time when, according to the surgeon, the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades were brought out, which she was able to see, remember and later accurately described, along with other aspects of the surgery from the perspective above the surgeon's shoulder.

After Dr. Rudy had declared his patient dead due to having no heart beat or blood pressure for more than 20 minutes, the patient was able to perceive, form a memory of and subsequently report seeing Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo talking in the doorway with their arms folded. As Dr. Amado-Cattaneo noted, all patients' eyes are closed and usually taped closed during surgery. Thus the patient's observation and memory of the two doctors talking in the doorway with their arms folded could not have been observed with his eyes and the signals processed through a functioning visual cortex. The patient also accurately saw, formed a memory of and later reported seeing the string of Post-it Notes taped to Dr. Rudy's monitor, which Amado-Cattaneo confirmed was not within the patient's line of vision even if he had had his eyes open.

So, try again. You haven't accounted for these veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective.

Abnormal functioning of neurotransmitters, like dopamine, can cause hallucinations

Pam Reynolds, Dr. Rudy's patient, the Parnia 2014 patient, et al., were obviously not hallucinating.

Nor were the congenitally blind persons described by Dr. Ring hallucinating. You haven't accounted for the fact Vicki and Brad saw visual imagery for the first time in their lives, and were able to provide accurate details that they could not have seen.

• Self-fulfilling prophecy: you expect some things to happen, and your brain obliges.

The van Lommel et al. study found that whether or not a patient had an NDE was not associated with the duration of cardiac arrest (presumably a proxy measure of degree of hypoxia) or unconsciousness, medications, fear of death before cardiac arrest, religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or education.

So try again.

 

[Nous]

I fail to see how any of the various NDE accounts support any concept of and an external source for consciousness or counters the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain.

How does the idea that consciousness is generated in the brain account for the veridical perceptions of Pam Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's patient? How does the idea that consciousness is generated in the brain account for the lucid experiences, memory formation and logical thoughts processes reported during clinical death?

(Hint: that idea doesn't account for any of that.)

While some (though not all) NDEs involve periods of little or no brain activity, every patient obviously has brain activity before and after that point.

I can't count the number of times I've had to address this issue on this thread and the other thread. It's almost like people who are not brain dead are having a problem taking in very simple information.

Please read the following from Dr. Parnia and summarize what it says (my underlining):

Many critically ill patients have recalled lucid, well-structured thought processes together with reasoning and memory formation as well as consciousness from their period of cardiac arrest resuscitation. These vary from images of bright lights and tunnels to the very interesting recollection of actual verified events from their period of resuscitation in which people describe a feeling of separation from their bodies and being able to ‘watch’ themselves, as if from a vantage point above (out of body experience). Although initially largely anecdotal, recently four studies in cardiac arrest survivors have been carried out which have confirmed that 11–20% of cardiac arrest survivors report these experiences [21–24]. Out of body experiences have been reported in approximately 25% of patients who report mental states from during their period of cardiac arrest [22]. These experiences do not appear to be due to changes in serum electrolytes, PaO2 and PaCO2 [21,22]. The consensus of opinion raised by the authors of these studies has been that the occurrence of lucid well-structured thought processes together with reasoning and memory formation as well as an ability to recall detailed accounts of events from the period of resuscitation is a scientific paradox [21–24]. This is due to the fact that the studies of cerebral physiology during cardiac arrest have indicated that cerebral blood flow and cerebral function are severely impaired and therefore consciousness would be expected to be lost.

