Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[atanu]

But the point of this discussion is to relate that phenomenon to consciousness, which you have not done.

Oh. So interpreting information from 10 km away is a symptom of unconcsious? (more was discussed on this which you have not read.)

OTOH, I have never claimed that consciousness which is the root of all awareness can be objectified or can be measured by another object. That is your erroneous premise as if light requires another illminating agency to be known.

Scientists follow the principle of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that accounts for observations is the best one.

Application of this principle however does not mean that one will discard evidence. The QM evidence shows that there actually isn't any matter-non-matter dualism. . Occam razor can be equally used by monistic idealists and materialists. OTOH, your imposition of a brain, its chemicals, its structures etc. introduce many unnecessary assumptions on consciousness that requires no other.

You can force someone to become unconscious by introducing a powerful sedative to that person's brain. Nobody can resist losing consciousness under those physical conditions by an act of will alone. Therefore, the brain is what causes consciousness.

Sure. You can shatter a light bulb. You can also put another bulb to get the light back.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Filaments are necessary under certain conditions to cause light. They are part of the causal chain.

Yes. Brain and other sense organs are necessary to get the kind of experience that we get. A light bulb with a filament is needed to manifest the flow of electrons as heat and light, which are symptoms of energy flow and not the energy flow itself.

The existence itself, its experience of the moment and its knowledge of past indicate that the existence is synonymous with the unbroken "I" awareness --the life awareness -- that flows on -- whether brain of Copernicus is drugged or not.

 

[PolyHedral]

Have you ever seen an application program altering the Operating System, if not pre-programmed to do so? Copernicus, I think, you are not applying your mind. I am sorry.

Your brain is not that organized. There is no distinction between applications and the OS and the BIOS. And it is quite clearly possible to write a self-improving program, even if nobody has taken the time and effort to do so.

Also, the phenomenon appears in other places too. In a sentence, "gravity generates gravity." Gravity, the force, generates a quantity called gravitational potential energy between all masses. However, as mass is energy, this energy itself has it's own gravitational field, and generates potential energy with surrounding mass/energy. In this way, any attempt at describing gravity must necessarily be self-referential, just as brain chemistry is self-referential.

...unbroken "I" awareness...

Time is not believed to be continuous.

 

[Copernicus]

Occam's Razor (wiki) is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2]

It's not a matter of whether or not it applies, it's a question of whether or not it's being applied.

Well, I was applying it as a counter-argument to the idea that an external agency helps to explain mental function. My question was whether you agreed with me and some explanation of why or why not. I'm looking for a straight answer. You seem to have avoided giving one.

We can see the changes going on in the brain during the thought process, but how exactly, based on all this, is the idea that consciousness is a product of the physical brain less of an assumption than the idea that there may be an outside source?

Let me explain it again. You can do things to a physical brain that invariably affect mental function, including loss of consciousness. The reverse is not the case. For example, your willpower cannot cancel out the effects of a powerful sedative. You cannot retrieve lost memories after certain types of brain damage. And so forth. All mental function, including memory storage, appears to require physical activity in a functioning brain. Do you disagree?

All we're seeing is some of the mechanics involved. We can tell what changes occur in the brain during thought. That's it. Everything else is an assumption (and on the larger scale, the idea that consciousness originates in the brain is actually a relatively new assumption).

I'm not denying that we make assumptions. I am saying that it takes fewer assumptions to explain the brain-mind correspondences when we do not refer to an external agency of some kind. Do you not agree?

YAY! That's all I've been trying to get you to do (up til now all your answers have looked like some version of "HAHAHA, I know more about this than you do so take my word for it, you're wrong (so I win)".

I don't recall saying anything to give you that impression. I apologize if I have.

Didn't see much possibility for a rational debate in there.

I feel up to it. Do you?

 

[Quagmire]

Well, I was applying it as a counter-argument to the idea that an external agency helps to explain mental function.

Ah. OK. And who exactly is it that was making that argument?

Again: my argument is that there's no reason to reject the possibility that consciousness exists independent of "mental function" (and I'm assuming by "mental function" you're referring to the physical processes of the brain and the results thereof). No one is suggesting that the idea of an independent source of consciousness helps explain the physical functioning of the brain.

The whole idea is that consciousness may not be a physical function of the brain.

My question was whether you agreed with me and some explanation of why or why not. I'm looking for a straight answer.

Looks like I may have to learn to speak a whole new language then.

You seem to have avoided giving one.

Nope, I just saw you arguing with yourself and I didn't want to interrupt.

Let me explain it again. You can do things to a physical brain that invariably affect mental function,

Of course. You can do things to a radio that invariably effect it's ability to transmit.

including loss of consciousness.

Or loss of reception.

The reverse is not the case. For example, your willpower cannot cancel out the effects of a powerful sedative.

And if you drop a radio in a bucket of water, it ceases to function, no matter how strong the signal.

You cannot retrieve lost memories after certain types of brain damage. And so forth. All mental function, including memory storage, appears to require physical activity in a functioning brain. Do you disagree?

