Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?

[Billy T]

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.

Yes it is true Newton held some strange occult views, but unlike Descartes, they did not corrupt his logic in The Principles of Mathematics - That book everyone should at least skim to see how powerful geometric logic can be in the hands of a genius. (Back in his day only geometric proofs were considered valid, just as today some do not consider computer proofs, usually by exhaustive examination of all possible cases, real proofs.) I have read most of the Principles too, but did skip some of the corollaries. It is the most impressive book I have ever read!

Also Newton´s private religious beliefs did not stop him in later life from becoming one of the best "Excheckers of Finance" (I think was his title), that England ever had!

 

[Sarkus]

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?

You continue to demonstrate that you haven't yet grasped the difference between the reality behind what we experience and our interpretation of that experience. You are confusing the latter with reality... That just because we interpret something as X means that X is real. The former is real (in as much as we understand what reality is), and the latter is our subjective interpretation based on our subjective experience.
An illusion has two aspects... The underlying nature of the activity (eg what the magician actually does on stage) and our interpretation of that activity. The reality is the activity, not our interpretation. This doesn't change. It is as real now as it was when we still thought our interpretation correct. Reality does not change. The illusion remains real... Only our interpretation and understanding changes.
And we can no more observe the illusion differently once we understand the underlying activity than we could before.

 

[hansda]

I assume by "spurious cause to consciousness" you mean a non-material agent, often calls a spirit or soul. If that is what you mean, yes –Chalmers, believes as I do: that the cause of consciousness is the activity of the brain. (No "soul" required.)

Let us assume that, our brain is a system. If consciousness is due to activity of our brain, that means we will get consciousness, when our brain is acting or working and we will not get consciousness when our brain is not functioning. So, here considering our brain as a system; consciousness is the output of this system. In that case, what is the input to the brain-system? or, Brain works without any input?

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.

If we live in an environment of illusion, then what is the truth?

You continue to demonstrate that you haven't yet grasped the difference between the reality behind what we experience and our interpretation of that experience. You are confusing the latter with reality... That just because we interpret something as X means that X is real. The former is real (in as much as we understand what reality is), and the latter is our subjective interpretation based on our subjective experience.

The Science, which we have learned so far, is real or illusion?

 

[Magical Realist]

Experiment proves non-causal choice at the quantum level:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109105932.htm

 

[spidergoat]

Let us assume that, our brain is a system. If consciousness is due to activity of our brain, that means we will get consciousness, when our brain is acting or working and we will not get consciousness when our brain is not functioning.

Correct. In fact we are not conscious even when our brain is functioning on an autonomic level but we don't have thoughts.

So, here considering our brain as a system; consciousness is the output of this system. In that case, what is the input to the brain-system? or, Brain works without any input?

Memory and sensory information.

If we live in an environment of illusion, then what is the truth?

The physical is the true.

 

[Billy T]

Let us assume that, our brain is a system. If consciousness is due to activity of our brain, that means we will get consciousness, when our brain is acting or working and we will not get consciousness when our brain is not functioning. So, here considering our brain as a system; consciousness is the output of this system. In that case, what is the input to the brain-system? or, Brain works without any input? ...

Yes the brain is the body´s main control system. When you are unconscious, say in deep dreamless sleep, there is no noticeable reduction (by EEGs) of its activity. Certainly less than 5% of brain´s activity even when you are conscious is related to generation of consciousness.

The input to the brain is from hundred of thousands of nerve transducers such as cells in the retina when eyes are open or Ph sensors in the blood, stomach, and gut. There a many more than 10,000 such transducer of mussel stress, etc. feeding data to the brain just to make it possible for you to stand up without falling over. Consciousness is a minor concern of the brain - just keeping the body chemistry OK is a larger task.

 

[Billy T]

Experiment proves non-causal choice at the quantum level: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109105932.htm

No it does not. IMHO this article has little new that was not predicted, understood and tested more than 18 years ago. It is based on physics than no human can understand except by theory and certainly does not imply "choices" or faster than light information transfer. What or who would be making the choice? QM with mixed wave function state can go either way just like a flipped coin can become heads or tails, with no choice implied.

Let me give a simple analogy: I take two cards one from each of two different decks and write "yes" on one and "no" on the other. Then, not I nor any one else knows if the card with "Yes" on it or the card with "no" on it was placed in "deck A." (and the other placed into "deck B.") Deck A is taken to the moon and deck B stays at the launch pad as part of information coupled system. After arrival at the moon the astronaut opens deck A see the "no" card and immediately know in less than the time light requires to travel between Earth and moon that Deck B has the "yes" card. This is no violation of the speed of light limit as the two decks were prepared to be an information coupled system just like two widely separated photons can be prepared to be one information coupled system.

