"Where's the evidence?" Ask and ye shall receive!

[fantome profane]

An aggregate of many things, accumulated over time from external stimuli, upon my specific brain unique among all humans.

Tough for you, but not terribly so for me. 'Bout three minutes of thinking. (They may not be terribly "tough", but they are good questions).

What IS sad? Not one thing individually, but an aggregate of many things that make up the emotional state.

My body is part of the aggregate that makes "me". Without a body, I am not "me". But, then, what if parts of my body were replaced with mechanical parts? Would those parts still be "me"? Yes. What if my brain were placed in a robot? Would I still be "me"? Yes. However, the nature of that "me" would change somewhat.

Our identities are not static; they are constantly changing. A major part of my identity used to be "child". That no longer applies, however. Am I still me? Yes. But that part of "me" is now "adult".

So, without A body, I am not "me", but without THIS body, I can still be "me".

This is the kind of reasoning that leads me to conclude that identity is an illusion.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is the kind of reasoning that leads me to conclude that identity is an illusion.

I don't go quite that far, personally.

 

[Riverwolf]

OK, so you already have the logic that leads to a naturalistic conclusion, here are your three pieces of empirical evidence that the premises upon which I based the above post are true.

First, everybody here should listen to this totally awesome BBC lecture series on neurology. BBC - Radio 4 - Reith Lectures 2003 - The Emerging Mind

Seriously, it's awesome. It's referenced here to illustrate that whatever it is your "consciousness" is experiencing, from art appreciation to the sensation of a phantom limb, the experience has an observable relationship with brain activity.

Here is a study that artificially and predictably produced "OBE" experiences by electrically stimulating a certain area of the brain: Neuropsychology: Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions : Abstract : Nature

Here is an Oxford study that correlates particular observable, consistent changes in brain activity with the re-establishment of conscious awareness after sleep: The process of awakening: a PET study of regional brain activity patterns mediating the re

Thanks for the links but that doesn't answer my question on the origin of consciousness. The mind is not material, and this can be demonstrated...so to use a material substance to explain the origins of an immaterial substance is irrational.

What, exactly, is wrong with the information in those links? How do they not address your question about the origin of consciousness? Here's a hint on how to find out: what questions do you think they're trying to answer?

 

[dust1n]

I will definitely play this game. What is the evidence for mind/body naturalism? The view that consciousness is the product of natural phenomena.

I have one of them for you. They are called traumatic brain injuries.

If consciousness was derived from natural phenomena, then brain damage will result in cases of affected consciousness. And it does. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke:

"How Does a TBI Affect Consciousness?

A TBI can cause problems with arousal, consciousness, awareness, alertness, and responsiveness. Generally, there are five abnormal states of consciousness that can result from a TBI: stupor, coma, persistent vegetative state, locked-in syndrome, and brain death...

What Disabilities Can Result From a TBI?

Disabilities resulting from a TBI depend upon the severity of the injury, the location of the injury, and the age and general health of the patient. Some common disabilities include problems with cognition (thinking, memory, and reasoning), sensory processing (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell), communication (expression and understanding), and behavior or mental health (depression, anxiety, personality changes, aggression, acting out, and social inappropriateness).

Within days to weeks of the head injury approximately 40 percent of TBI patients develop a host of troubling symptoms collectively called postconcussion syndrome (PCS). A patient need not have suffered a concussion or loss of consciousness to develop the syndrome and many patients with mild TBI suffer from PCS. Symptoms include headache, dizziness, vertigo (a sensation of spinning around or of objects spinning around the patient), memory problems, trouble concentrating, sleeping problems, restlessness, irritability, apathy, depression, and anxiety. These symptoms may last for a few weeks after the head injury. The syndrome is more prevalent in patients who had psychiatric symptoms, such as depression or anxiety, before the injury. Treatment for PCS may include medicines for pain and psychiatric conditions, and psychotherapy and occupational therapy to develop coping skills.

