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

[Nous]

It appears that a brain might not be needed for consciousness to exist.

How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will

Single cell organisms like Paramecium swim about, avoid obstacles and predators, find food and mates, and have sex, all without any synaptic connections. They utilize cytoskeletal structures such as microtubules (in protruding cilia and within their internal cytoplasm) for sensing and movement. The single cell slime mold Physarum polycephalum sends out numerous tendrils composed of bundles of microtubules, forming patterns which, seeking food, can solve problems and escape a maze (e.g., Adamatzky, 2012). Observing the purposeful behavior of single cell creatures, neuroscientist Charles Sherrington (1957) remarked: “of nerve there is no trace, but perhaps the cytoskeleton might serve.”

Those are highly interesting facts. Of course, I loathe the idea that with every meal I eat, I'm killing zillions of happy, conscious bacteria who are just swimming along, thinking about their date on Saturday night.

I don't really know what to say about the Penrose/Hammeroff hypothesis. I've never really understood how it is supposed to solve much. For instance, in the paper Hammeroff says that Orch-OR solves the problem of conscious free will--but how? It seems to me it solves that problem only insofar as it assumes it.

What does one make of the fact that plants are full of microtubules? Are they performing quantum computations?

 

[Nous]

Provide an instance where consciousness can scientifically be demonstrated to exist without a brain and you have my attention.

Will be glad to--just let me know how you detect consciousness when its supposedly created within brains.

 

[Nous]

A quantum brain doesn't eliminate the brain from creating consiousness, just makes it more feasible.

How does the hypothesis of microtubules performing quantum computations make it more "feasible" for brains to create consciousness? Explain that process.

Similarly creating a quantum computer doesn't mean we learned how to violate natural law.

Who suggested violating any "natural law"?

 

[siti]

Why would you assume that?

Lack of any evidence.

How does volition work in the context of the idea that consciousness is produced by something happening in brains?

I decide what to do and then I do it. Is the "I" a real entity interacting with a real world or an illusory construct of the cosmic mind foisted upon an unsuspecting and unreal 'pawn' in "God's" cosmic game of solitaire?

Whitehead turned back to a kind of theistic dualism? When did he do that?

In Process and Reality, Whitehead does indeed have God as (at least partly) the collective consciousness of the universe - he starts off with...

"The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction. The novel entity is at once the togetherness of the 'many' which it finds, and also it is one among the disjunctive 'many' which it leaves; it is a novel entity, disjunctively among the many entities which it synthesizes. The many become one, and are increased by one."

and then...

"The immanence of God gives reason for the belief that pure chaos is intrinsically impossible."

and then suddenly...

"In the first place, God is not to be treated as an exception to all metaphysical principles, invoked to save their collapse. He is their chief exemplification. . . . Viewed as primordial, he is the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth of potentiality"

The first two seem to me to make God and Reality one and the same (aka pandeism on Hartshorne's definition*). But that last quote seems to me explicitly theistic - God, primordially, is entirely transcendent, unlimited conceptual potentiality. I can't see how this is not (a) overtly theistic and (b) metaphysically excessive - Plato's "untrimmed beard", if you will. I know its irreverent to the point of sacrilege for a mere mortal, and strictly amateur armchair 'philosopher' like me to take such a giant of the intellectual world to task, but I simply cannot square these two opposing views of the "chaosmos" - and most make Whitehead's God pan-en-theistic, presumably because of this. But that is theism, because whatever happens was all in God's mind "in the first place".

*"Pantheism (better, "pandeism," for again it is not really the theos that is described) means that God is the integral totality of ordinary cause-effects, and that there, is no super-cause independent of ordinary causes and effects...this panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations." (from Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism - Charles Hartshorne, 1941)

 

[Milton Platt]

Will be glad to--just let me know how you detect consciousness when its supposedly created within brains.

