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

[Nous]

Then there is no rational reason that anyone who is able to choose to assert and believe a true proposition rather than a false one would find any value in your assertions. We can get answers from the 8 Ball toy that would be just as reliable as your answers are. Right?

Strictly speaking yea.

So, again, those of us who do have the ability to choose to assert true statements rather than false ones (and even to assert false ones when we desire to do so) know that your (and the 8 Ball's) assertions have no truth value. You (according to you) are unable to choose to state what is true about free will. The denial of having free will is self-stultifying, like the thesis of epiphenomenalism. As explained in the OP here: Like Epiphenomenalism, Denial of Free Will is Self-Stultifying

The passage you quote me... doesn't define any of the terms the guy is talking about. It is simply completely out of context. What does mean when we cannot see or touch energy, and what is his conception of seeing and touching energy that we are incapable of.

(1) "The guy" is Paul Davies, a physicist. (2) Energy, just as noted in the quoted passage, is a quantity. It's a conserved quantity. You can calculate the exact quantity by the equation E=mc^2.

Also, are you trying to get me conclude that because we "cannot see or touch energy" that it is a "fundamental phenomenon . . .

(1) It would never occur to me to try to get an 8 Ball to conclude something. (2) I never suggested that energy is a fundamental phenomenon because it is not an object with spatial extension that one can see or touch or otherwise detect. The most ready conclusion that energy is a fundamental phenomenon is due to the fact that it is a conserved quantity in closed systems--energy is neither created or destroyed by any activity happening in the closed system. My question as to whether there is any reason to deny that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon "like energy" was just a reiteration or restatement of my first question.

 

[Nous]

You're asking for an elucidation of a theory that does not yet exist.

The OP doesn't ask for a whole theory, just an argument (premised on a fact).

My previous post gave a link (which I am giving again) to a review article from Nature Physics that considers work done towards the goal of understanding how quantum mechanics might work in biological systems (I'm not just talking about our 'observer' effect on QM experiments that's a different question).

Thank you for posting that article again--I didn't see it the first time. It's highly informative to me.

TVs and transistor radio employ the principles of quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean that TV shows are a product of the internal components of a TV set.

I really can't go along with an argument that says (in effect) "we don't have a scientific theory for it so it must have a fundamentally mysterious cause"

Did someone make that argument? I didn't see it. What does "fundamentally mysterious" mean?

What is the cause of the energy of the universe? Is that cause "fundamentally mysterious"?

 

[Nous]

I cited you aspects of consciousness which go beyond the ones listed in your loaded question.

But you didn't state any argument that concludes that any aspect of consciousness is a product of something happening in brains. Right?

Memory, processing, sensory to name a few are fundamental, all of which require a brain, neurons.

So my computer doesn't have memory? And my camera can't detect light?

 

[siti]

What is the cause of the energy of the universe? Is that cause "fundamentally mysterious"?

I don't know, but what I said was not that I know it isn't, but that just because we don't yet have a satisfactory naturalistic explanation does not mean that it is. Ditto consciousness - although with consciousness there is ample evidence that once the brain ceases to function, cessation of consciousness usually follows inevitably - with a relatively few exceptions in which consciousness and the brain (sometimes both, sometimes only the latter but never, as far as we know, only the former) revive.

The OP doesn't ask for a whole theory, just an argument (premised on a fact).

Statistics show that there is a 100% probability that your brain will one day cease to function and consciousness will end. I can hardly think of a more certain correlation of data in the entire realm of reality than that between the 'death' of the human brain and the 'death' of human consciousness. You're probably right that there is no argument to prove that consciousness depends on brain function - its so obvious no argument is required - it simply stands as an unquestionably and ubiquitously observed fact in its own right. Its not even a premise, premises can be challenged. That one of every one humans will cease to be consciousness once the brain stops functioning cannot be challenged.

 

[idav]

But you didn't state any argument that concludes that any aspect of consciousness is a product of something happening in brains. Right?

I don't see how you missed, others saying something very similar, I guess you don't believe we know enough about brains even though I gave you plenty of the evidence science has.

So my computer doesn't have memory? And my camera can't detect light?

