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

[Nous]

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

When you stump your toe, do you get a headache?

Again, I ask what it "feels" like for your brain to be creating consciousness?

You realize you are using the creationist method of Gaps of science to make your argument.

What argument are you referring to? Quote it.

 

[Nous]

Both of our arguments are appeals to ignorance

If you are referring to an argument I've made, quote it.

 

[Nous]

It's really kind of stunning how many people have just lost their donuts over the question asked the OP--or the inability to answer the question. Apparently the question threatens people's religion.

 

[bobhikes]

When you stump your toe, do you get a headache?

Again, I ask what it "feels" like for your brain to be creating consciousness?

What argument are you referring to? Quote it.

Human memory is stored in the brain according to scientific sources. Here's a link refering to a few.
Human Memory - Psychology - Oxford Bibliographies
Consciousness relies on human memory extensively. In fact you would not have consciousness without memory.

Human senses drive both memory and consciousness. Here's a neurology explanation of how it works.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

So now we have Human memory and human senses which operate in the Brain and consciousness needs them to exist. This presents to me high probability the consciousness is a property of the brain.

Fun Fact(for me anyway)
People that Hear from God or the Devil say that they talk to them in their Heads.
Survey of my family, When you think where are the thoughts located. Mom and Dad 72 years old Head. Wife 51, Me 52 son 11 head, son 16 left foot(at least its still part of the body)
I would bet if I asked the question on the RF I would get around 80% in the head.

This barely statistic indicates that at a minimum we recognize consciousness in the head. At minimum this suggests our mind can create false consciousness that tricks us. It is also possible that a higher being recognizes consciousness in our heads and talks to us there.
Hearing Voices


Consciousness is effect by both emotions and pain and can cause emotions and pain in the body. This links consciousness a 3 time to the human body. Linked is a Biophysics and biocybernetics report the summary is free. Just another science that links consciousness to the body.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I could go on but it won't matter for every statistic or report I produce you will find a flaw.

What your proposing is that even though everything consciousness needs to work is in the mind, even though we feel as though it is coming from the mind, even though its purpose is to benefit the human it exists outside the mind and the human.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Here, you are assuming that there is no amount of complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena. That is certainly not known. For all we know, consciousness could certainly be a product of neurological activity.

 

[Nous]

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.

Here, you are assuming that there is no amount of complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena. That is certainly not known.

I'm pretty sure we do know that the properties of brain components or processes do not logically give rise the various mental phenomena. We know what cells do and are made of--and none of it logically entails the production of mental phenomena. That's why there is an Explanatory Gap. Look up that term! You will find lots of philosophers and scientists who have studied brains and consciousness, and who have coined that term. And because of that Explanatory Gap, many of them have proposed an entirely different metaphysics than one in which something happening in brains produces conscious experience and the ability to choose between available options.

For all we know, consciousness could certainly be a product of neurological activity.

Yeah, and for all we know, elephants can hide in mouse holes.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm pretty sure we do know that the properties of brain components or processes do not logically give rise the various mental phenomena. We know what cells do and are made of--and none of it logically entails the production of mental phenomena. That's why there is an Explanatory Gap. Look up that term! You will find lots of philosophers and scientists who have studied brains and consciousness, and who have coined that term. And because of that Explanatory Gap, many of them have proposed an entirely different metaphysics than one in which something happening in brains produces conscious experience and the ability to choose between available options.

Yeah, and for all we know, elephants can hide in mouse holes.

The "explanatory gap" is a clear example of an argument from ignorance. We DO NOT KNOW that neurology cannot explain consciousness. We merely currently cannot explain consciousness with what we now know about the brain. That could very well change in the future. Our understanding of the brain is not nearly complete.

 

[Nous]

Human memory is stored in the brain according to scientific sources. Here's a link refering to a few.
Human Memory - Psychology - Oxford Bibliographies

See the links to the 3 papers by Professor Forsdyke in the third OP here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics? He notes calculations indicating that the human brain is wildly insufficient to store memories and perform functions, as well as the facts (noted) indicating that brain and skull size in humans do not scale to intelligence (a measure of long term memory).

Consciousness relies on human memory extensively. In fact you would not have consciousness without memory.

So day-old infants who have no memories are not conscious?

Human senses drive both memory and consciousness. Here's a neurology explanation of how it works.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

So now we have Human memory and human senses which operate in the Brain and consciousness needs them to exist.

Except you didn't address the fact the people have complex, coherent experiences, form memories, engage in logical thought processes and have veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs during clinical death, when there is little or nothing happening in their brains.

