I believe the statistics show a general downward trend in violence, and a general improvement in the human condition over recent history brought about by reason, science and humanism. — Daemon

This is true, from what I've seen myself.

Nothing called “consciousness” comes from the brain. — NOS4A2

You'll need some support for this claim, as the entirety of modern neuroscientific data is in opposition to this assertion. Support your claim with evidence, not what you think you know.

Just wanted to chime in and say "Well done". I believe people who still think consciousness does not come from the brain are like flat earthers. People need to understand this is not up for rational debate anymore. — Philosophim

About time I had some support. Some of this conversation has been nothing but insults. Luckily I handle that the same way it is given. But, glad to see you've noticed too.

The conscious being itself produces “consciousness”. — NOS4A2

Yep, that's exactly my point. And it is the brain doing so, as far the evidence is concerned. You have something that suggest otherwise, present it. I'm not here to discuss opinions.

So Garrett, you asked for support for my assertion that the brain doesn't work through "information", and I provided it. Dehaene, defending Global Workspace Theory, says that "consciousness is nothing but the flexible circulation of information within a dense switchboard of cortical neurons".

And as Cobb observes, Global Workspace Theory does not explain why flexible circulation of information causes consciousness to pop up.

Now me, I think it's stuff like electrochemical impulses and wavelike interactions between populations of neurons that cause and modify consciousness. And not "information". I don't think GWT explains anything.

Do you have any response? — Daemon

Yes, this is a position I'm willing to contend with, but I'm going to need to see some research that supports it to do so. I accept your position, now support it.

I really don't undestand ... Why do you defend neuroscience so persistently in the matter of consiousness ... What it's for you? And esp. why are you doing that in here? Are you here to promote Science or Philosophy? — Alkis Piskas

Ethics, unequivocally.

Oh, that's a shame, I thought you might be interesting.

Not sure there can ever be a convincing account, when the disparity between what the brain is doing (physics) is on one hand, and what the brain has done (metaphysics), is on the other. — Mww

Yes, I tend to think such an account is impossible in principle because it would need to be some kind of weird hybrid between what Wilfrid Sellars termed the "space of causes" and the "space of reasons", or between a "third person " account and a "first person" account, or between science and phenomenology. And hybrids are not renowned for their fertility.

I think that all accounts, all kinds of accounts, are reliant for their coherence on their contexts and the grounding presuppositions (themselves groundless) those contexts are based upon.

Of course this information seems valid and sometime in the future when there's a new cycle of stupid people that don't remember anything they will invent a different method other than technology and they will exalt that method as a god and they will let that meth and tell them what things are and aren't and then they will have a new reason and a new explanation for what we're calling consciousness at the moment . it's happened many times before it'll happen many times after

They even consider it as a subject matter of --or belonging to-- Neuroscience! And it's not only them: the whole scientific community (except a few cases) shares the same view. — Alkis Piskas

I think a scientific approach to consciousness is fine, provided it doesn't claim a totalizing authority. The phenomenological approach is equally valid, but it should not claim a totalizing authority either. They are simply two different approaches from two different perspectives, and each brackets what it needs to to remain methodologically on track. There is much to learn from both approaches in my view. Why must we be partisan in this? Isn't partisanship rather a negative human tendency to be overcome?

Nothing called “consciousness” comes from the brain. — NOS4A2

Of course it comes from the brain. Ever seen a person get knocked out by hitting their head? How do you think that happens? Barring all the massive evidence at this point in scientific discovery, where does it come from then? I have a claim of where consciousness comes from, and have the entirety of neuroscience to back me up. What's your alternative?

have a claim of where consciousness comes from, and have the entirety of neuroscience to back me up. What's your alternative? — Philosophim

But what is consciousness? Neuroscientists can't explain. I have a pretty accurate and adequate picture of the workings of the brain. Sound and vision, memory formation (learning), neocortical functions, etc. but I have no idea how that explains consciousness. I know what it is, by experience, but I cant explain.

