• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The evolution of the brain and nervous system, and the mind and consciousness

sealchan

Well-Known Member
So you can't find any evidence either that substantiates the claim that "the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms supporting consciousness in humans are found at the earliest points of vertebrate brain evolution."

The evidence is something that will be forth-coming (or not) if the methodology the paper outlines becomes accepted.

Science is a process...that is its virtue. So is patience.

Is there any other source of information that can even be considered to compete in this particular area?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I only cited on reference which you have failed to respond to. An assumed agenda is reflected in your post, without considering the scientific research and evidence available. It is very likely you did not read the reference.


All you cited was saying life evolved to me more complex. That doesn't prove that this complexity gave rise to consciousness in any way shape or form lol.

No, the upper Paleolithic Revolution(?) is not contrary to the science of evolution, and actually not the topic of this thread. I could respond to this issue in an appropriate thread.

Lol so we're talking about the rise of consciousness but the rise of consciousness is not the topic? What a laughably pathetic Dodge.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
It is not a materialist issue it is a scientific issue by definition. There is no claim of materialism (ontological naturalism) is made concerning the subject of the thread..

You have not responded to the evidence based simply on science, which is the subject of the thread.

1. Mind reducing to the brain IS materialism my genius friend :)

2. Your claim said nothing about consciousness. It says evolution makes our bodies more complex without even trying to address the mechanism for consciousness. This is weak even for you.

3. I responded to evidence with MORE evidence that you whined was not relevant cause you couldn't address it. Classic materialist debating.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Unless you count the bounties of scientific inquiry, which is grounded in materialism, or more correctly, physicalism, since matter is just one manifestation of physical reality.



What do you have to offer that's useful and avoids materialism?/
Science actually need not inherently assume materialism. In fact, since it's unevidenced, no valid science should accept it. Dualism and idealism not only answer the same questions with the same results but take us much further and don't contradict known evidence and logical soundness.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Quantum Mechanics lies at the foundation of all of our physical existence at the micro world at particle and atomic level. At the macro level of all of our physical existence the every day laws of physics and chemistry are the determining influence. Variation of the outcomes of cause and effect events is understood as fractal described by chaos theory, but the options of the outcomes of cause and effect are constrained by natural law.

Fallible Humans are the worst eye witness to Quantum phenomenon.

The sciences of biochemistry and neurology are how we describe the behavior and nature of the mind and nervous system function.

There are those such as Stuart Hameroff that are looking to neural mechanisms that rely on quantum level effects such as superposition occurring in microtubules...but I'm not putting my money on that personally...
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
The arousal mechanism is located in the brainstem and mid-brain which, of course, goes way back in the evolution of species...it looks like the article is arguing that the arousal system is another indicator of consciousness via emotion. There are signs in very primitive organisms of a decision making process (several options with one being selected and the others suppressed). This evidences a feedback system on the bottom up processing pathways.

Here is a key statement in the article...

The recent experiments with general anesthesia in humans suggest that phylogenetically ancient structures in the brainstem and diencephalon—with only limited neocortical involvement—are sufficient to support primitive consciousness.

The article goes on to say that birds and mammals may have developed consciousness separately as early reptiles do not have the same set of cognitive features as birds do.

Also...

The critical role of subcortical structures in consciousness has been further argued based on clinical observations of hydranencephalic children, who are essentially devoid of neocortex and yet who still demonstrate some behavioral signs of consciousness
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Science actually need not inherently assume materialism. In fact, since it's unevidenced, no valid science should accept it. Dualism and idealism not only answer the same questions with the same results but take us much further and don't contradict known evidence and logical soundness.

That's great, but it didn't address my question. Nor do you offer any support for your claim.

You dismissed materialism. I asked you what you had as an alternative that can compete with it. What else do you have that can offer something useful? Methodological materialism has taken us to the moon and back, given us electricity, air conditioning, electric light, cars and airplanes, and the polio and small pox vaccines.

If you think that you know of something else that is valuable, what is it, and what is its value? Does it help one live longer or be more comfortable?

