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

[current]

 

Hmmm....I see your point A-wal .

 

But what evolves consciousness ?

[A-wal]

You mean how did natural selection give rise to consciousness? It didn't. Consciousness gave rise to the physical reality that we see.

The mainstream reductionist/materialist scientific community would have us believe that purely mechanical processes are somehow able to give rise to consciousness. That’s literally the dumbest claim I’ve ever heard. They'll never be able to explain consciousness through physical processes.

There are things in physics that nobody attempts to explain. Time, space and the constants of nature. These are taken as fundamentals and they go from there. Consciousness must be fundamental. It's the only thing that we can really be sure of in terms of its existence. Physical reality is defined solely be the perceptions of consciousness and couldn't exist in any form without it because it's conscious perception that defines it and endows it with its properties.

Science has even stumbled into evidence for this. It's been clearly shown that consciousness collapses the wave function, not the act of measurement. That's what makes our physical universe. Materialists hate that and always tr to downplay it.

[quickquestion]

The underlying argument is that 99.999% of brains don't have awareness, thus it is absurd that one random brain would have awareness while 99.999% don't.

 

This paradox can be countered by introducing the concept of reincarnation. 99% of brains don't have awareness, until the day you die and enter those brains.

[Parker99]

Moderation note: the first 20 posts from this thread were moved from The Soul because they were off-topic.

 

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.

 

First, of scientist are trying to study the brain and find out what part of the brain gives rise to consciousness.  The Human brain is very different than AI brain.

 

Second, scientist don't know if very large I use word very large brain neural network give rise to consciousness. If consciousness is just emerging of very large neural network or not. This is mystery that scientist cannot answer yet.

 

For AI brain no one knows if it has to be machine , part organic or all organic.  No one knows if Artificial Neural Networks will give rise to consciousness or not. Some think it may.

 

Third no one knows what consciousness really is or what gives rise to consciousness.

 

Fourth there are different types of consciousness.

[exchemist]

It seems to me that there is a category error behind some of the thinking in this thread.  Some contributors talk as if consciousness is a thing, an entity. I disagree. If one considers a computer, it is a dead machine, until its operating system is started up. Once this has been done the  machine becomes (in a very lowly sense) conscious - responding to stimuli from outside, processing information and making decisions.

 

The operating system is not a physical thing, but a process by which the computer works, which depends on a pattern being set in the switches in the computer, which enables the process to proceed automatically. Consciousness, it seems to me, is similarly a process, a highly organised activity, by which the brain works.  

Edited May 8, 2017 by exchemist

[Parker99]

Where exactly did anyone mention a mechanical device? Consciousness cannot be produced by a brain? Not obvious, please elaborate,

 

OP probably thinking well we got human brain large network that try to do that to machine.

 

Like say scientist don't know if part of brain give rise to consciousness or the large brain network. Or the way the brain is put together.

 

Emotions, feelings, being self aware a area of the brain, all of the brain, the way the brain is put together or large brain network . This is what scientist cannot answer.

 

If you building AI brain what do you need for AI brain?

 

chemicals

organic

part organic

way the brain is wired or put together

very large network

so on

 

No one knows.

[Parker99]

It seems to me that there is a category error behind some of the thinking in this thread.  Some contributors talk as if consciousness is a thing, an entity. I disagree. If one considers a computer, it is a dead machine, until its operating system is started up. Once this has been done the  machine becomes (in a very lowly sense) conscious - responding to stimuli from outside, processing information and making decisions.

 

The operating system is not a physical thing, but a process by which the computer works, which depends on a pattern being set in the switches in the computer, which enables the process to proceed automatically. Consciousness, it seems to me, is similarly a process, a highly organised activity, by which the brain works.  

 

So your saying for consciousness you need input from the senses?  A large brain process and make sens of it?

 

That say human had no eye sight and no sound the way look world be different.

 

Take step up.

 

Human had no eye sight, no sound, no smell or taste.

 

Look at the world different.

 

No body limbs,no touch, no eye sight, no sound, no smell, taste look at the world different.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Parker99

[exchemist]

So your saying for consciousness you need input from the senses?  A large brain process and make sens of it?

