Consciousness

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Consciousness - 06/19/06 00:46

Quote:

Yes, and exactly what would prove that? Can you prove that our social behavior isn't hardcoded in our genes? That we need devine inspiration to act clever? Come on, I can hardly take you serious when you come with arguments like these.



You can prove this one yourself. Next time a girl (who you find worthy) offers to sleep with you, don't do it. You've just acted contrary to your genes, which tell you to have sex with anything that looks good.

We don't need divine inspiration to act clever. I'm saying that we are more than our genes. There's no reason to believe that any other animal is, however.

Quote:

>Evolution makes things like rape, and doing whatever you feel like, sound ok.
>Or not as bad, what have you.

The biologists are coming! Quick, everybody inside!



Perhaps this might have made more sense if you weren't referring to someone who will soon be going to college for biology.

Quote:

back before radio-carbon dating



Because it would really be a huge loss if we didn't know the exact year that King Tut died....Radio Carbon dating has nothing to do with anything. They don't date rocks (that includes fossils) with it. So I don't see your point with this.

In fact, radio carbon dating backs up a young earth because if the earth were millions of years old the c14 in the atmosphere would have reached equilibrium.

The rest of your argument is a rant about people who opposed science, most of which included atheists, and that's somehow relevant to anything?

Quote:

Genes dont "dictate" behavior...because genes play no active role in how an organism functions on a day-to-day basis, something else must guide it.



You wouldn't be appealing to a supernatural force now, would you?

Certainly extremely complex behaviors can be encoded in an animal's genes. Take the walking fungus for example. It has no brain.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/fungus.asp

Quote:

agree that this is a contentious issue, and maybe not fully solvable. However, I think the concept of human uniqueness is species chauvinism



No, its common sense. Starfish aren't exactly like chimpanzees. Certainly, chimpanzees are unique in that non-chimpanzees are not chimpanzees. Its simple logic.

Apes aren't anywhere near as intelligent as people are. Birds themselves are more intelligent than monkeys. However, we are unique as the smartest animals on earth. I don't know why you find this idea so offensive.

Quote:

just because a chimp cant talk to us, doesnt mean they dont have some kind of self-awareness and sense of being.



Just because you want them to doesn't mean that they do, however.

Quote:

I think that many animals have emotions, and form attachments to other animals (including poeple), as most pet owners would agree.




The question is whether or not they have a consciousness of those emotions, however.

Quote:

A perfectly logical argument can be made by any idividual that he/she is the only self-aware person in existence, because there is no real way to prove otherwise.



This is yet another example of humanistic pseudo-logic that people use to feel smart about themselves.

I can logically say that I am not the only human with consciousness. We would agree that humans are humans because of their genetic code. If I have a consciousness because of my genetic code, then by extension so does every human. That's logically sound. In fact, I would have to purposely prove that there is something so different about other people that they wouldn't have a consciousness. For instance, I could prove this by showing everyone else is a robot, or what-have-you.

Otherwise, its logically unsound to say that I am the only conscious person in existence.

Quote:

"for all I know, everyone else is an android or a gollum created by an evil spirit, etc. They can insist that they aren't but they could be lying."




Okham's razor.

Quote:

To conclude: there are observable similarities between apes and humans that seem too close to be purely chance coincidences. When combined with the genetic evidence that show we share about 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, the evidence for a close and receent ancestral link is undeniable. This then naturally requires a process of biological change, which is provided by Darwin.



Quite. This is, once again, the argument that, "Animals look the same, so they must have evolved." This is an interesting hypothesis, but itself is not proof. If humans and chimps are 98% similar, why are our proteins 70% different? Why do we look more than 2% different? Why are we many many times more intelligent?

Science needs more than just interesting thoughts. We need proof.
Posted By: ICEman

Re: Consciousness - 06/20/06 04:34

Well.. I would say this: Our natural inclinations, such as those to have sex with anything that looks good.., are hardcoded into our genes. They are primative in nature and put there for a reason, just as they are with every animal..for a reason.

