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

[Nous]

I thought that was an honest question ?.

Thank you. It was.

 

[Nous]

Except that I can ponder the existence of a Klingon Bird of Prey till the cows come home and it still does not exist outside imagination.

Agree.

 

[MD]

Do you not get the impression that there are some people posting on this very thread who believe that there is some fact from which one can deduce that brains produce consciousness?

I've read Dennett, Chalmers, Searle, Kant and Descartes. I've studied IIT by Koch and Tononi, Hameroff/Penrose Orch Or and all the other stuff. Eccles and Damasio too.

I think it's a neat subject to study, but in reality it's still going to take us a long time (centuries) to unravel the answers. I have more important **** to worry about lol.

 

[Nous]

I've read Dennett, Chalmers, Searle, Kant and Descartes. I've studied IIT by Koch and Tononi, Hameroff/Penrose Orch Or and all the other stuff. Eccles and Damasio too.

I think it's a neat subject to study, but in reality it's still going to take us a long time (centuries) to unravel the answers. I have more important **** to worry about lol.

That doesn't seem to be a response to my question.

Anyway, on the NDE thread, the neuroscientist (whose name I can't remember right now) arguing against the motion of the Intelligence Squared debate definitely seems to believe that there is sufficient evidence now to conclude that consciousness is a product of brains. And evidently Professor Carroll believes the same. I wonder what sort of argument they would give in answer to the OP here?

 

[idav]

If it were true that your 3 statements constitute a syllogism, then you will be able to identify your subject, predicate and middle terms and the copula. Like this:

All M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, all S are P.

Logic is just math. Show your equation.

It seemed like that's what I did but I will rephrase.

All memory is dependent on physical interaction
All consciousness require memory
Therefore all consiousness is dependent on physical interaction

This is not to be confused with "things with memory have consiousness", I doubt it's that simple.

If you want to debate any of those premises further then give an objection.

 

[Nous]

It seemed like that's what I did but I will rephrase.

All memory is dependent on physical interaction
All consciousness require memory
Therefore all consiousness is dependent on physical interaction

Your middle term is what? And your copula is what?

Can you show either of your premises to be true statements? For instance, can you provide any evidence by which one can conclude that either of your premises are true? Provide a link.

Define "physical".

I already asked whether you are claiming that infants who do not have any memories are not conscious. How about an answer? And how does one form memories without first being conscious? For me to remember my first dog, I had to be conscious at that time. Right?

 

[idav]

Your middle term is what? And your copula is what?

Can you show either of your premises to be true statements? For instance, can you provide any evidence by which one can conclude that either of your premises are true? Provide a link.

Define "physical".

I already asked whether you are claiming that infants who do not have any memories are not conscious. How about an answer? And how does one form memories without first being conscious? For me to remember my first dog, I had to be conscious at that time. Right?

Plug it in, I gave the proper format.

Types of Memory - The Human Memory

In context of what I am saying physical would be that which can be interacted with, via gravity electromagnetism quantum communication and such.

All mammals far as I can tell have memories and various levels of consiousness. Of course babies have memories and consiousness. Science says they are like sponges.

Going back to what I stated about about now, it is not possible to experience now. Our minds only experience a memory of true now that just passed. A memory of a dog is what creates the experience whether the dog is from ten years ago or even if the dog is right in front of you.
The Then and Now of Memory

Obviously we have a lot to learn so I can't claim to know everything about the brain but I feel that science has a pretty good handle on at least the basics of what's going on without tapping into supernatural phenomenon.

 

[Yerda]

Why don't you link to this study

Ok. Here's something: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/11/11/3656.full.pdf

 

[Yerda]

Just found this:

Of his 520 patients, 40 reported that while their temporal lobe was stimulated with an electrode they would recall dreams, smells, visual and auditory hallucinations, as well as out-of-body experiences.[17] In his studies, Penfield found that when the temporal lobe was stimulated it produced a combination of hallucinations, dream, and memory recollection.[18] These experiences would only last as long as the electrode stimulations were present on the cortex

Source: Wilder Penfield - Wikipedia

 

[QuestioningMind]

What is that "huge difference" between "an individual having no brain functions that current science can detect and stating that their brains were not functioning" Provide the evidence that there is such difference (especially a "huge" one).