Yes, I agree the physical brain requires physical activity in order to function.

Just as a radio requires electronic activity to function. This says nothing about the source of the signal.

I'm not denying that we make assumptions. I am saying that it takes fewer assumptions to explain the brain-mind correspondences when we do not refer to an external agency of some kind. Do you not agree?

Not at all, I think they're two different topics. The "brain-mind correspondence" you're talking about is the same as the "radio-transmission correspondence" in my analogy. If you take the radio apart you might come to some understanding of how it operates, but it still tells you nothing about the source of the signal.

If, after successfully deducing the function and relation of each component and the role each plays in allowing the radio to operate, you declare "there, now we know how the radio works", fine. that's an honest and well earned statement.

If you add to that, "OK: now we know once and for all where the music is coming from; the radio" you're letting yourself be bogged down by an unfounded assumption (and progress stops there).

I don't recall saying anything to give you that impression. I apologize if I have.

OK, and I apologize for not allowing you to get away with it.

I feel up to it. Do you?

We'll see how long my patience holds out.

 

[atanu]

Your brain is not that organized. There is no distinction between applications and the OS and the BIOS. And it is quite clearly possible to write a self-improving program, even if nobody has taken the time and effort to do so.

Hi PolyHedral
Copernicus used the phrase "higher order processes" and that brings in lower order processes automatically.

I agree that there need not be any difference -- and I am happy with that since that is what Consciousness is defined to be ( in my understading)-- that which comprises and constitutes the states of a)the base case of the being existent as apparent unconsciousness --as in deep sleep where there is existence but no awareness of variegated world; b) The intermediate "I Am" consciousness, which is ungraspable and c) The higher order "I am this body" awareness that emerges due to function of mind (seeing and thinking). In short, Consciousness is what the totalty of the person is. Consciousness is the Self itself. We are just saying that the ground case of (a) does not get altered but only gets covered up by cases of (b) and (c). If the ground was changed then there would not be return of same person after sleep or even from moment to moment.

Add:I note that if consciousness is equated only with the experience, the above defition will not hold and then neither will the anomalies (Descartes vs. Dennet) explained.

Also, the phenomenon appears in other places too. In a sentence, "gravity generates gravity." Gravity, the force, generates a quantity called gravitational potential energy between all masses. However, as mass is energy, this energy itself has it's own gravitational field, and generates potential energy with surrounding mass/energy. In this way, any attempt at describing gravity must necessarily be self-referential, just as brain chemistry is self-referential.

Exactly. Gravitation remains Gravitation -- the effects are built upon it. Gravitation is not the structures but is the cause.

OTOH, Copernicus and you erroneously propose that consciousness is synonymous with structures emergent of interactions in brain. But the structures change continually, unlike your example of Gravitation. In that case, how can continually changing consciousness have a self reference?

Further, we were talking of yogic or meditative practices changing the mental states (or the structures or the consciousness -- as per Copernicus). In this case, how can a product of a structure (namely consciousness as per you and Copernicus) change the cause?

Is it reasonable to say that the effect changes the cause? Is it reasonable to say that a person (a mere product of changing structure) changes the structure (his cause) and yet remains the same person? Is is reasonable to say that the person has changed since the structure has changed? All these indicate that the structures are built upon the person and not the other way around. And the person is nothing but the pure consciousness, by defintion.

Our proposition does not involve any such ludicrous claim. "I am anxious" becomes "I am tranquil" and that is surely a change in structure and change in effect. The base "I am" on which the effect appears remain the same -- just as Gravitation remains the same although it appears in different incarnations.

In short, in a statement such as 'self referential', the self remains the Self. Whereas structures change continually. Else 'self reference' would be meaningless.

Time is not believed to be continuous.

Again, you help. Yes, time is not the self-reference. In deep sleep there is no time but self exists as pure unparted consciousness. Being unparted, it experiences no contrast.

 

[Copernicus]

Have you ever seen an application program altering the Operating System, if not pre-programmed to do so? Copernicus, I think, you are not applying your mind. I am sorry.

I am a programmer and an AI researcher, so I know something about these things. We can create programs that alter their own behavior and learn from experience. They are not trivial programs to write, and few people involved in such activities seriously claim that they approach human levels of self-awareness or reasoning power. In general, we talk about non-deterministic programs--those that are designed to apply principles to respond non-randomly to random or unexpected inputs.

Correlation is not cause. And no structure correlates with the experience.

Causation is a special type of correlation. In this case, the correlation is consistent with causation. External stimuli applied directly to brains have predictable results. If you want to maintain that the correlation is non-causal, you should make a case for it.

So. If I can consistently use yoga and mediation to alter state of mind to tranquility then does it mean that I control brain reactions or the brain controls me? Can an application program on its own alter the operating system.