 

[Magical Realist]

No it does not. IMHO this article has little new that was not predicted, understood and tested more than 18 years ago. It is based on physics than no human can understand except by theory and certainly does not imply "choices" or faster than light information transfer. What or who would be making the choice? QM with mixed wave function state can go either way just like a flipped coin can become heads or tails, with no choice implied.

Let me give a simple analogy: I take two cards one from each of two different decks and write "yes" on one and "no" on the other. Then, not I nor any one else knows if the card with "Yes" on it or the card with "no" on it was placed in "deck A." (and the other placed into "deck B.") Deck A is taken to the moon and deck B stays at the launch pad as part of information coupled system. After arrival at the moon the astronaut opens deck A see the "no" card and immediately know in less than the time light requires to travel between Earth and moon that Deck B has the "yes" card. This is no violation of the speed of light limit as the two decks were prepared to be an information coupled system just like two widely separated photons can be prepared to be one information coupled system.

Why don't you actually read the article before dismissing it. I can tell by your ignorant comments you have no idea what the experiment even proved. And no, your card analogy is entirely wrong. There is no "other" state waiting to be inferred from its opposite state. The state is instantaneously induced with the choice of how to measure it's entangled twin particle. Here it is spelled out for you:


"This rules out the possibility of any physical signal between the two photons. Introducing this non-causal choice is a substantial step beyond existing quantum eraser experiments, where such communication is still possible in principle," explains Xiao-Song Ma, the first author of the current article.

Consequently, the experiment can be seen as a complete realization of the quantum eraser concept, not via delayed choice (which theoretically might be influenced by past events) but using a causally separated choice (by rendering any causal influence impossible).

"Our work disproves the view that a quantum system might, at a certain point in time, appear definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle. This would require communication faster than light -- which is dramatically at odds with Einstein's theory of relativity. And so, I think that this view needs to be abandoned completely. In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time," says Anton Zeilinger.

 

[hansda]

So, here considering our brain as a system; consciousness is the output of this system. In that case, what is the input to the brain-system? or, Brain works without any input?

Memory and sensory information.*

Any input to a system should be external to the system. Memory is part of our brain. So, how it can be a input to 'brain' to generate 'consciousness'?

Sensory informations can be considered as 'input' to 'brain' but do they generate 'consciousness' as 'output' of brain?

If we live in an environment of illusion, then what is the truth?

The physical is the true.

Our environment is physical. So, how it can be illusion?

 

[spidergoat]

Any input to a system should be external to the system. Memory is part of our brain. So, how it can be a input to 'brain' to generate 'consciousness'?

Sensory informations can be considered as 'input' to 'brain' but do they generate 'consciousness' as 'output' of brain?

Memory is partially stored sensory information but also contains previous thoughts and processing of that sensory information, extrapolations, dreams, inferences, other ideas and thoughts. Thought is consciousness, so bringing up a memory is the same as being conscious of it. There must be a center of control that coordinates things, but obviously that would have limited usefulness without memory.

Our environment is physical. So, how it can be illusion?

That's easy. Think about the difference between how you see a scene and how a cat sees it. You might look at the raw data and interpret it as a chair. A cat would only see a landscape of platforms, the raw data would only be a collection of abstract colors and shapes. Without interpretation, referencing previous experience, the physical world would seem very different.

 

[hansda]

Memory is partially stored sensory information but also contains previous thoughts and processing of that sensory information, extrapolations, dreams, inferences, other ideas and thoughts. Thought is consciousness, so bringing up a memory is the same as being conscious of it. There must be a center of control that coordinates things, but obviously that would have limited usefulness without memory.

Sensory Information work as input with the system of a 'functioning brain'. If the brain is not functioning, these inputs of sensory informations will not work. So, some additional inputs are required to keep our 'brain functioning'. What are these additional input, which keep our brain in a functioning condition?

That's easy. Think about the difference between how you see a scene and how a cat sees it. You might look at the raw data and interpret it as a chair. A cat would only see a landscape of platforms, the raw data would only be a collection of abstract colors and shapes. Without interpretation, referencing previous experience, the physical world would seem very different.

So, you mean to say that 'physical objects' are real but there perception/observation is 'illusion'. In that case, the 'physical science' is also illusion because science is based on our observation of physical objects.

