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]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

If consciousness can exist in mediums different than brain, then he brain is not needed. This opens the door to panpsychism.

No it does not.

To the contrary, it pretty much settles the question of what gives rise to consciousness.

If consciousness can arise from the configuration of a material medium, then the secular materialists have been demonstrated to be correct.

No panpsychism required.

And, as you have been arguing, this will most likely turn out to be the case.

[Divine Insight]

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.

[Swami]

No it does not.

To the contrary, it pretty much settles the question of what gives rise to consciousness.

If consciousness can arise from the configuration of a material medium, then the secular materialists have been demonstrated to be correct.

No panpsychism required.

Which position do you take from the debate question?

Your point that consciousness only arises out of the configuration of matter does not conflict with panpsychism. The mainstream position is that consciousness arises from only "brain" matter. You stated just "matter". If everything in the Universe is just matter then the entire Universe can be conscious, not just "brain".

Under my personal view, consciousness is part of matter. The configuration of matter does not create consciousness but only determines how it is expressed.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 20 by Swami]

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).

The brain operates at many levels via many interconnected substructures, and one reason I asked for your definition of consciousness is to confirm that it is different from most dictionary definitions. The hindbrain is responsible for many core functions that don't require a fully conscious state. If a boxer is knocked out by a punch his heart still beats, and he breathes because the system that monitors CO2 levels in the blood forces activation of the diaphragm muscles to expand the lungs when CO2 levels get too high. This creates a lower pressure in the lungs, causing air to enter via the nose and mouth, then the diaphragm muscles are relaxed which forces air out, and this process repeats without any need for full consciousness.

A person in a vegetative state can (and in fact must) have certain brain functions operating correctly unless they are entirely dependent on machines for lung and other functions. So it is not surprising that communication with such a person is possible at some level because they have partial brain functions. It has also been proven through many experiments that we subconsciously respond to many stimuli before they cross a threshold of reaching our conscious awareness. This is the brain reacting to stimuli without our having to "think" about it, or recognize it. A rock cannot do any of these things under any conditions it can exist in, because it has no brain or other system capable of responding to external stimuli.

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.

This is nothing but software running on ever-improving hardware (specifically, net processing speed and huge amounts of memory) Playing chess, and "learning" the game Go via analysis of millions of actual human plays, are both software running on hardware and doing exactly what a human programmed it to do. Things like voice recognition software, or self-driving car systems, or efforts like the Human Brain Project:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project

all involve some level of what is termed artificial intelligence or machine intelligence, but the "intelligence" behind this software is the human-written code that tells the hardware what to do. As we learn more and more about how the brain works, that knowledge can be incorporated into better emulation software and we get more accurate voice recognition, or have computers write code themselves based on rules that have been programmed and defined previously. But these systems do not yet involve any machines that are "thinking" ... they are just better and better implementations of emulation code. It is certainly true that more complicated neural network and other software written to emulate the learning process will continue to be developed, and eventually we will get machines that can appear to think and be conscious, and indeed figure out solutions to problems not explicitly programmed into them (by emulating a thinking process via code). But these are still nothing but machines running software, with no property you could call consciousness in the sense of how that word is normally used with humans.

So I don't see how either of your numbered comments demonstrate the point you are trying to make with them (ie. that biological activity is not needed for consciousness). #1 is explained by a partially functioning brain, and #2 is just better software running on better hardware, to better emulate the thinking process.

The state and function of consciousness is just as an observer. It is just a witness to existence.

And that is a very different definition of consciousness than the dictionary definition.

So ask yourself if consciousness does not need thoughts and emotion, then why is a "mind" or "brain" required?

I would argue that no such question can be asked about consciousness, because consciousness is not a thing that "needs" anything else. It is an outcome ... the result of complicated interactions of neurons, memory, and other brain physical components via electrical and magnetic signaling, protein signaling, etc. Thoughts and emotions result from these same processes, creating their perceptions and experience within our heads (ie. our brains). No need to assign any magical or mystical properties to any of these things, and no reason yet to bring those options in just because science is not yet able to fully explain the subject.

The track record of supernatural or mystical explanations being the correct explanation for anything is still zero, and until that changes it should not be taken too seriously.

[Swami]

For the audience:

There are two major errors that are common in the materialist thinking. The first error is giving a loaded definition of consciousness. The second error is in confusing correlation with causation. Lets go into both errors in detail and then I will point out these errors in the posts of the skeptics.

Error #1 - Loaded definition
The definition of a term has implications that determine how it is detected and tested. Materialist tends to overload the concept of consciousness with features that are unnecessary. In other words, they define consciousness as being about thoughts and feelings when consciousness can exist without these two. Therefore, discovering the nature and cause of thoughts does not mean that you have also discovered the nature of consciousness.

