Consciousness is NOT caused by the brain

[Surya Deva]

This is continuation of the previous debate which happened in the thread "No objective reality" but which was off-topic there, hence I am starting its own thread to focus on the topic of why consciousness is not produced the brain(no objective reality does not entail anything about consciousness directly) I am responding to a part of a post made by the forum member Doorsofperception rebutting my arguments that consciousness is not produced by the brain

Actually, this is not the point of the brain in the vat at all. The BitV simply shows that we cannot be sure we are not a brain in a vat, we cannot be sure this reality is the true reality. However, the reality where our brain is in a vat may well be the true, objective reality. When we see a brain, it is not simply being aware of itself, we are seeing our brain and make the connection. The brain is not just like "oh hey, I exist".

Of course, I do not know what you mean by "manipulate it". We really have little control over our brains in this "reality". You make a horrible mistake though. If we are a brain in a vat, we cannot know about that brain, but we can still know about the brain in our head. You need to decide if this is reality or if we are a brain in a vat, cannot have it both ways. If we are a brain in a vat, consciousness obviously is from the brain because we are nothing more than a brain and are aware. If we are not a brain in a vat, it can go either way.

The points you are making seem to be

1) The brain in the vat shows us that we cannot be sure that we are not a brain in a vat
2) We have little control over our brains
3) The brain in the vat shows us consciousness is produced by the brain

1. There are different ways to interpret the thought experiment and different conclusions can be derived from it. I am saying this so we do not get into arguments over what the intended meaning was vs the derived meaning and focus on the actual logical points of one of the derived meaning:

Here is one of the explanations for the brain in the vat thought experiment:

Wiki: The simplest use of brain-in-a-vat scenarios is as an argument for philosophical skepticism and solipsism. A simple version of this runs as follows: Since the brain in a vat gives and receives exactly the same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat. Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if he believes, say, that he is walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case they are false. Since the argument says one cannot know whether he or she is a brain in a vat, then he or she cannot know whether most of his or her beliefs might be completely false. Since, in principle, it is impossible to rule out oneself being a brain in a vat, there cannot be good grounds for believing any of the things one believes; a skeptical argument would contend that one certainly cannot know them, raising issues with the definition of knowledge.​

I am arguing a similar case as the one cited above. If you are a brain a vat, it is impossible to know that you are a brain in a vat and nor is it possible to know anything that you know to be certain, because everything you know is caused by the brain in the vat, thus if you say your brain is in the skull, then it is not necessarily true, because your brain in the skull is another one of your objects of knowledge and caused like every other object of your knowledge. Thus the brain in the skull you perceive is equally as caused by the brain in the vat, as every other experience you have. Hence, if you were a brain in a vat, the knowledge of the brain in the skull would be false, your actual brain is elsewhere(similar to holographic theory of the brain)

The brain in the vat thought experiment shouldn't be really read literally, because the literal example of a brain in a vat is irrelevant to what the thought experiment is arguing. It is actually a modern day version of Descarte's evil demon thought experiment. In Descartes version there is an evil demon that that is causing everyone of your experiences(cf supercomputer in brain in vat) Thus the thought experiment is arguing that if all your experiences were being caused, it would be impossible for you to know the cause, because you are the effect of the cause.

The same arguments appears in the Indian philosophical tradition. The Samkhayakarika 9 says "Only effects are knowable, not causes" Whatever is knowable and can become knowledge is an effect only, not the cause. The brain is something which can become knowable(it can be dissected) therefore it cannot be the cause of your experience.

Now one of your counters to this argument is that the brain knows itself through the senses(sense organs and motor organs) but this is irrelevant, because the in the brain in the vat the supercomputer is providing the electric signals to the brain and thus acting as a substitute for our senses. The actual experience is taking place inside the the brain in the vat, and thus it is impossible here for the experiencing subject to actually see the brain in the vat. They can see the brain in the skull, but not the brain in the vat.

