Where am I ?

Matteo Martini · 14th December 2004, 06:01 PM

So, this a new subject, I do not know if it has been around the forum lately but I could not find it.

So, where am I ?

Apparently, you could reply, you are right in front on the computer screen, sit on a chair and you should go to bed.

However, when I ask where exactly am I, you can find some problems ..

You could say that I am where my body is, but, I can reply to you, where exactly ?

I am not in my hand, because if I cut it ( no intention to do it, just let's suppose ), I will still be there, I am not in my legs, not in my chest, etc.

Because men can survive without legs, heart, maybe they could not walk or they will need an artificial heart, but they would still be there.

Then you can say:

1) You are your brain, because this is the part of your body dedicated to thought and because without brain you would be dead

Then, I would ask, the brain is made of billions of neurons and synapses. Which of these synapses and neurons am I ?
Moreover, medical literature quotes cases of people with big parts of their brains damaged by cancer but still being able to talk normally and with no problem recognizing other people.

2) You are your soul

Then, where is my soul and my body interact

3) Your mind is an illusion, existing is an illusion, nobody really exists ..

Then if we ( you and me ) do not really exist, just put your hand on that burning fire, Wow, you are shouting and crying, why if you do not exist ?

So, where am I ?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 14th December 2004, 06:04 PM

On the planet Neptune?

~~ Paul

KingMerv00 · 14th December 2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
So, this a new subject, I do not know if it has been around the forum lately but I could not find it.

So, where am I ?

Apparently, you could reply, you are right in front on the computer screen, sit on a chair and you should go to bed.

However, when I ask where exactly am I, you can find some problems ..

You could say that I am where my body is, but, I can reply to you, where exactly ?

I am not in my hand, because if I cut it ( no intention to do it, just let's suppose ), I will still be there, I am not in my legs, not in my chest, etc.

Because men can survive without legs, heart, maybe they could not walk or they will need an artificial heart, but they would still be there.

Then you can say:

1) You are your brain, because this is the part of your body dedicated to thought and because without brain you would be dead

Then, I would ask, the brain is made of billions of neurons and synapses. Which of these synapses and neurons am I ?
Moreover, medical literature quotes cases of people with big parts of their brains damaged by cancer but still being able to talk normally and with no problem recognizing other people.

2) You are your soul

Then, where is my soul and my body interact

3) Your mind is an illusion, existing is an illusion, nobody really exists ..

Then if we ( you and me ) do not really exist, just put your hand on that burning fire, Wow, you are shouting and crying, why if you do not exist ?

So, where am I ?

You are not IN a neuron. You ARE them. Their effect is cumulative. If I tore out one brain cell at a time, I would eventually notice a change. You (and I) are simply so part of our reality that we are unable to imagine what it is like NOT to exist.

I'm sure there are cases where cancer did not harm a person's functionality. There are also many recorded cases of brain damage doing INCREDIBLE damage to a human's personality. If I were a soul, my personality would never be changed by brain damage.

What method do we use to know that you soul hypothesis is right and my brain hypothesis is wrong?

Matteo Martini · 14th December 2004, 09:31 PM

Quote:

You are not IN a neuron. You ARE them. Their effect is cumulative

This is a weak argument, in my opinion.
I would agree that you could justify memory, facial recognition, learning etc. with neurons but not self-cosciousness.
Self-consciousness is not, in my opinion, something that you can have " a little bit ", either you are self-conscious ( like humans, cats, whales and dogs ) or you are not ( a chair, a computer ).
So, if you tear away the neurons from the memory region, you will probably will not remember things of your past, but you would still know that you exist.
So, how can you isaloate the neurons of self-consciousness ?

Quote:

What method do we use to know that you soul hypothesis is right and my brain hypothesis is wrong?

Do not start attacking me if I speak about " soul " and " religion", many skeptics do this.
I also never said that the soul hypothesis was right just another one.

Quote:

On the planet Neptune?

Probably, at this time of night, yes.

Nex · 14th December 2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
This is a weak argument, in my opinion.
I would agree that you could justify memory, facial recognition, learning etc. with neurons but not self-cosciousness.
Self-consciousness is not, in my opinion, something that you can have " a little bit ", either you are self-conscious ( like humans, cats, whales and dogs ) or you are not ( a chair, a computer ).
So, if you tear away the neurons from the memory region, you will probably will not remember things of your past, but you would still know that you exist.
So, how can you isaloate the neurons of self-consciousness ?

Your argument rests upon the unfalsifiable, which unfortunately makes it very, very weak.

Your opinion is that consciouness stems from a soul. Souls are unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove or disprove your hypothesis.

However, KingMerv's argument states that consciousness is cumulative neural action. We may not know for sure if this is the case right now, but his hypothesis is falsifiable, and with increases in medical knowledge, we will be able to see if he is right or wrong. (my guess-- he's right)

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Do not start attacking me if I speak about " soul " and " religion", many skeptics do this.
I also never said that the soul hypothesis was right just another one.

Don't get so defensive. It's a very valid question.

I'll restate it-- How can we test your theory against KingMerv's? How can we find a way to validate or invalidate what you say?

Without a theory of how to test your claim, it gets relegated to the top shelf, where it will sit and gather dust until we have testing protocols for it.

Ratman_tf · 14th December 2004, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini

Self-consciousness is not, in my opinion, something that you can have " a little bit ", either you are self-conscious ( like humans, cats, whales and dogs ) or you are not ( a chair, a computer ).
So, if you tear away the neurons from the memory region, you will probably will not remember things of your past, but you would still know that you exist.

I'm curious where exactly you draw the self-concious line.
Is a virus self-consious?

Nex · 14th December 2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I'm curious where exactly you draw the self-concious line.
Is a virus self-consious?

Good question. I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet.

KingMerv00 · 14th December 2004, 10:06 PM

This is a weak argument, in my opinion.
I would agree that you could justify memory, facial recognition, learning etc. with neurons but not self-cosciousness.
Self-consciousness is not, in my opinion, something that you can have " a little bit ", either you are self-conscious ( like humans, cats, whales and dogs ) or you are not ( a chair, a computer ).
So, if you tear away the neurons from the memory region, you will probably will not remember things of your past, but you would still know that you exist.
So, how can you isaloate the neurons of self-consciousness ?

Indeed you CAN have "a little bit" of consciousness.

For example, you suggest that humans, cats, whales and dogs are self-aware. Well, let's go farther down the evolutionary ladder. How about eagles? Finches? Turtles? Goldfish? Squid? Sponges? Amoeba? Viruses? Prions?

