Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.


socratus
#1
Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain - . . . .’
/ Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’ page 160.
by Michael Talbot ./
=.
Isn’t it a strange contradiction ?
But maybe it means what brain obeys the ‘dualistic law’ :
Brain - –> Consciousness , Consciousness - –> Brain.
Who knows ?
=.
 
s_lone
+2
#2  Top Rated Post
I view consciousness and the brain as being mirrors of each other in the same way that convex and concave are just two sides of one reality.

If all phenomenons of conscious life are reduced to brain events that is materialistic reductionism. And if biological evolution is viewed as being ultimately guided by some sort of intangible consciousness I guess it's some form of spiritualism.

I have an intuitive tendency to choose spiritualism over materialism but I try more and more to find a balance between both by fusing them together.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by socratusView Post

Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain - . . . .’
/ Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’ page 160.
by Michael Talbot ./
=.
Isn’t it a strange contradiction ?
But maybe it means what brain obeys the ‘dualistic law’ :
Brain - –> Consciousness , Consciousness - –> Brain.
Who knows ?
=.



Consciousness is the organized universe. The bit of that consciousness being taxed thinking about its own consciousness must logically yield to the futility brought to bear by the nature of and scalability of consciousness. Nothing gets assembled without comprehensive schematics. "As above so below" was the rule. JAG just a guess
 
s_lone
+2
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Consciousness is the organized universe. The bit of that consciousness being taxed thinking about its own consciousness must logically yield to the futility brought to bear by the nature of and scalability of consciousness. Nothing gets assembled without comprehensive schematics. "As above so below" was the rule. JAG just a guess
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

And despite the hard logical science of materialists, in the end matter deconstructed to its extreme always ends up being represented as intangible and abstract equations. What are those made of? Mathons? Logicons?
 
darkbeaver
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

And despite the hard logical science of materialists, in the end matter deconstructed to its extreme always ends up being represented as intangible and abstract equations. What are those made of? Mathons? Logicons?

I think I am therefore I can't be
 
talloola
#6
without all of the fancy explanations, I will give my simple response.

The brain developes along with the body, along with the electricity that makes us tick,
so it is our electricity that allows us to do 'anything', that spark that starts up our
engine and allows our brain to do its thing, allows our heart to beat.

Consciousness and many other aspects of our abilities come from the working of our brain, first.
 
Cliffy
+2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

without all of the fancy explanations, I will give my simple response.

The brain developes along with the body, along with the electricity that makes us tick,
so it is our electricity that allows us to do 'anything', that spark that starts up our
engine and allows our brain to do its thing, allows our heart to beat.

Consciousness and many other aspects of our abilities come from the working of our brain, first.

The brain is a computer. It stores and accesses data. It can regurgitate data but it cannot have an original thought. Consciousness has a universal origin. It can access data from a universal source. That is why you may invent something in your head and do nothing to bring it into physical reality and months or years later, someone else brings it to the market place. Some cal this universal data base the Akashic (?) Records. Everything is connected.
 
talloola
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The brain is a computer. It stores and accesses data. It can regurgitate data but it cannot have an original thought. Consciousness has a universal origin. It can access data from a universal source. That is why you may invent something in your head and do nothing to bring it into physical reality and months or years later, someone else brings it to the market place. Some cal this universal data base the Akashic (?) Records. Everything is connected.

you cannot invent something in your head, without your brain allowing you to do so.

if your brain malfunctions, you cannot think of things, plan things, create thoughts to relay to others
at some point.

in my opinion, the brain does it all, then you decide from that point.

the energy needed to think comes from the brain, what you do with those thoughts also comes from the
brain.

I don't believe in outside energy controlling our thought process, other than what we respond to when
others interact, or what how we react to other energies, noises, agression, love, etc.

We can react to other's energy thru our electricity, which travels from one to another, and that
enters our brains and allows us to think about what just happened.
eg. knowing what my husband was just going to say before he said it.

I don't agree with anything spiritual interferring with our brain function, or creating us to
think of something outside of our brain function.
 
darkbeaver
#9
Everything in the universe is suspended in consciousness, I figure.
 
