"The brain is just how the soul expresses itself"

[Sunstone]

Of course not, but it has still been a major problem for psychologists attempting to explain experience.

The difficulty, I suspect, comes from attempting to describe experience from an experiential point-of-view. We attempt to define something that is purely subjective objectively, which is an entirely difficult feat because we experience them subjectively.

Sorry, this is one of those puzzles that I have a fascination but a great difficulty with.

Brain scans have shown there is no centralized, controlling location for consciousness.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Brain scans have shown there is no centralized, controlling location for consciousness.

Hm...

I wonder what criteria they used for measuring "consciousness" though. It's a tough bugger to describe. Are we talking the awareness of experience?

 

[Sunstone]

Hm...

I wonder what criteria they used for measuring "consciousness" though. It's a tough bugger to describe. Are we talking the awareness of experience?

Normal awareness, yes.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

That is a speculation on your part.

Are you suggesting that it is possible for my experience of seeing colors could be encoded in a way that a color blind person could understand what seeing colors is like?

How would such a fomula look?

 

[Sunstone]

Are you suggesting that it is possible for my experience of seeing colors could be encoded in a way that a color blind person could understand what seeing colors are like?

How would such a fomula look?

I am suggesting that we simply do not know what will be possible in 20 years, let alone 50. So it can be quite speculative to say something will be impossible.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Normal awareness, yes.

So a possible conclusion for the study is that consciousness isn't focused into a particular area of the brain, but is a manifestation of the whole of it...

Hm...

The homunculus problem suggests that the brain's neural activities are like the hard drive of a computer, the symbols created are the images on the computer screen, and the consciousness is the observer of the images (the little man inside the head).

But perhaps the last part isn't the best analogy. Still, I'm racking my brain for a better one, but can't find it.

 

[Sunstone]

So a possible conclusion for the study is that consciousness isn't focused into a particular area of the brain, but is a manifestation of the whole of it...

Hm...

The homunculus problem suggests that the brain's neural activities are like the hard drive of a computer, the symbols created are the images on the computer screen, and the consciousness is the observer of the images (the little man inside the head).

But perhaps the last part isn't the best analogy. Still, I'm racking my brain for a better one, but can't find it.

The neural activity that creates consciousness seems to be distributed through out the brain. That seems to mesh with the notion that consciousness is not a state but a process.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That seems to mesh with the notion that consciousness is not a state but a process.

And with our experience of it.

Linguistically, this is also interesting. I say that I experience consciousness, but this separates the observer from the process. Is there a separation? Really, there should not be. But the experience of it certainly seems as such.

Is that just a linguistic trick? Do I--as the observer--experience consciousness, or am I the experience? It would seem that I am the experience itself, eh?

 

[Febble]

I do believe in ghosts.

I do believe in ghosts.

Actually, I don't. I think the pro-soul arguments here are the same ones, postulate the existence of a soul, and then say it can't be disproven. It seems the only solution is to wait until we're 6 feet under to know, although, I think by then it's too late.

Well, if the postulated soul does anything, its existence should be demonstrable. If it doesn't do anything, then sure, you won't be able to disprove its existence, but it can hardly be held accountable later for what it did or didn't do.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course there is a dependency consciousness has on our physical brain. There is no arguing that. A car cannot function without a working engine, but that doesn't mean it doesn't require a driver to operate it. In other words, our brain (car engine) needs to be functional for us to drive, but the driver (soul) is also required... we just can see or measure it.

Let me pursue your analogy.

Imagine that we have some cars and some unobservable drivers. How could we tell that these unobservable drivers exist?

1. Observe something in the car that violates established laws of physics (e.g. the gas pedal lowers on its own)
2. Observe that two physically identical cars behave differently (e.g. both cars start out in park, one drives off obeying traffic laws, while the other drives aimlessly into things, or just sits there in park; perhaps one driver is more skilled than the other)
3. Observe that the 'intentions' of the car cannot be altered by physically changing the car (e.g. no matter how you play with the engine or brakes, the driver will still do his best to avoid running into a crowd of people)

Any of these observations would falsify the hypothesis that the behavior of cars is exclusively the result of physical causes. The same argument could be made for any physical system, including brains, both animal and human.

