It's Self-Evident That It's Absurd That The Brain Can Give Rise To Thoughts And Feelings

[Moontanman]

It's self-evident. The brain is a lump of flesh and it's completely absurd to think that any mechanical device can give rise to thoughts and feelings. Soul is just another word for consciousness and it can't be produced by lump of flesh, obviously.

 

 

If you would like to continue this line of discussion feel free to start another thread, I think we have taken this one off the rails enough. If you do I think i can demonstrate that the brain is indeed the cause of consciousness but you still need to at least show what you think the origin of consciousness is if not the brain..  

[A-wal]

This thread requires moderation, so here it is: Moontanman is right, A-wal is wrong.

 

A-wall, you need to provide links and references supporting the claim

Find a scientific or philosophical paper or website supporting your claim, and post links or references to it.

 

Moontanman doesn’t need to support the “claim” of asking A-wall to back up his claim, because he is just asking A-wall to follow the site rules.

 

Also, A-wall, statement like these

are not calm, reasoned, and factual, and are rude and offensive. This is against our site rules. Do not say that the thinking of others, especially when those others constitute most scientists and science enthusiasts, “insanity”. Do not try to support your claims by discrediting others by calling them rude names.

I'm not the one making the claim. Since when does the skeptic of a specific claim require supporting evidence? This is ridiculous! The claim is that the brain is the source of consciousness and THAT is what requires evidence. Anyone who makes that claim needs to support it with evidence or THEY are the ones who are in violation of the site rules!

 

I don't mean to be offensive. I do think it's an insane belief, even more so than believing in a god. If you find that offensive it's because I've struck a nerve and not because I've crossed a line, I'm not calling anyone names. I've refuted claims from god worshipers on this site with far more bluntness than this and it wasn't an issue. Scienceforums: Hypocrisy for everyone.

 

 

If you would like to continue this line of discussion feel free to start another thread, I think we have taken this one off the rails enough. If you do I think i can demonstrate that the brain is indeed the cause of consciousness but you still need to at least show what you think the origin of consciousness is if not the brain..  

No I don't need to show what I think is the source of consciousness! That's like saying that anyone who refutes the existence of a god requires an alternative explanation for the formation of the planets, stars, galaxies and life. Of course they don't! I'm calling BS in the same way I would if god worshiper were to claim that the first life was produced by divine intervention. Nobody knows how life first arose. They have an explanation, we don't, so by your logic we have no right to refute their claim because we can't provide an alternative.

 

 

Stop trying to pretend that the onus is on me to support my view when you two are the ones making a very specific claim with absolutely no evidence to support it!

[Rade]

The scientific link between the concepts 'brain' and 'consciousness' is well established...for example, see this recent publication and the cited references.  

 

http://montilab.psych.ucla.edu/publications/Crone_etal_15_EffConn_DOC.pdf

 

If anyone is aware of a published paper that studies 'consciousness' as being present in other human organs, such as liver, kidney, heart, intestine, etc. please do share.  

[Maine farmer]

I'm not the one making the claim. Since when does the skeptic of a specific claim require supporting evidence? 

 

I don't mean to be offensive. I do think it's an insane belief, 

But you DID make a claim!  What is insane about believing in something without proof?  It seems like perfectly normal human behavior to me.

[Rade]

It's self-evident. The brain is a lump of flesh and it's completely absurd to think that any mechanical device can give rise to thoughts and feelings. Soul is just another word for consciousness and it can't be produced by lump of flesh, obviously.

Well, no, the soul is not just another word for consciousness, they are in fact two separate concepts.  Your continued argument is thus based on a false premise, and any argument based on a false premise is a false argument. 

[A-wal]

The scientific link between the concepts 'brain' and 'consciousness' is well established...for example, see this recent publication and the cited references.  

 

http://montilab.psych.ucla.edu/publications/Crone_etal_15_EffConn_DOC.pdf

 

If anyone is aware of a published paper that studies 'consciousness' as being present in other human organs, such as liver, kidney, heart, intestine, etc. please do share.  

