Consciousness

[Tricky]

Consciousness has been an issue on many threads here. Various people have various definitions. I think the dictionary does the best job with:

Quote:

Mirriam-Webster
Consciousness - the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought

Does consciousness go away when you sleep? Certainly you have sensations when you sleep, perhaps even thoughts, especially when dreaming.

What about things like breathing. You don't normally have to "think" about breathing, but you can hold your breath if you choose to do so.

Other bodily functions (like digestion) are mostly beyond your control, but are they influenced by consciousness?

What is the simplest creature in which you think consciousness exists?

I'll add my input later, but just wanted to get this started.

[Tricky]

D'oh! I realize there is a "Consciousness Explained..." thread. This one is for us dumb-asses who have never studied philosophy and think "The Hard Problem" can be solved with Viagra.

Quote:

Does consciousness go away when you sleep?

Rather obviously the answer to that is no.

Quote:

Other bodily functions (like digestion) are mostly beyond your control, but are they influenced by consciousness?

Yes.

Quote:

What is the simplest creature in which you think consciousness exists?

I personally think consciousness is all-pervading and exists in all living things to a certain extent. Maybe even plants.......

[Soubrette]

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I personally think consciousness is all-pervading and exists in all living things to a certain extent. Maybe even plants.......

Geoff

Do you think that plants are equally conscious to us i.e it's an on or off thing. Or maybe that they are less conscious and that there are varying degrees of consciousness?

Or something entirely different?

Thanks

Sou

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Soubrette


Geoff

Do you think that plants are equally conscious to us i.e it's an on or off thing. Or maybe that they are less conscious and that there are varying degrees of consciousness?

Or something entirely different?

Thanks

Sou

Thanks Sou. I meant to bring that up.
Does consciousness exist in various definable levels? Is it a continuum?

Another queston.
What is the "most conscious" you have ever been?

Quote:

Originally posted by Soubrette


Geoff

Do you think that plants are equally conscious to us i.e it's an on or off thing. Or maybe that they are less conscious and that there are varying degrees of consciousness?

Or something entirely different?

Thanks

Sou

Well there are varying degrees of consciousness within the class of beings we label human. Some of them are instensely aware of who and what they are and what sort of world they live in, others live their lives in a state of virtual zombiehood and might as well be dead by the time they hit 15 - these are the people who live their lives on autopilot and fill their days with passive activities like watching TV soap operas and never even ask themselves the big questions about life, let alone get anywhere near finding any answers. Then there are clearly varying degress of consciousness throughout the animal kingdom. If (If...) consciousness is primary, then plants also should be allotted their share of consciousness, however minimal this may be.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

Thanks Sou. I meant to bring that up.
Does consciousness exist in various definable levels? Is it a continuum?

Another queston.
What is the "most conscious" you have ever been?

When I thought I was about to die in a car crash. Heightened states of consciousness are when you are intensely aware of the present - of the NOW - rather than being lost in memories of the past, expectations of the future and the humdrum processes of the mind. Higher consciousness is being intensely aware of the present moment - and ultimately being aware that the present moment is all that there really is. Being highly conscious is when time seems to stop and you are intensely aware of 'Being'.

[Frostbite]

I think any living organism is somewhat conscious. As soon as it perceives something, wether it's heat, light, radiation, pressure, sound waves or whatever, and reacts to it, then it has some kind of conscience. A plant may have 0.00001% of our conscience but it still reacts to its environment.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


When I thought I was about to die in a car crash. Heightened states of consciousness are when you are intensely aware of the present - of the NOW - rather than being lost in memories of the past, expectations of the future and the humdrum processes of the mind. Higher consciousness is being intensely aware of the present moment - and ultimately being aware that the present moment is all that there really is. Being highly conscious is when time seems to stop and you are intensely aware of 'Being'.

I agree. The time I remember was when I had a summer job as an assistant air conditioner installer. We had to install ducts in a big factory and I had to work on scaffolding for the first time. I was terrified, and intensely aware of where I could grab on to things, where my feet were, whether I was completely balanced, and most of all, how far away the floor was and how much I would dislike falling. However, after getting used to it after a couple of weeks, I became much less "conscious".

