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

[idav]

A number of other physicists and other scientists have drawn similar conclusions (having nothing to do with NDEs or anomalous cognition).

Since when is idealism even scientifically verifiable? Idealism hides in ignorance like a god of gaps type deal.

 

[Nous]

Since when is idealism even scientifically verifiable? Idealism hides in ignorance like a god of gaps type deal.

Who said anything about idealism? To assert that consciousness is fundamental as Planck and many other scientists have doesn't necessarily imply idealism. Consciousness is also fundamental in pluralism.

 

[idav]

Who said anything about idealism? To assert that consciousness is fundamental as Planck and many other scientists have doesn't necessarily imply idealism. Consciousness is also fundamental in pluralism.

Consciousness being fundamental is idealism. Regardless of pluralism, saying consciousness is fundamental is nothing short of saying god is in the gaps.

 

[Nous]

Consciousness being fundamental is idealism.

False. Numerous metaphysical theses propose consciousness as fundamental.

Regardless of pluralism, saying consciousness is fundamental is nothing short of saying god is in the gaps.

What is the claim that consciousness is somehow produced by some unknown activity in brains but a "God of the Gaps" argument?

 

[idav]

False. Numerous metaphysical theses propose consciousness as fundamental.

ok?

What is the claim that consciousness is somehow produced by some unknown activity in brains but a "God of the Gaps" argument?

Uknown activity,hardly, plea to ignorance as usual. Just cause its so astronomically complex doesn't mean we don't know anything. Its like saying we don't know anything about the universe until we analyze every star.
How does seeing hearing and feeling have nothing to do with the brain, in basic anatomy the brain processes our senses. It somehow has to pass these things over to some unseen thing without interaction?

 

[Nous]

Uknown activity,hardly, plea to ignorance as usual.

The claim that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains is asserted only because the cause of consciousness isn't known. There isn't a single known product of or activity among the cells of the brain by which the creation of consciousness can logically be deduced. On top of that irrationality, one has to assiduously ignore and deny all of the evidence contradicting the claim, namely the evidence of complex, coherent experiences, logical thought processes, formation of memories and veridical perceptions not acquired through the sense organs during clinical death, and the evidence of anomalous cognition. It isn't just God of the Gaps; first you have to deny all the facts that contradict the idea.

 

[idav]

The claim that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains is asserted only because the cause of consciousness isn't known.

That's impossible. Science doesn't just pick some random organ and try and point to consciousness. The brain is the most likely candidate, others like to try and say it is some sort of soul or something.

There isn't a single known product of or activity among the cells of the brain by which the creation of consciousness can logically be deduced.

That isn't true either, the most someone can argue is the brain activity correlations are just coincidence.

one has to assiduously ignore and deny all of the evidence contradicting the claim, namely the evidence of complex, coherent experiences, logical thought processes, formation of memories and veridical perceptions not acquired through the sense organs during clinical death, and the evidence of anomalous cognition.

So people dream til they die, thats not astonishing.

It isn't just God of the Gaps; first you have to deny all the facts that contradict the idea.

God of gaps isn't about denying to accepting facts. Just like everything we find pushes god to nether regions of knowledge, everything we know and find about the self is physically based, we know enough about anatomy that notions of the "heart" can be put to rest. Hiding in gaps of knowledge by saying we don't know enough about the brain to be 100% ignores plenty of facts we know about how the brain allows us to process our environment.

 

[shunyadragon]

Max Planck, a founding father of quantum theory postulated that consciousness is fundamental.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." -- Max Planck, As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

I do not agree with Max Plank that it is a conclusion you can base on science, because it is a philosophical/theological conclusion. but I agree with it from the perspective my belief in God.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, in other words, without an instrument to measure consciousness, your claim above about "what we know that every time a person actually dies" has not been tested, much less substantiated. Your claims are merely your religion. You obviously can't make an argument that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains.

All known final diagnosis of death indicates the brain is flat lined and dead. Your committing a fallacy, which one.

 

[SpiritQuest]

According to scientist Seth Lloyd, the universe is conscious.

The universe is not alive. It's more than alive. It contains life. It does all the things that living things do. It processes information. It moves energy from one place to another. The different pieces of it can reproduce each other. But the Universe as a whole can do much more than just what living things can do. The human brain can perform about 10 to the power of 16, or 10 million billion computations in a second. In the same time, Seth believes the universe performs about 10 to the power of 106 computations, which makes the universe impossibly smarter than we can ever imagine. If the universe is behaving like a giant quantum computer, and let's face it, it is, then it's capable of any kind of complex behavior we can imagine.

 

[idav]

According to scientist Seth Lloyd, the universe is conscious.

In that case consciousness would be an emergent property.

