• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Consciousness

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There have been a number of threads and posts that challenge the scientific basis for a natural evolved basis for an evolved natural consciousness.

The following are basic definitions of consciousness:

The Cambridge Dictionary defines consciousness as "the state of understanding and realizing something." The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something."

I will argue the following:

1. Degrees of consciousness exist through out the evolutionary history of animals with a nervous system and a brain with neurological responses to the awareness of the environment, Consciousness increases with complexity over time.
2. Consciousness represents the collective thoughts, reasoning, understand and realizing relationships and responses to the environment, which have been falsified by scientific methods that originate from the brain and nervous system.
3. Science has reasonable explanation of the nature of consciousness in the animal kingdom.

Research is constantly expand our scientific understanding of consciousness in the animal kingdoms. The following article is representative of the current advances of science:


Tracing the Evolutionary Roots of Cognitive Flexibility

Summary: A new study provides insights into the evolutionary origins of cognitive flexibility, an essential skill for adaptation and survival.

Participants were studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while learning a sensorimotor task, the findings of which showed the importance of sensory brain regions in decision-making. The researchers also discovered surprising similarities between the brain activity of humans and mice during this task.

These results suggest that the interplay between the frontal brain and sensory brain regions for decision-making formed early in evolutionary development.

Key Facts:


  1. Cognitive flexibility, which allows quick adaptation to changing conditions, is crucial for survival and is based on the functions of the orbitofrontal cortex located in the frontal brain.
  2. Sensory brain regions are critical in decision-making processes as discovered in the study, suggesting the need for further investigation in this area.
  3. The similarity in cognitive processes between mice and humans suggests that these decision-making mechanisms likely developed early in evolutionary history.

Source: RUB

Get up. Go to the kitchen. Prepare some cereal – but a look into the fridge shows: the milk bottle is empty. What now? Skip breakfast? Ask the neighbour for milk? Eat jam sandwiches? Every day, people are confronted with situations that were actually planned quite differently. Flexibility is what helps.

The origin of this skill in the brain is called cognitive flexibility.

A neuroscientific research team at the Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, University Hospital of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany, and the Biosciences Institute at Newcastle University has now succeeded in getting a little closer to the evolutionary origin of cognitive flexibility.

The researchers published their findings in the journal Nature Communications, online since 9. June 2023.

Key factor in many neuropsychiatric diseases

Cognitive flexibility is essential for the survival of all species on Earth. It is particularly based on functions of the so-called orbitofrontal cortex located in the frontal brain.

“The loss of cognitive flexibility in everyday life is a key factor in many neuropsychiatric diseases,” Professor Burkhard Pleger and first author Dr. Bin Wang from the Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil describe their motivation for the study.

“Understanding the underlying network mechanisms is therefore essential for the development of new therapeutic methods.”

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the Bochum team and their cooperation partner Dr. Abhishek Banerjee from the Biosciences Institute at Newcastle University examined the brain functions of 40 participants while they were learning a sensorimotor task.

While lying in the MRI, the volunteers had to learn to recognise the meaning of different touch signals – similar to those used in Braille – on the tip of the right index finger. One touch signal told the participants to press a button with their free hand, while another signal instructed them not to do so and to remain still.

The connection between the two different touch signals and pressing the button or not pressing the button had to be learned from trial to trial. The challenge: after a certain time, the touch signals changed their meaning.

What had previously meant “pressing the button” now meant “holding still” – an ideal experimental set-up to investigate the volunteers’ cognitive flexibility. The fMRI provided images of the corresponding brain activity.


Similarities between humans and mice

“Similar studies had already been done with mice in the past,” says Pleger.

“The learning task we chose now allowed us to observe the brains of mice and humans under comparable cognitive demands.”

A surprising finding is the comparability between the Bochum results in humans and the previously published data from mice, Wang points out.

The similarity shows that cognitive functions that are important for survival, such as the flexibility to adapt quickly to suddenly changing conditions, are following comparable rules in different species.

In addition, the Bochum scientists were able to determine a close involvement of sensory brain regions in the processing of the decisions made during tactile learning. Wang emphasises: “Besides the frontal brain, sensory regions are essential for decision-making in the brain.”

More to follow . . .
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
Until there is a scientific definition of consciousness with the concomitant quantifiable variables any discussion about it is philosophical in nature.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Until there is a scientific definition of consciousness with the concomitant quantifiable variables any discussion about it is philosophical in nature.
The problems with the qualitative discussion about the philosophical nature of consciousness is that it is severely tainted with subjective philosophical and religious objections of subjective 'arguing from ignorance' that lack a scientific basis for the highly variable and conflicting claims of philosophy and religion.