Each step you go down you become less self-aware. Consciousness is not a toggle switch, it is a dimmer switch.

Do not start attacking me if I speak about " soul " and " religion", many skeptics do this.
I also never said that the soul hypothesis was right just another one.

Good answer. I will never attack someone who says they do not know something. However, if you want to convince me of your hypothesis, I would need more information.

Nex · 14th December 2004, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KingMerv00
[b]Consciousness is not a toggle switch, it is a dimmer switch.

That makes sense.

KingMerv00 · 14th December 2004, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nex
That makes sense.

I stole that metaphor from somewhere so don't give me credit. I think it was Shermer.

Peter Soderqvist · 14th December 2004, 11:20 PM

Immaterial self-awareness is falsified when the neural program for self-awareness is decoded!

Iacchus · 15th December 2004, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini

So, where am I ?

You are standing in the ever-present, which always was, and always will be, there here and now.

H3LL · 15th December 2004, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
So, where am I ?

I have no idea, but I know how fast you are moving.

KingMerv00 · 15th December 2004, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
You are standing in the ever-present, which always was, and always will be, there here and now.

Oh jeez...not again.

Upchurch · 15th December 2004, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by H3LL
I have no idea, but I know how fast you are moving.

Okay, when I use the expression "lol" I usually mean that something was funny enough to make me involuntarily smile. This made me actually laugh out loud. Bravo.

Matteo Martini · 15th December 2004, 07:23 AM

OK, before writing again, let me reply to Nex

Nex wrote " I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet "
I think dogs and cats are self -conscious. Self-conscious being have the ability to " feel " pleasure and pain while non self-coscious do not.
My cat feels pain ( do not quesiton me on how I know that, please ), while a rock do not.

Nex wrote again " Your opinion is that consciouness stems from a soul. Souls are unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove or disprove your hypothesis "
But I never said that I believe that consciouness stems from a soul !!
It is just one hypothesis among the others.
It is funny that you ( and maybe others ) believe that I believe that consciouness stems from a soul even if I never said that.

Just back on track.

I see that the main opinion here is that consciouness stems from a brain, and that is a kind of dimmer switch, which I do not know what it is but I assume it means that self-consciousness can grow from 0 ( rock ) to 5 ( worm ) to 20 ( cat ) to 100 ( human ) or something like that.

Now I will try to disprove this point.

1) If self-consciousness stems from the brain, it is obvious that, the less brain you have, the less self-consciousness you have, right ? No brain, no self-consciousness.
Now, I am not a neurologist but I read something in neurology journals that many parts of the brain are " dedicated " to specific tasks, like motion, memory, facial recognition, etc.
I admit I do not know this in deep.
I also know that, some people having brain cancer or ictuses had some part of their brain damaged sometimes even nearly half of it.
In some cases that person dies, but in other cases the person is still completely conscious, just some of the person functions like motion, sight, memory are impaired.
Now, self-consciousness has nothing to do with motion, sight, memory.
I can think at one person ( a very unlucky one, though ) having sight, hearing, memory abilities severely impaired, he would probably not be able to see, hear, remember things of the past but he would be able to feel that he exists here and now as much as I do ( I do not know if he would like to exist anynore after this, but this is another problem ).
So, maybe it is not the whole brain which stems self-consciousness, but only one part. Which one though ?

2) Let' s think about the neurons and synapsys. Let' s think that their functions about information processing could be replicated using a very sophysticated version of the modern microprocessor.
The function of the neurons is to manage information, is not it?
So, I do not think there is no conceptual obstacle in thinking about replicating them using very sophysticated version of the modern microprocessor ( yet to be built, of course !! )
Then, let' s assume to connect one trillion of those Pentium XIs with cables, will we have built a brain.
Will this machine be self-conscious or not ??
If not, why ?
Because humans are organic and this machine would be made of silicon and metal ?
This should not metter, should it ?
So, let' s assume that we had been able to replicate a brain and that this brain will be self-conscious.
We can add mechanic legs, robotic arms, sensors, camera with voice and facial recognition, it is nothing impossible to think, MIT Artificial Intelligence Labs are already working on this.
My opinion is that this machine will not be self-conscious !!
Maybe we could, ultimately, built a machine that will act like a person, remember, move, recognize people, talk, etc. but it will not feel anything.
I will try to disprove the fact that this machine will be self-conscious.
Take away one microprocessor at time from this machine' s brain.
Will his ( its ) self-consciousness fade away like the HAL in 2001: A space Odissey ?
Then, with one or few microprocessors, will the once fully self-conscious machine still be self-conscious, just a little bit ?
As ratman_tf said: I'm curious where exactly you draw the self-concious line.
I can say the same thing.
Then maybe even the Pentium 4 of this computer is self-conscious, just a little, little, little, little bit ?

Matteo

Dragonrock · 15th December 2004, 08:16 AM

Human minds act they way the do because of all the parts and the way they interact. Because we are trapped in our own minds, we don't know how it feels to be something else. We know we are self aware, but what can we compare that to? We have no way to look outside our own frame of reference.

To ask which part of the brain makes consciousness is like asking which part makes a car go. While the engine provides the power, without the transmission, axles, and wheels there is no way to use that power to put the car in motion. If we were unable to take apart a car to see how it runs and could only remove different parts and see how that removal affects the car's ability to function then it would take a very long time to determine exactly how a car works.

The same may be true of the brain. Perhaps if we were able to slowly remove little pieces of the brain then we would eventually be able to find where the conciousness originates. However, that would be VERY unethical, so all we have is what we learn from people who end up brain damaged from other sources.

Z · 15th December 2004, 08:42 AM

Wherever you go, there you are.

Yaotl · 15th December 2004, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
OK, before writing again, let me reply to Nex

Nex wrote " I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet "
I think dogs and cats are self -conscious. Self-conscious being have the ability to " feel " pleasure and pain while non self-coscious do not.
My cat feels pain ( do not quesiton me on how I know that, please ), while a rock do not.

Matteo

So your definition of being self-conscious is to feel physical pain and pleasure? If that capacity is damaged in someone, are they no longer self-conscious?

KingMerv00 · 15th December 2004, 09:05 AM

I am reading a book right now entitled "The God Gene".

A couple of the chapters deal with the brain and religious experience. I can't remember specifics but there are parts of the brain which allow you to separate yourself from the rest of the universe. Damaging this spot or stimulating it with drugs/electiricty can cause yourself to feel "at one with the universe". Pretty neat actually. Not a bad book.

Edit: Btw, I really appreciate that you are actually addressing questions directly and trying to use logic to solve them. Some posters can't seem to do that.

