I think that understanding our consciousness and awareness certainly involves more than just neuroscience, and biology. The problem is not just finding the mechanism that generates consciousness in our brain.
First we need to know what consciousness is, and that will probably involve things like philosophy of the mind, and psychology. We will need them, because we need to make the connection between what is know about the mind, and the physical mechanism that is associated to it.
For example, to understand what life is you will need to think in a philosophical way. Even if life has some association to biology, it does only describe how living organism works, not what life is. Consciousness is like that, understanding the brain is different than understanding one thing, even if that thing is associated to it.
Anyway, the big problem is to find the physical mechanism from where consciousness comes from. For understanding consciousness other physical sciences that will probably be involved is computational science and quantum mechanics.
Computational science because comparing the mind to a program where the brain will be working like a computer is a very good model that we have to try to explain consciousness and is used frequently.
Quantum mechanics because the way our consciousness is, I mean... our ability to wish something, our free will, etc... seems to not be "Turing-complete". What means the way we think cannot be described logically, so it is impossible to create a program that works like our mind because our mind cannot be reduced to a set of logic instrunctions, or algorithym. See, the problem looks more a mathematic, or logical problem. Our mind is not an algorithym, so it can´t be programmed into something. Quantum mechanics offer a way to solve that.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think that understanding our consciousness and awareness certainly involves more than just neuroscience, and biology. The problem is not just finding the mechanism that generates consciousness in our brain.First we need to know what consciousness is, and that will probably involve things like philosophy of the mind, and psychology. We will need them, because we need to make the connection between what is know about the mind, and the physical mechanism that is associated to it.
For example, to understand what life is you will need to think in a philosophical way. Even if life has some association to biology, it does only describe how living organism works, not what life is. Consciousness is like that, understanding the brain is different than understanding one thing, even if that thing is associated to it.
Anyway, the big problem is to find the physical mechanism from where consciousness comes from. For understanding consciousness other physical sciences that will probably be involved is computational science and quantum mechanics.
Computational science because comparing the mind to a program where the brain will be working like a computer is a very good model that we have to try to explain consciousness and is used frequently.
Quantum mechanics because the way our consciousness is, I mean... our ability to wish something, our free will, etc... seems to not be "Turing-complete". What means the way we think cannot be described logically, so it is impossible to create a program that works like our mind because our mind cannot be reduced to a set of logic instrunctions, or algorithym. See, the problem looks more a mathematic, or logical problem. Our mind is not an algorithym, so it can´t be programmed into something. Quantum mechanics offer a way to solve that.
You seem to be coming close to the idea of the homunculus that was used in older philosophy. This homunculus was a little man that lived in a persons head and caused the body to do things. The idea of mind and consciousness is similar. People use these terms to describe some unobservable thing that causes the brain to do what it does in the way that it does. You do not need to resort to this to achieve an understanding of behaviors. I do not think consciousness is generated, it is merely a bi product of the brain's activities. Looking for a "mind" is a waste, and is as silly as looking for the spirit. The two could be used interchangeably if you would like, they do the same thing according to those promoting mind or spirit. The mind is just a form of religious type belief carrying over and causing what could be a harder science to go somewhat soft. Consciousness is not associated with the brain, it is the functioning of the brain. Computational science I believe is held back in developing AI due to the impractical clinging of man to the idea of some make believe entity refered to as mind, spirit, consciousness. This claim that the way we "think" cannot be explained logically is ludicrous. If we were capable of observing and recording the brains neural activity, seeing each synapse as excitation and inhibition occur, seeing each neuron as it excites and approaches it's action potential, observe the requirements for all given neurons to reach an action potential, we would be able to logically determine the thought process. You are appealing to something not unlike religion in clinging to the idea you have espoused.
Also, when you define this "mind" or "consciousness" will you need to define its "mind" or "consciousness"? What will be the impetus for this fictional entity that causes the "mind" or "consciousness" to act?