In order to state unequivocally that a brain is not functioning you have to assume that current science is capable of precisely measuring exactly when a brain dies. We may be able to measure when electrical functions are below our ability to measure and ASSUME that brain death has occurred, but the brain still remains far too mysterious for us to make this claim with certainty. Surely you understand that there is a HUGE difference between saying "this is what we think, based upon the knowledge that we have at this point" and saying "this is how something IS absolutely, 100%. Science rarely if ever makes the latter claim. It's always a matter of this is what we believe is true, based upon the evidence we've gathered thus far.

If mine is an untrue statement, then just show where someone "has calculated the amount or complexity of neuronal electrical activity that logically produces consciousness".

No one has. That's my point. The brain is too much of a mystery at this point for ANYONE to claim that they've made such calculations. You can't claim that the brain isn't complex enough to produce consciousness when at this point in time we have no idea just how complex the functions of the human brain are.

OK. What are the properties of electricity and neurons that logically imply that consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, free will) should be an effect?

Once again I need to point out that you are assuming that we know far more about how the brain works that we actually do. It may be true that all functioning brains we've ever encountered make use of neurons firing electrical impulses, but NO ONE claims that ALL you need for a functioning brain is the properties of electrons and neurons. Neurons firing electrical impulses is definitely a PART of how a brain functions, but there are innumerable OTHER factors involved as well that the experts don't even have a clue about yet.

I am not claiming with absolutely certainty that a brain is required in order for consciousness to exist, only that all of the evidence we have thus far certainly suggests that this is the case.

 

[Nous]

Plug it in, I gave the proper format.

There's really no reason for someone who wants to be able to acquire knowledge to not try to learn what the middle, subject, and predicate terms and cupola are in a syllogism.

Types of Memory - The Human Memory

In context of what I am saying physical would be that which can be interacted with, via gravity electromagnetism quantum communication and such.

All mammals far as I can tell have memories and various levels of consiousness. Of course babies have memories and consiousness. Science says they are like sponges.

Going back to what I stated about about now, it is not possible to experience now. Our minds only experience a memory of true now that just passed. A memory of a dog is what creates the experience whether the dog is from ten years ago or even if the dog is right in front of you.
The Then and Now of Memory

Obviously we have a lot to learn so I can't claim to know everything about the brain but I feel that science has a pretty good handle on at least the basics of what's going on without tapping into supernatural phenomenon.

I didn't see where either your sources stated anything resembling your premises. Can you quote where they did?

BTW, what is "quantum communication"?

 

[Nous]

Ok. Here's something: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/11/11/3656.full.pdf

Just found this:

Of his 520 patients, 40 reported that while their temporal lobe was stimulated with an electrode they would recall dreams, smells, visual and auditory hallucinations, as well as out-of-body experiences.[17] In his studies, Penfield found that when the temporal lobe was stimulated it produced a combination of hallucinations, dream, and memory recollection.[18] These experiences would only last as long as the electrode stimulations were present on the cortex

Source: Wilder Penfield - Wikipedia

Can you take one of the facts in your sources here and deduce that consciousness (intentions, beliefs, awareness, self-awareness, free will, etc.) are products of something in the brain?

 

[Nous]

In order to state unequivocally that a brain is not functioning you have to assume that current science is capable of precisely measuring exactly when a brain dies.

No, one does not have to be able to state "exactly when a brain dies" in order to know that it isn't functioning:

. . . the studies of cerebral physiology during cardiac arrest have indicated that cerebral blood flow and cerebral function are severely impaired and therefore consciousness would be expected to be lost.​

http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Parnia/Parnia-Medical hypotheses_2007-69-933-937.pdf

A brain that has only a little brain stem activity is obviously not functioning so as to enable the person to be aware of his/her surroundings, to form memories, to engage in willful acts.

 

[idav]

There's really no reason for someone who wants to be able to acquire knowledge to not try to learn what the middle, subject, and predicate terms and cupola are in a syllogism.
I didn't see where either your sources stated anything resembling your premises. Can you quote where they did?