Error #2 - Confusing correlation with causation
The materialist thinks that discovering the correlations of consciousness means that the brain causes consciousness. This is far from truth because even if the brain was just a medium then we would expect to find correlations between consciousness and brain.

Both errors arise from the ignorance of not being able to have a 'direct experience' of consciousness (not filtered by thoughts, feelings, and other mental factors). Western scientists are simply drawing inferences from very limited and even flawed approaches to consciousness.

Lets see how many of these errors are contained in the responses of skeptics.

[Swami]

The brain operates at many levels via many interconnected substructures, and one reason I asked for your definition of consciousness is to confirm that it is different from most dictionary definitions. The hindbrain is responsible for many core functions that don't require a fully conscious state. If a boxer is knocked out by a punch his heart still beats, and he breathes because the system that monitors CO2 levels in the blood forces activation of the diaphragm muscles to expand the lungs when CO2 levels get too high. This creates a lower pressure in the lungs, causing air to enter via the nose and mouth, then the diaphragm muscles are relaxed which forces air out, and this process repeats without any need for full consciousness.

A person in a vegetative state can (and in fact must) have certain brain functions operating correctly unless they are entirely dependent on machines for lung and other functions. So it is not surprising that communication with such a person is possible at some level because they have partial brain functions. It has also been proven through many experiments that we subconsciously respond to many stimuli before they cross a threshold of reaching our conscious awareness. This is the brain reacting to stimuli without our having to "think" about it, or recognize it.

You have committed error #1 on my list by defining consciousness as being about "response" or "activity". Based on my definition, consciousness does not need to "respond" to anything. At the bare minimum, it "observes". The vegetative state was just an example but what if a patient is aware but can't respond at all like in 'total or complete locked-in syndrome' cases? Just because we can't detect it, does not make the person not aware? The same question can be asked of a rock.

Regarding patient's in a coma:

If there is no response to commands, sounds or pain stimuli, this does not necessarily mean that the patient is unconscious. It may be that the patient does not want to respond to a command or that the regions of the brain that process language are so damaged that the person simply doesn’t understand me.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... conscious/

We tend to find out that these patient's were aware if they recover enough and are able to tell us. Either way, this shows that consciousness does not require "responses" or "activity".

A rock cannot do any of these things under any conditions it can exist in, because it has no brain or other system capable of responding to external stimuli.

Expecting a rock to respond to "language" would be unreasonable. Based on my definition and evidence, the rock can have no responses and still be aware. To bring in my worldview, there is a way to show that the rock does not exist independent of consciousness, and it is with this insight that you can begin to connect and interact with it.

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.

This is nothing but software running on ever-improving hardware (specifically, net processing speed and huge amounts of memory) Playing chess, and "learning" the game Go via analysis of millions of actual human plays, are both software running on hardware and doing exactly what a human programmed it to do. Things like voice recognition software, or self-driving car systems, or efforts like the Human Brain Project:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project

all involve some level of what is termed artificial intelligence or machine intelligence, but the "intelligence" behind this software is the human-written code that tells the hardware what to do. As we learn more and more about how the brain works, that knowledge can be incorporated into better emulation software and we get more accurate voice recognition, or have computers write code themselves based on rules that have been programmed and defined previously. But these systems do not yet involve any machines that are "thinking" ... they are just better and better implementations of emulation code. It is certainly true that more complicated neural network and other software written to emulate the learning process will continue to be developed, and eventually we will get machines that can appear to think and be conscious, and indeed figure out solutions to problems not explicitly programmed into them (by emulating a thinking process via code). But these are still nothing but machines running software, with no property you could call consciousness in the sense of how that word is normally used with humans.

So I don't see how either of your numbered comments demonstrate the point you are trying to make with them (ie. that biological activity is not needed for consciousness). #1 is explained by a partially functioning brain, and #2 is just better software running on better hardware, to better emulate the thinking process.

Please answer this: Is there anything in principle that prevents scientists from making a conscious robots? If not, then you can not say that consciousness is restricted to "brain" matter. Brain is just one medium.

[Divine Insight]

Which position do you take from the debate question?

Your debate question represents false information and a misguided understanding of the position of scientists.

Your point that consciousness only arises out of the configuration of matter does not conflict with panpsychism.

Actually it does. If the configuration gives rise to consciousness, then there is no need for panpsychism.

The mainstream position is that consciousness arises from only "brain" matter. You stated just "matter".

This is either a misunderstanding on your part, or a purposeful attempt to misrepresent the mainstream position.

The mainstream position is not that consciousness only arises from "brain" matter. To the contrary the mainstream position is that it's most likely a configuration of a brain that gives rise to consciousness?