 

[shunyadragon]

In that case consciousness would be an emergent property.

Correct it would be described as an emergent property. This resembles the Gaia philosophy of the 'description' of the nature of Universe, as a living organism.

 

[SpiritQuest]

In that case consciousness would be an emergent property.

I would say that is not necessarily the case. If consciousness is fundamental in the universe then everything is an aspect or perspective of consciousness, thus mathematics cannot be separate from it.(consciousness). A fundamental unit or "atom" of consciousness would be a perspective, with the perspective being both objective and subjective. Interrelated perspectives form a family of perspectives. A single perspective may also be a family. The universe(omniverse) is the family of families and also described as the totality of existence. This is then the conscious universe where matter emerges from consciousness; consciousness would not emerge from matter. Consciousness is the cause, matter, space, and time, are the effects. By observing distant starlight that began to exist billions of years ago, we are actually co-creators of reality.

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

What components in brains formulate arguments? And why hasn't some brain on this thread formulated a non-fallacious argument that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains?

Two problems here: (1) Your presenting a vague illusive 'argument from ignorance.' Your argument is that science does not know which region of the brain does what? is not meaningful. (2) There is no objective evidence that anything happens outside the brain in terms of consciousness, and mental activities, and there is increasing evidence in science of how things are product of the brain. It is documented that damage to the brain impairs various different cognitive and memory functions of the brain including being able to reason logical arguments whether they are fallacious or not.

 

[Nous]

There isn't a single known product of or activity among the cells of the brain by which the creation of consciousness can logically be deduced.

That isn't true either

Then state that deduction. That's what I asked for in the OP. Be sure to substantiate your premises.

one has to assiduously ignore and deny all of the evidence contradicting the claim, namely the evidence of complex, coherent experiences, logical thought processes, formation of memories and veridical perceptions not acquired through the sense organs during clinical death, and the evidence of anomalous cognition.

So people dream til they die

I don't have a clue as to what that is supposed to mean. People are not taking naps during cardiac arrest.

If you are not denying the facts of people's complex, coherent experiences, logical thought processes, formation of memories, and veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs during clinical death, then you agreeing that these phenomena are not the product of something happening in brains. Which is it?

 

[Nous]

All known final diagnosis of death indicates the brain is flat lined and dead.

? Do you have a point with that statement?

People who have been declared dead are certainly not the only ones whose brains are "flat-lined". As I quoted from Dr. van Lommel (Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?): “[m]onitoring of the electrical activity of the cortex (EEG) has shown that the first ischemic changes in the EEG are detected an average of 6.5 seconds from the onset of circulatory arrest, and with prolongation of the cerebral ischemia always progression to isoelectricity occurs within 10 to 20 (mean 15) seconds.” This is how we know that the Parnia 2014 patient could not have had his veridical perceptions as signals processed through his sensory organs and brain. It's how we know that Dr. Rudy's patient could not have seen with his eyes Drs. Rudy and Amado-Cattaneo chatting in the doorway with their arms folded, and the other perceptions he reported. And we know that Pam Reynolds did not see the surgical saw and tray of interchangeable blades with her eyes when she was under anesthesia and her eyelids were taped closed.

So you don't have any argument that the various phenomena of consciousness are products of something happening in brains, do you?

Your committing a fallacy,

Then quote it, and identify it: Fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Nous]

In that case consciousness would be an emergent property.

What does consciousness emerge from?

 

[Nous]

Two problems here: (1) Your presenting a vague illusive 'argument from ignorance.'

False. I haven't presented any argument, period. I have asked for an argument in the OP. So far, no one here has been able to articulate any such argument that concludes that the various phenomena of consciousness are effects of processes in brains.

It is documented that damage to the brain impairs various different cognitive and memory functions of the brain including being able to reason logical arguments whether they are fallacious or not.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Anything else?

 

[idav]

What does consciousness emerge from?

Knowledge of spacetime, trillions of cells acting in unison in order to paint a picture of its environment, space, and remember and simulate the order of events of said picture, time. Something similar to what we call a singularity event. I have reason to believe we are only simulating what the universe is truly capable of. Our consciousness is limited because of its physical aspects, anything more would be unbounded.
See this claim that consciousness can be quantified.

 

[shunyadragon]

False. I haven't presented any argument, period. I have asked for an argument in the OP. So far, no one here has been able to articulate any such argument that concludes that the various phenomena of consciousness are effects of processes in brains.

ALL the known objective evidence at present demonstrates that the various phenomena of consciousness originates as processes of the brain.

[/quote]
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Anything else?[/QUOTE]

It is not logic question, but a matter of the brute force of overwhelming objective evidence.

Where is the objective verifiable evidence that any phenomena of consciousness originates anywhere other than the brain?

Still waiting . . .