[Michael Redman]

In my opinion, if, under your definition of conscious, a sleeping person is not unconscious, I think your definition varies from that used in standard English. Maybe the concept you're calling consciousness is better described in some other way.

Do you have volition when you're asleep?

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Well there are varying degrees of consciousness within the class of beings we label human. Some of them are instensely aware of who and what they are and what sort of world they live in, others live their lives in a state of virtual zombiehood and might as well be dead by the time they hit 15

Geoff,

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Babies and animals are conscious, however they are not self-aware.

I remember when was the first time that I was self-aware about my existence in this world.

I was about 5 years old, and for the first time I looked my face in a mirror and I wondered why I was living, why I was existing with that body, with that family, why in that time and so on. It was a strange feeling. I haven´t had such a strong feeling of after there.

Q-S

[chulbert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
Does consciousness go away when you sleep? Certainly you have sensations when you sleep, perhaps even thoughts, especially when dreaming.

You aren't characterized, that is distinguished, by those characteristics while you are sleeping - you just lay there unresponsive.

According to the MW definition, yes you lose conciousness while sleeping.

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Babies and animals are conscious, however they are not self-aware.

I remember when was the first time that I was self-aware about my existence in this world.

I was about 5 years old, and for the first time I looked my face in a mirror and I wondered why I was living, why I was existing with that body, with that family, why in that time and so on. It was a strange feeling. I haven´t had such a strong feeling of after there.

Q-S

The process of becoming self-aware that you sepak of is one step on the path to becoming more conscious. In a way animals and babies are naturally unified with everything else - they do not understand their own seperateness. I think you are describing the process of becoming aware of your own identity - the self-discovery of your ego. The state you arrive at after that change is what might be called 'egoic conciousness' and it is the state of most of humanity - it is mind-identified. I believe it is possible to go further than that - the next stage is to realise that there is an 'I' that is not the mind, but watches the mind. You do not use your mind. It uses you. That is the next stage - getting beyond self-awareness into a higher state, which is almost a return to where you came form as a baby, except it is a stage above egoic consciousness rather than a stage below.

Does that answer the question?

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source


Geoff,

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Babies and animals are conscious, however they are not self-aware.

I remember when was the first time that I was self-aware about my existence in this world.

I was about 5 years old, and for the first time I looked my face in a mirror and I wondered why I was living, why I was existing with that body, with that family, why in that time and so on. It was a strange feeling. I haven�Lt had such a strong feeling of after there.

Q-S

A very good point, QTπ. My definition did not include self awareness, but I'd bet that many people would include it in a definition of consciousness. However, I agree that it is a completely different thing.

Chulbert:
I agree somewhat. You lose some consciousness, but not all consciousness.

[Doctor X]

Consciousness requires an awareness of and, usually, ability to interact with the environment both internal and external. I write "usually" because one can get "funny" and cause a couple of lesions that prevent your ability to react physically to the environment.

If you suffer damage in the pons, you lose the ability to move your extremities, mouth, speak, 'n all. You remain conscious of your situation. Due to the anatomy of the consciousness mechanism, you usually have the ability to blink or at least move your eyes.

To be conscious, then, the reactions cannot be simple reflexes to the enviroment. "Reflex" generally presumes a nervous system--something plants and the French do not have [Stop that!--Ed.] Thus, the plant reacts in stereotypical and predictable fashions--turn to light, eat insect, uproot and chase the humans.

What about animals? Consciousness is a bit like porn--"I know it when I see it." With humans, lose of consciousness will release reflexes. Many of the activities of animals are reflexive. Indeed, many of the activities, if not all of the activities, of an infant are reflexive.

So . . . are infants unconscious? Hard to give an answer since we deal with a continuum--they have the potential and definitely develop it. Damage the infant and you create a situation similar to an adult. Over time, you understand the baby is not progressing.

A rather sad situation is hydranencephaly.

Some time during development, the wee spud suffered occlusion of both carotid arteries. This results in death and reabsorption of both cerebral hemispheres.

The infant looks normal. In fact it seems normal for a few months--crying, feeding, looking, smiling, pooping, attempting to electrocute the cat [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . sorry--are all reflexes.