All animals that proliferate by sexual means must possess instinctual instructions to do so. We proliferate our species sexually, and therefore need an instinctual urge to do so. Animals have what you could call sexual preferences which allow them to discriminate between healthy, unhealthy, more healthy mates.. so as to produce stronger offspring.

Our preferences are more advanced than that of animals because our cognition is more complex. We ..value asthetic beauty and therefore seek it in the subcognitive hope to make those traits a part of offspring (this is less apparent in males as we.. stick to the more basic explanation of just wanting to have sex with something hot).

We have hard code instructions but they are primative and serve only to maintain our continued flourishment..like any living animal.

This in no way validates rape.


What separates us from animals.. and enables us to not act so primatively based solely on these hard coded instructions without consideration is that we are more intelligent. We have the ability to apply ethical, economical, logistical considerations to our instincts. We know rape is wrong, so we dont do it..even though, per your example, youre outright lying if you dont at least think about having sex with said hot girl who has propositioned you.

Instincts are what they are. We have them, all sexual animals do. Our intellect simply gives us sovereignty over them. Some animals even display more discipline than others as far as their instinctual activities. Only physical genetic code is law.. the rest is..guideline.

As for the monkeys being 98% similar to us...pfft.. They are too far inferior, and too physiologically different to be that close. the realtiy of that is, they have similar features.. but are no more related than earthworms and rattlesnakes.

Science has proven that all humans are 99.98 percent the same...the rest being our individual distinctions and minor evolutionary divulgences..

So far that knowledge hasnt brought us any closer.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Consciousness - 06/20/06 05:08

First of all you cant cite the Answers in Genesis website in a serious science discussion, as they are not a reliable source of science information. Doing so just makes you look silly, and damage your arguement rather than supports it.

However, this discussion here seem to be philosophical in the main. Not being an amoeba I cant say how or why they behave how they do. But the fact is genes dont directly influence behavior. Genes simply code for the creation of proteins, which eveuntually gives rise to a new organism. Other than that I am not well-versed on genetics and molecular biology.

Genes dont determine sex drive. While genes can determine basic hormones level in a given indivdual, often life style or diet, exercise, and social conditioning determines an indiviudal's sexual drive.

This is of course a contentious issue, with no clear answers as to what guide or directs an individual's behavior. It is easy to suggest that a person, for instance, behaves purely according to chemical and electrical chnages in the brain. But this purely mechanist approach seem to be inadequate. How can planned action be explained in this way? One c0uld say no action is planned, just rationalized afterwards. While this may be true on a small scale, humans can create a long temrs plans and goals, and follow through with actions.

So clearly there is somehting in the cognitive loop that acts in some way independent of chemical drives. What might be comonly called free will, or the soul, or the conscious mind--this eneity that is the core of a human being, is so far elusive and unknowable.

Descartes belived that living being like a humanm was composed of two distinct "substances", the everyday physical matter, and a non-physical substance of the soul. And only the non-physcial substance was capable of thought.

While modern science and philopsophy has long since discredited DesCartes material dualism, he may still have been on to something: the consciousness might still be thought of as a non-physical entity. Take for instanee a computer program-- it is not a physical thing in itself, but a sequnce of data. The structure is what is important, not the physcal reality. The human mind likely works in similar way.

So while the brain is composed only of matter, the arrangment of the matter is what makes the magic.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Consciousness - 06/20/06 19:43

@Matt: Very well said !
However: I would be careful with the software analogy; just because this is the height of our current technological understanding does not mean that unknown processes can or should be mapped to it. Staying with Descartes here for a moment, the big breakthrough at his days were hydraulic automatons (i.e. life-size puppets that were animated due to water pressure). Based on that he theorized that the life spirits coarsing through our veins work in a similar way. Now that we have electricity and understand neurons it's easy to see that this description was way off base. What might a future generation think when they hear us comparing consciousness to a piece of software ?

My initial reaction would also be that genes do not encode behavior, but how then do you explain identical behavior across a species? There's an impressive example in "Goedel, Escher, Bach" of an insect inspecting its cave before putting food in it. When the food is slightly moved after cave inspection the insect will check the cave again, when you move the food afterwards it will check the cave again, etc. Hard-coded behavior stuck in a while loop.
Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Consciousness - 06/22/06 00:25

Quote:


As for the monkeys being 98% similar to us...pfft.. They are too far inferior, and too physiologically different to be that close. the realtiy of that is, they have similar features.. but are no more related than earthworms and rattlesnakes.

