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

[Nous]

It really isn't all that mysterious, our brains give humans an evolutionary advantage developed over billions of years of evolution.

So you still have no argument that concludes that consciousness is produced by something happening in brains?

 

[leibowde84]

It certainly wasn't my objective to provide any evidence here about what (supposedly) consciousness. The challenge of the thread was for people to articulate a non-fallacious argument that consciousness is created by something happening in brains. As hopefully you have noticed, no one here has articulated any such non-fallacious argument.

This is the portion of the OP that I was referring to.

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

We do not currently know absolutely that there is no amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena.

 

[Nous]

Not quite. While you might know "what cells do," you do not know what "networks of interconnected cells with feedback" do in complete detail.

We know what oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms do, too. Yet, when they are combined into water, there is no difference in either -- neither, for example, is wet or a strong solvent -- and yet the water which they make up is both of those things. Those qualities "emerge" without the slightest change to the atoms involved.

But there is no explanatory gap in two H atoms and one O atom binding and creating water.

I am completely aware of the arguments against "emergentism,"

I am not very familiar with "the arguments against emergentism". I have read papers discussing the problems of defining "emergence" or "emergent properties". What arguments are you referring to?

Systems are not the same as the the discrete parts of which they are made.

I agree. I think that's the fundamental argument for emergence.

Watch as a flock of starlings does something that no individual starling is doing on its own.

They're beautiful. I believe I recall hearing that such formations are (or can be) produced by each bird following the 3 closest birds.

In any case, the fact that a group of flying birds create a beautiful moving object in the sky, regardless of what each bird is actually doing, does not pose a logical conundrum. In contrast, the electrochemical activity of neurons does not logically lead to the result of awareness that is singular, or of an entity that is aware of and can choose among available options.

In the same way, I am convinced, as are many involved in neuroscience that consciousness really is an emergent property of a system of neurons doing something that no individual neuron does.

Here are my reasons:

1. In all of neurological science, there has never been proposed a method to test for or measure consciousness as a property of matter.
2. We do know that an awake brain is conscious -- ours and others', but we also know (or you would if you'd ever had surgery under a general) that the sleeping (dreamless sleep, as in under anaesthetic) is not conscious. I've had several such surgeries, and I assure you that the "conscious me" was not there. I'd remember, as I frequently remember dreams. This suggests that there is a real reason to believe that consciousness results from some activity happening in the brain.
3. Furthermore, it is know that both sleeping and awake brains (even under anaesthetic) are almost equally active, neurologically. It has been demonstrated that such sleeping brains (even when under) process sensory information such as sound, yet there is no consciousness of it. This suggests, to me at least, that consciousness is not just neurological activity, but activity of a very special kind.
4. Finally, the change in conscious states (waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and general anesthesia) are observable as wave patterns measured via EEG. The EEG measures wide-spread synchronized neural activity. So whatever consciousness is, it seems to be correlated to some types of global neural activity patterns.

I agree with every statement you've made here, except for your inference in #2. From the facts you noted, one can just as validly infer that the brain is a receiver of consciousness.

 

[Nous]

We do not currently know absolutely that there is no amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces mental phenomena.

Your statement here indicates that there is no logical explanatory gap whereby some amount or complexity of neuronal activity could produce the various mental phenomena. How would some amount or complexity of neuronal activity possibly create, e.g., the ability of a person to choose among available options?

 

[leibowde84]

In any case, the fact that a group of flying birds create a beautiful moving object in the sky, regardless of what each bird is actually doing, does not pose a logical conundrum. In contrast, the electrochemical activity of neurons does not logically lead to the result of awareness that is singular, or of an entity that is aware of and can choose among available options.

But, you must agree that this is based on what we currently know/understand, which is incomplete.

 

[leibowde84]

Your statement here indicates that there is no logical explanatory gap whereby some amount or complexity of neuronal activity could produce the various mental phenomena. How would some amount or complexity of neuronal activity possibly create, e.g., the ability of a person to choose among available options?

Maybe it can, maybe it cannot. The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know enough to be absolutely positive either way.

 

[Nous]

But, you must agree that this is based on what we currently know/understand, which is incomplete.

As long as you're able to argue that there is no logical explanatory gap, I'm willing to allow for that incompleteness in our knowledge of electricity and biological cells.

What exactly are the unsolved mysteries about electricity?

 

[Nous]

The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know enough to be absolutely positive either way.

Begin with the unsolved problems of electricity.

It obviously isn't a good argument to say that we just don't know enough about elephants and mouse holes to say that elephants don't hide in mouse holes.

 

[leibowde84]

As long as you're able to argue that there is no logical explanatory gap, I'm willing to allow for that incompleteness in our knowledge of electricity and biological cells.

What exactly are the unsolved mysteries about electricity?

