The brain is not sufficient for consciousness

[Chriliman]

Because we don't know how brains give rise to consciousness under normal conditions

Realize that you don't actually know if the brain is the cause of consciousness or a transmitter of consciousness. Both are viable possibilities at this point. If the brain is not the cause of consciousness, but only a transmitter of consciousness then the question of where consciousness comes from needs to be asked and answered in order to move forward in our understanding of life and reality.

, much less in chronic hydrocephalus. There's a lot we don't know about how the brain works.

Agreed, which is why we must be open to all possibilities, including the possibility that God created the brain in humans for a specific purpose.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

How is it ignorant to assume consciousness could come from somewhere other than the brain when there is clear evidence of someone maintaining normal consciousness while only having 10% of their brain?

The fact that I already believe consciousness ultimately comes from God has no bearing on the logical assumption stated above.

It's not logical to assume something without evidence. And "I can't think of another way this could be, so... god" isn't evidence.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Agreed, which is why we must be open to all possibilities, including the possibility that God created the brain in humans for a specific purpose.

I don't have any evidence that it's possible that a god exists, so until that's shown to me, why would I assume a god is a possible reason for consciousness?

 

[Chriliman]

I don't have any evidence that it's possible that a god exists, so until that's shown to me, why would I assume a god is a possible reason for consciousness?

The evidence is logic.

There's really only 3 logical possibilities as to what caused the universe and our existence as we know it.

1. An eternal multiverse gave rise to our universe and our existence

2. Our universe and existence was randomly caused by eternal chaotic natural forces

3. An eternal God created the universe and our existence for a specific purpose

The fact that you don't actually know the true answer, means any answer is possible.

I guess you could add the possibility than an eternal God created the universe and our existence for no reason, but that seems illogical.

If you say that #3 is not possible because there's no evidence for it, then you must say all 3 are not possible because there's no evidence for them, but where does that leave you?

 

[Chriliman]

I don't want to take this thread off topic, so this will be my last post. I've made the points I wanted to make.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The fact that you don't actually know the true answer, means any answer is possible.

Actually, no. Nothing can be concluded from ignorance. You cannot determine what is possible simply by noting that one doesn't know the answer to a question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

The evidence is logic.

There's really only 3 logical possibilities as to what caused the universe and our existence as we know it.

1. An eternal multiverse gave rise to our universe and our existence

2. Our universe and existence was randomly caused by eternal chaotic natural forces

3. An eternal God created the universe and our existence for a specific purpose

4. Several eternal Gods created the universe and our existence for no particular reason
5. One or more non-eternal gods created the universe and or existence for several specific purposes.
6. Universes are the inevitable outcome of whatever produces them via undirected processes

And so on. We can come up with thousands of permutations. What's the point?

The fact that you don't actually know the true answer, means any answer is possible.

That's false. For example, we can rule out non-answers like gods and other forms of magic. They fail by not actually answering anything.

 

[Chriliman]

4. Several eternal Gods created the universe and our existence for no particular reason
5. One or more non-eternal gods created the universe and or existence for several specific purposes.
6. Universes are the inevitable outcome of whatever produces them via undirected processes

And so on. We can come up with thousands of permutations. What's the point?



That's false. For example, we can rule out non-answers like gods and other forms of magic. They fail by not actually answering anything.

I know these extra things that you've added are possible and I don't have to have direct evidence of any of them to know that they're possible and this is my point. However, the evidence will always point to the most logical possibility.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It would very interesting if we had some baseline assessment of neuropsychological functioning prior to the onset of the hydrocephalus post-shunt-removal so that we could gauge change over time. I wonder why he wasn't monitored closely after the shunt was removed, or perhaps he was?

I don't know - the Lancet article is just a perfunctory note.

 

[Chriliman]

Actually, no. Nothing can be concluded from ignorance. You cannot determine what is possible simply by noting that one doesn't know the answer to a question.

The whole point of assuming possibilities is because you don't know the true answer. The evidence will always point to the most logical possibility.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What are your guesses as to how a person could remain normal and conscious while missing 90% of their brain?

You've misinterpreted the report. The man's brain had been compressed. The 90% neuron loss was pure guesswork; based on other cases (this is rare but not unique), I would be sceptical of that figure.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Realize that you don't actually know if the brain is the cause of consciousness or a transmitter of consciousness.

How would the brain be a transmitter of consciousness - transmitting to where, and how?

