Is Brain a medium or the cause of consciousness?

[Swami]

Western materialism is full of assumptions when it comes to consciousness. The mainstream view is that the brain causes consciousness. This view also says that consciousness is limited to brain in that you can't have one without the other.

In contrast, another view is the brain is a medium for consciousness. This view is compatible with everything in the mainstream except that consciousness is not isolated to the brain. It can exist in other mediums just like software can exist or be transferred to other hardware, even simple hardware.

Why accept the speculative mainstream view over the alternative view?

[Tcg]

For the hyperskeptics...scientists claim that robots and computers may one day be conscious. If true, this means that consciousness can exist in mediums other than brain tissue.

Your basing your argument on something that hasn't yet happened. More importantly, even if this does happen, it wouldn't support your claim that consciousness can be transferred.


Tcg

I am stating two views. I did not argue for one or the other in the topic post. Please provide your response to the debate question. Take this time to offer more than opinion.

The argument I am referring to is your claim that consciousness can be transferred to hardware. Take time to support this claim with something more substantial than conjecture based on what may happen in the future.


Tcg

You are misunderstanding my view and this is beginning to become a distraction. You have not answered the debate question which does not involve any argument. It is a "question".

I have addressed your claim, specifically that consciousness can be transferred.

In your OP you stated this:

• It can exist in other mediums just like software can exist or be transferred to other hardware, even simple hardware.

If you can't support this claim, the distraction is your creation. If you cared to resolve this distraction, you could do so be providing verifiable evidence that consciousness can be transfered. Will you do so or do you prefer to let it remain a distraction that you refuse to resolve?


Tcg

[Swami]

[Replying to post 11 by Tcg]
You support the mainstream view. Your reason is that science has not yet created conscious computers. Is this correct so far?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 11 by Tcg]
You support the mainstream view. Your reason is that science has not yet created conscious computers. Is this correct so far?

Nope. I am asking you to support your claim from the OP that consciousness can be transferred to hardware.

Is your continued refusal to support this claim your admission that it is a fallacious claim?


Tcg

[Swami]

[Replying to post 11 by Tcg]
You support the mainstream view. Your reason is that science has not yet created conscious computers. Is this correct so far?

Nope. I am asking you to support your claim from the OP that consciousness can be transferred to hardware.

Is your continued refusal to support this claim your admission that it is a fallacious claim?


Tcg

I will try to ask once more before I ignore and move on. An answer to the debate question would be giving reasons for why you support that the brain causes as opposed to just being a medium for consciousness. If there is any implied argument in the topic it is that the alternative view goes with the preexisting evidence and anything beyond that (the transferring of consciousness or creating a new one) has not been disproven. In other words, I'm basically asking why don't you support the view that the brain is just a medium.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 11 by Tcg]
You support the mainstream view. Your reason is that science has not yet created conscious computers. Is this correct so far?

Nope. I am asking you to support your claim from the OP that consciousness can be transferred to hardware.

Is your continued refusal to support this claim your admission that it is a fallacious claim?


Tcg

I will try to ask once more before I ignore and move on. An answer to the debate question would be giving reasons for why you support that the brain causes as opposed to just being a medium for consciousness. If there is any implied argument in the topic it is that the alternative view goes with the preexisting evidence and anything beyond that (the transferring of consciousness or creating a new one) has not been disproven. In other words, I'm basically asking why don't you support the view that the brain is just a medium.

Your duty is to support your claim that consciousness can be transferred to hardware. If you need to ignore this duty, then it is clear that your OP includes an unsupportable claim and is flawed.


Tcg

[Swami]

Skeptics, ask yourselves does not being able to make a conscious computer "yet" mean that it can't be done in principle? If not, then why do you accept the mainstream view over the alternative view?

What evidence leads you to reject the alternative view?

[Diagoras]

What evidence leads you to reject the alternative view?

Well, it should be the case that science ‘reserves its judgement’, so to speak, rather than an outright rejection of any alternative theory of consciousness.

I can imagine many experiments that could definitively prove an alternate (‘brain as medium’) theory - if the experiment succeeds - but not any that could as easily prove that the alternative view is false. Proving a negative is usually very difficult, as we all know.

Short answer: the evidence in so far supports the mainstream view better.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]

Why accept the speculative mainstream view over the alternative view?

I'm late to this thread due to a house move, but the "speculative" mainstream view that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain is supported by observations of things that exhibit awareness of their surroundings and existence, while alternative views are not. A few observations:

1) Plants and inanimate objects such as rocks exhibit no evidence that they have awareness of their existence or environment.

2) The only entities that do exhibit awareness of their existence and environment are animals.

3) Among animals, we can observe a progression in brain function and intelligence over time, from the first simple brains of worms to the far more capable brains of apes, including the smartest ape of them all (humans), who have evolved brains so complex and capable that they can develop abstract concepts such as that consciousness is something magical and special and not simply the result of a functioning brain.

4) No entity without a brain exhibits awareness of its existence and surroundings, and if an entity with a brain has its brain destroyed or is killed in some other way, it ceases to exhibit any awareness of its existence or surroundings, or interact with the physical world in any way. We have no evidence that a dead animal (human being or otherwise) can, or has, communicated with a living animal in any way, or continues to exist as a "soul" or supernatural entity of some sort.

