How do you explain consciousness?

If I was forced to pinpoint the definition I would define it is aware of self. All the various different definitions thereof.

 

Yes, at the very least that has to be part of it.

I'm not really sure of the rest - or even if there is more.

 

It seems that the state of human development that is the only part of it. We can hypothesize about awareness outside of corporeal existence but that doesn't seem to be something that exists in the strictest sense as of now

 

You didn't understand what the chicken and egg being described was .. perhaps my failing to give good explanation...

1) my posts states - a thought is related to brain activity.. we don't actually know if it is, brain activity, but we know that a thought alters brain activity.

So .. A alters B --- thought alters Brain activity .. and perhaps is "represented" by brain activity -- but we don't know this.

Yet notice .. that B also functions without A - no thought is required for brain activity to take care of bodily function.

So the question is .. which came first .. the thought .. or the Brain activity.

You want now to claim -- the brain formed - and the activity of the brain formed the thought .. but now comes the "thought experiment"

wiggle left pinky .. the information came from me -- you read some words - created a thought - pinky wiggled... the act of creation being "The Will" Which came first .. the thought or the brain activity ? -- when you wiggled pinky just now.

 

I'm not sure it proves anything. Personally, I believe the body is just a vehicle for the spirit, or consciousness. It relies on that vehicle for all of its perceptions. It's sort of like a security guard watching a bank of cameras on screens. If the cameras go out for whatever reason, the security guard doesn't cease to exist. He just can't perceive anything through those cameras until they are functioning again.

 

It's true that if your sources of input get impaired it doesn't mean your brain turns off. Blind people can walk, for example. They just don't get the visual input.

But, that doesn't address the consciousness aspect.

I see no justification for suggesting that there is some so far undetected consciousness module.

 

Yes - the thought that I should wiggle my pinky came from reading your post. From there I thought about whether I would gain anything from actually wiggling my pinky. I decided I might as well, so I went ahead and wiggled my pinky while thinking about this issue.

I don't see a justification for adding new components to that process.

 

What if there is no free will and the idea that you willed your finger to move is merely an illusion? Maybe you are just observing the act.

 

​

 

I doubt it will ever be something that is proveable until you are dead. Personally, I’ve heard enough accounts of out of body experiences, near death experiences, etc, and have dabbled around with astral projection, lucid dreaming, and spirituality enough that I am fully convinced of the existence of the spiritual consciousness apart from the egoic mind. I guess it is all a matter of faith. I doubt there is any way to scientifically prove it, which I am fine with. Maybe one day science will be advanced enough to measure such things.

 

There was an experiment in the 80’s that claimed to show that free will could be an illusion. I went to look it up and found this article that claims it was a flawed experiment

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...xperiment-proved-that-free-will-doesnt-exist/

 

I have dreams, too - not as fabulous as what one of my daughters has!

But, I don't see any justification for suggesting that brains can't do that. They certainly have ALL the machinery to create these experiences.

Are you really going to suggest that almost every night some supernatural being enters your brain and gives it a bit of a stir??

 

Not at all. I don’t believe anything enters your brain. More like your subconscious mind is free to wander at night when your conscious mind is at rest. It needs no justification, as it is pretty much impossible to prove. Believe it or not, as you will. I’ve experienced enough well beyond regular dreaming to be convinced of the separateness of consciousness/spirit from the mind. If you haven’t experienced it, there is no way to convince you of it if you choose not to believe.

 

try willing your finger to pull the pins out of a few hand grenades and your hands to juggle them, then you will scientifically know for sure!

 

.

But then again situations can be influenced in dreams by how the physical body feels. An example is my dream of showing up for work in a factory or shop with bare feet. I have feet numbness from diabetes and this feeling or lack of feelings influence my dream state. So my body must be involved at least in this dream.

 

How do you tell the difference between "regular dreaming" and "subconscious mind is free to wander at night"?

I'd point out that pretty much all cognition is available at night. The brain is still operating the body. The brain is processing changes in light, sound, temperature and touch. The brain is providing the "regular dreaming". People wake up with new ideas that clearly came from processing of information held in memory.

The problem here isn't that of "proving" something. It's more that these ideas of supernatural excursions, etc., are not necessary to explain any phenomena, nor does this provide a foundation for making predictions - such as science requires of ideas.

One can believe these supernatural events like one might believe in god and whatever dreams you have you can assign to the supernatural, because you want to.

 

However dreaming can be an invitation to any world you wish to wander into. Or any world you wish to create. Dream worlds can conquer time and space.

 

I think one problem comes up when the dreamer decides it was reality, not a dream.

 

Deer in headlights ? .. Answer the question at least .. or is it too much for brain -- which came first when you wiggled pinky .. the thought or the brain activity ?

 

I answered that.

The thought IS brain activity. The thought came from other brain activity and caused brain activity directly associated with controlling my pinky.

 

you saying that .. does not make it so .. did the brain move your pinky involintarily - or did your thought make the pinky move -- did the brain create the thought on its own . or did the thought come elsewhere .. the brain responded to something .. carrying out the action .. wiggling pinky .. what was that something --- was it not my post ? Tell me what caused the brain to move pinky .. did the brain do it on its own volition .. or was it a response to external stimulus ..

 

I really think you are just denying that our brains provide us with our consciousness, our ability to calculate new actions, feelings, etc.

I don't see any evidence that are brains can't do the full job.

I'd add that we see the brains of other animals, and I don't see evidence from our experience with animals that suggests that our brains aren't fully capable. We see animals having complex ideas that they then act on, having emotions, using tools, and even behaving ethically.

What's the evidence for any alternative?

 

... why you have these nonsensical thoughts ... I do not know .. I stated plainly that the brain is related to consciousness .. never have I denied that the brain "Provides" consciousness .. what ever that means..

What it didn't provide .. was the thought to move your finger .. that did not come from your brain .. it came from me .. and it is you who is in denial of this obvious fact.

This is just fallacious gibberish .. surprised you are defalting to the negation fallacy -- thought you knew better .. but hey .. what do I know .. perhaps we should forget all this talk about the root causation of pinky moving .. and get you schooled up in why the negation fallicy is so nonsensical ..

 

~ This describes the entire conversation ...

 

I don't see the distinction. How can you be conscious, yet be incapable of having ideas? Besides, ideas are the result of calculations of the information available. They are a natural product.

This is why science focuses on how things work - examining mechanisms.

It's perfectly reasonable to work on focusing the question in ways that make it more likely to find evidence. One has to cut away the factors that are extraneous.

For example, the behavior of animals isn't about proving a negative - it's more about determining where we might look for evidence.

So, dog brains have the ability to create ideas.

That's not a proof of the negative, but it does put some bounds on the search for evidence of how brains work.

In an effort to find how ideas are created, you don't have to worry about human level consciousness! Dogs don't have that and they still have ideas, dreams, emotions, etc.

That's a major step forward.