Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?

[Ripley]

Talking about illusions... those perfectly annoying anomalies that laugh back at us as we remain suspended in dullness... Why couldn't this very theory of, what is it? a claim for pseudo-consciousness floating in a methodical sea of brilliant nonsense and doublethink? not itself be the grand illusion? Well, I'm not buying it. Why, instead, I keep returning to the question that evades detection here: who thinks like this?? The inferiority complex that has categorically frozen out recognition of personality in others because all there is, really, is brain power pumping neurons?

And what about the narcissist and hedonist? Why would the brain invent such circimstance for feedback if it too weren't as arrogant and assuming?

 

[Billy T]

... If you are materialist then own it. But don't start trying to pretend you are suddenly on Chalmers' side of the question when you've been brownnosing Sarkus every step of the way thru this thread. You are not a dualist if you think consciousness can be reduced to material processes. It's as simple as that..

I asked where I had an error in post 371, but you ignore direct questions instead of defend your prior claims.

In addition you exhibit serious reading comprehension problems here. I (and Chalmers) have clearly stated (see part of my post 353 re-quoted near end of this post) that consciousness is an information process, not directly material, but must be "embodied in a brain" I don´t consider that the same as saying consciousness is materialistic but if you want to you may do so. I don´t care to enter into the pointless discussion as to whether or not consciousness is an illusion, is materialistic, etc.; I think it is not, but little is learned by discussion of that, especially as I believe I am the only one who has even offered a definition for "illusion" (not you at least - You seem quite happy to argue with Sarkus on illusion or not with out ever bothering to define what you mean by "illusion" !).

My POV and that of Chalmers, Searle, and many others is that postulating a soul to explain consciousness it not any explanation at all - just a re-naming of the mystery at least until some one can show souls exist and tell some of their properties. (Unfortunately the different major cultures can not even agree on any one set of properties to arbitrarily assign to the soul.) Not only that, but postulating with zero evidence a "soul" as part of the explanation of consciousness is a violation of Occam’s razor, and certainly the burden of proof is on those who do that, not on those who honestly admit they can not explain the mystery of consciousness.

Note in my long post on free will and its description of why the Real Time Simulation, once it developed, was strongly Darwinian selected for, is only explaining how perception is achieved, not how consciousness is achieved. I have no answer for that, but do believe it is closely related to perception, awareness, experiences, etc. and probably is also a creation of parietal brain as it runs the world´s most complete and complex simulation in the world´s (by far) the most advanced computer - the human brain - a massively parallel processor except for the final stage consciousness, which really does little - basically just gets informed of the conclusions reached during the massive parallel processing. Consciousness, is however a very useful "serial bottle neck" as one can not both "flee and fight." Trying to do all the options considered in the massive parallel processing would be a disaster.

I have now edited this post to quote my text defining “illusion” and soon also will give part of my long post on free will where I explicitly state that I am only an information process and hence my having free will, if I do, is possible – not a violation of the physical laws that determine how and when every neuron fires. I.e. the Brain is a deterministic processor but it can simulate a world in which the physical laws do not control what happens. Just like a Von Neumann computer can simulate a fire burning up a log, with no production of heat or water super cooling with no production of ice. Etc.

... {post 353 of this thread, in part} "I" am "embodied information" "I" am not directly material. Since I am not material, my having free will is no violation of any physical law as they apply only to material objects. This is no proof that free will is more than an illusion "I'" suffer from, but at least my POV about "me" being non-material but embodied information that could have free will is not in conflict with the physical laws.

Most illusions are well understood, how the brain´s processes create them. Perhaps I (and you also) should define an "Illusion" - For me an illusion is a real perception or experience presumed to be about something that exist in the external 3D world that does not conform to the external world´s object in one or more details.

