Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?

The only argument you offered in support of your semantics of "descriptor" of new phenomena versus "added" phenomena ("additional" and "new" are synonyms) is trivial. So how does that distinguish your point from his? It does not. Are we to simple take your word that your semantic distinction is valid or relevant? So far, that has been all you have offered. But go right ahead and pretend that you are somehow being wronged by people not accepting your poor proclamations as gospel.

Where is the distinction you feel makes your point? Neither the semantics nor the exact same tautology do so. You are right to feel that I "argue for nothing" as that is what your argument amounts to. And if it is never going to amount to anything else, as is apparent, then you are right, there is no further point in discussing it.

Apparently you cannot differentiate the "constituents/underlying activity" (of course these are synonymous) with "the sum of constituents". If an emergent property were added to the constituents then it would trivially be one of those constituents, and by no means emergent. Emergent properties are additional to the sum of constituents, which is simply how we distinguish emergent phenomena.

So it is a straw man that you claim my position has changed (or just you poor comprehension). And where did I say "[someone] adds anything to the system"? Again, emergent properties are unaccounted for, so you cannot support any proclamation that they are already existent. They do not exist until the higher order in which they are evident, otherwise we would not distinguish them as emergent. And if the only thing new is "our understanding" then how do emergent properties have effects of their own? They must have physical consequences to have an effect.

Are you now proclaiming all emergent properties illusory?

So things like friction, natural patterns, biological organization, etc. are all illusions? Then why do you balk when I say that considering consciousness illusory does that same for anything inferred to exist by that consciousness?

You assume more than is empirically supportable. Just pie-in-the-sky philosophizing and "science of the gaps" (appeal to ignorance).

Western science has proceeded by filling gaps, but in filling them, it has created gaps all over again. The process is inexhaustible. … Understanding has improved, but within the physical sciences, anomalies have grown great, and what is more, anomalies have grown great because understanding has improved. -David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Crown Forum, 2008)​

But even just assuming emergent properties to be illusion, we are forced to admit that, being itself emergent from quantum indeterminacy, determinism is illusory. The probabilistic is an emergent phenomena from the indeterministic underlying activities. So you cannot arbitrarily claim determinism your port of harbor, as you have already argued against its reality.

The inconsistency here seems to be in your arguments.

If perception is not arbitrary then what makes the perception of consciousness illusory? That perception holds universally for humans, just as the perception of an objective reality. You have yet to show how you would consider these "layers of illusion" distinguishable, as you have yet to define what particulars those of the analogy relate to. You basically just keep saying "the magician's illusion is an illusion". How does that tautology explain anything? Apparently you think simple semantics has explanatory power.

You have yet to detail this supposed inconsistency, other than inconsistent arm-waving, and if the logic you claim to employ could "lead one to conclude that everything we perceive is also illusory" then either your logic or your argument is flawed.

Sorry, but consistent failure to demonstrate anything but bare assertions is an admission, whether you are too deluded to see it or not. You just admitted that "the logic of the underlying assumptions might lead one to conclude that everything we perceive is also illusory". Why not simply explain the "specific logic" already?

Vacuous arm-wavery.

Man, the appeals to emotion are getting thick.

Yet you do nothing but string together analogies you never manage to actually get around to connecting to the specific subjects of this discussion. If that is as "specific" to this discussion as you can manage to get then it really is a lost cause.

Aside from the no true Scotsman fallacy (the ad hoc "genuine free will"), emergence necessitates that the causes of emergent behavior be unaccounted for in the constituents of the system. And since you have already claimed the emergent illusory, determinism is an illusion of the underlying quantum indeterminism. The infinite regress necessitated by reductionism attribute ultimate cause to the origin of existence, a no more provable proposition than consciousness, although equally apparent. But that also ignores the myriad of examples of downward causation, including evolution, central nervous systems, etc..

"[E]mergent properties have no actual causative power beyond those of the underlying activity" is a bare assertion you cannot support. Every effect is a new cause, otherwise causation would not propagate. Again, you are only proclaiming things illusory.

IOW, you have no explanation consistent with your argument.

Again, by your own reasoning, determinism is an illusion of the underlying quantum indeterminism. Indeterminism means that one input can have more than one possible output, which is contrary to determinism, hence the name.

More vacuous arm-wavery.

You have yet to detail this logic.

Top-down causation does not, itself, necessitate free will, so that is an obvious false dilemma.

We also perceive free will and consciousness to be equally, if not more directly, real than anything else, so your distinction is still arbitrary.

It is only at a practical level that any logic can be verified. You can make up any number of self-consistent systems of logic that have absolutely no bearing on the world addressed by science, so it is your burden to show where your specific reasoning is relevant, in practice, to the subject at hand. Otherwise I can dismiss it as simple idealism.