One can make the observation that when the brain is altered, the state of consciousness is altered, therefore, it is an artifact of the brain. It depends generally on the ability to use one's senses which are interpreted by the brain, although dreams and hallucinations do not require sensory input at the time. The things experienced during these events rely mostly on memories and experiences already experienced. We also know that when the brain of a person dies, they are no longer conscious. I know we have a long way to go to fully understand consciousness, but there is no reliable scientific data that I know of which demonstrates consciousness survives past death. There is no reason to assume it does in the absence of that data. That would be fallacy. One could reasonably say that we do not know for 100% certainty that it survives death, but that is an artificial bar, as we are not 100% certain of much at all.

If you have some way of scientifically testing for consciousness after death, it would be interesting. Double blind, falsifiable study??? For one, I would find that a fascinating thing. How would one go about falsifying the supernatural???

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I haven't heard any that are convincing.

 

[idea]

Can man create conscience?
(I assume the test-tube variety, and not the type create through study/school/within your own mind...)
Here is another question - Is it possible to create matter? to create energy? to create anything out of nothingness? Nothing is created - we only transform what eternally exists. Just as matter and energy exist, intelligence/conscience/spirit - this is another one of the entities which just exists in the universe.

 

[siti]

What does one make of the fact that plants are full of microtubules? Are they performing quantum computations?

Why not? I don't see why you are objecting to the idea that consciousness might be a function of the quantum-level reality of sufficiently complex things. It (if it turns out to be correct - and I think the evidence is building slowly) makes the Whiteheadian notion of panpsychism much more tenable IMO. If its right, it may explain why the entire world - from protons to people - seem to experience (and respond to) their environment sensibly.

 

[Nous]

Lack of any evidence.

Is that supposed to be your answer to my earlier question: "Where did you rule out that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon, for which brains are receivers?"

The evidence presented on this thread contradicting the idea that something happening in brains produces consciousness is (1) the evidence of people having complex, coherent experiences, forming memories, engaging in logical thought processes and having veridical perceptions not acquired by way of their sensory organs during clinical death; and (2) the evidence of anomalous cognition.

How does volition work in the context of the idea that consciousness is produced by something happening in brains?

I decide what to do and then I do it.

Where does that “I” exist? What produced it? And how does it effect the bodily movement? Does it create electricity, move an ion down a channel?

In Process and Reality, Whitehead does indeed have God as (at least partly) the collective consciousness of the universe - he starts off with...

"The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction. The novel entity is at once the togetherness of the 'many' which it finds, and also it is one among the disjunctive 'many' which it leaves; it is a novel entity, disjunctively among the many entities which it synthesizes. The many become one, and are increased by one."

and then...

"The immanence of God gives reason for the belief that pure chaos is intrinsically impossible."

and then suddenly...

"In the first place, God is not to be treated as an exception to all metaphysical principles, invoked to save their collapse. He is their chief exemplification. . . . Viewed as primordial, he is the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth of potentiality"

The first two seem to me to make God and Reality one and the same (aka pandeism on Hartshorne's definition*). But that last quote seems to me explicitly theistic - God, primordially, is entirely transcendent, unlimited conceptual potentiality. I can't see how this is not (a) overtly theistic and (b) metaphysically excessive - Plato's "untrimmed beard", if you will. I know its irreverent to the point of sacrilege for a mere mortal, and strictly amateur armchair 'philosopher' like me to take such a giant of the intellectual world to task, but I simply cannot square these two opposing views of the "chaosmos" - and most make Whitehead's God pan-en-theistic, presumably because of this. But that is theism, because whatever happens was all in God's mind "in the first place".

*"Pantheism (better, "pandeism," for again it is not really the theos that is described) means that God is the integral totality of ordinary cause-effects, and that there, is no super-cause independent of ordinary causes and effects...this panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations." (from Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism - Charles Hartshorne, 1941)

Whitehead's metaphysics does seem to be panentheistic. That's different than "theistic dualism".

 

[Nous]

One can make the observation that when the brain is altered, the state of consciousness is altered, therefore, it is an artifact of the brain.

So you infer that brains produce consciousness by way of cum hoc ergo propter hoc?