Cognition is a term used to describe the processes of thinking, reasoning, problem solving, information processing, and memory. Most patients with severe TBI, if they recover consciousness, suffer from cognitive disabilities, including the loss of many higher level mental skills. The most common cognitive impairment among severely head-injured patients is memory loss, characterized by some loss of specific memories and the partial inability to form or store new ones. Some of these patients may experience post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) , either anterograde or retrograde.

Anteregrade PTA is impaired memory of events that happened after the TBI, while retrograde PTA is impaired memory of events that happened before the TBI.

Many patients with mild to moderate head injuries who experience cognitive deficits become easily confused or distracted and have problems with concentration and attention. They also have problems with higher level, so-called executive functions, such as planning, organizing, abstract reasoning, problem solving, and making judgments, which may make it difficult to resume pre-injury work-related activities. Recovery from cognitive deficits is greatest within the first 6 months after the injury and more gradual after that.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The most common cognitive impairment among severely head-injured patients is memory loss, characterized by some loss of specific memories and the partial inability to form or store new ones.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Patients with moderate to severe TBI have more problems with cognitive deficits than patients with mild TBI, but a history of several mild TBIs may have an additive effect, causing cognitive deficits equal to a moderate or severe injury.

Many TBI patients have sensory problems, especially problems with vision. Patients may not be able to register what they are seeing or may be slow to recognize objects.

Also, TBI patients often have difficulty with hand-eye coordination. Because of this, TBI patients may be prone to bumping into or dropping objects, or may seem generally unsteady. TBI patients may have difficulty driving a car, working complex machinery, or playing sports. Other sensory deficits may include problems with hearing, smell, taste, or touch. Some TBI patients develop tinnitus, a ringing or roaring in the ears. A person with damage to the part of the brain that processes taste or smell may develop a persistent bitter taste in the mouth or perceive a persistent noxious smell. Damage to the part of the brain that controls the sense of touch may cause a TBI patient to develop persistent skin tingling, itching, or pain.

Although rare, these conditions are hard to treat.

Language and communication problems are common disabilities in TBI patients. Some may experience aphasia , defined as difficulty with understanding and producing spoken and written language; others may have difficulty with the more subtle aspects of communication, such as body language and emotional, non-verbal signals.

In non-fluent aphasia , also called Broca's aphasia or motor aphasia, TBI patients often have trouble recalling words and speaking in complete sentences. They may speak in broken phrases and pause frequently. Most patients are aware of these deficits and may become extremely frustrated. Patients with fluent aphasia , also called Wernicke's aphasia or sensory aphasia, display little meaning in their speech, even though they speak in complete sentences and use correct grammar. Instead, they speak in flowing gibberish, drawing out their sentences with non-essential and invented words. Many patients with fluent aphasia are unaware that they make little sense and become angry with others for not understanding them. Patients with global aphasia have extensive damage to the portions of the brain responsible for language and often suffer severe communication disabilities.

TBI patients may have problems with spoken language if the part of the brain that controls speech muscles is damaged. In this disorder, called dysarthria , the patient can think of the appropriate language, but cannot easily speak the words because they are unable to use the muscles needed to form the words and produce the sounds.

Speech is often slow, slurred, and garbled. Some may have problems with intonation or inflection, called prosodic dysfunction . An important aspect of speech, inflection conveys emotional meaning and is necessary for certain aspects of language, such as irony..."

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/detail_tbi.htm

EDIT: Whoops. Didn't realize I was already late to the party.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, my criticism is that it didn't answer my question. Showing that two things correlate does not imply that these two things are identical. So my question remains unanswered.

I would like you do explain why God changes someones consciousness when they suffer severe brain injury, if the consciousness is affected by the physical interactions of the brain with other physical objects. The hammer hits the brain, and the thoughts stop working. It's not that the thoughts stop working, then a hammer hits the brain.

That's not a correlation. That's causation.

Cause: Physical damage to the brain. Result: Difference in various aspects of consciousness if not consciousness being lost all together.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What, exactly, is wrong with the information in those links? How do they not address your question about the origin of consciousness? Here's a hint on how to find out: what questions do you think they're trying to answer?