I used a similar thought experiment of my own that if you were a controller of a computer game character. As every experience/action of the computer game character is controlled by you, it would be impossible for the computer game character to see you.

So all three versions; brain in the vat; evil demon and computer character being controlled show us that our reality could be virtual and as such it would be impossible to know anything about the actual reality in itself, as all our knowledge is virtual. Hence even our belief that our experience is caused by the brain in the skull is not necessarily true.

The Indian version is much more stronger because it argues more directly in terms of causality. It can be formally presented with this syllogism:
1. Only effects can be known, not causes
2. The brain is known
3. Therefore, the brain is not the cause

2) This point really extends from the arguments in #1 You argue that we have "little control" over our brains, which means we have some control, however as per the thought experiment we should have NO CONTROL. In the thought experiment your every experience is controlled by the supercomputer; in Descartes version the evil demon and in my version the computer controller. Therefore, you cannot have any kind of choice of your own, everything is determined by the cause. You have as much causal efficacy as a character in a movie - i.e., no causal efficacy.
The very fact that you do have some control over your brain eliminates it as the cause of your experience. Some of those controls are that you have the power to destroy the brain by taking a hammer to your head and squishing it(or you could open up your head and splice it) In the brain in the vat it is impossible for the virtual subjects to destroy the supercomputer/evil demon/computer controller, because they have no causal efficacy. That would be like your gaming character coming out of the computer game and killing you.

Again in the Indian tradition a stronger and direct argument is made. The effect cannot destroy its own cause. The effect pot for example cannot destroy the cause clay out of which it is made. It can be formally argued with the following syllogism

1. The effect cannot destroy the cause
2. You can destroy the brain
3. Therefore the brain cannot be the cause of you

Therefore, because you have the power to destroy the cause brain, you cannot be caused by the brain.

3) In fact the arguments above show us the exact opposite: It is illogical that the brain can be cause of our conscious experience. For the following reasons summarized from the previous points:

1) If the brain was the cause of our conscious experience, then it would not be able to see/know/manipulate the brain. The brain is another object of our experience, it therefore cannot be the cause of our experience.

2) If the brain was the cause of conscious experience, then we would not be able to destroy the brain. The brain can be dissected and destroyed, it therefore cannot be the cause of our conscious experience.

Finally, I will add another argument:

3) If any kind of all-controlling-entity was the cause of conscious experience, the supercomputer in the brain in the vat, evil demon in Descartes evil demon or computer controller in my computer game version or even the brain in the skull itself, there could not arise any kind of conscious experience in the first place, because there is no experiencer. But this is patently false, we have conscious experience and therefore conscious experience cannot be caused by anything. It must necessarily be uncaused and hence outside of time and space(because time and space are inextricably linked with causality). Therefore, the consciousness must be infinite, eternal and permanent.

 

[outhouse]

Consciousness is NOT caused by the brain

actually Consciousness is factually controlled by the brain.

when we sleep you are now unconscious, and your conscious state is now uncounscious, less dreaming states, which is not conscious.

A severe enough brain injury can also bring on unconsciousness

 

[Storm]

actually Consciousness is factually controlled by the brain.

Eh... I don't think that's entirely clear as yet.

I will grant that IF there is an external or fundamental consciousness, the brain is the lynchpin that binds it to flesh.

when we sleep you are now unconscious, and your conscious state is now uncounscious, less dreaming states, which is not conscious.

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Sleeping is not unconsciousness, as evidenced by dreaming, which you mentioned, and I am so very confused.

A severe enough brain injury can also bring on unconsciousness

Or death. So can cardiovascular damage, or depressed oxygen levels in the blood. Hell a broken femur will make most folk pass out. Nobody says that femurs are the source of consciousness, though.

 

[Surya Deva]

actually Consciousness is factually controlled by the brain.

when we sleep you are now unconscious, and your conscious state is now uncounscious, less dreaming states, which is not conscious.

A severe enough brain injury can also bring on unconsciousness

Your argument does not prove that consciousness is being caused by the brain, it is only showing that there is a correlation between conscious experience and brain states.