 

That say human had no eye sight and no sound the way look world be different.

 

Take step up.

 

Human had no eye sight, no sound, no smell or taste.

 

Look at the world different.

 

No body limbs,no touch, no eye sight, no sound, no smell, taste look at the world different.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that we observe a form of consciousness in a functioning computer by noticing that it can respond to stimuli as I have said. 

 

That is not the same as saying that external stimuli are required for consciousness to be present. 

[A-wal]

The underlying argument is that 99.999% of brains don't have awareness, thus it is absurd that one random brain would have awareness while 99.999% don't.

 

This paradox can be countered by introducing the concept of reincarnation. 99% of brains don't have awareness, until the day you die and enter those brains.

Huh?

 

First, of scientist are trying to study the brain and find out what part of the brain gives rise to consciousness.  The Human brain is very different than AI brain.

They've been doing that for a long time without success. There isn't a part of the brain that gives rise to consciousness.

 

Second, scientist don't know if very large I use word very large brain neural network give rise to consciousness. If consciousness is just emerging of very large neural network or not. This is mystery that scientist cannot answer yet.

 

For AI brain no one knows if it has to be machine , part organic or all organic.  No one knows if Artificial Neural Networks will give rise to consciousness or not. Some think it may.

It won't. A neural network without a consciousness to use it is just a deterministic process. It can't have any actual awareness.

 

Third no one knows what consciousness really is or what gives rise to consciousness.

Yes but doolally scientists try to pretend that it's somehow part of the material world.

 

Fourth there are different types of consciousness.

Different levels of awareness, not different types of consciousness.

 

It seems to me that there is a category error behind some of the thinking in this thread.  Some contributors talk as if consciousness is a thing, an entity. I disagree. If one considers a computer, it is a dead machine, until its operating system is started up. Once this has been done the  machine becomes (in a very lowly sense) conscious - responding to stimuli from outside, processing information and making decisions.

 

The operating system is not a physical thing, but a process by which the computer works, which depends on a pattern being set in the switches in the computer, which enables the process to proceed automatically. Consciousness, it seems to me, is similarly a process, a highly organised activity, by which the brain works.  

That's ridiculous. An operating system is a purely mechanical process that is in no way aware of what it's doing. Consciousness isn't the physical process of our brains, it's what allows the physical process of our brains to be experienced.

 

You can't explain conscious though a physical process. To think that thoughts, feelings and awareness are somehow explained by the material world isn't remotely rational, it's insane. The conscious experience is what allows the material world to exist, not the other way round.

 

OP probably thinking well we got human brain large network that try to do that to machine.

 

Like say scientist don't know if part of brain give rise to consciousness or the large brain network. Or the way the brain is put together.

 

Emotions, feelings, being self aware a area of the brain, all of the brain, the way the brain is put together or large brain network . This is what scientist cannot answer.

 

If you building AI brain what do you need for AI brain?

 

chemicals

organic

part organic

way the brain is wired or put together

very large network

so on

 

No one knows.

That's an excellent question. If no level of complexity of a network could ever be conscious then would it take to create a conscious being? What is it that allows life to be conscious? We need to realise that the brain doesn't give rise to consciousness, it's an antenna for something that exists outside of the material universe.

 

There is a part of the brain that's the prime candidate for the antenna. It's called the pineal gland, it has barbs shaped like a pine cone and is filled with water. It's the central part on the brain, all the wiring of our brain and body starts at this point. It's called the seat of the soul of the third eye in ancient mysticism. I think if we ever what to create something artificial that's capable of using consciousness then we'd need to replicate that. I don't think we should actually try it though, far too unethical.

 

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that we observe a form of consciousness in a functioning computer by noticing that it can respond to stimuli as I have said. 

 

That is not the same as saying that external stimuli are required for consciousness to be present. 

Responding to stimuli is not evidence of consciousness! If I throw my lighter at the wall it will explode because it's responding to the stimuli of hitting a hard surface. To claim that a computer shows signs of conscious is every bit as absurd as saying that the lighter exploding is a conscious process.