Science has proven that all humans are 99.98 percent the same...the rest being our individual distinctions and minor evolutionary divulgences..

So far that knowledge hasnt brought us any closer.



Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? I am confused!!
You seem to reject what you want to and keep what you want to. yes, all humans are about 99.98% the same genetically. This is true. Chimpanzee's, Orangutangs, and Bonobos, are about 98% the same as humans genetically, with chimpanzee's being the closest of the three and orang's being the farthest off.

You can't just pick and choose what facts you want to accept. Either denounce genetic analysis totally, or accept it's findings as far as they go, I'm not saying you can't believe all humans are very very similar and not believe in evolution - the similarity genetically between us and other GREAT APES is a truth, it doesn't necessarily prove anyhting about ancestry. Please, just don't deny statistics from the same field, and indeed research groups, as ones you laud - for the sake of everyone else's sanity.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Consciousness - 06/22/06 01:05

Quote:

What might a future generation think when they hear us comparing consciousness to a piece of software?



I think the comparison is apt, because I'm not claiming that the mind is a software program, but that the structure of the brain is what generates consciousness. This seems somewhat obvious, but to be frank, most people have a very limited idea of what the mind is, just that it is "me".

The only real danger with this observation is the obvious implication that if the brain has a "programmed" structure, then it must have a "programmer". Not so, because the term "program" describes a structured system, and a system can occur naturally.

Take the weather patterns, an "organic" system of extreme complexity, which seem to behave according to rules that can be understandable (even if we dont fully understand them). However, no one can deny that the weather occurs naturally, without intervention from a "programmer" (unless you want to go back to rain dances and such.. good luck).
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 06/22/06 04:26

Quote:

First of all you cant cite the Answers in Genesis website in a serious science discussion, as they are not a reliable source of science information. Doing so just makes you look silly, and damage your arguement rather than supports it.



Matt. Step outside your little 'intellectual' bubble for two seconds. The entire article was on the behavior of a single celled organism (that behaves like a multicellular organism). If you have a specific problem with the science in that article, please point it out. However, it was meant to illustrate a point. Apparently you're too smart to read, though.

Quote:

However, this discussion here seem to be philosophical in the main. Not being an amoeba I cant say how or why they behave how they do.



Yeah, but if you knew anything about science (something most amateur evolutionists do not ), then you would know they behave the way they do because of their genetics.

Simple as that. If you want to argue against science, please do. You'll make your theory look more ridiculous.

Quote:

But the fact is genes dont directly influence behavior.



Not in humans. At least not ALL of our behavior. But in the majority of animals (especially simple and single celled creatures) yes it does.

Quote:

Other than that I am not well-versed on genetics and molecular biology.



I know. If you were, you wouldn't believe evolution. BUT! That's just a little fun poking. No need to get into evolution here. That was just a wise crack.

Quote:

Genes dont determine sex drive. While genes can determine basic hormones level in a given indivdual, often life style or diet, exercise, and social conditioning determines an indiviudal's sexual drive.



Misuse of the phrase sex drive. Let me put it this way. If it weren't for genes we wouldn't have the desire to have sex in the first place, we wouldn't be able to have sex, and we wouldn't be designed for sex.

Quote:

This is of course a contentious issue, with no clear answers as to what guide or directs an individual's behavior.



Its pretty clear cut. Our genetics give us the desire and ability to have sex. Our consciousness gives us the choice to follow our genetics or not. Smoking pot felt pretty good. But I choose not to do that anymore. My consciousness gives me that choice to do something contrary to my programming. Get a million cats together, put catnip in front of them and see how many of them refrain from eating it.

Quote:

So clearly there is somehting in the cognitive loop that acts in some way independent of chemical drives. What might be comonly called free will, or the soul, or the conscious mind--this eneity that is the core of a human being, is so far elusive and unknowable.