If your definition of consciousness is awareness of one's existence and surroundings ("wakefulness"), or similar wording, then simple observations support what you call the mainstream view, that consciousness is created by a functioning brain. No brain, no consciousness, is a simple relationship observed in the real world.

To support the "alternative" view, you must have a very different definition of consciousness. What is your definition of consciousness? Merriam-Webster has:

1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself

1b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact

1c : awareness

2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind

3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual

4 : the normal state of conscious life

5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

The alternative view that you are pushing does not seem to fit within any of these definitions of consciousness, or with the basic, ubiquitous observation that things without brains do not exhibit consciousness (as defined above).

[Swami]

Despite some misunderstanding here with one member, my main role is not to argue for a position. It is to critique the evidence that is offered to support the mainstream over the alternative view.

What evidence leads you to reject the alternative view?

Well, it should be the case that science ‘reserves its judgement’, so to speak, rather than an outright rejection of any alternative theory of consciousness.

I can imagine many experiments that could definitively prove an alternate (‘brain as medium’) theory - if the experiment succeeds - but not any that could as easily prove that the alternative view is false. Proving a negative is usually very difficult, as we all know.

Short answer: the evidence in so far supports the mainstream view better.

This is like the agnostic position. My overall disagreement with the mainstream view is that all of the evidence also fits the alternative view. The only reason against the alternative view seems to be that it has not been shown yet.

Here are a list of things I believe the materialist must show to support their mainstream view:

1. They must show how brain causes consciousness. To date, this has not been done.

2. They must explain why consciousness is limited to brain. It is not enough to claim that consciousness exists only in brains because that is all that we have seen. They must show understanding and explain why it could not exist outside of a brain even in theory. The progress of artificial intelligence and other technology is showing why this point is necessary.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]

Why accept the speculative mainstream view over the alternative view?

I'm late to this thread due to a house move,

I would have thought that you were on a meditation retreat.

...but the "speculative" mainstream view that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain is supported by observations of things that exhibit awareness of their surroundings and existence, while alternative views are not. A few observations:

1) Plants and inanimate objects such as rocks exhibit no evidence that they have awareness of their existence or environment.

2) The only entities that do exhibit awareness of their existence and environment are animals.

3) Among animals, we can observe a progression in brain function and intelligence over time, from the first simple brains of worms to the far more capable brains of apes, including the smartest ape of them all (humans), who have evolved brains so complex and capable that they can develop abstract concepts such as that consciousness is something magical and special and not simply the result of a functioning brain.

4) No entity without a brain exhibits awareness of its existence and surroundings, and if an entity with a brain has its brain destroyed or is killed in some other way, it ceases to exhibit any awareness of its existence or surroundings, or interact with the physical world in any way. We have no evidence that a dead animal (human being or otherwise) can, or has, communicated with a living animal in any way, or continues to exist as a "soul" or supernatural entity of some sort.

Keep in mind that the limitation that Western science faces in directly dealing with even human consciousness is their approach. They lack the approach and technology that Eastern practitioners have used to discover how everything is made from consciousness (how you can be part of anything and interact with it). I don't want to make this discussion about proving my view, but rather I want to know the evidence for the materialistic mainstream view.

What I find common in your points is that "biology" and "activity" is needed to show for consciousness. Consider these two points:
1. Simple forms of consciousness exist that do not involve "activity".
The evidence for this is the 'vegetative state' which is a state where a person shows no signs of activity nor awareness of their environment. This is not too different from a rock that also shows no signs of awareness nor activity. Yet, using technology, Dr. Adrien Owens has been able to communicate with various patients who are said to be in a vegetative state. This shows that consciousness can exist without any of the activity that we would usually go by to determine consciousness (movement, talking, etc).

2. Advances in robotic and computer technology shows the brain or biology is not needed for a lot of mental type tasks. Computers can learn, answer questions, and even play chess. Many of those working in these areas predict that it is a matter of time before consciousness itself is created in these machines.

If we accept these two points and say that "biology" nor "activity" is needed for consciousness, then this shows that brain is only a medium for consciousness. If biology was necessary for consciousness, then scientists would not be on track for creating consciousness in machines.

If your definition of consciousness is awareness of one's existence and surroundings ("wakefulness"), or similar wording, then simple observations support what you call the mainstream view, that consciousness is created by a functioning brain. No brain, no consciousness, is a simple relationship observed in the real world.

To support the "alternative" view, you must have a very different definition of consciousness. What is your definition of consciousness? Merriam-Webster has:

1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself

1b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact

1c : awareness

2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind

3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual

4 : the normal state of conscious life

5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

The alternative view that you are pushing does not seem to fit within any of these definitions of consciousness, or with the basic, ubiquitous observation that things without brains do not exhibit consciousness (as defined above).

Again, I don't want to make my view the main point of this discussion because I want materialist to justify their mainstream view. I'll offer a brief explanation of my view.

My definition goes with 1a. Consciousness does not have to involve intelligence, thoughts, feelings, behavior, nor even a sense of "self". The state and function of consciousness is just as an observer. It is just a witness to existence. Of course, it can attach itself to anything, such as a brain and experience through a human body but in its pure form and function, it is detached from all of these things.

So ask yourself if consciousness does not need thoughts and emotion, then why is a "mind" or "brain" required? If we say consciousness doesn't need all of the things I just mentioned, that all it does at bare minimum is just witness existence, then automatically rocks and anything else in existence come into play as being part of consciousness. Western scientists need to catch up.