Of course it comes from the brain. Ever seen a person get knocked out by hitting their head? How do you think that happens? Barring all the massive evidence at this point in scientific discovery, where does it come from then? I have a claim of where consciousness comes from, and have the entirety of neuroscience to back me up. What's your alternative? — Philosophim

Anyone with physicalist presuppositions will say that of course it comes from the brain: where else? On the other side those who think consciousness or mind is ontologically fundamental will say that the brain is like a radio receiver; that it in some sense receives consciousness, doesn't produce it. Who's right? Who knows and how could the 'fact of the matter' ever be demonstrated?

The discoveries and facts of neuroscience would be the same either way; that is they are consistent with either thesis.

@Garrett Travers

First, you did pronounce that consciousness is solved, which was truly comical.

Second, I didn’t insult you, but told you exactly why you chose to take a study you read on the Internet and make a grandiose pronouncement about it, which it didn’t deserve.

Third, I gave to you the actual philosophical argument against neuroscience ever being able to solve what consciousness is and where it came from, and you lamely ignored it to soothe your hurt feelings.

And fourth, telling someone with a degree in scholastic Philosophy to go study philosophy is just stupid. Your pronouncement wasn’t philosophically sound, but just more materialistic bullshit from an untrained intellect.

Have you even heard of a physical “seat” for an immaterial power?

Try to answer without lying.

First, you did pronounce that consciousness is solved, which was truly comical. — Joe Mello

No such thing happened, stop being a fabricating prick. Come back when you have an argument about what I actually said.

@Garrett Travers

You answered my long reply in seconds.

You’re a bigmouth who acts like a drunk.

You answered my long reply in seconds.

You’re a bigmouth who acts like a drunk. — Joe Mello

Fuck off. Come back when you have an argument.

is like a radio receiver; that it in some sense receives consciousness, doesn't produce it. Who's right? Who knows and how could the 'fact of the matter' ever be demonstrated? — Janus

No, man. Have you read none of the studies I've posted? There's no evidence of this kind of assumption, and all the evidence that does exist suggest mine, and philosophim's position. Period. You're going to have to contend with that, or simply stop presenting your opinions. Again, the parameter for the discussion, was to support your assertions.

@Garrett Travers

Translation: You have never heard of a physical seat of an immaterial power before, and you can’t get yourself to admit it in public.

Have another beer and get even more pissed off. That’s the measure of your worth.

Translation: You have never heard of a physical seat of an immaterial power before, and you can’t get yourself to admit it in public.

Have another beer and get even more pissed off. That’s the measure of your worth. — Joe Mello

Fuck off. Come back when you have an argument.

There's no evidence of this kind of assumption, and all the evidence that does exist suggest mine, and philosophim's position. — Garrett Travers

I can't see any evidence in what I've read that is conclusive of either view. What evidence actually suggests that the brain produces rather than receives consciousness? Just cite one or two bits of evidence. As I see it there can be no empirical evidence that could show that, and I cannot see why neuroscientific results would not appear exactly the same in either case. I'm ready to be convinced otherwise though; but you'll need to argue convincingly for it or at least point me to the specific sections of papers that do so.

Personally, I lean more towards thinking that the brain does produce consciousness, but I admit that is a personal assessment mostly based on my general accordance with the prevailing modern scientific mindset. In other words it just seems the more plausible view to me, but I acknowledge the other possibility cannot be definitively ruled out.

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/40/43/8306
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749868/full
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/8/1769
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303502619_Is_Self-Consciousness_Equivalent_to_Executive_Function#:~:text=Consciousness%20can%20be%20understood%20as,consequences%20of%20one's%20own%20behavior.

It's pretty much the whole of the data on the subject. I could post these for days.

I don't have the time to read all those. As I said you really should produce the argument yourself, or at least point to the passages in those papers which make the argument. Or tell me just how we should expect the experimental findings to differ if consciousness was received by, rather than produced in, the brain.