Agreed. I don't even know how you could begin to study consciousness. It defies the material nature of our universe. But that's a whole other discussion.

Quote:

You seem to reject what you want to and keep what you want to. yes, all humans are about 99.98% the same genetically. This is true. Chimpanzee's, Orangutangs, and Bonobos, are about 98% the same as humans genetically, with chimpanzee's being the closest of the three and orang's being the farthest off.



Depends on who you ask. Some figures put us at 96% the same as chimpanzees. Any creationist would be remiss to ignore that. However, it proves only one thing. Our genome is 96-98% similar to a chimp's.

Quote:

Chimpanzee's, Orangutangs, and Bonobos, are about 98% the same as humans genetically, with chimpanzee's being the closest of the three and orang's being the farthest off.



As far as I last knew we weren't that close to anything but chimps. Do you have a source?

Quote:

The only real danger with this observation is the obvious implication that if the brain has a "programmed" structure, then it must have a "programmer".



I like how you find this idea dangerous. Says a bit about your reasoning.

Also, what's so problematic about this? If something looks programmed, then it probably is. If I'm a biologist, and I'm studying frogs I don't go, "Well, this specimin looks like a frog, but that's dangerous thinking." Geologists don't see mountains and say, "Well it looks like some kind of force moved these continents together, but that's dangerous thinking."

Quote:

Take the weather patterns, an "organic" system of extreme complexity, which seem to behave according to rules that can be understandable



What does weather have to do with complexity? Actually I don't even want to know, because it'll get this discussion sidetracked....
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Consciousness - 06/22/06 04:33

Quote:

I don't even know how you could begin to study consciousness. It defies the material nature of our universe.




If you think that you missed my entire point, that physical structure and organization may be what defines and generates consciousness, therfore not definy material reality.

Also, there are many means of studying consciousness. Here you display more ignorance of science, and the entire hisory and purpose of philosophy which is almost entirely a study of consciouness.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 06/22/06 04:36

Quote:

If you think that you missed my entire point, that physical structure and organization may be what defines and generates consciousness, therfore not definy material reality.

Also, there are many means of studying consciousness. Here you display more ignorance of science, and the entire hisory and purpose of philosophy which is almost entirely a study of consciouness.



Yeah, but because consciousness can't be put in a test tube, there's no unifying theory of consciousness.

Obviously the brain is what generates our consciousness.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Consciousness - 06/22/06 07:20

That's actually *not* obvious. How do you know what the seat of consciousness is? For centuries people believed that the heart was the seat of the mind, not the brain.

While science has shown that the brain is indeeed responsible for most cognition, its not an obvious fact. In fact it wasnt until the 19th century that scientists realized that the physical structure of the brain was directly responsible for thing lie personality, emotion, and so on.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 06/22/06 23:04

Quote:

That's actually *not* obvious. How do you know what the seat of consciousness is? For centuries people believed that the heart was the seat of the mind, not the brain.

While science has shown that the brain is indeeed responsible for most cognition, its not an obvious fact. In fact it wasnt until the 19th century that scientists realized that the physical structure of the brain was directly responsible for thing lie personality, emotion, and so on.



You're really going to tell me that you think some cognition comes from outside the brain? Then you either believe people are in some ways supernatural, or you believe in some other kind of supernatural...something.

I guess I don't get what the problem is here. We know the general role of the brain. Exactly how the brain works is still a mystery, but that doesn't mean we don't know what its job is.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Consciousness - 06/23/06 00:12

Quote:

You're really going to tell me that you think some cognition comes from outside the brain?



No I'm not telling you that. Why do you insist on missing the point?

I'm saying that the brain being the seat of consciousness is not at all "obvious".

How do you know for sure it is? Because of what you "hear around"? In reality it probably is, but then, I dont know of any brains living on their own outside a body, so we cant really say for sure. Some anecdotes from multiple organ transplant patients suggest some personality traits may be related to other organs.

