If consciousness is not the product of the brain, there seems to be two options:

Occasionalism, which holds that there is no causal relationship between the two substances, physical and mental (since they are actually different), and the appearance of there being causal relations is an illusion originating from the pre-established harmony at the beginning of the world.

Idealism, which holds there is no physical brain at all, and the only substance that exists is mental.

Both are compatible with the observation that bumping someone on the head makes them lose consciousness.

There are different levels, or degrees of consciousness. The soul uses the brain to obtain higher degrees of consciousness. When a person is knocked "unconscious" there are still minimal degrees of conscious which remain for that person. This is evident from the fact that the person maintains a continuity of past memories despite being unconscious. How could the person maintain past memories if consciousness was completely lost?

In other words, why does shutting down the game console shut me (my consciousness) down as well, if my consciousness can exist independently of the game? — Panzerfaust

There is a difference between losing partial consciousness while still maintaining life functions (e.g. breathing, blood circulation) along with continuity of a physical life and losing consciousness and dying.

All living things react. Even nonliving things react, like mercury to temperature in a thermometer. Living things are more sophisticated though obviously. Bacteria will react to things such as resources needed to survive. A lizard has the ability to move around and react to danger and food, things needed to survive. Mammals can take a step further when they form actual societies in which they have systems of operating. They can react to other members of their group and cooperate, play.

What makes humans so special? Maybe it's just that we have the ability to react to our own reactions. A dog might be happy when getting attention. A human might be happy when getting attention, but also has to ability to react to his/her own reaction. If you're happy, you can reflect on it and think about why you're happy. A higher awareness that you are happy.

Humans have evolved to have the ability to think about our own thoughts. Think about a dog. Now think about the fact that that you are thinking about the dog. Now think about the fact that you are thinking about the fact that you are thinking about the dog.

I wonder if any other animals have this ability at all. Maybe other apes can to a much smaller degree than humans. Imagine you are being chased by a bear. The only thoughts in your head are about survival and you might get so into that that you might not be able to think about your thoughts in the moment. Your brain is too preoccupied with survival. Or like if you get into a movie so much you forget about reality. Maybe many animals have that style of thinking all the time about reality that they can't think about the fact that they are reacting to things. While humans on the other hand have the ability to react to our own reactions in the sense that we can think about our thoughts.

This is just interesting thought, and I wonder if our increasing understanding of neuroscience and the brain will one day look at consciousness this way.

Psychology is a more complex version of biology, which is a more complex version of chemistry, which is a more complex version of physics.

Conscousness is the property of being a purposefully-responsive device. You can call that a "product of the brain" if you want to word it that way. But that wording approaches the Spiritualism known as Dualism, when you speak of there being a "product" called Consciousness, as if it's something new, separate, and different from the animal, the body.

The animal is unitary, not a combination of separate body and Mind, or Consciousness, or whatever you call it.

Experience is a purposefully-responsive device's surroundings, and events in those surroundings, in the context of that device's purposes.

Michael Ossipoff

I wonder if panpsychism suggests that "consciousness is a product of the brain"?

Of course. I'm not saying we lose all consciousness and completely shut down, but our consciousness does stop working properly (sight, smell, touch, memory, etc. all seem to stop for a brief moment). So how can that be if consciousness isn't dependent on the brain?

If I understand correctly, that is a common religious view - our consciousness isn't a product of the brain, it's an immaterial thing that can survive the body's destruction. So how is it that slight damage to that body can also damage the consciousness?

If consciousness isn't the product of the brain then why can we get knocked unconscious? — Panzerfaust

Do we? When we sleep or get "knocked unconscious" are we really not conscious anymore, or are we still conscious but just not as actively aware of the world as we usually are when awake? Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but I've asked this question in another thread and I'd thought I'd bring it up here.