An operating system is a program, and you can write programs that alter its behavior very easily. Whenever your OS receives an update, that is what happens. Programs that learn from external stimuli are self-altering programs. Yoga and meditation can have very beneficial effects on the brain and the mind, but that doesn't mean that the brain is not somehow fully in control of mental activity.

Ask yourself "Who provides the purpose?

Or "What provides the purpose?" I certainly do not control the emotions I experience, but I can use techniques to change my emotional responses in the future, if I so desire. If I do not desire it, do I control that desire? In the end, the mind is a product of the circumstances that produced the body and its environment.

Application of this principle however does not mean that one will discard evidence. The QM evidence shows that there actually isn't any matter-non-matter dualism. . Occam razor can be equally used by monistic idealists and materialists. OTOH, your imposition of a brain, its chemicals, its structures etc. introduce many unnecessary assumptions on consciousness that requires no other.

Occam's Razor does not guarantee truth. It is only about judging the merits of alternative explanations. I see nothing in QM that explains the nature of consciousness or mental function. You see a relevance there that I do not.

Sure. You can shatter a light bulb. You can also put another bulb to get the light back.

OK, let's continue with your analogy. Just as there are many different lightbulbs all generating different light, there are many different brains generating different minds. Shatter all the lightbulbs, and there is nothing but darkness. The lightbulbs are needed in order to generate light. Brains are needed to generate minds.

Yes. Brain and other sense organs are necessary to get the kind of experience that we get. A light bulb with a filament is needed to manifest the flow of electrons as heat and light, which are symptoms of energy flow and not the energy flow itself.

But isn't that just my point? Physical brains are needed in order to generate minds. No brain, no mind.

The existence itself, its experience of the moment and its knowledge of past indicate that the existence is synonymous with the unbroken "I" awareness --the life awareness -- that flows on -- whether brain of Copernicus is drugged or not.

I am not denying the existence of other things. I am just saying that my existence is contingent on my physical being. When that disappears, so will I. As for the universe, I expect it to continue quite apart from me.

 

[atanu]

I am a programmer and an AI researcher, so I know something about these things. We can create programs that alter their own behavior and learn from experience.

I can agree to that.

What you do not see is that "You are the Programmer" -- the intelligence is already given. With your logic -- you are just proving INTELLIGENT DESIGNER in case of the world -- or should i say "Intelligent Programmer"?

I have addressed the important points in response to PolyHedral and will request you to kindly consider that post as addressed to you.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2437775-post385.html

 

[Copernicus]

Ah. OK. And who exactly is it that was making that argument?

You are when you use the "radio" analogy. The "broadcast" signal represents the external agency.

Again: my argument is that there's no reason to reject the possibility that consciousness exists independent of "mental function" (and I'm assuming by "mental function" you're referring to the physical processes of the brain and the results thereof). No one is suggesting that the idea of an independent source of consciousness helps explain the physical functioning of the brain.

You are building a straw man here. I have never said or suggested that "consciousness exists independent of 'mental function'". Can you explain where you got that idea from? I am not arguing against dualism, only the idea that a mind can exist independently of a brain. That is, all mental function is caused by the physical activity of a brain. That is not the same as saying that it actually is the brain.

The whole idea is that consciousness may not be a physical function of the brain.

Reductionism can help to explain natural phenomena, but it can be misleading when you begin to confuse causes with their effects. I have not been arguing in favor of that kind of radical reductionism.

Looks like I may have to learn to speak a whole new language then.

I would advocate that you merely learn to use your current one more effectively.

Nope, I just saw you arguing with yourself and I didn't want to interrupt.

These kinds of flippant replies do not hide the fact that you refuse to answer my simple, direct questions. No problem. Let's move on.

Of course. You can do things to a radio that invariably effect it's ability to transmit.

I don't follow this. Radios are receivers, not transmitters. Don't you mean that you can do things to a radio that invariably affect its ability to receive? I certainly agree with that. If that is what you intended to say, then what makes you think that brains are more like receivers than transmitters of consciousness?

Or loss of reception.

Right. "Reception" is the correct analogy. It is just that there is nothing about the physical makeup of the brain that suggests it is receiving a "signal" from any external source. Do you have any reason to believe that it is? Memory storage, for example, seems to be on the local hard drive, not a server in an external "network". (Sorry to switch analogies slightly.)

And if you drop a radio in a bucket of water, it ceases to function, no matter how strong the signal.

True, but why would you think that a brain is a receiver of an external signal? We certainly have not detected any such signals. Without evidence to support your speculation, it requires extra assumptions. Hence, my reference to Occam's Razor as a reason for rejecting your explanation, even though it is a logical possibility.

Yes, I agree the physical brain requires physical activity in order to function. Just as a radio requires electronic activity to function. This says nothing about the source of the signal.

But the radio analogy breaks down pretty badly. For example, different radios play the same station on the same bandwidth. So one might reasonably expect that two different brains might receive the same putative "signal" under your analogy, but we have no evidence of such a phenomenon. There is nothing to support your hypothesis, but there are lots of reasons to believe that brains are more like standalone computing machines.