The problem becomes notices because the child does not "progress." Often, the large space is filled with cerebrospinal fluid the child cannot reabsorb. The child develops hydrocephalus and a very noticable big head.

However, reflex reactions to pain exist. The child will cry--severely.

Is it conscious?

[ZZZzzzZZZZzzzzZZzz--Ed.]

The point of that is that determination can be difficult.

Now, consciousness is not a fixed state. Stupor refers specifically to the requirement of an external stimulus to maintain consciousness--comes from the idea of poking the sleeping drunk who then wakes up, barfs, then passes out again.

So, is sleep "conscious?" Depends on the stage. People who are asleep retain the ability to awaken--and I am sure quite a few can discuss how dreams took on events that took place in the "real world"--like the alarm clock or irate girlfiend approaching with the hatchet. In some stages, you are not at all conscious or reacting, with awareness, to the external environment, but that state changes, it is not fixed.

Can you influence bodily functions. Yes. The classic faint is one example. Can you become the "Yogi Kudo" or "Our Man Flint" and shut yourself off? Well . . . not really.

Some things like breathing have both a conscious and unconscious control for obvious advantages. Try thinking about breathing 10-20 times a minute and see how much of the porn sites you can surf. . . .

Simplest creature? Country Western fan, methinks.

Seriously, this gets difficult. Do apes learn language or did the trainers engage in a glorified fascilitated communication? I do not know, frankly. I will say that, despite stereotypical movements, the humble ape react spontaneously enough for me to consider it conscious.

Well . . . how much consciousness matters. Unfortunately we have examples in humanity--severely brain damaged patients. Many are conscious, but require round-the-clock nursing--far more than your dog, ape, or relative who listens to Hank Williams, Sr.

Thus, that something is conscious is more of a "it is not unconscious" rather than a statement of the quality of its ability to interact and even control the enviroment--or even have self-awareness.

--J.D.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Does that answer the question?

Yes, but it also raises more questions

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


['egoic conciousness'] I believe it is possible to go further than that - the next stage is to realise that there is an 'I' that is not the mind, but watches the mind.

Could you please explain what it is exactly an egoic consciousness?

If there is a difference between "I" and my mind, then how is it possible to separate what I "am" from "I" ?
This must be extremely difficult, such that what we are just a product of our physical environment. You end with nothing.

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

That is the next stage - getting beyond self-awareness into a higher state, which is almost a return to where you came form as a baby, except it is a stage above egoic consciousness rather than a stage below.

...a return to where we came from?. You mean, a subjective reality where nobody else can take a look, except you?. Is this the state that you have already reached?.

Q-S

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant



I personally think consciousness is all-pervading and exists in all living things to a certain extent. Maybe even plants.......

This smacks a bit of animism to me. IMO consciouness is an emergent property of complexity and plants fall way short of the mark.

[99%]

I think its pretty clear consciousness is automatically axiomatic.

If you weren't conscious you wouldn't and couldn't define the state of consciousness at all.

So consciousness, like existence just is.

[crocodile deathroll]

Many people are still of the mind set that time is something that has motion like and arrow and when they are unconscious or dead or are yet to be born there is still and external flow of time.

IMO Time is a fixed asymmetrical dimension and does not flow let alone have any property of continuity of flow after one's death. So people believe the their lives will eventually become a spent force in the wake of an absolute flow of time where in fact it is a real part of the space-time fabric.

[AmateurScientist]

Quote:

Originally posted by 99%
I think its pretty clear consciousness is automatically axiomatic.

If you weren't conscious you wouldn't and couldn't define the state of consciousness at all.

So consciousness, like existence just is.

A very good insight, if not terribly satisfying. Nevertheless, we will go on discussing and speculating about it endlessly. Humans want very much to know why it is they can even ask such questions. I predict we will understand exactly how consciousness arises and everything about it at the exact same moment we have a definite answer about whether or not a god exists.

AS

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

I predict we will understand exactly how consciousness arises and everything about it at the exact same moment we have a definite answer about whether or not a god exists.

Why?.
Materialism already provides a very good answer to how about consciousness arises...and it doesn´t require an answer to the God´s question nor makes any assumption about it.