You seem to have nothing there - just a criticism of materialism as if it is somehow effete or inferior without any account or supporting evidence of why you think so. Please show us that it is if you can. What you believe isn't useful - just what you know and can demonstrate.

Historically, only materialism has produced useful results. That matters to some.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
That's great, but it didn't address my question. Nor do you offer any support for your claim.

You dismissed materialism. I asked you what you had as an alternative that can compete with it. What else do you have that can offer something useful? Methodological materialism has taken us to the moon and back, given us electricity, air conditioning, electric light, cars and airplanes, and the polio and small pox vaccines.

If you think that you know of something else that is valuable, what is it, and what is its value? Does it help one live longer or be more comfortable?

You seem to have nothing there - just a criticism of materialism as if it is somehow effete or inferior without any account or supporting evidence of why you think so. Please show us that it is if you can. What you believe isn't useful - just what you know and can demonstrate.

Historically, only materialism has produced useful results. That matters to some.

Well as stated the reason I reject materialism I'd there's no evidence for it and it violates logic. I would ask for these again but after 10 years it's not personal to say I know you can't/won't. Even the examples you have say nothing about mine reducing to the brain. If anything they're more evidence that our minds can question, manipulate, and even violate nature, and so evidence that the mind is Ontologically different than the brain.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
This is just what you get by applying de Broglie's relation: λ = h/p, where p is momentum. So a larger molecular mass will, for a given velocity, have greater momentum and so λ, the wavelength of its wave will be shorter, hence you will get a smaller spacing in the interference fringes. Which is what the experimenters reported in your link, wasn't it?

So, again, what is your point here? Everything is as predicted by QM, surely, is it not?

My point is that there is no wave interference pattern when the which-way path information of matter passing through a double-slit can be determined, then a non-interference pattern results. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment rules out detectors as causing the wave-function collapse. Knowledge/consciousness of the observer has been considered as a possible cause for the wave function collapse.



There is no widely accepted explanation for the results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results.

There are many various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

See here: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Well as stated the reason I reject materialism I'd there's no evidence for it and it violates logic. I would ask for these again but after 10 years it's not personal to say I know you can't/won't. Even the examples you have say nothing about mine reducing to the brain. If anything they're more evidence that our minds can question, manipulate, and even violate nature, and so evidence that the mind is Ontologically different than the brain.

I'm curious what logic you think it violates. I have found many people don't have a clear understanding of the limitations of logic and what it can and cannot say about the real world.

Our minds definitely do NOT violate nature: in no way is there any violation of natural laws. That is one of the pieces of evidence that minds are processes in the brain (not the brain itself).

We can point to many of the areas where basic mental operations are done in the brain, from language, to emotions, to planning. We can show how destruction of those areas leads to deficiencies in the corresponding mental abilities. We can track how the brain changes in development and how that correlates with aspects of personality and consciousness.

As far as I know, there is no valid logical reason why the mind cannot be a process in the brain. In fact, most of the evidence points exactly to that being the case.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
My point is that there is no wave interference pattern when the which-way path information of matter passing through a double-slit can be determined, then a double-slit pattern results. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment rules out detectors as causing the wave-function collapse. Knowledge/consciousness of the observer has been considered as a possible cause for the wave function collapse.



There is no widely accepted explanation for the results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results.

There are many various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

See here: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia



If you measure which-way information in the experiment, there is no interference pattern. If you do not, there is. The delayed choice aspect is partly a confusion between classical reasoning and the quantum world. The actual 'choices' are made in the setup of the experiment and what data is collected.

And no, when analyzed via quantum mechanics, all causality goes from the past into the future. it's just that causality, such as it exists, is in terms of correlations.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There are those such as Stuart Hameroff that are looking to neural mechanisms that rely on quantum level effects such as superposition occurring in microtubules...but I'm not putting my money on that personally...

I see no reason the Quantum level effects occur at the particle and atomic level in this case, but the function microtubules remain at the macro level. This relationship between Quantum mechanisms and macro chemical mechanisms exists through out nature. I believe what Stuart Hameroff would most likely find in the end is Quantum level effects in ultimately expressed and observed in macro biochemical effects.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I'm curious what logic you think it violates. I have found many people don't have a clear understanding of the limitations of logic and what it can and cannot say about the real world.