There is evidence that the heart reacts to certain things before the brain receives any information. In fact I could have given a lot of examples that suggest consciousness exists independently of brain function but I don't want to get off topic by making my own claims that allow posters an excuse to ignore the point by focusing on refuting alternatives.

 

There is no scientific basis for assuming a direct link between brain function and consciousness! Obviously there's a relationship but there's nothing to suggest that the brain is capable of actually producing consciousness. If you disagree then point out something specific to support your claim rather than posting a link in place of an argument, or even a valid point.

 

But you DID make a claim!  What is insane about believing in something without proof?  It seems like perfectly normal human behavior to me.

No I didn't! I'm responding to a claim, not making one. Saying it's insane to believe in a god without evidence is not making a claim. The people who assert the existence of a god are the ones who are making a claim and they are the ones who are required to provide supporting evidence. This is exactly the same situation.

 

Believing in something without proof is one thing, believing in something as ridiculous as an all-powerful spaghetti monster type being with no evidence at all is something else entirely, and this claim is even more far fetched.

 

Well, no, the soul is not just another word for consciousness, they are in fact two separate concepts.  Your continued argument is thus based on a false premise, and any argument based on a false premise is a false argument. 

Utter nonsense! For one thing my argument is that a claim is absurd and has no evidence supporting it is in no way affected by your preferred definition of a soul. Second, there is no difference between a soul and consciousness anyway, so even if it did matter to my argument if there were a difference, it wouldn't matter because there isn't one.

 

 

The idea of a soul is nothing more than consciousness, normally meant in the context of persisting after and/or before death. Not that it matters. My point is that claiming that a mechanical device, in this case a biological one, is responsible for or could ever be capable of giving rise to consciousness/soul/awareness is completely ridiculous and has nothing to support it, exactly like the concept of god except even more silly.

Edited February 23, 2016 by A-wal

[Maine farmer]

"Far - fetched" and " completely ridiculous"  may be matters of opinion, but I do believe that there is an actual clinical definition for insanity.  I am merely asking how those beliefs fit into a definition of insanity.

[A-wal]

Believing in something ridiculous and far-fetched without evidence is insanity. Is believing in god (a specific one rather than a general higher power) insane? I think so, and if it is then this belief is every bit as doolally.

[Maine farmer]

Now I wish I had a better memory  about where I read things, but I have a recollection of reading about a study that concluded that humans seem to be genetically predisposed to religious belief.  Does anyone know of such a study?  

 

 

Believing in something ridiculous and far-fetched without evidence is insanity. Is believing in god (a specific one rather than a general higher power) insane? I think so, and if it is then this belief is every bit as doolally.

From my understanding of the definition of insanity, it has to do with behavior that contradicts social norms.  I don't see how a belief in a soul, or a god, qualifies.

[CraigD]

From my understanding of the definition of insanity, it has to do with behavior that contradicts social norms. I don't see how a belief in a soul, or a god, qualifies.

I think Robert Persig described the psychiatric and atheistic consensus, then and now, in his 1974 philosophical travelogue Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.”

I like many of the points Richard Dawkins makes on the subject in his 2006 The God Delusion, especially

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

Though I’m not an MD or licensed psychologist, I’ve worked with many and have a lot of anecdotal experience supporting Persig and Dawkins’ points, including seeing people involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals for professing belief in gods (in the case I saw, the Norse pantheon that includes Odin) that at one time would have been considered socially acceptable or even required.

 

In the US and most other wealthy countries now, insanity is no longer a psychiatric term, but a legal one meaning that a person is not legally responsible for their actions due to “mental incompetency”. The closest replacement term is psychosis. Psychosis is characterized by 3 main characteristics: a distorted or absent sense of objective reality; impairment (inability to take care of one’s basic needs, gain and keep a job, avoid legal problems, etc); and change in personality.

 

I agree with Persig and Dawkins that people who truly believe in gods (theists) are delusional, but not psychotic. We need have no opinion on whether they are insane, because this decision is the responsibility of our legal systems. To the best of my knowledge, no court has every found a person legally insane, nor a psychiatrist diagnosed a patient as psychotic, because they professed belief in a god in which many others professed belief. Professing belief in a god in which few or no others profess belief (eg a US resident claiming to believe in Odin), on the other hand, can get someone a psychosis diagnosis.

