Consciousness, Mind, and Brain

[atanu]

Not to mention those studies from neuroscience that demonstrate decisions to act are made by the brain prior to conscious recognition of the decisions. In other words, the brain decides to reach for the apple before it becomes consciously aware of having decided to reach for the apple.

The part highlighted blue is actually a very big conclusion. I think we must be careful. Libet saw brain activity a few micro seconds prior to the the resolve to move an arm became known in mind.

Libet, IMO, did not conclude that it was a decision made by the brain. If you think that brain made the decision then let us see Libet's work.

The part highlighted red throws up a question. If it is conscious of the decision post-facto, then how could the decision be brain's conscious decision?

 

[atanu]

My definitions:`Conscious' means aware; `consciousness,' the state of being aware.

To explain above a bit, and distinguish consciousness from mind, I will point to the fact that most times we are not aware/conscious of the thoughts arising and conscious of the many instinctive actions that we perform.

So, the thoughts that arise comprise the conscious mind. There apparently is store wherefrom thoughts arise and this store may be called subconscious mind.

However, being aware is different. Being conscious is different. It is when we are aware of self, or aware of thoughts, or aware of actions ......

Most times, we are not conscious. Thoughts arise and take control.

Now, in this scheme, the mind is not conscious and nor it is consciousness. We may discuss brain later. The pure awareness of all phenomena: the body, the mind, and the environment, without entangling with any of those ever changing objects/aspects is the Pure Consciousness. Or the Seer.

Most of us do not know it, since we are never a pure Seer of the thoughts and actions.

In my view, Sanandfoam hinted at it but refused to further participate. But I understand.
...

As per some:

The ‘mind’, which flourishes as love, hatred, lust, anger, etc. and which is objectified as insentient objects cognized by us; is the totality of mind, intellect, memory, will and ego; which, although it has such diverse aspects, bears the generic name ‘mind’. It is insentient and material but appears intelligent in light of Consciousness.

 

[atanu]

My definitions:`Conscious' means aware; `consciousness,' the state of being aware.

To explain above a bit, and distinguish consciousness from mind, I will point to the fact that most times we are not aware/conscious of the thoughts arising and conscious of the many instinctive actions that we perform.

So, the thoughts that arise comprise the conscious mind. There apparently is store wherefrom thoughts arise and this store may be called subconscious mind.

However, being aware is different. Being conscious is different. It is when we are aware of self, or aware of thoughts, or aware of actions ......

Most times, we are not conscious. Thoughts arise and take control.

Now, in this scheme, the mind is not conscious and nor it is consciousness. We may discuss brain later. The pure awareness of all phenomena: the body, the mind, and the environment, without entangling with any of those ever changing objects/aspects is the Pure Consciousness. Or the Seer.

Most of us do not know it, since we are never a pure Seer of the thoughts and actions.

In my view, Sanandfoam hinted at it but refused to further participate. But I understand.
...

The above introduction has a purpose. I wish to ask (especially from those who hold that brain generates the self awareness "I" or "Me"):

• How brain generates the self awareness?
  
• Whether Consciousness exists during deep sleep?

Thanks to all.

 

[chinu]

Are these three different or same? Kindly explain your reasons, with definition of the terms, whenever necessary.

Of course three of them are different but also connected with each other.

Mind itself isn't a conscious stuff, it is conscious just because of soul which is residing inside mind. As much as mind is aware of soul inside him as much as it is conscious/brainy.

As a result what happens.
If Mind is in the control of soul than there's no big friend than a Mind.
But If Mind isn't in the control of soul than there's no big enemy than a Mind.

 

[Elector]

Hello Druidus,

I think the brain produces consciousness because of the strong evidence for it's components being necessary for it, and for losing it taking away consciousness, or parts of consciousness. You could lose your sight, or your taste, or your awareness of a limb, or your memories, etc. It's known how a great deal of what makes up consciousness is processed in the brain.

I think this only proves that there is a strong positive correlation between the brain and consciousness, but not necessarily a causation.
Take your cell phone for instance. Does your phone produce the voice? When you damage the phone, the voice becomes blurry, and when we destroy/break the phone, the voice disappears. Are we to conclude that the phone is causing the voice? Wouldn't a more logical conclusion be that the phone is a sophisticated enough machine that acts as a manifesting medium for the voice?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wouldn't a more logical conclusion be that the phone is a sophisticated enough machine that acts as a manifesting medium for the voice?

Not when one understands the existence and structure of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the long wavelengths known as "radio waves."

 

[Elector]

Not when one understands the existence and structure of the electromagnetic spectrum, including the long wavelengths known as "radio waves."

What do you mean? EM-waves are passing through the phone regardless of whether it is fully functional or not. When it is fully functional, the EM-waves are transformed into sound waves by the phone and thus the voice manifests. When it is broken, the phone is not able to transform the EM-waves, and no voice is manifested. Are the EM-waves affected in any way by the deficiency of the phone? Does the phone cause the voice?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What do you mean? EM-waves are passing through the phone regardless of whether it is fully functional or not. When it is fully functional, the EM-waves are transformed into sound waves by the phone and thus the voice manifests. When it is broken, the phone is not able to transform the EM-waves, and no voice is manifested. Are the EM-waves affected in any way by the deficiency of the phone? Does the phone cause the voice?