Not at all, I think they're two different topics. The "brain-mind correspondence" you're talking about is the same as the "radio-transmission correspondence" in my analogy. If you take the radio apart you might come to some understanding of how it operates, but it still tells you nothing about the source of the signal.

But a radio has structures that physically respond to external signals, so you can deduce that it is a receiving device of some kind. There are no structures in the brain that are like receiving devices in radios. In the absence of that kind of evidence, we have no reason to jump to the conclusion that a brain is like a radio. It remains a logical possibility, but not a plausible one.

If, after successfully deducing the function and relation of each component and the role each plays in allowing the radio to operate, you declare "there, now we know how the radio works", fine. that's an honest and well earned statement.

But we have successfully deduced the function and relation of structures in the brain. We can relate them to mental function. Granted, we have a lot more to discover, but we have yet to find anything that supports your "radio receiver" analogy. You have no "honest and well-earned statement" to make on that subject.

If you add to that, "OK: now we know once and for all where the music is coming from; the radio" you're letting yourself be bogged down by an unfounded assumption (and progress stops there).

I do not have to say that we know anything "once and for all". All I have to do is point to an established relationship between mental functions (thoughts, emotions, calculations, decisions) and patterns of brain activity. We can do that with MRI scanners today. What we have yet to do is find any evidence of reception from external sources. So the "unfounded assumption" in this case is entirely yours.

OK, and I apologize for not allowing you to get away with it.

Get away with what? Where did I say anything like "HAHAHA, I know more about this than you do so take my word for it, you're wrong (so I win)"? I don't think I have, and you don't seem able to identify anything I've said that would warrant that conclusion.

 

[atanu]

An operating system is a program, and you can write programs that alter its behavior very easily. Whenever your OS receives an update, that is what happens.

How many times it needs to be shown that this is not a case of effect changing the intelligence but the opposite: intelligence/awareness as the casuse of effect. OS updates are designed and not created by the OS itself. You are actually leading to intelligent third party programmer and that is not at all different from an Intelligent Designer.

You are also implying that we are zombies -- written by a thrid party and altered by a third party.

Or "What provides the purpose?" I certainly do not control the emotions

Oh. But you do provide the purpose.

Occam's Razor does not guarantee truth.

I agree. That is what i was saying, anyway.

OK, let's continue with your analogy. Just as there are many different lightbulbs all generating different light, there are many different brains generating different minds. Shatter all the lightbulbs, and there is nothing but darkness. The lightbulbs are needed in order to generate light. Brains are needed to generate minds.

Yes that is what happens in deep sleep. Yet the person exists as undivided consciousness that, due to lack of sensual boundaries, appear unconscious. This point, if internalised, leads to the slumberless person to whom the states refer to. Who is not any third party intellgent designer but the very person.

But isn't that just my point? Physical brains are needed in order to generate minds. No brain, no mind.

No. Because you equate mind with awareness itself. To me, the Mind is a symptom of consciousness.

No. Because at funadmental particle level communication at speeds greater than light take place. Either this or that the observations are dependent on the acts of observations and have no objective reality. A brain is not present at photon level. A Brain is an oberved object and not the observer.

No. Because, you equate consciousness principle with an effect -- an observed effect. But you are still far away from the experiencer of the mind, namely, the person.

With your dual mind and matter concept (which, I agree, is intuitional at the level of sensual effects), you arrive either at Descartes or at Dennet; the former being unable to explain how subtle mind can influence matter and the latter being unable to explain experience and reason (before emergence of brain structures) and thus leave the Universe to chance.

I am not denying the existence of other things. I am just saying that my existence is contingent on my physical being. When that disappears, so will I. As for the universe, I expect it to continue quite apart from me.

The bold part shoud read "I expect it to continue apart from my idea of me." I agree. And what continues is replete of consciouness.

 

[atanu]

As bangles, ear ornaments, homes etc. are known as mine but are different from the owner, so also, the five sheaths that are known as the Self as "my body", "my mind", "my life", "my intellect", "my ignorance" are different from the knower and are not the Self.

 

[Copernicus]

How many times it needs to be shown that this is not a case of effect changing the intelligence but the opposite: intelligence/awareness as the casuse of effect. OS updates are designed and not created by the OS itself. You are actually leading to intelligent third party programmer and that is not at all different from an Intelligent Designer.

You are shifting the goalposts here. You asked whether a program could change its own behavior. The answer is that it can, and I have personally programmed applications to do just that. If you want to ask whether a self-programming device could arise naturally--not by intelligent design--that is another question. I would answer yes to that question, as well. We see all manner of brains in animals--from the very primitive to the very complex. The science of biology has established that there is an observable chain of evolution driven by natural selection over several billion years that ties them all together.

You are also implying that we are zombies -- written by a thrid party and altered by a third party.

I very definitely did not imply that. You inferred it based on your own private assumptions.