Matteo Martini · 15th December 2004, 03:00 PM

Yaotl wrote:
" So your definition of being self-conscious is to feel physical pain and pleasure? If that capacity is damaged in someone, are they no longer self-conscious? "
No, being able is to feel physical pain and pleasure is one property that only self-conscious entities have ( men, women, cats, dogs, not tocks ).
My definition of self-conscious individual is a individual who knows that he/she is there, that is existing in that very moment.

Dragonrock, the analogy with the car does not work, in my opinion.
A car is not different from the sum of its parts, actually " car " is a name we give to wheels, engine, axles, etc.
I am not the sum of all my neurons !!
At least, we could discuss sbout it and I can try to prove you that I am not.
I am something different from all the neurons that are in my brain and none of the neurons of my brain is me.

Dragonrock wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps if we were able to slowly remove little pieces of the brain then we would eventually be able to find where the conciousness originates. However, that would be VERY unethical, so all we have is what we learn from people who end up brain damaged from other sources.

Neurologists have already mapped the human brain, where there is the part devoted for language skills, sight, memory.
No part devoted for " self-consciousness " found

Interesting Ian · 15th December 2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nex
Good question. I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet.

No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity.

Interesting Ian · 15th December 2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nex
Your argument rests upon the unfalsifiable, which unfortunately makes it very, very weak.

What is this person's argument?

Quote:

Your opinion is that consciouness stems from a soul.

How do you know this is that person's opinion?

Quote:

Souls are unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove or disprove your hypothesis.

Are non-souls unfalsifiable too?

Z · 15th December 2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity.

Proof, please?

Interesting Ian · 15th December 2004, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Proof, please?

Why? You wouldn't understand it. You never understand anything else after all.

Matteo Martini · 15th December 2004, 04:11 PM

Self-conscious or conscious, call it as you want.
The fact the I know I exist

Z · 15th December 2004, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why? You wouldn't understand it. You never understand anything else after all.

Who says I want it for my own benefit? "Mind-numbingly extraordinary claims require mind-numbingly extraordinary evidence."

Now, you are claiming that ONLY humans are self-aware, are you not? Back up the claim.

However, chances are, you either a) have no evidence or b) have once again completely failed to understand scientific evidence, or c) are simply calling scientific facts 'wrong' in light of your own opinion.

Now, are you going to continue this childish cop-out, or will you provide your proof that only Humans are self-aware, as a responsible adult would?

Yahweh · 15th December 2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity.

My cat rather likes to look at himself in the mirror.

Correa Neto · 16th December 2004, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity.

OK, but where to draw the line? How (perhaps better ask when and/or in wich species) such trait evolved?

Actually I would like to add that the "enduring" can be disputed, since you can not deny the possibility that what we actually experience is an illusion of consience continuity.

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
...snip...
I am not the sum of all my neurons !!
...snip...

No. You are the result of interactions between the activities of all your neurons as well as all your body.

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Neurologists have already mapped the human brain, where there is the part devoted for language skills, sight, memory.
No part devoted for " self-consciousness " found

Note that damaging the brain surely causes negative efects on the consiousness. In some cases, there are personality changes. In others, more dramatic, the person can hardly be called rational or even self-consient.

uruk · 16th December 2004, 07:42 AM

Quote:

I am not the sum of all my neurons !!
At least, we could discuss sbout it and I can try to prove you that I am not.
I am something different from all the neurons that are in my brain and none of the neurons of my brain is me.

The sum total of all the neurons in your brain contain all your memories, experiances and mental faculties. It is in the brain where all sensory input is processed and evaluated by the individual parts and a thought stream is generated.
Your brain IS you. "You" go wherever your brain goes.

Google lobotomy and the frontal lobe. Most of what we would consider "our personality" and "individual drive" appears to stem from this particular area. So maybe that is where "you" are.

Also google alzhimers, people with that desease undergo a significant personality change.

Quote:

Yaotl wrote:
" So your definition of being self-conscious is to feel physical pain and pleasure? If that capacity is damaged in someone, are they no longer self-conscious? "
No, being able is to feel physical pain and pleasure is one property that only self-conscious entities have ( men, women, cats, dogs, not tocks ).

Google Kulver-Bucy syndrome.
Also, what level of conciouseness do people with mental retardation posses?

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nex
Good question. I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity.

I have had many dogs and cats and I do believe that they have some level of self-awareness. they give the physical apearance of the experiance of jealousy, happiness, anger, fear, etc. All these behaiviours would seem to mean that the the animal has a sense of individual self. (i.e. that IT is in danger, or not recieving the attention that another is recieving, spitefull or angry that the other animal is recieving attention and not IT...etc..)

My experinace has led to believe that self-awareness and conciousness is not black and white. There are many levels of conciousness.

KingMerv00 · 16th December 2004, 07:46 AM

I've said it in another thread:

Show me a human with no electrical impulses in their brain who can still hold a conversation THEN I will consider dualism.

Dragonrock · 16th December 2004, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Dragonrock, the analogy with the car does not work, in my opinion.
A car is not different from the sum of its parts, actually " car " is a name we give to wheels, engine, axles, etc.

A car is more than the sum of it's parts. Most of the parts would have no value outside of their use in cars. If there were no cars what good would 500 brake pads do you? Or 250 radiator hoses? How about 100 mufflers? By taking a pile of independently useless parts were are able to create a usefull machine.

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I am not the sum of all my neurons !!
At least, we could discuss sbout it and I can try to prove you that I am not.

No, you aren't the sum of your neurons, but you are the square of your neurons. Neurons interact in a very complex manner making the number of connections many times higher than the number of neurons.

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I am something different from all the neurons that are in my brain and none of the neurons of my brain is me.

Yes, and WindowsXP is different from one line of code and one line of is not WindowsXP. If you are something outside of your neurons then how come hunger makes most people aggresive? Why do low levels of neurotransmitters cause depression? Why did my brother-in-law completely change his taste in food after having a stroke? Physical changes in the brain affect mood and personality.

Interesting Ian · 16th December 2004, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I've said it in another thread:

Show me a human with no electrical impulses in their brain who can still hold a conversation THEN I will consider dualism.

Go to this thread I just started last night. First post is an entire chapter from a book. Scroll down in that first post until you see the heading:
"Does the Brain Produce or Transmit Consciousness?"

Read it.

Then go to the 3rd post in the thread by me. I reproduce an extract from my forthcoming website. Read that also.

Z · 16th December 2004, 09:25 AM

Ian, this referenced post in NO way answers his question. And that excerpt you posted, along with your own excerpt, are really ridiculous. But others have already explained this to you repeatedly.