 

It is a shame your very interesting OP question was taken so far off topic. Could you please define what you mean by 'soul' ?

I agree. I’ll split the topic.

[A-wal]

Wouldn't someone who actually sees god/Jesus in front of them also be committed though? Maybe not in the US. I've heard put as, if you talk to god, you're religious but if god talks to you, you're insane.

Insanity maybe a legal definition but it's also (and more fundamentally) a state of mind. I think the official definition is repeating the same actions and expecting different results, meaning that because of the uncertainty principle, the whole universe is insane.

I think we can all agree that believing a specific god is irrational. Is it any less irrational to believe that the physical processes of the brain (basically just the processing of external information and the generation of electrical impulses to move the body) give rise to self-awareness? Of course it isn't. How would it happen?

 

Now I wish I had a better memory  about where I read things, but I have a recollection of reading about a study that concluded that humans seem to be genetically predisposed to religious belief.

I think it's mainly just wanting to believe in life after death. Some people fear the unknown (god worshipers and most scientists mainly), others love it. :)

 

 

Edit:

I misread your post. They were committed simply for believing in Norse gods? I find that VERY strange. Actually I find it strange that all religious people aren't locked away but I would have thought that which particular religion a person subscribes to wouldn't make a difference. Surely that wasn't the only reason, there must have been some other behaviour that did it?

Edited February 23, 2016 by A-wal

[Moontanman]

Wouldn't someone who actually sees god/Jesus in front of them also be committed though? Maybe not in the US. I've heard put as, if you talk to god, you're religious but if god talks to you, you're insane.

 

Insanity maybe a legal definition but it's also (and more fundamentally) a state of mind. I think the official definition is repeating the same actions and expecting different results, meaning that because of the uncertainty principle, the whole universe is insane.

 

I think we can all agree that believing a specific god is irrational. Is it any less irrational to believe that the physical processes of the brain (basically just the processing of external information and the generation of electrical impulses to move the body) give rise to self-awareness? Of course it isn't. How would it happen?

 

I think it's mainly just wanting to believe in life after death. Some people fear the unknown (god worshipers and most scientists mainly), others love it. :)

 

 

Edit:

I misread your post. They were committed simply for believing in Norse gods? I find that VERY strange. Actually I find it strange that all religious people aren't locked away but I would have thought that which particular religion a person subscribes to wouldn't make a difference. Surely that wasn't the only reason, there must have been some other behaviour that did it?

 

 

A belief in gods is irrelevant to the brain being the source of thoughts and feelings. 

 

If the brain is not the source of thoughts and feelings then why does damaging or manipulating brain result in a change of thoughts and feelings? Why can brain damage result in a person changing their personality, and even beliefs? Brain damage can actually change you into a different person...

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/professor-cromer-learns-read/201203/after-brain-injury-the-dark-side-personality-change-part-i

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/different-person-personality-change-often-brain-injurys-hidden-toll-8C11152322

 

http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/recovery-traumatic-brain-injury/personality-changes-tbi/index.html

[CraigD]

That's like saying that anyone who refutes the existence of a god requires an alternative explanation for the formation of the planets, stars, galaxies and life.

I believe history shows that what you describe – not refuting the existence of gods, but rejecting the hypothesis that they cause physical phenomena like chemical fire, the motion of the sun, stars, and planets, biological life, etc – didn’t in fact happen until alternative explanations not requiring gods or other non-physical causes were offered and accepted. According to the history I was taught in primary school, this progression of replacing gods as the explanation for physical phenomena with “nature” is the “scientific revolution”, the period before it “pre-scientific”.

 

My point is that claiming that a mechanical device, in this case a biological one, is responsible for or could ever be capable of giving rise to consciousness/soul/awareness is completely ridiculous and has nothing to support it, exactly like the concept of god except even more silly.

The belief that, because every aspect of biology that has been studied enough has been revealed to have a natural, “mechanical”, cause consistent with the known laws to physics, leads scientists to expect that those that that have not yet been studied enough will be, too.