Show me exactly where either of those links explained the absolute origin of consciousness, please. As a matter of fact, paste it on here. I have no interest in reading that long and drawn out article or whatever it is.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I would like you do explain why God changes someones consciousness when they suffer severe brain injury, if the consciousness is affected by the physical interactions of the brain with other physical objects. The hammer hits the brain, and the thoughts stop working. It's not that the thoughts stop working, then a hammer hits the brain.

That's not a correlation. That's causation.

You want me to explain to you something that happens after consciousness originates. I am asking questions of origins...how did consciousness get here in the first place? Please explain that to me. If God doesn't exist, then this would have had to occur naturally, and I just can't see how this could happen naturally under any circumstances.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have one of them for you. They are called traumatic brain injuries.

If consciousness was derived from natural phenomena, then brain damage will result in cases of affected consciousness. And it does.

No, if physical consciousness correlates with the brain, then brain damage will result and affect physical consciousness. And it certainly does not follow that just because the brain affects consciousness, that means that consciousness comes from the brain.

What I'd like is a direct answer to my analogy. If a scientist creates, shapes, and molds a brain using pre-existing matter, how will he get this brain to start thing, specifically about a black cat? How can the scientist plug the thought of a black cat into the brain so that the brain begins to think about the cat?

There is just no way this can be done, in fact, there is no way you can even THINK of a scenario in which this could be done, from a naturalistic perspective. If it can't happen with intelligent design, how can it happen without intelligent design?

And that has been my point ever since I started on this forum. Unconsciousness cannot be the ultimate source of consciousness, and if it can, then you should be able to go in a lab and demonstrate it. That is science, right? And that is what allegedly occurred, right?

 

[ChristineES]

Mod Post

Please keep Rule 4, posting off-topic, in mind while you are posting. ​

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Saying the brain is not the same thing as mind is much like saying vision is not the same thing as an eye, or hearing is not an ear.

How long did it take you to come up with that? As if that somehow helps your case lol.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

An aggregate of many things, accumulated over time from external stimuli, upon my specific brain unique among all humans.

Your brain is made up of the same material that everyone else's is made up of.

Tough for you, but not terribly so for me. 'Bout three minutes of thinking. (They may not be terribly "tough", but they are good questions).

You admit that they are good questions...impressive.

What IS sad? Not one thing individually, but an aggregate of many things that make up the emotional state.

Is your brain sad?

My body is part of the aggregate that makes "me". Without a body, I am not "me". But, then, what if parts of my body were replaced with mechanical parts? Would those parts still be "me"? Yes. What if my brain were placed in a robot? Would I still be "me"? Yes. However, the nature of that "me" would change somewhat.

Ahhh not so fast. If we can imagine that you woke up in the morning and you found yourself in the body of your dog, and your physical human body still lay in the bed, and within the dogs body, you retained all of your human thoughts...are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed?

And if your mother comes in the room and tries to wake your human body up from sleep, is it safe to tell your mother that you are not in the bed, you are in "right here" (wherever the dog is)?

Your body is the physical representation of "you". But "you" are not your body. "You" are your mind, and wherever your mind is, that is where you are.

Our identities are not static; they are constantly changing. A major part of my identity used to be "child". That no longer applies, however. Am I still me? Yes. But that part of "me" is now "adult". The "me" who's body was a child no longer exists.

Of course you are still you. And you are right, our experiences, thoughts, sensations, etc..are constantly changing, but every change is a change that is unique to you and no one else.

So, without A body, I am not "me", but without THIS body, I can still be "me".

Huh?

That body doesn't even have to be humanoid; one thing I fear is that immortality will be attempted by uploading our consciousnesses into computers. (No, that's not a likely possibility any time soon, for the record). I don't want that, so when I die, I want my body either cremated, or left in the woods as food so my worldly consciousness can stay dead.

Okkk.

You have heard otherwise, you've just rejected what you've heard.