Our understanding of electricity is miniscule and vastly incomplete. There is tons that we still don't understand about what electricity actually is. Even the term is contradictory in many respects.

 

[Nous]

Our understanding of electricity is miniscule and vastly incomplete. There is tons that we still don't understand about what electricity actually is. Even the term is contradictory in many respects.

That's news to me. Please explain what are the unsolved mysteries of electrochemistry, and especially what are the contradictory aspects about it.

 

[leibowde84]

Begin with the unsolved problems of electricity.

There is still much we do not know about electricity.

It obviously isn't a good argument to say that we just don't know enough about elephants and mouse holes to say that elephants don't hide in mouse holes.

We know pretty much everything about the sizes of mouses and elephants. With electricity, there is still a massive amount that we don't understand.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But there is no explanatory gap in two H atoms and one O atom binding and creating water.

True, but there is still the problem of the new substance possessing properties absolute unlike the any of the properties of its constituent parts -- like wetness or efficacy as a solvent.

I am not very familiar with "the arguments against emergentism". I have read papers discussing the problems of defining "emergence" or "emergent properties". What arguments are you referring to?

Doesn't matter for this conversation -- it was more a preemptive move in case you might resort to them.

I agree. I think that's the fundamental argument for emergence.

They're beautiful. I believe I recall hearing that such formations are (or can be) produced by each bird following the 3 closest birds.

In any case, the fact that a group of flying birds create a beautiful moving object in the sky, regardless of what each bird is actually doing, does not pose a logical conundrum. In contrast, the electrochemical activity of neurons does not logically lead to the result of awareness that is singular, or of an entity that is aware of and can choose among available options.

I agree with every statement you've made here, except for your inference in #2. From the facts you noted, one can just as validly infer that the brain is a receiver of consciousness.

The points with which you agree -- and indeed the one with which you do not -- actually do suggest that consciousness is the result of neural activity. But while you might (as you say) infer that it's a receiver not a generator, you do not provide a single suggestion as to where whatever is being received originates.

Nor, incredibly importantly, in my opinion, do you provide even the remotest idea of why each and every conscious organism of which we are aware seems to be "receiving" its consciousness from a separate and distinct source. And I think that this has to be an immensely important consideration in your hypothesis. It is certainly one reason why I won't even give the idea much thought at all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The points with which you agree -- and indeed the one with which you do not -- actually do suggest that consciousness is the result of neural activity. But while you might (as you say) infer that it's a receiver not a generator, you do not provide a single suggestion as to where whatever is being received originates.

Adding to my point above -- while I've at least provided some reasons that (as I said) "suggest" that consciousness is a product of the brain -- you have only provided your own doubt that it could be true as a reason to suppose it's not. And that's first of all a particularly negative approach, and second, would allow anybody without an understanding of electromagnetic effects to reject out-of-hand any possibility that television programs are being "received" from somewhere else. Why? Because he is entirely unable to observe those programs "getting in there." It's the same sort of argument, just in reverse.

So, tell us where you think all these individual consciousness are coming from, how they are "received and processed" and why -- if radio and television receivers are so incredibly simple by comparison, the brain has to be so immensely complex if its only a receiver like they are. You don't need to do "hard science," just provide some positive, thoughtful reasons that might seem to support your hypothesis.

 

[idav]

So you still have no argument that concludes that consciousness is produced by something happening in brains?

I answered your questions, but no answer to them, you claimed something and were debunked.

 

[idav]

But there is no explanatory gap in two H atoms and one O atom binding and creating water.

I am not very familiar with "the arguments against emergentism". I have read papers discussing the problems of defining "emergence" or "emergent properties". What arguments are you referring to?

I agree. I think that's the fundamental argument for emergence.

They're beautiful. I believe I recall hearing that such formations are (or can be) produced by each bird following the 3 closest birds.

In any case, the fact that a group of flying birds create a beautiful moving object in the sky, regardless of what each bird is actually doing, does not pose a logical conundrum. In contrast, the electrochemical activity of neurons does not logically lead to the result of awareness that is singular, or of an entity that is aware of and can choose among available options.

I agree with every statement you've made here, except for your inference in #2. From the facts you noted, one can just as validly infer that the brain is a receiver of consciousness.

There is nothing to suggest the brain is receiving data from anywhere but the human body it is attached to. If you have evidence olease share it, all evidence suggests brain is responsible. Just like I said your hiding in gaps of knowledge, just like science keeps finding natural explanations previously thought to be magic, the brain continues to be mapped out and no evidence of a soul to be found.

 

[Evie]

t

This is what I am pointing to. What evidence do you have that this is true, beyond the logically flawed argument from ignorance that no evidence can be produced that this is false?