 

[Nous]

The "explanatory gap" is a clear example of an argument from ignorance. We DO NOT KNOW that neurology cannot explain consciousness.

You've got it backwards. Your assertion "WE DO NOT KNOW . . ." is the appeal to ignorance. The Explanatory Gap is not an appeal to not knowing something; it is a term denoting that X doesn't explain Y. It's no different than pointing out that the properties of the battery of my laptop do not account for the production of the internet. That isn't an appeal to ignorance. It's an appeal to something we do know. .

 

[bobhikes]

See the links to the 3 papers by Professor Forsdyke in the third OP here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics? He notes calculations indicating that the human brain is wildly insufficient to store memories and perform functions, as well as the facts (noted) indicating that brain and skull size in humans do not scale to intelligence (a measure of long term memory).

So day-old infants who have no memories are not conscious?

Except you didn't address the fact the people have complex, coherent experiences, form memories, engage in logical thought processes and have veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs during clinical death, when there is little or nothing happening in their brains.

As I stated you will find faults with anything I present. I have many books on the mind and keep current with the scientific journals. Every scientific field that study's the mind has the consensus that consciousness is part of the mind.

 

[leibowde84]

You've got it backwards. Your assertion "WE DO NOT KNOW . . ." is the appeal to ignorance. The Explanatory Gap is not an appeal to not knowing something; it is a term denoting that X doesn't explain Y. It's no different than pointing out that the properties of the battery of my laptop do not account for the production of the internet. That isn't an appeal to ignorance. It's an appeal to something we do know. .

That isn't true.

The "explanatory gap" is a term introduced by philosopher Joseph Levine for the difficulty that physicalist theories of mind have in explaining how physical properties give rise to the way things feel when they are experienced.

I agree that there is a difficulty in explaining how physical properties give rise to consciousness (or what have you). But, just because it is difficult in no way means that physical properties will not one day be able to explain consciousness.

My position is merely that we don't know either way. An argument from ignorance is when you insert an assumption (like God or, in this case, consciousness being outside the brain) due to a lack of current scientific explanation. I am not making the assumption that the brain does give rise to consciousness. I am merely pointing out that we don't KNOW that it can't yet.

In other words, your position is that the brain CANNOT give rise to consciousness. My position is that we don't know whether the brain can or cannot give rise to consciousness as of yet. We don't know enough about the brain to make such a decisive claim.

 

[siti]

It's really kind of stunning how many people have just lost their donuts over the question asked the OP--or the inability to answer the question. Apparently the question threatens people's religion.

"Lost their donuts"? I'm not familiar with that expression. But I don't think I have lost anything. My 'religion' (if that's what my current opinion about how the world might really work is) being based on what might be termed "panexperiential physicalism" would certainly benefit if it could be established that 'consciousness' (whatever that is) is a 'fundamental phenomenon' (whatever that means). That is to say that if everything physical somehow existed in a fundamental universal "field of consciousness" it would be far easier to see how everything physical somehow experiences the world. So my 'religion' is certainly not threatened by this idea.

Unfortunately, I cannot see how something fundamentally immaterial and aphysical could possibly have causal efficacy in the real physical world. (Perhaps that is just metaphysical myopia on my part, but I don't think so). If (fundamental) 'consciousness' is, as you suggested in the OP "like energy" then "like energy" it should be a physical property of the physical universe, and like energy, it should be associated in a coherent way with the matter that it has causal influence over.

Clearly, consciousness does have causal influence in the physical world - I doubt that there could be any serious question about that. Bach presumably did not compose his Cantatas as a result of the deterministic processes of particle physics going on in his body. But then are we to accept that they were merely "downloaded" (somehow) to his brain from an ethereal and immaterial 'consciousness' with no input from the physical reality of Bach's brain/body? Clearly there has to be a third option here. A 'middle way' in which consciousness is both a cause and an effect of physical reality - don't you think?

In the OP you wrote:

...there is just no amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena.

I am taking this (in part) to imply a rejection of the idea of 'radical emergence' - i.e. you don't believe that 'consciousness' can simply emerge from an entirely non-conscious 'substratum' of physical reality - regardless of how complex the 'substratum' might appear to be? I agree with that. I flatly reject this kind of radical emergence.

So what are we left with? A fundamental reality that is both 'physical' (perhaps energy-like) and 'mental' (perhaps mind-like). This is the bipolar 'philosophy of organism' that Whitehead proposed and my guess is that quantum mechanics is an approach to understanding this scientifically (complicated by the fact that the manifest world also displays matter-energy duality). But we are not there yet (and there may yet be some startling surprises in store). What this view really says is that each real entity (which is not really an "entity" as such but an "occasion" or "event" or, in succession a "process") is always simultaneously both what it IS (physically) and WHAT it is (mentally) - it's physical reality and its mental description.