Immediately following the cardiac arrest, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) becomes immeasurable, however, properly performed chest compressions may raise the systolic values to 60–80 mmHg, but the diastolic values and hence the mean arterial pressure still remains inadequate. [25]. The use of vasopressors such as epinephrine has been shown to increase blood pressure, as well as cardiac and cerebral perfusion pressures [26], but since coronary and cerebral perfusion rely on adequate diastolic pressures the pressures generated during advanced life support, although better than no intervention, are still too low for adequate cerebral perfusion. [. . . ] It has also been shown that during a prolonged cardiac arrest, the intracranial pressure rises and hence a higher mean arterial pressure is needed to maintain cerebral perfusion [27]. These relatively low mean arterial blood pressures are maintained during advanced life support until the resumption of cardiac output [26,27]. In one study of cardiac arrest in cats treated using advanced life support, mean arterial pressure (MAP), intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) were measured. It was found that MAP fell from 107 ± 26 to 65 ± 18 after 4 minutes of resuscitation. At the same time, ICP increased from 4 ± 2 to 15 ± 6, while CPP reduced from 101 ± 26 to 31 ± 20 and cerebral blood flow reduced to 39% of baseline [27]. In another study in humans, it was concluded that during the cardiac arrest there was an average of 50% reduction in cerebral blood flow compared to control levels and in some areas of the brain this was reduced further to less than 20% [28]. The EEG is often used to assess cerebral ischaemia during procedures such as cardiac and neurosurgery. Concurrent EEG monitoring during a cardiac arrest has shown an initial slowing of the EEG waves which then progress to an isoelectric line within approximately 10–20 s and remain flat during the cardiac arrest until the resumption of cardiac output [27,30]. In cases of prolonged cardiac arrest, however EEG activity may not return for many tens of minutes after cardiac output has been returned. [29]. Therefore, during cardiac arrest impaired cerebral blood flow leads to a lack of electrophysiological activity in the cortex, which is made worse, as the time from the initial period of ischaemia to adequate resuscitation is increased. A reduction in cerebral blood flow in humans is associated with a deterioration in sustained attention [30].

Immediately after resuscitation there is a period of multifocal no-reflow, a phenomenon observed following recovery from cardiac arrest, in which, despite the restoration of adequate blood pressure multiple areas of the brain have been shown to develop perfusion defects that range from a pin hole, up to 95% of the brain [31]. This is thought to occur due to insufficient restoration of nutritive blood flow due to a combination of increased blood viscosity and perivascular oedema and is related to the initial period of ischaemia. This is followed by a period of transient global hyperaemia lasting 15–30 min, thereafter, cerebral blood flow becomes severely reduced while cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen gradually recovers. This is termed the delayed hypoperfusion phase and is thought to occur due to a disturbed coupling between brain function, metabolism and blood flow [31]. Clinically, these observations are supported by the loss of brainstem reflexes such as the gag reflex that indicate a loss of brainstem function, which normally activates the cortical areas via the thalamus.

Discovering the nature of human consciousness

The occurrence of lucid, well-structured thought processes together with reasoning, attention and memory recall of specific events during a cardiac arrest raise a number of interesting and perplexing questions regarding how such experiences could arise. As seen these experiences appear to be occurring at a time when global cerebral function can at best be described as severely impaired, and at worse non-functional. However, cerebral localisation studies have indicated that the thought processes are mediated through the activation of a number of different cortical areas, rather than single areas of the brain and therefore a globally disordered brain would not be expected to lead to lucid thought processes or the ability to ‘see’ and recall details. This consistent yet paradoxical observation needs to be considered in the search for understanding the relationship between mind, consciousness and the brain. In addition, from a clinical point of view any acute alteration in cerebral physiology such as occurs with a reduction in cerebral blood flow leads to impaired attention and impairment of higher cerebral function [30]. The experiences reported from cardiac arrest are clearly not confusional and in fact indicate heightened awareness, attention, thought processes and consciousness at a time when consciousness and memory formation are not expected to occur.

[. . . ]

Any cerebral insult leads to a period of both anterograde and retrograde amnesia In fact memory is a very sensitive indicator of brain injury and the length of amnesia before and after unconsciousness is a way of determining the severity of the injury. Therefore, events that occur just prior to or just after the loss of consciousness would not be expected to be recalled. At any rate recovery following a cerebral insult is confusional and cerebral function as measured by EEG has in many cases been shown not to return until many tens of minutes or even a few hours after successful resuscitation.​

http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Parnia/Parnia-Medical hypotheses_2007-69-933-937.pdf

The other problem with this idea of some kind of external force is that there has never been any kind of consistent definition or hypothesis presented and (inevitable) literally zero evidence that such a force could exist, let alone that it actually does.