Anyway, since you dont agree with the scientific method, for all you know the brain could be a lump of coal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the cartoon and resistant bacteria: this is indeed a case of natural selection. It's not a case of ANY bacteria being resistant, its about specific strains and species that develop a resistance over time. This resistance is apprently selected in each generation, until the whole strain becomes resistant. Explain how else the species could become resistant across the board, except for natural selection.

Here again you display a basic lack of ability to come to grips with a logical argument that goes against your deeply helld beliefs. This is what fanaticism is.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 06/23/06 23:20

Quote:

No I'm not telling you that. Why do you insist on missing the point?

I'm saying that the brain being the seat of consciousness is not at all "obvious".



Maybe not obvious to people who don't understand a thing about science. The brain is the central nervous system's processor. What else does the thinking? Our livers?

Quote:

How do you know for sure it is? Because of what you "hear around"?



Well, I suppose I could call scientists conspirators, but that would be pointless. I'd rather make a scientific argument, but there is no scientific argument against the idea that the brain is what causes our consciousness.

Quote:

but then, I dont know of any brains living on their own outside a body



That's irrelevant to whether or not the brain causes consciousness.

Quote:

Some anecdotes from multiple organ transplant patients suggest some personality traits may be related to other organs.



Ok, so personality may be relative to the loss of organs (or possibly its the events that lead to the loss?), but that doesn't mean consciousness is.

Quote:

About the cartoon and resistant bacteria: this is indeed a case of natural selection. It's not a case of ANY bacteria being resistant, its about specific strains and species that develop a resistance over time. This resistance is apprently selected in each generation, until the whole strain becomes resistant. Explain how else the species could become resistant across the board, except for natural selection.



Some bacteria already exist in these populations that are resistant, so the ones who aren't just die out. There's no evidence to suggest these resistances are change. Except in the rare case where a bacteria lost a receptor, or lost the ability to control enzyme production. You're not going to convince me that a germ turned into a man by telling me about all the structures its lost. That's not evolution.

I've already explain this in another thread, so I'm not going to go into it any further here. You can look it up in the other thread.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Consciousness - 06/24/06 05:02

Okey.... first of all, weather is excedingly complicated.
Massive supercomputers with acces to all the data on earth can not accurately predict when a hurricane will form, where it will go, when an earthquake will happen. Next time the weather isn't what the tv says it is, don't blame the weatherman, blame the trillions of complicated calculations with terrabytes of data which lead to a faulty conclusion because of a single wrong temperature of an ocean current, or a tiny random data corruption. Read up on chaos theory, look up weather prediction...

But - that's not important to the discussion. Please don't flame me and then say I derailed it. That goes for everyone, it just needed to be claridied.


Anyways, CONCIOUSNESS!
It doesn't have to be pure chemicals that cause conciousness, or a soul. Why can't it be something else?
A few theories:


CEMI field Theory Abstract

Quantum Conciousness Abstract More indepth electromagnetic conciousness theory
Misc conciousness theory info
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Consciousness - 06/29/06 20:50

"I'm saying that the brain being the seat of consciousness is not at all "obvious"."


I'm still worried about the poor Jellyfish of the world.
Because they have NO brain whatsoever and my evolution teacher says humans evolved from fish.

http://www.extremescience.com/GiantJellyfish.htm

Somebody help the poor jellyfish please.

Matt says all creatures are the same, but the brainless jellyfish sounds like Matt sometimes.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Consciousness - 06/29/06 21:20

Quote:

Maybe not obvious to people who don't understand a thing about science. The brain is the central nervous system's processor.



Okey so how does the yellyfish work then? It's not that black and white in reality. Yes, we might agree that the yellyfish has no conscious, but only because we can't find it's brain equivalent? We know a lot about brains, but as far as I know it hasn't quite been determined wether or not it's the seat of our consciousness... (not that I would know any other place that would seem to be a more logic place for it btw.)

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 06/29/06 21:59

I'd respond, but this has become a dead end.
Posted By: Alberto

Re: Consciousness - 10/08/06 14:39

Hello

I you go on "gamedev.net" web site "Artificial Intelligence " "Strong AI vs Weak AI" there is an interesting discussion about this topic.
In particular it is clearly explained the "Chinese room" example which I mentioned in this thread
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 10/14/06 23:01

Quote:

Okey so how does the yellyfish work then? It's not that black and white in reality. Yes, we might agree that the yellyfish has no conscious, but only because we can't find it's brain equivalent? We know a lot about brains, but as far as I know it hasn't quite been determined wether or not it's the seat of our consciousness... (not that I would know any other place that would seem to be a more logic place for it btw.)