Yes that is what happens in deep sleep. Yet the person exists as undivided consciousness that, due to lack of sensual boundaries, appear unconscious. This point, if internalised, leads to the slumberless person to whom the states refer to. Who is not any third party intellgent designer but the very person.

You do not need to assume a "third party intelligent designer" in any of this. Brains evolved naturally in ambient creatures, because they need guidance systems to survive. That is the function of a brain--to enhance the survivability of moving, self-replicating beings.

People in a "deep sleep" or even a coma not only appear "unconscious". They are unconscious. That is how we define "unconscious"--being unaware of oneself and one's surroundings.

No. Because you equate mind with awareness itself. To me, the Mind is a symptom of consciousness.

Yes, I see awareness of self and one's surroundings as a property of a mind. I do not see what it buys you to call awareness a "symptom of consciousness". Awareness is consciousness.

No. Because at funadmental particle level communication at speeds greater than light take place. Either this or that the observations are dependent on the acts of observations and have no objective reality. A brain is not present at photon level. A Brain is an oberved object and not the observer.

Again, it is not enough to just point out that quantum-level information exchange takes place at superluminal speeds below the planck level. You need to explain how this relates to the brain and consciousness in order to make your case. You have not done that. For example, what does quantum entanglement help us to understand about consciousness?

With your dual mind and matter concept (which, I agree, is intuitional at the level of sensual effects), you arrive either at Descartes or at Dennet; the former being unable to explain how subtle mind can influence matter and the latter being unable to explain experience and reason (before emergence of brain structures) and thus leave the Universe to chance.

I do not find myself arriving at either gentleman, but I certainly have more respect for Dennett's thoughts on the question of free will or consciousness. I think that he does as good a job as anyone at explaining experience and reason. As for the universe being left to chance, that may well be. I would certainly say that I feel lucky to be alive.

 

[Quagmire]

You are when you use the "radio" analogy. The "broadcast" signal represents the external agency.

(*sigh* I really hate these debates where you have to keep going back and showing someone what they said or reminding them what they're own thread is about. )

OK: lets go back to square one: in your OP you say:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

"Mind" is a mailable term but it's obvious from some of your subsequent posts that you're using "mind" interchangeably with consciousness itself. OK, given that, you're making a positive assertion here, ie., that it's somehow been established that the pyshcial brain is the source of consciousness, that is: that at this stage of the game all other possibilities have been successfully ruled out.

My point is that, no, our understanding of the way the brain functions tells us nothing about the source of consciousness. It merely helps to explain the physical brains role in thought processes.

You are building a straw man here. I have never said or suggested that "consciousness exists independent of 'mental function'".

I know you didn't. That's the point: I was trying to show you that you were equating the physical processes going on in the brain during consciousness with consciousness itself. My analogy was meant to show you that this is inaccurate and unreasonable.

I am not arguing against dualism,

Who said you were?

only the idea that a mind can exist independently of a brain. That is, all mental function is caused by the physical activity of a brain. That is not the same as saying that it actually is the brain.

Then you would have to clarify specifically what you mean by the term "mental function".

Reductionism can help to explain natural phenomena, but it can be misleading when you begin to confuse causes with their effects. I have not been arguing in favor of that kind of radical reductionism.

I disagree. I think that's exactly what you've been doing.

I would advocate that you merely learn to use your current one more effectively.

All I can do is express my views. I don't have any control over what you chose to twist them into.

These kinds of flippant replies do not hide the fact that you refuse to answer my simple, direct questions. No problem. Let's move on.

I've already answered it. All I can do is address whatever points you bring up. It's not my job to keep you from dancing around what ever answers I give you.

I don't follow this. Radios are receivers, not transmitters.

By the strictest usage of the word "transmitter" it applies to something that "picks up and passes along" something from one place to another. In electronics, however, it's usually used in reference to something that actually generates a signal of wave, so in this case you're right: for the purposes of my analogy it would have been better to use a different term.

Don't you mean that you can do things to a radio that invariably affect its ability to receive?

And please: milk my semantic error for all it's worth.

I certainly agree with that. If that is what you intended to say, then what makes you think that brains are more like receivers than transmitters of consciousness?

Now you're building a straw man: I never said I believed the brain to be a receiver rather than a transmitter. I'm not making any positive assertions at all here. Again: you're the one making a positive assertion, that it's been proven that the brain is the source of consciousness. I'm not trying to say that any other alternatives have been proven, I'm merely trying to get you to see that there still are other alternatives.

Right. "Reception" is the correct analogy. It is just that there is nothing about the physical makeup of the brain that suggests it is receiving a "signal" from any external source.

And what exactly would that look like if it were? You seem to be suggesting that we have the knowledge or ability to recognize that function or the processes involved if that were the case. There was nothing to suggest to early man that the earth revolved around the sun.

Do you have any reason to believe that it is?

Scroll up a bit.

Memory storage, for example, seems to be on the local hard drive, not a server in an external "network". (Sorry to switch analogies slightly.)

