par4dcourse Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 I just finished Dennet's "Conciousness Explained" and like every book I've read on the subject, it causes more questions than it answers. I'd like to hear from the group. Is conciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, a product of higher evolution, or is there another seperate "I" calling the shots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 I just finished Dennet's "Consciousness Explained" and like every book I've read on the subject, it causes more questions than it answers. I'd like to hear from the group. Is consciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, a product of higher evolution, or is there another separate "I" calling the shots? I think it is a phenomena that occurs due to the complexity of the brain. The more complex the organism, the higher the degree of consciousness. Machines can become conscious, and some will eventually, if the "brain" driving it is complex enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparrow Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 I just finished Dennet's "Conciousness Explained" and like every book I've read on the subject, it causes more questions than it answers. I'd like to hear from the group. Is conciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, a product of higher evolution, or is there another seperate "I" calling the shots? Hmmm ... what is consciousness? Was a defintion of consciousness given? Did it mean awareness or mentation or self-awareness? Maybe, consciousness is just be the artifact of very highly complex systems. In other words, just the natural consequence. Alternately, if there was another separate "I" calling the shots, what would it mean? Are you implying a "soul"? Would a separate "I" be the by-product of evolution as well? And if there was another separate "I", would it have a separate "I" as well ... and so ad infinitum? Wow .... that's an interesting topic .... but I don't think I could even begin to provide meaningful comment on that - no matter how simple it sounds or how complex it is. I simply would not have enough information even to speculate. Thanks - food for thought. Spatz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 consciousness, the mind, is just a product of the brain. I see no reason to suppose it is anything other than that. No "spirit" or "universial consciousness" or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 I just finished Dennet's "Consciousness Explained" and like every book I've read on the subject, it causes more questions than it answers. I'd like to hear from the group. Is consciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, a product of higher evolution, or is there another separate "I" calling the shots? I think it is a phenomena that occurs due to the complexity of the brain. The more complex the organism, the higher the degree of consciousness. Machines can become conscious, and some will eventually, if the "brain" driving it is complex enough. having read Penrose at specific time in my studies of AI, I doubt that Hard AI without a solid change in the technological paradigms is possible. Rube Goldberging semiconductor technology seems a dead end... and there's nothing much even emerging quantum based technologies seem to be little more than a Julian Lloyd-Webber stylee variation on a theme... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I just finished Dennet's "Conciousness Explained" I must get round to reading that some day Is conciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, I don't think it's part of the brain. I think it is the net result of what the brain does when it takes in sensory information and makes sense of it. a product of higher evolution, It's a product of evolution, of course. I'm not sure what you mean by 'higher' evolution. or is there another seperate "I" calling the shots? No. Dualism is bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 The book leaned toward the big C as being purely a product of a highly developed brain (hence, higher evolution). The other primary theory,of a "ghost in the machine" leans toward a soul or other entity seperate from brain function. I favor the former, although some aspects of conciousness have yet to be properly explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I just finished Dennet's "Consciousness Explained" and like every book I've read on the subject, it causes more questions than it answers. I'd like to hear from the group. Is consciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, a product of higher evolution, or is there another separate "I" calling the shots? I think it is a phenomena that occurs due to the complexity of the brain. The more complex the organism, the higher the degree of consciousness. Machines can become conscious, and some will eventually, if the "brain" driving it is complex enough. having read Penrose at specific time in my studies of AI, I doubt that Hard AI without a solid change in the technological paradigms is possible. Rube Goldberging semiconductor technology seems a dead end... and there's nothing much even emerging quantum based technologies seem to be little more than a Julian Lloyd-Webber stylee variation on a theme... OH yeah, no doubt there will have to be several more significant leaps in technology for that to occur. We are still in the stone age when it comes to electronics. Perhaps if the world would stop squabbling over invisible friends and inherited perceived boundaries and start working on advancements... nevermind, that's too much to hope for in my lifetime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I think we have some ground to cover before we are in a position to say what consciousness is. We really don’t even know what life is (i.e. what organisms are). And it seems to me that that life comes before mind. My bet is that a comprehensive theory of mind is likely to come out of some future incarnation of biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I'd agree with Legion, in a broad sense... but one measures a circle starting anywhere, to quote Great Uncle Charles Fort... