The brain is not sufficient for consciousness

[paul becke]

http://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servan...ges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/


It seems as though evolution has struck another landmine. One of the biggest problems of evolution is explaining the origin of consciousness and the mind because it doesnt conform to evolutionary principles although thats what evolutionary psychologists would have you believe. The above article shows that the brain is not sufficient for human consciousness, the mind, or life. Evolutionary psychology says that the mind and everything that you are is based on adaptive mechanisms which arose in our "Pleistocene past" and you are nothing more than a cognitive neural program (whatever that means). This is obviously not true but it is the only explanation which evolution provides. To say that we are evolved is to agree with the assumption that we are merely a bag of chemicals and nothing more, with no meaning. This also is obviously not true because you live as if your life means something, even if you dont consciously acknowledge it. Can anyone explain why evolution is still not gone away?

Here is the empirically-proven lowdown, bhayes, and a rational inference from the facts established :

http://science-spirituality.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/medical-evidence-for-ndes-reply-to.html

Instead of a transmitter of consciousness - consciousness being a supernatural faculty, hence, beyond the scope of science at its most atheistically pedantic - the evidence suggests that it is a some kind of receiver.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Instead of a transmitter of consciousness - consciousness being a supernatural faculty, hence, beyond the scope of science at its most atheistically pedantic - the evidence suggests that it is a some kind of receiver.

So how would you account for the fact that specific damage to, or electrical stimulation of, specific parts of the brain can change your mind, your emotions, your opinions, and your very sense of self, in equally specific ways, and also trigger specific memories? If the brain is a receiver, that's equivalent to poking a screwdriver around in the back of your TV and finding you can change the actors or plot or dialogue of the film it's showing...

When the brain is anaesthetized, the mind, consciousness, and memory go away and only return when the brain becomes active again. If the soul was an independent repository of mind, wouldn't you expect consciousness to continue while the brain is inactive, so you wouldn't actually lose consciousness?

Just askin'

 

[paul becke]

So how would you account for the fact that specific damage to, or electrical stimulation of, specific parts of the brain can change your mind, your emotions, your opinions, and your very sense of self, in equally specific ways, and also trigger specific memories? If the brain is a receiver, that's equivalent to poking a screwdriver around in the back of your TV and finding you can change the actors or plot or dialogue of the film it's showing...

When the brain is anaesthetized, the mind, consciousness, and memory go away and only return when the brain becomes active again. If the soul was an independent repository of mind, wouldn't you expect consciousness to continue while the brain is inactive, so you wouldn't actually lose consciousness?

Just askin'

You might. I don't, and neither is it the experience of the credible NDEers, who speak of an immensely-heightened consciousness, though the spirit is separated from the body - until resuscitated. One feature of this is that unlike normal memories when restored, NDEers recollect everything they saw in brilliant clarity and great detail, many years after.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You might. I don't, and neither is it the experience of the credible NDEers, who speak of an immensely-heightened consciousness, though the spirit is separated from the body - until resuscitated. One feature of this is that unlike normal memories when restored, NDEers recollect everything they saw in brilliant clarity and great detail, many years after.

Ah, right. Well good luck with that

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Exactly. This is chronic hydrocephalus that developed slowly

Your big words don't scare me, sir!

 

[miknik5]

An acute neurological condition like encephalitis perhaps.

I think 2thesselonians 2 is actually the reason for the condition...

 

[miknik5]

An acute brain injury or episode of psychosis or ingesting a psychotropic compound would do it.

Suggestions are suggestions, correct?
So one can't really know but can offer suggestions of what they really don't know?

 

[miknik5]

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?

Nebuchadnezzar had no evidence either...but afterwards, he did acknowledge GOD

You should read the story.