We know it's not a receiver of consciousness because every facet of consciousness can be modified by specific changes to specific areas of the brain; there's no function left to be received - also, if it was a receiver, you'd expect consciousness to remain relatively unchanged when the relevant parts of the brain are temporarily disabled, but that doesn't happen. It's akin to poking around inside a TV showing a film and finding that the plot or the dialogue changes... Not to mention the thermodynamic constraints and lack of even a hypothetical medium to store or transfer the information. It's an absurd fantasy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The whole point of assuming possibilities is because you don't know the true answer.

Using the word "possible" in that way is empty. It doesn't actually mean anything.

Let's say that one is suggesting "possibilities" to a question that has an answer that is currently unknown. Let's say that the question is: who will win the next Presidential race? Here are the "possibilities":

1) Donald Trump
2) Hillary Clinton
3) Gary Johnson
4) A table that is shaped like a square circle

The fourth "possibility" is a contradiction, and is therefore an impossibility. It doesn't become a possibility just because it happens to be included in a list of "possibilities".

That's just one sort of issue. The point is that ignorance does not verify that your "possibilities" are actually possible in reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

You've misinterpreted the report. The man's brain had been compressed. The 90% neuron loss was pure guesswork; based on other cases (this is rare but not unique), I would be sceptical of that figure.

"Doctors believe the man’s brain slowly eroded over 30 years due to a build up of fluid in the brain’s ventricles, a condition known as “hydrocephalus.”"

Based on this paragraph I assumed his brain eroded away leaving only 10% of actual brain tissue. I don't see how I'm misinterpreting the report based on that.

 

[Chriliman]

Using the word "possible" in that way is empty. It doesn't actually mean anything.

Let's say that one is suggesting "possibilities" to a question that has an answer that is currently unknown. Let's say that the question is: who will win the next Presidential race? Here are the "possibilities":

1) Donald Trump
2) Hillary Clinton
3) Gary Johnson
4) A table that is shaped like a square circle

The fourth "possibility" is a contradiction, and is therefore an impossibility. It doesn't become a possibility just because it happens to be included in a list of "possibilities".

That's just one sort of issue. The point is that ignorance does not verify that your "possibilities" are actually possible in reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I understand.

I'm not not being ignorant by saying an eternal God who has always existed could have created the universe and this is because whatever did cause/create the universe as we know it, must have always existed because it's illogical to assume something that exists can come from nothing or non-existence.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I understand.

I'm not not being ignorant by saying an eternal God who has always existed could have created the universe

It's not ignorant, it's a non justified position, unless you can show that it's possible for an eternal god to exist.

and this is because whatever did cause/create the universe as we know it, must have always existed because it's illogical to assume something that exists can come from nothing or non-existence.

Who's saying the universe came from nothing?

 

[Chriliman]

How would the brain be a transmitter of consciousness - transmitting to where?

Basically, the brain was designed to acquire consciousness and convey information.

I don't really think viewing the brain as a transmitter of consciousness is all that accurate. It was just a thought I had, but I don't really think it makes sense anymore. It makes more sense to say the brain was designed to acquire and maintain human consciousness and convey information, but even this wouldn't explain how or why only 10% of the brain could achieve normal consciousness in a person. Whoever or whatever designed the brain must of been a genius or it got really lucky(whatever 'it' is)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Based on this paragraph I assumed his brain eroded away leaving only 10% of actual brain tissue. I don't see how I'm misinterpreting the report based on that.

Ventricular hydrocephalus causes the ventricles to expand, compressing the brain against inside of the skull. In babies this can distort the skull; in adults the columnar structure of the cortex is is squashed and skewed over time, and it's likely some loss of neurons occurs (the man's IQ was subnormal), but accurate assessment of the extent can only be made post-mortem - it is the white matter (nerve fibres) between cortex and ventricles that is most compressed - this is why weakness or paralysis is common.

I wouldn't place too much stock in the exact wording of the weekend writer for a general news outlet online.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't really think viewing the brain as a transmitter of consciousness is all that accurate. It was just a thought I had, but I don't really think it makes sense anymore.

It would save time if you filtered out the nonsense before posting. Just sayin'

... this wouldn't explain how or why only 10% of the brain could achieve normal consciousness in a person.

Perhaps that's because the 10% by volume estimate doesn't mean only 10% of the neurons remain - as you'd expect for hydrocephalic compression.

 

[Chriliman]

It would save time if you filtered out the nonsense before posting. Just sayin'
Perhaps that's because the 10% by volume estimate doesn't mean only 10% of the neurons remain - as you'd expect for hydrocephalic compression.

Perhaps.