We're talking about the brain being the seat of consciousness. Do you really think jellyfish are conscious? Jellyfish can move around and react to stimuli. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they're conscious.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Consciousness - 10/15/06 13:42

Quote:

We're talking about the brain being the seat of consciousness.



You think it's the seat of consciousness, you don't know that though, infact what more does our brain do then process lot's of stimuli?? As I said though, for our 'conscious' it would probably be a logical place to be, however our conscious may be not even more than simple impulses. We see things, we registrate what we see and we react on them. How we react on it depends on what we see, when we see it, how we see it and what we've seen in the past and what we still remember off that. Basic emotions may give it a more human shape, but that's about it.
How do you define a consciousness and how exactly do you think this would work biologically, when it's something different that 'a result of impulses'?

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 10/15/06 21:18

A consciousness isn't just action/reaction to stimulus. Consciousness is an awareness, or understanding of the action/reaction, per se. For instance. When I'm looking at the computer screen, I'm actually looking at the computer screen. I'm conscious of it. However, a robot could look at the computer screen and react to stimulus, but still not be conscious.

I think this sums it up pretty well. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscious

I don't get why you disagree that the brain is what causes consciousness. You'll listen to whatever scientists tell you, except that.
Posted By: EX Citer

Re: Consciousness - 10/15/06 21:47

consciousness is an illusion made by the brain, and I think for most lifeforms (99%) with brain (officially). That means we have no choice. But then again laws (civilisation) wouldnīt work so itīs wrong to publish that knowledge. That means everyone has a will and is responsible for his nonsense. In anyway there is one provement for the existence of the "will" and 999 provement against. And the dilemma is that both have the same weight.

The other dilemma is that I am maybe offtopic

PS: Please donīt be cheap and say, civilisation works, so humans must have a will. Nonsense... Humans believing in a will make the civilisation. That is if course not the same as having a will.

PS2: Of course having a will is a very fine thing. Even if itīs an illusion itīs a nice one. Just because something is unreal it isnīt bad.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Consciousness - 10/16/06 00:11

Quote:

You'll listen to whatever scientists tell you, except that.



Uuhhm, hate to disappoint you, but no. Infact, scientists do not even agree on this subject. Everyone seems to agree though that the brain processes a lot of impulses (practically all, except those 'reflex impulses') and also makes sure an 'appropriate' action will happen.

Quote:

Consciousness is an awareness, or understanding of the action/reaction, per se.



Yes, but that's what your brain makes believe .. It's still just a reaction. Infact, it's the result of a double reaction. You think about looking at the screen, you've just seen it. And you are thinking about it again. Does that really make you aware of your action? Your brain thinks so, but he's just registrating the second reaction on 'looking at the computer screen' and gives as a reaction 'hey I'm thinking about looking at the screen'.

It's still just a reaction. Give the brain enough impulses and it'll probably react quite complex to it, still doesn't change the fact that the final result is simply the reaction to all those individual impulses ... We don't know yet exactly where 'ideas come from' yet, but if it's mathematically and chemically speaking simply the result of an equation, then what exactly makes us different from a robot? Illusions fed by our brain...

Quote:

For instance. When I'm looking at the computer screen, I'm actually looking at the computer screen. I'm conscious of it. However, a robot could look at the computer screen and react to stimulus, but still not be conscious.



That's where emotions come in too btw .. a robot can be aware of it's environment too (sensors telling him how far away obstructing objects are, if something is moving etc.), however lacking emotions it will never react to the events like we do. It doesn't have a trillion billion preprogrammed reactions to randomly choose from either, we sort off do ...

Quote:

the conscious, Psychoanalysis. the part of the mind comprising psychic material of which the individual is aware.



Not the brain ... the mind. MIND; (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.