Direct response to the scientist analogy, please.

What consciousness has been empirically observed that lacks a brain? God/Gods have not been empirically demonstrated to exist. (Remember that I AM a theist).

We've never empirically demonstrated consciousness to come from unconsciousness either, which is what one would have to believe if the God hypothesis is negated.

When testing things logically, negative until proven positive is the best way to figure out whether something is true. This is how scientists test their hypotheses. Just like in a court trial, the method used is innocent(negative presence of criminal activity) until proven guilty(positive presence of criminal activity).

Oh, ok. I guess abiogenesis is false until it can be proven to be positive. Thank you.

Just because we can conceive of it doesn't mean it does, or even can exist. Likewise, just because we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it doesn't, or cannot, exist.

And I am asking you to give me a scenario at which a scientist, after having just created a brain from pre-existing matter, can plug the thought of a black cat into the freshly created brain, so that the brain thinks about the cat.

I am asking you to "conceive" of a scenario at which this could happen.

Ontology is a branch of philosophy, not science. Philosophy is not a good method of actual information gathering and calculation, because it largely relies on hypotheticals rather than actualities.

You can't use science without presupposing logic and reason...and philosophy deals with logic and reason. Second, lets not assume that we shouldn't believe something unless it can be scientifically proven. I am not saying that this is what you are implying, but in case it is, lets not, ok?

Just because something can even theoretically exist doesn't mean it actually does. Unicorns are a biological possibility, since horses are closely related to many horned animals, but they don't exist now, or anywhere in the fossil record.

I agree.

And when something isn't known, that means it isn't known. It's a gap in our collective knowledge, and we shouldn't try filling it with our own speculations; even scientists don't do that, presenting their speculations in an appropriately speculative light.

Just because scientists are currently unable to replicate a natural phenomenon in a laboratory, doesn't mean it's something that can't happen. Scientists used to be completely unable to replicate lighting; now it's easy-peasy.

I am asking you to give me a scenario at which a scientists will be able to plug a thought into a brain, naturally.

Besides, we still don't even know how to measure what someone is thinking. In your analogy, what would be required is literally telepathy. This is not yet possible, though it's likely to become possible in the next few decades. Also, the created brain won't function, anyway, without some kind of life support, and getting it to "think" about a cat would require some kind of light-sensitive receptors (aka, "eyes") that could be "shown" a cat, and several components capable of "remembering" the image...

The created brain wont function in the analogy any more than it would function in the naturalistic way that materialists believe that it began to function without intelligent design. My analogy isn't any more absurd or "unscientific" what any materialist postulates.

Or better yet, I have one for you...give me any naturalistic scenario at which a brain can begin to exist and will eventually give rise to consciousness....I am talking the absolute ORIGIN of consciousness, btw. Give me any naturalistic scenario at which consciousness didn't exist, and it began to exist as a result of natural processes and the natural development of the brain.

I will wait.

Tell ya what. You want a brain that can think of a cat, because apparently the ability to do that is all that's required for consciousness? Computers have been able to do that for a few decades, now.

Oh please. Computers cannot think, nor do they have free will. Show me a computer that didn't turn on because it used its free will to not turn on when someone pushed the power button.

So... what does it mean to be "aware"?

Look up the definition of "aware" and I will be more than happy to go with that definition.

I don't know any. I'm sure there's some message board out there with a focus on neuroscience where you can pose the question. Perhaps ask the authors of those articles Alceste linked to?

Ha.

 

[cottage]

Glad you could join the discussion, cot.

My pleasure. However I think we're taking Alceste's thread off in a direction different to what she intended. We're not following her criteria. Should we begin a new thread so we can continue this subject?

Fine..you can point out any similarities/differences you like, but as long as there are similarities/differences, it follows that these two things are not identical, based on the law of identity, which I'm sure you are familiar with.

But two objects do not require an identical description in order to serve the same purpose. In fact the brain isn’t to be identified solely with consciousness, having as it does an essential physical role, but it also enables consciousness.