QS

Quote:

Could you please explain what it is exactly an egoic consciousness?

Egoic consciousness is when 'I' identifies itself with thought and time. The ego constructs an identity out of its past, and continually seeks salvation in the future. It is only ever happy when it has found something it desired, but that doesn't keep it happy for very long. Soon it wants something else. It babbles in your head, and much of its babbling is either worthless or damaging.

"I" exists in the eternal 'now'. Mostly it just watches. The goal of meditation (one of) is to be present - to stop the time-bound ego with its inane babbling - to just be, and to just accept things how they are.

Quote:

...a return to where we came from?

In more ways than one.

Quote:

You mean, a subjective reality where nobody else can take a look, except you?

That is true of all subjective reality.

Quote:

If there is a difference between "I" and my mind, then how is it possible to separate what I "am" from "I" ?
This must be extremely difficult, such that what we are just a product of our physical environment.

No, it's not easy. But it gets easier. The ego is indeed a product of out physical environment. "I" is not.

We give ourselves away when we use phrases like "I can't live with myself." This rather infers that there are two entities here - an "I" and a "self" that the "I" can't live with.

Try this for more :

https://www.newworldlibrary.com/chapters/ppon.htm

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

No, it's not easy. But it gets easier. The ego is indeed a product of out physical environment. "I" is not.

Try this for more :
https://www.newworldlibrary.com/chapters/ppon.htm

UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist...

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source


UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist...

That's easy. "I" is fixed. It doesn't change. Your mind changes. Your emotions change. Your self-image constructed of your past changes, as do your aspirations for the future. But "I" remains the same, because it is the thing which experiences everything else. Your mind doesn't experience things - you experience what is happening in your mind. "I" isn't the 'product' of anything. "Ego" is the product of your environment and "I" experiences the ego. It even may think it is the ego, but it isn't - it just watches and remains the same. "I" is the one thing that has remained constant throughout the whole of your experiences of being alive.

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source


UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist...

Where would materialism be if there was no consciousness around in the universe to gain any insight on that philosophy?

Is there such an entity as a dumb rock materialist?

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


Where would materialism be if there was no consciousness around in the universe to gain any insight on that philosophy?

Is there such an entity as a dumb rock materialist?

Exactly. Materialism explains everything except why there is anything looking at the material.

Seeing the great discussion here I pose this question to all who are willing to undertake.

What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?

Obviously we cannot possibly have a true concept of anything before the moment of our birth, but what about after the moment of our death? I have often wondered if it is still possible to perceive things after death, that is perceive things without consciousness.

My speculation is that it might be like when a person is hovering between a state of REM sleep and consciousness. I can't speak for anyone else but I have somewhat of an occasional occurance when I sleep where I am not really aware and yet not really asleep, which is compounded by the fact that when it happens my eyes remain open. The last time it happened I swear that I saw my little brother standing beside my bed, and I can remember trying to reach out and touch him, but I could not move my hand and remained completely unresponsive. I remember trying to say something but my mouth would not move, and in my inbetween-sleep-and-awake state I remember panicing, until I suddenly jerked and was completely awake, staring at the same shadow in the corner of my room.

It hit me that perhaps that is what it is like to die. To be aware yet without consciousness. It is only speculation, and I have no proof to back up such a claim, but it makes for a good story doesn't it?

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Legallee Insane
Seeing the great discussion here I pose this question to all who are willing to undertake.

What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?

Obviously we cannot possibly have a true concept of anything before the moment of our birth, but what about after the moment of our death? I have often wondered if it is still possible to perceive things after death, that is perceive things without consciousness.

My speculation is that it might be like when a person is hovering between a state of REM sleep and consciousness. I can't speak for anyone else but I have somewhat of an occasional occurance when I sleep where I am not really aware and yet not really asleep, which is compounded by the fact that when it happens my eyes remain open. The last time it happened I swear that I saw my little brother standing beside my bed, and I can remember trying to reach out and touch him, but I could not move my hand and remained completely unresponsive. I remember trying to say something but my mouth would not move, and in my inbetween-sleep-and-awake state I remember panicing, until I suddenly jerked and was completely awake, staring at the same shadow in the corner of my room.