Luckily materialism violates even the most basic logic there is - the law of identity - so it's not too complex. Having entirely contradictory properties shows mind and brain can't have the same identity. Further, everything you know, including matter, relies on consciousness and so you reject what you can never be sure of for what we can be sure of - consciousness existence. Like I said, carv basic.

our minds definitely do NOT violate nature: in no way is there any violation of natural laws. That is one of the pieces of evidence that minds are processes in the brain (not the brain itself).

Interesting. So when you self regulate, or see something like a computer, you accept it exists as magic? Cause nature does not do/create such things, and yet here we are.

We can point to many of the areas where basic mental operations are done in the brain, from language, to emotions, to planning. We can show how destruction of those areas leads to deficiencies in the corresponding mental abilities. We can track how the brain changes in development and how that correlates with aspects of personality and consciousness.

Hm, I could tell you what parts of my tv make the station come through, I guess my tv creates the stations! Hell if I break my tv the picture goes away, so by your logic we've proven as much!
Not sure why I'm paying for cable...


Asfar as I know, there is no valid logical reason why the mind cannot be a process in the brain. In fact, most of the evidence points exactly to that being the case.

Yeah, in my experience almost ever single other materialist has also not bothered to question the position or look at problems and alternatives, so I'd expect you to be unaware. That's what happens when we accept blind Faith positions!
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Consciousness in humans easily defined, and pretty well understood. Consciousness in animals uses similar definitions, but describes consciousness in animals by degree compared to humans. This refelects the evolution in animals, which parallels the evolution of the complexity of the brain.

From: Animal consciousness - Wikipedia

Animal consciousness, or animal awareness, is the quality or state of self-awareness within an animal, or of being aware of an external object or something within itself.[2][3] In humans, consciousness has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, qualia, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[4] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[5]

The topic of animal consciousness is beset with a number of difficulties. It poses the problem of other minds in an especially severe form because animals, lacking the ability to use human language (except certain birds such as grey parrots), cannot tell us about their experiences.[6] Also, it is difficult to reason objectively about the question, because a denial that an animal is conscious is often taken to imply that it does not feel, its life has no value, and that harming it is not morally wrong. The 17th-century French philosopher René Descartes, for example, has sometimes been blamed for mistreatment of animals because he argued that only humans are conscious.[7]

Philosophers who consider subjective experience the essence of consciousness also generally believe, as a correlate, that the existence and nature of animal consciousness can never rigorously be known. The American philosopher Thomas Nagelspelled out this point of view in an influential essay titled What Is it Like to Be a Bat?. He said that an organism is conscious "if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism"; and he argued that no matter how much we know about an animal's brain and behavior, we can never really put ourselves into the mind of the animal and experience its world in the way it does itself.[8]Other thinkers, such as the cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, dismiss this argument as incoherent.[9] Several psychologists and ethologists have argued for the existence of animal consciousness by describing a range of behaviors that appear to show animals holding beliefs about things they cannot directly perceive—Donald Griffin's 2001 book Animal Minds reviews a substantial portion of the evidence.[10]

Animal consciousness has been actively researched for over one hundred years.[11] In 1927 the American functional psychologist Harvey Carr argued that any valid measure or understanding of awareness in animals depends on "an accurate and complete knowledge of its essential conditions in man".[12] A more recent review concluded in 1985 that "the best approach is to use experiment (especially psychophysics) and observation to trace the dawning and ontogeny of self-consciousness, perception, communication, intention, beliefs, and reflection in normal human fetuses, infants, and children".[11] In 2012, a group of neuroscientists signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which "unequivocally" asserted that "humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neural substrates."

Advanced forms of consciousness by degree reflected in evolution can be found many animals in particularly in our relatives the primates.