The link between mind and matter has never been proven, that's my problem with the brain being the seat of our consciousness, if there even is something like that.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 10/16/06 06:20

Quote:

consciousness is an illusion made by the brain



Um, an illusion provided to what? Our brains? But then what's the difference? You say we're not conscious, we just think we're conscious. But since I'm aware, whether its by an illusion or otherwise, what does it matter?

What you're trying to tell me is that my consciousness isn't real. But since I experience it every single day, you're going to have to do better than your poor illusion reasoning.

Quote:

Uuhhm, hate to disappoint you, but no. Infact, scientists do not even agree on this subject. Everyone seems to agree though that the brain processes a lot of impulses (practically all, except those 'reflex impulses') and also makes sure an 'appropriate' action will happen.




I would like to know which scientists are unsure about whether or not the brain is conscious.

Quote:

Yes, but that's what your brain makes believe .. It's still just a reaction.



I'm not saying it isn't just a reaction. Its a complex set of electrical reaction something-or-others. The point is that it exists, regardless of whether or not its a reaction. What you're trying to tell me is that my brain is only convinced its conscious, but I don't quite get the difference.

Quote:

We don't know yet exactly where 'ideas come from' yet, but if it's mathematically and chemically speaking simply the result of an equation, then what exactly makes us different from a robot?



If free will is the result of chemical and physical laws, then its still free will. We're made from 'dust'. Its not supernatural, its just the the universe seems not only tuned for life, and seems to reek of design, but it also seems that the laws of the universe were meant to give unconscious matter a consciousness and free will. Which would make sense in a mindless, random universe.

Maybe we aren't better than robots. That remains to be seen. But if you give a robot a consciousness and free will, just like a human, then by its nature its part human.

Quote:

Not the brain ... the mind. MIND; (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.

The link between mind and matter has never been proven, that's my problem with the brain being the seat of our consciousness, if there even is something like that.



Since we don't agree about whether or not we're even conscious, then its going to be difficult to get anywhere.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Consciousness - 10/16/06 14:53

Quote:

I would like to know which scientists are unsure about whether or not the brain is conscious.



There are quite a lot of theories about the relation between the mind and the matter, and what or where exactly 'consciousness' is seated. Just search for it, 'theories on consciousness' or something along that lines. It'll show what I mean.

I don't think we're not conscious (yes, that might be confusing), I'm just saying that it could simply be an illusion, as a result of our brain's reaction. All we do is react on impulses, like you said, there's nothing supernatural about that. Some people tend to give the conscious way more credit.

Is a 'machine' that records what happens, and who's able to think about it and has a mimicked (self-)awareness, conscious?? I think so. I mean, it may not be alive, but it's conscious (to some extent), depending on how accurate the immitation is.

Quote:

Um, an illusion provided to what? Our brains? But then what's the difference? You say we're not conscious, we just think we're conscious. But since I'm aware, whether its by an illusion or otherwise, what does it matter?



You're biased. You start your reasoning with 'since I'm aware'. They use to say 'cogito ergo sum' ("I am thinking, therefore I exist"), but what if the 'thinking' is an illusion? Does 'thinking' about anything really matter? No, it's the actions based upon that thinking that matter (that will actually have a result), so the 'I am thinking'-part may not be that important for existence in the first place.

Okey, anyways, this is going a bit nowhere ... I meant illusion as in, the reaction of the brain telling us to 'feel conscious/self-aware' and thus we are thinking we're conscious. Thinking you're conscious and being conscious are two different things, so it matters a lot.

Simplest example I could think off to explain it even better: Thinking you can fly can be very different to your actual ability to fly.

Quote:

Its a complex set of electrical reaction something-or-others. The point is that it exists, regardless of whether or not its a reaction. What you're trying to tell me is that my brain is only convinced its conscious, but I don't quite get the difference.



Again, I'll point to the simple example I gave. You can't 'grab' the consciousness, which is why this is such a complex subject, it's in the mind so to speak.

