if consciousness did indeed effect the activity of the brain, it would need some physical mechanism to do so. — tom111
If the brain acts as if consciousness is not there at all, then its simply a matter of the brain naturally doing its thing and for some reason, some of the informational processing happens to pop into our conscious perception and some doesn't. — tom111
Are our brains evolutionarily hardwired to actually "take notice" of what enters our sphere of consciousness? Or does it process information as if consciousness weren't at all present? — tom111
if consciousness were able to couple to matter somehow, detection of it would be easier. — tom111
If the brain acts as if consciousness is not there at all, then its simply a matter of the brain naturally doing its thing and for some reason, some of the informational processing happens to pop into our conscious perception and some doesn't.
If its the former, and the brain needs to actively regulate what goes into and out of our conscious perception, then its likely that consciousness can have some effect on matter. The brain would not actively shape itself to accommodate for something that can have no effect on it. — tom111
The brain regulates its activity mindful of what is present in our sphere of awareness. It actively ensures that disruptive processing going on in the brain is kept out of our conscious awareness and maybe even promotes constructive processing. — tom111
B) The brain regulates its activity irrespective of what enters our consciousness, and higher levels of integration occur in areas of processing that ultimately lead to higher survival rates regardless of what it throws into our sphere of consciousness. — tom111
FWIW, I'm guessing that Consciousness -- a Meta-Physical effect of brain processes -- does not directly affect the brain that produces it. Instead, we become aware of our private nonverbal thoughts, when we either convert them into conventional words (as in "I told myself" ; internal narrative), or hear ourselves saying those words (i.e. aural feedback), or see how others react. For example, there is an old saying : "how could I know what I think, until I hear what I'm saying?" (see quote below) :smile:Here, I was conjecturing that if consciousness can effect the physical activity of the brain, then since the brain is a physical object, consciousness would need some physical mechanism to effect it. — tom111
If option B is true, I'm tempted to say that consciousness would be more "noisy" and less organised than it currently is. — tom111
However, if option A is true, surely this suggests that consciousness can in some way influence the activity of the brain? The brain after all, would not regulate its own activity to account for some phenomenon that has absolutely no effect on it. — tom111
Rational thinking --even simple logic-- can never allow anyone to accept that consciousness is in the brain. — Alkis Piskas
Ha! I talked about the "scientific community" in general, not ALL scientists! Of course there are "thinkers" among them, even philosophers. But these do not believe that consciouness is in the brain. There are some eminent scientists among them: Deepak Chopra, Bernardo Kastrup, Menas Kafatos, etc.And if any scientist should make a compelling argument that consciousness resides in the brain, she should be put under house arrest in the name of rational thinking! — Kenosha Kid
I can understand why the scientific community believes that consciousness is the product of and resides in the brain. — Alkis Piskas
In a mirror, one can see a reflection of the eye, but one doesn't see the act of seeing, one only sees an image. This lecture (pdf format) elaborates the point. — Wayfarer
I guess this includes populararized science and articles that want to create an impression with undocumented "discoveries" ... Even Scientific American talks about the subject you mentioned (Neural Correlates of Consciousness). It seems that it is so "well established" a field that they call it by its abbreviation (NCC)!Not real scientists, really, as demonstrated by their shifty reliance on evidence. — Kenosha Kid
I have not read any official scientific journal on the subject — Alkis Piskas
See, they confuse sensory perception effects on the brain with ... consciousness! — Alkis Piskas
Don't lose faith so easily! :smile:Oh well now I've totally lost faith in your proclamations.
How would you know if you haven't read any of them? — Kenosha Kid
I agree. But I also use another term to describe the relation of Mind to Brain : it's the meta-physical "Function" of the Brain's physical mechanism. In a machine, its function is the relationship between Input & Output. Like a computer, the input is Raw Information, and the output is Processed Information : Meaning. That is, the value relationship of the input data to the Self. An isolated Brain-in-a-Vat is non-functional and meaningless, because it has no Self to relate to. Ironically, the self-image is a metaphor or symbol of the body, and also a non-physical function of the brain-mind machine.I think the interesting philosophical question is the sense in which the mind - I'll use that term instead of 'consciousness' - is a product of the brain. — Wayfarer
Every given moment there are countless of perception stimuli flooding our brain - but we pick the ones that appear beneficial to us as the center of our focus, allowing those impressions to form our train of thought. — Hermeticus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.