"External force"? Who said anything about an external force?

The idea that there is some kind of energy that has been passing to the minds of every single conscious being throughout history and yet we’ve never had the slightest hint that it exists strikes me as unrealistic at best.

If you become able to account for the having of complex, coherent experiences, forming of memories, engaging in logical thought processes and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective during or immediately after resuscitation from clinical death, let me know.

 

[Nous]

Can you give me an example of a consciousness that existed prior to ever having a brain?

Just give me a clue as to how to detect "consciousness that existed prior to ever having a brain".

If there is simply no way to detect "consciousness that existed prior to ever having a brain," then your hypothesis here is unfalsifiable.

 

[Nous]

No one here has articulated any argument that concludes that consciousness (including such phenomena as intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, volition) is a product of something happening in brains. Right?

And no one has given a clue as to how it is possible for consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, volition) to be a product of something happening in brains. Take any one of those aspects of consciousness, and apparently one is utterly stymied as to how something in the brain produces it. How is it possible for volition (the ability to choose between available options) to be produced by electrochemical activity or cells or proteins?

 

[siti]

Volition is interesting. Clearly there are things that seem not to have the capacity for volition at all - but even single-celled bacteria follow chemical gradients (as opposed to not following them) and they have nothing but electrochemical activity to guide their 'volition'. Non-biological systems seem to display nothing like even the most rudimentary capacity for volition and their 'behaviour' seems entirely deterministic. What that suggests to me is that perhaps volition is simply a more complex manifestation of electrochemical experiential relatedness (to the environment in which an entity is immersed) that can only be established at the level of complexity of cells. I certainly would not argue that single cells are 'conscious' in the normally accepted sense of the word - but the entire world is (at a reasonably fundamental level) electrochemical in nature. I don't really see any reason why, if a crude kind of volition can occur at the level of single cells, this could not develop into a complex mess of wilful, purposive and projective volition at the level of 100-billion intricately interconnected cells. This of course is abductive inference (best guess) not deductive logic. That consciousness is what brains do seems to me to be the most elegant hypothesis - just as wateriness is what oxygen and hydrogen atoms do in concert even though there is no hint of wateriness in either in isolation, so consciousness is what 100-billion brain cells do in concert even though there is (perhaps) no hint of consciousness in 100-billion cells in isolation. Essentially it (the idea of emergent consciousness) is an expression of 'creative' holism.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Just give me a clue as to how to detect "consciousness that existed prior to ever having a brain".

If there is simply no way to detect "consciousness that existed prior to ever having a brain," then your hypothesis here is unfalsifiable.

You're the one making the claim that consciousness does not require a brain in order to exist. If that's the case then you should be able to point to an example of a consciousness that has existed without the benefit of ever having had a brain. Now you're saying that you don't even have a clue how to go about detecting this consciousness that you claim can exist without the benefit of a brain. All the evidence we have thus far suggests that a brain IS required for consciousness and you've provided zero relevant arguments to the contrary.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No one here has articulated any argument that concludes that consciousness (including such phenomena as intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, volition) is a product of something happening in brains. Right?

And no one has given a clue as to how it is possible for consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, volition) to be a product of something happening in brains. Take any one of those aspects of consciousness, and apparently one is utterly stymied as to how something in the brain produces it. How is it possible for volition (the ability to choose between available options) to be produced by electrochemical activity or cells or proteins?

The best experts in the field are still baffled as to how most of the brain works. The brain is by far the least understood organ in the human body. You act as if just because a bunch of non-experts in the field can't provide you answers for how the brain does all of the fantastic things that it does that this in some way proves that brains aren't required for consciousness. All evidence we have so far suggests that brains are definitely required for consciousness. Until you can provide an example of a consciousness existing without the benefit of a brain, you're just making baseless assumptions.