The receiver, electronics, and speaker in the phone cause the voice which is transmitted by radio waves. I'm sure a quick google search can educate you on how cell phones work.

 

[Elector]

The receiver, electronics, and speaker in the phone cause the voice which is transmitted by radio waves. I'm sure a quick google search can educate you on how cell phones work.

Thank you for the condescending attitude, but I think I understand how they work just fine. For the record, the speaker at the other side of the line is causing the voice, which gets transmitted and manifested via electronics.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thank you for the condescending attitude, but I think I understand how they work just fine. For the record, the speaker at the other side of the line is causing the voice, which gets transmitted and manifested via electronics.

And the receiver, electronics, and speaker in the phone cause the sounds heard as a voice by the person listening on the phone. Is there a point to your semantic musings?

 

[FearGod]

The receiver, electronics, and speaker in the phone cause the voice which is transmitted by radio waves. I'm sure a quick google search can educate you on how cell phones work.

Did he say another thing that let you to think that he doesn't know how it works,it is already in Grade 1 nowadays.

Now he said to you if the mobile was damaged,for example if the mobile's speaker was damaged then still the mw is received by the mobile but there will be no voice output because one part of the mobile was damaged,replacing the speaker will resulting in fixing the problem exactly as we do by fixing our physical body but the soul never gets off but the body do.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I've been thinking on thuds since I saw the thread, and I can't find the words to describe what I mean, but in trends of consciousness, mind and brain, it's something like this:

Consciousness is the creator, the brain is consciousness created physically, and mind is the...intermediate...a translator of sorts - consciousness works with and through the mind, making thought physical reality, and brain feeds back through mind to consciousness. Or something like that, I'm having difficulty translating what I'm instinctively feeling.

 

[Elector]

And the receiver, electronics, and speaker in the phone cause the sounds heard as a voice by the person listening on the phone. Is there a point to your semantic musings?

It seems you have not even bothered to understand the point I'm making. The internal mechanism of the phone is irrelevant to the discussion. I was pointing out to the phone's ability to manifest the already-existing EM-waves into sound waves. Let's recap the process: We have an individual on phone X talking to another individual on phone Y. The first individual is the one who produces/causes the voice in the form of sound waves, which are then converted into EM-waves by phone X. These EM-waves are then transmitted to phone Y, which then re-transforms the EM-waves into the initially produced sound waves i.e. the voice. How can you say that phone Y produces the voice? It only acts as a manifesting medium to the EM-waves (the initially produced voice).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It seems you have not even bothered to understand the point I'm making. The internal mechanism of the phone is irrelevant to the discussion. I was pointing out to the phone's ability to manifest the already-existing EM-waves into sound waves. Let's recap the process: We have an individual on phone X talking to another individual on phone Y. The first individual is the one who produces/causes the voice in the form of sound waves, which are then converted into EM-waves by phone X. These EM-waves are then transmitted to phone Y, which then re-transforms the EM-waves into the initially produced sound waves i.e. the voice. How can you say that phone Y produces the voice? It only acts as a manifesting medium to the EM-waves (the initially produced voice).

No, I understand it. I just think your attempt to compare consciousness and the brain to radio waves and a cell phone is a clumsy and specious metaphor.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

It seems you have not even bothered to understand the point I'm making. The internal mechanism of the phone is irrelevant to the discussion. I was pointing out to the phone's ability to manifest the already-existing EM-waves into sound waves. Let's recap the process: We have an individual on phone X talking to another individual on phone Y. The first individual is the one who produces/causes the voice in the form of sound waves, which are then converted into EM-waves by phone X. These EM-waves are then transmitted to phone Y, which then re-transforms the EM-waves into the initially produced sound waves i.e. the voice. How can you say that phone Y produces the voice? It only acts as a manifesting medium to the EM-waves (the initially produced voice).

So, in the end, you're arguing that the brain is not or may not be necessary for consciousness. How would you get that idea? How could it be proven?

No, I understand it. I just think your attempt to compare consciousness and the brain to radio waves and a cell phone is a clumsy and specious metaphor.

Such a comparison would be an analogy.

 

[Elector]

So, in the end, you're arguing that the brain is not or may not be necessary for consciousness.

The brain is necessary for the manifestation of consciousness, but not for its existence.

How would you get that idea? How could it be proven?

Since consciousness seems to manifest only in the presence of a brain we can neither prove the assertion nor disprove it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Such a comparison would be an analogy.

Good point. However, also hair-splitting which misses the point.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

The brain is necessary for the manifestation of consciousness, but not for its existence.


Since consciousness seems to manifest only in the presence of a brain we can neither prove the assertion nor disprove it.

I think I understand what you mean. However, I would argue that it 'may' be proven or disproven, but unfortunately we cannot verify that until our brain is rendered non-functional (i.e. dead).

Good point. However, also hair-splitting which misses the point.

Good example of a metaphor.

 

[Elector]

However, I would argue that it 'may' be proven or disproven, but unfortunately we cannot verify that until our brain is rendered non-functional (i.e. dead).

How exactly?

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

How exactly?

Well, if one retains any degree of consciousness or awareness after physical death, one could conclude that the brain is not necessary for such phenomena. Although I do question if one's critical faculties would still be intact to make such a reassessment/recognition. Perhaps one may lose all of or the bulk of their memory to adapt to whatever new reality emerges. In such a case, one would not remember the question "Will my consciousness/awareness live on after my physical body/brain dies?"