It hit me that perhaps that is what it is like to die. To be aware yet without consciousness. It is only speculation, and I have no proof to back up such a claim, but it makes for a good story doesn't it?

As far as consciousness is concerned, your brain IMO is the hard disk drive for life's memories but it is not the general operating system, that is genetically prompted like the rules for the morphology of brains in general.
So my theory is that when you die that brain along with your life's memories will wither and die and as such you will forget that you were ever born at all in the first place. In other words, oblivion. But the operating system in the form of genetic prompting mechanism to boot your sense of self into existence is still there any you will make a Gestalt switch to one of the other brains on this big picture.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Legallee Insane
What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?

I believe consciousness ends when you die. All of the various levels of consciousness (sleep, daydreaming, coma etc.) require at least some level of brain activity.

However, the mad scientist in me wants to say that since consciousness is a product of the brain, if you could somehow revive a dead brain, then that consciousness might exist again. You might at least recover memories and other brain-stored data. Possible? Not sure, but modern medicine has certainly redefined "possible" in the last few hundred years.

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
I believe consciousness ends when you die. All of the various levels of consciousness (sleep, daydreaming, coma etc.) require at least some level of brain activity.

However, the mad scientist in me wants to say that since consciousness is a product of the brain, if you could somehow revive a dead brain, then that consciousness might exist again. You might at least recover memories and other brain-stored data. Possible? Not sure, but modern medicine has certainly redefined "possible" in the last few hundred years.

I inclined believe your acquired skills and memories will end, period. But consciousness as it stands in the big picture will still remains.

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speak. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


I inclined believe your acquired skills and memories will end, period. But consciousness as it stands in the big picture will still remains.

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speak. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.

The idea that the body replaces itself every seven years is a popular myth. The only thing that replaces itself every seven years is your skin. Your brain cells don't ever replace themselves, which is why when they die, you lose memories and other functions.

People who suffer serious brain damage, as in a stroke, may recover many or most of their brain functions, but not all of them, due to other parts of the brain taking over missing functions. This suggests that the brain is the seat of consciousness, as does almost every other study of the subject. There is no evidence that consciousness can exist in the absence of a brain.

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

The idea that the body replaces itself every seven years is a popular myth. The only thing that replaces itself every seven years is your skin. Your brain cells don't ever replace themselves, which is why when they die, you lose memories and other functions.

People who suffer serious brain damage, as in a stroke, may recover many or most of their brain functions, but not all of them, due to other parts of the brain taking over missing functions. This suggests that the brain is the seat of consciousness, as does almost every other study of the subject. There is no evidence that consciousness can exist in the absence of a brain.

IMO I think you are still caught up in the old dogma that we have exactly the same brain matter that we had when we were a baby. It was believed to be hardwired with no plasicity -- wrong! . We do not even have the same brain matter we had when we were 7 but we may still have the same tooth enamel, so if you still have your second incisor teeth then that is the only thing that remains of you. This cannot happen with ordinary bone cells and for your information we turn over our bone cells every two years.

With hard robust material like tooth enamel that is understandable but the soft perishable material of the brain is IMO unlikely.

The proteins that constitute our brain cells also have to be turned over frequenty through protien synthesis there are house keeping enzymes that constantly replace sections of damaged DNA. So the only thing that need to remain of us is a pattern of information processing.
Through protein synthesis you would not replace the whole cell at one like bulldozing down a house and building a new one, Steven Rose said it would be analogous a fastidious brick layer/builder replacing one brick or stick of lumber every day until over a period of time he has replaced the whole house and still keep that original plan of the house intact in spite of the fact all the original material is turned over. And like that house the brain cells will all eventually replaced at just a few proteins at a time and not the entire cell all at once.

The old dogma that we have the same brain matter for life may be about to be shot down altogether and there may be evidence that not proteins are replaced but entire cells.
Even if they don't all brains were built on the same genetic rules for the cells to migrate to the respective positions in their brain.
It is these rules of genetic information processes is what made us possible to exist in the first place.

[PixyMisa]

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speak. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.

