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

[siti]

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.

OK - but I already posted a link to another version of that paper. As far as I recall that was not one of the papers you actually quoted from - but it doesn't matter. What you said was that you were very familiar with Stapp's writings and that he did not propose that consciousness was a product of activity happening in brains...etc.

There is nothing in that paper that makes that explicit - although there is plenty that implies that even if consciousness is not a product of brain activity per se it is very difficult to imagine any of the conscious 'causes' of neuroplasticity happening in the absence of a functioning brain. Be that as it may, here is another paper (Published in Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 3, Number 3, 1 March 1996, pp. 194-210(17)) in which Stapp talks more explicitly about consciousness and its possible QM explanation, and states (for example):

"What is consciousness? It is a sequence of actualizations of functional patterns of brain activity. These functional patterns are expressed in terms of a projected body-world schema, and each actualized pattern is 'facilitated' for use in later executive events."
​

...which is pretty much what I said in my previous post and more accurately typifies where I agree with his reasoning. Of course he has carefully avoided identifying the brain as the actual origin of the 'actualizations' but I don't believe that we have yet reached a sufficient understanding of how the (quantum-mechanical) 'brain' might really work to eliminate a physical (quantum-mechanical) explanation yet. Any appeal to 'necessary' super-physical agency is premature IMO. And Stapp's concept of consciousness here surely cannot account for NDEs (for example) even if the origin of consciousness is, somehow, aphysical and external to the brain if, as is claimed, these events happen when there is no brain activity for consciousness to actualize the functional patterns of.

My question for Stapp would be: if we accept that each "actualized pattern is facilitated for use in later executive events" how do we know that they are not also "facilitated for use in later 'conscious choice' or 'actualization' events"? If that were the case, then we need only one initial 'actualization' of functional patterns of brain activity to initiate the sequence that we call "consciousness" - the rest is a consequence (but being of a probabilistic, quantum mechanical nature, a non-deterministic consequence) of that actualization and its interaction with the world 'it' experiences.

 

[Nous]

OK - but I already posted a link to another version of that paper.

Provide a link.

Be that as it may, here is another paper (Published in Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 3, Number 3, 1 March 1996, pp. 194-210(17)) in which Stapp talks more explicitly about consciousness and its possible QM explanation, and states (for example):

"What is consciousness? It is a sequence of actualizations of functional patterns of brain activity. These functional patterns are expressed in terms of a projected body-world schema, and each actualized pattern is 'facilitated' for use in later executive events."
​

What you have quoted here is not found in the 1995 paper that you linked to.

 

[Nous]

What does consciousness emerge from?

Knowledge of spacetime

How does consciousness emerge from knowledge? Where was that hypothesis tested?

 

[Nous]

ALL the known objective evidence at present demonstrates that the various phenomena of consciousness originates as processes of the brain.

If you have any argument other than a fallacious one that infers causation from correlation, then this is your opportunity to provide it.

Some of the evidence that people have complex, coherent experiences, engage in logical thought processes, form memories and have veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs during clinical death is presented in the OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

Statistics professor Jessica Utts reviews the evidence for anomalous cognition:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability​

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

You'll need to work on your denial of those facts, too.

 

[bobhikes]

False. I haven't presented any argument, period. I have asked for an argument in the OP. So far, no one here has been able to articulate any such argument that concludes that the various phenomena of consciousness are effects of processes in brains.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Anything else?

Explain why I feel consciousness comes from my head specifically behind the eyes. I believe this is true for most people. Explain how if I strain my conscious I can get fatigued or even a headache. Explain if I work long hours on thinking alone, I can get physically fatigue and stress in my neck up to my head. Explain why all this is true for all humans if consciousness is not part of a human.

If then consciousness is part of a human and we feel it in the area of the brain and overworking it causes pain in the area of the brain and mri's show activity in the area of the brain when we use it for all humans. Odds are in favor that it exists in the Brain for all humans.

 

[Nous]

Explain why I feel consciousness comes from my head

What does that feel like?

My inability to explain your feelings will not help you to articulate an argument that concludes that the various phenomena of consciousness are a product of something happening in brains. All that is important on this thread is such argument.

 

[leibowde84]

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)?

I haven't seen any logical argument contending that consciousness exists outside or without a brain. Thus, it seems logical to assume it is a product of the brain. I guess we will have to wait until we can replicate consciousness artificially.

 

[Nous]

I haven't seen any logical argument contending that consciousness exists outside or without a brain. Thus, it seems logical to assume it is a product of the brain.

Come to think of it, I haven't seen any argument that Donald Trump is not a genius. So, does it seem logical to assume that he is?

Yours is going to be an argumentum ad ignorantiam when you get around to stating it.

Some of the evidence that people have complex, coherent experiences, engage in logical thought processes, form memories and have veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs during clinical death is presented in the OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

 

[leibowde84]

Come to think of it, I haven't seen any argument that Donald Trump is not a genius. So, does it seem logical to assume that he is?