Johnnny
+1
#10
My brain and conciousness are two seperate things that require symbiosis to survive. Through my conciousness my "soul" can experience the reality around me. But my conciousness needs my brain to do that and the brain needs the conciousness to help it understand my surroundings...

Inside Homers brain - YouTube

 
s_lone
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

without all of the fancy explanations, I will give my simple response.

The brain developes along with the body, along with the electricity that makes us tick,
so it is our electricity that allows us to do 'anything', that spark that starts up our
engine and allows our brain to do its thing, allows our heart to beat.

Consciousness and many other aspects of our abilities come from the working of our brain, first.

So would you agree to say that a computer as sophisticated as a human brain would also have consciousness?
 
Dexter Sinister
+2
#12
I don't see how anyone can think the brain and consciousness are separable, they're inextricably linked. Consciousness is a property that emerges in ways we don't yet understand from the complexity of the brain, as should be clear from the well documented fact that damage to the latter damages the former, and brain damage in specific places causes damage to specific aspects of consciousness. Consciousness is a property of the brain, it does not exist otherwise. We're a very long way from producing a computer as complex as the human brain, and I'm not convinced it's a useful comparison anyway, the brain is really very little like a computer. But if we ever do produce a computer with the same degree of complexity as a human brain, the first thing I'd want to ask it--I assume it would be capable of speech--is "Are you conscious?"

One of Robert Heinlein's novels in his Future History series--one of the Lazarus Long novels, don't recall the specific one--had a computer in it that somebody asked that of, and the machine gave a typically machine-like answer to the effect that insofar as it understood the term conscious it considered itself to be so. One of John Brunner's novels, Stand on Zanzibar, also has an apparently self-aware computer in it, called Shalmaneser. Good reads, both of them, though the latter's a bit hard to find. My copy was so tattered with use I wanted to replace it, and it took me two years to locate one at a used book shop.
 
s_lone
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

I don't see how anyone can think the brain and consciousness are separable, they're inextricably linked. Consciousness is a property that emerges in ways we don't yet understand from the complexity of the brain, as should be clear from the well documented fact that damage to the latter damages the former, and brain damage in specific places causes damage to specific aspects of consciousness.

And we don't even need to experience brain injuries to see how this is true. Our experiences with drugs (including alcohol, coffee and processed sugar) are sufficient to show us how the brain is inextricable to consciousness.

But if it's fair to say that altering the brain alters consciousness, isn't it also fair to say that altering consciousness alters the brain?

The fact that I read your post has already caused small but tangible changes somewhere in my brain and while you could argue that it all boils down to a materialistic causal chain in which photons enter my eyes, patterns of letters are imprinted on my retina and electro-chemical signals are fired through the incredibly complex neuronal networks responsible for managing my linguistic abilities, you'd be ignoring the fact that beyond those material realities, there is a core of meaning that you as a human subject has communicated to me and all others who are reading this thread. Furthermore, these thoughts we are exchanging are nested in a cultural network which transcends matter in the sense that it encompasses not only the present but humanity's past as a whole. We are what we are as conscious beings because of what we share with billions of other conscious beings (living and dead in the sense that the dead have had a huge impact on our own culture.)

The point being... Does it make sense to reduce this human discussion to the wild and crazy dance of atoms in our brains? Isn't there a good deal of immaterial stuff (like poems, stories and philosophical concepts) out there constantly impacting the structure of our brains?

Quote:

Consciousness is a property of the brain, it does not exist otherwise.

Materialism reduces the subject to the object while it seems to me that one cannot go without the other.
 
talloola
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

So would you agree to say that a computer as sophisticated as a human brain would also have consciousness?

as amazing as man is in their quest to improve computers, and they have, to the point that they are
becoming so humanlike, but to this point their is no way they have figured out how to complete the
computer brain to have emotions, feelings, and consciousness as ours have, 'good luck with that'.
our brains have all of those things, built in to allow us to feel things no computer has ever come
close to doing, won't say they never will, that would be foolish, but if they do, then the computer
will match ours, and yes it will have consciousness, as ours does.
I use to laugh at captain kirk with his silly little phone he used to chat into, to the enterprise,
when he was elsewhere, cause those gimmicks seemed far too unrealistic to ever be in our hands, say
no more.

the brain can function just fine 'without' consciousness, feelings, remorse, love, etc., although

that person would probably be in jail or some other institution, BUT one cannot have those feelings

without a brain running the show.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

But if it's fair to say that altering the brain alters consciousness, isn't it also fair to say that altering consciousness alters the brain?