That's just silly. The brain cells carry on chemical activity within themselves without disrupting the function of the brain. There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain. Regardless of the activity within cells or the death of individual cells, brain function is continuous and provides a basis for consciousness.

Quote:

There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...

Keep saying it Pixy. That'll make it true.

The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...
The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...
The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...

Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem......

But I suppose it takes courage to admit that the internally rock solid belief system you have faith in is perched precariously on the claim that....

The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...



No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Exactly. Materialism explains everything except why there is anything looking at the material.

He, he, he....

Materialism DOES explain why and how something is looking at the material.

[PixyMisa]

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Keep saying it Pixy. That'll make it true.

Nope. If it's true in the first place, it's true no matter how many times I say it.

Quote:

The Hard Problem doesn't exist.

The "Hard Problem", as explained in the papers you've pointed out to me, is a really basic misunderstanding of the nature of language and its relationship with consciousness and the relevance of this to science. As I explained previously, language is completely irrelevant to the problem of forming an operational theory of consciousness.

Quote:

There is no Hard Problem.

There is a "Hard Problem", but it isn't a hard problem; it's just irrelevant. There's still the difficult problem of understanding in detail how the brain works.

Quote:

There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain.

And indeed there isn't. Or if there is, for some reason no-one has presented it on this forum.

Quote:

Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem.

I'll let the dancing demon speak for himself (?) there.

Quote:

But I suppose it takes courage to admit that the internally rock solid belief system you have faith in is perched precariously on the claim that.

My belief system, such as it is, is based on the acknowledged assumption that matter exists, and that everything is material or has a material basis. That's it.

Quote:

No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.

Which is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false. And you have not produced any evidence or reasoning to suggest that materialism may be false.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Quote:

Originally posted by PixyMisa

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll let the dancing demon speak for himself (?) there.

Thanks Buddy,and yes, I'm male. You might want to visit the HOUSE OF SOULS to know the faces of people that posts here.

UCE: I made clear that I'm agnostic in relation to the cemi field theory ONLY. The problem with the theory is that the TMS experiments that could modify the EM field also affect neurones directly, so the correlation observed in the tests don't account for causation. BUT the TMS evidence is conclusive. Consciousness is generated and defined by the brain.

Pixy:

Quote:

The "Hard Problem", as explained in the papers you've pointed out to me, is a really basic misunderstanding of the nature of language and its relationship with consciousness and the relevance of this to science.

There is a "Hard Problem", but it isn't a hard problem;

Ah. The Hard Problem isn't a hard problem!

Quote:

it's just irrelevant. There's still the difficult problem of understanding in detail how the brain works.

Erm.....nope. That's the Easy Problem, as quite clearly distinguished from the Hard Problem.

Quote:

My belief system, such as it is, is based on the acknowledged assumption that matter exists, and that everything is material or has a material basis. That's it.

and.......

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false.

Slow down Pix. I want you to think very carefully about what you have just written.

The thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is not dependent on ontology of any sort for whether or not it is true. You still don't seem to have grasped this, and you're clearly quite intelligent and it really isn't that hard to understand. "unless materialism is false" has absolutely jack diddley squat relevance to whether or not the thesis is true, because the thesis is a thesis about LANGUAGES.

Imagine I proposed another thesis, say :

"You can not derive a statement about colors from any set of non-color statements."

This is another thesis about the way language is constructed, and it is also true. It is a FACT. It does not depend on whether or not materialism is true, or Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true - it is just a FACT.

Well, the thesis....

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

...is just like the one about colours. It also does not depend on whether or not Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true or even whether or not materialism is true!

But you just said that this thesis

Quote:

is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false.

Has the penny dropped yet?

The thesis is NOT nonsense. It is TRUE, regardless of whether or not materialism is false. And this leaves you with a tricky problem because you are desperate to be able to go on claiming that

Quote:

And you have not produced any evidence or reasoning to suggest that materialism may be false.

You have just provided the evidence because you have just admitted that the above thesis must be nonsense UNLESS MATERIALISM IS FALSE. But the thesis is true..........

****When you respond to this post please think about the following questions****:

1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?

2) Is the thesis actually true?

3) Do you stand by your previous statement that "the thesis is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false."