No, science need not 'have to' consider the concomitant qualifiable variables about its philosophical claims in nature 'Until' philosophy can come up with a coherent philosophical argument that can be objectively tested it remains a problem philosophy has to deal with. The fog index in philosophy and religion is to high.

You cannot just 'thick about' consciousness and come up with a competent consistent explanation
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The problems with the qualitative discussion about the philosophical nature of consciousness is that it is severely tainted with religious objections of subjective 'arguing from ignorance' that lack a scientific basis for the highly variable and conflicting claims of philosophy and religion.

No, science need not 'have to' consider the concomitant qualifiable variables about its philosophical claims in nature unless philosophy can come up with a coherent philosophical argument that can be objectively tested. The fog index in philosophy and religion is to high.

That is a subjective demand on your part. In effect you subjectively only accept that which is objective, but amounts to garbage in garbage out because your acceptence is subjective.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well, you can't do meta-cogntion as relevant on some of your own cogntion. That is science btw and not philosophy or religion.

The long history of your 'circular irrational' Nihilist argument against the objective. has no possible constructive response.​


It id necessary for you to acknowledge the factual nature of the objective versus subjective for our dialogue to continue.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
3. Science has reasonable explanation of the nature of consciousness in the animal kingdom.
Does it account for how an objective physical phenomena can give rise to a subjective experiential phenomena?

Once you have something that can be acted on it can be improved over time but there still isn't a scientific theory of how to get experiences from neurons.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Does it account for how an objective physical phenomena can give rise to a subjective experiential phenomena?
I do not believe this a problem from the scientific perspective. It has been shown experiential phenomena have been traced to the brain neurologically whether you consider them objective or objective.

I may present more on this.

Once you have something that can be acted on it can be improved over time but there still isn't a scientific theory of how to get experiences from neurons.
I believe that science has demonstrated years ago by simply tracing human thoughts of experiences and even emotions neurologically to the place or places in the brain they originate.

I believe that the reference partially addresses. You cannot have "Cognitive flexibility' if you cannot establish the relationship of cognitive experiences to the brain.
Does it account for how an objective physical phenomena can give rise to a subjective experiential phenomena?

Once you have something that can be acted on it can be improved over time but there still isn't a scientific theory of how to get experiences from neurons.
Does it account for how an objective physical phenomena can give rise to a subjective experiential phenomena?

Once you have something that can be acted on it can be improved over time but there still isn't a scientific theory of how to get experiences from neurons.
I wanted to add there is no specific theory involved here. Science directly measures and observes response of neurons to experiences, emotions in humans and animals to demonstrate the relationship of the brain to consciousness regardless of whether they are subjective or objective. In the case of this research cited, yes cognitive flexibility is indeed 'subjective but it can be compared as neurological responses of brain neurons.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The following is research in volved in understanding experiential phenomena:

Experiential phenomena of temporal lobe epilepsy. Facts and hypotheses​

P Gloor 1
Affiliations expand

Abstract​

Experiential phenomena that occur in temporal lobe seizures and can be reproduced by electrical stimulation of temporal lobe structures typically encompass perceptual, mnemonic and affective features, either in combination or in isolation, which commonly relate to the patient's individual past experience. These phenomena raise interesting questions concerning brain mechanisms involved in human psychophysiology. The anatomical substrates for the evocation of these phenomena are widely distributed within the temporal lobe and include temporal isocortex and limbic structures (amygdala, hippocampus and parahippocampal gyrus). Arguments are presented which indicate that experiential phenomena are positive expressions of temporal lobe and limbic function and do not result from its ictal paralysis. Recent concepts of parallel distributed processing (Rumelhart and McClelland, 1986) and the importance of parallel distributed cortical networks for higher cognitive functions (Goldman-Rakic, 1988a, b) provide a theoretical framework on which a hypothesis explaining experiential phenomena can be based. In conformity with these concepts the hypothesis assumes that temporal lobe epileptic discharge or electrical stimulation of temporal lobe structures can induce the elaboration of patterns of excitation and inhibition in widely distributed neuronal networks, some of which are capable of forming a specific matrix representing the substrate of a given experience. Neuronal networks engaged in parallel distributed processing (1) have the capacity to recreate the totality of a given experience when only a fragment of the network is activated, and (2) they tolerate a great deal of degradation by random inactivation of its components or by interference through random noise without serious loss of information content. These features are compatible with the assumption that localized epileptic neuronal discharge or electrical stimulation involving some temporal lobe structures could create a matrix representing features of individual experience of the kind activated in the course of temporal lobe seizures. Such an experience could, up to a certain limit, resist the degrading influence of mounting noise which inevitably must attend seizure discharge.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Until there is a scientific definition of consciousness with the concomitant quantifiable variables any discussion about it is philosophical in nature.
Yes, well it takes more than a brain to be conscious. I mean talking about Einstein's brain being kept in a jar or something like that. He isn't alive. Or conscious. Well, it was chopped up in little pieces for "examination" I suppose. He still isn't alive.
 