 

[HonestJoe]

How does the idea that consciousness is generated in the brain account for the veridical perceptions of Pam Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's patient? How does the idea that consciousness is generated in the brain account for the lucid experiences, memory formation and logical thoughts processes reported during clinical death?

In these cases, there are typically long periods of unconsciousness or anaesthesia with brief periods of clinical death within them (they can only be brief or the patients couldn’t survive). Some patents then report memories of experience after the event. There remains nothing to show that those memories are generated specifically during the brief periods of actual (not perceived) complete brain inactivity rather than the long periods either side of them.

Please read the following from Dr. Parnia and summarize what it says (my underlining):

That seems to be a combination of wishful thinking and guesswork. The conclusion is that they don’t know how these experiences are generated but they seem very willing to dismiss the possibility that they’re generated by the brain, just in ways we don’t yet understand or wouldn’t expect given what we currently believe the capability of the brain in these circumstances. This fits my current conclusion of “We simply don’t know”.

"External force"? Who said anything about an external force?

If you’re suggesting that consciousness isn’t generated by the brain, you have to be proposing something external to the brain by definition.

If you become able to account for the having of complex, coherent experiences, forming of memories, engaging in logical thought processes and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective during or immediately after resuscitation from clinical death, let me know.

The same way I account for having them now. At any point the brain is in any way active, these things are possible.

 

[dust1n]

Is there an argument somewhere in what you have written by which to conclude that consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, free will, etc.) is produced by brains? If so, enumerate your premises and conclusion.

I don't really believe in "free will" but intentions, beliefs, awareness... sure... But what, you are wanting me to reformat the argument in strictly logical fashion? Seems sort of hopeless, since people rarely even have a set of agreeable premises. Let's make on swing.

P1: We can make a entirely physical description of a freshly fertilized human egg cell.

P2: A single fertilized human egg cell doesn't have a consciousness, have feelings, have awareness of any sort.

P3: A biological entity (in this case, a human egg cell) replicates over time, and its DNA delineates its offspring to form the individual specialized cells that make up our organs, including our brain.

P4: No supernatural entity is popping into existence and implanting a non-material element in the brains of children that suddenly makes them conscious, have feelings, have awareness.

P5: Yet, a non-conscious biological entity gains consciousness over the course of its existence.

Conclusion: Dualism if false.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying something contrary to this:

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that there is at least one type of information processing and manipulation that does not readily lend itself to explanations that assume that all final causes are subsumed within brain, or more generally, central nervous system mechanisms. The cases in question are those in which the conscious act of wilfully altering the mode by which experiential information is processed itself changes, in systematic ways, the cerebral mechanisms used. There is a growing recognition of the theoretical importance of applying experimental paradigms that use directed mental effort to produce systematic and predictable changes in brain function (e.g. Beauregard et al. 2001; Ochsner et al. 2002). These wilfully induced brain changes are generally accomplished through training in, and the applied use of, cognitive reattribution and the attentional re-contextualization of conscious experience. Furthermore, an accelerating number of studies in the neuroimaging literature significantly support the thesis that, again, with appropriate training and effort, people can systematically alter neural circuitry associated with a variety of mental and physical states that are frankly pathological (Schwartz et al. 1996; Schwartz 1998; Musso et al. 1999; Paquette et al. 2003). A recent review of this and the related neurological literature has coined the term ‘self-directed neuroplasticity’ to serve as a general description of the principle that focused training and effort can systematically alter cerebral function in a predictable and potentially therapeutic manner (Schwartz & Begley 2002).​

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569494/
Not that I am aware of. I don't consider quantum mechanics to be non-mechanical. Nor do I consider quantum uncertainty as an explanation of free will.

I also don't mean to suggest that someone can't reinforce their thinking, or that thinking (feeling, aware) does not alter or physical structures. It's not like the brain doesn't get feedback. A thought that changes the brain doesn't mean he didn't derive from the brain (or that such a thing would be possible without a brain or some sort of physical information processing equivalent).

I also don't mean to suggest the mechanics of the consciousness are entirely understood.