KingMerv00 · 16th December 2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Go to this thread I just started last night. First post is an entire chapter from a book. Scroll down in that first post until you see the heading:
"Does the Brain Produce or Transmit Consciousness?"

Read it.

Then go to the 3rd post in the thread by me. I reproduce an extract from my forthcoming website. Read that also.

I read everything you suggested.

The Brain-Dead Woman:

The author points out the problems in his own theory (that's a good skeptical mind at work) so I won't bother.

The Changing Mind:

You suggest that the mind must always be changing and therefore we could never have a sense of self that is consistant, that you are the same person you were yesterday.

I say this fits just fine with the material mind theory. The brain stores memories as specific configurations of neurons. All the brain must do is maintain these cells in that configuration and the memories will still be there. The idea of being the "same person" is an illusion created by our brain structure and memories.

(On a side note, I am a VERY different person than I was when I was younger.)

Correlation/Causation

The article suggests that just because electrochemical reactions occur at the same time as consciousness does not mean they CAUSE consciousness. Fair enough. However this is not positive evidence for a soul, just wiggle room for a possibility. For the record, I see no evidence for a soul therefore I don't believe in one.

However, the study of brain damage does in fact suggest that the brain causes consciousness.

Take this part of my brain out and I forget stuff. Take that part out and I loose the boundry between myself and the rest of the world etc. etc.

In the end, my statement holds true:

"Show me a human with no electrical impulses in their brain who can still hold a conversation THEN I will consider dualism. "

I remain agnostic on the existance of a soul. The onus is on the person making the positive claim so for now...I don't believe.

Matteo Martini · 16th December 2004, 09:49 AM

Correa Neto wrote:
" You are the result of interactions between the activities of all your neurons as well as all your body "

Dragonrock wrote:
" No, you aren't the sum of your neurons, but you are the square of your neurons. Neurons interact in a very complex manner making the number of connections many times higher than the number of neurons "

uruk wrote:
" Your brain IS you. "You" go wherever your brain goes "

The main opinion on self-consciousness the people on this thread have is that self-consciousness somehow originates from interactions between neurons and synapses in the brain. Even if a person is none of his neurons/synapses, still he is the sum ( squared sum ) of all of them and of their mutual interactions. Is that correct ?

I will try now to disprove this point.

1) I hope it is accepted by everyone that a person is none of its neurons taken singularly. I do not know if neurons are self-conscious or not ( I would rather doubt this, but this is not the point ), but certainly I am not any of my neurons, right ?

2) Now, let' s imagine to take two healthy neurons linked with some synapses, let' s suppose that we can recreate the condition of the body in this lab so that the two neurons can live, transmit signals and operate like if they were in the brain. I do not know if this is technically feasible at the moment, but not too difficult to imagine, right ?

3) Now the two neurons would operate together, all the two single neurons would be living and healthy, but will there be any conscious entity generating from the two neurons ? No. There would be no "very-little-conscious-person-with-a-two-neuron-brain". There would be only two neurons operating, no other self-conscious entity, right ?
If somebody claims that two neurons linked together generate even an exterenely low conscious self-consciousness, then please tell me where this conciousness should be coming from, from the electrical charges ? From what ?

4) Let's start adding neurons, firstly another one, then another one, we will get a bunch of one hundred, one thousand neurons linked together and operating. Will there be generated any kind of self-consciousness here ? Will this very little brain know that he/she is existing ? If you answer yes, please tell me when exactly this brain start to become conscious. If you say that consciousness grows from zero ( no neurons ) to human consciouness ( 100 billion neurons, if I remember well ) then even two or three neurons should generate a little, little, little, little bit of consciouness, right ? Then answer to point 3)

5) Continuing this process we have somehow built a human brain. Do not tell me that we do not know how to do this process, we do not know yet, but there is no conceptual obstacle to overcome, right ?
So, will this brain be conscious or not ?

Dragonrock: your analogy with the car does not work.
The whole point is about self-consciousness.
Human are self-conscious, cars are not ( as far as I know, at least ).

uruk:
" Google lobotomy and the frontal lobe. Most of what we would consider "our personality" and "individual drive" appears to stem from this particular area. So maybe that is where "you" are "
Those you are quoting ( indiivdual drive, personality ) are all attibutes of the individual, they are not the individual.
I am not the sum of my memory, my individual drives, my personality, I am all this plus I know that I am here ( self-consciousness )
I would rather doubt that there is just one part of the brain dedicated to personality ( there is no clear definition of personality agreed to all dictionaries ).
However, even if there would be a part of the brain that explicates why I behave in this way, another one that explicates why I remember things, etc. where is the part of the brain that explicates that I, in this very moment, feel that I am existing ( again, self-consciousness )

Dragonrock · 16th December 2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Dragonrock: your analogy with the car does not work.
The whole point is about self-consciousness.
Human are self-conscious, cars are not ( as far as I know, at least ).

Matteo,

I don't know if you don't understand or if you are being deliberately obtuse, but I never said car were self-conscious. My analogy simply pointed out that many things, including our brains, are greater than what they are made of. The brain is a complex organ that we don't have complete understanding of. However, just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that some supernatural force controls it.

Matteo Martini · 16th December 2004, 11:35 AM

" I don't know if you don't understand or if you are being deliberately obtuse "

Please do not start to insult

" I never said car were self-conscious "

I never said you said that, I just pointed out that the analogy does not work.

" My analogy simply pointed out that many things, including our brains, are greater than what they are made of "

I agree with that.
The main point of this thread is to know where self-consciousness comes from. While cars, families, computers are greater than what they are made of but are not self-conscious, the person is. Why ?

" just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that some supernatural force controls it. "
This hypothesis of the " soul " is just an unproven hypothesis among other unproven hypothesis.

Correa Neto · 16th December 2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
...snip...
I am not the sum of my memory, my individual drives, my personality, I am all this plus I know that I am here ( self-consciousness )
I would rather doubt that there is just one part of the brain dedicated to personality ( there is no clear definition of personality agreed to all dictionaries ).

However, even if there would be a part of the brain that explicates why I behave in this way, another one that explicates why I remember things, etc. where is the part of the brain that explicates that I, in this very moment, feel that I am existing ( again, self-consciousness )

The brain is adaptable. When a give "center" is damaged, other areas may, in a given time, assume their tasks.

Please, donÂ´t jump in to the conclusion that this is proof of an agent external to the brain. An analogy (perhaps a poor one, but I wanted to avoid HD analogies) would be someone who lost the right hand and started to write with the left one (assuming he/she was not left-handed).

