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

[siti]

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.

Are you kidding me? Seriously - you need to go back and read it again.

 

[SpiritQuest]

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.

I feel that consciousness can exist independently of biological brains. Microtubules are possibly structures that resonate with consciousness like a musical instrument. What is consciousness? Perhaps the function of the brain is to limit consciousness like a radio-receiver filter, not to produce it.

Cosmic Symphony: A Deeper Look at Quantum Consciousness | The Huffington Post

First of all, what is consciousness? The commonsense assumption is that consciousness is a stream of experience produced by the brain. As long as the brain functions, there is consciousness; when the brain shuts down, consciousness vanishes. This, however, is not necessarily the case. It could be that our brain no more produces consciousness than the radio produces the symphony that comes through its speakers. The symphony, too, disappears when the radio is shut down, yet we know that it’s not produced by the radio. Both the radio and the brain pick up signals, transform them, and display the result in our stream of conscious experience.

 

[Aquitaine]

NFL players and others who suffer head trauma (damage to the Frontal Cortex) apparently have a statistically higher likelyhood of engaging in impulsive violent behaviour or outbursts.

There are reports of people's personalities/mental capabilities changing after certain areas of the brain are lobotomized.

Patients who suffer extreme seizures can opt to have partial lobotomies which help allieviate the symptoms.

There is plently of evidence to suggest that our consciousness is the result of nuts-and-bolts neurobiology and nothing more: no need for fancy spiritualistic interpretations of consciousness as "energy".

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Right, differentiating correlation from causation can be difficult. But we know that every time a person actually dies (as opposed to NDE's) there is no measurable consciousness with regard to that person.

On the other hand, all the evidence for consciousness existing before or after the person's death is anecdotal. If someone can ever devise a testable hypothesis that is falsifiable and can withstand rigorous scientific examination, then it is time to consider that option. But there are serious questions to be answered in a scientific manner. Where is the consciousness before the person is born, where is it after he dies, what is it composed of (just saying energy or spirit does not answer that question) Energy dissipates, and spirit has been redefined almost out of existence as a useful word. Why does it need a brain all of a sudden?

 

[Nous]

I don't know how you'd have an argument without a brain

What components in brains formulate arguments? And why hasn't some brain on this thread formulated a non-fallacious argument that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains?

 

[Nous]

NFL players and others who suffer head trauma (damage to the Frontal Cortex) apparently have a statistically higher likelyhood of engaging in impulsive violent behaviour or outbursts.

There are reports of people's personalities/mental capabilities changing after certain areas of the brain are lobotomized.

Patients who suffer extreme seizures can opt to have partial lobotomies which help allieviate the symptoms.

There is plently of evidence to suggest that our consciousness is the result of nuts-and-bolts neurobiology and nothing more: no need for fancy spiritualistic interpretations of consciousness as "energy".

I wish I had a nickel every time someone popped onto this thread with a new cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

If you don't believe that inferring causation from the correlation that you suggest would be a fallacious argument, then why don't you try stating that deduction?

 

[Nous]

Right, differentiating correlation from causation can be difficult. But we know that every time a person actually dies (as opposed to NDE's) there is no measurable consciousness with regard to that person.

Define "actually dies". And what instrument did you use to measure someone's consciousness?

 

[Nous]

Are you kidding me? Seriously - you need to go back and read it again.

No, not kidding. I quoted from a paper co-written by Stapp in a post to you. If you have any information contrary to what I said, then present it.

 

[Nous]

I feel that consciousness can exist independently of biological brains. Microtubules are possibly structures that resonate with consciousness like a musical instrument. What is consciousness? Perhaps the function of the brain is to limit consciousness like a radio-receiver filter, not to produce it.

Cosmic Symphony: A Deeper Look at Quantum Consciousness | The Huffington Post

Good article. It's nicely explanatory. It's oddly difficult for me to get the impression from Penrose/Hammeroff's writings that they are saying exactly what Laslo describes.

 

[shunyadragon]

I hear a lot of blue smoke and mirrors banter here concerning consciousness, and determinism. I would like to simplify this with some basics.

First, consciousness definition is simple: [cite=[URL="https://www.google.com/search?q=consciousness+definition"]consciousness definition - Google Search[/URL]] 'the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. [/cite].

Most scientific views consider the necessity of an animal brain for the existence of a mind, and therefore a degree of consciousness.

This reference; Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is important in understanding the current philosophical,and scientific understanding consciousness.