For example seeing a green spot on a white wall of the same shape as the red spot you fixated on earlier for several minutes is an illusion, well understood in terms of neural fatigue by the minutes of fixation on the real red spot PLUS the neurological well established fact that there is in V4 a red/green neural axis where, crudely speaking, white light excites the red and green activity equally. ...

Unfortunately man´s progress in understanding some other illusions of the brain (like hearing voices, seeing ghosts, etc. are not yet as well understood.) How qualia or mind or free will arise is not yet well understood. My RTS POV at least removes the conflict between what is known (neurons being physical follow the natural laws) and free will, but it does not prove free will is less of an illusion than the briefly seen green spot on a white wall is an illusion.

Just because I can not now explain something in terms of simple well know neural properties does not mean it is not reducible to more simple processes. Once sound and temperature were thought to be irreducible, but now we understand them in terms of molecular motions. I think I made in my long published paper a reduction to known neural properties how the Gestalt law of "good continuation" is achieved by neurons - a reduction of what was once an irreducible fact. ...

{post 21} Yes as Chambers said "consciousness is the hard problem." I doubt any set of hard ware can ever be made to have even simple experiences ("Qualia") that humans have all the time.

However, I think we have them because the brain, specifically the parietal part, is running a real time simulation and creating "us" in the process. I have also suggested that because of this genuine free will is not necessarily inconsistent with the natural laws that control the firing of every nerve in your body. See how I think we have experiences and may even have genuine free will (but I doubt that) at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66

BTW, IMHO, John Searle makes the most sense on this subject.

SUMMARY: My POV is not that we are living in simulation, but that we are part of a real time parietal (brain) simulation. I.e. "we" are not a physical body, but an informational process. Note "I" ,"we" "us" etc. in quotes refers to this created psychological self not the physical self /body.

2nd self quote from: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...r-Simulation&p=2757580&viewfull=1#post2757580 but it contains a link to my long post on genuine free will which also details the RTS.

 

[Magical Realist]

What is your argument from claiming that that it is ontic reducibility? At the moment all you have put forth, in pages upon pages of responses, is personal incredulity. You have offered no logic to support your position, other than spouting that it self-evidently exists, and is not matter. Chalmers certainly considers it so but his is not the only position.

For those of us that don't know whether it is or not, to me the rational position is to assume that it is ultimately reducible (based on Occam's razor etc) based on the evidence that we do have, until such time as we come across arguments or evidence to the contrary. We acknowledge the gap, but we don't make stuff up that is untestable and unfalsifiable just to sate our requirement for answers.

Once again, the evidence for mind is self-evident. It is as given a fact of my experience as matter is. When I think I am really thinking. When I see red I am really seeing red and not an "illusion" of red. The fact that it is A PRIORI a given in the very act of postulating a theory at all means it is logically irreducible to an A POSTERIORI fact like matter. If I doubt the validity of the experience of my own thoughts, reasoning, perceptions, and logic then I have nothing more to say. I might as well be a turnip. And indeed in a queerly ironic fashion that may be the self-fulfilling prophecy for your viewpoint, seeing as you would find no problem in reducing your own mind to the motions of dumb unconscious physical particles.

 

[spidergoat]

Once again, the evidence for mind is self-evident. It is as given a fact of my experience as matter is. When I think I am really thinking. When I see red I am really seeing red and not an "illusion" of red. The fact that it is A PRIORI a given in the very act of postulating a theory at all means it is logically irreducible to an A POSTERIORI fact like matter. If I doubt the validity of the experience of my own thoughts, reasoning, perceptions, and logic then I have nothing more to say. I might as well be a turnip. And indeed in a queerly ironic fashion that may be the self-fulfilling prophecy for your viewpoint, seeing as you would find no problem in reducing your own mind to the motions of dumb unconscious physical particles.

There are only thoughts and the brain that generates them, no thinker as such. You only "exist" when you have a thought, otherwise you are not even conscious. The experience is there, but no experiencer.

 

[Sarkus]

Once again, the evidence for mind is self-evident.