Sorry for the huge posting, but I wasn't quite sure where to edit, so voila.
I think that understanding our consciousness and awareness certainly involves more than just neuroscience, and biology. The problem is not just finding the mechanism that generates consciousness in our brain.
First we need to know what consciousness is, and that will probably involve things like philosophy of the mind, and psychology. We will need them, because we need to make the connection between what is know about the mind, and the physical mechanism that is associated to it.
For example, to understand what life is you will need to think in a philosophical way. Even if life has some association to biology, it does only describe how living organism works, not what life is. Consciousness is like that, understanding the brain is different than understanding one thing, even if that thing is associated to it.
Anyway, the big problem is to find the physical mechanism from where consciousness comes from. For understanding consciousness other physical sciences that will probably be involved is computational science and quantum mechanics.
Computational science because comparing the mind to a program where the brain will be working like a computer is a very good model that we have to try to explain consciousness and is used frequently.
Quantum mechanics because the way our consciousness is, I mean... our ability to wish something, our free will, etc... seems to not be "Turing-complete". What means the way we think cannot be described logically, so it is impossible to create a program that works like our mind because our mind cannot be reduced to a set of logic instrunctions, or algorithym. See, the problem looks more a mathematic, or logical problem. Our mind is not an algorithym, so it can´t be programmed into something. Quantum mechanics offer a way to solve that.
-----------------------------------------------------
You seem to be coming close to the idea of the homunculus that was used in older philosophy. This homunculus was a little man that lived in a persons head and caused the body to do things. The idea of mind and consciousness is similar. People use these terms to describe some unobservable thing that causes the brain to do what it does in the way that it does. You do not need to resort to this to achieve an understanding of behaviors. I do not think consciousness is generated, it is merely a bi product of the brain's activities. Looking for a "mind" is a waste, and is as silly as looking for the spirit. The two could be used interchangeably if you would like, they do the same thing according to those promoting mind or spirit. The mind is just a form of religious type belief carrying over and causing what could be a harder science to go somewhat soft. Consciousness is not associated with the brain, it is the functioning of the brain. Computational science I believe is held back in developing AI due to the impractical clinging of man to the idea of some make believe entity refered to as mind, spirit, consciousness. This claim that the way we "think" cannot be explained logically is ludicrous. If we were capable of observing and recording the brains neural activity, seeing each synapse as excitation and inhibition occur, seeing each neuron as it excites and approaches it's action potential, observe the requirements for all given neurons to reach an action potential, we would be able to logically determine the thought process. You are appealing to something not unlike religion in clinging to the idea you have espoused.
Also, when you define this "mind" or "consciousness" will you need to define its "mind" or "consciousness"? What will be the impetus for this fictional entity that causes the "mind" or "consciousness" to act?
---------------------------------------------------
My 2-cents worth:
Both POVs seem to be "existence-preceeds-essence." In other words (as I'm interpreting them), both seem reductionistic and epiphenomenal: "Matter" is the foundation reality. If this is how the universe is set-up, then it is safe to assume (I think) there is no "Life after Death." With biological death, mind/consciousness/whatever, ends.
The opposite POV is "essence-preceeds-existence." In other words, consciousness--especially Consciousness as Such ("God"😉--is the foundation reality, matter being what you get as the "end-product" of involution (as opposed to evolution), ie, when Consciousness as Such has completely enfolded into itself. Personal consciousness is neither generated by the brain nor is it a by-product; it is an emergent phenomenon, coming/unfolding through the brain, influenced by the brain, like light coming through tinted glass.
I present this perspective because, IMO, if this is how the universe is arranged, then it would appear to follow that some essence of our being does survive bio-death.
For those ready to hit me over the head with Science (and I am a big fan of Science), may I direct your attention here as the more appropriate forum.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400142&highlight=science+and+god
My post was in response to the ideas put forth in Atlantis' statements. I apologize if I am not on topic in it. My statements have nothing to do with life after death, but I do believe that given the forum this question is posed the answer should follow the scientific evidences fairly closely while speculation occurs around the known facts.