Aside from that, if consciousness is really considered a phenomenon independent of the brain, then I don't see why you should cease to be conscious at all when your brain stops functioning. One could argue for instance that any immaterial "soul" would reach the afterlife once your body falls over, or get reincarnated to another body and continue having experiences. Not necessarily advocating for those myself, but I'm just saying that one need not agree with you that knocking out the brain means knocking out consciousness, especially if they believe consciousness to be a separate process from the brain.

Perhaps what you're trying to get at is the fact that the contents of our conscious experience is tied to the processes of the brain. This is one thing that pretty much everyone can agree upon. Hit me in the head, and I may not lose consciousness, but my experience does change. I can pinch you in the arm and that would send a neurological signal to your brain that would correlate with a painful experience. Does that demonstrate that consciousness itself must be a byproduct of the brain? To me, not really, since that would be the equivalent of saying that my television running is a byproduct of a remote television station operating because it receives signals from the latter to create an image on the screen. Sure the television is a receiver for the station, but it does not depend solely on it for its operation.

If someone were to damage the game console, causing it to shut down for a few moments, it wouldn't shut you down as well. You'd still be conscious, just not able to experience the game. — Panzerfaust

But that's not what happens when I lose consciousness. I experience a blow to the head, immediately followed by waking up in hospital; there is no gap in experience, because I do not experience unconsciousness. Rather, a gap is proposed or imagined to explain the discontinuity.

I go to bed at night, and the game fast forwards to morning, or if it doesn't, I complain that I haven't slept a wink. One can even imagine the 'player' pausing the game for ten minutes or ten centuries for whatever reason, and returning to it with no loss of continuity. I, as the character being played, notice nothing.

I think confusion arises because the sentence "consciousness is a product of the brain because one get can knocked out" looks on the surface as if it is submitting the experience of getting knocked out as evidence of a causal relationship between consciousness and the brain.

On the contrary, the experience of getting knocked out is a plausible definition of what it means to say that "consciousness is a product of the brain".

"consciousness is a product of the brain because one get can knocked out"- isn't really an evidence-based causal assertion - it is merely the statement of an empirical convention.

Occasionalism, which holds that there is no causal relationship between the two substances, physical and mental
Idealism, which holds there is no physical brain at all, and the only substance that exists is mental.

Both are compatible with the observation that bumping someone on the head makes them lose consciousness. — darthbarracuda

1) There is no account from 'occasionalism' which can account for a knock out
2) Idealism is not the caricature you want it to be. Idealism simply gives priority to ideas. It does not deny the existence of a brain. There is no reason that Idealism is incompatible with a knockout
3) Realism is the one you forgot to mention. Were I to caricature it as you did idealism then we would have to say that it has no account of consciousness - but this is also false.
4) Materialism has the best account of a knockout.

But that's not what happens when I lose consciousness. I experience a blow to the head, immediately followed by waking up in hospital; there is no gap in experience, because I do not experience unconsciousness. Rather, a gap is proposed or imagined to explain the discontinuity.

I go to bed at night, and the game fast forwards to morning, or if it doesn't, I complain that I haven't slept a wink. One can even imagine the 'player' pausing the game for ten minutes or ten centuries for whatever reason, and returning to it with no loss of continuity. I, as the character being played, notice nothing. — unenlightened

I think there is something to this, and it has to do with the relativity of time. In my studies of NDEs people often claim that their NDE lasted forever, or for a very long time. So if we assume that time moves at a faster rate there, i.e., let's say that change is happening at T+1000 there, but it happens only at T+1 here, there would hardly be any gap between our unconscious states. This assumes that the brain is simply a receiver, and that our consciousness lies somewhere outside the body.

When people experience an OBE, i.e., one that is near their bodies, time seems to pass at the same rate that is experienced when in the body. However, as people move further away from their bodies, the speed at which change takes place seems to change. This rate of change can be accounted for on multiple levels of consciousness. We also experience these changes when we dream, viz., different rates of change.

