What relationship has consciouness to the brain?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

I have a general question which has, as always, specific answers coming from a variety of perspectives.

Is consciousness part of the brain or Is consciousness separate from the brain and yet also "routed" to it?

I.E. Mind (as found in Buddhism, or Soul (As in Body, Soul, Spirit in the Bible) or Matter Mind= The mind being the extraneous workings of the brain?

As food for thought in all this: Physics tell us that everything is energy. Quantum Physics mentions the behavior of particles in space/time (particle theory). Think about this before answering. O.K.????????

Comments, please please............
hellas1

[Dayman]

The brain is a complex computer, what we "experience" is the output.

[Chaigidel]

what we "choose" is beyond both the machine and the product--- but this is just how it seems to me

we are offered information, sensation, choices--- without all those things; we simply wouldnt realize we exist yet; but the part of us that chooses that shuffles through all that information presented by body and mind; is what we are, moreso than the experiences , the choices we make within those experiences.

im not sure if they are more than just the overall process of perception, or perhaps something beyond; something that unifies us all ; a universal consciousness-- that our consciousness simply folds out of; and into any particular vessel at the time.

[Zenith Darksea]

The brain is a complex computer, what we "experience" is the output.

And just what are 'we'? The brain itself? How can a computer experience its own output?

[Dayman]

And just what are 'we'? The brain itself? How can a computer experience its own output?

We're sentient organic intelligence.

Eventually there will be computers like that, except inorganic.

I'm not a psychologist, so I won't presume to know by which mechanism existence relies on, and I'll remain agnostic until the evidence comes in.

[Syron]

And just what are 'we'? The brain itself? How can a computer experience its own output?

"we" are the output! All "our" experiences are what are computed in the Brain.

[infernocanuck]

Dr. Timothy Wilson has a fantastic book called "Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious" Well written, well thought-out and perfect for the intelligent layperson. A staple when studying the psychology of consciousness.

It will provide some theories regarding consciousness and unconsciousness that you may find interesting!

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Now THAT'S a good question ""What are "We"?""

Materialists would say: A biochemical unit!
Humanists would say: A biochemical unit of the Highest Sophistication!
Theists would say: A biochemical creation of God, unique from all of God's creations, which is capable of supernatural revelation, mystical powers, etc.!
Deists would say: A biochemical creation of God!
Agnostics would say: Definitely a biochemical unit which MIGHT be more...

Right? or Wrong?
hellas1

[Zenith Darksea]

Theists would say: A biochemical creation of God, unique from all of God's creations, which is capable of supernatural revelation, mystical powers, etc.!

Actually, no, I wouldn't say that at all.

[basics]

We have all these wonderful senses, yet the thing that puzzles me is what came first, the brain to analyse and co-ordinate the required response or the senses themselves.

Why I ask is that in the theory of evolution survival without brain was the primary function yet how does one know danger unless there is a brain to consider the options? Or senses to know of the danger?

Boeing says that we are governed by a computer, the brain, yet computers are only as good as those that set in store the programmes within. Computers, as someone else says, do not have senses, so what is the answer?

[rathelios]

TWCland has been over this ground multiple times. The general problem of consciousness has been around since at least the Ancient Greeks so it's safe to say it's not going to get solved here and now.
It's really three problems.

Problem 1, aka 'The Hard Problem': how does a bunch of nerve and fat cells interspersed with blood vessels create the magic of consciousness?

Problem 2: the problem of the Self. We haven't really moved on much from Locke and Hume on this issue. Aristotle made the point well when he said that who 'I' am is closely tied to my embodied existence. The opposing view separates the mind and body most famously utilized by Descartes in 'I think therefore I am'.

Problem 3: the problem of Agency. How is it possible to reconcile our sense of free will with the clear evidence that the agent must be subject to the deterministic laws of physics? (In Physics everything really does happen for a reason.) If the self is a narrative fiction, then who is the author of conscious volitional acts?

Geniuses may send their answers to:
The Nobel Foundation - P.O. Box 5232, SE-102 45 Stockholm, Sweden

We have all these wonderful senses, yet the thing that puzzles me is what came first, the brain to analyse and co-ordinate the required response or the senses themselves.

Why I ask is that in the theory of evolution survival without brain was the primary function yet how does one know danger unless there is a brain to consider the options? Or senses to know of the danger?