I don't have the time to read all those. As I said you really should produce the argument yourself, or at least point to the passages in those papers which make the argument. Or tell me just how we should expect the experimental findings to differ if consciousness was received by, rather than produced in, the brain. — Janus

What...? I have. I have quoted these, all of them, numerous times. I have relayed info to all of you about them. I'm going to point this stuff out for another time, but I swear, man. If I take the time to do so, and you don't respond, I simply will have no way to interact with that. So, please, for me, just focus here on this material. Then, if it's not too much to ask, read one of these damn things.

"We identified a network of core brain structures where activity was consistently associated with the state of consciousness (connected or disconnected). Anesthesia and sleep had state-specific effects that were distinct, reciprocal, and separable from their overall effects on brain activity."

"Unresponsive anesthetic states and verified sleep stages, where a subsequent report of mental content included no signs of awareness of the surrounding world, indicated a disconnected state. Functional brain imaging comparing responsive and connected versus unresponsive and disconnected states of consciousness during constant anesthetic exposure revealed that activity of the thalamus, cingulate cortices, and angular gyri are fundamental for human consciousness."
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/8/1769

"Consciousness can be understood as being aware of oneself and one’s own conditions. The cognitive neuroscience concept of “executive function” usually includes the ability to control attention, mental flexibility, awareness, goal-directed behaviors, and the ability to anticipate the consequences of one’s own behavior."

"The prefrontal cortex has been directly re-lated to executive function and cognitive con-trol (e.g., Fuster, 2001; Goldberg, 2001). Theprefrontal cortex is usually parcellated into dor-solateral, orbitofrontal, and medial cortices(Miller, 2000; Miller & Cummings, 2007). Thedorsolateral prefrontal cortex is more directlyrelated to cognitive control and metacognition(Miller, 2000). The orbitofrontal and medialprefrontal cortices are more related to emotionalcontrol, the coordination of emotion and cogni-tion, and the expression and control of emo-tional behaviors (Kringelbach, 2005; Miller,Freedman, & Wallis, 2002). Thus, two majorprefrontal areas (“systems”) that are associatedwith two clinical syndromes can be distin-guished"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303502619_Is_Self-Consciousness_Equivalent_to_Executive_Function#:~:text=Consciousness%20can%20be%20understood%20as,consequences%20of%20one's%20own%20behavior.

"The cortical structure of the dlPFC/A10, A32, and A25 places the serial pathway in the context of a larger Structural Model of corticocortical connections that is based on the relationship between the laminar structure of two linked cortical areas (Barbas and Rempel-Clower, 1997; for review, see Barbas, 2015; García-Cabezas et al., 2019)."

" A32 is a hub that links functionally disparate prefrontal areas (Barbas et al., 1999; Tang et al., 2019), and participates in cognitive, attentional, affective, and default mode networks (Bush et al., 2000; Inzlicht et al., 2015; Buckner and DiNicola, 2019). It thus has a part in wide-ranging functions and is positioned to balance diverse cortical processes."
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/40/43/8306

This study right above is the one that really needs everyone's attention. This is but a tiny sample of material that demonstrates the production of the cognitive functions the we call consciousness.

What evidence actually suggests that the brain produces rather than receives consciousness? — Janus

I know you philosophy majors hate science, but come on. Receives from where? And why can't any of us remember our thoughts before the brain received them?

GT is right on this account : wild speculation does not supersede testable science. You gotta bring more than "here there be monsters".

GT is right on this account : wild speculation does not supersede testable science. You gotta bring more than "here there be monsters". — Real Gone Cat

My accolades to you sir, thank you. What most don't understand here, is that understanding this one fact about humans opens many, many doors philosophically that have been closed for millennia.

