Consciousness question

[Mercutio]

All it requires is a device capable of picking an external signal, to show that the signal is capable of being degraded after it has been received.

If you can show a device capable of picking up a "consciousness signal" at all, you would be well on your way. Thus far, of course, no such device exists, nor is there any expectation one ever will. Do you have any practical means of testing these claims?

 

[Iacchus]

If you can show a device capable of picking up a "consciousness signal" at all, you would be well on your way. Thus far, of course, no such device exists, nor is there any expectation one ever will. Do you have any practical means of testing these claims?

Are you suggesting that the brain has no inputs, and receives no signals (the transfer of sensory data) from external sources?

 

[articulett]

How so? That God is progressive, as opposed to static which, is what the YEC's would have us believe? Of course the theory of evolution still doesn't explain how God puts His spirit into everything. Perhaps the Book of Genesis is right, about the later acclimation of man? And of course if man were in effect a fallen angel, a thoughtful and progressive God would have provided a place for this to happen, by means of time and space that is.

You use the term Id ina prior post...that's a metaphor, you know--for primal or "instinctive" feelings that humans consider base--

So god injected his spirit in everything--nice poetic thought, but there isn't an iota of evidence to detail the injection of a spirit. Twins, who are clones and test tube babies made by man--all have the same consciousness as those conceived in "sin". Moreover, the latter is conceived immaculately. Do tasmanian devils have god's spirit? What about Osama? How about sharks? How about the bears that ate that Grizzley Man (Timothy Treadwell)--did they eat up his spirt. That egyptian lady who gave birth to a two headed girl--did both heads have a "spirit"--even the parasitic twin with no body? The spirit thing is an illusion--granted a sweet one--but an illusion nevertheless--just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that "god did it".

 

[articulett]

As everyone including the OP has said or implied, the phenomenon of sleep, and the effects of anaesthetics (or indeed booze) on consciousness, strongly suggest that what we call 'consciousness' or 'the mind' is directly affected by what goes on in our physical brains. I have nothing to add except that, if those examples are not clear enough, I recommend eating three or four grams of dried magic mushrooms. Now *that's* a link between brain chemistry and consciousness!

Read about Clive Wearing the guy who is always "just waking up"-- read about the guy who had brain damage that made him feel he was in a constant state of de je vu? There is a great documentary about LSD--it even has 9 year old kids on it talking about how LSD made them see god in a new way. Read some of Oliver Sacks--(e.g. The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat and Awakenings...) Read some V.S. Ramachandran. Consciousness is a wacky thing. And it takes place in the BRAIN. Religous feelings of ecstacy can be induced via brain stimulation and/or drugs and in some people--this helmet called the Persinger Helmet will do it--

There is no such thing as a soul...it's an illusion.

 

[Iacchus]

So, if one were to pluck out one's eye, does that alter the light at its source or, just the ability to see that light?

 

[articulett]

This argument can of course be falsified ... if we were to look at the brain as a means of channeling consciousness.

I don't think you even know what you mean by channeling consciousness. The brain interprets the environment--it interprets it in ways that aid in survival and reproduction. You can describe beautiful feelings and so forth however you like--but they all occur in the brain--and are subject to influence by actual physical matter acting on the brain (hormones, drugs, gases (methane, nitrous oxide, oxygen), electricity, head injuries--

Without a brain, there is no consciousness. With a brain, consciousness is possible...although it can be demented.

 

[articulett]

So, if one were to pluck out one's eye, does that alter the light at its source or, just the ability to see that light?

If you pluck out both eyes, light would exist, but you would not be conscious of it. Without an eye, there is no light for you. Without a brain, there is no thought occurring to you...no feeling...your consciousness dies with your brain...just like light disappears for you when you have no eyes--(no one can blind you eternally by flashing a light in your eyes). Yes, truth exists...even if there is no awareness of it. But for consciousness to exist (the feeling that one is alive and separate from others)--that takes a brain. Just ask your nearest parsely sprig.

 

[Piscivore]

Read ...read ...Read ...Read ...

This concept is anathema to our Mr. Iacchus.

 

[articulett]

Are you suggesting that the brain has no inputs, and receives no signals (the transfer of sensory data) from external sources?

No...he/she appears to be saying that you need a brain to interpret sensory data. Without a digestive system, you can't process nutrients...without a brain, you can't process sensory input.

The stuff you say sounds like this to me: "well, how can you say there is no pixie dust on the planet...we've never tried to measure it...surely you don't think that everything just happened...clearly pixie dust is entailed...even if you can't measure it--heck you can't even access it unless you believe in it..." (Insert soul or "consciousness" or god in place of pixie dust.)

You just sound so young, so unschooled in the sciences...so hungry for esoteric ideas...you sound like you think you have deep wisdom, but to many of us you sound like our 6th grade selves. Do you wear a mood ring by chance? Check your horoscope daily? Wear a pyramid and/or crystals for energy? Rebuke scary things in the name of Jesus Christ? Avoid black cats?

 

[Complexity]

What I dont understand is what is so scary about being a brain-body and not a "soul"?

Many silly people are afraid of death and ending (e.g. Ian).