The personality of a person will be affected not only if his/her brain is damaged, but also by chemical substances, like hormones. Large electrical shocks may also affect an individualÂ´s personality.

Note that no one here claimed that a particular area of the brain is responsible by self-awareness. The "self", if you want to call the"self-awareness sensation" like this, is generated by the interactions between neurons, body, chemicals, etc. It is dependent of these interactions. Change one of these and you will change the self, eventually terminating it.

As for your brain experiment, well, I think that it would gain counsioussness, if provided with enough stimulae. Note that one could ask when consioussness starts in "naturally-born" humans. Are 6-months old babies consient? Where to draw the line?

And one can ask when it ends. Where to draw the line for people with severe brain damage?

Matteo Martini · 16th December 2004, 11:42 AM

" I don't know if you don't understand or if you are being deliberately obtuse "

Please do not start to insult

" I never said car were self-conscious "

I never said you said that, I just pointed out that the analogy does not work because cars are not self-conscious while men are.

" My analogy simply pointed out that many things, including our brains, are greater than what they are made of "

I agree with that.
The main point of this thread is to know where self-consciousness comes from. While cars, families, computers are greater than what they are made of but are not self-conscious, the person is. Why ?

" just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that some supernatural force controls it. "
This hypothesis of the " soul " is an unproven hypothesis among other unproven hypothesis.

14th December 2004, 06:01 PM	#1
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Where am I ? So, this a new subject, I do not know if it has been around the forum lately but I could not find it. So, where am I ? Apparently, you could reply, you are right in front on the computer screen, sit on a chair and you should go to bed. However, when I ask where exactly am I, you can find some problems .. You could say that I am where my body is, but, I can reply to you, where exactly ? I am not in my hand, because if I cut it ( no intention to do it, just let's suppose ), I will still be there, I am not in my legs, not in my chest, etc. Because men can survive without legs, heart, maybe they could not walk or they will need an artificial heart, but they would still be there. Then you can say: 1) You are your brain, because this is the part of your body dedicated to thought and because without brain you would be dead Then, I would ask, the brain is made of billions of neurons and synapses. Which of these synapses and neurons am I ? Moreover, medical literature quotes cases of people with big parts of their brains damaged by cancer but still being able to talk normally and with no problem recognizing other people. 2) You are your soul Then, where is my soul and my body interact 3) Your mind is an illusion, existing is an illusion, nobody really exists .. Then if we ( you and me ) do not really exist, just put your hand on that burning fire, Wow, you are shouting and crying, why if you do not exist ? So, where am I ?
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

14th December 2004, 06:04 PM	#2
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,588	On the planet Neptune? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

14th December 2004, 07:05 PM	#3
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Re: Where am I ? Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini So, this a new subject, I do not know if it has been around the forum lately but I could not find it. So, where am I ? Apparently, you could reply, you are right in front on the computer screen, sit on a chair and you should go to bed. However, when I ask where exactly am I, you can find some problems .. You could say that I am where my body is, but, I can reply to you, where exactly ? I am not in my hand, because if I cut it ( no intention to do it, just let's suppose ), I will still be there, I am not in my legs, not in my chest, etc. Because men can survive without legs, heart, maybe they could not walk or they will need an artificial heart, but they would still be there. Then you can say: 1) You are your brain, because this is the part of your body dedicated to thought and because without brain you would be dead Then, I would ask, the brain is made of billions of neurons and synapses. Which of these synapses and neurons am I ? Moreover, medical literature quotes cases of people with big parts of their brains damaged by cancer but still being able to talk normally and with no problem recognizing other people. 2) You are your soul Then, where is my soul and my body interact 3) Your mind is an illusion, existing is an illusion, nobody really exists .. Then if we ( you and me ) do not really exist, just put your hand on that burning fire, Wow, you are shouting and crying, why if you do not exist ? So, where am I ? You are not IN a neuron. You ARE them. Their effect is cumulative. If I tore out one brain cell at a time, I would eventually notice a change. You (and I) are simply so part of our reality that we are unable to imagine what it is like NOT to exist. I'm sure there are cases where cancer did not harm a person's functionality. There are also many recorded cases of brain damage doing INCREDIBLE damage to a human's personality. If I were a soul, my personality would never be changed by brain damage. What method do we use to know that you soul hypothesis is right and my brain hypothesis is wrong?

14th December 2004, 09:31 PM	#4
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Quote: You are not IN a neuron. You ARE them. Their effect is cumulative This is a weak argument, in my opinion. I would agree that you could justify memory, facial recognition, learning etc. with neurons but not self-cosciousness. Self-consciousness is not, in my opinion, something that you can have " a little bit ", either you are self-conscious ( like humans, cats, whales and dogs ) or you are not ( a chair, a computer ). So, if you tear away the neurons from the memory region, you will probably will not remember things of your past, but you would still know that you exist. So, how can you isaloate the neurons of self-consciousness ? Quote: What method do we use to know that you soul hypothesis is right and my brain hypothesis is wrong? Do not start attacking me if I speak about " soul " and " religion", many skeptics do this. I also never said that the soul hypothesis was right just another one. Quote: On the planet Neptune? Probably, at this time of night, yes.
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

14th December 2004, 09:53 PM	#5
Nex Forum Turnip Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: SC upstate Posts: 1,666	Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini This is a weak argument, in my opinion. I would agree that you could justify memory, facial recognition, learning etc. with neurons but not self-cosciousness. Self-consciousness is not, in my opinion, something that you can have " a little bit ", either you are self-conscious ( like humans, cats, whales and dogs ) or you are not ( a chair, a computer ). So, if you tear away the neurons from the memory region, you will probably will not remember things of your past, but you would still know that you exist. So, how can you isaloate the neurons of self-consciousness ? Your argument rests upon the unfalsifiable, which unfortunately makes it very, very weak. Your opinion is that consciouness stems from a soul. Souls are unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove or disprove your hypothesis. However, KingMerv's argument states that consciousness is cumulative neural action. We may not know for sure if this is the case right now, but his hypothesis is falsifiable, and with increases in medical knowledge, we will be able to see if he is right or wrong. (my guess-- he's right) Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini Do not start attacking me if I speak about " soul " and " religion", many skeptics do this. I also never said that the soul hypothesis was right just another one. Don't get so defensive. It's a very valid question. I'll restate it-- How can we test your theory against KingMerv's? How can we find a way to validate or invalidate what you say? Without a theory of how to test your claim, it gets relegated to the top shelf, where it will sit and gather dust until we have testing protocols for it.
	__________________ Currently brain-dead due to sudden-onset motherhood.