No, I wouldn't agree with that, I'd argue you can't separate them that way. Consciousness arises in the brain, the change has to happen in the brain first to produce a change in consciousness.
Quote:

The point being... Does it make sense to reduce this human discussion to the wild and crazy dance of atoms in our brains?

It does to me, though I wouldn't describe it as wild and crazy. I'm a materialist, which means I think matter and its interactions are the fundamental reality and everything is explicable, at least in principle, in terms of complex and subtle interactions among various bits of matter. We may not be bright enough to figure them all out, but there's no evidence to suggest that what we call "mind" is anything other than that.
 
Johnnny
#16
Does anyone here think that a "Conciousness" can have weight?
 
Kreskin
#17
It's Alive! - YouTube (external - login to view)
 
L Gilbert
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by socratusView Post

‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain - . . . .’

Oh, cool! Another comedy thread.
Um, yeah, the effect precedes the cause.
 
china
#19
What is our consciousness? It is to be conscious of, to be aware of, what is going on, not only outside but inside; it is the same movement. Our consciousness is the product of our education, our culture, racial inheritance and the result of our own striving. All our beliefs, our dogmas, rituals, concepts, jealousies, anxieties, pleasures, our so-called love - all that is our consciousness. It is the structure which has evolved through millennia after millennia - through wars, tears, sorrow, depression and elation: all that makes up our consciousness. Some people say you cannot change consciousness. You can modify it, you can polish it, but you have to accept it, make the best of it; it is there. Without the content, consciousness, as we know it, does not exist.
Is it possible to empty consciousness of all content - the sorrow, the strife, the struggle, the terrible human relationships, the quarrels, anxieties, jealousies, the affection, the sensuality? Can that content be emptied? If it is emptied, is there a different kind of consciousness? Has consciousness different layers, different levels?
In India the Ancient people divided consciousness into lower, higher and yet higher. And these divisions are measured, for the moment there is division there must be measurement, and where there is measurement there must be effort. Whatever level consciousness may have, it is still within consciousness. The division of consciousness is measurement, therefore it is thought. Whatever thought has put together is part of consciousness, however you choose to divide it.
Is it possible to empty the content of consciousness completely, The essence of this content is thought, which has put together the `me' - the `me' who is ambitious, greedy, aggressive. That `me' is the essence of the content of consciousness. Can that `me' with all this structure of selfishness be totally ended? If I can can say, "Yes, it can be ended, completely". It means that there is no centre from which you are acting, no centre from which you are thinking. The centre is the essence of measurement, which is the effort of becoming. Can that becoming end? One may say: "Probably it can, but what is at the end of it, if one ends this becoming?"
First of all one has to find out for oneself if this becoming can end. Can you drop, end, something which you like, that gives you some deep pleasure, without a motive, without saying, "I can do it if there is something at the end of it"? Can you immediately end something that gives you great pleasure? You see how difficult this is. It is like a man who smokes, his body has been poisoned by nicotine and when he stops smoking the body craves for it and so he takes something else to satisfy the body. So can one end something, rationally, clearly, without any motive of reward or punishment?
Selfishness hides in many ways, in seeking truth, in social service, in selling oneself to a person, to an idea, to a concept. One must be astonishingly aware of all this, and that requires energy, all the energy that is now being wasted in conflict, in fear, in sorrow, in all the travails of life. That energy is also being wasted in so-called meditation.
It requires enormous energy, not physical energy, but the energy that has never been wasted. Then consciousness can be emptied and when it is emptied one may or may not find there is something more, it is up to oneself. One may like something more to be guaranteed but there is no guarantee .

JK ...."the space cadet".
 
