But to have a relationship there must be two, no? — bert1

No, not really. Although, I see why you would say such. If you see the quote I left for you at the bottom of OP, you'll notice the issue has already been addressed. In short, speculation on consciousness has been circulating for millennia, long before actual empirical observation landed on the topic. Meaning, the concept already had a significant amount of coherence built around it, before science came along and demolished it. Such can be visibly observed here with everyone commenting with their emotions, instead of discussing it like you and providing arguments or questions. It's emotionally reinforced as a concept with them, no science needed.

Do you think that is the case with the scientific study of consciousness? — bert1

Yes, it's specifically the case with this specific field. Most theories aren't really theories until they can face the crucible of falsification (thank you Popper), and that's hard to do with the most complex system in the known universe. What is not disputed in neuroscience, however, is that the brain is the source of consciousness. Just as it is the source of eyesight. Just as it produces eyesight, so too does it produce consciousness, and that's exactly how we should be viewing it. Theories will emerge as we progress, but IIT is looking pretty good. It just has a problem with its consciousness measurement right now, they are reformulating it as we speak. GWT is empirical.

OK, thanks. So you are specifying humans. Are we not considering animals with brains here? If not, why not? — bert1

Not yet, it isn't clear yet that animals can reason, that is, can integrate sensory data to inform future behaviors for future goal orientation and processes like that. But, they're getting there, just be patient. We may find some shit that rocks our world in that regard, especially in regards to apes.

Also you are specifying wakeful attention. What about dreams when asleep? Are we conscious then? — bert1

I'm not, the research emphasizes both wakefulness, and attention as the primary emergent, behavioral aspects of consciousness together. As far as sleep, no it is quite the opposite of consciousness, but not quite as unconscious as being in a coma. It's covered in that first paper, take a look.

And what about when our attention is very diffuse, almost as if we are not attending to anything in particular, and allowing an unanalysed body of stimuli determine our experience? Does that count as consciousness? — bert1

You tell me: "Consciousness can be understood as being aware of oneself and one’s own conditions. The cognitive neuroscience concept of “executive function” usually includes the ability to control attention, mental flexibility, awareness, goal-directed behaviors, and the ability to anticipate the consequences of one’s own behavior." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303502619_Is_Self-Consciousness_Equivalent_to_Executive_Function#:~:text=Consciousness%20can%20be%20understood%20as,consequences%20of%20one's%20own%20behavior.

The Global Workspace Theory is interesting as I think it captures something of the phenomenal character of experience, namely that it feels container-like. But what is it exactly? — bert1

Great question. "Global" denotes entirety of, or all of composite systems. "Workspace" denotes structures of the brain. Consciousness arising from the entire system of structures operating in unison. And no, this is not speculative. Quantum Consciousness is speculative, but has some support. IIT is completely coherent, just needs some way to falsify it. GWT is the actively researched, and empirically understood framework at this moment: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749868/full Check it out.

The trouble with all flavours of functionalism is that they tend to be silent when asked "OK, but why can't all that happen in the dark? What is it about any of that that necessitates phenomenal experience?" — bert1

I don't understand this one. It was designed to perform these phenomenal experiences by a 3.5 billion year process of evolution. Not much more to say about it right now. If we knew how cells were generated it would be easy to answer that question. That's just not where we are yet.

There are several Quantum Consciousness theories I think. Are you thinking of the Penrose one? — bert1

They're all entwined, it's in the paper, with the other topics.

These are all very different Garrett. And some don't necessarily involve brains. Are you sure it's all as settled as you think? — bert1

What isn't settled is a precise location within the structure that produces consciousness. What is not in question is that the brain produces it, as well as the executive functions that notice it, i.e. "you." That's not even a question in neuroscience.

That wasn't intended to be an argument; it was a question. — Janus

O, the tragedy of a brain that doesn't understand itself... — Janus

Janus' brain looking at itself across comments. lol

I don't know about you, but my brain can't see itself at all. :cry:

And apparently your brain (or is it your brain's brain?) can't tell the difference between an argument and a question.

What do you actually know about the brain and its connection to the body? Explain to me how a memory is formed. What happens when I recognize a face? — EugeneW

The short of it is, the brain receives sensory data and integrates through multiple channels before storing it in the hippocampus for retrieval by the neocortex, "a bidirectional flow of information between the neocortex and hippocampus is fundamental to the formation and retrieval of episodic memories."

: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1914180116
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5491610/

I don't know about you, but my brain can't see itself at all — Janus

It's made right sure of it.

And apparently your brain (or is it your brain's brain?) can't tell the difference between an argument and a question. — Janus

Your brain has a funny way of admitting it has nothing to offer here.

No, that's not what happens in memory formation.

Nothing to offer but difficulties for your position. You can lead a hoar to culture, but you can't make him think.

Most theories aren't really theories until they can face the crucible of falsification — Garrett Travers

What if the theory is true?

Nothing to offer but difficulties for your position. You can lead a hoar to culture, but you can't make him think. — Janus

Oh, you've not troubled my position at all.