This is actually a common argument used by materialist reductionists, but it is actually a fallacy. In this argument conscious experience can be just as likely the cause of the brain states as vis versa. In neurophilsophy this is formally known as the soft problem of consciousness meaning that we know that all conscious experiences have neural and physical correlates. The hard problem of consciousness is proving that the neural and physical states produce the consciousness.

A common analogy used to refute this is the analogy of the radio. If you take a hammer to a live radio and smash it, it will stop the music. If you infer from this that the radio was the cause of the music you would be committing a fallacy, because the music is in fact being received by the radio and by destroying the radio you have not destroyed the music, simply the ability of the radio to receive the music.

In fact studies into neurosciences have demonstrated that the source of memories for instance are not actually physically stored in the brain(holographic theory of the brain) because it has been found that when large parts of the brain are destroyed, its memories are not destroyed, but rather the remaining parts of the brain retain the old memories. In other words every cell in the brain can receive the memories. In much the same way a radio set can receive music.

 

[Breathe]

I second Storm's post.

 

[Quintessence]

Surya, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but...

*sigh*

As far as science is concerned, the seat of consciousness is the brain. End of story. The lesson to be learned here relates to the limitations of science and what kinds of questions and answers it can arrive at. Science works with that which can be quantified and measured. This makes it highly materialistic and it is only able to establish causation to physical quantities. Logically, there really isn't any other physical part of the human body for consciousness to be based on our observations. It certainly isn't in your lungs, stomach, or kidneys. It's in the brain. End of story; at least the story that science can tell. There are other stories and other truths - other ways of seeing. Those who only use science (or more properly, their understanding of it) to discern truth are never going to understand or accept that there are other stories to be told, other truths to be had. To deny that science has strongly linked consciousness to the brain is nonsense and doesn't do much to help your case with those kinds of people at all. :sorry1:

 

[outhouse]

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Sleeping is not unconsciousness

Ah but the devil is in the details, your not always dreaming while asleep. That is only a minor period of ones sleep pattern.

and it is also a altered state of consciousness that shows a direct connection to te brain and ones conscious.

 

[Storm]

Ah but the devil is in the details, your not always dreaming while asleep. That is only a minor period of ones sleep pattern.

and it is also a altered state of consciousness that shows a direct connection to te brain and ones conscious.

Still not really seeing the argument here.

I did notice, though, that you seem to be using two meanings of consciousness interchangeably:
1) The quality of being aware/ intelligent
2) The physical state of being active

The two have nothing at all to do with each other.

 

[Surya Deva]

Surya, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but...

*sigh*
.............

To deny that science has strongly linked consciousness to the brain is nonsense and doesn't do much to help your case with those kinds of people at all. :sorry1:

I have already covered this. Science has not proven that consciousness is produced by the brain, it has only proven there are neural and physical correlates for conscious experience.

No materialist philosopher, no scientist has proven that consciousness is produced by the brain. The first one to do so will win a nobel prize, as the hard problem of consciousness is the biggest problem in philosophy of science and neurophilosophy today. If we can indeed produce consciousness through a physical process, it will lead to Strong AI. That would be the single biggest discovery of science ever.

It is a myth that materialists like to spread that consciousness has been proven to be produced by the brain. They simply show total ignorance of the fields of philosophy of science and neurophilosophy. Its just as invalid as religious people who say science has proven the existence of God. Both are appealing to science to validate their faith.

 

[outhouse]

No materialist philosopher, no scientist has proven that consciousness is produced by the brain.

if one makes claims of the supernatural, it is upon thenm to prove it. It has never been done.

 

[outhouse]

Still not really seeing the argument here.