I have not made any claim about things being illusory. I have told you, countless times, that you need to concisely differentiate between "illusion" and "other than perceived". You have consistently defined illusion as "not as perceived" without ever defining what "other then perceived" may be, as it relates to the subject at hand. Here is a start:

ILLUSION
1
b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception


REAL
2
b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality <saw a real live celebrity> <a story of real life> (2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities <left school to live in the real world> (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard <a real gas> — compare ideal 3b
c : having objective independent existence <unable to believe that what he saw was real>

-http://www.merriam-webster.com​

But I suppose you will scoff at the use of a common dictionary.

Yadda-yadda, so "logic" "(as explained)". Completely vacuous. You continually gloss over this "inconsistency". You just keep making bare assertions that one bit of semantics supports another without any practical considerations entering into it. That is called idealism, or cognitive bias. You keep making the no true Scotsman fallacy based solely on your own bare assertion that free will necessitates a violation of causality.

FREE WILL
1
: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will​

"Not determined by prior causes" does not mean "uncaused". It only means not deterministically caused, i.e. one influence not having only one possible outcome.

"Not as perceived" requires defining what "other than perceived" actually may be. What is actually there that the perception is in error about? You have even said, "any objective reality ... - in that we can only perceive it subjectively", which provides no differentiation from the subjectively perceived consciousness or free will.

If you cannot see how that is very far from a precise distinction then I wish you bliss in your ignorance.

I am sure that is your illusion, I mean perception, of the matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is generally better to talk about the energy of light (frequency, which includes its momentum), rather than relativistic mass. And yes, such energy is frame-dependent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you prove this that, "The "life process" is a sub group of physical processes"?

'Process in the living cell' and 'process in the dead cell' are opposite, in terms of entropy. How can both these processes be part of physical process?

Till you prove the previous statement, this statement of yours does not hold true.

Do you mean to say that, "Entropy of a living cell is increasing."?

This is a physical process. Why its entropy should decrease?

Do you think energy can be destroyed?

"Life process" is balancing the "physical process" of decaying. So, no need to worry. Things will last. Nature has a perfect mechanism of balancing .

What is the non-zero relativistic mass for a photon particle?

The cell membrane can be considered as boundary.

The mass particles in the living cells are more organised than in the dead cells.

A fungus is a living being. So, it has a soul.

What do you mean by configuration of a cell?

What is the difference in configuration?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Probably not to your satisfaction as your faith over rules all facts, but just to mention one example, the actions of drugs on cells is usually well understood in physical terms - never in terms of a "soul." For example several drugs effective against sold tumors halt their growth by preventing them from developing the new blood vesicles they need to grow.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why the "living cell" can draw energy from the environment, whereas a "dead cell" can not draw any energy from the environment?

May be the soul does not interfere with other physical interactions.

 

Why would this "soul" need to inhabit physical systems in the first place?

 

It's just if you or Billy are going to cite the Newtonian law F = M x A as a reason to deny the possibility of a phenomena you should at least acknowledge that that law isn't as universal as you claim. If it doesn't even apply to light, what else might it not apply to?

 

Try this: http://www.weburbia.com/physics/photon_mass.html.

 

Why would we cite F=MA? Tip: try not to guess the arguments we'll make and just wait until we make them. Otherwise you might be spending a long time arguing against things people don't have any intention of saying.

 

Dead cells do take energy from the environment. For example to oxidize and to rot. They, however, cannot do what living cells can - use that energy to maintain a highly ordered state (lower entropy).

 

Here's a tip for you: don't presume to speak for Billy, unless he's your personal sock puppet.

 

I don´t think Sarkus was presuming to speak for me. In post 480 I explained why the postulated (with zero evidence) to exist "soul" cannot have any influence on mater, including brains, by noting it has no mass (hence no gravity field) and none of the other three force fields (two are nuclear and the EM field). I.e. there is no way it can even cause an electron to do other than what the laws of nature require. - I.e. miracles have, like the soul, zero evidence indicting they exist.

The burden of proof that souls exist is upon those claiming that they do (despite total lack of any non-circular evidence). It is impossible to prove that X does not exist. For example, if X = unicorn, they may be pulling plows on a planet orbiting some distant star, as I type. If one claims Y does exist, when there is no evidence that Y does exist, then the burden of proof is on those claiming Y does exist.

 

Pardon me, I am new to forums and do not mean to intrude.

This may be an oversimplification of a monumental philosophical question or perhaps there has been complication of a simple concept.

The fundamental argument seems to be the common one of the chicken or the egg, and which came first. The brain seems to create consciousness and consciousness conceives the reality of the brain. This seems like a circular argument, that is, until you distinguish the logics of truth from the metaphysical.

Logical truths, as I define as philosophy, steeps the argument in a tangible reality. In contrast, metaphysical preponderance drowns the conversation in murky, dare I say, emotional arguments. All the mumbo jumbo about the intangible soul is one not suited for such a discussion, and makes it an inconclusive cluster**** (Sorry I could not resist). The argument on philosophical terms encompasses the logical dissection of the abundant reality of consciousness, and would also imply a conclusion. Reality in its nature is true and conclusive. There can be only one. As I see it, logical arguments must at one point be undisputable, and thus real. Arguments about the spiritual nature of the consciousness cannot be proven, and is merely left to the imagination.