Noone has disputed that there is evidence for mind - the issues is one of what mind is! How many times must this be repeated to you before you grasp the difference.

It is as given a fact of my experience as matter is. When I think I am really thinking. When I see red I am really seeing red and not an "illusion" of red.

As explained countless times before, anything that happens above the level of consciousness has no experiential or practical difference whether consciousness is illusory or not. But you fail to grasp this as well.

The fact that it is A PRIORI a given in the very act of postulating a theory at all means it is logically irreducible to an A POSTERIORI fact like matter.

??? You'll have to explain this word salad with more clarity.

If I doubt the validity of the experience of my own thoughts, reasoning, perceptions, and logic then I have nothing more to say.

I seriously doubt your reasoning and your logic. But I don't doubt your experiences of them. But such issues are irrelevant, given that they occur above the level of consciousness - at which point the nature of consciousness is practically (as in in practice) irrelevant.

I might as well be a turnip. And indeed in a queerly ironic fashion that may be the self-fulfilling prophecy for your viewpoint, seeing as you would find no problem in reducing your own mind to the motions of dumb unconscious physical particles.

From a point of view of understanding what it is, no problem whatsoever in principle, although understanding how the complexity gives rise to consciousness is being worked on. But if you don't consider yourself any more complex than a turnip, that's your choice.

But please - stop with the strawmen, the claims that positions such as mine deny experience or claim that things no longer exist.

 

[Magical Realist]

There are only thoughts and the brain that generates them, no thinker as such. You only "exist" when you have a thought, otherwise you are not even conscious. The experience is there, but no experiencer.

How Zen..So I'm the contents of my mind and NOT a mind. OK.. However you wanna word it, these contents all remain a priori facts of my experience and cannot be doubted without sabotaging my very act of doubt. Descartes taught us this like 400 years ago. It is the achilles heel of materialism. I thought everyone knew about this..

 

[Magical Realist]

Noone has disputed that there is evidence for mind - the issues is one of what mind is! How many times must this be repeated to you before you grasp the difference.
As explained countless times before, anything that happens above the level of consciousness has no experiential or practical difference whether consciousness is illusory or not. But you fail to grasp this as well.
??? You'll have to explain this word salad with more clarity.
I seriously doubt your reasoning and your logic. But I don't doubt your experiences of them. But such issues are irrelevant, given that they occur above the level of consciousness - at which point the nature of consciousness is practically (as in in practice) irrelevant.
From a point of view of understanding what it is, no problem whatsoever in principle, although understanding how the complexity gives rise to consciousness is being worked on. But if you don't consider yourself any more complex than a turnip, that's your choice.

But please - stop with the strawmen, the claims that positions such as mine deny experience or claim that things no longer exist.

You're the one saying consciousness is an illusion. Not me. Accept the consequences of this belief or not. But don't blame me for holding you to them. If consciousness and the mind are an illusion, then reason, logic, thoughts, and perceptions are illusions too. This follows like night and day. Deal with it. I'm done with your disingenious word twisting. Oh and if you have problem with those latin terms I used I suggest studying Kant. It might do you some good..

 

[spidergoat]

How Zen..So I'm the contents of my mind and NOT a mind. OK.. However you wanna word it, these contents all remain a priori facts of my experience and cannot be doubted without sabotaging my very act of doubt. Descartes taught us this like 400 years ago. It is the achilles heel of materialism. I thought everyone knew about this..

Descarte could be wrong. But the "I" he was referring to could also just be the brain. There is a brain generating thought, but that brain isn't the sense of self that thought generates. I can't prove any of this.

 

[Sarkus]

You're the one saying consciousness is an illusion. Not me. Accept the consequences of this belief or not. But don't blame me for holding you to them. If consciousness and the mind are an illusion, then reason, logic, thoughts, and perceptions are illusions too. This follows like night and day. Deal with it.

