Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[detail]

Well your statement "researchers have *no idea whatsoever* how consciousness comes about." is correct to a point.

Well, the researchers do have an idea—an empirically supported one: Consciousness is "ignited" when certain parameters of (patterns of) neural activity in (certain segments of) the brain reach a certain threshold. The field or stream of consciousness is constituted by a certain neural network in the CNS, whose specific dynamics makes the difference between it and other neural networks which do not constitute any conscious states.

Your definition of consciousness is some kind of neural schmitt-trigger of electrical engeneering . But the state of the mind is a little bit more than just triggering your environment.

[NickGaspar]

Well your statement "researchers have *no idea whatsoever* how consciousness comes about." is correct to a point.

Well, the researchers do have an idea—an empirically supported one: Consciousness is "ignited" when certain parameters of (patterns of) neural activity in (certain segments of) the brain reach a certain threshold. The field or stream of consciousness is constituted by a certain neural network in the CNS, whose specific dynamics makes the difference between it and other neural networks which do not constitute any conscious states.

Your definition of consciousness is some kind of neural schmitt-trigger of electrical engeneering . But the state of the mind is a little bit more than just triggering your environment.

why are you confusing the "state of the mind" with a single mind property?

[Consul]

3. Nervous and digestive systems

SB: Making comparisons between the functions and processes of the digestive and nervous systems is not allowed? Also noted.
…

The crucial question has been whether any extracerebral organs or systems in an organism are part of the constitutive mechanism of consciousness. You've mentioned the digestive system and the enteric nervous system it contains; but there is no scientific reason to believe that no organism can be conscious unless it has a (functioning) digestive system.

Seven body organs you can live without: https://theconversation.com/seven-body- ... hout-84984

"…stomach…colon…"

12 body organs you can live without: https://www.insider.com/organs-you-can- ... out-2019-2

[Consul]

What is promoted here is cosmopsychism, the doctrine that the cosmos (universe/world) as a whole is a unitary subject or substrate of mental/experiential states.

Who can seriously believe that consciousness is continuously spread out in the universe like jam on a slice of toast? – I can't!

[Consul]

Who can seriously believe that consciousness is continuously spread out in the universe like jam on a slice of toast? – I can't!

If cosmopsychism were true, even regions of empty space would contain experiences. If this doesn't sound absurd, nothing does!

[NickGaspar]

Who can seriously believe that consciousness is continuously spread out in the universe like jam on a slice of toast? – I can't!

If cosmopsychism were true, even regions of empty space would contain experiences. If this doesn't sound absurd, nothing does!

IF one can believe cosmophychism.I can not see how he could stop there. What about cosmodigestivism or cosmohomestasism!
When did we allow philosophy to become a sketchbook for Hollywood SciFi scenarios?

[Tegularius]

I tried it doing the best I can to not let the brain interfere like a hyena after prey. Easier than I thought and to boot, it was exhilarating

[Sy Borg]

3. Nervous and digestive systems

SB: Making comparisons between the functions and processes of the digestive and nervous systems is not allowed? Also noted.
…

The crucial question has been whether any extracerebral organs or systems in an organism are part of the constitutive mechanism of consciousness. You've mentioned the digestive system and the enteric nervous system it contains; but there is no scientific reason to believe that no organism can be conscious unless it has a (functioning) digestive system.

Seven body organs you can live without: https://theconversation.com/seven-body- ... hout-84984

"…stomach…colon…"

12 body organs you can live without: https://www.insider.com/organs-you-can- ... out-2019-2

Interesting, thanks. I am guessing that organs of the metabolism take over the functions of lost organs. That would seem equivalent to the brain plasticity that must have occurred in the person with the brain stem in the OP.

In terms of evolution, if there is no metabolism, there is nothing for a nervous system to do. It would seem to be that something fundamental would be missing from one's sense of being (aside from obvious practicalities) if all main metabolic functions were replaced with synthetic substitutes.

[Tegularius]

There's always that which must qualify as a brain, human or not, for consciousness to exist. Remove the brain from a human, except the autonomic parts, and you wouldn't even possess the awareness of a wasp. Consciousness as it appears is a vast network or fugue of interacting messages for which a substructure is required, not unlike DNA being the carrier and cause of evolution and mutation which exists in the core of every living thing. If one species changes into a different one, it isn't only a single factor which is changing it. On this planet consciousness, like all life, is created through chemistry which doesn't imply it can't exist in some other format; but whatever that may be it defaults to that which we call a brain.