Can you not conclude that brains produce consciousness by way of an argument that isn't a logical fallacy?

 

[Nous]

What does one make of the fact that plants are full of microtubules? Are they performing quantum computations?

Why not? I don't see why you are objecting to the idea that consciousness might be a function of the quantum-level reality of sufficiently complex things.

I asked a simple question (or two questions), and you read it as an "objection" to something.

Why would plants be performing quantum computations?

If you have evidence to argue for "the idea that consciousness might be a function of the quantum-level reality of sufficiently complex things," then present it. You might convince me, et al.

 

[siti]

Whitehead's metaphysics does seem to be panentheistic. That's different than "theistic dualism".

I know its different and for the most part Whitehead does seem pan-en-theistic, but in this quote - the one that I was actually referring to...

Viewed as primordial, he is the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth of potentiality

...I can't see where there is a pan- to be -en- the -theism. So the primordial theos of Whitehead's scheme is, it seems to me, indistinguishable metaphysically from the theos of traditional dualistic theism (minus the usual religious baggage). Hartshorne (IMO) goes even further and makes the theos "absolutely perfect" in "some respects" (referring to this "primordial" conceptually perfect unlimited potentiality). That, to me, just goes too far back towards dualistic theism because there is, as far as I can make out, no possibility of that "absolute perfection" ever being concretized as part of the "relatively perfect" "intergated totality of all ordinary causes and effects" that is the pan-en part of the panentheistic scheme. What then, is the point of that? God has perfect ideas that he can never instantiate? Even if that is true (which we would never be able to establish), how could knowing it possibly help us to understand the world?

Anyway, this is going rather off topic (My apologies for that, but it is an interesting side track - at least to me).

Lack of any evidence.

Is that supposed to be your answer to my earlier question: "Where did you rule out that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon, for which brains are receivers?"

Yes.

The evidence presented on this thread contradicting the idea that something happening in brains produces consciousness is (1) the evidence of people having complex, coherent experiences, forming memories, engaging in logical thought processes and having veridical perceptions not acquired by way of their sensory organs during clinical death; and (2) the evidence of anomalous cognition.

(1) What evidence is there to establish beyond doubt that these experiences and perceptions actually occur without the aid of sensory organ or brain function? Clinical death is a matter of opinion, not fact. There are well-reported cases of people pronounced clinically dead who have somehow (miraculously) revived hours or even days later. Clearly some of them were not really dead. And if consciousness is a function of quantum processes, judging death merely by lack of electrochemical activity is every bit as prejudicial as suggesting that the same electrochemical activity is the only means by which consciousness can occur. It is way too early to assume a super-physical cause for consciousness. I cannot explain the mechanism by which I think consciousness might occur in brains, but neither can you explain how it happens without a brain. I have a strong hunch that my task is going to become easier in the next decade whilst yours will remain beyond the capacity of scientific investigation - but I could be wrong.

Over and out.

 

[Nous]

(1) What evidence is there to establish beyond doubt that these experiences and perceptions actually occur without the aid of sensory organ or brain function?

Click on each of the links in the 3 OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics? Especially see reports and confirmations of Dr. Rudy's patient and Pam Reynolds.

Clinical death is a matter of opinion, not fact.

It is a fact that "cerebral ischemia always progress[es] to isoelectricity occurs within 10 to 20 (mean 15) seconds” of onset of circulatory arrest. And it is a fact that after resuscitation from clinical death, brains do not recover functioning immediately, as Dr. Parnia documents.

There are well-reported cases of people pronounced clinically dead who have somehow (miraculously) revived hours or even days later.

Dr. Rudy's patient was not "pronounced 'clinically' dead". He was pronounced "dead". George Ritchie was pronounced dead 3 three times.

Clearly some of them were not really dead.

Define "really dead".

Numerous times I've noted the straw man argument--"But they were not really, really, stinking dead". That still doesn't account for their complex, coherent experiences, formation of memories, engagement in logical thought processes and veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs during (or immediately after) clinical death.

