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

[Nous]

Some people could think that it is a deepity, other people might not think that.

Consciousness is the final frontier...

Is Your Brain Really a Computer, or Is It a Quantum Orchestra? | The Huffington Post

SpiritQuest, your posts on this thread have been excellent--just what I needed. Thank you.

 

[Nous]

yes I see, I suppose there must be a lot beyond our senses, or that what we can perceive, but for me personally its just a guess, how could we ever know if its beyond our perception, but maybe one day we might ?.

No one has ever seen or touched energy. It's a quantity, an abstract phenomena, which can only be changed but never created or destroyed in a closed system. There is obviously no logical obstacle to the existence of such a fundamental phenomenon.

 

[Nous]

How do brains have complex, coherent experiences, form memories, engage in logical thought processes and have veridical perceptions not acquired through the sense organs during clinical death?

If I could be granted a wish here, it would be that from here on out everyone would understand this fact (that no alleged flicker of electrical activity in the brains people during clinical death accounts for these phenomena, especially that last one, which is so well illustrated by Dr. Rudy's patient) so that I do not have repeat it again.

 

[Nous]

Prince Charles is renowned for talking to his plants. No joke.

I suppose that no one can prove that plants are not conscious, but plants being conscious would seem to raise big questions. For instance, plants engage in biochemically complex activities, yet in all of their extensive and complex evolution they haven't succeeded in getting out of the way of being eaten or crushed underfoot, if that is painful. Indeed, lots of plants have evolved to attract animals eat them and scatter their seeds.

 

[psychoslice]

No one has ever seen or touched energy. It's a quantity, an abstract phenomena, which can only be changed but never created or destroyed in a closed system. There is obviously no logical obstacle to the existence of such a fundamental phenomenon.

Yes true, but we can know that, its everything around us including ourselves, but beyond that ?.

 

[George-ananda]

I suppose that no one can prove that plants are not conscious, but plants being conscious would seem to raise big questions. For instance, plants engage in biochemically complex activities, yet in all of their extensive and complex evolution they haven't succeeded in getting out of the way of being eaten or crushed underfoot, if that is painful. Indeed, lots of plants have evolved to attract animals eat them and scatter their seeds.

I actually think plants are conscious but our tendency to think in terms of human like consciousness is the confusion.

 

[George-ananda]

Some people could think that it is a deepity, other people might not think that.

Consciousness is the final frontier...

I watched this video and loved it. This guy has got it going on.

 

[Nous]

Yes true, but we can know that, its everything around us including ourselves, but beyond that ?.

Are you asking me a question about energy? If so, rephrase it.

 

[Nous]

I actually think plants are conscious but our tendency to think in terms of human like consciousness is the confusion.

How do you account for the issues I raised--plants engage in highly complex chemical/biological activity, but haven't developed the ability to escape being eaten alive or crushed by animals. Many of us animals would find it painful and undesirable to be eaten alive or crushed. And many plants have even evolved in order to attract animals to eat them (or parts of them) to spread their seed. Again, many of us animals would go to great lengths to not have parts of us eaten.

 

[George-ananda]

How do you account for the issues I raised--plants engage in highly complex chemical/biological activity, but haven't developed the ability to escape being eaten alive or crushed by animals. Many of us animals would find it painful and undesirable to be eaten alive or crushed. And many plants have even evolved in order to attract animals to eat them (or parts of them) to spread their seed. Again, many of us animals would go to great lengths to not have parts of us eaten.

I see these issues as an attempt at extrapolation of human-type consciousness into plants. They are a different class of life with their own purposes and reasons different from ours in many ways. I am sure new age and theosophical writers could get into that in more detail than I.

 

[Lucida Sidera]

I've never found in any philosophical book an explanation for conscience that tought me so much as the astrological notion of identifying it with the Sun, which binds "Conscience, vitality, expression" as being parts of the same thing.

 

[Evie]

P

I see these issues as an attempt at extrapolation of human-type consciousness into plants. They are a different class of life with their own purposes and reasons different from ours in many ways. I am sure new age and theosophical writers could get into that in more detail than I.

Prince Charles was noted as one who talks to his plants.

 

[George-ananda]

P

Prince Charles was noted as one who talks to his plants.

Sounds smart.

 

[Evie]

I

Sounds smart.

I have to wonder if he hears them talk back, and if so, understands what they are saying.

 

[Evie]

I've never found in any philosophical book an explanation for conscience that tought me so much as the astrological notion of identifying it with the Sun, which binds "Conscience, vitality, expression" as being parts of the same thing.

Maybe all is Infinite Mind.!!!! There are those who believe so.

 

[Nous]

I see these issues as an attempt at extrapolation of human-type consciousness into plants.

It has at times occurred to me that perhaps plants (due to not having brains or having responsibilities to survive that animals do) have perfect, unfiltered God-consciousness. But it's a difficult proposition to argue.

 

[gnomon]

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)?

You made a false assumption.

A logical fallacy.

Correct that imbecility and perhaps we can proceed with an actual argument.

I doubt that will happen.

Because this is perhaps the stupidest thread I've come across on this forum.

I also know you will not overcome the fallacious assumption you made because you will not recognize it.

So this entire thread was an absolute useless exercise.

Welcome to RF!

edit: 26 pages?

 

[Evie]

You made a false assumption.

A logical fallacy.

Correct that imbecility and perhaps we can proceed with an actual argument.

I doubt that will happen.

Because this is perhaps the stupidest thread I've come across on this forum.

I also know you will not overcome the fallacious assumption you made because you will not recognize it.

So this entire thread was an absolute useless exercise.

Welcome to RF!

edit: 26 pages?

If you cannot refute anything in an ABSOLUTE way, you cannot assert it stupid fallacy.

 

[gnomon]

If you cannot refute anything in an ABSOLUTE way, you cannot assert it stupid fallacy.

Any fallacy is a stupid fallacy.

It's nothing to be ashamed of.........unless you fail to recognize it.

Such as the argument that if you cannot refute anything in "an ABSOLUTE way", because of CAPS....

God this is getting boring.

Go ahead....entertain me.

 

[Evie]

The

Any fallacy is a stupid fallacy.

It's nothing to be ashamed of.........unless you fail to recognize it.

Such as the argument that if you cannot refute anything in "an ABSOLUTE way", because of CAPS....

God this is getting boring.

Go ahead....entertain me.

What would happen should everything we want to know be known in a way that is indisputable? What then? Who would be able to 'entertain' you with the game of TRUE or FALSE?