 

Consciousness is an aspect of biology that has not yet been studied enough to be well understood, so most scientists believe that when it is, it will be revealed to have a natural, mechanical cause. Because consciousness is not yet well-understood, this hypothesis is not yet well-supported, but I think it’s reasonable.

 

Many people disagree.

 

Some are simply theists who reject science, believing that all physical phenomena are caused by God – or at least subject to his constant approval, ie: “thy will be done”.

 

Some, for example mathematical physicists Roger Penrose and his MD collaborator Stuart Hameroff, believe that consciousness has a physical explanation, but that existing biological neuroscience is incapable of this explanation, and that new physics theories will be required.

 

Some “new mysterians” such as philosopher Colin McGinn, believe that consciousness is such a key, intrinsic part of reality, in a sense greater than objective physical reality, that cannot be explained by any biology or physics theory.

 

Some, such as biomedical engineer Paul Nunez (and a little-published but IMHO very bright old friend and classmate of mine) believe that “the brain is an antenna” that receives signals undetected and perhaps undetectable by artificial devices. According to them, the search for the cause of consciousness in the mechanics of neurophysiology is looking in the wrong place. Though interesting, I’ve found these ideas to be poorly researched and on the scientific “fringe”, though not much fringier than Penrose’s much more respected position, perhaps because Penrose won great respect for his early mathematical accomplishments, and is clearly a genius.

 

I personally think that within the next 20 years, consciousness will be shown to have natural, mechanical cause, and will be shown to be producible not only with human and other animal brains, but using Turing machine-equivalent, addressable memory architecture digital computers, likely merely electronic.

 

A problem with all of the above is that I’ve assumed we share a consensus definition of “consciousness”, when in actuality, definitions of consciousness, and even the assumption that consciousness is not a semantically null concept (a reference to something that doesn’t actually exist), are controversial.

 

For this reason, I favor an “operational”, performance-based criteria for determining whether an animal or computer exhibits consciousness. I believe that any person or computer that can pass both the mirror test and the Turing test should be deemed conscious.

 

Many people disagree. Perhaps best known is philosopher John Searle, articulator of the famous “Chinese room” thought experiment., which holds that even if, for example, a powerful computer could so perfectly simulate a human being that it could pass both the mirror and Turing test, it would still not be truly conscious – that is, in more technical philosophical terms, it would lack qualia.

 

Where does your position of consciousness fit in among these :QuestionM Do you know of a major or minor branch related to the idea I’ve missed?

[A-wal]

A belief in gods is irrelevant to the brain being the source of thoughts and feelings. 

No it's not irrelevant because both are irrational assumptions without any supporting evidence.

 

If the brain is not the source of thoughts and feelings then why does damaging or manipulating brain result in a change of thoughts and feelings? Why can brain damage result in a person changing their personality, and even beliefs? Brain damage can actually change you into a different person...

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/professor-cromer-learns-read/201203/after-brain-injury-the-dark-side-personality-change-part-i

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/different-person-personality-change-often-brain-injurys-hidden-toll-8C11152322

 

http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/recovery-traumatic-brain-injury/personality-changes-tbi/index.html

That is in no way evidence of that the brain is the source of consciousness because it would equally apply to any alternate.

 

I believe history shows that what you describe – not refuting the existence of gods, but rejecting the hypothesis that they cause physical phenomena like chemical fire, the motion of the sun, stars, and planets, biological life, etc – didn’t in fact happen until alternative explanations not requiring gods or other non-physical causes were offered and accepted. According to the history I was taught in primary school, this progression of replacing gods as the explanation for physical phenomena with “nature” is the “scientific revolution”, the period before it “pre-scientific”.

Yes, that's the point. Having to provide an answer, no matter how hollow, is what lead to a belief in gods. I was responding to Moontanman's ridiculous assertion that in order to refute a claim, an alternate claim needs to made. By that logic people had no right to reject the hypothesis that gods cause physical phenomena like chemical fire, the motion of the sun, stars, and planets and biological life before alternatives were found and today nobody has any right to disagree with the religious explanation for how life arose.

 

I personally think that within the next 20 years, consciousness will be shown to have natural, mechanical cause, and will be shown to be producible not only with human and other animal brains, but using Turing machine-equivalent, addressable memory architecture digital computers, likely merely electronic.