But that wasn't the point!!! I was merely pointing out a difference between the two.

But it is the point: if brains and consciousness do the same job then in that respect they are identical.

Then your hearing and your emotional state are not the same, right?

Yes, right! But the thing to notice here is that while my hearing like consciousness isn’t a tangible thing consisting of form and matter that can be weighed or measured it is nevertheless still a sense content, which goes to show very clearly that two corporeal aspects do not have to be fundamentally identical in every respect.

Sure, you can share similar experiences with someone, but the experience won't be EXACTLY the same..and in the example I gave, no one had that particular experience but me, so that in itself is enough to differentiate me from anyone else...because my experiences help shape who I am as a person, which would make me unique relative to any other person.

Sorry, but I must repeat what I said: Any individual can have another’s experience, without qualification, to include every precise detail and every whim. There is no logical impediment, no necessary ownership of thoughts and ideas or in the way they are organised, experienced or understood.

My focus is on the origin of consciousness, cot. There is no such thing as a thoughts floating out there at which they can be captured and planted into someones brain. Not happening. I would like the chicken/egg problem associated with the mind/brain to be addressed.

I believe the chicken and egg question can be answered quite simply by acknowledging that thoughts are only reactions to stimuli. There first needs to be some thing, or objects, as the subject of thought. Something (the world) therefore, necessarily existed prior to any awareness or thinking.

Talk to one another how? Does one computer say "How are you", and the other one say "I'm doing fine, and you?"

A true Turing Test requires rather more than that, specifically the use of ‘natural language, reason, and knowledge’, and does not set the questions or topics to be discussed. I think recent advances in AI still fall short of that, but even the most sceptical among us must acknowledge the developments in that field and know that progress will continue.

 

[fantome profane]

How long did it take you to come up with that? As if that somehow helps your case lol.

What do you think "my case" is?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What do you think "my case" is?

Probably the opposite of whatever my case is hahaha.

 

[Willamena]

What do you think "my case" is?

Clearly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

My pleasure. However I think we're taking Alceste's thread off in a direction different to what she intended. We're not following her criteria. Should we begin a new thread so we can continue this subject?

No, we should give Alceste one of these :cigar: and tell her to chill.

But two objects do not require an identical description in order to serve the same purpose.

But they don't serve the same purpose. The mind is the consciousness, and the brain is the mechanism which allows the consciousness to correlate with body.

In fact the brain isn’t to be identified solely with consciousness, having as it does an essential physical role, but it also enables consciousness.

Ok, fine. But we are talking origins, not correlations.

But it is the point: if brains and consciousness do the same job then in that respect they are identical.

But all that is needed is for there to be at least ONE difference between the two and that is enough to show that one is independent of the other. Plus, the chicken and egg problem associated with them is enough to drive home this point.

Yes, right! But the thing to notice here is that while my hearing like consciousness isn’t a tangible thing consisting of form and matter that can be weighed or measured it is nevertheless still a sense content, which goes to show very clearly that two corporeal aspects do not have to be fundamentally identical in every respect.

And this goes right back to the chicken & egg problem. You have two aspects..the brain, and the mind. If either one of these aspects preceded the other, then that itself is enough to show that there IS a fundamental difference between the two. You can point out any similarities you like, but the two aspects are not one in the same...and this is important, since some people believe that the brain and consciousness are one in the same.

Sorry, but I must repeat what I said: Any individual can have another’s experience, without qualification, to include every precise detail and every whim. There is no logical impediment, no necessary ownership of thoughts and ideas or in the way they are organised, experienced or understood.

Then I need to know what you mean by "have another's experience". Do you mean if two people goes to the movies together, they are sharing the same experience? I don't even think that is so..even if that were the case, there would still be at least one difference in the experience that would differentiate the totality of the entire experience.

I believe the chicken and egg question can be answered quite simply by acknowledging that thoughts are only reactions to stimuli. There first needs to be some thing, or objects, as the subject of thought. Something (the world) therefore, necessarily existed prior to any awareness or thinking.