[Doctor X]

I fear I may have missed the point somewhere or, perhaps, missed an antecedent point made in some thread.

Thus, I will deal with the easier problem:

Quote:

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones

No. As indicated by other writers, that a cell replaces proteins does not mean it replaces itself. On the contrary, it certainly does not relace its DNA. That one replaces the bricks does not make the house cease to exist. Now destroy the whole house--this is the stroke phenomena.

Right, now as to consciousness and the brain . . . the stroke paradigm is a great place to start. When a person suffers a loss, he suffers a loss [Deep.--Ed.] For example, a person with damage to the primary vision centers loses sight but does not know he is blind. He has a cognitive change.

Wait . . . I thought consciousness survived . . . why would it change?

A person who suffers the interesting alexia without agraphia [Loses connection between interpretive language areas and visual areas.--Ed.] can write but cannot read. Indeed, he cannot read what he writes. He can take dictation fine. He then cannot read it. He has lost this. It is no longer a part of his understanding. It is like trying to remember what it was like to be telepathic.

A person with generally bilateral frontal lobe damage--like Franko [Stop that!--Ed.]--okay . . . okay . . . [Apologize.--Ed.] "I am sorry Franko has frontal lobe damage [Cattle prod.--Ed.] OUCH!!" No sense of humor.

Right, yes, a person with bilateral frontal lobe damage generally loses initiative, judgement, the ability to plan complex actions. These abilities are lost.

Why? Since consciousness is not a result of the material of the brain should these abilities not remain somehow? Do you have to wait to die to get them back?

Awhile ago I [Pontificated on--Ed.] discussed the anatomy of consciousness. Allow me to repeat it a bit here. To lose consciousness you either must commit a bilateral global assault on both cerebral cortices--asphyxia, severe head injury, a Paul McCartney concert--or functionally/physiologically separate them from the brain stem ascending reticular activating system or ARAS.

Now . . . ye who thinketh substance not important . . . damage the ARAS--head injury, stroke and . . . despite the fact the "thinking brain"--no, not THAT! The cerebral cortices, you sick pigs!--is quite preserved the patient never regains consciousness.

Just a simple little separation.

Where did it go?

Long story short, the brain requires this trigger to maintain consciousness. This does rather put a damper on those who want consciousness to be separate from the brain since it demonstrates with death of the brain consciousness and everything that makes you "you" goes with it.

Yet, look at other pathology. Dementia of various forms do not render the person unconscious. They react purposefully to the environment. They are not who they were. In fact they have, as one commentator put it, "lost everything that makes a human human."

Where did it go? It is "out there" just waiting for death? By all means let us euthanize the demented or even the slightly brain damaged because at least it will bring them "back" somewhere.

I do not think anyone argues that.

Now, if the structure preserves personality, all of that which make us "us" can we regain it? It is hoped that, eventually, we will get stem cells to replace damaged brain tissue. This is not easy, neurons grow in overabundance, compete for connections, and even undergo programed death during development. It is "hoped" that the wee-buggers will "know" how to "rewire" themselves.

Let us assume that they will.

Do "you" come back? Okay, you regain your sight--not much of an effect on personality. Even language skills should not change you much.

What about frontal lobe damage? [What about it?--Ed.] What about the wide-spread damage of severe head injury also known as diffuse axonal injury? [The connection processes get sheared.--Ed.] If the connections create "you" will the new cell or repaired cells remake the connections?

Replace the destroyed neurons of dementia. Will "you" come back?

--J.D.

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by PixyMisa
The brain cells carry on chemical activity within themselves without disrupting the function of the brain. There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain. Regardless of the activity within cells or the death of individual cells, brain function is continuous and provides a basis for consciousness.

Exactly, consciousness is more than just the material of your brain. There is energy and chemical interactions and exchanges and if that was just "matter" you would still be conscious even if your brain was frozen as solid as a rock.
The brain would be analogous to a home sick Eskimo living in an ice igloo in the middle of the Sahara desert and to maintain the shape and structure he just replaces the one block he considers to be in the most advanced state of thawing. But realizes that if he slacks off the igloo will just melt into the hot sand and evaporate out of sight.
Same as the brain proteins like prions have to be turned over all the time.