Memory storage is a function of the hard drive. The hard drive depends on all kinds of external forces and influences without which the hard drive couldn't operate, or without which it would serve no purpose.

True, but why would you think that a brain is a receiver of an external signal?

Again: this isn't about what I think or believe, all I'm trying to do is show you the flaws in the reasoning behind something you believe.

We certainly have not detected any such signals. Without evidence to support your speculation, it requires extra assumptions. Hence, my reference to Occam's Razor as a reason for rejecting your explanation, even though it is a logical possibility.

The point, again, isn't about how logical or illogical the idea of an external source for consciousness may be, it's about how logical or illogical it is to consider the idea that the brain is the source to be a closed matter.

 

[Quagmire]

But we have successfully deduced the function and relation of structures in the brain.

To a very limited extent.

We can relate them to mental function.

Depending, again, on what the term "mental function" is meant to encompass.

Granted, we have a lot more to discover,

Bingo.

but we have yet to find anything that supports your "radio receiver" analogy.

Of course we have. All my analogy is meant to demonstrate is that if any person unfamiliar with modern technology were to hear something coming out of a radio, their first impression would be that the radio itself is producing whatever they're hearing.

My point being: here we are with our limited knowledge of the nature of consciousness, observing the functioning of another apparatus (the brain) jumping to the same conclusion.

Whether of not the conclusion turns out to be correct is a moot point (since at this stage in our understanding it can't be proven either way). The point is that right now, it isn't acceptable to try and submit it as a proven fact. At this stage of the game, it's still just an assumption.

I do not have to say that we know anything "once and for all".

Then you should probably go back and drop Reason 1 from your list.

All I have to do is point to an established relationship between mental functions (thoughts, emotions, calculations, decisions) and patterns of brain activity.

In order to prove that the brain plays a role in all these things? yes. In order to prove that the brain is the source of consciousness itself? No, that part is still an assumption.

We can do that with MRI scanners today. What we have yet to do is find any evidence of reception from external sources. So the "unfounded assumption" in this case is entirely yours.

Again: I'm not making any assumptions here, merely trying to show you that that's what you're doing.

Get away with what? Where did I say anything like "HAHAHA, I know more about this than you do so take my word for it, you're wrong (so I win)"? I don't think I have, and you don't seem able to identify anything I've said that would warrant that conclusion.

Here ya go:

But you are not someone who actually understands what our level of knowledge is about consciousness--what the prevailing theories are and the discarded ones. There are people who know a lot of things about consciousness that you are not conscious of.

It would be just as ridiculous for someone to say to you "But you are not someone who's spiritually evolved enough to actually understand the true nature of consciousness or our relationship with the universe and reality as a whole" and expect you to go "Gee, I guess he's right. Guess I better sit this one out."

Appeal to authority is a cheap debate tactic as it is. Appeal to your own, unestablished, authority is....well, I can think of all kinds of words for that.

 

[painted wolf]

The brain is highly plastic. While we have areas that generally correspond to certain functions, but we don't need the whole thing to function normally.

If done young enough, a child can develop normally with half of their brain removed.
Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One: Scientific American

The brain is still very poorly understood. Though it looks more like what matters is the connections between neurons more than the number or location of the neurons.
As our brain grows the neurons form massive numbers of connections... as our brain ages it weeds out redundant connections, possibly to keep signals from becoming to strong and over stimulating the system. Or for efficiency.

wa:do

 

[Ozzie]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.
2. Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.
3. Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.
4. Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

Why couldn't religion be predicated on experiencing a 'soul'?

 

[lunamoth]

My point is that, no, our understanding of the way the brain functions tells us nothing about the source of consciousness. It merely helps to explain the physical brains role in thought processes.

Wouldn't it be funny if the appendix is the actual source of consciousness!

 

[Quagmire]

Wouldn't it be funny if the appendix is the actual source of consciousness!

It would help explain all the unconscious people walking around these days. :yes:

 

[Copernicus]

(*sigh* I really hate these debates where you have to keep going back and showing someone what they said or reminding them what they're own thread is about. )

(*sigh* I really hate all the histrionics and posturing before we can talk about what the thread is about. :faint

My point is that, no, our understanding of the way the brain functions tells us nothing about the source of consciousness. It merely helps to explain the physical brains role in thought processes.

Yes, it does. Understanding the way the brain functions tells us that brain activity controls consciousness--thought, behavior, mood, emotion, judgemnt, etc. Why would it not be reasonable to conclude that the brain itself generates consciousness? We do have some reason to believe that it does, but do we have any good reason to believe that it doesn't?

I have never said or suggested that "consciousness exists independent of 'mental function'".

I know you didn't. That's the point: I was trying to show you that you were equating the physical processes going on in the brain during consciousness with consciousness itself. My analogy was meant to show you that this is inaccurate and unreasonable.

If you know that I didn't say that, then kindly do not put words in my mouth. You keep imposing a reductionist interpretation on what I say, and then you blame me for my reductionism.

I am not arguing against dualism,

Who said you were?