14th December 2004, 10:02 PM	#6
Ratman_tf Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,002	Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini Self-consciousness is not, in my opinion, something that you can have " a little bit ", either you are self-conscious ( like humans, cats, whales and dogs ) or you are not ( a chair, a computer ). So, if you tear away the neurons from the memory region, you will probably will not remember things of your past, but you would still know that you exist. I'm curious where exactly you draw the self-concious line. Is a virus self-consious?
	__________________ "In the end, I was so decent, I stopped being a Christian altogether!" -Ruby --- "God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man." -Nanrei Kobori

14th December 2004, 10:06 PM	#7
Nex Forum Turnip Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: SC upstate Posts: 1,666	Quote: Originally posted by Ratman_tf I'm curious where exactly you draw the self-concious line. Is a virus self-consious? Good question. I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet.
	__________________ Currently brain-dead due to sudden-onset motherhood.

14th December 2004, 10:14 PM	#9
Nex Forum Turnip Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: SC upstate Posts: 1,666	Quote: Originally posted by KingMerv00 [b]Consciousness is not a toggle switch, it is a dimmer switch. That makes sense.
	__________________ Currently brain-dead due to sudden-onset motherhood.

14th December 2004, 10:17 PM	#10
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Quote: Originally posted by Nex That makes sense. I stole that metaphor from somewhere so don't give me credit. I think it was Shermer.

14th December 2004, 11:20 PM	#11
Peter Soderqvist Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 305	Immaterial self-awareness is falsified when the neural program for self-awareness is decoded!
	__________________ A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws!

15th December 2004, 12:14 AM	#12
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Re: Where am I ? Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini So, where am I ? You are standing in the ever-present, which always was, and always will be, there here and now.

15th December 2004, 03:23 AM	#13
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Re: Where am I ? Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini So, where am I ? I have no idea, but I know how fast you are moving.
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

15th December 2004, 03:46 AM	#14
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Re: Re: Where am I ? Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus *You are standing in the ever-present,* which always was, and always will be, there here and now.** Oh jeez...not again.

15th December 2004, 05:57 AM	#15
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,420	Re: Re: Where am I ? Quote: Originally posted by H3LL I have no idea, but I know how fast you are moving. Okay, when I use the expression "lol" I usually mean that something was funny enough to make me involuntarily smile. This made me actually laugh out loud. Bravo.

15th December 2004, 07:23 AM	#16
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	OK, before writing again, let me reply to Nex Nex wrote " I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet " I think dogs and cats are self -conscious. Self-conscious being have the ability to " feel " pleasure and pain while non self-coscious do not. My cat feels pain ( do not quesiton me on how I know that, please ), while a rock do not. Nex wrote again " Your opinion is that consciouness stems from a soul. Souls are unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove or disprove your hypothesis " But I never said that I believe that consciouness stems from a soul !! It is just one hypothesis among the others. It is funny that you ( and maybe others ) believe that I believe that consciouness stems from a soul even if I never said that. Just back on track. I see that the main opinion here is that consciouness stems from a brain, and that is a kind of dimmer switch, which I do not know what it is but I assume it means that self-consciousness can grow from 0 ( rock ) to 5 ( worm ) to 20 ( cat ) to 100 ( human ) or something like that. Now I will try to disprove this point. 1) If self-consciousness stems from the brain, it is obvious that, the less brain you have, the less self-consciousness you have, right ? No brain, no self-consciousness. Now, I am not a neurologist but I read something in neurology journals that many parts of the brain are " dedicated " to specific tasks, like motion, memory, facial recognition, etc. I admit I do not know this in deep. I also know that, some people having brain cancer or ictuses had some part of their brain damaged sometimes even nearly half of it. In some cases that person dies, but in other cases the person is still completely conscious, just some of the person functions like motion, sight, memory are impaired. Now, self-consciousness has nothing to do with motion, sight, memory. I can think at one person ( a very unlucky one, though ) having sight, hearing, memory abilities severely impaired, he would probably not be able to see, hear, remember things of the past but he would be able to feel that he exists here and now as much as I do ( I do not know if he would like to exist anynore after this, but this is another problem ). So, maybe it is not the whole brain which stems self-consciousness, but only one part. Which one though ? 2) Let' s think about the neurons and synapsys. Let' s think that their functions about information processing could be replicated using a very sophysticated version of the modern microprocessor. The function of the neurons is to manage information, is not it? So, I do not think there is no conceptual obstacle in thinking about replicating them using very sophysticated version of the modern microprocessor ( yet to be built, of course !! ) Then, let' s assume to connect one trillion of those Pentium XIs with cables, will we have built a brain. Will this machine be self-conscious or not ?? If not, why ? Because humans are organic and this machine would be made of silicon and metal ? This should not metter, should it ? So, let' s assume that we had been able to replicate a brain and that this brain will be self-conscious. We can add mechanic legs, robotic arms, sensors, camera with voice and facial recognition, it is nothing impossible to think, MIT Artificial Intelligence Labs are already working on this. My opinion is that this machine will not be self-conscious !! Maybe we could, ultimately, built a machine that will act like a person, remember, move, recognize people, talk, etc. but it will not feel anything. I will try to disprove the fact that this machine will be self-conscious. Take away one microprocessor at time from this machine' s brain. Will his ( its ) self-consciousness fade away like the HAL in 2001: A space Odissey ? Then, with one or few microprocessors, will the once fully self-conscious machine still be self-conscious, just a little bit ? As ratman_tf said: I'm curious where exactly you draw the self-concious line. I can say the same thing. Then maybe even the Pentium 4 of this computer is self-conscious, just a little, little, little, little bit ? Matteo
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

15th December 2004, 08:16 AM	#17
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	Human minds act they way the do because of all the parts and the way they interact. Because we are trapped in our own minds, we don't know how it feels to be something else. We know we are self aware, but what can we compare that to? We have no way to look outside our own frame of reference. To ask which part of the brain makes consciousness is like asking which part makes a car go. While the engine provides the power, without the transmission, axles, and wheels there is no way to use that power to put the car in motion. If we were unable to take apart a car to see how it runs and could only remove different parts and see how that removal affects the car's ability to function then it would take a very long time to determine exactly how a car works. The same may be true of the brain. Perhaps if we were able to slowly remove little pieces of the brain then we would eventually be able to find where the conciousness originates. However, that would be VERY unethical, so all we have is what we learn from people who end up brain damaged from other sources.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

15th December 2004, 08:42 AM	#18
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Wherever you go, there you are.
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