Other non-mammal animals such cehlapods:

From: Animal consciousness - Wikipedia

Cephalopod intelligence has an important comparative aspect in the understanding of intelligence because it relies on a nervous system fundamentally different from that of vertebrates.[1] The cephalopod class of molluscs, particularly the Coleoidea subclass (cuttlefish, squid, octopuses), are thought to be the most intelligent invertebrates and an important example of advanced cognitive evolution in animals.

The scope of cephalopod intelligence is controversial, complicated by the elusive nature and esoteric thought processes of these creatures. In spite of this, the existence of impressive spatial learning capacity, navigational abilities, and predatory techniques in cephalopods is widely acknowledged.[2].
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Luckily materialism violates even the most basic logic there is - the law of identity - so it's not too complex. Having entirely contradictory properties shows mind and brain can't have the same identity. Further, everything you know, including matter, relies on consciousness and so you reject what you can never be sure of for what we can be sure of - consciousness existence. Like I said, carv basic.

The subject of the evolution of the brain and nervous system, and the mind and consciousness, does not make any Materialist (Ontological Naturalism) assumptions nor conclusions.

Luck has nothing to with this unless you can present coherent logical argument without Theological assumptions.

Nonetheless materialism does not violate the law of identity, because it simply expresses it in materialist terms. You need to make a coherent argument for this without making theistic assumptions up front concerning the law of identity.

Interesting. So when you self regulate, or see something like a computer, you accept it exists as magic? Cause nature does not do/create such things, and yet here we are.

Not like a computer, which at present computers are not self regulated, because computers are rather primitive machines compared to the mind.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
My point is that there is no wave interference pattern when the which-way path information of matter passing through a double-slit can be determined, then a non-interference pattern results. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment rules out detectors as causing the wave-function collapse. Knowledge/consciousness of the observer has been considered as a possible cause for the wave function collapse.



There is no widely accepted explanation for the results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results.

There are many various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

See here: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

Argument from ignorance, concerning the fallible human perspective concerning Quantum effects is totally OFF TOPIC for this thread.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
1. Mind reducing to the brain IS materialism my genius friend :)

Absolutely NO, explaining the mind and consciousness in terms of the brain is science, and science makes no materialist (ontological naturalism) assumption. In all the references that I have provided in this thread and all other threads on science please cit any materialist assumptions that have been made. Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any philosophical/theological assumptions nor conclusions.

The scientific evolution of life, the brain and the mind and consciousness can ultimately have a source beyond the scope of science such as God(s), or as some claim Aliens, which evolved form Aliens, which in turn evolved from Aliens and so on . . . .

Something like turtles all the way down.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
The subject of the evolution of the brain and nervous system, and the mind and consciousness, does not make any Materialist (Ontological Naturalism) assumptions nor conclusions.

You're not getting the issue. Nowhere did you provide anything saying how the brain creates consciousness. For instance, I don't agree with your evidence provided (Life evolve from single celled organisms, to multi-cellular organisms, to organisms with symmetry and primitive nervous nervous systems to more complex organisms with brains and nervous systems). Yet I am not a material reductionist. Yes, biological life evolves into more complex organisms. How does that support your conclusion that "emergence' pf the mind and consciousness through evolution."?



Luck has nothing to with this unless you can present coherent logical argument without Theological assumptions.

I have. You continue to refuse and address any of it. Take your pick.

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence included medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

[QuoteN]Nonethelessmaterialism does not violate the law of identity, because it simply expresses it in materialist terms. You need to make a coherent argument for this without making theistic assumptions up front concerning the law of identity.[/quote]

"Theistic assumptions" is some fun pseudobabble in place of a real objection, nice!
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Absolutely NO, explaining the mind and consciousness in terms of the brain is science, and science makes no materialist (ontological naturalism) assumption. In all the references that I have provided in this thread and all other threads on science please cit any materialist assumptions that have been made. Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any philosophical/theological assumptions nor conclusions.

Actually science supports my 4 points awaiting refutation. Much of modern science accepts materialism, but you're right that science does not inherently. Sadly most people follow belief instead of actual science, and our academic system does well at indoctrinating us into materialism before we can even reason.
 
Top