Strawman after strawman.
What is it about illusions still existing that you can't understand? You say that considering consciousness to be an illusion leads to reason, logic et al being illusions too... so what? Is anyone saying that they don't exist? No. It is merely the nature of their existence that is in question. But you can't, for some reason, grasp this.

I'm done with your disingenious word twisting.

There is no twisting of words - just your failure to understand them.

Oh and if you have problem with those latin terms I used I suggest studying Kant. It might do you some good..

It is not the terms but your phrasing that confuses. Much like your continued insistence to raise strawmen and to think illusory somehow means non-existent.

Do you yet understand that illusory does not equate to non-existence? Or do you consider that to be yet more word twisting?

 

[Magical Realist]

Strawman after strawman.
What is it about illusions still existing that you can't understand? You say that considering consciousness to be an illusion leads to reason, logic et al being illusions too... so what? Is anyone saying that they don't exist? No. It is merely the nature of their existence that is in question. But you can't, for some reason, grasp this.
There is no twisting of words - just your failure to understand them.
It is not the terms but your phrasing that confuses. Much like your continued insistence to raise strawmen and to think illusory somehow means non-existent.

Do you yet understand that illusory does not equate to non-existence? Or do you consider that to be yet more word twisting?

Yep..that's word twisting. If consciousness is an illusion, then it is an illusion that it is consciousness. It isn't real. It is a semblance of being conscious of something, a mirage or hallucination, but is not the consciousness of anything real. Why are you even saying consciousness is an illusion if you don't mean by it that there is no validity to it That it is not really consciousness of real things at all? This is beside the fact that positing an illusion assumes the existence of a mind in which the illusion occurs, a mind that has the sort of epistemic access to reality that it can even be said to be deluded. But then I already made that clear to you. At this point I'm only repeating myself. Taking a breather..

 

[spidergoat]

Here is an analogy. A representational painting isn't the thing it represents. It does exist as canvas, gesso, paint and wood. It takes another human brain to interpret the painting and see a flowerpot, a table, wallpaper. A dog or a shark would not experience a painting as we do, nor would another human being with no experience of those objects.

 

[Sarkus]

Yep..that's word twisting.

Then answer me these simple questions:
When a magician performs a trick on stage, is he doing something real?
Does the trick appear to be something that it is not?
Is a mirage of a pool of shimmering water on the road an actual pool of shimmering water?
Does the mirage exist - even if merely as a process of distorted lightwaves?

If consciousness is an illusion, then it is an illusion that it is consciousness. It isn't real. It is a semblance of being conscious of something, a mirage or hallucination, but is not the consciousness of anything real.

Illusion does not mean unreal - it means not as perceived.
There are only so many times this can be explained to you.

Why are you even saying consciousness is an illusion if you don't mean by it that there is no validity to it That it is not really consciousness of real things at all?

Does one negate the skill of the magician by realising that he is not performing actual feats of magic?
I am not invalidating anything - that is your assumption. You read too much into the terminology that simply isn't there. Illusions exist. But they exist differently than our perceptions of them. This does not invalidate our experience of them.

This is beside the fact that positing an illusion assumes the existence of a mind in which the illusion occurs, a mind that has the sort of epistemic access to reality that it can even be said to be deluded. But then I already made that clear to you.

And how many more times do I need to repeat to you that I have never said the mind does not exist. Where, in all of the posts I have made, have I stated at any point "the mind does not exist"? Why do you continue to raise such strawmen? Do you have nothing better to do?

At this point I'm only repeating myself. Taking a breather..

Do come back when you having something other than strawmen or your failure to grasp the simple concept that illusions do still exist.

 

[Magical Realist]

Then answer me these simple questions:
When a magician performs a trick on stage, is he doing something real?
Does the trick appear to be something that it is not?
Is a mirage of a pool of shimmering water on the road an actual pool of shimmering water?
Does the mirage exist - even if merely as a process of distorted lightwaves?