Have we seen example of consciousness existing in material medium other than biological brains? Not yet. But it doesn't follow from that fact that we should conclusion that conscious only arises in "brain" matter. In fact, from a scientific perspective there is no such thing as "brain" matter. A brain is made from the same kind of matter than everything else is made of.

If everything in the Universe is just matter then the entire Universe can be conscious, not just "brain".

That's correct. However, this would then require that the entire universe be structured in a way that creates this consciousness. And there is no rational reason, or evidence, that suggests that this is the case.

Under my personal view, consciousness is part of matter.

Your personal views are irrelevant. Evidence is relevant. And you have no evidence to back up your personal views. So why should anyone care what your personal views are? Without evidence they are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions.

The configuration of matter does not create consciousness but only determines how it is expressed.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

I'm quite sure you don't, for if you did you would be famous world wide.

So once again, all you are doing here is decreeing an unsubstantiated opinion that has no evidence to back it up.

In short all you are doing is displaying an inability to distinguish between facts backed up by evidence and opinions that have no evidence to back them up at all.

With every argument you attempt to make you just reveal your own inability to distinguish between facts and fantasy.

[Swami]

The configuration of matter does not create consciousness but only determines how it is expressed.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

I'm quite sure you don't, for if you did you would be famous world wide.

So once again, all you are doing here is decreeing an unsubstantiated opinion that has no evidence to back it up.

In short all you are doing is displaying an inability to distinguish between facts backed up by evidence and opinions that have no evidence to back them up at all.

With every argument you attempt to make you just reveal your own inability to distinguish between facts and fantasy.

Here is what I am trying to explain. You said that consciousness is created based on a "configuration of matter". I am saying that you can find consciousness in any type of matter no matter the configuration. The configuration only determines how matter is expressed, whether it is through language, thought, feelings, a body, etc.

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.

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

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.

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.

The problem with your AI research may be that you're trying to create consciousness in the robot when it is already there. 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. If you are truly keeping up with Eastern thinking then I am sure it would inform you on some of these matters.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 26 by Swami]

Please answer this: Is there anything in principle that prevents scientists from making a conscious robots? If not, then you can not say that consciousness is restricted to "brain" matter. Brain is just one medium.

This depends entirely on the definition of the word "conscious." Using dictionary definitions, you'd need to create a robot that has the necessary processing power and memory, and software, to emulate a state of consciousness analogous to that in humans or other animals. That is, an ability to be aware of its surroundings and interact with them, be "awake", etc.

But creating a mechanical and electrical assembly that can emulate a conscious being does not mean you have created consciousness. It just means you have built something that is sufficiently advanced in terms of software to appear to act like a conscious entity. My Dad built a tic-tac-toe machine in the mid 1960s using transistor logic alone. It was for an open house at Western Electric where he worked as an electrical engineer, and it was a big hit. He had 3 levels of playing difficulty, and 9 big buttons which were either pink or green depending on machine or human moves. But to make it appear the machine was thinking he had to build in a delay between moves to give that illusion to the kids. It appeared this machine was actually thinking of its next move, but it obviously was not and was not anything even remotely close to a conscious "thing."

Another thing at that open house was a machine that could "speak." It could say just one sentence (I like my coffee black), and it was set up so that any one word could be spoken louder for emphasis. People at the time thought this was very cool, but again it was just crude software running on this machine that could control a speaker to produce sounds similar to human speech.

These days, chess and Go are far more complicated examples of the same old tic-tac-toe machine, and voice recognition software as well as voice reproduction software are infinitely more advanced, but both are just better hardware and better software designed to emulate human behavior. AI (machine learning) is just another step in software development and database management that utilize more complex algorithms that may be based on emulating a "learning" process, but this isn't creating consciousness.

What you call the "western view" is simply the idea that the brain is the assembly of processor, memory, neurons an their electrical/magnetic interfaces that act together in complicated ways to create what we call consciousness (dictionary definition). If a machine (robot) can be built with sufficient processor capability, memory, electrical connections and software that can emulate a brain, then a robot could be built that would appear to be conscious. It is word games to extrapolate the ability to build a human-like robot that emulates a conscious human being, to a claim that consciousness can be attributed to a rock or any generic medium without the necessary components to emulate conscious states.

[harvey1]

[Replying to Swami]

Swami, is Alexa conscious when you ask her how she is feeling? If not, then why not? What material configuration is sufficient to produce consciousness assuming the ability to monitor one's own machine state as in Alexa being asked to reflect on "her" machine state cannot arrive at a conscious state.

I agree with David Chalmers that physicalism is probably not able to account for consciousness.