This kinda vibe...I can dig it.

Here's one I just came up with


Thought u guys might like it lol

---dls---

Its true that when you chop out a chunk of brain, consciousness suffers the consequences. So the idea that the brain is conscious has some clout. But....

There is a problem for materialism which concerns intentionality, or the 'aboutness' of mentality. When we consider words, say '猫' (cat), we can see that words are made of little physical marks on paper or on a screen. There is nothing intrinsically catty about the marks: c.a.t. or '猫'. Equally, the neural representation of a cat that occurs when thinking 'cat' is also just another kind of physical mark. Neurons are to thoughts what little marks on paper are to words. Yet, according to the materialist neurons are the end of the story. There is nothing beyond the marks, nothing over and above the neurons. Now, if we can see that there is nothing catty about marks on paper, we ought to see that there can not be anything catty about brain state '猫'. How do sets of neurons exhibit intentionality?

Materialist often suggest it emerges from complexity. So once you get a lot of neurons (all still marks) then .... abracadabra, something magical happens here .... and kaboom, there's intentionality. But a mark is a mark is a mark. And lots of marks are just a whole bunch of marks. Its not a convincing approach.

Only some clout? (I'm not sure exactly what 'clout' means in this context)

Maybe I'm having a bad day or something, but I don't really get the whole analogy of the cat and it's representation in language, chinese characters or whichever other method to deliver the message...
All those associations you use, tie back to sensory input coming from the ganglion cells in the retina (or maybe even combination of cat smell sensory input being sent from the olfactory bulb to the brain) with the overall neuronal response to seeing a cat in consciousness. But a cat is still intrinsically a 'cat'

Consciousness does goes beyond materialism, in the sense of brain waves that are measured using EEG.
For example, the best data researchers have to date, suggest that only the brain waves in the REM stages of sleep can support consciousness, unlike the non-REM stages (where delta & theta waves predominate)


Well.. if you think the whole approach is 'abracadabra' and some magic and a puff of smoke or whatever, then I don't doubt for a second that you have not been convinced of this approach.

Neuroscience really is coming forward at a pace unlike many technologies of our times.
I believe they will answer the questions of consciousness in due time, very likely in the lifetime of many members of this forum. My bet is it will come from the systematic studies of the brain and it's sensory and neuronal systems in the prefrontal cortex and older evolutionary systems such as the (still poorly understood) basal ganglia system. Nothing magic

So, if there isn't a magic abracadabra moment then what is it? I mean lets be honest here... is a big bang kinda like, 'abracadabra'.. And don't we only exist because of an infinite long chain of events leading back to this singularly moment of unity?



I highly doubt it. They will isolate it to a brain region maybe (perhaps being able to turn it on and off at will... can you imagine the sleep products? lol)m but they will never tease it down to the exact neurotransmitter hitting the certain receptor.. Consciousness isn't a thing in the physical sense and therefore it won't be understood by scientists trying to force an objective physical methodology on top of it... Though I do agree we will continue to understand the brain and it's function is much greater detail, but I suspect consciousness will remain a mystery to our prods and probes. IMHO.

@ Shadow

>> Only some clout? (I'm not sure exactly what 'clout' means in this context)

An intimate connection between brain and mind is beyond question. Nevertheless, there are important issues for materialists to address. I don't think thats a controversial opinion.


>> All those associations you use, tie back to sensory input coming from the ganglion cells in the retina (or maybe even combination of cat smell sensory input being sent from the olfactory bulb to the brain) with the overall neuronal response to seeing a cat in consciousness.

When I think about a cat, I become conscious of an idea of a furry creature, I don't become conscious of a bunch of neurons firing. Nevertheless, according to many materialists all that happens is a bunch of neurons fire. Thats a problem because its far from obvious how a pattern of firing neurons equates to the idea of a cat. There is nothing intrinsically catty about a particular firing pattern.

maybe the firing pattern represents/codes for a cat. But represents to what exactly? Other firing patterns are the only things available to the materialist, but all of those firing patterns have the same problem regarding intentionality. The materialist seems here to teeter at the edge of infinate regress.

>> if you think the whole approach is 'abracadabra' and some magic and a puff of smoke or whatever, then I don't doubt for a second that you have not been convinced of this approach.

Thats isnt really what I meant. What I meant was that materialists often appreciate there is a problem here, but hide behind complexity without explaining how complexity really addresses the problem.


>> Neuroscience really is coming forward at a pace unlike many technologies of our times.
I believe they will answer the questions of consciousness in due time, very likely in the lifetime of many members of this forum.

Im not particularly optimistic for a few reasons. Consciousness has properties that seem to me to be impervious to a scientific explanation. Firstly, consiousness is subjective, it is something experienced by an 'I'. Secondly, consciousness is private. My experience is only available to me. Science, though, proceeds by providing objective statements that are publically verifiable. Personally, I don't see how objective, publically verifiable statements could ever clarify something which was intrinsically subjective and private.

I don't know how, and it could be that this is just the meaningless contradictory murmur that it looks like, but I would argue against the existence of consciousness. That I think it's quite possible to not believe in consciousness, as much as it's possible to not believe in god. That I don't see myself as conscious any more than the rock or any more than the image of the pupil's oversized head. I do believe in other things of course, in accordance with that which is me and this.. for although possibilities may seem endless, it is simply impossible to believe nothing, without also becoming nothing.

@ thymamai

>> That I think it's quite possible to not believe in consciousness, as much as it's possible to not believe in god.

Maybe I don't understand your point, so I'd like to hear more because doesn't the act of doubting that you are conscious prove to you that you are?