Consciousness requires all of the things together, you take one thing out it may not even be consciousness anymore. Being able to detect light is not in the least bit consciousness and memory alone is not sufficient enough for consciousness or I would say plants are conscious, which they are not far as I know. Even an individual neuron is not consciousness in itself.

 

[EverChanging]

We loose consciousness in sleep, in comas, etc. Alter the brain, alter consciousness. That's the argument.

What about a soul is so special that it provides any explanation whatsoever as to how it would produce conaciousness?

It's stupid to demand an argument as to how consciousness emerges from the brain when one has not and cannot give an argument for how it could emerge from a soul.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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)?

lots of evidence that consciousness comes from the brain. For one thing, you have no consciousness before you are born (before you have a physical brain). also, you have no memory of being younger than approx. two years of age because the brain had not fully developed at that time. If you get hit in the head hard enough, you lose consciousness, etc, etc, etc. No logical reason to believe consciousness exists outside of the brain. A better question would be, how do physical entities evolve consciousness? This is a question that no one has an answer to at this point.

 

[Nous]

I don't know, but what I said was not that I know it isn't, but that just because we don't yet have a satisfactory naturalistic explanation does not mean that it is.

So, “satisfactory naturalistic explanation” means that there are no conserved quantities such as energy?

To insist that every phenomenon in the system must have a cause within the system leads (naturally) to an infinite regress. What's more “fundamentally mysterious” than that?

Statistics show that there is a 100% probability that your brain will one day cease to function and consciousness will end. I can hardly think of a more certain correlation of data in the entire realm of reality than that between the 'death' of the human brain and the 'death' of human consciousness.

"Statistics show"? Where? What were the assumptions?

What you have called a "correlation of data" is merely your belief despite the evidence to the contrary. You haven't accounted for the many documented instances of people having complex, coherent experiences, formation of memories, use of logical thought processes and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective during clinical death. You haven't accounted for the evidence of anomalous cognition noted above.

You're probably right that there is no argument to prove that consciousness depends on brain function - its so obvious no argument is required - it simply stands as an unquestionably and ubiquitously observed fact in its own right.

No one has ever observed consciousness being produced by activity in the brain. Arguments are required for logical conclusions.

 

[Nous]

I don't see how you missed, others saying something very similar

Not only did you fail to show that your premises are true propositions, you didn't even close to stating an argument that concludes that the various phenomena of consciousness (intentions, beliefs, unified awareness, free will) are a product of something happening in brains.

No one here has articulated any reason whatsoever that prevents the hypothesis that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon.

 

[Nous]

We loose consciousness in sleep, in comas, etc. Alter the brain, alter consciousness. That's the argument.

Do you not know how to formulate an valid and sound argument, where a true proposition is deduced from a set of true premises? Obviously your statements here are not arguments. Try again.

 

[idav]

Not only did you fail to show that your premises are true propositions, you didn't even close to stating an argument that concludes that the various phenomena of consciousness (intentions, beliefs, unified awareness, free will) are a product of something happening in brains.

No one here has articulated any reason whatsoever that prevents the hypothesis that consciousness is a fundamental phenomenon.

I did show my premises true.

The burden of proof is someone claiming consciousness is fundamental. There is nothing but evidence that brain is the source, changing it to non-fundamental doesn't change what we know of our brain. What does contradict the fundamental consiousness idea is the fact that animals simply have or don't have consiousness based on complexity and you've been given plenty on that also.

I'd be fine believing it's fundamental, then it should be plenty easy to make an AI with real feelings. Even if it isn't fundamental it still suggests we can build consiousness given the correct parameters and complexity. Anyone who can explain why a plant is conscious and not just a matter of chemical reactions and complexity should have the answer you seek. A plant however is a perfect example of why consiousness takes more complexity not always found in all animals.

 

[VioletVortex]

There is the theory of emergent dualism, where a soul or conscious energy is produced by something in the physical structure of the brain, be it a certain set of nerves or more likely, the pineal gland. Emergent dualism, however, attests that the soul functions as a separate entity as the physical brain, as if the tissues are simply it's host. This would lead one to question afterlife, could the soul survive without being rooted in the brain?

