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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Erwin Schrodinger, another founding father of quantum theory also hypothesized that consciousness is fundamental...

Erwin Schrödinger - Wikiquote

On what basis? Schroedinger also rejected all the Abrahamic religions -- not on the basis of any sort of reasoning, but just because he didn't think so. He was a genius, of course. So was Einstein in Dirac and Pauli and Feynman. But you know, I wouldn't go to any of them for medical advice, or assistance with a serious legal problem. So why would I trust them with the issue of consciousness, either?

By the same token, I wouldn't ask Daniel Dennett or Michael Gazzaniga (great neuroscientists) or Christof Koch (best known for his work on the “neural bases of consciousness”) for help in understanding Quantum Theory (and I need a lot of help!).

And it is a fact that those who spend time actually studying brain, mind, consciousness and so forth are in general much more persuaded by consciousness to be correlated with brain, although there is no certain agreement on how, just yet.

And there is an amazingly large gap that any hypothesis that "consciousness is fundamental" must cross, and that is -- since it is supposed to be "fundamental" and therefore not physical -- there is no way anyone can understand how it can operate in a causative way to, for example, move my fingers to type this.

 

[George-ananda]

Erwin Schrodinger, another founding father of quantum theory also hypothesized that consciousness is fundamental...

Erwin Schrödinger - Wikiquote

So does the Advaita (non-dual=God and creation are not-two) philosophy of Vedic knowledge claim that Consciousness/God/Brahman is fundamental and matter is a derivative of consciousness.

This would have sounded even weirder to people before Quantum Theory, but the seers of this tradition were saying this a thousand years earlier.

 

[SpiritQuest]

And there is an amazingly large gap that any hypothesis that "consciousness is fundamental" must cross, and that is -- since it is supposed to be "fundamental" and therefore not physical -- there is no way anyone can understand how it can operate in a causative way to, for example, move my fingers to type this.

The law of cause and effect is the most fundamental law of reality. Cause begins in the mind. As we think and do unto others, so we think and do unto ourselves. Universal oneness. There is one universal awareness or consciousness and the apparently different things in reality are different perspectives of the One. Therefore think good and healing thoughts about your fellow humans, yes.

What is space? space is awareness itself. An atom is mostly empty space...

http://www.peterrussell.com/SP/PrimConsc.php

An atom may be small, a mere billionth of an inch across, but subatomic particles are a hundred thousand times smaller still. Imagine the nucleus of an atom magnified to the size of a golf ball. The whole atom would then be the size of a football stadium, and the electrons would be like peas flying round the stands. As the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, “Matter is mostly ghostly empty space.” To be more precise, it is 99.9999999% empty space.

"Matter is derived from mind, not mind from matter." —The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation

 

[SpiritQuest]

So does the Advaita (non-dual=God and creation are not-two) philosophy of Vedic knowledge claim that Consciousness/God/Brahman is fundamental and matter is a derivative of consciousness.

This would have sounded even weirder to people before Quantum Theory, but the seers of this tradition were saying this a thousand years earlier.

Hello, from your descriptions, the seers of ancient traditions were very experienced with the inner science of the mind, while conventional science seeks to only study the objective world, yes.

 

[Evie]

The law of cause and effect is the most fundamental law of reality. Cause begins in the mind. As we think and do unto others, so we think and do unto ourselves. Universal oneness. There is one universal awareness or consciousness and the apparently different things in reality are different perspectives of the One. Therefore think good and healing thoughts about your fellow humans, yes.

What is space? space is awareness itself. An atom is mostly empty space...

http://www.peterrussell.com/SP/PrimConsc.php



"Matter is derived from mind, not mind from matter." —The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation

 

[Evie]

D

The law of cause and effect is the most fundamental law of reality. Cause begins in the mind. As we think and do unto others, so we think and do unto ourselves. Universal oneness. There is one universal awareness or consciousness and the apparently different things in reality are different perspectives of the One. Therefore think good and healing thoughts about your fellow humans, yes.

What is space? space is awareness itself. An atom is mostly empty space...

http://www.peterrussell.com/SP/PrimConsc.php



"Matter is derived from mind, not mind from matter." —The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation

Does that same book say where Mind came from?

 

[psychoslice]

Without brain there would be no so called consciousness, without consciousness there would be no brain, simple.

 

[siti]

The human mind is severely limited. Cannot 'see' or comprehend what is not meant to be 'seen' or comprehended. When we know why, we will understand. Until then .......

Until then we must accept woo? Or alternatively, have the maturity and humility to accept that there is a grown-up answer - we just don't know exactly what it is yet.

But I do feel I must commend those on the aphysical/immaterial side of the discussion for their optimism and wish them all the best in figuring out the origin of consciousness without the aid of their brains! (If you see what I mean).

 

[SpiritQuest]

D

Does that same book say where Mind came from?

Mind comes from clarity and awareness, that is, mind comes from mind.

Statement of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, on | The 14th Dalai Lama

There are many different logical arguments given in the words of the Buddha and subsequent commentaries to prove the existence of past and future lives. In brief, they come down to four points: the logic that things are preceded by things of a similar type, the logic that things are preceded by a substantial cause, the logic that the mind has gained familiarity with things in the past, and the logic of having gained experience of things in the past.