But that doesn't solve the problem. If the brain developed/evolved naturally over time, without intelligent design...you will have the same problem obtaining consciousness that way for the same reasons you will have if a scientist goes in a lab and creates a brain from pre-existing matter and tries to plug a "mind" into the newly created brain.

If the brain preceded consciousness, how will you get to the point of consciousness, since consciousness requires that there be a "person" that exists from the point at which consciousness is obtained?

If consciousness preceded the brain, then consciousness is not dependent upon the brain to exist. Now from a naturalistic point of view, each scenario is absurd, and it is more reasonable to assume that the brain/consciousness had to begin to exist simulataneously, as one could not have preceded the other (naturally).

A true Turing Test requires rather more than that, specifically the use of ‘natural language, reason, and knowledge’, and does not set the questions or topics to be discussed. I think recent advances in AI still fall short of that, but even the most sceptical among us must acknowledge the developments in that field and know that progress will continue.

And Jesus will return soon too, cot

 

[fantome profane]

And this goes right back to the chicken & egg problem. You have two aspects..the brain, and the mind. If either one of these aspects preceded the other, then that itself is enough to show that there IS a fundamental difference between the two. You can point out any similarities you like, but the two aspects are not one in the same...and this is important, since some people believe that the brain and consciousness are one in the same.

And do you believe you have the same "chicken and egg problem" with vision and the eye? Do you think that vision existed before the eye? Or that vision can exist in the absence of an eye? Is the eye responsible for vision or does it merely "allow the vision to correlate with body"?

 

[Alceste]

My pleasure. However I think we're taking Alceste's thread off in a direction different to what she intended. We're not following her criteria. Should we begin a new thread so we can continue this subject?





But two objects do not require an identical description in order to serve the same purpose. In fact the brain isn’t to be identified solely with consciousness, having as it does an essential physical role, but it also enables consciousness.




But it is the point: if brains and consciousness do the same job then in that respect they are identical.




Yes, right! But the thing to notice here is that while my hearing like consciousness isn’t a tangible thing consisting of form and matter that can be weighed or measured it is nevertheless still a sense content, which goes to show very clearly that two corporeal aspects do not have to be fundamentally identical in every respect.




Sorry, but I must repeat what I said: Any individual can have another’s experience, without qualification, to include every precise detail and every whim. There is no logical impediment, no necessary ownership of thoughts and ideas or in the way they are organised, experienced or understood.





I believe the chicken and egg question can be answered quite simply by acknowledging that thoughts are only reactions to stimuli. There first needs to be some thing, or objects, as the subject of thought. Something (the world) therefore, necessarily existed prior to any awareness or thinking.




A true Turing Test requires rather more than that, specifically the use of ‘natural language, reason, and knowledge’, and does not set the questions or topics to be discussed. I think recent advances in AI still fall short of that, but even the most sceptical among us must acknowledge the developments in that field and know that progress will continue.

Yes, you guys have completely hijacked my thread with a debate about mind body dualism. I would very much appreciate you starting a new thread. Thanks for your consideration.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And do you believe you have the same "chicken and egg problem" with vision and the eye? Do you think that vision existed before the eye? Or that vision can exist in the absence of an eye? Is the eye responsible for vision or does it merely "allow the vision to correlate with body"?

The only way there can be "vision" is if there is person from which the vision is obtained, right? So it goes back to a scientist...suppose a scientist was able to go in a lab and create a eyeball..he can create the eyeball, but he wont be able to create vision, because there is no person from which the vision can be attributed too. The same thing with consciousness, which is why it had to be a simulatenous thing, as opposed to a gradual, step-by step sort of thing.

 

[McBell]

The only way there can be "vision" is if there is person from which the vision is obtained, right? So it goes back to a scientist...suppose a scientist was able to go in a lab and create a eyeball..he can create the eyeball, but he wont be able to create vision, because there is no person from which the vision can be attributed too. The same thing with consciousness, which is why it had to be a simulatenous thing, as opposed to a gradual, step-by step sort of thing.