The modern "scientific" idea is that the complexity of the brain is enough to create sentience. That just doesn't make sense. No matter how nerves there are, no matter how many separate electrical signals there are, they will still be completely meaningless from a spiritual standpoint.

My personal belief is that when one dies, the essence of their sentience escapes from their brain, diffusing into another plain of existence until it finds a new mind to reincarnate into. The memories are stored in the physical structures of the brain, so these are lost, with the exception of certain, emotionally powerful ones. These will stay vaugely intact.

There aren't really any factual arguments regarding sentience, it's very subjective by nature, and also, it's a very complicated issue.

 

[Nous]

lots of evidence that consciousness comes from the brain. For one thing, you have no consciousness before you are born (before you have a physical brain).

State the argument that you wish to make here. Apparently your premise is going to be a negative universal proposition. That's going to be difficult to prove to be a true proposition.

you have no memory of being younger than approx. two years of age because the brain had not fully developed at that time.

Some people have memories of events prior to two years old--I started a thread not long ago asking about people's earliest memories. I have at least one memory of an event that (according to my parents) happened before I was a year old.

In any case, a newly built TV, before it was completed and plugged in, had never before received transmission of the EM waves carrying the TV that it is able to receive and transmit. That doesn't imply that the TV shows are the product of the internal components of the TV.

No logical reason to believe consciousness exists outside of the brain.

You haven't accounted for the many documented cases of people having complex, coherent experiences, formation of memories, engaging in logical thought processes and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective during clinical death.

A better question would be, how do physical entities evolve consciousness? This is a question that no one has an answer to at this point.

That is a good question for all those who claim that consciousness is a mere product of something happening in brains. As William James et al. argued, in order for consciousness to be selected (and developed) in organisms generation after generation, it must be causally efficacious. But there is no account of how brain components can produce such a causally efficacious phenomenon.

 

[Nous]

I did show my premises true.

Quote it. What fact was one of your premises deduced from?

There is nothing but evidence that brain is the source

That's merely your belief that you cling to despite the evidence to the contrary.

I call it "bad religion" when people hold beliefs despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Nous]

There is the theory of emergent dualism, where a soul or conscious energy is produced by something in the physical structure of the brain, be it a certain set of nerves or more likely, the pineal gland. Emergent dualism, however, attests that the soul functions as a separate entity as the physical brain, as if the tissues are simply it's host. This would lead one to question afterlife, could the soul survive without being rooted in the brain?

Yeah, "emergence" is just a term that is apparently used to camouflage the fact that there is no explanation for the various phenomena of consciousness arising from the complex organization of brains. You're right that it doesn't make sense that the complex electrochemical happenings in the brain can create (a unified) sentience--or the other phenomena of consciousness.

 

[idav]

Quote it. What fact was one of your premises deduced from?

That's merely your belief that you cling to despite the evidence to the contrary.

I call it "bad religion" when people hold beliefs despite the evidence to the contrary.

I showed the evidence, which you agreed with which points, to consciousness being built on memory. How can neurologists know this? With the well established experiments that show various types of memory and their affect on our ability to be conscious of ongoing events. What I showed was petty technical but I can even go more abstract. Science shows various anomalies and diseases that show evidence of what memory and knowing really is.

Idealism is the "bad religion" relying on " nuh uh you can't know that" is not scientifically sound.

How can anyone deny that all the brain parts are what makes our world like this NYU paper?
http://psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/papers/04_CON_V14.pdf

Where in any study of how we create our reality links to anything but he brain?
The Then and Now of Memory

Where is someone studying consciousness to be something other than the brain liken In this article referencing Princeton showing consiousness from a brain which suggests the hard and easy problem of consiousness has been switched around.
http://disinfo.com/2013/08/how-the-human-brain-creates-consciousness/

Saying materialism has no evidence is laughable. Where are the studies to suggest humans can be conscious once the brain shuts down. Citing dreams a brain has at sleep or times of trauma doesn't cut it, all we see in NDE's is brain activity that never cease short of actual brain death.

Here is a study suggesting NDE's are simply lucid dreams.
Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds

 

[Nous]

I showed the evidence, which you agreed with which points, to consciousness being built on memory.