So if we assume that time moves at a faster rate there, i.e., let's say that change is happening at T+1000 there, but it happens only at T+1 here, there would hardly be any gap between our unconscious states. — Sam26

I imagine it as being a separate dimension of time entirely, orthogonal to Earth time, and giving rise to literal levels of consciousness, such that in my lifetime on Earth, I cannot usually be aware of the life that is being lived 'at rightangles' to it, because there is none of that time passing in which awareness can happen. Whereas in two dimensional time, an Earthly lifetime is just a passing momentary experience.

I imagine us sitting together in some celestial therapy group, and you passing a life to me, saying 'try this one next, it's called 'unenlightened' - a nice easy life between the wars.'

If consciousness isn't the product of the brain then why can we get knocked unconscious? — Panzerfaust

When an anesthesiologist wants to knock you out he gives you an IV (intravenous drip) in the hand. What do you say about that?

maybe the consciousness is too connected to the brain. people who practice in becoming spiritual and opening their consciousness claim to experience phenomena that can only suggest that we can separate from our brain, such as astral projection and other out-of-body experiences. we may be so connected to the brain that we aren't able to experience anything if the brain isn't fully functional. it could be that it is separate but extremely weak without a brain and people who claim to have these out-of-body experiences are just able to separate for only a small amount of time because of the sheer weakness of the consciousness without an intelligent brain. animals are a good example, they have consciousness but they aren't very intelligent. this could suggest that our capability and intelligence is dependent on how complex brain the brain is (if we receive it from elsewhere). i am a firm believer that the consciousness is different from the brain but as humans know very little about both it is very frustrating pondering these topics.

it could be that it is separate but extremely weak without a brain and people who claim to have these out-of-body experiences are just able to separate for only a small amount of time because of the sheer weakness of the consciousness without an intelligent brain — David Solman

Actually NDEs tell a different story, i.e., it's not a weak consciousness at all, in fact it's very expansive, and this reality seems dreamlike in comparison. People's sensory perceptions are heightened, their knowledge is expanded, their memories are expanded, and this expands consciousness itself. The body/brain limits our awareness to a kind of dumbed down version of reality.

It is easy to see how the brain creates a virtual reality generating the qualia that we experience in consciousness. It is not so easy to see how an objective thing such as the brain can in theory even create a private subjective world of an observer.
We can imagine the brain mechanism for vision, hearing for instance shutting down so one can no longer see or hear and yet it would seem consciousness is not degraded one bit. It just has changed so those qualia are no longer part of it. Now if thoughts are removed and all reflection, communication, memory are erased I can still think that a person has phenomenal consciousness in totality. The person can still feel himself as a body breathing and alive. If feeling is totally erased and there is no qualia left at all to experience than perhaps consciousness ceases but as long as there is some qualia to experience there is still an observer to experience it.
While it is easy to see how a physical neuro-mechanism can generate the content of consciousness or qualia it is much harder to see how to see even in principle how it can generate a private subjective observer.

It is easy to see how the brain creates a virtual reality generating the qualia that we experience in consciousness. — lorenzo sleakes

It's so easy to see, that it is commonly known as the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

While it is easy to see how a physical neuro-mechanism can generate the content of consciousness — lorenzo sleakes

Only if one skips over specifics and replaces it with a magical idea.

Let's examine the thought process: you have a neuron and PRESTO! it creates consciousness.

It's so easy to see, that it is commonly known as the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
8 hours ago ReplyShare — tom

It is easy to see how an expanded physics or psychophysics can in theory correlate vibrations or patterns of energy with particular qualia such as colors and sounds and thereby for the brain to generate a virtual reality show.
The really hard problem is how the brain creates a private subjective world and for what reason if it is not efficacious. It is not only a hard problem it is probably an impossible problem if consciousness is not a product of the brain.

well yes that is my belief that the consciousness is very powerful BUT the original post poses a very important point, if the consciousness is so powerful then why are our experiences limited to when our bodies are 'awake? My reply was only exploring a potential possibility.