That's a fairly broad question basics.
I'll narrow it down to Amoebas and other complex single celled organisms.
Being just a single cell they clearly don't have brains. They are able to 'sense' their environments and move towards greater concentrations of food, for example, by something called 'Signal Transduction'. Essentially receptors on the cell surface bind to molecules and activate chemical signals within the cell which switch on particular genes. These then produce the required actions.
Clearly this is all done without any higher processing, there being nothing with which to process,

[Chaigidel]

well eventually , hopefully our technology will not only fashion machines which can function like sentients; but also learn to grow organic versions ! weeeee
but seriously that consciousness is a puzzlin thing; as others have said its baffled us all from the beginning until now.

[Gary88]

We have all these wonderful senses, yet the thing that puzzles me is what came first, the brain to analyse and co-ordinate the required response or the senses themselves.

almost certainly the sense, which can be nothing more than simple chemical reactions or responses. catinthewasher gives a perfect example. where evolution comes in is that species which adapt 'analyse' those sense to their advantage.

imagine two imaginary species, both very similar micro organisms. they have three similar functions and one difference, both 'feed' simply by coming into contact with nutrients which pass through their cell membrane. both have incredibly primitive senses which react to contact with nutrients and both have a very primitive form of movement. now imagine one of those organisms is able to interpeate the chemical reaction and thus guides itself in the general direction of the nutrient source whilst the other just drifts about more or less aimlessly. it is quite easy to see how the one which is able to interperet the sense has an evolutionary advantage over the other.

we could easily adapt that senario in many different ways, perhaps both can interpret the 'nutrient signal' but one can distinguish between 2 or 3 types of nutrient and guides itself to the most important ones.

now how does this relate to human conscious? well we can easily scale up the previous example to human senses (if you think thats a bit of a leap just think about the leap from micro organisms to a freaking human)

how do you know someone is happy or sad or angry? facial recognition is one of the major tools here, a frown a smile a laugh or even more subtle clues are all visual stimuli that humans have adapted to be able to interpret (i dont think i need to dwell on why it might be an advantage for humans to ascertain the mood of another animal) it doesn't even have to be another human, pets can show emotion by waggin tails or other such stimuli.

scientists use a simple test to consider whether an animal has a sense of self, they place it in front of a mirror and see what happens, they then somehow affect the animal in question (putting an ink dot on the creature is common) and see if it realises that the affect that they see in the mirror refers to them. the difference between those animals we see as being conscious and those that are not is simply the hightened ability to interpret such data.

so theres my overly short overly simplified answer. i managed to avoid philosophy and dualism completely/

[basics]

Gary88,

Out of nothing came chemicals and from them comes a single-celled creature which has senses that require it to eat. That is conscious need to supplement itself by devouring something else.

Again the baffling point here is what chemicals as individuals or combinations have any sense that they need to eat something else to survive since eating is I assume part of that?

There has to be a starting point where what wasn't there before is now there and this is where sense must come into play. A single-celled creature did not come out of nothing but if it did come out of a mixture of chemicals then those chemicals themselves must have had a sense of conscious so that it happened, surely?

[Silver Guard]

Not at all, behavior is dictated by DNA or RNA, something simply groups of chemicals do not have. However many complex chemicals form copies of themselves by devouring others simply through chemical reactions, with no point behind them.

[Gary88]

Again the baffling point here is what chemicals as individuals or combinations have any sense that they need to eat something else to survive since eating is I assume part of that?

how many times does it have to be said that simple chemical reactions do not require thought to occur, right now you have no idea of the thousands of reactions occuring in your body without you realising but that doesn't stop them. when you touch the keyboard you think thta you feel it but the reason you do is a series of chemical and electrical signals from your fingers to your brain that happen without any conscious thought on your part.

[basics]

Gary88,

That may well have some truth in it but to press any key on a keyboard does imply conscious action that must come before the response. That implies that the brain using method and plan passes the message to the limbs to make the keyboard react.

Even taking chemicals themselves what is it that divides their reaction to other chemicals but not all and with many differing results? Do they sense action or no action or is it just another unexplainable covered by it just is?

And right now you have no idea what I know about the inside of my body so please less of the talking down and more in the explanations.

[Gary88]

Even taking chemicals themselves what is it that divides their reaction to other chemicals but not all and with many differing results? Do they sense action or no action or is it just another unexplainable covered by it just is?

chemicals don't sense things, the laws of physics governs their interactions

And right now you have no idea what I know about the inside of my body so please less of the talking down and more in the explanations.

if you are aware of the trillions of chemical reactions taking place in your body as we speak you are quite a wonderous human being. regarldess you still cant have any effect on them by thinking