This is what I find absurd. How could any purely mechanical process give rise to self-awareness? This isn't just a lack of current knowledge. I don't see how any explanation is possible for that assumption to be true.

 

Some, such as biomedical engineer Paul Nunez (and a little-published but IMHO very bright old friend and classmate of mine) believe that “the brain is an antenna” that receives signals undetected and perhaps undetectable by artificial devices. According to them, the search for the cause of consciousness in the mechanics of neurophysiology is looking in the wrong place. Though interesting, I’ve found these ideas to be poorly researched and on the scientific “fringe”, though not much fringier than Penrose’s much more respected position, perhaps because Penrose won great respect for his early mathematical accomplishments, and is clearly a genius.

I share that belief. It's not proven but it's far more likely because it's simpler and makes a lot more sense, it doesn't require something from nothing. It's not mutually exclusive though, other explanations you've listed are compatible with it. Pan something is the idea that everything is conscious, it's just a matter of degree. I don't know about that but given how much the universe on a large scales resembles a brain I wouldn't be at all surprised if is has the same function, fractal geometry. It would be consciousness on a whole other time scale because of the length of time signals take to travel but proportionately and from it's own perspective it could be the same.

 

This is all highly speculative, but interesting to ponder. What I do strongly believe is that whatever consciousness is, it exists external to the 'vessel'. Evolution found a way to tap into something that we don't understand yet. Whether or not the energy (for want of a better word) is conscious without being filtered and organised by a mechanical system and can exist without a physical host is really the only question for me.

[Moontanman]

No it's not irrelevant because both are irrational assumptions without any supporting evidence.

 

Those two assertions have nothing to do with each other.

 

That is in no way evidence of that the brain is the source of consciousness because it would equally apply to any alternate.

Your statement as is makes no sense, please elaborate.

 

Yes, that's the point. Having to provide an answer, no matter how hollow, is what lead to a belief in gods. I was responding to Moontanman's ridiculous assertion that in order to refute a claim, an alternate claim needs to made.

If you are going to make a claim them you need to back up your claim, in this case your claim is that the brain has no connection with thoughts or feelings, since the scientific consensus is that you are incorrect you need to show why you assertion is better than the current understanding, the only way to do that is to suggest an alternative.

[A-wal]

Those two assertions have nothing to do with each other.

Both are irrational assumptions without any supporting evidence.

 

Your statement as is makes no sense, please elaborate.

If consciousness exists independently of the brain then the brain is a receiver/organiser of consciousness so your assertion that the fact that damaging or manipulating brain results in a change of thoughts and feelings qualifies as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness is entirely false.

 

If you are going to make a claim them you need to back up your claim, in this case your claim is that the brain has no connection with thoughts or feelings, since the scientific consensus is that you are incorrect you need to show why you assertion is better than the current understanding, the only way to do that is to suggest an alternative.

I'm not making a claim. The claim is that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness. That is a baseless assumption and anyone who makes that claim needs to provide supporting evidence or they are in violation of not only the site rules but also rational thinking and scientific integrity.

 

No alternative needs to be presented in order to refute a claim. That's absurd.

Edited February 25, 2016 by A-wal

[Moontanman]

Both are irrational assumptions without any supporting evidence.

 

If consciousness exists independently of the brain then the brain is a receiver/organiser of consciousness so your assertion that the fact that damaging or manipulating brain results in a change of thoughts and feelings qualifies as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness is entirely false.

 

I'm not making a claim. The claim is that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness. That is a baseless assumption and anyone who makes that claim needs to provide supporting evidence or they are in violation of not only the site rules but also rational thinking and scientific integrity.

 

No alternative needs to be presented in order to refute a claim. That's absurd.

So you dismiss my evidence but provide non of your own, that is not how this forum works...

 

You made this assertion: "If consciousness exists independently of the brain then the brain is a receiver/organiser of consciousness so your assertion that the fact that damaging or manipulating brain results in a change of thoughts and feelings qualifies as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness is entirely false."

 

Please tell us the source of said consciousness...

Edited February 27, 2016 by Moontanman