On this way of looking at it, 'consciousness' - in the sense you used it in the OP is not fundamental per se but is an aggregation of the 'mental poles' of the 'actual occasions of experience' that make up this or that 'organism'. It is, I suppose, at one and the same time, fundamental and emergent - fundamental in the sense that it, at the most basic level, pervades the entire reality of the physical world and 'inhabits' even the most fundamental units of that reality, emergent in the sense that in combination, these 'bits' of reality can and do produce phenomenal expressions of 'mental' experientiality that may appear novel or radically emergent but that are really just an extension of the experiential-relational reality that exists at the most fundamental levels.

From an evolutionary point of view, it stands to reason that nature would have found a way to exploit the 'mental poles' of physical reality and the human brain is, perhaps (but the jury is definitely still out IMO), its greatest success to date.

I get that you were asking for a valid deductive syllogism and I have not provided one - I can't. But neither can one be constructed to establish an origin of consciousness that does not have a physical basis. As I suggested earlier, I suspect that the latter task would remain beyond us even if the conclusion were true. What I have provided, I believe, is a valid abductive argument (reasoning to the most likely account) for taking human consciousness (which is what you were really asking about) to be a highly-evolved and well-developed expression of the fundamentally experiential nature of physical reality.

Of course you do not have to agree - but if you want to dismiss this abduction as invalid, you now have the task of having to provide either a simpler, more likely or more elegant account (preferably one that does not include donuts) of how human consciousness arises from a non-physical reality (if that is what you are really suggesting).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm afraid that on the subject introduced by the OP, I'd rather just ask a rejoinder question: has anybody, anywhere, every produced a single bit of evidence of any sort of consciousness whatsoever without a functioning central nervous system?

If not, what's the question all about?

 

[Aquitaine]

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.

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.

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.

What about people with Dementia and how the different parts of the brain which store "short-term" and "long-term" memories are affected by the condition? For example if the "short-term" region of the brain is affected then sufferers cannot remember what they ate for breakfast that day, but can remember how to tie their shoes due to one memory being stored in "long-term" and the other in "short-term" respectively.

Also stop dodging my question and put forward your explaination for consciousness.

 

[Nous]

I have many books on the mind and keep current with the scientific journals.

Can you cite any evidence by which to conclude that the various phenomena of consciousness are effects of something happening in brains?

Every scientific field that study's the mind has the consensus that consciousness is part of the mind.

Indeed, how could one disagree with the proposition that "consciousness is part of the mind"?

 

[Nous]

What about people with Dementia and how the different parts of the brain which store "short-term" and "long-term" memories are affected by the condition? For example if the "short-term" region of the brain is affected then sufferers cannot remember what they ate for breakfast that day, but can remember how to tie their shoes due to one memory being stored in "long-term" and the other in "short-term" respectively.

If you are trying to infer causation from that correlation, it's another excellent example of the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Also stop dodging my question and put forward your explaination for consciousness.

I don't have an "explanation for consciousness". I only know that there is nothing going on among the components that constitute brains that even vaguely suggests that the various phenomena of consciousness would be an effect, and, additionally, that the evidence is clear that people demonstrate anomalous cognition, and, also, during clinical death when people's brains are not functioning, people often have complex, coherent experiences, form memories, engage in logical thought processes, and have veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs.

 

[Nous]

In other words, your position is that the brain CANNOT give rise to consciousness. My position is that we don't know whether the brain can or cannot give rise to consciousness as of yet. We don't know enough about the brain to make such a decisive claim.

You've misrepresented what I've said. We actually do know the products of functioning of biological cells and electrochemistry, and none of it logically entails the various phenomena of consciousness as effects.

 

[bobhikes]

Can you cite any evidence by which to conclude that the various phenomena of consciousness are effects of something happening in brains?

Indeed, how could one disagree with the proposition that "consciousness is part of the mind"?

Yes I can cite evidence but I am done trying. I tend to swap Brain and Mind quite often but you are right scientifically Brain is usually the hardware and mind the equivalent of the software. There is of course overlap but I digress.

I only started this because at first you rudely dismissed my information, I don't really care to try and change your mind.