Back to the question of the chicken and the egg, according to my argument there must be one logical end. My intention is not to restrict philosophy to science, which it is certainly not. Reality is not restricted to physics or any other science since there is quite the limit of what they can explain. Without theory there can be no science and vice versa. Philosophy reaches to higher meaning and is one of the greatest feats of the human mind. Consciousness is what makes the human race supreme but there can be no consciousness without the human brain. The egg is the first to give birth to the chicken, thus first is the egg. The brain is where it all begins, without the brain how can there ever be a consciousness?

A different question would be where did it all start? Can science or metaphysics explain or verify the big bang? I don't even think philosophy could really, but it could ponder the meaning of it all.

 

Quantum consciousness! Unicellular organisms without a brain exhibited consciousness.
The brain as a computer?
"Clarifying the Tubulin bit/qubit - Defending the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR Mod"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

 

I think you mean "awareness of their environment" not consciousness. You can not even know if I am conscious, instead of just a p-zombie.

 

You are questioning the very existence. It is like asking, "Why the existence is existing?" or "Why we are existing in this physical system?".


The Existence exists. We are part of this Existence. This is the NATURE. May be there is some Nature's Law that the soul exists in physical system.

As per your link "relativistic mass for photon" is not at all a real mass. It does not follow Newton's F=M*A principle. It only gives an idea of energy or wavelength of a photon.

This is decaying of dead cell by the environment.

Environment also try to decay the living cell but does not succeed as long as the cell is alive.

Soul do exert a force on electron but within the membrane of a living cell and not outside the membrane. Otherwise why entropy of the living cell is decreasing.

What is the proof that a force exist?

what is the proof that black-hole exist?

Has anybody seen a force or a black-hole?

But we know that they exist. This proof is from our observation and their logical conclusion. Force causes acceleration and black-hole causes very strong gravity. By observing acceleration and very strong gravity we conclude the existence of force and black-hole.

In the case of soul the fact is that, entropy in the living cell decreases and entropy of dead cell increases. As per your post #467 there is no physical difference between a living cell and a dead cell.---So, from this observation, What conclusion can be made as a cause for decreasing entropy in a living cell?

Will there be consciousness, if the brain is dead?

What is the difference between "awareness" and "consciousness"?

 

No, I'm asking why you think there is something called a soul.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

And maybe not... It'd be useful if you demonstrate that there is something called a soul before requirng it to inhabit physical systems.

 

It almost seems like you understand that living cells/organisms have physical processes that repair damage done to them by the environment. For example skin scratches that bleeds, will soon have blood coagulating in the wound. Then fibrous tissue will form under the coagulated blood. It is laid down with random orientation. Then over the next week or so specialized cells of the blood will begin to "eat away" those fibers that due to useless orientation have never been stretched. Then in less than a month, by your BODY PROCESSES alone, with zero help from unicorns, souls, Martians or other non-existent but postulated beings, you will have skin, nearly "good as new" but some of the uselessly oriented fibers will remain for years (scar tissue).

A thermostat is aware when the temperature of the room it is in is greater (or less than) the temperature it is set for, but is not conscious of anything.

I can´t be sure about you, but know I have sensations, like pain. I.e. that I am not only aware of being stuck by a pin, but feel something I call pain. Perhaps, you when stuck by a pin, you cry out, say "That hurts!" and do other behaviors I might do, but don´t actually feel anything as you are just a p-zombie. - Not conscious, only aware that you have been stuck with a pin.

 

It is a real mass.
F=M*A uses rest mass - the invariant mass of an object at rest.
When an object moves, however, its Force/Acceleration relationship is no longer constant. The mass of an object changes significantly as it approaches the speed of light, and this is referred to as the relativistic mass.
So it is very wrong to consider it not real simply because it does not follow the non-relativistic notions and laws of Newton.

For a photon it is a measure of the energy, sure, because it has zero rest-mass but does have energy, which has equivalence with relativistic mass through Einstein's E=mc^2. The m in this equation is the relativistic mass.
So if you don't think relativistic mass is real then how do you explain the energy of a particle with zero rest-mass?

Bear in mind that Newton is not the final word on physics and so to rely on his laws to provide that last word on a matter of physics is a precarious policy to adopt.

 

Since you bring up the burden of proof, you do realize that the claim that consciousness/free will are either illusory or do not exist is the one bearing the burden? In science, we do not dismiss a universally agreed upon observation without considerable evidence. Where is the evidence?

There is evidence that humans are not philosophical zombies.

When the scientists compared the TMS data on the two groups--those who actually tickled the ivories and those who only imagined doing so--they glimpsed a revolutionary idea about the brain: the ability of mere thought to alter the physical structure and function of our gray matter. -http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580438,00.html


These students also were significantly more likely to believe in determinism compared to the other group, so it seems likely that this increased belief in determinism led directly to the “cheating” behavior. -http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/04/22/changing-belief-in-free-will-c/​

There is no reason to expect a p-zombie capable of altering its physiological structure nor its behavior due to belief/imagination alone.