We could add a fourth observation in the case of a brain or machine capable of communicating its experience or at least exhibiting signs of unique experiences:

4. Observe that the experiences indicated by the behavior of the machine (e.g. it says 'I see the color blue', or its feelings/experiences are evident by its behavior) do not correspond to anything physical about the machine.
​

Despite a wealth of research, none of these observations have been made with respect to any physical system that I know of, even human brains. Clearly, human brains, chimpanzee brains, and cell phones are not inhabited by these sorts of supernatural 'drivers'.

Now, you could postulate some things about the human 'soul' that makes it different from the supernatural 'drivers' above:

1. Maybe we just haven't found the part of the brain where a non-physical action occurs; or, maybe the soul is actually a passive 'receiver' who doesn't interact with the brain but who experiences what it's like to be sitting in it nonetheless.
2. Maybe souls are too similar to be distinguished by the different ways in which they control brains; also, maybe brains with certain physical characteristics are always inhabited by a soul.

....and so on. I have no doubt that, if we try hard enough, we can make all sorts of ad-hoc hypotheses about the human soul in order to make it immune to empirical falsification.

However, I am equally certain that we could postulate an unfalsifiable soul for the chimpanzee brain, cell phones, or any physical system. So why should we take the existence of an unfalsifiable human soul more seriously than the existence of an unfalsifiable cell phone soul?

This to me seems to be the most reasonable solution, since the physical brain cannot account for our entire "mind" experience. Something else is missing besides what we can measure.

You have not 'solved' anything simply by observing that we don't understand something and declaring the existence of a supernatural soul. To call this a 'solution' is a pretty big stretch, unless you can use it to predict something (e.g. you could predict the four observations I outlined above).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The sensation I get when I peer at a Arizona sunset. You can measure the neural activity, but never in a way that captures the experience. It simply could never be communicated in a sensual way to a person living underground their entire life--they would never get it.

I think you may have this backward.

If our experience is wholly dependent upon the physical, then it is not surprising that one person who has physically seen an Arizona sunset can recall that experience and use it as a tool for communication with others who have been exposed to similar physical influences.

On the other hand, if a person who had been living underground his/her entire life understood exactly what you meant about the Arizona sunset, that would be good evidence against physically-caused experience.

This is a problem considering science is based on quantification and the communication of information. The conclusion is that there is a portion of our cognitive experience that cannot be measured/quantified.

The fact that we can't completely quantify our experience is not a problem. We can't quantify the experience of many animals whose behavior shows that they experience things as much as any human (perhaps many things that a human cannot experience). The conclusion is that science is an objective method for investigating the world whereas our experience comes from a mammalian brain that has evolved to survive, not to worry about x-rays or warped spacetime or all the other things that we cannot conceive with our minds, though we can understand them through science.

 

[yossarian22]

Are you suggesting that it is possible for my experience of seeing colors could be encoded in a way that a color blind person could understand what seeing colors is like?
How would such a fomula look?

Who knows? We have not encoded vision so our brain can decipher it, but we can encode vision. It will be possible for a blind person to experience color provided enough advances in technology are made as the brain can quickly adapt to new additions to it.
For instance, a monkey learned to control third arm with some neural implants fairly quickly. I am unaware if somethig similar has been tried on humans. I think there were some experiments done with mouse pointers.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are you suggesting that it is possible for my experience of seeing colors could be encoded in a way that a color blind person could understand what seeing colors is like?

Well, the difference between a person who can see colors and a person who can't is physical.....so if you can discover that physical difference and correct it, anyone should be able to experience colors. I don't see how this example serves to do anything but confirm that physical causes are at the root of our experience.

 

[rocketman]

Warning: follwing post is a little weird.

To call this a 'solution' is a pretty big stretch, unless you can use it to predict something

This comment got me thinking about a related area and I realised that I fearlessly hold to the prediction that we will never find the seat of consciousness or higher decision making. I am led to this conclusion by having encountered more than my fair share of miracles and dare I say it a communion with a higher power that showed me that my current bodily self is incredibly limited compared to what 'I' am. In that instant (it wasn't an instant of time but I know of no other word) I could 'see' that 'I' am not really here physically, and that most of my waking self and brain-thoughts are not really 'me' at all, but I am rather much deeper and more fundamental. And I believe everyone else is too. But it's not something we are 'awake' to just yet.