It may be a bit confusing, but I do think that the brain is the seat of 'consciousness', personally I don't see any other option. However, the relation between the mind and matter isn't proven/researched enough, plenty of theories with different ideas... Some think it's a neat illusion and a result of processes in the brain, I simply tend to agree with that.

Cheers
Posted By: EX Citer

Re: Consciousness - 10/16/06 16:40

Irish Farmer... So lame... Try to use your brain. The brain bases on reactions. Because everyones brain is build up the same way everyone is reacting the same + some random factors which we all know. You can sometimes say what someone will do before he does it because there are almost no random factors.
The Consciousness can be manipulated by chemicals and other physical things. That shows Consciousness is created by the brain and not needed to survive, because sometimes we have no Consciousness as some animals have no consciousnes.

I hate it to explain every little step to you. Think by yourself man! You could come to the same point if you had thought about my words. Annoying.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Consciousness - 10/16/06 17:51

@Phemox.

You used some interesting words. I'm just curious, to see where you're coming from. You say that my brain is telling 'me' to be conscious. Between the 'me' and my brain, do you think there's a difference, or were you saying something else?

I'm not questioning you to argue, I just want to know what you think. Based on previous posts, I take it that you're referring to the brain, and then also to the mind.

@ex citer

Can you say what someone is going to do before s/he does it? Perhaps, but we don't have the ability to quantify such a complex thing as the brain. For instance, our brains are hardwired to want sex. Yet some people choose to be celibate (sometimes their entire lives).

You're right, the human mind can be predictable, and we are at the mercy of matter, and other influences. But that's what makes our consciousness and will all the more amazing, I think. Regardless of whether or not we were designed or evolved.

Quote:

I hate it to explain every little step to you. Think by yourself man! You could come to the same point if you had thought about my words. Annoying.




Its just a discussion, relax.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Consciousness - 10/16/06 18:18

Between the 'me' and my brain *might* be a difference indeed ...

Mmm, how could I not start explaining this while making it so complex that I don't understand it myself anymore heheheh ...

Perhaps this would explain;
Let's assume for a moment our brain is very computer-like, just for simplicity's sake.
When that 'computer brain' processes incoming information, at it's core it'll use 'zeros and ones', however that's not useful without printing it to the 'screen and display it', so a reaction can be triggered.

I think there's no 1 on 1 relationshipt between receiving an impuls and getting something printed out on screen. Not everything the brain processes needs 'thinking' so to speak. That's why I think the brain makes us conscious about things, that apparently are 'more' important. This filtering is what interests me a lot, and also one of my arguments to say our brain activity is much more a 'input-output' system than we would think.

I have to admit my head starts spinning when I think about this little 'theory' too much, so hopefully this wasn't too confusing. By far, the problem of all this, more or less, is the complexity of our brain's output and the resulting reactions ...

Cheers
Posted By: EX Citer

Re: Consciousness - 10/16/06 19:26

(where is the crying smiley here?). It's like one of these drugs. I donīt want to discuss, but I have no will and have to. I donīt know why.
Some of my teachers would say - I do it because I WANT, even if I say I donīt - But I realy do not want. Like a drug (like alcohol(!) or nikotin(!) for example).
Posted By: lostclimate

Re: Consciousness - 10/17/06 04:35

you all will be pissed at me for going off topic, but how do you all find the time to post so much about something like this, i mean whoa.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Consciousness - 10/17/06 08:06

Quote:

I would like to know which scientists are unsure about whether or not the brain is conscious.



Prof. Joe Fishface and Dr. Bob Bumchunk.

Seriously, science has no concensus on the human consciousness. You will find no agreement or any real facts at all.

Some progress has certainly been made in understanding the brain, but not nearly enough to answer ontological questions like this. Currently only philosphy gives some explanation.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Consciousness - 10/17/06 13:56

Quote:

you all will be pissed at me for going off topic, but how do you all find the time to post so much about something like this, i mean whoa.



Normally it doesn't take that much time at all.

Btw. As for explanations, there are plenty of them. Like Matt pointed out though, most of them are purely philosophical of nature and nothing's proven or solid enough to bring a concensus.

A different theory;
Quantum approaches to consciousness ..

Cheers
© 2024 lite-C Forums