I’m all for neuroscience, but any thing that can be described as conscious are invariably more than brains and nervous systems. One can point to a conscious man’s toe and still be pointing to the source of “consciousness”, which is the conscious being itself. — NOS4A2

So, the toe, and not the brain, produces consciousness?

Is there any evidence that other organs contribute to the totality of consciousness, like the heart for instance? This seems to be an accepted idea in certain eastern schools of thought.

Cheers. I may well have misunderstood you to be claiming more than you were.

Cheers. I may well have misunderstood you to be claiming more than you were. — Janus

Awesome, dude. Thanks for sticking with me till we got there, brother. That's what it's all about, man.

Is there any evidence that other organs contribute to the totality of consciousness, like the heart for instance? This seems to be an accepted idea in certain eastern schools of thought. — Watchmaker

Not that I've seen, but I'll do some snooping and see if I can dig something up.

Consciousness is distinguished by wakefulness and attention. That's specifically how they define it in neuroscience — Garrett Travers

This is not a definition. The word "distinguish" is used as an attribute/characteristic of something or for comparison purposes. But even if I accept this as the official definition of neuroscience about consciousness --I doubt it is-- it is extremely limited. Actually it's not at all what is commonly believed that consciousness is. Just check the terms "wakefulness", "attention" and you will see how ridiculous this is as a definition!

I really don't undestand ... Why do you defend neuroscience so persistently in the matter of consiousness ... What it's for you? And esp. why are you doing that in here? Are you here to promote Science or Philosophy?

The brain is no digital computer. It reflects or recreates analogous. Like a planetarium representing the solar system. — EugeneW

Right. And I am afraid that the neuroscientists refers to (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full) totally ignore this fact and are moving in a totally wrong direction. (It cannot be a considence that they have chosen the ttile "Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Networks" as their title.)

I just need some more support from you guys, that's all. — Garrett Travers

As far as I am concerned, I'm sorry for not being able to support you in this topic, Garrett ... :sad:

From the article:

However, in recent times, many different opinions have been proposed. For example, some researchers believe that consciousness is aroused in the frontal region of the brain, including the prefrontal and central anterior cortex. Others believe that consciousness is created in areas of the hindbrain, including the occipital/parietal and central posterior regions of the brain (Koch et al., 2016; Seth, 2018). Questions that should be asked include: where is the material basis of consciousness? The physical basis of consciousness is the most important internal factor of consciousness.

Important Component of Consciousness: Wakefulness

You have to be awake... Yes... Of course... But look how the material basis is accentuated.

The physical basis of consciousness is the most important internal factor of consciousness.

"The important internal factor" and (as?) "the physical basis". That's exactly what it isn't.

What I have found missing from your account and from the papers you've linked is any coherent and convincing account of how to make a principled ontological distinction between an inexorably unfolding neural process and any other causal process. — Janus

Well said.

An unfolding neural process would be an experience of the brain, by one who does brain experiments, which relates to Einstein, 1934, “....All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it....”,

A human intellect, in its pursuits, does not experience its own empirical causality, which relates to Kant, 1781, “....That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. (...) But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience...”

While it is the case that brain functionality is a physically causal process, and its operation can be known empirically to a second-party, re: Einstein, such causal process, in the immediate first-party use of it, is not an experience, re: Kant.

Not sure there can ever be a convincing account, when the disparity between what the brain is doing (physics) is on one hand, and what the brain has done (metaphysics), is on the other.

@Garrett Travers

Pronouncing that you have certitude that consciousness has been solved because you read the proof on the Internet is only you telling everyone that your reading skills are infallible and your judgment of evidence is infallible.

And the one person who supported you even mentioned Google with excitement.

From where I sit, you’re more of a comedian than a philosopher or scientist.

Consciousness, and every great evolutionary event, was not a bottom up event, and that is why philosophers and scientists just stare at it dumbfounded.

Understanding how the brain works ends there because the brain is merely the physical “seat” for the immaterial power of consciousness, not the power itself.

Just like eyes are not the immaterial power of sight, but the physical seat for living physical beings to see.

To equate a seat of a power with the power has never been philosophically or scientifically valid.

The brain doesn't work through "information" — Daemon


This assertion is going to need some support. — Garrett Travers


I've already provided that support, concisely: the brain works through such things as electro-chemical impulses. When you've described all those processes, there isn't anything left for "information" to do.

As a concrete example, take the optic nerve. "The optic nerve carries sensory nerve impulses from the more than one million ganglion cells of the retina toward the visual centres in the brain. The vast majority of optic nerve fibres convey information regarding central vision. Encyclopedia Britannica"

Now suppose you're a scientist looking at the optic nerve. You are able to identify those nerve impulses. But you can't identify "information" in addition to the impulses.

________________________________________________

So Garrett, you asked for support for my assertion that the brain doesn't work through "information", and I provided it. Dehaene, defending Global Workspace Theory, says that "consciousness is nothing but the flexible circulation of information within a dense switchboard of cortical neurons".