That makes sense

 

[Evie]

There is nothing to suggest the brain is receiving data from anywhere but the human body it is attached to. If you have evidence olease share it, all evidence suggests brain is responsible. Just like I said your hiding in gaps of knowledge, just like science keeps finding natural explanations previously thought to be magic, the brain continues to be mapped out and no evidence of a soul to be found.

there is no proof either that a universal mind connecting all minds does not exist.there is disagreement among scientists and physicists about this.

 

[Evie]

y

Not quite. While you might know "what cells do," you do not know what "networks of interconnected cells with feedback" do in complete detail.

We know what oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms do, too. Yet, when they are combined into water, there is no difference in either -- neither, for example, is wet or a strong solvent -- and yet the water which they make up is both of those things. Those qualities "emerge" without the slightest change to the atoms involved.

I am completely aware of the arguments against "emergentism," but they are incomplete and do not stand up. Systems are not the same as the the discrete parts of which they are made. Watch as a flock of starlings does something that no individual starling is doing on its own.

In the same way, I am convinced, as are many involved in neuroscience that consciousness really is an emergent property of a system of neurons doing something that no individual neuron does.

Here are my reasons:

1. In all of neurological science, there has never been proposed a method to test for or measure consciousness as a property of matter.
2. We do know that an awake brain is conscious -- ours and others', but we also know (or you would if you'd ever had surgery under a general) that the sleeping (dreamless sleep, as in under anaesthetic) is not conscious. I've had several such surgeries, and I assure you that the "conscious me" was not there. I'd remember, as I frequently remember dreams. This suggests that there is a real reason to believe that consciousness results from some activity happening in the brain.
3. Furthermore, it is know that both sleeping and awake brains (even under anaesthetic) are almost equally active, neurologically. It has been demonstrated that such sleeping brains (even when under) process sensory information such as sound, yet there is no consciousness of it. This suggests, to me at least, that consciousness is not just neurological activity, but activity of a very special kind.
4. Finally, the change in conscious states (waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and general anesthesia) are observable as wave patterns measured via EEG. The EEG measures yl neural activity patterns.

yes it would be nice

 

[Evie]

y

Not quite. While you might know "what cells do," you do not know what "networks of interconnected cells with feedback" do in complete detail.

We know what oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms do, too. Yet, when they are combined into water, there is no difference in either -- neither, for example, is wet or a strong solvent -- and yet the water which they make up is both of those things. Those qualities "emerge" without the slightest change to the atoms involved.

I am completely aware of the arguments against "emergentism," but they are incomplete and do not stand up. Systems are not the same as the the discrete parts of which they are made. Watch as a flock of starlings does something that no individual starling is doing on its own.

In the same way, I am convinced, as are many involved in neuroscience that consciousness really is an emergent property of a system of neurons doing something that no individual neuron does.

Here are my reasons:

1. In all of neurological science, there has never been proposed a method to test for or measure consciousness as a property of matter.
2. We do know that an awake brain is conscious -- ours and others', but we also know (or you would if you'd ever had surgery under a general) that the sleeping (dreamless sleep, as in under anaesthetic) is not conscious. I've had several such surgeries, and I assure you that the "conscious me" was not there. I'd remember, as I frequently remember dreams. This suggests that there is a real reason to believe that consciousness results from some activity happening in the brain.
3. Furthermore, it is know that both sleeping and awake brains (even under anaesthetic) are almost equally active, neurologically. It has been demonstrated that such sleeping brains (even when under) process sensory information such as sound, yet there is no consciousness of it. This suggests, to me at least, that consciousness is not just neurological activity, but activity of a very special kind.
4. Finally, the change in conscious states (waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and general anesthesia) are observable as wave patterns measured via EEG. The EEG measures yl neural activity patterns.

yes it would be niceyes

No, it just wasn't worth answering, since the answer has already been provided. Heartbeat and blood pressure are not correlated with activity in the microtubules of neurons.

There is nothing to suggest the brain is receiving data from anywhere but the human body it is attached to. If you have evidence olease share it, all evidence suggests brain is responsible. Just like I said your hiding in gaps of knowledge, just like science keeps finding natural explanations previously thought to be magic, the brain continues to be mapped out and no evidence of a soul to be found.

There is nothing to suggest the brain is receiving data from anywhere but the human body it is attached to. If you have evidence olease share it, all evidence suggests brain is responsible. Just like I said your hiding in gaps of knowledge, just like science keeps finding natural explanations previously thought to be magic, the brain continues to be mapped out and no evidence of a soul to be found.

 

[Evie]

There is nothing to suggest the brain is receiving data from anywhere but the human body it is attached to. If you have evidence olease share it, all evidence suggests brain is responsible. Just like I said your hiding in gaps of knowledge, just like science keeps finding natural explanations previously thought to be magic, the brain continues to be mapped out and no evidence of a soul to be found.

scientists still disagree on whether the mind is individual in each brain or if there is a universal mind outside the physical body.