[Consul]

In terms of evolution, if there is no metabolism, there is nothing for a nervous system to do. It would seem to be that something fundamental would be missing from one's sense of being (aside from obvious practicalities) if all main metabolic functions were replaced with synthetic substitutes.

Again, what about Alex "Robocop" Murphy, who still seems to be a (self-)conscious person?
The crucial question is not whether his mind or his personality changed after most of his natural body had been replaced by artificial body parts, but whether he still has a mind and (self-)consciousness.

"What is Robocop? It's a man inside a machine. So our man is reduced down to its essential elements, which are brain, heart, and lungs."
—Martin Whist (Production Designer)

"You're not you because of your legs, your arms, your hands. You're you because of your brain. It's your brain's capacity to process information that makes you who you are."
—Dr. Norton (fictional person in the movie [Robocop remake, 2014])

Nervous systems generate and control motor output (behavior, action) on the basis of sensory input, and they regulate various inner processes relating to various organs:



Source: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Aut ... ous_system

[Consul]

Well, the researchers do have an idea—an empirically supported one: Consciousness is "ignited" when certain parameters of (patterns of) neural activity in (certain segments of) the brain reach a certain threshold. The field or stream of consciousness is constituted by a certain neural network in the CNS, whose specific dynamics makes the difference between it and other neural networks which do not constitute any conscious states.

Your definition of consciousness is some kind of neural schmitt-trigger of electrical engeneering . But the state of the mind is a little bit more than just triggering your environment.

That's not a definition but a theory of consciousness. Anyway, the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is to be found in the neuroelectrical dynamics of the brain, which happens to be very complicated.

[Atla]

We can not say about ... Atlas "filters".

How do you even come up with these things? I never said or implied anything about some "filters".

I am really sorry. I thought you wrote: "There are new upcoming consciousness theories named 'filter' or 'reducing valve' theory of mind
(2019) Consciousness is a property of the Universe that is filtered by the brain".
But if you did and it's just a problem with the Ctrl+C CTRL+P of my keyboard....I am terrible sorry.

Do you have trouble reading names? Did you mean ctrl+v?

Anyway, "filter" theories are for kids, just as "generate" theories are.

[Sy Borg]

In terms of evolution, if there is no metabolism, there is nothing for a nervous system to do. It would seem to be that something fundamental would be missing from one's sense of being (aside from obvious practicalities) if all main metabolic functions were replaced with synthetic substitutes.

Again, what about Alex "Robocop" Murphy, who still seems to be a (self-)conscious person?
The crucial question is not whether his mind or his personality changed after most of his natural body had been replaced by artificial body parts, but whether he still has a mind and (self-)consciousness.

"What is Robocop? It's a man inside a machine. So our man is reduced down to its essential elements, which are brain, heart, and lungs."
—Martin Whist (Production Designer)

"You're not you because of your legs, your arms, your hands. You're you because of your brain. It's your brain's capacity to process information that makes you who you are."
—Dr. Norton (fictional person in the movie [Robocop remake, 2014])

Nervous systems generate and control motor output (behavior, action) on the basis of sensory input, and they regulate various inner processes relating to various organs:



Source: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Aut ... ous_system

I am not sure that Robocop would have felt any more than the ED-209 (the security droids), just that he would have had more sensitive sensing equipment. At what point is a conscious system complete? Just the brain, or even just the cortex, with "black boxed" inputs? Do we need the spine? Sensory nerves and motor nerves? How many of the original peripheral nerves would be needed?

None of us know for sure, but if I had no choice but to bet my worldly goods on what future researchers will determine about consciousness, I'd say that life and qualia are synonymous. That to be alive is to feel something. Humans and higher order animals (with some exceptions) tend to have on/off consciousness, in that we are either experiencing highly sophisticated consciousness (compared with other animals) or we are unconscious.

Humans do not, for instance, run their consciousness at lower levels, to be equivalent to, say, that of an insect or a flatworm. It's either a full human kaleidoscope of consciousness or "nothing". I question that "nothing", just as cosmologists questioned whether space was a true vacuum. I think that, just as there are organisms humans cannot see with the naked eye, that reflexes are themselves "micro-consciousness", too subtle to qualify as consciousness in our conceptualisations.

[psyreporter]

(2019) Consciousness is a property of the Universe that is filtered by the brain
According to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick (Cambridge, UK), a highly regarded neuropsychologist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near death experience (NDE) for 50 years consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain. In Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it.