And as Cobb observes, Global Workspace Theory does not explain why flexible circulation of information causes consciousness to pop up.

Now me, I think it's stuff like electrochemical impulses and wavelike interactions between populations of neurons that cause and modify consciousness. And not "information". I don't think GWT explains anything.

Do you have any response?

So, the toe, and not the brain, produces consciousness?

The conscious being itself produces “consciousness”. These are the things that are or are not conscious. Brains and nervous systems are only parts of these beings. Since a brain by itself (maybe in a jar) cannot produce consciousness, it cannot be said that a brain produces consciousness, because to do so would leave out a variety of other things that contribute.

What would consciousness be like without the rest of the endocrine system, or heart, or lungs, for example? There wouldn’t be any.

Just wanted to chime in and say "Well done". I believe people who still think consciousness does not come from the brain are like flat earthers. People need to understand this is not up for rational debate anymore.

Important Component of Consciousness: Wakefulness — EugeneW

They are wrong even in that limited --if not wrong-- view of consciousness: even when we are asleep, a part of our consciousness still works! How can simple things like that be missed? Well, they can, if one is biased --"blind" to the general picture-- and tries stubbornly to prove the improvable!

"The important internal factor" and (as?) "the physical basis". That's exactly what it isn't. — EugeneW

Right. Neuroscience --and Science in general-- tries to describe consciousness as if Otology were trying to describe music (art) in terms of sounds (vibrations). Of course, music depends on sound, but (the sense of) harmony, melody and rhythm, the main --but not the only-- ingredients of music, are not of a physical nature. Painting has to do with paint and colors (physical) , but the art of painting cannot be defined or studied based on them. The elements that mainly define and constitute the art of painting are not physical in nature.

I know, I have told you that I can't support you in your topic, i.e. support your position, but maybe I can help in indicating its vulnerabilities. (No offense!) You can see more (clarifying) points --quite important too in my view-- I just brought up regarding the "Neuroscience-consciousness" issue at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/663265

Painting has to do with paint and colors (physical) , but the art of painting cannot be defined or studied based on them. The elements that mainly define and constitute the art of painting are not physical in nature. — Alkis Piskas

That's it! Right. The art of painting, the images shown, stand to the colors and brushes and techniques used, as neurons, quarks, leptons, or whatever, stand to consciousness. The soul, enlightement, experience, the consciousness, in fact, is left out from the start.

Which isn't to say neuroscience is completely useless. It can be used to show, maybe, that consciousness is present (or absent in computers), but it can't touch down on consciousness an Sich. Like colors are an a priori necessity for a painting, so is material for neurons, body, and world, but there is more than material only. And exactly that is left out by the die hard materialist. Or it's called an illusion, an epiphenomenon. Well if they're happy with that....

Nothing called “consciousness” comes from the brain. What comes from brains are chemical and electrical signals, all of which require the rest of the body to understand and utilize them. Second, if “consciousness” is the state of being conscious, the being in that state is invariably more than a brain. Brains are not conscious, are not in a state of being conscious, and therefor do not produce consciousness.

Philosophy that dismisses science is not philosophy, it is casuistry. — Garrett Travers

Your unconditional faith in an infallible entity (science + sophistry = sciphistry) is touching. But it turns a philosophical forum into a mudslinging contest. Not surprisingly, your churlish clods memetically miss their mark. (that's a philosophical speculation, not a scientific fact)

You've made your point though : Sciphistry can lick Philosophy in a childish power struggle. So, if there's any dominance-dissing in this thread, its the subordination of Philosophy under the jackboot heel of Sciphistry (allegations without evidence). This thread is a silly cyberspace analogue to the Ukraine invasion. (again, a top-of-the-head conjecture, not a validated truth-claim)

It's been fun trading insults with you, But I prefer to waste my time actually engaging in intellectual philosophical dialogue, instead of below-the-belt who-hit-who harangues. Have a nice day. :joke:

Brains are not conscious, are not in a state of being conscious, and therefore do not produce consciousness. — NOS4A2

I do agree with your point that brains don't operate in isolation, but the brain is particularly significant where consciousness is concerned. Do you think, for the present discussion, it matters whether we talk about the brain producing consciousness (leaving out the mention of the rest of the body, the appropriate living environment, etc.)?

Neuroscience --and Science in general-- tries to describe consciousness as if Otology were trying to describe music (art) in terms of sounds (vibrations). — Alkis Piskas

I'm not sure that's fair. I see neuroscience as attempting to describe the biological mechanisms that produce and govern aspects of consciousness.

I think you should be targeting philosophical materialists, cognitive scientists and computationalists.

I do agree with your point that brains don't operate in isolation, but the brain is particularly significant where consciousness is concerned. Do you think, for the present discussion, it matters whether we talk about the brain producing consciousness (leaving out the mention of the rest of the body, the appropriate living environment, etc.)?

Philosophically speaking, I think it does. I think consciousness is a flawed concept to begin with, but to leave out the rest of the body in its manifestation is an error, a kind of materialist, brain-body dualism we ought to avoid.

Glad we are both viewing things from quite a similar perspective. It's always good to have allies! :grin:

Which isn't to say neuroscience is completely useless. — EugeneW

Certainly not. I have stressed that point earlier in this thread.

Well if they're happy with that.... — EugeneW

I would agree with "let them be happy", only that Science pervades today the world --at least the Western one-- and scientists --esp. hardcore ones-- are spreading a totally materialistic view of life and Man, at the expense of the spiritual part of the human beings, with disastrous effects for the human mind and soul, something I think we are all witnessing today. One has only to look at the growing statistics of violence, crime, suicide, etc.

But then, scientists themselves as well as technology are directed by powerful beings on the planet with financial interests and dominance as an end purpose.

Just a last point and to give credit were it is deserved: There are honest scientists, who accept the limits of Science and consider "consciousness" as "a mystery" or not in the realm of Science.

I would agree with "let them be happy", only that Science pervades today the world --at least the Western one-- and is spreading a totally materialistic view of life and Man, at the expense of the spiritual part of the human beings, with disastrous effects for the human mind and soul, something I think we are all witnessing today. One has only to look at the growing statistics of violence, crime, suicide, etc. — Alkis Piskas

I believe the statistics show a general downward trend in violence, and a general improvement in the human condition over recent history brought about by reason, science and humanism.

I wonder if you could tell me what it is that your soul or spirit actually does?

I see neuroscience as attempting to describe the biological mechanisms that produce and govern aspects of consciousness. — Daemon

This is a totally different thing, and I generally agree with it. But it's not what the paper I referred to was talking about ("Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Network", https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full), in which these guys try to handle consciousness as a whole. They even consider it as a subject matter of --or belonging to-- Neuroscience! And it's not only them: the whole scientific community (except a few cases) shares the same view.

I think you should be targeting philosophical materialists, cognitive scientists and computationalists. — Daemon

Oh them, for sure! :smile:

I don't see that in the paper you refer to AP. They aren't talking about art or music appreciation, they are talking about "wakefulness" and the like, and where different functions are located in the brain. That seems entirely reasonable as subject matter for neuroscience.

Then in the second part of the paper they talk about GWT, IIT and quantum theories of consciousness, in a completely unscientific way (there isn't any evidence to support those theories).

Are you not prepared to defend your ideas about the soul or spirit?

I would agree with "let them be happy", only that Science pervades today the world --at least the Western one-- and scientists --esp. hardcore ones-- are spreading a totally materialistic view of life and Man, at the expense of the spiritual part of the human beings, with disastrous effects for the human mind and soul, something I think we are all witnessing today. One has only to look at the growing statistics of violence, crime, suicide, etc — Alkis Piskas

And again you find me on your side! This view is "hammered" into people from early age on. Great value is assigned to IQ, abstract problem solving (which can be nice! I love math an physics myself!), and materialistic economic thinking (the more goods and growth, the better, but says who and why?). If I listen to "grown up" adults talking in a language that is supposed to sound objective, I can't help feeling aversion. It's in this mindframe the world is approached and, like you showed vividly with the painting analogy, a major aspect of reality is ignored. And it's indeed this thinking which has a very powerful grip on the world. Science is nice, but it's only knowledge. About the external side of material reality. And somehow scientists (and technoly)are looked upon in awe. But hey, technology is just, well, technology, and it will never, if sophisticated enough, be indistinguishable from magic, for the magic lies within. :wink:

Pronouncing that you have certitude that consciousness has been solved because you read the proof on the Internet is only you telling everyone that your reading skills are infallible and your judgment of evidence is infallible. — Joe Mello

This isn't something that took place. Which negates every pathetic, and childish attempt to insult me you produced, rather than contend with the arguments at hand. I would seek training in philosophy before you come back here, and make sure you bring a supported position when you do.

Your unconditional faith in an infallible entity (science + sophistry = sciphistry) is touching. But it turns a philosophical forum into a mudslinging contest. Not surprisingly, your churlish clods memetically miss their mark. (that's a philosophical speculation, not a scientific fact)

You've made your point though : Sciphistry can lick Philosophy in a childish power struggle. So, if there's any dominance-dissing in this thread, its the subordination of Philosophy under the jackboot heel of Sciphistry (allegations without evidence). This thread is a silly cyberspace analogue to the Ukraine invasion. (again, a top-of-the-head conjecture, not a validated truth-claim)

It's been fun trading insults with you, But I prefer to waste my time actually engaging in intellectual philosophical dialogue, instead of below-the-belt who-hit-who harangues. Have a nice day — Gnomon

Fuck off. Come back when you want to produce an argument.

hen in the second part of the paper they talk about GWT, IIT and quantum theories of consciousness, in a completely unscientific way (there isn't any evidence to support those theories). — Daemon

Complete bullshit, and I won't have it. They cited their sources thoroughly. Not a cool approach. If you're going to claim a peer-reviewed paper is unscientific, you need to support your claim.