Originally posted by Regret
You seem to be coming close to the idea of the homunculus that was used in older philosophy. This homunculus was a little man that lived in a persons head and caused the body to do things. The idea of mind and consciousness is similar. People use these terms to describe some unobservable thing that causes the brain to do what it does in the way that it does. You do not need to resort to this to achieve an understanding of behaviors. I do not think consciousness is generated, it is merely a bi product of the brain's activities. Looking for a "mind" is a waste, and is as silly as looking for the spirit. The two could be used interchangeably if you would like, they do the same thing according to those promoting mind or spirit. The mind is just a form of religious type belief carrying over and causing what could be a harder science to go somewhat soft. Consciousness is not associated with the brain, it is the functioning of the brain. Computational science I believe is held back in developing AI due to the impractical clinging of man to the idea of some make believe entity refered to as mind, spirit, consciousness. This claim that the way we "think" cannot be explained logically is ludicrous. If we were capable of observing and recording the brains neural activity, seeing each synapse as excitation and inhibition occur, seeing each neuron as it excites and approaches it's action potential, observe the requirements for all given neurons to reach an action potential, we would be able to logically determine the thought process. You are appealing to something not unlike religion in clinging to the idea you have espoused.Also, when you define this "mind" or "consciousness" will you need to define its "mind" or "consciousness"? What will be the impetus for this fictional entity that causes the "mind" or "consciousness" to act?
I don´t think the way I view things is like this homunculus idea, maybe there was a misunderstanding. I am saying that consciousness is generated "by the brain", it emerges from it not from something external. That it is the same to say that it is a by-product of the brain like you beleive. I don´t see a difference.
But I still think consciousness is non-algorithymic. There are many aspects of our behavior like our ability to want something, or our free will that cannot be defined mathematically. Choice and will cannot be defined mathematically, there is no way you can create an algorithym that is equivalent to free will. Free will does not exist in mathematics, but it exists in us. Unless you don´t believe we have free will.
Anyway I think that defining consciousness is important to anwer the question that is being asked in this thread. So like Mindship said, the perspective of consciousness being generated by the brain, like a by-product from it seems to be a "existence-preceeds-essence" view.
But perhaps this don´t means that there is no life after death at all, we still don´t know what physical processes are part of this consciousness, and maybe if this processes could be sustained someway, or if at least some part of this process remains, so some level of consciousness could remain after death as well. We don´t know anything about the physical counterpart of consciousness so everything is possible. I don´t think there is a preference whether life after death exists or not.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
1. Anyway I think that defining consciousness is important to anwer the question that is being asked in this thread...
2. But perhaps this don´t means that there is no life after death at all...
1. I agree absolutely. This is one of the greatest--if not The Greatest--philosophical questions of all time. If one may pardon the corniness of the phrase, figuring out what consciousness "truly is" will, IMO, unlock [enter proclamation trumpets here] "The Secrets of the Universe!"
2. I have no disagreement with this either, for the assumptions in my prior post are simple, linear and straightforward, with no awareness of whatever can come in from left field, so to speak.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I don´t think the way I view things is like this homunculus idea, maybe there was a misunderstanding. I am saying that consciousness is generated "by the brain", it emerges from it not from something external. That it is the same to say that it is a by-product of the brain like you beleive. I don´t see a difference.But I still think consciousness is non-algorithymic. There are many aspects of our behavior like our ability to want something, or our free will that cannot be defined mathematically. Choice and will cannot be defined mathematically, there is no way you can create an algorithym that is equivalent to free will. Free will does not exist in mathematics, but it exists in us. Unless you don´t believe we have free will.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Anyway I think that defining consciousness is important to anwer the question that is being asked in this thread. So like Mindship said, the perspective of consciousness being generated by the brain, like a by-product from it seems to be a "existence-preceeds-essence" view.But perhaps this don´t means that there is no life after death at all, we still don´t know what physical processes are part of this consciousness, and maybe if this processes could be sustained someway, or if at least some part of this process remains, so some level of consciousness could remain after death as well. We don´t know anything about the physical counterpart of consciousness so everything is possible. I don´t think there is a preference whether life after death exists or not.