15th December 2004, 08:51 AM	#19
Yaotl Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 430	Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini OK, before writing again, let me reply to Nex Nex wrote " I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet " I think dogs and cats are self -conscious. Self-conscious being have the ability to " feel " pleasure and pain while non self-coscious do not. My cat feels pain ( do not quesiton me on how I know that, please ), while a rock do not. Matteo So your definition of being self-conscious is to feel physical pain and pleasure? If that capacity is damaged in someone, are they no longer self-conscious?
Yaotl Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 430	__________________ Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

15th December 2004, 09:05 AM	#20
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	I am reading a book right now entitled "The God Gene". A couple of the chapters deal with the brain and religious experience. I can't remember specifics but there are parts of the brain which allow you to separate yourself from the rest of the universe. Damaging this spot or stimulating it with drugs/electiricty can cause yourself to feel "at one with the universe". Pretty neat actually. Not a bad book. Edit: Btw, I really appreciate that you are actually addressing questions directly and trying to use logic to solve them. Some posters can't seem to do that.

15th December 2004, 03:00 PM	#21
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Yaotl wrote: " So your definition of being self-conscious is to feel physical pain and pleasure? If that capacity is damaged in someone, are they no longer self-conscious? " No, being able is to feel physical pain and pleasure is one property that only self-conscious entities have ( men, women, cats, dogs, not tocks ). My definition of self-conscious individual is a individual who knows that he/she is there, that is existing in that very moment. Dragonrock, the analogy with the car does not work, in my opinion. A car is not different from the sum of its parts, actually " car " is a name we give to wheels, engine, axles, etc. I am not the sum of all my neurons !! At least, we could discuss sbout it and I can try to prove you that I am not. I am something different from all the neurons that are in my brain and none of the neurons of my brain is me. Dragonrock wrote: Quote: Perhaps if we were able to slowly remove little pieces of the brain then we would eventually be able to find where the conciousness originates. However, that would be VERY unethical, so all we have is what we learn from people who end up brain damaged from other sources. Neurologists have already mapped the human brain, where there is the part devoted for language skills, sight, memory. No part devoted for " self-consciousness " found
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

15th December 2004, 03:45 PM	#22
Interesting Ian Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 7,676	Quote: Originally posted by Nex Good question. I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet. No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity.
Interesting Ian Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 7,676

15th December 2004, 03:48 PM	#23
Interesting Ian Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 7,676	Quote: Originally posted by Nex Your argument rests upon the unfalsifiable, which unfortunately makes it very, very weak. What is this person's argument? Quote: Your opinion is that consciouness stems from a soul. How do you know this is that person's opinion? Quote: Souls are unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Are non-souls unfalsifiable too?
Interesting Ian Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 7,676

15th December 2004, 03:57 PM	#24
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Quote: Originally posted by Interesting Ian No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity. Proof, please?
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

15th December 2004, 04:05 PM	#25
Interesting Ian Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 7,676	Quote: Originally posted by zaayrdragon Proof, please? Why? You wouldn't understand it. You never understand anything else after all.
Interesting Ian Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 7,676

15th December 2004, 04:11 PM	#26
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Self-conscious or conscious, call it as you want. The fact the I know I exist
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371

15th December 2004, 04:54 PM	#27
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Quote: Originally posted by Interesting Ian Why? You wouldn't understand it. You never understand anything else after all. Who says I want it for my own benefit? "Mind-numbingly extraordinary claims require mind-numbingly extraordinary evidence." Now, you are claiming that ONLY humans are self-aware, are you not? Back up the claim. However, chances are, you either a) have no evidence or b) have once again completely failed to understand scientific evidence, or c) are simply calling scientific facts 'wrong' in light of your own opinion. Now, are you going to continue this childish cop-out, or will you provide your proof that only Humans are self-aware, as a responsible adult would?
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

15th December 2004, 05:47 PM	#28
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: Originally posted by Interesting Ian No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity. My cat rather likes to look at himself in the mirror.
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

16th December 2004, 04:23 AM	#29
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,167	Quote: Originally posted by Interesting Ian No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity. OK, but where to draw the line? How (perhaps better ask when and/or in wich species) such trait evolved? Actually I would like to add that the "enduring" can be disputed, since you can not deny the possibility that what we actually experience is an illusion of consience continuity. Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini ...snip... I am not the sum of all my neurons !! ...snip... No. You are the result of interactions between the activities of all your neurons as well as all your body. Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini Neurologists have already mapped the human brain, where there is the part devoted for language skills, sight, memory. No part devoted for " self-consciousness " found Note that damaging the brain surely causes negative efects on the consiousness. In some cases, there are personality changes. In others, more dramatic, the person can hardly be called rational or even self-consient.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

16th December 2004, 07:42 AM	#30
uruk Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 5,313	Quote: I am not the sum of all my neurons !! At least, we could discuss sbout it and I can try to prove you that I am not. I am something different from all the neurons that are in my brain and none of the neurons of my brain is me. The sum total of all the neurons in your brain contain all your memories, experiances and mental faculties. It is in the brain where all sensory input is processed and evaluated by the individual parts and a thought stream is generated. Your brain IS you. "You" go wherever your brain goes. Google lobotomy and the frontal lobe. Most of what we would consider "our personality" and "individual drive" appears to stem from this particular area. So maybe that is where "you" are. Also google alzhimers, people with that desease undergo a significant personality change. Quote: Yaotl wrote: " So your definition of being self-conscious is to feel physical pain and pleasure? If that capacity is damaged in someone, are they no longer self-conscious? " No, being able is to feel physical pain and pleasure is one property that only self-conscious entities have ( men, women, cats, dogs, not tocks ). Google Kulver-Bucy syndrome. Also, what level of conciouseness do people with mental retardation posses? Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Nex Good question. I didn't know cats and dogs were self-conscious. If they are, hey, my mistake, I just didn't think we had verified that yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No they are not self conscious, they are simply conscious. To be self-conscious is to recognise yourself as a distinct enduring entity. I have had many dogs and cats and I do believe that they have some level of self-awareness. they give the physical apearance of the experiance of jealousy, happiness, anger, fear, etc. All these behaiviours would seem to mean that the the animal has a sense of individual self. (i.e. that IT is in danger, or not recieving the attention that another is recieving, spitefull or angry that the other animal is recieving attention and not IT...etc..) My experinace has led to believe that self-awareness and conciousness is not black and white. There are many levels of conciousness.

16th December 2004, 07:46 AM	#31
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	I've said it in another thread: Show me a human with no electrical impulses in their brain who can still hold a conversation THEN I will consider dualism.