Anyone else ever had a 'waking' moment like this?

Ok, ok, I know what some are thinking, but hey, this is a religious forum!

And before anyone asks, no, I wasn't smoking anything - in fact, no physical time passed at all and I remember well the realisation of that fact, because coming 'back' was like falling asleep, and losing 'consciousness' of that higher view, back into what we think of as awake. It literally happened between steps as I was walking in a public place and I can remember finishing the step and suddenly having a head full of this concept and absolutely certain knowledge that it had happened. I'm still freaked out by it.

Pity I didn't have some kind of detection equipment strapped to my noggin. It would have been interesting to see at what point the brain/mind awareness was triggered, if such a precise thing is possible to measure. Naturally, some would say it came from within my head, while others would say it came from without. Personally I find it more than a little telling that quiet neurons can suddenly fire on their own. It's not like the brain is an engine that is either on or off. Either way, this debate is going to be around for a long time.

Some related concepts if anyone is interested:

http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/BrainAndSoulTalkNotes.pdf

 

[Febble]

Are you suggesting that it is possible for my experience of seeing colors could be encoded in a way that a color blind person could understand what seeing colors is like?

How would such a fomula look?

It would look like re-ordering that person's neural system, including their retinal neurons, so that they could receive sensory data from a greater range of wavelengths, i.e. fixing the colour blindness.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This comment got me thinking about a related area and I realised that I fearlessly hold to the prediction that we will never find the seat of consciousness or higher decision making.

Um, we've already found the seat of consciousness and higher decision making: it's the brain. Especially the cerebral cortex. The problem facing us now is understanding how all the parts of this 'seat' fit together.

...The human cerebral cortex is 2-4 mm (0.08-0.16 inches) thick and plays a central role in many complex brain functions including memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language and consciousness....

...Association areas function to produce a meaningful perceptual experience of the world, enable us to interact effectively, and support abstract thinking and language. The parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes - all located in the posterior part of the brain - organise sensory information into a coherent perceptual model of our environment centred on our body image. The frontal lobe or prefrontal association complex is involved in planning actions and movement, as well as abstract thought. Our language abilities are localised to the association areas of the parietal-temporal-occipital complex, typically in the left hemisphere. Wernicke's area relates to understanding language while Broca's area relates to its use.

Cerebral cortex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Our soul has nothing to do with our actions or personality or any other attribute of our brains.
Our souls are of God and as such are 100 % pure. Consider them as our life force that can not be corrupted.... and they return to God at our death.
We can be evil and sinful to the extreme... but like our soul this is not measurable... but this evil and sinful nature can not accompany our soul into God's presence.

 

[rocketman]

Um, we've already found the seat of consciousness and higher decision making: it's the brain. ...... "plays a central role in many complex brain functions"

Saying we know something is playing a central role is not the same as knowing the actual origination.

And as Sunstone correctly points out : " Brain scans have shown there is no centralized, controlling location for consciousness. "

We think the brain is the answer, but we still don't know how most things 'start' inside of it. If there is a soul or no soul there will be a physical analogue either way.

"The brain seems to derive consciousness from interaction among numerous systems within the brain." - emphasis mine

Human brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are nowhere near being able to say with absolute certainty what the seat of consciousness is, only that we are confident that there appears to be physical analogues, at least with the crude measurements we can currently take.

 

[rocketman]

Our soul has nothing to do with our actions or personality or any other attribute of our brains.
Our souls are of God and as such are 100 % pure. Consider them as our life force that can not be corrupted.... and they return to God at our death.
We can be evil and sinful to the extreme... but like our soul this is not measurable... but this evil and sinful nature can not accompany our soul into God's presence.

Well said.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Saying we know something is playing a central role is not the same as knowing the actual origination.

It was talking about the cerebral cortex, which of course, can't function without the brain stem. So the brain stem plays a 'non-central' role. But the brain in its entirety is responsible for consciousness and higher decision making.

And as Sunstone correctly points out : " Brain scans have shown there is no centralized, controlling location for consciousness. "

Yes, that is true: there is no centralized location within the brain. But the roughly double fist-sized organ we call the brain IS the controlling location for consciousness. Are you implying that the controlling location for consciousness MUST be an infinitely tiny point?