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?

[Divine Insight]

I am saying that you can find consciousness in any type of matter no matter the configuration.

Opinion noted. Where's your evidence?

You keep asking for evidence while failing to realize that this is already consistent with all of the available scientific evidence. Lets summarize it:

1. The brain (nervous tissue) has not been established as a "cause" or "necessary" for consciousness.

Neither has it been ruled out. So how is this evidence for anything?

Clearly you don't even understand what evidence is.

2. Scientists are predicting that we will have conscious machines and robots which shows further that (nervous tissue) is not needed.

So what? What is this supposed to be evidence for?

Where did anyone suggest that consciousness is dependent upon biological nervous tissue?

The points you are attempting to claim as evidence for your position can just as easily be used as evidence for secular materialism.

Nothing you've offered thus far supports the conclusions you've been jumping to.

3. The configuration determines only the "type" or expression of consciousness, but otherwise the consciousness already exists. This is shown when we find that the type of consciousness changes based on the amount and configuration of matter (more complex arrangement leads to more complex expressions of consciousness). Now scientists may have accepted that a very simple life form is conscious because it responds in a way we can detect. Have they discovered the most simple level of consciousness? One that only involves "observing" with no responses? What the evidence even among humans (total locked-in syndrome) shows that such consciousness exist but we don't have a way of detecting it through third-person methods. *We know those who experience total locked-in syndrome were aware all along if they recover enough to let us know about it.

Type of consciousness?

As far as I am aware something is either conscious or its not. It may have different levels of awareness and understanding. But in terms of consciousness it's either conscious or it's not.

4. To further prove my point using Western science standards, we would need to construct a very simple machine that can communicate to us that it is aware. I stress only "awareness" because that is the simplest form of consciousness, and if my view is correct, then this will show that you can have consciousness with the simplest of machinery. The implications would be that the simplest forms of matter (something comparable to the simplest level of machinery required to show consciousness in my example) can be conscious. The problem may be that we would have no way of detecting it.

Clearly you are not well-versed in this field. Are you aware that even solipsism cannot be demonstrated to be false?

So once again, you have presented absolutely ZERO evidence for you position. You have enumerated 4 non-arguments for evidence for your conclusions.

The problem with your AI research may be that you're trying to create consciousness in the robot when it is already there.

I'm not concerned with trying to create consciousness. All I'm interested in is creating an intelligence that actually understands what it's talking about. Whether that intelligence constitutes consciousness goes right back to the problem of solipsism.

You need to focus on finding a way to "detect" the basic level of consciousness that is already there as opposed to thinking it has to be created.

Not necessarily. To the contrary, it may very well be possible that scientists will someday actually understand what gives rise to consciousness. I personally believe that they will. And once we have that information in hand we will know what conscious actually is and how it works.

If you are truly keeping up with Eastern thinking then I am sure it would inform you on some of these matters.

I am fully aware of Eastern thinking. There a huge difference between understanding what Eastern thinkers believe, versus accepting that what they believe is actually true.

Eastern thinkers assume (without sufficient evidence) that life is but a dream in the mind of an imaginary entity that no one has ever been able to provide evidence for.

Everything the Eastern thinkers believe can also be explained via secular materialism.

So there's nothing there to point to as evidence for anything. It's nothing more than pure philosophical speculation. There is no evidence to back up the metaphysical claims of this philosophy.

If you want to believe in this philosophy as a matter of faith, feel free to do so.

But trying to use Eastern philosophy as evidence for anything is nothing short of ridiculous.

[Bust Nak]

I am stating two views.

It's not really two views though, as they are essentially the same thing. Consider the following: Computer hardware is required for software to exist, yet that software can be transfer between computers. The relationship between software and hardware is well understood. Apply the same thinking to consciousness.

[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?

I've been deeply involved in A.I. research and I continue to work on this concept today. I have personally seen, and have made, great strides in this area.

I not only expect that we will be able to make a conscious entity, but I actually have several ideas of what it will take to achieve this goal.

We actually understand how a human brain works far more than you apparently realize.

Why attempt to incite tribalism and a mentality of "us against them".

The world cannot be reduced to the simple dichotomy of "skeptics versus dreamers". For many of us are in neither of those two imaginary camps.

You create imaginary wars between imaginary people that you have constructed entirely within your own imagination.

You refuse to recognize that many of ideas that you keep referring to as "mainstream" are actually quite popular because they are backed with rational evidence. Something you are unable to provide to back up your unwarranted conclusions.

Thus far everything you have been claiming as evidence for your conclusions actually supports a totally natural secular worldview. Just the opposite of what you seem to think it implies.

I don't accept the natural vs. supernatural distinction because I don't view God as separate from us. In my view, we are God. What stands in the way of us realizing this is our level of consciousness. This is the same consciousness that scientists study except that they have not yet realized its full expression. So everything I am saying speaks to the natural.