Jimmy

Veteran Member
Awake conscious
Asleep semi conscious
Tysons opponent unconscious

“And be a simple kind of man
Oh, be something you love and understand
Baby, be a simple kind of man
Oh, won't you do this for me son, if you can?”
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion

The long history of your 'circular irrational' Nihilist argument against the objective. has no possible constructive response.​


It id necessary for you to acknowledge the factual nature of the objective versus subjective for our dialogue to continue.

Well, no. Because if it is in the strong sense necessary then we couldn't disagree as we actually do. The falsifiaction of your model is that I in effect can think and act differently than you for what is in this debate objective and subjective. If you were correct, I couldn't subjectively different than you, but I am, because I can act differently than you.

So here it is for testing.
If you can only test objectively and only get objective results, then what I am doing here, is not possible. But it is possible in effect, because I am doing it.
So science is for another subjective version than your subjective one to first to determine, if something is objective as independent of brains, formally abstract as objective in another sense, inter-subjective as shared socially, individual as dependent on a given brain or if it is a norm and not an objective fact.
Basically you only accept one kind of behaviour as correct, but that you do so, is a subjective norm. I have another subjective norm.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
“Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.”

- David Chalmers, ‘The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory’
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well, no. Because if it is in the strong sense necessary then we couldn't disagree as we actually do. The falsifiaction of your model is that I in effect can think and act differently than you for what is in this debate objective and subjective. If you were correct, I couldn't subjectively different than you, but I am, because I can act differently than you.

So here it is for testing.
If you can only test objectively and only get objective results, then what I am doing here, is not possible. But it is possible in effect, because I am doing it.
So science is for another subjective version than your subjective one to first to determine, if something is objective as independent of brains, formally abstract as objective in another sense, inter-subjective as shared socially, individual as dependent on a given brain or if it is a norm and not an objective fact.
Basically you only accept one kind of behaviour as correct, but that you do so, is a subjective norm. I have another subjective norm.

The long history of your 'circular irrational' Nihilist argument against the objective. has no possible constructive response.​


It id necessary for you to acknowledge the factual nature of the objective versus subjective for our dialogue to continue.

Neither the subjective nor the objective are necessarily the 'norm' They are very real concepts as how we describe the nature of our existence, and have well defined real world meanings.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
“Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.”

- David Chalmers, ‘The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory’

Actually I do not necessarily go with Materialism as complete explanation of everything. I do believe in science being able to explain consciousness from a physical objective perspective, That des not negate an underlying subjective cause for consciousness and a 'Source' Some call God(s).

Neither do I accept a nebulous view of "we have to go beyond the resources it provides” to explain consciousness. To propose this reflects a rather romantic subjective view of the nature of consciousness.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yes, well it takes more than a brain to be conscious. I mean talking about Einstein's brain being kept in a jar or something like that. He isn't alive. Or conscious. Well, it was chopped up in little pieces for "examination" I suppose. He still isn't alive.

Huh?!?!Einstein's rain or any other dead brain has nothing to do with the consciousness of a living brain. Einstein's brain is little more than a curiosity and physically nothing of interest was found different in evaluating Einstein's dead brain.

The issue here is whether scientific methods can explain the ;physical function of the brain that leads to consciousness, which the present objective evidence and scientific methods indicates that this is the case.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
There have been a number of threads and posts that challenge the scientific basis for a natural evolved basis for an evolved natural consciousness.

The following are basic definitions of consciousness:

The Cambridge Dictionary defines consciousness as "the state of understanding and realizing something." The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something."