There are different aspects or attributes of consciousness recognized in humans, higher animals, and to lesser extent most animals: (1) Sentience. (2) Wakefulness, (3) Self-consciousness. (4) What it is like? (5) Subject of conscious states. (6) Transitive Consciousness.

Humans exhibit all these attributes to a high degree. As you move down the evolutionary development of the brain. Consciousness becomes less complex, but indeed 'descriptively' presenting many if not most animals indeed do exhibit some attributes of consciousness, and as the brain increases in complexity the degree of consciousness becomes more complex. Other than humans, other primates show the highest degree of complex consciousness. Many primates can recognize themselves in the mirror, which is essential in the attribute of Self-awareness. The attribute of dreaming is present in many many if not most animals.

Science is 'descriptive' of the physical nature and the objective evidence concerning the relationship between the brain and the mind. and the associated nature of consciousness. The scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism can only falsify the objective evidence of the relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness. The challenge of splitting 'frog hairs' over the subjective nature of the mind and qualia' and the why? of the mind and consciousness remains subjective questions of philosophical and theological notions of the meaning of consciousness and the mind/

The bottom line in science is when he brain dies the mind and consciousness no longer exist by the objective verifiable evidence,

 

[Nous]

The bottom line in science is when he brain dies the mind and consciousness no longer exist by the objective verifiable evidence,

Talk about blowing smoke. There is no scientific study in which the authors deduced from the evidence that “when the brain dies the mind and consciousness no longer exist.” Right?

You only make such stuff up because you can't deduce from the evidence that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains. The evidence of anomalous cognition refutes the claim that consciousness is caused by brains as readily as the evidence on NDEs does.

Dr. Parnia and 30 other physicians and medical personnel show that what you claim is “the bottom line in science” is a mere falsehood:

Abstract

Background: Cardiac arrest (CA) survivors experience cognitive deficits including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It is unclear whether these are related to cognitive/mental experiences and awareness during CPR. Despite anecdotal reports the broad range of cognitive/mental experiences and awareness associated with CPR has not been systematically studied.

Methods: The incidence and validity of awareness together with the range, characteristics and themes relating to memories/cognitive processes during CA was investigated through a 4 year multi-center observational study using a three stage quantitative and qualitative interview system. The feasibility of objectively testing the accuracy of claims of visual and auditory awareness was examined using specific tests. The outcome measures were (1) awareness/memories during CA and (2) objective verification of claims of awareness using specific tests.

Results: Among 2060 CA events, 140 survivors completed stage 1 interviews, while 101 of 140 patients completed stage 2 interviews. 46% had memories with 7 major cognitive themes: fear; animals/plants; bright light; violence/persecution; deja-vu; family; recalling events post-CA and 9% had NDEs, while 2% described awareness with explicit recall of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ actual events related to their resuscitation. One had a verifiable period of conscious awareness during which time cerebral function was not expected.​

http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf

Further evidence can be found in the 3 OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

 

[siti]

No, not kidding. I quoted from a paper co-written by Stapp in a post to you. If you have any information contrary to what I said, then present it.

Actually you quoted from a paper that cited a paper co-written by Stapp - a point that I raised, not you. That Stapp paper was actually about a quantum-mechanical view of neuroplasticity - how consciousness might affect brain function by collapsing the wave-function of the whole brain. My comment on this was:

...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

...and made it clear that I agreed with it that far. Stapp sees the entire brain as a quantum mechanical system that is acted upon by 'consciousness' (which might even be what you are saying). As to where this 'consciousness' appears from, he has no clear idea as far as I can make out - but I can't see how this interpretation (of consciousness) can possibly work in the absence of a physical (quantum mechanical) 'brain'. And I can't see why the immediately antecedent 'conscious moment' (the collapsed wave function of the brain) cannot be the 'conscious' cause of the immediately subsequent one. It doesn't have to be deterministic - its a probabilistic feedback loop that leaves space for 'choice'. It doesn't have to be localised, its quantum mechanical - uncertain, unpredetermined and observer-choice-guided.

 

[shunyadragon]

Talk about blowing smoke. There is no scientific study in which the authors deduced from the evidence that “when the brain dies the mind and consciousness no longer exist.” Right?

You only make such stuff up because you can't deduce from the evidence that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains. The evidence of anomalous cognition refutes the claim that consciousness is caused by brains as readily as the evidence on NDEs does.