You did when you said I was "equating the physical processes going on in the brain during consciousness with consciousness itself". I was stating a dependency relationship, not an equivalence.

Then you would have to clarify specifically what you mean by the term "mental function".

Again? Ok. Mental functions are properties of a mind--self-awareness, sensory input (awareness of non-self), memory, calculation, volition, mood, emotions, etc.

Now you're building a straw man: I never said I believed the brain to be a receiver rather than a transmitter. I'm not making any positive assertions at all here. Again: you're the one making a positive assertion, that it's been proven that the brain is the source of consciousness. I'm not trying to say that any other alternatives have been proven, I'm merely trying to get you to see that there still are other alternatives.

I'm not anxious to put words in your mouth, but you did seem to be arguing that the brain is just as likely to be a receiver as a generator of consciousness. Now you seem to be backing away from it. Is it your position that it is equally plausible that the brain is a generator or receiver of consciousness? I have never claimed that there were no other alternatives to consider. In fact, I've explicitly denied that repeatedly, so I don't know where you get the idea that I do not see other alternatives. Perhaps my brain transmissions are not being received by yours because of excess spiritual static. If what you mean by "proven" is equivalent to "shown to be the most plausible", then I will agree that it is more plausible that the brain generates consciousness than receives it from an external source. There is no evidence at all to license the latter hypothesis.

And what exactly would that look like if it were? You seem to be suggesting that we have the knowledge or ability to recognize that function or the processes involved if that were the case. There was nothing to suggest to early man that the earth revolved around the sun.

I am suggesting that your "radio receiver" analogy would look much better if we had some reason to pursue it--like images of a special area of the brain that appeared to function as a receiver for an external signal--like the crystals (or diode) in a crystal radio. It is possible that something like that exists, and we haven't detected it. And that's why the "receiver" analogy violates Occam's Razor. It requires an extra assumption that is unsupported by the facts. It is possible that someone will detect such a physical organ in the brain tomorrow, and then your "receiver" analogy will seem a lot more plausible.

Again: this isn't about what I think or believe, all I'm trying to do is show you the flaws in the reasoning behind something you believe.

So far, you seem to be assuming that I've "ruled out possibilities". If so, that is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part, and I thought that I made that clear in the OP. My position is that "possibilities" need to be ranked in terms of "plausibility". That the brain is a "generator" and not a "receiver" of consciousness is currently the most plausible hypothesis, given that scientists have been looking for evidence of external agencies in thought processes and not found any.

The point, again, isn't about how logical or illogical the idea of an external source for consciousness may be, it's about how logical or illogical it is to consider the idea that the brain is the source to be a closed matter.

I have never said or implied that it was a "closed matter". You seem to be in the business of manufacturing straw men to knock over. I've tried to help you knock this one over, but you don't seem to want my help.

but we have yet to find anything that supports your "radio receiver" analogy.

Of course we have. All my analogy is meant to demonstrate is that if any person unfamiliar with modern technology were to hear something coming out of a radio, their first impression would be that the radio itself is producing whatever they're hearing.

There is nothing at all wrong with primitive people jumping to that conclusion when first exposed to a radio--a phenomenon they had never seen before--but your analogy lives up to its reputation as a logical fallacy in this case. It fails in several places. We have known about brains since ancient times, and ancient Egyptians even had a crude form of brain surgery. We currently do understand the difference between transmitters, generators, and receivers, so we are not like people who lack those concepts. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a much more advanced civilization might have completely different explanations that are far more sophisticated than ours for a lot of phenomena we think we understand. That is basically irrelevant. Everyone will always be ignorant of some things and have misunderstandings of reality. That is the nature of human/intelligent cognition. It is limited by experience. We can only understand new things by integrating them with our current state of knowledge. There is no evidence that brains behave in a way that is analogous to radio receivers. There is plenty of evidence that consciousness waxes and wanes with brain function. Hence, it seems more reasonable to think of the brain as a standalone computer than a radio receiver.

My point being: here we are with our limited knowledge of the nature of consciousness, observing the functioning of another apparatus (the brain) jumping to the same conclusion.

You could make this same point in arguing for the plausibility of the existence of Santa Claus. We can never be certain that he doesn't exist, so why eliminate the possibility? So what if you have to make a lot of extraneous assumptions to justify his existence? He is still a "logical possibility".

I do not have to say that we know anything "once and for all".

Then you should probably go back and drop Reason 1 from your list.

No, you should definitely go back and read the OP, wherein I said: "Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible."

In order to prove that the brain plays a role in all these things? yes. In order to prove that the brain is the source of consciousness itself? No, that part is still an assumption.

It is a conclusion that takes fewer assumptions to arrive at than your "radio receiver" analogy. Occam's Razor is not about eliminating possible explanations but about establishing plausible ones.

It would be just as ridiculous for someone to say to you "But you are not someone who's spiritually evolved enough to actually understand the true nature of consciousness or our relationship with the universe and reality as a whole" and expect you to go "Gee, I guess he's right. Guess I better sit this one out."