BTW, what is "quantum communication"?

Fine, I will look again when I'm off my phone.

Did you see anywhere the source said memory is gained by telepathy? No because memory works with what our senses interact with.

Interactions at quantum level.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Rocks roll downhill. How can they do that without knowing (being conscious of) which way is down?

Breath-taking, truly breath-taking! I'll say no more.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That question was asked and answered a couple of times already. Examples of people having complex, coherent experiences, forming memories, engaging in logical thought processes and having veridical perceptions (from an out-of-body perspective) when their brains are not functioning can be found in the OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

van Lommel's work has been studied intensely, and one thing is certainly quite clear -- nobody, ever, recovers from a truly defunct brain. And in cases of cardiac arrest, it is really very unclear just how much brain activity is going on. This is extremely important. But it cannot be ignored that in all cases, life support (please note -- life support) was in place where unconsciousness lasted longer than 2 minutes. Oxygen was being given, and various other therapies whose whole purpose was to keep the brain alive until the patient could be resuscitated.

Thus, I not think that the question has been answered. We have still not heard a peep out of anybody who we know of a certainty has died.

 

[idav]

There's really no reason for someone who wants to be able to acquire knowledge to not try to learn what the middle, subject, and predicate terms and cupola are in a syllogism.
I didn't see where either your sources stated anything resembling your premises. Can you quote where they did?

BTW, what is "quantum communication"?

Ok here is the cleaned up version

Memory is dependent on interaction
Consciousness is dependent on memory
Therefore consciousness is dependent on interaction

There is some evidence that very short (millisecond) durations are processed by dedicated neurons in early sensory parts of the brain.[13]

Time perception - Wikipedia

 

[sayak83]

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)?

Causation is always inferred from correlation. The only thing one can ever actually observe are correlations, or lack of correlations.

 

[Nous]

Rocks roll downhill. How can they do that without knowing (being conscious of) which way is down?

Breath-taking, truly breath-taking! I'll say no more.

I was mimicking your statement that flowers "turn towards the direction of the sun. How could they do that without knowing (being consciousness) of where the sun is?"

 

[Nous]

That question was asked and answered a couple of times already. Examples of people having complex, coherent experiences, forming memories, engaging in logical thought processes and having veridical perceptions (from an out-of-body perspective) when their brains are not functioning can be found in the OPs here: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

van Lommel's work has been studied intensely

Do you know where anyone disputed the findings of his 2001 study?

nobody, ever, recovers from a truly defunct brain.

Define "truly defunct brain". My response was to your question asking whether anyone has “EVER seen an example of consciousness without the presence of an operational brain?”

Obviously “truly defunct brain” must mean something different than a brain that has gone isoelectric after being in cardiac arrest for 20 seconds. People recover from that on a regular basis.

And in cases of cardiac arrest, it is really very unclear just how much brain activity is going on.

Do you dispute that the brain goes isoelectric within 20 seconds of the onset of cardiac arrest? It's called clinical death:

At the onset of clinical death, consciousness is lost within several seconds. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds.[2]​

Clinical death - Wikipedia

But it cannot be ignored that in all cases, life support (please note -- life support) was in place where unconsciousness lasted longer than 2 minutes.

(1) That means a little more than 1 1/2 minutes of clinical death.

(2) If you read the links I provided in those OPs, you will have seen that Dr. Rudy's patient had not had a heart beat or blood pressure for at least 20 minutes and had been declared dead when the ECG began showing flickers of activity.

There are other such cases reported in the literature:

A 65-year-old male with congenital deafness and dumbness was found unconscious in his room at a public home. During pre-hospital and clinical resuscitation including defibrillation and medications for about 35 min, CPA persisted under electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring and therefore, his death was pronounced. However, about 20 min later, a police officer who had been called for the postmortem investigation found the patient moving in the mortuary.​

Death following spontaneous recovery from cardiopulmonary arrest in a hospital mortuary: 'Lazarus phenomenon' in a case of alleged medical negligence (PDF Download Available)

We have still not heard a peep out of anybody who we know of a certainty has died.

You're asking for someone who has been dead to post here?