And if consciousness is a function of quantum processes

I'll wait on an argument premised on evidence.

You also haven't explained how volition is produced by something happening in brains--even though you apparently hold that belief without question.

 

[siti]

It is a fact that "cerebral ischemia always progress[es] to isoelectricity occurs within 10 to 20 (mean 15) seconds” of onset of circulatory arrest. And it is a fact that after resuscitation from clinical death, brains do not recover functioning immediately...

Yes - but this is judging death by observable electrical activity - your claim (and that of Greyson in his 2010 paper: Implications of Near-Death Experiences for a Postmaterialist Psychology (Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 2010, Vol. 2, No. 1, 37–45) is that this is not the appropriate indicator of 'consciousness' so you are really trying to have your cake and ha'penny here. In fact Greyson's conclusion is that "the development of postclassical physics over the past century offers empirical support for a new scientific conceptualization of the interface between mind and brain" and he then cites a paper co-authored by Henry Stapp who is another "quantum consciousness" proponent (I haven't read that paper but there's an arXiv version here - its 72 pages so it will take me a while to read it) - but I gather the point of it is to establish the idea that consciousness is both deeper (quantum level) and more ecological (de-localized and 'top-down') than a classical reductionist-materialist paradigm would be capable of assimilating - that much I certainly agree with - in fact I would more or less take that much as a given at this stage. Obviously I still have a lot more reading to do before I engage further in this discussion - which is the nicest way I can think of to excuse myself for the time being.

 

[SpiritQuest]

What does one make of the fact that plants are full of microtubules? Are they performing quantum computations?

Photosynthesis of plants appears to require quantum mechanics to work.


Evidence that photosynthesis efficiency is based on quantum mechanics | KurzweilAI

Light-gathering macromolecules in plant cells transfer energy by taking advantage of molecular vibrations whose physical descriptions have no equivalents in classical physics, according to the first unambiguous theoretical evidence of quantum effects in photosynthesis, published in the journal Nature Communications

 

[Nous]

Yes - but this is judging death by observable electrical activity - your claim (and that of Greyson in his 2010 paper: Implications of Near-Death Experiences for a Postmaterialist Psychology (Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 2010, Vol. 2, No. 1, 37–45) is that this is not the appropriate indicator of 'consciousness'

Quote what Greyson says about that.

The evidence of NDEs refutes the idea that electrical activity in the brain is what cause the various conscious phenomena that occur during NDEs.

In fact Greyson's conclusion is that "the development of postclassical physics over the past century offers empirical support for a new scientific conceptualization of the interface between mind and brain" and he then cites a paper co-authored by Henry Stapp who is another "quantum consciousness" proponent (I haven't read that paper but there's an arXiv version here - its 72 pages so it will take me a while to read it) - but I gather the point of it is to establish the idea that consciousness is both deeper (quantum level) and more ecological (de-localized and 'top-down') than a classical reductionist-materialist paradigm would be capable of assimilating - that much I certainly agree with - in fact I would more or less take that much as a given at this stage. Obviously I still have a lot more reading to do before I engage further in this discussion - which is the nicest way I can think of to excuse myself for the time being.

I've read much of Stapp's work. He does not propose that consciousness is a product is activity happening in brains--even at the level of quanta.

 

[Nous]

Photosynthesis of plants appears to require quantum mechanics to work.

Yes, that apparently is true. And several other phenomena are now known to be the product of quantum processes.

What I was asking about was implication for plants of the Penrose/Hammeroff Orch-OR hypothesis about microtubules performing quantum computations--and that this somehow gives rise to something related to consciousness.

 

[Ekleipsis]

Sure, it takes a brain to make an argument

 

[Nous]

Sure, it takes a brain to make an argument

It doesn't require a brain to make a fallacious argument such as cum hoc ergo propter hoc. As this thread well demonstrates.

 

[Ekleipsis]

I don't know how you'd have an argument without a brain, or rather even two of them

I would say that's pretty neat if you could pull that off