Also, many silly people need to believe that we are different from [the rest of] the animals and use the idea of a 'soul' as the primary difference between 'us' and 'them'.

Silly people.

I'm a beastie - gonna die.

 

[Mercutio]

Are you suggesting that the brain has no inputs, and receives no signals (the transfer of sensory data) from external sources?

You said "a device" (dictionary.com: "A contrivance or an invention serving a particular purpose, especially a machine used to perform one or more relatively simple tasks."). The claim you are testing involves the brain; it would be assuming your conclusion to assert that the brain is such a "device", and I know you would not want to be accused of circularly assuming your conclusion.

The brain receives all sorts of data; none of it that we have ever measured thus far, in over a century, could be considered "consciousness signals". Your attempt to move your goalposts is noted, but not allowed.

Do you need me to repeat the question, or can you try again on your own?

 

[Iacchus]

You said "a device" (dictionary.com: "A contrivance or an invention serving a particular purpose, especially a machine used to perform one or more relatively simple tasks."). The claim you are testing involves the brain; it would be assuming your conclusion to assert that the brain is such a "device", and I know you would not want to be accused of circularly assuming your conclusion.

The brain receives all sorts of data; none of it that we have ever measured thus far, in over a century, could be considered "consciousness signals". Your attempt to move your goalposts is noted, but not allowed.

Do you need me to repeat the question, or can you try again on your own?

Yes, a radio is such a device (not unlike an eyeball in that respect, actually) where, when you damage the radio, the "external signal" which the radio receives, remains intact. So, when someone tells us that consciousness is affected when the brain is damaged, so what? This does not prove that consciousness arises from within the brain.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, a radio is such a device (not unlike an eyeball in that respect, actually) where, when you damage the radio, the "external signal" which the radio receives, remains intact. So, when someone tells us that consciousness is affected when the brain is damaged, so what? This does not prove that consciousness arises from within the brain.

If you were trying to prove that radios do not generate their sounds within, you might want to build another device that would receive the alleged "radio signals". We can do this...we have done this. "Radio signals" can be detected by instruments other than radios. We can measure their frequency, their amplitude...we can very easily see that they exist even if radios do not.

This does not prove anything at all about consciousness.

You have asserted that consciousness is also transmitted; I have said that it is not. You could easily falsify my claim by finding or creating the equivalent device to that described above; if you can somehow independently measure these alleged "consciousness signals", you could gloat to your heart's content, shout "Mercutio was wrong!" from the highest mountaintops, and start working on your Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

Yes, it would be that big.

I have shown you how you would falsify my claim. How would you falsify yours?

 

[Iacchus]

No...he/she appears to be saying that you need a brain to interpret sensory data. Without a digestive system, you can't process nutrients...without a brain, you can't process sensory input.

So, how does this sensory data get mixed with and, so becomes a part of our conscious awareness? At what point does it lose the properties of the data which must be there? Indeed, at what point does the symphony lose the properties of the data necessary (once it's recorded) in order to play it back on a CD player? The thing is, it doesn't.

 

[Mercutio]

So, how does this sensory data get mixed with and, so becomes a part of our conscious awareness? At what point does it lose the properties of the data which must be there? Indeed, at what point does the symphony lose the properties of the data necessary (once it's recorded) in order to play it back on a CD player? The thing is, it doesn't.

Did you take a look at those videos? You ask the questions, but you never appear to look for the answers...

 

[Tricky]

Yes, a radio is such a device (not unlike an eyeball in that respect, actually) where, when you damage the radio, the "external signal" which the radio receives, remains intact. So, when someone tells us that consciousness is affected when the brain is damaged, so what? This does not prove that consciousness arises from within the brain.

Again with the radio, Iacchus? Don't you ever get tired of that same old badly flawed metaphor? You've tried it here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here

(There's lots more, but I'm getting tired of pasting)
Almost every time you have been shown why your analogy is incorrect, just as you are again here. Your brain is not a radio, Iacchus. Frankly your brain is more like a phonograph album with a skip.

Try to have an original thought once and again, Iacchus. It only hurts the first time.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How exactly this idea about consciousness being tuned by the brain arises? Which are the foundations? Which are the questions that it answers? Any experimental data showing that signal (consciousness)? any evidence demonstrating that the brain is a receptor?

Because Iacchus, if you dont have answers for all these questions, you have nothing at all.

 

[Mercutio]

I'll try my answers first, and we can see how they match up with Iacchus's.

How exactly this idea about consciousness being tuned by the brain arises?

Someone literally dreamed it up.

Which are the foundations?

Ignorance of the dream process.

Which are the questions that it answers?

None.

Any experimental data showing that signal (consciousness)?

No.

any evidence demonstrating that the brain is a receptor?

No, unless you count the retina and olfactory bulb as parts of the brain, which some do, in which case it receives EMR and chemical information in a well-understood process.

Because Iacchus, if you dont have answers for all these questions, you have nothing at all.

Got it in one.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Exactly what I believed. Thanks.

 

[Mercutio]

Exactly what I believed. Thanks.

Hey, I could be wrong. (I'm not, but I could be.) All it takes is somebody bringing evidence, and we can change my answers.