 

[Nous]

"Lost their donuts"? I'm not familiar with that expression. But I don't think I have lost anything. My 'religion' (if that's what my current opinion about how the world might really work is) being based on what might be termed "panexperiential physicalism" would certainly benefit if it could be established that 'consciousness' (whatever that is) is a 'fundamental phenomenon' (whatever that means). That is to say that if everything physical somehow existed in a fundamental universal "field of consciousness" it would be far easier to see how everything physical somehow experiences the world. So my 'religion' is certainly not threatened by this idea.

Unfortunately, I cannot see how something fundamentally immaterial and aphysical could possibly have causal efficacy in the real physical world. (Perhaps that is just metaphysical myopia on my part, but I don't think so). If (fundamental) 'consciousness' is, as you suggested in the OP "like energy" then "like energy" it should be a physical property of the physical universe, and like energy, it should be associated in a coherent way with the matter that it has causal influence over.

Clearly, consciousness does have causal influence in the physical world - I doubt that there could be any serious question about that. Bach presumably did not compose his Cantatas as a result of the deterministic processes of particle physics going on in his body. But then are we to accept that they were merely "downloaded" (somehow) to his brain from an ethereal and immaterial 'consciousness' with no input from the physical reality of Bach's brain/body? Clearly there has to be a third option here. A 'middle way' in which consciousness is both a cause and an effect of physical reality - don't you think?

In the OP you wrote: I am taking this (in part) to imply a rejection of the idea of 'radical emergence' - i.e. you don't believe that 'consciousness' can simply emerge from an entirely non-conscious 'substratum' of physical reality - regardless of how complex the 'substratum' might appear to be? I agree with that. I flatly reject this kind of radical emergence.

So what are we left with? A fundamental reality that is both 'physical' (perhaps energy-like) and 'mental' (perhaps mind-like). This is the bipolar 'philosophy of organism' that Whitehead proposed and my guess is that quantum mechanics is an approach to understanding this scientifically (complicated by the fact that the manifest world also displays matter-energy duality). But we are not there yet (and there may yet be some startling surprises in store). What this view really says is that each real entity (which is not really an "entity" as such but an "occasion" or "event" or, in succession a "process") is always simultaneously both what it IS (physically) and WHAT it is (mentally) - it's physical reality and its mental description.

On this way of looking at it, 'consciousness' - in the sense you used it in the OP is not fundamental per se but is an aggregation of the 'mental poles' of the 'actual occasions of experience' that make up this or that 'organism'. It is, I suppose, at one and the same time, fundamental and emergent - fundamental in the sense that it, at the most basic level, pervades the entire reality of the physical world and 'inhabits' even the most fundamental units of that reality, emergent in the sense that in combination, these 'bits' of reality can and do produce phenomenal expressions of 'mental' experientiality that may appear novel or radically emergent but that are really just an extension of the experiential-relational reality that exists at the most fundamental levels.

From an evolutionary point of view, it stands to reason that nature would have found a way to exploit the 'mental poles' of physical reality and the human brain is, perhaps (but the jury is definitely still out IMO), its greatest success to date.

As far as I can discern, I agree with everything you've said here.

I get that you were asking for a valid deductive syllogism and I have not provided one - I can't. But neither can one be constructed to establish an origin of consciousness that does not have a physical basis.

One can deduce that there is an explanatory gap between what's happening in brains and the production of consciousness. One can deduce from the evidence that no amount, configuration or complexity of matter results in deterministic machines acting willfully.

What I have provided, I believe, is a valid abductive argument (reasoning to the most likely account) for taking human consciousness (which is what you were really asking about) to be a highly-evolved and well-developed expression of the fundamentally experiential nature of physical reality.

I don't really know how to distinguish abductive from inductive conclusions. Nevertheless, neither of them is valid. I'm skeptical of conclusions that are not deduced.

Anyway, I don't have a clue as to how "taking human consciousness" as a "well-developed expression of fundamentally experiential nature of physical reality" is able to account for the evidence of anomalous cognition and the various phenomena of NDEs and veridical perceptions not gotten through the sense organs. I don't have a clue as to how you account for the "I" you have spoken of here, or it's ability to act willfully.

Of course you do not have to agree - but if you want to dismiss this abduction as invalid, you now have the task of having to provide either a simpler, more likely or more elegant account (preferably one that does not include donuts) of how human consciousness arises from a non-physical reality

If consciousness is, like energy, a fundamental phenomenon, then it doesn't "arise" from anything else.

 

[Nous]

I'm afraid that on the subject introduced by the OP, I'd rather just ask a rejoinder question: has anybody, anywhere, every produced a single bit of evidence of any sort of consciousness whatsoever without a functioning central nervous system?

Yes, see the OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?