No it would not. There is a large body of literature on the subject of cognition, and I do not think that you are claiming familiarity with it. My point still stands. You are not knowledgable enough about that literature to make confident claims about how little we know of cognition. I know enough of it to realize that it takes a lot of specialized knowledge to understand our general level of ignorance about brains and the nature of consciousness. Experts are people who understand their level of ignorance. You are no expert in cognitive science.

Appeal to authority is a cheap debate tactic as it is. Appeal to your own, unestablished, authority is....well, I can think of all kinds of words for that.

All I said was that you lacked qualification to claim that you understood our level of ignorance about the mind-brain connection. I know enough about it to know that you do not know what you are talking about. I'm not making any grandiose claims here, just that what we know about brains and minds suggests that the latter are dependent on the former for their existence. It would be nice if that were not the case, but we have no evidence to support such speculation.

 

[atanu]

---- and I am in perfect agreement with you that the mind alters itself, just as higher order processes interact at a macrolevel in any chaotic determinstic system.

Have you ever seen an application program altering the Operating System, if not pre-programmed to do so?

You are shifting the goalposts here. You asked whether a program could change its own behavior. The answer is that it can, .........

Excuse me? The original point pertained to the observation that man could consciously alter his brain states by yoga etc., indicating the person as distinct from the structures.

You said that mind alters itself and that similar is seen in higher order process interactions. I asked whether you had ever seen an application program altering the OS, unless programmed to do so? When I pointed out that it required an outside programmer, you retorted that I was changing the goalpost.

Clearly state whether higher order processes can change lower order states on their own, if not designed to do so by a programmer or not? Clearly state whether effect can change the cause fundamentally or not.

As per you intelligence is caused by brain structures. Thus when that intelligence is able to change brain structures, it would mean that the effect is changing the cause.

And obviously, you had no idea of emergent properties meant. For anything to emerge its cause must be there. The citation of mine from Wiki on the subject has been ignored by you.
...............

Characteristically, all you repeat again and again is that structures of brain correlate well with its functions. I do not think I can rationally bring you to recognise that a continously changing phenomena cannot be the basis of a fixed "I" awareness that everyone has throughout one's life. When asked who is this "I separate from brain chemicals" you shy away.

Observations wrt to brain chemicals are associated observations, which have no meaning without experience and the experiencer, who has a constancy of "I" awareness.

The brain itself is an observed object. It can never be observed without consciousness. OTOH, a destruction of single brain does nothing to the the ever flowing life force, indicating that the life force, indicated by its basic characteristic of 'awareness of existence' is distinct. Without life force acting in a body, the brain is just a piece of tissue.

 

[atanu]

You are shifting the goalposts here. You asked whether a program could change its own behavior. The answer is that it can, and I have personally programmed applications to do just that. ---
I very definitely did not imply that. You inferred it based on your own private assumptions.
You do not need to assume a "third party intelligent designer" in any of this.

You personally programmed applications so that those could change their own behaviour.:sarcastic

And then you deny the third party intelligent designer?:no:

People in a "deep sleep" or even a coma not only appear "unconscious". They are unconscious. That is how we define "unconscious"--being unaware of oneself and one's surroundings.

Yes, I see awareness of self and one's surroundings as a property of a mind. I do not see what it buys you to call awareness a "symptom of consciousness". Awareness is consciousness.

No. You are wrong. What you are describing is not the Consciousness proper but its representational states. Waking state is one such. Dream state is another. And deep sleep state is the third. While talking of Consciousness you cannot dis-regard the dream and sleep states since these are also in our Consciousness.

What you are talking about is consciousness with content. I am talking about consciousness devoid of all content. This is important since, you have linked this to God and Soul -- both of which are contentless -- devoid of objects.

Further, for a proper understanding of consciousness the mere dictionary understanding will not do. Since, the dictionary definition right away proves you wrong. When you say: "Awareness is consciousness", immediately the question arises "Whose awareness?"

Again, it is not enough to just point out that quantum-level information exchange takes place at superluminal speeds below the planck level. You need to explain how this relates to the brain and consciousness in order to make your case. You have not done that. For example, what does quantum entanglement help us to understand about consciousness?

How do you link correlative observations in and of brain as cause of consciousness? Regarding applications of QM towards explaining consciousness let experts talk:

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction​

Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behaviour generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus, terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. ‘feeling’,‘knowing’ and ‘effort&#8217 are not included as primary causal factors.

-----
Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act.------​

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf

I am not saying that your theory or my theory is the final one. I am saying that science has equal evidence against what you are theorising. Your theory cannot explain causal effect of conscious will on changing the mental-physical well being (or the opposite). In fact your theory contradicts the cause-effect constraints fundamentally, if you do not introduce a third party programmer.

I am saying that against all this theorising is the first and foremost experience of everyone "I exist" -- all other observations come after.

(I will probably be away for a few days.)