What if the theory is true? — EugeneW

Then I'm proven right just that much more.

No, that's not what happens in memory formation. — EugeneW

Yes it is.

Not that you have noticed, it's true.

But how can a true theory be falsified?

Not that you have noticed, it's true. — Janus

Yeah, fantasies have that effect.

Yes it is. — Garrett Travers

No it isn't. There is no memory formation discussed. Memory formation happens in the whole brain.

But how can a true theory be falsified? — EugeneW

Falsification is not proving something to be false, it is empirically testing it in a manner that places it in jeopardy as a hypothesis. If it passes, it has been demonstrated. If it fails, then back to the drawing board.

No it isn't. There is no memory formation discussed. Memory formation happens in the whole brain. — EugeneW

Thank you for confirming exactly what I said.

At least you're able to admit that much.

At least you're able to admit that much. — Janus

I only watched you frolicking around in it over and over again, not that hard to admit.

Thank you for confirming exactly what I said. — Garrett Travers

You said nowhere how memory is formed. How then?

You said nowhere how memory is formed. How then? — EugeneW

Through the integration of sensory data across multiple neural channels before being stored in the hippocampus for retrieval by the neocortex. Left you some research on it up there too.

Through the integration of sensory data across multiple neural channels before being stored in the hippocampus for retrieval by the neocortex. Left you some research on it up there too. — Garrett Travers

That's not an answer how it's formed. Only that it's formed. How is it integrated? It's very simple... Like the working of the whole brain is very simple...

That's not an answer how it's formed. Only that it's formed. How is it integrated? It's very simple... Like the workings of the whole brain is very simple... — EugeneW

.... go on, then.. tell us...

It's my secret. I don't want anyone to know. Found it out thanks to my own brain. Introspection, you know. Dialogue.

For someone rambling on about physicalism you know damned little...

It's my secret. I don't want anyone to know. Found it out thanks to my own brain. Introspection, you know. Dialogue. — EugeneW

There I go again, playing Nostradamus.

There I go again, playing Nostradamus. — Garrett Travers

Now you start to show first signs of brain failure...

Q

Quantum Consciousness is speculative, but has some support. — Garrett Travers

I'll chime in since I've been thinking about the quantum theory branch of this consciousness problem, and though I have a lot to learn, I'm somewhat certain of a few components.

The wave function of quantum mechanics is approximating description of an electromagnetic field's structure. These EM fields morph as charges shift in and between atoms, due to both particle motion and "quantum coherence" currents (waves) that are distinctly electrical, a type of fermionic current.

Electromagnetic radiation, a field of photons, is generated when electrical currents accelerate. These waves are a type of bosonic quantum coherence current.

Photon coherence currents superposition with electron coherence currents as they flow through them, of course along with some absorption, emission and reflection that causes the energy of electrons to fluctuate.

Given suitable conditions (amenable entropy and material structure), photon fields (EM radiation) and electron fields (atomic orbitals) can superposition pervasively enough amongst molecules that a relatively stable coherence field results.

Coherence fields resonate, vibrate in an extremely complex way. At a basic level, these vibrations are responsible for feel percepts. Coherence fields can also produce subjective images, analogous to how combining light of different wavelengths results in the visible spectrum.

Facets of brain chemistry that cause these effects in high resolution are associated with conscious perceptual experience.

As I presently comprehend, those are the essentials of quantum consciousness theory, but much of it has not yet been conclusively proven.

As I presently comprehend, those are the essentials of quantum consciousness theory, but much of it has not yet been conclusively proven. — Enrique

Yes, exactly. The current data we do have is very promising, and it would only make sense to have those types of elements involved as being essential to the process. But, yes, for now it is inconclusive. The thing about such complex systems as the human brain, it being the most complex system there is to boot, is that the best way to look at contributing factors, like what coherence fields might possibly be contributing, is as in a vast array of essential networks of systems, all working together to produce the phenomenon(a). Just like one would view a planet. You cannot understand Earth without understanding the inummerable ecosystems she holds and produces. The brain is no different in that regard. I take this view inline with the General Systems Theory, which I think provides the most reasonable, and intuitive approach at understanding the universe in almost every regard.

And I'll bet that brain will never produce an argument here. — Garrett Travers

You won’t get an argument from me, for that which I know nothing about, on the one hand, and on the other, that your scientific be-all-end-all domain is utterly irrelevant to the guy wondering what to do about his neighbor’s dog digging up the carrot patch.

I grant the science, and acknowledge the authority of brain machinations. But I am, at the end of the day, just a regular ol’ human being, and as such, philosophy has much more impact on me, than your science, of which I have no conscious need in my intellectual performance.

You actually might be better off, if you acknowledged the fact that everybody thinks, but not a single human ever, is aware of their phosphorus ion count, activation potentials, nor the span of his synaptic clefts for the color “blue”.

So if everybody does this, but nobody does that....where should the productive emphasis reside?