 

[Ana the Ist]

http://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servan...ges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/


It seems as though evolution has struck another landmine. One of the biggest problems of evolution is explaining the origin of consciousness and the mind because it doesnt conform to evolutionary principles although thats what evolutionary psychologists would have you believe. The above article shows that the brain is not sufficient for human consciousness, the mind, or life. Evolutionary psychology says that the mind and everything that you are is based on adaptive mechanisms which arose in our "Pleistocene past" and you are nothing more than a cognitive neural program (whatever that means). This is obviously not true but it is the only explanation which evolution provides. To say that we are evolved is to agree with the assumption that we are merely a bag of chemicals and nothing more, with no meaning. This also is obviously not true because you live as if your life means something, even if you dont consciously acknowledge it. Can anyone explain why evolution is still not gone away?

If you really believe this and want to prove it...I'm certain we could scoop out 90% of your brain and find out for sure.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You might. I don't, and neither is it the experience of the credible NDEers, who speak of an immensely-heightened consciousness, though the spirit is separated from the body - until resuscitated. One feature of this is that unlike normal memories when restored, NDEers recollect everything they saw in brilliant clarity and great detail, many years after.

They've performed research on this topic and found exactly zero evidence of NDEs.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nebuchadnezzar had no evidence either...but afterwards, he did acknowledge GOD

You should read the story.

I have. Is there any evidence this isn't just a story?

 

[Larniavc]

Suggestions are suggestions, correct?
So one can't really know but can offer suggestions of what they really don't know?

You asked. I gave some reasonable answers.

Of course they are suggestions: what on Earth did you expect?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can anyone explain why evolution is still not gone away?

Because making empty baseless assertions, like you did in this post, is not sufficient to show a well-supported scientific model to be wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How does it not?

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

I smell an argument from ignorance in the making.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

Err... because there is still 10% brain left?
You'ld have a point, if it were 0%.

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

Except that it does. Because without this a priori faith based, dogmatic religious belief, "god" wouldn't even be on the radar when trying to explain the brain.

The only reason you propose "god dun it" is because.......that's what you already believed in the first place.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh how I would love it if common logical fallacies would be against the forum rules...

That sure would be fun.

A lot of people would get banned though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Realize that you don't actually know if the brain is the cause of consciousness

All available evidence points in that direction

or a transmitter of consciousness.

No evidence points in that direction.

Both are viable possibilities at this point.

No, they aren't. For the reason stated above.

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.

And if we are all brains in vats, we need to do the same.
But until we actually have a valid reason to ponder the possibility of being brains in vats, asking that question is just a waste of time and energy.

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 am open to all possibilities.
But I will only consider those possibilities that can actually be shown to be at least plausible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

How have you determined that these are the only possibilities?
Is it a lack of imagination, or is it a carefully crafted idea, meant only to play into your god-argument?

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

That is just not true.

A god is more unlikely then a natural cause, for the simple reason that natural forces demonstrably exist and gods don't. Occam's razor. That which requires the least amount of unevidenced assumptions.

Not even mentioning the fact that a god would require even more explanation then the universe.

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

What seems illogical, is pretending that explanations wich require a boatload of assumptions of the existence of unevidenced entities are better then those that don't....

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?

It leaves us in the world of intellectual honesty and saying "we don't know" when we don't know.

You should try it sometime.

 

[Armoured]

http://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servan...ges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/


It seems as though evolution has struck another landmine. One of the biggest problems of evolution is explaining the origin of consciousness and the mind because it doesnt conform to evolutionary principles although thats what evolutionary psychologists would have you believe. The above article shows that the brain is not sufficient for human consciousness, the mind, or life. Evolutionary psychology says that the mind and everything that you are is based on adaptive mechanisms which arose in our "Pleistocene past" and you are nothing more than a cognitive neural program (whatever that means). This is obviously not true but it is the only explanation which evolution provides. To say that we are evolved is to agree with the assumption that we are merely a bag of chemicals and nothing more, with no meaning. This also is obviously not true because you live as if your life means something, even if you dont consciously acknowledge it. Can anyone explain why evolution is still not gone away?

Another "science cannot yet explain, therefor evolution is false" thread?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Another "science cannot yet explain, therefor evolution is false" thread?

Someone should create a god-of-the-gaps playing card meme for threads like this.