if your brain was injured or hurt in some physical way, then you would lose the mental abilities — Corvus

Nobody would contradict this and the close connection between brain and consciousness. Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality".

And that is exactly the crux of Kant's argument, that materialism alone does not suffice to explain our experience.

Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality". — Pez

I.e. we would need to find a homunculus?

Nobody would contradict this and the close connection between brain and consciousness. — Pez

Yes, that was my point against .

Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality". — Pez

This still sounds like a materialistic methodology.

And that is exactly the crux of Kant's argument, that materialism alone does not suffice to explain our experience. — Pez

I thought Kant doesn't make explicit comment on the mind, self or physical brain in CPR. He was only interested in propounding on how metaphysics is possible as a science explaining transcendental idealism.

Yes, that was my point against — Corvus

But that's not a point against me. Saying "the brain is connected to consciousness", which probably nearly everyone agrees with, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying "consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" or whatever, which is what you said everyone knows.

Everyone knows the brain is connected to consciousness, that's the weak position. NOT everyone knows that consciousness emerges from the brain - that's the strong position. Whether deliberately or by accident, you're pulling a motte-and-bailey here.

Saying "the brain is connected to consciousness", which probably nearly everyone agrees with, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying "consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" or whatever, which is what you said everyone knows. — flannel jesus

"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague. What do you mean by the brain is connected to consciousness? What is it connected with? Is it connected with a piece of string or golden chain or rubber band? It sounds more obscure.

"consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" is some of the academic theories of Mind-Body topics in the cognitive science textbooks, and is a widely known claim.

"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague. — Corvus

Then... why did you agree with it and say it was your point when Pez said it?

Nobody would contradict this and the close connection between brain and consciousness.
— Pez
Yes, that was my point against ↪flannel jesus. — Corvus

"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague.
— Corvus

Then... why did you agree with it and say it was your point when Pez said it? — flannel jesus

I thought that was what you were saying. I never said that brain is connected to consciousness physically. It is first time I am reading it from your post.

What I meant was that everyone knows that brain is where mind and conscious generates and emerges. If I said "connected", that would be the relationship I meant. But I never said anything about "connectedness".

You said that many folks don't believe that is the case. You then wrote, and think that the brain is connected to consciousness, which I found as vague expression. Now clear? :grin:

I.e. we would need to find a homunculus? — wonderer1

Sneaky little things.

Sneaky little things. — Patterner

Indeed.

Great card! :lol:

no, it's even more unclear than before. I didn't write that they're connected, someone else wrote it, and then you agreed with it. Everythings entirely unclear now.

Why are you agreeing with some guy saying they're connected, and then complaining that connected is vague?

no, it's even more unclear than before. I didn't write that they're connected, someone else wrote it, and then you agreed with it. Everythings entirely unclear now.

Why are you agreeing with some guy saying they're connected, and then complaining that connected is vague? — flannel jesus

I think that's what @pez meant for "connected" - consciousness emerges from physical brain. He didn't mean that it is connected physically with a chain or something. That's how saw it.

But when you replied with saying it again gave an impression that is what you were saying it, because you were vehemently denying something. I didn't quite understand what you were denying about, and presumed that what you were saying was that consciousness is connected to the brain, it is different from saying that consciousness emerges from the brain. This gave me further impression what you were saying was that consciousness is connected to the brian physically with some chain or link, which I thought was totally muddled.

I can see the problem very clearly. There is no complications here. You seem to try to conclude that everything unclear for some reason, when it is not. As I said, it is not the central point of the OP. We can just accept the situation and move on, and try to discuss the OP - can computers and AI think?

I can see the problem very clearly. There is no complications here. You seem to try to conclude that everything unclear for some reason, when it is not. As I said, it is not the central point of the OP. We can just accept the situation and move on, and try to discuss the OP - can computers and AI think? — Corvus

I think it is very much part of the central point of the op - you said everyone knows consciousness emerges from the brain, and if that were true, then everyone would have a very good reason to think that it's at least in principle possible for AI to be conscious.

But not everyone knows, or agrees, that consciousness emerges from the brain, and not everyone agrees that it's possible for AI to be conscious.

Do you accept that not everyone knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain?

But not everyone knows, or agrees, that consciousness emerges from the brain, and not everyone agrees that it's possible for AI to be conscious. — flannel jesus

What is your evidence for the claim?

Do you accept that not everyone knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain? — flannel jesus

No I don't accept it. I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain.

Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality".
— Pez

I.e. we would need to find a homunculus? — wonderer1

Wouldn't we also have to find the "ego-neuron" of the homunculus?

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ’em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.

What is your evidence for the claim? — Corvus

Some people are panpsychists who believe consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

Then there's the wide array of people who, for various reasons, think physical stuff is insufficient to explain conscious experience. Just Google anti physicalism to see people who argue for those positions. They abound, they're potentially even a majority among amateur philosophers (and physicalism is only barely a majority among professional philosophers)

Some people are panpsychists who believe consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism — flannel jesus

But isn't the mind the panpsychists talking about totally different type from the human mind?
Wouldn't it be more like the "Soul" rather than human consciousness with reasoning, experiencing, sensing and feeling capabilities?

no, I think they're talking about all consciousness, including human.