Maybe the consciousness has the potential to be very powerful but in our age of human evolution our consciousness is weak and it is very underdeveloped due to our dismissive attitude towards what consciousness means. People don't care and have no interest in it. Most people won't even question what they are experiencing and what life actually is. This is why I believe we aren't powerful at all but we have the potential to be, but until we start questioning it as a collective race we will never strive for the answers and to learn about growing and improving the consciousness.

It is easy to see how an expanded physics or psychophysics can in theory correlate vibrations or patterns of energy with particular qualia such as colors and sounds and thereby for the brain to generate a virtual reality show.
The really hard problem is how the brain creates a private subjective world and for what reason if it is not efficacious. It is not only a hard problem it is probably an impossible problem if consciousness is not a product of the brain. — lorenzo sleakes

I think you are using terminology in a non-standard way. While it is easy to follow the nerve impulses to their final destination in the visual cortex, or wherever, this is not the quale "red". Qualia refers to the unexplained subjective what-it-is-like to see colours, not the specific neuronal effects of seeing colours.

Robots don't possess qualia, but they do possess "neuronal" effects.

well yes that is my belief that the consciousness is very powerful — David Solman

Consciousness is exactly as we are experiencing it. It is a creative life force that is constantly experimenting, learning, and evolving. It is different as we each experience it, as there are differences in the waves in the ocean, but it is neither mystical or all powerful, it is simply different, hence we have Mozarts, idiot-savants, bakers, tool makers, etc. All manifestations of a creative, living force that is evolving.

well yes that is true but there are a lot of unexplained phenomena that suggests that we are capable of more advanced things. like i said before astral projection is an experience that many many people have claimed to have had and so it cannot go unnoticed. using this as an example people to claim to leave their body entirely and can see their body from a distance away. if this is true then what this means for our consciousness is groundbreaking and would mean that it is capable of being more powerful than the normal experience of an every day person. it is also fact in government declassified documents that people of 'special abilities' exist and are capable of psychic abilities and as funny as that may sound to a skeptic it is fact and these documents are available to you if you choose to educate yourself in this.

well yes that is true but there are a lot of unexplained phenomena that suggests that we are capable of more advanced things — David Solman

We are each have different skills and capabilities as we have evolved differently (different inherited or inborn traits) which is to say we have different memories (which can be developed over multiple physical lives). We are all different because we all have different memories.

While it would be wonderful for the likes of astral projection and 'special abilities' to be true, the evidence is at best very weak, and at worst the work of self confessed hoaxers who's aim was to show just how easy it is to 'demonstrate' such abilities, even in supposedly tightly controlled conditions.

I have taken hallucinogens in the past, and am well aware that our consciousness is capable of so much more than the everyday, but those conscious states I experienced were directly related to the chemical changes those substances made to my brain, and subsided as those chemical effects wore off. Other drugs obliterate consciousness altogether, again directly related to the chemical changes that they create in the brain. Neurological experiments suggest that activity takes place in the brain BEFORE we experience consciousness related to it, or at least we can be easily fooled into believing we have made a conscious decision about a particular piece of behaviour, when infact it has already been set in motion at an unconscious level.

Thus, whatever function consciousness serves, all evidence points to it most definitely being directly related to brain state, rather than existing as an independent phenomenon

We are each have different skills and capabilities as we have evolved differently (different inherited or inborn traits) which is to say we have different memories — Rich

No that is not to say we have different memories at all. Humans more than any other animals are blank slates. We have NO memories of any kind, except those we make during our development, first as a foetus, and as a growing person. Traits are potentialities, and basic structures, they do not give us innate memories in any sense.
Each gamete has to start from scratch molecule by molecule.

No that is not to say we have different memories at all. — charleton

Have you ever compared your memories with others?

Why is that relevant?
And in what way, exactly?

Why is that relevant?
And in what way, exactly? — charleton

Different memories, different abilities.