Illusion does not mean unreal - it means not as perceived.
There are only so many times this can be explained to you.
Does one negate the skill of the magician by realising that he is not performing actual feats of magic?
I am not invalidating anything - that is your assumption. You read too much into the terminology that simply isn't there. Illusions exist. But they exist differently than our perceptions of them. This does not invalidate our experience of them.
And how many more times do I need to repeat to you that I have never said the mind does not exist. Where, in all of the posts I have made, have I stated at any point "the mind does not exist"? Why do you continue to raise such strawmen? Do you have nothing better to do?
Do come back when you having something other than strawmen or your failure to grasp the simple concept that illusions do still exist.

LOL! And so we have even more tapdancing around this special secret meaning of the word illusion. That because a magician performs an illusion of sawing a woman in half he actually IS sawing the woman in half. Hate to break it to ya bub but that wasn't real. No woman was sawn in half. That's why we call it...uhh..what was that word again?...oh an ILLUSION. And that's why when you call consciousness an illusion that means it ain't real either. There's simply no other way to make this clearer. I know this. You know this. And every sane person lurking here knows this. Saying illusions are real representations of reality over and over may convince YOU but it's only amusing us. Is this the only tactic you have left to shore up your sinking ship of epiphenomenal materialism? Hoping to pass off words as the opposite of what they mean?

 

[gmilam]

LOL! And so we have even more tapdancing around this special secret meaning of the word illusion. That because a magician performs an illusion of sawing a woman in half he actually IS sawing the woman in half. Hate to break it to ya bub but that wasn't real. No woman was sawn in half. That's why we call it...uhh..what was that word again?...oh an ILLUSION. And that's why when you call consciousness an illusion that means it ain't real either. There's simply no other way to make this clearer. I know this. You know this. And every sane person lurking here knows this. Saying illusions are real representations of reality over and over may convince YOU but it's only amusing us. Is this the only tactic you have left to shore up your sinking ship of epiphenomenal materialism? Hoping to pass off words as the opposite of what they mean?

Your reading comprehension sucks.

 

[Syne]

What's the difference? It only seems contradictory because we live in an environment of illusion. I'm willing to address what's appropriate within that environment because we have no choice but to interact with other people who buy into it, even if it's false.

Jesus, all this mealy-mouthed hedging over an equivocated term. If you do not know the difference between personal responsibility and social mores then you obviously have no basis for judging whether there is a contradiction.

 

[Billy T]

Descartes could be wrong. ...

Certainly! He should have stuck with physics and mathematics (developer of analytic geometry) and stated Newton’s first law* clearly, long before Newton did, but IMHO he sucks as a philosopher. Fortunately, for Descartes now** almost no non-historical philosopher has ever read what nonsense he wrote. You can get an abbreviated (part I only of his Principles of Philosophy, translated from the French) here: http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/principles/01.htm

Not far into the book after doubting all but there is something doing the doubting, he concludes there must be a greater perfect being (God), then still a little later that man is imperfect (thru no fault of God his creator) and sinful. Then given this distasteful fact about man, God had to send a redeemer to provide mean for correction so man can become as God wishes. I.e. by his philosophical reasoning Descartes concludes that Christ had to die on the cross! - What an embarrassment to philosophy is Descartes!

But again so few have actually read, as I have long ago, what nonsense that Descartes actually wrote that he does not get the reputation he deserves as one with a faith to justify as best as he can, despite how twisted his reason must become.

*That body in motion would continue in motion unless acted upon by a external force is very counter-intuitive as all moving bodies are seen to come to rest. This law, really due to Descartes, is quite an advance in Physics.

**Long ago almost all Descartes´s readers were Christians and held the same beliefs as Descartes held, so his logic leading to the conclusion that Christ had to die on the cross was not noticed as silly and he gained great respect which today´s non-readers, lacking any knowledge of what Descartes wrote, still accept.