Let me state what I think you are stating so we can avoid misunderstanding. Following my statement of this I will rebut. If my initial statement is in error as to your meaning then please clarify and ignore my rebuttal.
Here is my understanding of your statement, I placed it in a quote to help separate it from my rebuttal:
Consciousness, at some point, is a thing that has some form of existence separate from the physical brain. Whether this occurs following or before the brain functions is immaterial to the debate, the fact that it is separate in someway is what is important.Consciousness is non-algorithmic. Example given is choice described as "free will".
Thus, consciousness is integral to determining proof of life after death. This due to the fact that consciousness is not a physical thing, but is something separate.
I am not saying consciousness exists. I am saying that our consciousness is only the workings of the neural functioning. There is no essence that makes up consciousness. If this consciousness is the cornerstone of your "proof" of life after death, it is not something that holds any measure of validity.
Imo consciousness, as you describe it, is nothing more than a similar idea to that of the spirit, described in a manner so as to appeal to a wider audience.
Given that there is no "separate" consciousness, then it cannot be important in regards to this question.
Consciousness is algorithmic. "free will" or choice can be defined mathematically and has been defined mathematically. Research the matching law. The matching law states that given a choice, the tendency to respond will eventually match the probability of reinforcement. Or for the equation:
B1/B2=r1/r2 the relative frequency of each behavior equals the relative frequency of reinforcement available.
This is the most simple form of the matching law, and does have holes. There have been modifications to this equation to increase the accuracy of its predictions. Modifications include historical, deprivation, quality, and other factors.
We do know what "physical processes are a part of this consciousness." Neural functioning is the makeup of consciousness.
Also, want is merely a description of physical craving. It is due to primal physical needs, primary reinforcers, that have been paired with things not initially associated with physical needs, secondary reinforcers. All our wants are a culmination of learning that has occurred over time with experience.
The "consciousness" you describe is only an idea similar to the spirit. You could restate your entire argument using the word spirit and no one would suspect that you had been speaking about something you considered scientific. They would assume you were speaking religion. Your statement is the exact same as the religious argument that since we have a spirit, it maintains following death.
No, I am just saying that consciousness and the brain are connected, but I´m not assuming a position as whether consciousness has or not some form of existence separate from the brain.
About free will... well, all results that an algorithm can possibly yield can be predicted. An algorithm is deterministic. If free will is algorithmic then free will is deterministic. But free will and determinism are mutually exclusive ideas.
So perhaps what are you saying is that free will is an illusion... I mean... that our decisions follow a strict determined rule, that there is no real choice happening at all.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
No, I am just saying that consciousness and the brain are connected, but I´m not assuming a position as whether consciousness has or not some form of existence separate from the brain.About free will... well, all results that an algorithm can possibly yield can be predicted. An algorithm is deterministic. If free will is algorithmic then free will is deterministic. But free will and determinism are mutually exclusive ideas.
So perhaps what are you saying is that free will is an illusion... I mean... that our decisions follow a strict determined rule, that there is no real choice happening at all.
No, algorithms are not necessarily deterministic. Algorithms are methodical. There is a pattern to decision making, and given a history of behavior free will becomes an illusion through adherence to the qualities that make a person an individual. Predictability does not equal deterministic.
If consciousness in not separate then I do not understand what consciousness has to do with proof of life after death.
The thing about the 'essence-preceeds-existence' paradigm is that consciousness / spirit / mind are Not synonymous/interchangeable.