I will argue the following:

1. Degrees of consciousness exist through out the evolutionary history of animals with a nervous system and a brain with neurological responses to the awareness of the environment, Consciousness increases with complexity over time.
2. Consciousness represents the collective thoughts, reasoning, understand and realizing relationships and responses to the environment, which have been falsified by scientific methods that originate from the brain and nervous system.
3. Science has reasonable explanation of the nature of consciousness in the animal kingdom.

Research is constantly expand our scientific understanding of consciousness in the animal kingdoms. The following article is representative of the current advances of science:


Tracing the Evolutionary Roots of Cognitive Flexibility

Summary: A new study provides insights into the evolutionary origins of cognitive flexibility, an essential skill for adaptation and survival.

Participants were studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while learning a sensorimotor task, the findings of which showed the importance of sensory brain regions in decision-making. The researchers also discovered surprising similarities between the brain activity of humans and mice during this task.

These results suggest that the interplay between the frontal brain and sensory brain regions for decision-making formed early in evolutionary development.

Key Facts:


  1. Cognitive flexibility, which allows quick adaptation to changing conditions, is crucial for survival and is based on the functions of the orbitofrontal cortex located in the frontal brain.
  2. Sensory brain regions are critical in decision-making processes as discovered in the study, suggesting the need for further investigation in this area.
  3. The similarity in cognitive processes between mice and humans suggests that these decision-making mechanisms likely developed early in evolutionary history.

Source: RUB

Get up. Go to the kitchen. Prepare some cereal – but a look into the fridge shows: the milk bottle is empty. What now? Skip breakfast? Ask the neighbour for milk? Eat jam sandwiches? Every day, people are confronted with situations that were actually planned quite differently. Flexibility is what helps.

The origin of this skill in the brain is called cognitive flexibility.

A neuroscientific research team at the Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, University Hospital of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany, and the Biosciences Institute at Newcastle University has now succeeded in getting a little closer to the evolutionary origin of cognitive flexibility.

The researchers published their findings in the journal Nature Communications, online since 9. June 2023.

Key factor in many neuropsychiatric diseases

Cognitive flexibility is essential for the survival of all species on Earth. It is particularly based on functions of the so-called orbitofrontal cortex located in the frontal brain.

“The loss of cognitive flexibility in everyday life is a key factor in many neuropsychiatric diseases,” Professor Burkhard Pleger and first author Dr. Bin Wang from the Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil describe their motivation for the study.

“Understanding the underlying network mechanisms is therefore essential for the development of new therapeutic methods.”

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the Bochum team and their cooperation partner Dr. Abhishek Banerjee from the Biosciences Institute at Newcastle University examined the brain functions of 40 participants while they were learning a sensorimotor task.

While lying in the MRI, the volunteers had to learn to recognise the meaning of different touch signals – similar to those used in Braille – on the tip of the right index finger. One touch signal told the participants to press a button with their free hand, while another signal instructed them not to do so and to remain still.

The connection between the two different touch signals and pressing the button or not pressing the button had to be learned from trial to trial. The challenge: after a certain time, the touch signals changed their meaning.

What had previously meant “pressing the button” now meant “holding still” – an ideal experimental set-up to investigate the volunteers’ cognitive flexibility. The fMRI provided images of the corresponding brain activity.


Similarities between humans and mice

“Similar studies had already been done with mice in the past,” says Pleger.

“The learning task we chose now allowed us to observe the brains of mice and humans under comparable cognitive demands.”

A surprising finding is the comparability between the Bochum results in humans and the previously published data from mice, Wang points out.

The similarity shows that cognitive functions that are important for survival, such as the flexibility to adapt quickly to suddenly changing conditions, are following comparable rules in different species.

In addition, the Bochum scientists were able to determine a close involvement of sensory brain regions in the processing of the decisions made during tactile learning. Wang emphasises: “Besides the frontal brain, sensory regions are essential for decision-making in the brain.”

More to follow . . .

So are you saying consciousness is the result of this cognitive flexibility?

The usual argument against a physical cause of consciousness is Mary's Room.
Knowledge argument - Wikipedia

The idea that all of the physical knowledge/understanding in the world cannot equal the actually experiencing of a thing.
IOW, science is unable to explain how the experiencing of something works.
So consciousness is the ability to experience, whatever.

Computers can be aware of their environment and make decisions based on their environment but they can't experience their environment.

How is cognitive flexibility any different than an advanced computer AI?
How do we get from cognitive flexibility to the ability to experience seeing the color red?
 
Top