Isn't it that Descartes thing that being conscious is the one thing I can not doubt?

I'd be interested in hearing how you define consciousness?

thymamai,

that is very interesting, but does make sense to me. In your opinion, if we think of nothing even for a moment, do we exist within ourselves in that moment? I would love to hear some more about your opinion just like universecannon

Namaste,
--dls--

It isn't an arguable position to take is it, or at least a very stupid one to assert if speaking pragmatically. But I'm not exactly.

I've thought of many things to say, and most should be carefully avoided saying for various reasons. The word consciousness to me represents more a perception - that is, something being perceived and something else perceiving it.. than conception, or a conceiving, which on the contrary seems to be phonetically closer and I like it better that way. But in usages of the word or abstract idea in phrases like "the universe perceiving itself" as example, I can't help but see the word consciousness as stuck in a dual faultiness in it's (our) definition.

This train of thought runs closely to my questions about the nature of time.. which I am currently out of. Thanks for listening.

Well, if your definition of "magic" is "scientific details currently being uncovered" , then yes... It is a big kind of 'abracadabra' moment (without the verbal utterance component of course)



I'm optimistic about science in this matter. Anaesthetists can reliable turn this on and off for us already.
Although we do not have an exact definition of consciousness (yet), there are a few objective facts we can observe about consciousness.
There are different states of consciousness that can be measured with various brain scanning techniques. Consciousness works more like a dimming switch than an ON/OFF switch.


@Mistletoe Minx
I don't think your opinion that "when you chop out a chunk of brain, consciousness suffers the consequences" is controvesial by any stretch.
It just seems to me that if you chop out part of the brain, consciousness suffers, that already seem a HUGE indication that it is located in the brain (from what we currently know about how sensory input relays to the brain etcetera) Where else would it be produced?


Reworded:


So this is a problem for you, because the firing pattern does not yet equate to something that is obvious?
I can only suggest you study the retinal ganglian cells and the V1-V5 visual cortex layers of the occipital lobe (where the optic nerves project at the back of the head)
We have specialized cells that only respond to movement in a certain direction, or cells that only send information once 2 or more in a line are activated (giving us ability to see edges, or letter like L and T).
When you learn how the brain inhibits all the noise and constructs everything together, it is an intrinsic process. Although it may not be the exact same neurons firing when you and I see the same cat, this seems to be a universal way the brain works to construct these images in consciousness of nearly all mammals

So while there is no universal intrinsic 'cat' pattern of neurons, we all construct the image in consciousness based on predictable systems in the various regions of the brain.
You and I would have the same cells in the retina that would've been responsible for constructing your 'cat' neuron pattern.

When you think of a cat without using input from your retina, you are basically just recalling a 'cat' neuron pattern you have already constructed (hippocampal coincidence detector's)



Where are my fellow optimists!? haha

Well... although consciousness is mainly subjective, there are certain aspects of it that are objective. Consciousness is not necessarily private. We can already measure some several seconds beforehand what information is going to be presented in a person's consciousness.

Oh for sure I certainly believe all of this. But understand all of this also fits the brain a receiver model and that is the problem. Literally nothing we have discovered is inconsistent with the brain as a receiver model...nor is it inconsistent with the brain as a generator model.



To continue my point from above, it is possible to damage a TV and still see a partial picture, and sometimes you just get a scrambled signal. This, however, say's nothing about the nature of the cable signal... and of course this same logic can be applied to both radio/radio-wave's and brains/consciousness. I'm not saying it's for certain this way, I'm juts saying as of now there isn't any evidence to the contrary.

Many people use "the wiring example" of the radio vs the brain to argue against this. I think it's pretty obvious the brain is vastly more complex than a simple radio/tv and the these model would only be the crudest of models to approximate the underlying process... Certainly no argument I have heard from this camp even remotely cast doubt on the possibility that the brain is a receiver of consciousness...


Consider this:

What if the general principle of science for the last 100 years was that consciousness was a wave and the brain was a receiver of sorts. Can you honestly point to any evidence that would have dissuaded you or others from your belief?

Well in reverse science has believed from the last 100 years that the brain is a generator of consciousness. Most scientists continue to believe this, though I personally believe there is a bit of confirmational bias... and if they opened up about this a little more they would see both possibilities offer 'rational' solutions.. well as rational as anything can be about ultimate reality.

Either way though it doesn't matter. The universe at large is conscious through us. We are not separate from our environment in any shape, form, or fashion... so conscious is certainly disjointed if not out right non local...

What I believe is that no matter what science discovers more questions will arise. Science by it's very nature will push the goal post of 'abracadabra' back infinitely far..

Now with that said, do you really think we have the capacity to view beyond the big bang? I mean sure we will make all sorts of models about alternate realities, but will we ever be able to 'measure' what was before the big bang? I doubt it, but if we should the next big question will still be an 'abracadabra' like moment.

For the record I'm one of those silly scientists will see the mystical dripping from everything... and science is shining the light ever brighter on just how grand the whole fiasco is... some scientists see things like black holes as mystical and others say, 'oh that's just a black hole with x, y, z properties"...

Peace

Read "The shamanic path to quantum consciousness: the 8 circuits of creative power"
by Laurent Huguelit.

Then let's talk about consciousness.

How about you share the insights you gained from the book with us?
Like what is it's basic premise as a starting point?

Or lets all just smoke 50mg of DMT in one hit, and then have a chat in here 15 minutes later

^^^

Im with ya on that one lol so, um, were gonna do that right??

LOL Or This.

In the early development of resonant field imaging, we were already seeing that the human aura extends upwards and outwards, from above and from everywhere down through the crown.