Yours is going to be an argumentum ad ignorantiam when you get around to stating it.

Some of the evidence that people have complex, coherent experiences, engage in logical thought processes, form memories and have veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs during clinical death is presented in the OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

Actually, yours in an argumentum ad ignorantiam, as you are claiming that consciousness is something outside the brain merely because it hasn't been proven or shown to be a product of the brain as of yet.

 

[bobhikes]

What does that feel like?

My inability to explain your feelings will not help you to articulate an argument that concludes that the various phenomena of consciousness are a product of something happening in brains. All that is important on this thread is such argument.

Where do you feel your conscious being honest. The body does not lie. When your heart is rapidly racing you feel it and know where it is. When you take a deep breath you feel you lungs. If you overwork any part of your body you feel pain where you over worked it.

Honestly tell me you don't feel your conscious in your brain. Honestly tell me you don't feel pain or get physically tired when you overwork your conscious and I'll go away.

Its your body what does it tell you. Is it saying your conscious is somewhere else. As for NDE, all parts of the bodies react differently after death. In morgues long after death body parts move. You could be brain dead and your heart beating. We don't know when to actually state a person is dead. Just because they have thoughts after we are calling them dead is meaningless.

 

[Aquitaine]

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?

Oh, and I suppose you think it's unreasonable to make those connections. Tell me then, Shaman, how does this mystical "energy" work which "houses" our consciousness?

 

[Nous]

Actually, yours in an argumentum ad ignorantiam, as you are claiming that consciousness is something outside the brain merely because it hasn't been proven or shown to be a product of the brain as of yet.

Quote where I've stated an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Are you denying that what you said is an appeal to ignorance?

 

[Nous]

Honestly tell me you don't feel your conscious in your brain.

No, mine is in Maui.

So I guess that refutes your attempt to make an argument.

 

[Nous]

Oh, and I suppose you think it's unreasonable to make those connections.

If you wish to argue that inferring causation from correlation is not fallacious, go ahead.

Tell me then, Shaman, how does this mystical "energy" work which "houses" our consciousness?

My answers to your questions will not help you to answer either of the questions in the OP.

 

[siti]

Provide a link

See post 234

What you have quoted here is not found in the 1995 paper that you linked to.

Well spotted - and my sincere apologies - I pasted the wrong link...here's the more complete version of Stapp's paper. I have also edited the link in my earlier post - just in case anybody else wants to read it. The bit I quoted is on p21.

 

[Aquitaine]

If you wish to argue that inferring causation from correlation is not fallacious, go ahead.

Go and inflict physical damage to your skull and once your brain has suffered sufficient physical damage, come back to your computer and respond to me via the mystical energy which is "storing" your consciousness and driving your body.

Otherwise quit peddling your pathetic "everything is energy dude" witchdoctor superstition and get real.

My answers to your questions will not help you to answer either of the questions in the OP.

Nice dodge. If you're going to trash the logical deductions drawn by other posters in this thread, at least have the guts to defend your own shamanistic view of consciousness.

 

[bobhikes]

No, mine is in Maui.

So I guess that refutes your attempt to make an argument.

Does your pain exist in Japan
Perhaps your emotions come from space
Your memory is stored in Alaska.

You realize you are using the creationist method of Gaps of science to make your argument. You are denying valid scientific research and even what your own body tells you to grasp for straws. I can't prove your wrong but you can.

 

[leibowde84]

Quote where I've stated an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Are you denying that what you said is an appeal to ignorance?

Both of our arguments are appeals to ignorance, as we don't know for certain whether consciousness is a product of the brain or a separate entity. You are saying that, since we cannot explain consciousness with the brain, as of yet, it must be outside the brain. I am saying that since there is no reason, as of yet, to assume that the brain cannot account for consciousness, as we do not have nearly enough understanding of how consciousness works, it is reasonable to assume it exists in the brain.

 

[Nous]

See post 234

Well spotted - and my sincere apologies - I pasted the wrong link...here's the more complete version of Stapp's paper. I have also edited the link in my earlier post - just in case anybody else wants to read it. The bit I quoted is on p21.

Thank you. I'll get to it asap.

 

[Nous]

If you wish to argue that inferring causation from correlation is not fallacious, go ahead.

Go and inflict physical damage to your skull and once your brain has suffered sufficient physical damage, come back to your computer and respond to me via the mystical energy which is "storing" your consciousness and driving your body.

That isn't an argument by which to conclude that cum hoc ergo propter hoc is not fallacious. There is a perfect correlation between the battery being in my laptop and my ability to get online on it. One cannot infer from that correlation that the battery produces the internet.

Otherwise quit peddling your pathetic "everything is energy dude" witchdoctor superstition and get real.

Wow, that sound kind of angry. If you believe anything I've actually said on this thread is erroneous, then just quote it and demonstrate its error.

If you're going to trash the logical deductions drawn by other posters in this thread.

I haven't trashed any logical deductions from any poster here. You haven't stated such any such logical deduction, by the way. Deal the reality.