 

[Magical Realist]

A brief primer on the common use of the word "illusion":

"The dog was an illusion. Therefore, the dog wasn't real."

"The woman was an illusion. Therefore, the woman wasn't real."

"The mind is an illusion. Therefore, the mind isn't real."

"Consciousness is an illusion. Therefore, consciousness isn't real."

Note in the above examples no question was ever raised about the existence of the illusions as such. The illusions themselves are real. What they are illusions OF? Those were not real. Get the picture?

 

[Syne]

Then answer me these simple questions:
When a magician performs a trick on stage, is he doing something real?
Does the trick appear to be something that it is not?
Is a mirage of a pool of shimmering water on the road an actual pool of shimmering water?
Does the mirage exist - even if merely as a process of distorted lightwaves?

Illusion does not mean unreal - it means not as perceived.
There are only so many times this can be explained to you.
Does one negate the skill of the magician by realising that he is not performing actual feats of magic?
I am not invalidating anything - that is your assumption. You read too much into the terminology that simply isn't there. Illusions exist. But they exist differently than our perceptions of them. This does not invalidate our experience of them.
And how many more times do I need to repeat to you that I have never said the mind does not exist. Where, in all of the posts I have made, have I stated at any point "the mind does not exist"? Why do you continue to raise such strawmen? Do you have nothing better to do?
Do come back when you having something other than strawmen or your failure to grasp the simple concept that illusions do still exist.

Illusion is essentially deception (counter to reality). Whether what a magician is doing is real is a red herring to the question of whether he is doing what he appears to be doing. The whole question of consciousness is not about whether the brain is doing something (general and non-specific), as that is just as trivial as whether a magician is doing something. A magician could be twiddling his thumbs, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether he is performing an illusion. I agree with MR, you are equivocating the word into utter meaninglessness. If "illusion" does not mean "false" or "unreal", then you lose the ability to call anything a lie, as you parade the same red herring about the action being a "real" or "genuine" action, completely devoid of the content.

Where has MR claimed you have asserted that "the mind does not exist"? I have not seen it, so I can only conclude that you are the one attacking a straw man here. He has only said that if consciousness is illusory then you have no solid grounds upon which to assert anything as other than illusion. How on earth do you infer from that that consciousness would then not exist? It is actually easier to infer, from that, that the material reality does not exist.

 

[Magical Realist]

Certainly! He should have stuck with physics and mathematic (developer of analytic geometry) and stated Newton’s first law clearly, long before Newton did, but IMHO he sucks as a philosopher. Fortunately, for Descartes now* almost no non-historical philosopher has ever read what nonsense he wrote. You can get an abbreviated (part I only of his Principles of Philosophy, translated from the French) here: http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/principles/01.htm

Not far into the book after doubting all but there is something doing the doubting, he concludes there must be a greater perfect being (God), then still a little later that man is imperfect (thru no fault of God his creator) and sinful. Then given this distasteful fact about man, God had to send a redeemer to provide mean for correction so man can become as God wishes. I.e. by his philosophical reasoning Descartes concludes that Christ had to die on the cross! - What an embarrassment to philosophy is Descartes!

But again so few have actually read, as I have long ago, what nonsense that Descartes actually wrote that he does not get the reputation he deserves as one with a faith to justify as best as he can, despite how twisted his reason must become.

*Long ago almost all Descartes´s reader were Christians and held the same beliefs as Descartes held, so his logic leading to the conclusion that Christ had to die on the cross was not noticed as silly and he gained great respect which today´s non-readers, lacking any knowledge of what Descartes wrote, still accept.

Ooo yeah, and maybe we should mention Newton's obsessions with the occult and the book of Revelation. As if these figures weren't in fact fallible subscribers to the worldview of their own age.

 

[Billy T]

Your reading comprehension sucks.

You are at least the third person who has had to tell Magic Realist that! I also complained that he does not answer direct questions.