Ultimately all these arguments are based on the idea that the nature of the mind, its clarity and awareness, must have clarity and awareness as its substantial cause. It cannot have any other entity such as an inanimate object as its substantial cause. This is self-evident. Through logical analysis we infer that a new stream of clarity and awareness cannot come about without causes or from unrelated causes. While we observe that mind cannot be produced in a laboratory, we also infer that nothing can eliminate the continuity of subtle clarity and awareness.

As far as I know, no modern psychologist, physicist, or neuroscientist has been able to observe or predict the production of mind either from matter or without cause.

 

[Evie]

Wh

Mind comes from clarity and awareness, that is, mind comes from mind.

Statement of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, on | The 14th Dalai Lama

which leads back to a Supreme Being. A Creator.

 

[George-ananda]

Without brain there would be no so called consciousness, without consciousness there would be no brain, simple.

How do you explain paranormal entities having consciousness? (I'm guessing your answer as 'no such thing'.)

I think the brain is only required for physical entities.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The law of cause and effect is the most fundamental law of reality. Cause begins in the mind. As we think and do unto others, so we think and do unto ourselves. Universal oneness. There is one universal awareness or consciousness and the apparently different things in reality are different perspectives of the One. Therefore think good and healing thoughts about your fellow humans, yes.

What is space? space is awareness itself. An atom is mostly empty space...

http://www.peterrussell.com/SP/PrimConsc.php



"Matter is derived from mind, not mind from matter." —The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation

I'm sure that's nice to believe, but I really do have some serious issues with it, myself. Not the least of those issues is a quite simple one: If "matter is derived from mind, not mind from matter," then it stands to perfect reason that mind must be physical. By "physical" I mean capable of being detected in some way by physics. Because in order for mind to produce matter (which is most definitely physical), it must be able to have an effect on matter (that's how it gets to be a "cause.")

This problem does not exist if mind is derived from matter. It simply remains very hard to explain what it is, that's all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Mind comes from clarity and awareness, that is, mind comes from mind.

Statement of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, on | The 14th Dalai Lama

This is what Daniel Dennett would call a "deepity."

A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.

 

[Nous]

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.

As long as we agree that no fact relating to flocks of flying birds helps to argue that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains, I'm good with whatever issue you wish to raise about emergence.

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.

No one, including you, has articulated any argument on this thread that concludes that something happening in brains creates the various phenomena of consciousness. Right?

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.

That's correct. I decline to propose "where [consciousness] originates." Where doesn't the energy of the universe originate? Is not being able to identify "where" energy "originates" a problem for concluding that it doesn't originate within the closed system of the universe?

In any case, the OP provides a challenge to those who believe that brains produce consciousness, and does not offer any alternative explanations for the benefit of those who are unable to meet the challenge of the OP.

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.

That is flagrantly correct. I have not articulated even the slightest hint that all creature receive consciousness from separate and distinct sources.

And I think that this has to be an immensely important consideration in your hypothesis.

Hypotheses non fingo.

 

[Nous]

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.

You stated an argument that concludes that consciousness is created by something happening in brains? I didn't see it. Quote it.

And quote whatever you claim that I said that was "debunked".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As long as we agree that no fact relating to flocks of flying birds helps to argue that consciousness is a product of something happening in brains, I'm good with whatever issue you wish to raise about emergence.

No one, including you, has articulated any argument on this thread that concludes that something happening in brains creates the various phenomena of consciousness. Right?

That's correct. I decline to propose "where [consciousness] originates." Where doesn't the energy of the universe originate? Is not being able to identify "where" energy "originates" a problem for concluding that it doesn't originate within the closed system of the universe?

In any case, the OP provides a challenge to those who believe that brains produce consciousness, and does not offer any alternative explanations for the benefit of those who are unable to meet the challenge of the OP.

That is flagrantly correct. I have not articulated even the slightest hint that all creature receive consciousness from separate and distinct sources.

Hypotheses non fingo.

And all of this proves --- well what, exactly? You appear to be on the side of "all you need is a little mysticism and guess work to understand everything completely, and doing actual study, hard work, observation and testing will inevitably lead you to error."

In which case, this post never happened, because the computer couldn't have been invented.

I'm done with fuzzy mystical thinking -- it doesn't stand up to reason because it refuses to get anywhere near reason.

 

[Nous]

There is nothing to suggest the brain is receiving data from anywhere but the human body it is attached to.

You haven't been able to account for the facts of people having complex, coherent experiences, engaging in logical thought processes, forming memories, and having veridical perceptions not gotten through their sense organs during clinical death, or for the evidence of anomalous cognition. Right?

You just ignore all the evidence that contradicts your religion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You stated an argument that concludes that consciousness is created by something happening in brains? I didn't see it. Quote it.

And quote whatever you claim that I said that was "debunked".

And that is your argument for why consciousness must be created from somewhere other than the brain. Because YOU CAN"T SEE IT. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You deny the possibility that something could be, without yet being completely (or even well) understood. And that is just blatantly false. "We don't know" is sometimes the only truly correct answer.

 

[Nous]

And all of this proves --- well what, exactly?

It proves that you are unable to argue for your religion.

 

[Nous]

And that is your argument for why consciousness must be created from somewhere other than the brain.

I haven't made any such argument on this thread. Perhaps you don't understand what arguments are?