 

[gmilam]

Sensory Information work as input with the system of a 'functioning brain'. If the brain is not functioning, these inputs of sensory informations will not work. So, some additional inputs are required to keep our 'brain functioning'. What are these additional input, which keep our brain in a functioning condition?

Food and oxygen.

 

[hansda]

Food and oxygen.

That means our body should be able to breathe. For this ability to breathe, what input our body should require? [Consider brain is part of our body only.]

 

[Billy T]

... For this ability to breathe, what input our body should require? ...

Working muscles and neural stimulation of them. This neural signal is caused by the build up of CO2 in the blood. I think it is indirectly sensed by fact increased CO2 makes the blood more acidic, but body may have sensors that detect the rapidly changing CO2 concentration directly.

Many think (falsely) that the irresistible urge to breath is to get O2, but the exhaled breath has at least 90% of the inhaled O2 still in it. What has dramatically changed is the CO2 concentration from less than 0.04% to at least 10 times higher if breathing normally. This change is easy for the body to sense. You breath to get rid of the greatly increased CO2 concentration, not the only slightly decreased O2 concentration in your lungs.

 

[hansda]

Working muscles and neural stimulation of them.

So, neural stimulation will only work on 'working muscles'.

What is 'working muscle'?

What input a 'muscle cell' will require other than 'food and oxygen' for its 'working'?

This neural signal is caused by the build up of CO2 in the blood. I think it is indirectly sensed by fact increased CO2 makes the blood more acidic, but body may have sensors that detect the rapidly changing CO2 concentration directly.

Many think (falsely) that the irresistible urge to breath is to get O2, but the exhaled breath has at least 90% of the inhaled O2 still in it. What has dramatically changed is the CO2 concentration from less than 0.04% to at least 10 times higher if breathing normally. This change is easy for the body to sense. You breath to get rid of the greatly increased CO2 concentration, not the only slightly decreased O2 concentration in your lungs.

So, it is seen our normal breathing is faulty which may affect working of our brain and may cause illusion in our perception.

 

[Billy T]

... What is 'working muscle'?

One that contracts when nerves controlling it stimulate it. Have you no common sense, or are just very ignorant?

What input a 'muscle cell' will require other than 'food and oxygen' for its 'working'?

"Food" is mainly glucose, unless muscle is very over worked for some time. Then it gets too complex for you to understand.

 

[hansda]

One that contracts when nerves controlling it stimulate it. Have you no common sense, or are just very ignorant?"Food" is mainly glucose, unless muscle is very over worked for some time. Then it gets too complex for you to understand.

For a 'muscle cell', 'brain cell' or any other cell to be in a working condition, it has to have life. Without 'life' no cell can be in a working condition. Life is the prime cause for working of a cell. Food and Oxygen are secondary. A dead cell can not respond to neural stimulation, neither it can absorb food or oxygen.

So, life is the prime input for a cell to be in a working condition.

 

[spidergoat]

For a 'muscle cell', 'brain cell' or any other cell to be in a working condition, it has to have life. Without 'life' no cell can be in a working condition. Life is the prime cause for working of a cell. Food and Oxygen are secondary. A dead cell can not respond to neural stimulation, neither it can absorb food or oxygen.

So, life is the prime input for a cell to be in a working condition.

That's ridiculous. A living cell is one defined as having a working metabolism. The idea of a living spirit that animates matter went out with the Middle Ages.

 

[Sarkus]

For a 'muscle cell', 'brain cell' or any other cell to be in a working condition, it has to have life. Without 'life' no cell can be in a working condition. Life is the prime cause for working of a cell. Food and Oxygen are secondary. A dead cell can not respond to neural stimulation, neither it can absorb food or oxygen.

So, life is the prime input for a cell to be in a working condition.

And now consider this:
For a 'car', 'motorbike' or any vehicle to be in a moving condition, it has to have motion. Without 'motion' no vehicle can be in a moving condition. Motion is the prime cause for movement of a vehicle. Petrol and electricity are secondary. A crushed vehicle can not respond to to the ignition being turned or the repeated kicking of the tyres, neither it can absorb petrol or electricity.

So, motion is the prime input for a car to be in a moving condition.

My point is that "life" can be seen as merely a descriptor of some (albeit complex) activities, just as motion is a descriptor of a specific activity (movement): Life is not the cause of the activity but the description of it.

 

[hansda]

A living cell is one defined as having a working metabolism.

'Living cell' and 'life' are two different things.

Without life you can not have a living cell.