Dr. Parnia and 30 other physicians and medical personnel show that what you claim is “the bottom line in science” is a mere falsehood:

Abstract

Background: Cardiac arrest (CA) survivors experience cognitive deficits including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It is unclear whether these are related to cognitive/mental experiences and awareness during CPR. Despite anecdotal reports the broad range of cognitive/mental experiences and awareness associated with CPR has not been systematically studied.

Methods: The incidence and validity of awareness together with the range, characteristics and themes relating to memories/cognitive processes during CA was investigated through a 4 year multi-center observational study using a three stage quantitative and qualitative interview system. The feasibility of objectively testing the accuracy of claims of visual and auditory awareness was examined using specific tests. The outcome measures were (1) awareness/memories during CA and (2) objective verification of claims of awareness using specific tests.

Results: Among 2060 CA events, 140 survivors completed stage 1 interviews, while 101 of 140 patients completed stage 2 interviews. 46% had memories with 7 major cognitive themes: fear; animals/plants; bright light; violence/persecution; deja-vu; family; recalling events post-CA and 9% had NDEs, while 2% described awareness with explicit recall of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ actual events related to their resuscitation. One had a verifiable period of conscious awareness during which time cerebral function was not expected.​

http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf

Further evidence can be found in the 3 OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

In the case of NDE's brains do not die!

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Assuming that all four (or more) dimensions exhibit Euclidean geometry. If one, or more, do not, then all we really have is an approximation in three Euclidean dimensions. We have no way of knowing whether this is actually true or just a perfectly repeatable observation because that's the only way we can see it.

Not sure what you mean exactly.
Anything which does not obey Euclidean geometry is either faulty or incomplete.
For instance, if we see a triangle that appears to have its inner angles sum more than 180 degrees,
then we have to conclude that the surface on which that 'triangle' is situated is curved in an extra
dimension of space; and it is thus not actually a proper triangle. The 3-d surface itself now must
consist of perfect Euclidean rules. If we take that into account, and STILL observe >180 degrees,
then the logical conclusion is that it must be in 4-d of space; or perhaps our measurement is at fault.

 

[Nous]

Actually you quoted from a paper that cited a paper co-written by Stapp - a point that I raised, not you.

Here is the link to the paper I quoted from, co-written by Stapp: Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction

If you believe that this paper says anything contrary to what I said ("[Stapp] does not propose that consciousness is a product [of] activity happening in brains--even at the level of quanta."), then please quote it.

 

[Nous]

In the case of NDE's brains do not die!

Again, I will point out that numerous times, on this thread and that thread, I have already pointed out the straw man argument--"They're not really, really, stinking dead!" On the NDE thread, I quoted Dr. van Lommel at length on the "paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion," which is a paradox under the hypothesis that conscious phenomena are products of activity in brains " . . . 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 . . ."

I have repeatedly linked to Dr. Parnia's paper where he explains that immediately after resuscitation from clinical death a person should not be having coherent, complex experiences, memory formation, logical thought processes, or especially veridical perceptions not acquired through the sense organs. The fact that a person may not be "stinking dead" (according to whatever definition of "dead" you wish to use) does not account for veridical perceptions not gotten through the sense organs--such as those confirmed perceptions of Dr. Rudy's patient, Pam Reynolds, and the patient in Parnia 2014. Right?

 

[Milton Platt]

Define "actually dies". And what instrument did you use to measure someone's consciousness?

"Actually dies" would be in this case, cessation of all cellular activity. It is easy test cells to see if they are alive or dead. What instrument do YOU use to test for consciousness? Maybe I can borrow yours.

 

[SpiritQuest]

Most scientific views consider the necessity of an animal brain for the existence of a mind, and therefore a degree of consciousness.
,

Max Planck, a founding father of quantum theory postulated that consciousness is fundamental.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." -- Max Planck, As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

 

[Nous]

"Actually dies" would be in this case, cessation of all cellular activity. It is easy test cells to see if they are alive or dead. What instrument do YOU use to test for consciousness? Maybe I can borrow yours.

So, in other words, without an instrument to measure consciousness, your claim above about "what we know that every time a person actually dies" has not been tested, much less substantiated. Your claims are merely your religion. You obviously can't make an argument that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains.

 

[Nous]

Max Planck, a founding father of quantum theory postulated that consciousness is fundamental.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." -- Max Planck, As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

Thank you.

A number of other physicists and other scientists have drawn similar conclusions (having nothing to do with NDEs or anomalous cognition).