I did notice, though, that you seem to be using two meanings of consciousness interchangeably:
1) The quality of being aware/ intelligent
2) The physical state of being active

The two have nothing at all to do with each other.

all im saying is that when somone is asleep, they are not conscious in any sense.

and dreaming is a altered state, and only a minority of the sleep pattern.



we have two different views on this, western and eastern, but in both a spirit has never been proven to exist

 

[outhouse]

it has only proven there are neural and physical correlates for conscious experience.

isnt this admitting the brian controls consciousness

 

[Surya Deva]

if one makes claims of the supernatural, it is upon thenm to prove it. It has never been done.

Consciousness is not supernatural

 

[outhouse]

Consciousness is not supernatural

nope.

it has never been proven as anything more then brain activity, and in science, doesnt exist at this time.

it is a evolved trait of the brain that is a survival instinct by scientific accounts.

 

[Surya Deva]

isnt this admitting the brian controls consciousness

I think you may need to look at the difference between cause and correlation.
Here is an illustration to help understand the difference: the light bulb turns on when I turn ON the light switch.

Correlation is to say that the light switch is correlated to the light switching on in the light bulb; causality is to say that the light switch produces the light in the light bulb(which is wrong)

There are correlations between conscious experience and brain states and physical states. There is no proof that conscious experience is caused by brain states and physical states.

 

[fallingblood]

all im saying is that when somone is asleep, they are not conscious in any sense.

and dreaming is a altered state, and only a minority of the sleep pattern.



we have two different views on this, western and eastern, but in both a spirit has never been proven to exist

That's simply incorrect. One is still conscious when they are sleeping. The level of consciousness is different, but the fact that one can still be aware (to a point) and react to the outside world, shows that one is still conscious.

Also, just because one is in an altered state, doesn't mean they aren't conscious. Being sleep deprived can make one fall into an altered state of consciousness. Not to mention that one can actually dream during any stage of sleep.

Here's a good article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-rest/201101/sleep-and-your-different-states-consciousness

 

[fantome profane]

A common analogy used to refute this is the analogy of the radio. If you take a hammer to a live radio and smash it, it will stop the music. If you infer from this that the radio was the cause of the music you would be committing a fallacy,

But of course if you smash a CD player (iPod, good old fashion record player) you will stop the music, and the music was comming from those devices.

All the evidence I see does seem to indicate that consciousness is seated within the brain. I admit that the "radio" scenario is a logical possibility, but I don't find it persuasive. If for no other reason that it is multiplying entities beyond necessity. I see no evidence for it and I see no need for it.

Consciousness is no less wonderful by being an emergent property of physical material, and no less beautiful by being impermanent

 

[Storm]

if one makes claims of the supernatural, it is upon thenm to prove it. It has never been done.

1) Not all notions of external or fundamental consciousness invoke, much less rely on the claim of supernaturalism.

2) Even limiting the discussion to those that do, that's not what really happened. External consciousness was always assumed by the majority. Now, reductionists are claiming it's untrue, with no clear support.

Maybe they're right, and maybe they're wrong, but there's more to debunking a falsehood than saying "unh uh!"

 

[Storm]

That's simply incorrect. One is still conscious when they are sleeping. The level of consciousness is different, but the fact that one can still be aware (to a point) and react to the outside world, shows that one is still conscious.

Also, just because one is in an altered state, doesn't mean they aren't conscious. Being sleep deprived can make one fall into an altered state of consciousness. Not to mention that one can actually dream during any stage of sleep.

This. Consciousness as noun cannot be argued with conscious as adjective. Totally misses the point.

 

[outhouse]

That's simply incorrect. One is still conscious when they are sleeping. The level of consciousness is different, but the fact that one can still be aware (to a point) and react to the outside world, shows that one is still conscious.

Also, just because one is in an altered state, doesn't mean they aren't conscious. Being sleep deprived can make one fall into an altered state of consciousness. Not to mention that one can actually dream during any stage of sleep.

Here's a good article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sleep-and-your-different-states-consciousness

thanks for the link, but I find this more descriptive

Why we lose consciousness in sleep

Why we lose consciousness in sleep

The relative decline of activity in the "default mode network" during sleep explains, why we are not capable of conscious perception during sleep.