Johnnny
#20
Somebody is doing well, thats good!!!!
 
darkbeaver
#21
The organizer of matter is consciousness which requires light as a transporting medium. So the material brain in no case preceeds the brains design carried on light.
 
s_lone
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

No, I wouldn't agree with that, I'd argue you can't separate them that way. Consciousness arises in the brain, the change has to happen in the brain first to produce a change in consciousness.

As I already said, to me consciousness and brain are just two different sides of the same coin (interior and exterior). Humans are of course material beings but human consciousness is the state of being a human brain attached to a human body. None is subordinated to the other in the same way that convex isn't subordinated to concave.

But let's say i go along your more straightforward materialist view. Than to me this would clearly be a case of the result (consciousness) being much more than the sum of its parts (large chunks of flesh). There's no denying there is a direct causal route from matter to consciousness. But unless you deny the possibility that we as humans have an authentic free will that can transcend materialistic determinism by opening up possibilities for ourselves, must you not admit that there has to be some form of causal chain that can also originate in consciousness or at least in the transcendent properties of the brain-body organism? Can a purely materialistic account of reality support the deep intuition most of us have that we are free agents ultimately responsible for our actions? Or does a purely materialistic account of reality only support the idea that whatever we do is the end result of a blind causal chain leading up to the Big Bang? Or am I offering a false dichotomy? In that case what alternative view would you offer?

Quote:

It does to me, though I wouldn't describe it as wild and crazy. I'm a materialist, which means I think matter and its interactions are the fundamental reality and everything is explicable, at least in principle, in terms of complex and subtle interactions among various bits of matter. We may not be bright enough to figure them all out, but there's no evidence to suggest that what we call "mind" is anything other than that.

Suppose we one day fully understand how bits of interacting matter cause consciousness. That would mean matter has come to understand itself. And if you accept that statement, then you'd have to accept the idea that matter can be self-conscious. And to me that would be close to my understanding of consciousness as being the inner ontological state of matter.

If you don't accept this statement and insist that matter can't be self-conscious, then you'd have to locate consciousness elsewhere. And where would that be?
 
darkbeaver
#23
Casually one must ask in passing whether modern "science" - until perhaps recently - has not been in the same "primitive" ignorance as regards the world of life, when it ascribes all causation to mother matter without being able to rise to the apprehension that the matter it studies so assiduously has first and anciently been impregnated with father spirit or Mind. This is equivalent to taking the birth (of physical nature) for granted without postulating the necessary act of fatherhood! Arcane science tells us that back in the night of time the "ray" of intelligence was shot into the "egg" as the basis for the conception of all things. The planting of the "seed" of spirit in matter is part of the integral mythology of the past.

The creation was, then, effected by the precipitation into activity on the open field of space of the six elementary forces which were to substantialize matter and organize forms. These six, deploying one after the other, were cumulatively to build up a form or body of requisite sensitivity and responsiveness to higher currents which would

New Lectures on the Ancient Wisdom--No 7. (external - login to view)

Brain:an apparatus with which we think we think
Ambrose Bierce( Author,1842-1914)
 
L Gilbert
#24
From a materialistic POV, I'm pretty sure that free will is a myth based upon the evidence supplied by genetics. We are what we are and do what we do not because of decisions made by us, but by what our genes say we are and do. We can only be and do what our genomes say we can be or do.
Consciousness is simply awareness. That is a quality due to brain activity.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneView Post

But unless you deny the possibility that we as humans have an authentic free will that can transcend materialistic determinism by opening up possibilities for ourselves, must you not admit that there has to be some form of causal chain that can also originate in consciousness or at least in the transcendent properties of the brain-body organism? Can a purely materialistic account of reality support the deep intuition most of us have that we are free agents ultimately responsible for our actions? Or does a purely materialistic account of reality only support the idea that whatever we do is the end result of a blind causal chain leading up to the Big Bang? Or am I offering a false dichotomy? In that case what alternative view would you offer?