 

 

I love this topic. :) It's far more interesting then any other subject imo.

[billvon]

Moderation note: the first 20 posts from this thread were moved from The Soul because they were off-topic.

 

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.

The brain is a chemical machine.  It is equally absurd to think that chemical, electrical or mechanical machines can give rise to thoughts and feelings - and yet it happens.

[exchemist]

 

Responding to stimuli is not evidence of consciousness! If I throw my lighter at the wall it will explode because it's responding to the stimuli of hitting a hard surface. To claim that a computer shows signs of conscious is every bit as absurd as saying that the lighter exploding is a conscious process.

 

 

 

Talk to an A&E doctor about that. 

[A-wal]

The brain is a chemical machine.  It is equally absurd to think that chemical, electrical or mechanical machines can give rise to thoughts and feelings - and yet it happens.

Of course it doesn't! That's just silly. Mechanisms are not conscious. The physical process is not the same thing the experience of awareness, there's no way that mechanical systems can give rise to thoughts and feelings. It's completely bonkers to claim they can.

 

Talk to an A&E doctor about that. 

How would that help? Okay, a glacier brakes off of an ice shelf and causes a big slash in the water. According to you the splash is a conscious process because it's responding to the stimuli of the falling ice.

Edited May 18, 2017 by A-wal

[exchemist]

 

 

How would that help? Okay, a glacier brakes off of an ice shelf and causes a big slash in the water. According to you the splash is a conscious process because it's responding to the stimuli of the falling ice.

No. Talk to an A&E doctor. Not me. An A&E doctor. 

[A-wal]

Not until you justify this batshit claim:

It seems to me that there is a category error behind some of the thinking in this thread.  Some contributors talk as if consciousness is a thing, an entity. I disagree. If one considers a computer, it is a dead machine, until its operating system is started up. Once this has been done the  machine becomes (in a very lowly sense) conscious - responding to stimuli from outside, processing information and making decisions.

How is a response to stimuli evidence of consciousness?

[exchemist]

Not until you justify this batshit claim:

How is a response to stimuli evidence of consciousness?

As I say, I think you will find an A&E doctor will give you a view on that. They need to determine when a patient is conscious and when is he unconscious. But in any case, my claim is not that. 

 

My claim is that I consider consciousness to be an activity rather than an entity. It is an opinion of mine, a view, and I have supported it by means of an analogy with a computer. 

 

You describe that claim as "batshit", but you do not offer any rationale for dismissing it so rudely. Lack of integrity? Psychological weakness? A***hole? Linear combination of the three? :)

Edited May 18, 2017 by exchemist

[A-wal]

As I say, I think you will find an A&E doctor will give you a view on that. They need to determine when a patient is conscious and when is he unconscious.

That makes no damn sense! Yes you can use a response to stimuli as evidence of consciousness in something that you already know is capable of being conscious, but you're claiming that it can be used outside of that context to demonstrate that computers have basic consciousness.

 

My claim is that I consider consciousness to be an activity rather than an entity. It is an opinion of mine, a view, and I have supported it by means of an analogy with a computer.

By that logic, ANYTHING that responds to stimuli is showing evidence of consciousness.

 

You describe that claim as "batshit", but you do not offer any rationale for dismissing it so rudely. Lack of integrity? Psychological weakness? A***hole? Linear combination of the three? :)

It's a combination of all three I think. You're showing a lack of intellectual integrity by the absurdness of claims, you're showing severe psychological weakness by pretending that crap justifies an assertion that you want to be true and you're being an A***hole to yourself by jumping through these hoops to avoid the bleeding obvious, that you're not even being remotely rational.

 

If consciousness is an activity, and adjective rather than a noun, then explain how material processes could possibly produce thoughts, feelings and awareness, and why all physical processes don't produce them.

Edited May 18, 2017 by A-wal

[OceanBreeze]

A-wal doesn't know the difference between an automatic reaction and a voluntary response.

I am sure an A&E Doctor could explain it to him, but will he ask? Nah

Edited May 18, 2017 by OceanBreeze