Does Consciousness Exist Outside of the Brain?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-brain

(2020) The Filter Theory of the Mind-Brain Connection
The filter model sees consciousness as outside the physical body and brain. The filter, or reducing valve, theory of the mind-brain relationship may be gaining ground in part because of the growing interest in forms of universal consciousness emerging from both physics and neuroscience. The seriousness with which this old idea is being treated by a wide range of scientists suggests that the top-down or bottom-up question of mind and brain is far from settled.
https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-u ... 48d7184b24

What is promoted here is cosmopsychism, the doctrine that the cosmos (universe/world) as a whole is a unitary subject or substrate of mental/experiential states.

Not necessarily. For example, in the idea that consciousness originates from Neutrino-Biological cell interactions, consciousness - as it is manifested in animals - would not need to originate from something primary to the cosmos itself and in a sense, it could be physical (despite that on a Neutrino level there would be new questions).

(2015) Paradigm shift for biology and consciousness theories

For the last twenty years, a wide range of philosophers, scientists etc. have made a concerted effort to come up with a fundamental theory to explain consciousness. It was in the words of Chalmers (1995) a ‘hard problem’ looking for a solution. Over those twenty years progress has been slow.

About the time the drive to come up with a theory of consciousness began, a paper was published (Goodman 1994) that argued for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell.

Surprisingly, weak force decoherence times over cellular distances are of the relevant dynamical timescale needed, suggesting that if any force is associated with the global properties in and between neurons (such as consciousness) it is the weak force. This finding concurs with a twenty year old theory that argues for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell[/b]. That theory also predicted the mass of the electron neutrino that is soon to be verified. The consequences for biology and future consciousness theories, of this radical change of paradigm, are considered.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f8f7/9 ... b60cae.pdf

(2018) The role of Quantum Mechanics in Nature
The brain could use quantum mechanical neutrino interactions between existing atomic nuclei (Goodman 2015) to create the mind where a ‘global’ communication and mental experience (consciousness) could take place.
https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewconte ... cschphyart

The filter theory of mind could apply to Neutrino particles.

(2019) Neutrinos: Could This ‘Ghost Particle’ Be the Force Behind Human Consciousness?
https://thoughtcatalog.com/nikki-halste ... ciousness/

[Consul]

I am not sure that Robocop would have felt any more than the ED-209 (the security droids), just that he would have had more sensitive sensing equipment. At what point is a conscious system complete? Just the brain, or even just the cortex, with "black boxed" inputs? Do we need the spine? Sensory nerves and motor nerves? How many of the original peripheral nerves would be needed?

The brain or CNS (brain + spinal cord) isn't physiologically self-sufficient, so it needs to be connected to and integrated into a natural or artificial body of some kind or other. However, again, there's a distinction between a factory and a supply firm. The former depends on and interacts with the latter, but the latter isn't part of the former. That the brain isn't itself an independent organism doesn't mean that it isn't the (only) factory of consciousness, the (only) place in the body or organism "where the magic happens."

None of us know for sure, but if I had no choice but to bet my worldly goods on what future researchers will determine about consciousness, I'd say that life and qualia are synonymous. That to be alive is to feel something.

I see no justification for biopanpsychism/panbiopsychism (the view that all living beings are feeling, i.e. subjectively experiencing, beings). Where and how does the "magic" of sentience happen in an organism lacking a (central) nervous system?

Humans and higher order animals (with some exceptions) tend to have on/off consciousness, in that we are either experiencing highly sophisticated consciousness (compared with other animals) or we are unconscious.

Humans do not, for instance, run their consciousness at lower levels, to be equivalent to, say, that of an insect or a flatworm. It's either a full human kaleidoscope of consciousness or "nothing". I question that "nothing", just as cosmologists questioned whether space was a true vacuum. I think that, just as there are organisms humans cannot see with the naked eye, that reflexes are themselves "micro-consciousness", too subtle to qualify as consciousness in our conceptualisations.

That's a straw man, because "highly sophisticated consciousness" isn't the only level of human consciousness. There are several levels of human (self-)consciousness or (self-)awareness, and several degrees of human wakefulness or alertness (ranging from vigilance to somnolence). For example, concerning their cognitive or intellectual (self-)awareness, human persons suffering from dementia do "run their consciousness at lower levels", but they are still phenomenally conscious.

As for the content of human consciousness, the number of (kinds of) experiences occurring therein simultaneously is variable. It's not always the "full human kaleidoscope" of humanly possible experiences. (Imagine floating in a sensory-deprivation tank!)