People who believe in souls are of course another great example of people who don't think minds emerge from brains. They think minds are in souls.

no, I think they're talking about all consciousness, including human.

People who believe in souls are of course another great example of people who don't think minds emerge from brains. They think minds are in souls. — flannel jesus

I can't quite follow or agree with their ideas then. The prime sign of possessing consciousness and mind for a being is demonstrations of its linguistic, rational reasoning capability, and showing the signs of emotional interactions.

I cannot see how anything else in the universe can be conscious apart from humans, and some of the mammals (having lesser consciousness due to their lack of language uses).

If some folks want to believe that raining and strong wind are the sign of the universe being conscious, and these folks trying to have chats with the trees on the hills and fishes in the rivers, then how can, or why should anyone stop them from doing so?

I cannot see how anything else in the universe can be conscious apart from humans, and some of the mammals (having lesser consciousness due to their lack of language uses). — Corvus

Well, it is certainly true that the only kinds of beings that are conscious in our universe are humans and animals. Humans are our paradigm of a conscious being. Consciousness in animals is more complicated, partly because different animals are have different levels of consciousness and partly because there are different opinions about how conscious they are. Whether it is possible that there are conscious beings apart from these is another question. There's no doubt that it is possible to imagine that there are and the future no doubt holds many things that we do not yet know. So I think your claim is over-confident.

I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain. — Corvus

It used to be common sense that the earth is flat and that there is no land between Europe and China.
"Everyone knows that p" is one statement and "Someone does not know that p" is incompatible with it. "Everyone with common sense knows that p" is a different statement and "Someone does not know that p" is compatible with it.

No I don't accept it. I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain. — Corvus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489624/

"There is considerable debate over whether plants are conscious and this, indeed, is an important question. Here I look at developments in neuroscience, physics and mathematics that may impact on this question. Two major concomitants of consciousness in animals are microtubule function and electrical gamma wave synchrony. Both these factors may also play a role in plant consciousness. I show that plants possess aperiodic quasicrystal structures composed of ribosomes that may enable quantum computing, which has been suggested to lie at the core of animal consciousness. Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants."

There is considerable debate over whether plants are conscious and this, indeed, is an important question. Here I look at developments in neuroscience, physics and mathematics that may impact on this question. Two major concomitants of consciousness in animals are microtubule function and electrical gamma wave synchrony. Both these factors may also play a role in plant consciousness. I show that plants possess aperiodic quasicrystal structures composed of ribosomes that may enable quantum computing, which has been suggested to lie at the core of animal consciousness. Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants." — RogueAI

Careful. That way lies crank magnetism or even worse, fractal wrongness.

Careful. That way lies crank magnetism or even worse, fractal wrongness. — wonderer1

My point was that there are serious people who believe in non-brain consciousness, including the 4% of professional philosophers who are idealists. There are also a lot of computationalists out there, and they would object to Corvus's statement that I quoted.

it doesn't matter if you agree with them or think their ideas make sense, the point is *not everyone believes the thing you said everyone believes*.

There are also a lot of computationalists out there, and they would object to Corvus's statement that I quoted. — RogueAI

You don't think computationalists think consciousness emerges from the brain? But isn't... isn't that where the majority of computationalists think mental computations *happen*? Computationalists seem like a perfect example of agreement, not disagreement. Except for, I suppose, the rare computationalist who thinks some of the mental calculations happens somewhere other than the brain.

it doesn't matter if you agree with them or think their ideas make sense, the point is *not everyone believes the thing you said everyone believes*.
an hour ago — flannel jesus

You shouldn't be too naive to presume that "everyone" strictly means the whole population in the universe anyway. "Everyone" is a pronoun with the universal quantifier "every", which implies "everyone" that I know, "everyone" who are sensible, "everyone" with common sense, or "everyone" who are logical ... etc.

You shouldn't be too judgemental or restrictive in understanding and interpreting "everyone" in unreasonably narrow way insisting it must be "everyone" in the whole world or universe.

Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants." — RogueAI

If they want to insist that the whole universe is conscious, then it would only make sense, if they also stipulate the condition that there are different types or levels of consciousness.

You shouldn't be too naive to presume that "everyone" strictly means the whole population in the universe anyway. "Everyone" is a pronoun with the universal quantifier "every", which implies "everyone" that I know, "everyone" who are sensible, "everyone" with common sense, "everyone" who are logical ... etc.

You shouldn't be too judgemental or restrictive in understanding and interpreting "everyone" in unreasonably narrow way insisting it must be "everyone" in the whole world or universe. — Corvus

There's no reasonable interpretation of "everyone" where "everyone knows the mind emerges from the brain" is true. Not everyone in the world believes it, not all philosophers believe it, not all neuroscientists or cognitive scientists believe it. But I'll take your reply as a sly way of admitting you were incorrect. Perhaps you're just one of those people who can't say the words "I was incorrect."

But I'll take your reply as a sly way of admitting you were incorrect. Perhaps you're just one of those people who can't say the words "I was incorrect." — flannel jesus

No, that would be an unwise act of digging down yourself into further below into the darkness of the cave.
How can anyone admit being incorrect without being incorrect just because you want him to? That would be a sinful contradiction. :D