In this paradigm, Consciousness is The Ground of Being. It is The absolute frame of reference from which all else is explained/described. It's like with our current, physics-based paradigm which sees 'energy'--in the broadest sense of the term--as the Ground of Being, giving rise to space, time and matter. Thus, 'What kind of energy?' is a meaningless question because we get to that Language/Logic No-man's land layered upon an ineffable experience. We may end up with Paradox or Circular Reasoning. It's worse than trying to describe the experience of color to someone born blind.
'Consciousness,' like 'energy,' simply becomes a tag whose function is to allow dialogue, not replace the Experience (God I hope all that mumbo-jumbo was clear).
In any event: Through involution, Consciousness becomes spirit, mind and matter, spirit, mind and matter being different stages/forms of Consciousness to which we can ascribe consensually noted characteristics. But 'Consciousness Itself' remains an ineffable experience.
I would imagine that, given this paradigm, there is something which survives biological death, as what dies is merely a figure in that Ultimate Ground, the Ground Itself (Consciousness, or 'God'😉 being Infinite/Eternal.
But still, how does this impact "proof" of life after death? I can say that the spirit exists prior to mortal existence, and once it is in the body it is impossible to separate the spirit from the body. Thus using the same paradigm I have as much "proof" of life after death as you do.
To my understanding you are merely using a different tag with the same argument. It is still a simple "spirit" type of statement. You have just placed different words around the same thing.
Just to clarify... I´m not proving that life after death exists. I am just analyzing what we know about consciousness so we can understand better what is going on. Like I said I don´t have a position as whether life after death exists or not.
Well, at least we can´t prove if life after death exist by what we know today, in the case it is really true.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Just to clarify... I´m not proving that life after death exists. I am just analyzing what we know about consciousness so we can understand better what is going on. Like I said I don´t have a position as whether life after death exists or not.Well, at least we can´t prove if life after death exist by what we know today, in the case it is really true.
That is fine enough, given this particular thread, I had assumed you were using consciousness to further an argument in the case of proof of life after death. My statements were made partially in that context, but were aimed at your statements on consciousness all the same. Consciousness, from the scientific vantage point does not exist in the manner you have suggested. You are committing a dualist error in the attempt to separate consciousness from the physiological functioning of the brain.
Originally posted by Regret
1. But still, how does this impact "proof" of life after death? I can say that the spirit exists prior to mortal existence, and once it is in the body it is impossible to separate the spirit from the body. Thus using the same paradigm I have as much "proof" of life after death as you do.2. To my understanding you are merely using a different tag with the same argument. It is still a simple "spirit" type of statement. You have just placed different words around the same thing.
1. I agree, and I should've made my reasons for posting that paradigm more clear. I never meant to present it as proof, only as an alternative POV, wherein the possibility of life-after-death is not necessarily rejected on principle.
2. Again, the point of my post was just to present a perspective where consciousness, spirit and mind Are differentiated. I agree that from a strictly empirical POV, the 'spirit type of statement' remains in force.
Originally posted by Mindship
1. I agree, and I should've made my reasons for posting that paradigm more clear. I never meant to present it as proof, only as an alternative POV, wherein the possibility of life-after-death is not necessarily rejected on principle.2. Again, the point of my post was just to present a perspective where consciousness, spirit and mind Are differentiated. I agree that from a strictly empirical POV, the 'spirit type of statement' remains in force.
Makes sense. But, unless I am missing something (which may of course be the case), it still does nothing for the proof of life after death question. It is referencing a point of view that is not ours to hold. It is like saying "it is possible that we are just the brain in a vat, therefor, if this reality ends it is not necessary for the brain in the vat to come to an end." (Sorry for those that are sick of this metaphor, I know the Matrix has beat that one to death 😉 ) A possible belief on the subject of reality does not lead to proof of life after death.
Originally posted by Regret
(Sorry for those that are sick of this metaphor, I know the Matrix has beat that one to death 😉 )
A possible belief on the subject of reality does not lead to proof of life after death.