?
I used energy as an example of a fundamental phenomenon because it is just that; it is a quantity (a conserved quantity) that no one has ever seen or touched. I could have used momentum as an example of a fundamental phenomenon, but I think that would have been confusing.

I'm not sure what you mean but not having seen or touched energy? The body literally turns food into energy and uses to process more or less all of its functions, is that not touching it? Your body can literally feel an electric current?[/QUOTE]

 

[Nous]

Volition is interesting. Clearly there are things that seem not to have the capacity for volition at all - but even single-celled bacteria follow chemical gradients (as opposed to not following them) and they have nothing but electrochemical activity to guide their 'volition'. Non-biological systems seem to display nothing like even the most rudimentary capacity for volition and their 'behaviour' seems entirely deterministic. What that suggests to me is that perhaps volition is simply a more complex manifestation of electrochemical experiential relatedness (to the environment in which an entity is immersed) that can only be established at the level of complexity of cells. I certainly would not argue that single cells are 'conscious' in the normally accepted sense of the word - but the entire world is (at a reasonably fundamental level) electrochemical in nature. I don't really see any reason why, if a crude kind of volition can occur at the level of single cells, this could not develop into a complex mess of wilful, purposive and projective volition at the level of 100-billion intricately interconnected cells.

I don't know any reason to consider chemotaxis among bacteria to be any more volitional than phototropism among plants is. Do you? I am unaware of any fact by which to conclude that either chemotaxis or phototropism are voluntary activities for an organism or involve the organism choosing between options.

I'm not sure in what way you might be proposing that electrochemical reactions might be connected to volition. Perhaps you can explain it.

The fact is that, while volition or free will is the ability to choose between available options, I'm unsure how to distinguish it from mere random behavior in the absence of some kind of awareness of what the consequences of one's decision may entail. Humans (and, I think, other animals) have such awareness. I am hard pressed to understand how a bacterium or plant has such awareness.

 

[Nous]

You're the one making the claim that consciousness does not require a brain in order to exist.

Why don't you quote what claims I've actually stated, and begin your reasoning from there?

The fact is that consciousness cannot be detected within brains, so what is your point about detecting consciousness outside of brains? Especially since you can't specify a way to detect consciousness?

Energy cannot be detected. Should we deny that energy exists?

All the evidence we have thus far suggests that a brain IS required for consciousness

Cite that evidence.

 

[Nous]

How does the idea that consciousness is generated in the brain account for the veridical perceptions of Pam Reynolds and Dr. Rudy's patient? How does the idea that consciousness is generated in the brain account for the lucid experiences, memory formation and logical thoughts processes reported during clinical death?

In these cases, there are typically long periods of unconsciousness or anaesthesia with brief periods of clinical death within them

Dr. Rudy said that his patient had not had a heart beat or blood pressure for more than 20 minutes. That isn't a "brief period of clincal death". That's why Dr. Rudy declared him dead.

Some patents then report memories of experience after the event. There remains nothing to show that those memories are generated specifically during the brief periods of actual (not perceived) complete brain inactivity rather than the long periods either side of them.

(1) Pam Reynolds' eyes were taped shut when, according to the surgeon, the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades were brought out. Dr. Rudy's patient's eyes were closed and most likely taped closed, according to Dr. Amado-Cattaneo. I asked you to account for their perceptions. You have not done so. Even with a brain full of electricity, you cannot close your eyes and see the back of your head, can you?

Please read the following from Dr. Parnia and summarize what it says (my underlining):

That seems to be a combination of wishful thinking and guesswork.

Quote exactly what Dr. Parnia says in that paper that you claim "seems to be a combination of wishful thinking and guesswork.."

The conclusion is that they don’t know how these experiences are generated but they seem very willing to dismiss the possibility that they’re generated by the brain

Dr. Parnia deduces from the evidence that he cites that consciousness, memory formation, logical thought processes and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective should not be occurring during or immediately after resuscitation from clinical death. What else can he possibly deduce from the evidence about such phenomena?