I certainly didn't agree with any such claim that "consciousness [is] built on memory," nor will you find any such claim in the peer-reviewed literature.

I have asked repeatedly how it could be possible for someone to remember something that s/he is not first conscious of.

And again, even if your premises were true propositions, they definitely don't lead to the conclusion that the various phenomena of consciousness are the product of activity in brains.

 

[Nous]

Here is a study suggesting NDE's are simply lucid dreams.
Near-Death Experiences are Lucid Dreams, Experiment Finds

So "lucid dreams" happen during clinical death? If so, that would only prove that "lucid dreams" are not the product of activity in brains.

How does one account for veridical perceptions (from an out-of-body perspective) during clinical death?

 

[siti]

So, “satisfactory naturalistic explanation” means that there are no conserved quantities such as energy?

To insist that every phenomenon in the system must have a cause within the system leads (naturally) to an infinite regress. What's more “fundamentally mysterious” than that?

The idea that to avoid infinite regress we need to invoke an infinite consciousness - that is more more "fundamentally mysterious" because (a) if its true (and it might be) it is entirely beyond any possibility of explanation and (b) it itself is, of necessity, every bit as infinite as the infinite regress of causality that we are seeking to avoid by its means. IMO (which differs from almost all 'mainstream ideas) is that infinite regress is the least problematic 'explanation' for the existence of the universe (although, you are correct in the sense that this means 'existence' itself is 'fundamentally mysterious', none of the actual causes of any observed reality are)

No one has ever observed consciousness being produced by activity in the brain. Arguments are required for logical conclusions.

Give me one example in which consciousness has been observed in the absence of a brain. Give me one argument for the 'logical conclusion' that this could happen.

"Statistics show"? Where? What were the assumptions?

What you have called a "correlation of data" is merely your belief despite the evidence to the contrary. You haven't accounted for the many documented instances of people having complex, coherent experiences, formation of memories, use of logical thought processes and veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective during clinical death. You haven't accounted for the evidence of anomalous cognition noted above.

Seriously? I'm sorry Nous - I am not going to waste a lot of time on this - 1 out of every 1 human eventually dies and consciousness ceases. That a few have extraordinary experiences which the brain interprets as "out of body" or "death" experiences does not change the fact that these are functions of the brain. If these are real experiences of consciousness that happen without the assistance of a functioning brain, how does the 'memory' of them get into the brain when they are revived? You need only remember the N of NDE (near) and you have your answer. The 'experiences' were in the brain the whole time - regardless of whether the brain was 'actually' dead for a little while during the process. There is only one way to find out for sure what happens when we die - and I'm in no hurry to make that particular observation in my own case.

 

[idav]

I certainly didn't agree with any such claim that "consciousness [is] built on memory," nor will you find any such claim in the peer-reviewed literature.

I have asked repeatedly how it could be possible for someone to remember something that s/he is not first conscious of.

And again, even if your premises were true propositions, they definitely don't lead to the conclusion that the various phenomena of consciousness are the product of activity in brains.

What you agreed with was the fact that we "experience" after actually receiving the data, pointing to the very idea that conciseness, and went into more detail about it, is built on memory, ie we are conscious of a memory not of reality itself. That is also evidence that being aware of anything hinges on interaction that is processed in the brain.
Temporal Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

When we hear the clock strike twelve, our auditory experience of it so doing also occurs at twelve (or at most a few moments later).

The following part goes against the idea of consciousness being being time.

So if our awareness is confined to the present, our awareness must itself lack temporal depth. Hence we are led swiftly to the conclusion that our direct awareness cannot possibly encompass phenomena possessing temporal extension.

I think this portion goes into the heart of our argument as well as at least going into one of my premises.

The task facing PT-antirealists is in one respect the easier of the two: unlike their realist counterparts, they are under no obligation to provide an intelligible account of how it is possible for our consciousness to embrace temporally extended phenomena. But in another respect their task is the more difficult. Antirealists are under an obligation to ‘save the (temporal) phenomena’: they need to supply a credible explanation as to why it seems so natural to say we perceive movement and change when, in actual fact, we do no such thing.

Anyhow I think the article really delves into the different arguments and what may or may not be lacking, its a good read and informative if you muster through it, I'm still going through it.