Some thoughts :

The knee-jerk horror that philosophy majors harbor for any argument connecting consciousness and the brain needs explaining. One possibility is that it is taught at university, and to pass their courses, the suggestible young students drink the Kool-aid without question. Meanwhile, the rest of the world goes on blissfully believing in : using medicine to help with depression and ADHD, wearing bike helmets to prevent concussions, brain-death being true death, and the like.

Another possible motive for denying the brain-mind connection is egotism. One thinks, "My mind is so remarkable. How can it possibly be limited to a hunk of meat?"

There are an estimated 100 billion neurons in the human brain, each connected with up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synapses (Jiawei Zhang in arxiv.com from Cornell University). That's more synapses than stars in the galaxy. The complexity is breath-taking.

The otherwise intelligent folks who frequent this forum would be better served leaving science-denial to US conservatives.

The knee-jerk horror that philosophy majors harbor for any argument connecting consciousness and the brain needs explaining. One possibility is that it is taught at university, and to pass their courses, the suggestible young students drink the Kool-aid without question. Meanwhile, the rest of the world goes on blissfully believing in : using medicine to help with depression and ADHD, wearing bike helmets to prevent concussions, brain-death being true death, and the like. — Real Gone Cat

That's the thing, man. I am a philosophy major. Introductory courses are incredibly science focused. Not to mention philosophy of science is a field to itself and is basic ed. I don't understand why these folks would deny the evidence coming from the same kind of people that have verified every opinion they have on climate and other politically valenced stuff, it's bizarre. There are some good postulates here, but not one of these folks, you'll notice, have brought data to inform their opinions. Some have only come to insult and thought they were gonna get away with it. I'm confounded, honestly.

I know you philosophy majors hate science, but come on. Receives from where? And why can't any of us remember our thoughts before the brain received them?

GT is right on this account : wild speculation does not supersede testable science. You gotta bring more than "here there be monsters". — Real Gone Cat

I have asked and received no answer to the question as to how the experimental results would be expected to look any different if the brain was a receiver of consciousness rather than a producer of consciousness.

I have skimmed through the linked papers and found nothing relevant to this question. I am not advocating that we should believe the brain is a receiver, I am merely entertaining the possibility and wondering what difference that would make, if it was the case, to what is observed. If Garrett can't answer that question then the possibility, however far-fetched it might seem, remains open.

If no imaginable observable difference can be given, then the empirical investigation of the brain does not depend on adopting one ontological possibility over the other. The investigation has value despite any ontological commitments just because of what it reveals to us. It amazes me that even when I clearly state that I incline more to the view that the brain produces consciousness I still get accused of saying things like "here be monsters".

As to your question, "receives from where?" the answer would be, assuming universality of consciousness as ontologically fundamental, simply from consciousness itself, from the "field" of consciousness, so to speak. Obviously, this would not be something which could ever be investigated and demonstrated to be true or false, empirically.

As to your other question "And why can't any of us remember our thoughts before the brain received them?", why would we remember thoughts which we had not received, and thus had not had yet? Also the speculation is that consciousness and thus the ability to form thoughts might be received rather than produced by the brain, and that would not necessarily entail that the thoughts are not produced by the brain. The brain might "process" the experiences it receives into thoughts and feelings just as we imagine it does in the physicalist context.

In any case, I am not proposing that anybody adopt this speculative view, and I introduced it just to show that our ontological commitments are really irrelevant to, and not justified by, our empirical investigations. Physicalism is equally speculative, even if it might seem more plausible due to our inbuilt modernist biases, and I am sure there are very good neuroscientists out there who are devout Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims and so on; and I am sure their work is not compromised by their metaphysical beliefs.

If you and GT cannot back up your objections with any actual arguments then that is rather telling don't you think?

Meanwhile, the rest of the world goes on blissfully believing in : using medicine to help with depression and ADHD, wearing bike helmets to prevent concussions, brain-death being true death, and the like. — Real Gone Cat

All those would still obtain if the brain was a receiver, as far as I can tell. If you think not, then explain yourself.