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Is there even any disagreement on this issue now amongst neuroscientists (and even psychologists) ? The brain is the center of consciousness. The mind and the concept of the soul we can trace back to when it was thought that the heart was the center of emotions, the liver was the center of thought, and the gray matter in one's head was used to cool the blood. Here is a nice little article by Steven Pinker, who works in the psychology department at Harvard: How to Think About the Mind Neuroscience shows that the 'soul' is the activity of the brain By Steven Pinker Newsweek Every evening our eyes tell us that the sun sets, while we know that, in fact, the Earth is turning us away from it. Astronomy taught us centuries ago that common sense is not a reliable guide to reality. Today it is neuroscience that is forcing us to readjust our intuitions. People naturally believe in the Ghost in the Machine: that we have bodies made of matter and spirits made of an ethereal something. Yes, people acknowledge that the brain is involved in mental life. But they still think of it as a pocket PC for the soul, managing information at the behest of a ghostly user. Modern neuroscience has shown that there is no user. "The soul" is, in fact, the information-processing activity of the brain. New imaging techniques have tied every thought and emotion to neural activity. And any change to the brain—from strokes, drugs, electricity or surgery—will literally change your mind. But this understanding hasn't penetrated the conventional wisdom. We tell people to "use their brains," we speculate about brain transplants (which really should be called body transplants) and we express astonishment that meditation, education and psycho-therapy can actually change the brain. How else could they work? This resistance is not surprising. In "Descartes' Baby," psychologist Paul Bloom argues that a mind-body distinction is built into the very way we think. Children easily accept stories in which a person changes from a frog to a prince, or leaves the body to go where the wild things are. And though kids know the brain is useful for thinking, they deny that it makes them feel sad or love their siblings. The disconnect between our common sense and our best science is not an academic curiosity. Neuroscience is putting us in unfamiliar predicaments, and if we continue to think of ourselves as shadowy users of our brains we will be needlessly befuddled. The Prozac revolution provides an example. With antidepressant and anti-anxiety drugs so common, critics wonder whether we're losing the ability to overcome problems through force of will. Many an uncomprehending spouse has asked, "Why don't you just snap out of it?" But depressed people don't have lazy souls. The parts of their brains that could "snap out of it" are not working properly. To depressed people it is objectively obvious that their prospects are hopeless. Tweaking the brain with drugs may sometimes be the best way to jump-start the machinery that we call the will. Prozac shouldn't be dispensed like mints, of course, but the reason is not that it undermines the will. The reason is that emotional pain, like physical pain, is not always pathological. Anxiety is an impetus to avoid invisible threats, and most of us would never meet a deadline without it. Low mood may help us recalibrate our prospects after a damaging loss. But just as surgeons don't force patients to endure agony to improve their characters, people shouldn't be forced to endure anxiety or depression beyond what's needed to prompt self-examination. To many, the scariest prospect is medication that can make us better than well by enhancing mood, memory and attention. Such drugs, they say, will undermine striving and sacrifice; they are a kind of cheating, like giving the soul a corked bat. But anything that improves our functioning—from practice and education to a good night's sleep and a double espresso—changes the brain. As long as people are not coerced, it's unclear why we should tolerate every method of brain enrichment but one. In Galileo's time, the counter-intuitive discovery that the Earth moved around the sun was laden with moral danger. Now it seems obvious that the motion of rock and gas in space has nothing to do with right and wrong. Yet to many people, the discovery that the soul is the activity of the brain is just as fraught, with pernicious implications for everything from criminal responsibility to our image of ourselves as a species. Turning back the clock on the ultimate form of self-knowledge is neither possible nor desirable. We can live with the new challenges from brain science. But it will require setting aside childlike intuitions and traditional dogmas, and thinking afresh about what makes people better off and worse off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardAbbey Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I just finished Dennet's "Conciousness Explained" and like every book I've read on the subject, it causes more questions than it answers. I'd like to hear from the group. Is conciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, a product of higher evolution, or is there another seperate "I" calling the shots? I'd say it's all in the brain. The separate "I" you are referring to is really "you". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Consciousness is a product of the brain. See this link for an excellent article on consciousness that was in Time magazine a while back: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...80394-1,00.html It may not be a particularly happy thought, but all of the evidence points to the apparent fact that when our brains die, so does our consciousness - permanently. Brother Keith Augustine wrote a glorious article entitled "The Case against Immortality" that is really good too: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kei...mmortality.html Glory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I'd like to hear from the group. Is conciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, a product of higher evolution, or is there another seperate "I" calling the shots? I believe it's the result of emergence. Complex processes that causes consciousness to become. Just like Windows really only exists when the computer is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCrystal Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I just finished Dennet's "Conciousness Explained" and like every book I've read on the subject, it causes more questions than it answers. I'd like to hear from the group. Is conciousness just a little understood part of the human brain, a product of higher evolution, or is there another seperate "I" calling the shots? Hmm.. well, in my opinion, it's just a product of the brain, and our little neurotransmitters firing away. But that's just what I think.... If there was a seperate "I" calling the shots, then there sure would be a hell of a lot of them (the "I's"). Think about people with the schizotypal disorders of the brain (schizophrenia, bipolar with psychosis, schizoaffective, etc)... if there was another "I" calling the shots, then "I" goes by many names... I can tell you from personal experience that one time when I had a psychotic episode, I was telling everyone that James was telling me what was happening all around, sometimes entering my body and taking over... but does that mean James is real because only I can see him and only I could hear his voice during psychosis, not when I "came to" in a hospital several days later with no recollection of what happened for the past few weeks? With all the possibilities of what can go wrong with the brain and how it could affect us physically, I sure don't think that there is another "I" calling the shots in my life... But I do believe we have very far to go before we understand all of this stuff, if we ever understand it at all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts