Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
Consciousness And The Brain
Ive asked before on here (havnt searched but know that I have...) about the nature of consciousness and why we have it at all. The general scientific consensus seems to be that we don't know. I recently came across this quote and made me think that maybe science is looking in the wrong place..
“Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking inside a radio for the announcer”
I'm well aware that the majority think that consciousness is a product of the brain and can ''prove'' that by the fact that when certain parts of the brain are damaged, it affects our perceptions.
But if the above quote is right then having a damaged brain is no different to having a damaged radio.
Ive long been interested in the hows and whys of consciousness and have read widely regarding such things as O.B.E s , N.D.E s and altered states of consciousness etc.
Theres far to many accounts of people having some king of 'recall' when they are in fact pronounced clinically dead...before been recusitated. Whether this 'recall' is objective or subjective is not established but the fact remains that that some kind of consciousness seems to be operating when it shouldn't.
Could perhaps consciousness be something else apart from brain chemistry?
“Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking inside a radio for the announcer”
I'm well aware that the majority think that consciousness is a product of the brain and can ''prove'' that by the fact that when certain parts of the brain are damaged, it affects our perceptions.
But if the above quote is right then having a damaged brain is no different to having a damaged radio.
Ive long been interested in the hows and whys of consciousness and have read widely regarding such things as O.B.E s , N.D.E s and altered states of consciousness etc.
Theres far to many accounts of people having some king of 'recall' when they are in fact pronounced clinically dead...before been recusitated. Whether this 'recall' is objective or subjective is not established but the fact remains that that some kind of consciousness seems to be operating when it shouldn't.
Could perhaps consciousness be something else apart from brain chemistry?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's an emergent quality derived from the mass of neuron connections. We have it for the same causes that we have anything else. It occurred as a result of random changes which resulted in a larger brain, and was passed on to future generations because it aided survival until the next generation was established.
Whether one can overlay the practical with the spiritual and suggest control of thoughts from elsewhere and some kind of communication is down to personal belief.
Whether one can overlay the practical with the spiritual and suggest control of thoughts from elsewhere and some kind of communication is down to personal belief.
Nailit, I think the analogy is wrong....a radio receives what is sent to it and transmits it unaltered except the content comes in as radio waves and goes out as sound waves. A Brain receives multiple inputs in multiple forms, processes and takes decisions based on input and then takes actions or not. If you want a radio analogy, its more like a radio broadcasting station than a radio.....which is exactly where you would look for, and find, the announcer.
Short answer: no-one knows.
There's speculation that as things get more internal connections, then 'consciousness' may spontaneously emerge. (hence 'emergent')
Those things could include the nervous connections within the brain of a jellyfish, or a flea, or a dog, or dolphin, or bonobo, or a human... or the silicon connections in a computer.
Even though we don't have a good definition of 'consciousness', there are tests for self-awareness, such as the ability to recognise oneself in a mirror, or the ability to plan a series of actions to achieve a desired outcome, or to empathise.
By most of the tests, elephants, bonobos, dolphins and other animals have some sense of self-awareness.
Is that consciousness? I have no idea.
Some SF writers have proposed that a sufficiently complex computer might spontaneously become conscious, and this would lead to computers out-thinking humans.
Who knows?
There's speculation that as things get more internal connections, then 'consciousness' may spontaneously emerge. (hence 'emergent')
Those things could include the nervous connections within the brain of a jellyfish, or a flea, or a dog, or dolphin, or bonobo, or a human... or the silicon connections in a computer.
Even though we don't have a good definition of 'consciousness', there are tests for self-awareness, such as the ability to recognise oneself in a mirror, or the ability to plan a series of actions to achieve a desired outcome, or to empathise.
By most of the tests, elephants, bonobos, dolphins and other animals have some sense of self-awareness.
Is that consciousness? I have no idea.
Some SF writers have proposed that a sufficiently complex computer might spontaneously become conscious, and this would lead to computers out-thinking humans.
Who knows?
no one has so far mentioned Turings idea of machine consciousness - if you speak to a machine and cant tell if it is a machine or a person behind some plasterboard
then it is conscious
but
//Theres far to many accounts of people having some king of 'recall' when they are in fact pronounced clinically dead.//
nope - none - nichty nochty - zilch - nada
there have been precisely zero cases of someone pronounced clinically dead and recovering
There have been lots instances of Mrs Mopp saying " and wiv dat wotzizname - all the doctors said he was as dead as a dodo. "Dead he is!" they all said and he sat up and said: "no I'm not!"
but I suggest that is not the same
then it is conscious
but
//Theres far to many accounts of people having some king of 'recall' when they are in fact pronounced clinically dead.//
nope - none - nichty nochty - zilch - nada
there have been precisely zero cases of someone pronounced clinically dead and recovering
There have been lots instances of Mrs Mopp saying " and wiv dat wotzizname - all the doctors said he was as dead as a dodo. "Dead he is!" they all said and he sat up and said: "no I'm not!"
but I suggest that is not the same
There's clearly a lot we don't yet understand about consciousness, but I am not sure that we are yet at the point where you'd be well-justified in saying that, whatever it is, it needs something beyond the physical in order to explain it. (Equally, therefore, I don't think anyone can definitively rule such explanations out.)
Otherwise I don't know if I have anything particularly useful to add to this thread beyond what woofgang et al have already said.
Otherwise I don't know if I have anything particularly useful to add to this thread beyond what woofgang et al have already said.
// PP would your answer to the "declared dead" thing be the same if the "declared dead" was replaced with "declared brain dead"?//
in short yes - since AB is notoriously not packed with neurophysiologists
brain dead is dead and the Death Certificate doctors are advised should show the time and date of death as at the second set of tests
in short yes - since AB is notoriously not packed with neurophysiologists
brain dead is dead and the Death Certificate doctors are advised should show the time and date of death as at the second set of tests
Maybe consciousness is just a headfull of facts, brought about by our superb ability to communicate via speech. Having all this stuff on call may have displaced other things such as the acute senses which many animals have but which we no longer need and "thinking" is just mulling it over into patterns that make "sense" to us.
Having said that, I'm sure that dogs have dreams...
Having said that, I'm sure that dogs have dreams...
I don't need to read the book to know that the title is obviously misleading (and, to be fair, even the author has acknowledged this). No-one has "proven" that heaven is a thing. But maybe one day I'll get around to reading the book proper.
I noted that, in response to some criticisms received, Alexander asserted, among other things, that "Physicists discovered just how completely consciousness is wedded to the physical environment at the beginning of the 20th century...", before discussing various ideas related to the links between consciousness and quantum mechanics ( http://
To be brief, I think he's become to wedded to *interpretations* of Quantum Mechanics that he sees them as *truth* rather than philosophy; one no more needs a conscious observer in Quantum Mechanics for it to work than one needs infinite parallel universes. Again, that's not to say that he's wrong, but that he certainly has asserted truth and certainty where there is none.
The gist of his point would then be that consciousness comes before matter, rather than after it (ie, that it can't be an emergent quality if it's integral to the Universe). Well, possibly. But I think he's looking in the wrong place to support that idea.
As usual, I also can't say that I find personal testimonies such as his very compelling as evidence. Interesting, certainly, and absolutely deserving of further attention and study -- from what little I know myself about NDEs, etc, we still don't yet understand them properly -- but I think it's generally worth making a habit of not basing one's world view on what other people claim to have seen if you have no meaningful way of verifying that for yourself.
I noted that, in response to some criticisms received, Alexander asserted, among other things, that "Physicists discovered just how completely consciousness is wedded to the physical environment at the beginning of the 20th century...", before discussing various ideas related to the links between consciousness and quantum mechanics ( http://
To be brief, I think he's become to wedded to *interpretations* of Quantum Mechanics that he sees them as *truth* rather than philosophy; one no more needs a conscious observer in Quantum Mechanics for it to work than one needs infinite parallel universes. Again, that's not to say that he's wrong, but that he certainly has asserted truth and certainty where there is none.
The gist of his point would then be that consciousness comes before matter, rather than after it (ie, that it can't be an emergent quality if it's integral to the Universe). Well, possibly. But I think he's looking in the wrong place to support that idea.
As usual, I also can't say that I find personal testimonies such as his very compelling as evidence. Interesting, certainly, and absolutely deserving of further attention and study -- from what little I know myself about NDEs, etc, we still don't yet understand them properly -- but I think it's generally worth making a habit of not basing one's world view on what other people claim to have seen if you have no meaningful way of verifying that for yourself.