The same way I account for having them now. At any point the brain is in any way active, these things are possible.

So you acknowledge that you cannot account for phenomena of NDEs noted here from any fact?

 

[Nous]

I don't really believe in "free will"

You "don't really believe in 'free will'"? Does that mean you kind of "believe in free will"?

What is there about "free will" to believe in?

Do you or do you not believe that you have the ability to choose to assert a true proposition rather than a false one? E.g., do you or do you not have the ability to choose to assert (a) "Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the US in January 2017," rather than (b) "Justin Trudeau was sworn in as President of the US in January 2017"?

P1: We can make a entirely physical description of a freshly fertilized human egg cell.

P2: A single fertilized human egg cell doesn't have a consciousness, have feelings, have awareness of any sort.

P3: A biological entity (in this case, a human egg cell) replicates over time, and its DNA delineates its offspring to form the individual specialized cells that make up our organs, including our brain.

P4: No supernatural entity is popping into existence and implanting a non-material element in the brains of children that suddenly makes them conscious, have feelings, have awareness.

P5: Yet, a non-conscious biological entity gains consciousness over the course of its existence.

Conclusion: Dualism if false.

What you have proven here is that you apparently don't know how to make a deduction. The term "dualism," which occurs in your "conclusion," does not occur in any premise.

If you become able to state a deduction (a logical argument) that concludes that consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, free will, etc.) is produced by brains, please do so. I would be most interested in reading it.

Nor do I consider quantum uncertainty as an explanation of free will.

You and I and J. Schwartz, H. P. Stapp, and M. Beauregard all agree on that.

A thought that changes the brain doesn't mean he didn't derive from the brain

The phenomenon of changing the brain as a result of willful effort is really no more (or less) mysterious than changing one's weight by willful effort. It's the willful acts that are unaccounted for by any known mechanics.

For instance, agreeing to perform a particular act or set of acts--such as paying a mortgage company a certain amount of money by a certain date each month--is quite common. People can and do say that they will perform such a series of acts for 30 years, and 30 years later have done exactly what they said they would do.

There are 2 possible ways to account for these acts that people promise to perform far into the future and then fulfill: Those are either willful acts or they are involuntary bodily movements. But people can't correctly predict their involuntary bodily movements 30 years into the future. People can't predict such involuntary bodily movements even hours into the future. People can't accurately predict the day or hour they are going to have a heart attack or stroke. People can't accurately predict the day or hour they are going to have their next headache or hiccup. The only way to explain making and fulfilling their contracts such as writing a check to a mortgage company each month is that those acts each month are willful acts that they can choose to perform and do choose to perform.

I'm not sure what you mean but not having seen or touched energy?

"E" in the equation E=mc2 is a quantity. It is not an object with spatial extent; it has no color. "No one has ever seen or touched energy". The Matter Myth, by Paul Davies and John Gribbin.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why don't you quote what claims I've actually stated, and begin your reasoning from there?

The fact is that consciousness cannot be detected within brains, so what is your point about detecting consciousness outside of brains? Especially since you can't specify a way to detect consciousness?

Energy cannot be detected. Should we deny that energy exists?

Cite that evidence.

I'll say this again, but SLOWLY. In the entire history of mankind there has never once been an example of consciousness existing without a brain. If you could cite me an example of consciousness existing without a brain, you'd have an argument. But until you can, it is only reasonable to assume that brains are requirement for consciousness. It's true that SOMEDAY we may discover that brains are NOT a requirement... but as of TODAY all of the evidence (that is the LACK of an example of consciousness existing WITHOUT a brain) suggests that brains and consciousness go together.

Oh, and who ever told you that energy can NOT be detected? We identify sources of energy all of the time.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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)?

Well, not JUST brains, there are also sensory organs involved.

But hey, if you find it more reasonable to believe magical eternal energy beings that can't be detected wear us like a flesh suit while awaiting passage to an eternity of constantly reminding an even bigger energy being how great he is, and THAT is indeed why we are animate, you go right ahead.