16th December 2004, 08:03 AM	#32
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini Dragonrock, the analogy with the car does not work, in my opinion. A car is not different from the sum of its parts, actually " car " is a name we give to wheels, engine, axles, etc. A car is more than the sum of it's parts. Most of the parts would have no value outside of their use in cars. If there were no cars what good would 500 brake pads do you? Or 250 radiator hoses? How about 100 mufflers? By taking a pile of independently useless parts were are able to create a usefull machine. Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini I am not the sum of all my neurons !! At least, we could discuss sbout it and I can try to prove you that I am not. No, you aren't the sum of your neurons, but you are the square of your neurons. Neurons interact in a very complex manner making the number of connections many times higher than the number of neurons. Quote: Originally posted by Matteo Martini I am something different from all the neurons that are in my brain and none of the neurons of my brain is me. Yes, and WindowsXP is different from one line of code and one line of is not WindowsXP. If you are something outside of your neurons then how come hunger makes most people aggresive? Why do low levels of neurotransmitters cause depression? Why did my brother-in-law completely change his taste in food after having a stroke? Physical changes in the brain affect mood and personality.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

16th December 2004, 08:43 AM	#33
Interesting Ian Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 7,676	Quote: Originally posted by KingMerv00 I've said it in another thread: Show me a human with no electrical impulses in their brain who can still hold a conversation THEN I will consider dualism. Go to this thread I just started last night. First post is an entire chapter from a book. Scroll down in that first post until you see the heading: "Does the Brain Produce or Transmit Consciousness?" Read it. Then go to the 3rd post in the thread by me. I reproduce an extract from my forthcoming website. Read that also.
Interesting Ian Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 7,676

16th December 2004, 09:25 AM	#34
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Ian, this referenced post in NO way answers his question. And that excerpt you posted, along with your own excerpt, are really ridiculous. But others have already explained this to you repeatedly.
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

16th December 2004, 09:39 AM	#35
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Quote: Originally posted by Interesting Ian Go to this thread I just started last night. First post is an entire chapter from a book. Scroll down in that first post until you see the heading: "Does the Brain Produce or Transmit Consciousness?" Read it. Then go to the 3rd post in the thread by me. I reproduce an extract from my forthcoming website. Read that also. I read everything you suggested. The Brain-Dead Woman: The author points out the problems in his own theory (that's a good skeptical mind at work) so I won't bother. The Changing Mind: You suggest that the mind must always be changing and therefore we could never have a sense of self that is consistant, that you are the same person you were yesterday. I say this fits just fine with the material mind theory. The brain stores memories as specific configurations of neurons. All the brain must do is maintain these cells in that configuration and the memories will still be there. The idea of being the "same person" is an illusion created by our brain structure and memories. (On a side note, I am a VERY different person than I was when I was younger.) Correlation/Causation The article suggests that just because electrochemical reactions occur at the same time as consciousness does not mean they CAUSE consciousness. Fair enough. However this is not positive evidence for a soul, just wiggle room for a possibility. For the record, I see no evidence for a soul therefore I don't believe in one. However, the study of brain damage does in fact suggest that the brain causes consciousness. Take this part of my brain out and I forget stuff. Take that part out and I loose the boundry between myself and the rest of the world etc. etc. In the end, my statement holds true: "Show me a human with no electrical impulses in their brain who can still hold a conversation THEN I will consider dualism. " I remain agnostic on the existance of a soul. The onus is on the person making the positive claim so for now...I don't believe.

16th December 2004, 09:49 AM	#36
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371	Answers Correa Neto wrote: " You are the result of interactions between the activities of all your neurons as well as all your body " Dragonrock wrote: " No, you aren't the sum of your neurons, but you are the square of your neurons. Neurons interact in a very complex manner making the number of connections many times higher than the number of neurons " uruk wrote: " Your brain IS you. "You" go wherever your brain goes " The main opinion on self-consciousness the people on this thread have is that self-consciousness somehow originates from interactions between neurons and synapses in the brain. Even if a person is none of his neurons/synapses, still he is the sum ( squared sum ) of all of them and of their mutual interactions. Is that correct ? I will try now to disprove this point. 1) I hope it is accepted by everyone that a person is none of its neurons taken singularly. I do not know if neurons are self-conscious or not ( I would rather doubt this, but this is not the point ), but certainly I am not any of my neurons, right ? 2) Now, let' s imagine to take two healthy neurons linked with some synapses, let' s suppose that we can recreate the condition of the body in this lab so that the two neurons can live, transmit signals and operate like if they were in the brain. I do not know if this is technically feasible at the moment, but not too difficult to imagine, right ? 3) Now the two neurons would operate together, all the two single neurons would be living and healthy, but will there be any conscious entity generating from the two neurons ? No. There would be no "very-little-conscious-person-with-a-two-neuron-brain". There would be only two neurons operating, no other self-conscious entity, right ? If somebody claims that two neurons linked together generate even an exterenely low conscious self-consciousness, then please tell me where this conciousness should be coming from, from the electrical charges ? From what ? 4) Let's start adding neurons, firstly another one, then another one, we will get a bunch of one hundred, one thousand neurons linked together and operating. Will there be generated any kind of self-consciousness here ? Will this very little brain know that he/she is existing ? If you answer yes, please tell me when exactly this brain start to become conscious. If you say that consciousness grows from zero ( no neurons ) to human consciouness ( 100 billion neurons, if I remember well ) then even two or three neurons should generate a little, little, little, little bit of consciouness, right ? Then answer to point 3) 5) Continuing this process we have somehow built a human brain. Do not tell me that we do not know how to do this process, we do not know yet, but there is no conceptual obstacle to overcome, right ? So, will this brain be conscious or not ? Dragonrock: your analogy with the car does not work. The whole point is about self-consciousness. Human are self-conscious, cars are not ( as far as I know, at least ). uruk: " Google lobotomy and the frontal lobe. Most of what we would consider "our personality" and "individual drive" appears to stem from this particular area. So maybe that is where "you" are " Those you are quoting ( indiivdual drive, personality ) are all attibutes of the individual, they are not the individual. I am not the sum of my memory, my individual drives, my personality, I am all this plus I know that I am here ( self-consciousness ) I would rather doubt that there is just one part of the brain dedicated to personality ( there is no clear definition of personality agreed to all dictionaries ). However, even if there would be a part of the brain that explicates why I behave in this way, another one that explicates why I remember things, etc. where is the part of the brain that explicates that I, in this very moment, feel that I am existing ( again, self-consciousness )
Matteo Martini Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,371