No, I don't think that's a false dichotomy, but I think you might be being a little too reductionist here, and I think the usual scientific reductionism will not provide the answers. I seriously doubt that consciousness can be understood in terms of the behaviour of the brain's individual constituents. I don't think an individual brain cell can be conscious for instance but a complexly interacting network of them can be. I wonder what the threshold is, a million? A billion? And what other critters might be conscious in a manner similar to the way we are? Dolphins and apes certainly show signs of self-awareness, like recognizing themselves in a mirror, something I'm pretty sure from observing them that the cats and dogs I've had in my life can't do. Or maybe cats can but just don't care, that'd be typical of them.


I think the question of free will is unresolved, and trying to lay conditions like that on it is premature. Frankly I don't know whether we have free will or not, though I'll immediately concede that I certainly feel like I do. I've seen compelling arguments on both sides, most recently from Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, taking opposite views, but neither of them convinced me. I think we discussed a video of Dennett trying to make the case for free will in some other thread around here, and concluded that it was inconclusive.
Quote:

Suppose we one day fully understand how bits of interacting matter cause consciousness. That would mean matter has come to understand itself. And if you accept that statement, then you'd have to accept the idea that matter can be self-conscious. And to me that would be close to my understanding of consciousness as being the inner ontological state of matter.

If you don't accept this statement and insist that matter can't be self-conscious, then you'd have to locate consciousness elsewhere. And where would that be?

Well, kinda, but not really. It wouldn't mean that matter itself can be self conscious, but that a particular assemblage of matter interacting in particular ways can be self-conscious, and so far we don't really understand much about how that works, except that it clearly does. You may be trying to force conclusions that we don't have the data to justify. It's okay to say "I don't know," that's what drives the scientific enterprise, and right now that's about all I can say to most of your questions. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I know what I'd like to be true, but that's usually not a good guide to what actually IS true.
 
darkbeaver
#26
Dosn't every force and field employed by the brain exist in the universe independent of the human brain?
 
Dexter Sinister
#27
I would assume so in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't seem likely that there'd some physics unique to the human brain, that's about on par with geocentrism, but again, we don't really know.
 
darkbeaver
#28
But if we consider it shouldn't we have to consider heliocentrism as well?

Is an exposed rock conscious of the sunlight? If so are there any material changes in the rock because of that information?
 
s_lone
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post


I think the question of free will is unresolved, and trying to lay conditions like that on it is premature. Frankly I don't know whether we have free will or not, though I'll immediately concede that I certainly feel like I do. I've seen compelling arguments on both sides, most recently from Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, taking opposite views, but neither of them convinced me. I think we discussed a video of Dennett trying to make the case for free will in some other thread around here, and concluded that it was inconclusive. Well, kinda, but not really. It wouldn't mean that matter itself can be self conscious, but that a particular assemblage of matter interacting in particular ways can be self-conscious, and so far we don't really understand much about how that works, except that it clearly does. You may be trying to force conclusions that we don't have the data to justify. It's okay to say "I don't know," that's what drives the scientific enterprise, and right now that's about all I can say to most of your questions. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I know what I'd like to be true, but that's usually not a good guide to what actually IS true.

I'm fine with ''I don't know'' because I don't have a clue myself.

I've just finished a book by Raymond Tallis called ''Aping Mankind'' in which the author (who is atheist) criticizes what he calls ''darwinitis'' and ''neuromania'' which would be the tendency to systematically explain all human behaviour in terms of natural selection and neurology. He insists (and rightly so in my opinion) on the necessity of considering the fact that what constitutes our distinctness as human beings is the fact that our consciousness is embedded in a very deep and complex cultural background that clearly transcends natural selection and reductionist neurology. I'd be curious to know what you think of it if by any chance you've read it.

I've just started tackling ''Consciousness Explained'' by Dennett which isn't the easiest read. I'm really not sure I'll understand everything he has to say but it's still worth trying!
 
darkbeaver
+1
#30
Since the sun is central to human existence in every material way I'm naturally inclined to look to it, or the stuff it is, as the source of our assembly matrix.
 

Similar Threads

27
Source of Consciousness
by socratus | Dec 17th, 2011
3
Digital Consciousness
by s_lone | Nov 14th, 2008
3
The Mystery of Consciousness
by Curiosity | Jan 26th, 2007
20
consciousness
by china | Jan 15th, 2007
no new posts