Here and elsewhere you keep saying that I lack evidence for my view. I am well aware that I am in the science section of the forum. When I reference 'total locked-in syndrome', 'acquired savant syndrome', and 'self-transcendent experience', do you think I am referencing to the Hindu Scriptures? When I offer an approach that is nothing different than 'field research', do you think I'm just trying to talk you into a religious practice? All of these things are science-based.

I recommend that you not view any of my discussion topics in isolation. When all of my topics are taken together, they provide a compelling case for my view of panpsychism. If anything, just my point on how everything we "know" of is based on what we have "perceived" is powerful evidence for my worldview.

[William]

Swami: I am well aware that I am in the science section of the forum.

William: As such, Science - be that Western or Eastern - relies upon physical evidence and your particular Eastern take on Consciousness relies - seemingly totally - on a persons subjective experience of their individuate consciousness, which is useless to Science, whichever hemisphere the science is situated.

Not that I am arguing that the individual can discard their subjective experience as 'not science' for they are getting evidence of a sort which relates solely to their self - but it is not an easy thing to bring subjectivity to the table of science and expect to be taken seriously.

The best one can do is gather the subjective evidence of others and compare and reach tentative conclusion based upon that data.

That is still not good enough for the use of Science in practical terms which apply to the now and here of Physical reality which is acknowledged by almost everyone experiencing it.

Your argument may indeed be one which states "It is not the data but how the data is interpreted" but it is not valid in terms of practical science method, because it only offers ideas which cannot easily - if at all - be useful to the method of physical science, because they cannot be easily tested due to the subjective nature of them.

The objective is in plain sight, whereas the subjective is largely hidden behind all sorts of costume - and science is in the habit of dissecting in order to understand, which means that the costume has to be able to be removed, and the subjective seems overall not to like the idea of being naked.

[Danmark]

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?

Because we have an understanding of the mechanism for how the 100 billion neurons, with their trillions of connections can result in consciousness. This understanding is supported by experiments and data.

What is the theory, mechanism and data that supports consciousness of rocks or other media you suggest may facilitate 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?

Because we have an understanding of the mechanism for how the 100 billion neurons, with their trillions of connections can result in consciousness. This understanding is supported by experiments and data.

What is the theory, mechanism and data that supports consciousness of rocks or other media you suggest may facilitate consciousness?

My overall theory is that everything is based in and derived from consciousness. I use scientific data but I come to different conclusions than materialists. Please refer to my other discussions for specifics on anything else.

[Danmark]

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?

Because we have an understanding of the mechanism for how the 100 billion neurons, with their trillions of connections can result in consciousness. This understanding is supported by experiments and data.

What is the theory, mechanism and data that supports consciousness of rocks or other media you suggest may facilitate consciousness?

My overall theory is that everything is based in and derived from consciousness. I use scientific data but I come to different conclusions than materialists. Please refer to my other discussions for specifics on anything else.

If you have scientific data, share it. No one's going to go scuffling around thru your posts to try to find something that likely is not there. I've never seen you offer any scientific data for anything. If you won't supply the data, then how about a plausible theory for how rocks have consciousness?

[Swami]

]
If you have scientific data, share it. No one's going to go scuffling around thru your posts to try to find something that likely is not there. I've never seen you offer any scientific data for anything. If you won't supply the data, then how about a plausible theory for how rocks have consciousness?

The theory is simple. My theory is that matter does not exist independent of consciousness. I have presented the scientific evidence so the problem is not that I have none. The problem is that you are not convinced. Your error is that you expect debate to convince you.

[Danmark]

]
If you have scientific data, share it. No one's going to go scuffling around thru your posts to try to find something that likely is not there. I've never seen you offer any scientific data for anything. If you won't supply the data, then how about a plausible theory for how rocks have consciousness?

The theory is simple. My theory is that matter does not exist independent of consciousness. I have presented the scientific evidence so the problem is not that I have none. The problem is that you are not convinced. Your error is that you expect debate to convince you.

I see that you refuse to show your data and your 'theory' is a mere assertion, not an explanation. Perhaps you still do not understand the plain meaning of my words. So i'll explain.
You write "matter does not exist independent of consciousness." This is not a theory, it is a bare sketch of an assertion. A theory is a set of accepted beliefs or organized principles that explain and guide analysis. Example, the theory of evolution says that organisms develop and change over time by minute genetic changes, with the organisms that survive having changed in ways that best suit their environment; the fit survive, the unfit die out. Your 'theory' is the equivalent of simply stating "I believe in evolution. You've offered no unifying theory, no explanation at all.

All you have to do is explain how it is that consciousness is necessary to explain the existence of the hydrogen atom, or a rock or anything. How does that work?
You've offered nothing. You are the 'Swami' of nothing.

[otseng]

You are the 'Swami' of nothing.

Moderator Comment

Please limit your attacks to the argument instead of the poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.