Reddit reviews Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts

I. Sure, some forms of theism are coherent (Christianity is not one of those forms, for what it's worth; the Problem of Natural Evil and Euthyphro's Dilemma being a couple of big problems), but not all coherent ideas are true representations of the world; any introductory course in logic will demonstrate that.

II. The cosmological argument is a deductive argument. Deductive arguments are only as strong as their premises. The premises of the cosmological argument are not known to be true. Therefore, the cosmological argument should not be considered true. If you think you know a specific formulation of the cosmological argument that has true premises, please present it. I'm fully confident I can explain how we know such premises are not true.

III. There is no doubt that the teleological argument has strong persuasive force, but that's a very different thing than "being real evidence" or "something that should have strong persuasive force." I explain apparent cosmological fine-tuning as an entirely anthropic effect: if the constants were different, we wouldn't be here to observe them, therefore we observe them as they are.

IV. This statement is just false on its face. Lawrence Krauss has a whole book about the potential ex nihilo mechanisms (plural!) for the creation of the universe that are entirely consistent with the known laws of physics. (Note that the idea of God is not consistent with the known laws of physics, since he, by definition, supersedes them.)

V. This is just a worse version of argument III. Naturalistic evolution has far, far more explanatory power than theism. To name my favorite examples: the human blind spot is inexplicable from the standpoint of top-down design, but it makes perfect sense in the context of evolution; likewise, the path of the mammalian nerves for the tongue traveling below the heart makes no sense from the standpoint of top-down design, but it makes perfect sense in the context of evolution. Evolution routinely makes predictions that are tested to be true, whether it means predicting where fossils with specific characteristics will be found or how fruit fly mating behavior changes after populations have been separated and exposed to different environments for 30+ generations. It's worth emphasizing that it is totally normal to look at the complexity of the world and assume that it must have a designer...but it's also totally normal to think that electrons aren't waves. Intuition isn't a reliable way to discern truth. We must not be seduced by comfortable patterns of thought. We must think more carefully. When we think more carefully, it turns out that evolution is true and evolution requires no god.

VI. There are two points here: 1) the universe follows rules, and 2) humans can understand those rules. Point (1) is easily answered with the anthropic argument: rules are required for complex organization, humans are an example of complex organization, therefore humans can only exist in a physical reality that is governed by rules. Point (2) might not even be true. Wigner's argument is fun and interesting, but it's actually wrong! Mathematics are not able to describe the fundamental behavior of the physical world. As far as we know, Quantum Field Theory is the best possible representation of the fundamental physical world, and it is known to be an approximation, because, mathematically, it leads to an infinite regress. For a more concrete example, there is no analytic solution for the orbital path of the earth around the sun! (This is because it is subject to the gravitational attraction of more than one other object; its solution is calculated numerically, i.e. by sophisticated guess-and-check.)

VII. This is just baldly false. I recommend Dan Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" and Stanislas Dehaene's "Consciousness and the Brain" for a coherent model of a materialist mind and a wealth of evidence in support of the materialist mind.

VIII. First of all, the idea that morality comes from god runs into the Problem of Natural Evil and Euthyphro's Dilemma pretty hard. And the convergence of all cultures to universal ideas of right and wrong (murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc.) are rather easily explained by anthropology and evolutionary psychology. Anthropology and evolutionary psychology also predict that there would be cultural divergence on more subtle moral questions (like the Trolley Problem, for example)...and there is! I think that makes those theories better explanations for moral sentiments than theism.

IX. I'm a secular Buddhist. Through meditation, I transcend the mundane even though I deny the existence of any deity. Also, given the diversity of religious experience, it's insane to suggest that religious experience argues for the existence of the God of Catholicism.

X. Oh, boy. I'm trying to think of the best way to persuade you of all the problems with your argument, here. So, here's an exercise for you: take the argument you have written in the linked posts and reformat them into a sequence of syllogisms. Having done that, highlight each premise that is not a conclusion of a previous syllogism. Notice the large number of highlighted premises and ask yourself for each, "What is the proof for this premise?" I am confident that you will find the answer is almost always, "There is no proof for this premise."

XI. "...three days after his death, and against every predisposition to the contrary, individuals and groups had experiences that completely convinced them that they had met a physically resurrected Jesus." There is literally no evidence for this at all (keeping in mind that Christian sacred texts are not evidence for the same reason that Hindu sacred texts are not evidence). Hell, Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Christ" even has a strong argument that Jesus didn't exist! (I don't agree with the conclusion of the argument, though I found his methods and the evidence he gathered along the way to be worthy of consideration.)

-----

I don't think that I can dissuade you of your belief. But, I do hope to explain to you why, even if you find your arguments intuitively appealing, they do not conclusively demonstrate that your belief is true.

There is a book that argues almost exactly that - Consciousness and the brain

Just wanted to clear something up here, but Hameroff's theory on microtubules is baseless of actual facts and the connection he is making between quantum mechanics (or whatever he interprets it as) and the AC measurements (the vibrations he's talking about) is purely pseudo-science and not grounded on any actual experiments or data, and it also ignores previous criticisms regarding quantum decoherence occurring much too fast to effect nerve impulses. The Orch OR model of "quantum mind" is disregarded by any serious neuroscientists and physicist today, and there's many papers outlining it's many flaws.

>And in the case of those that believe that the brain makes consciousness, we don't have any empirical evidence to substantiate their belief. So it's still just a belief at present, but a very dogmatic one.. which is tantamount to religious conviction.

Where are you coming from with this? The entire field of biology and neurology is based around the fact that consciousness emerges in the brain. If you take a rock you won't find its consciousness because there is no biological space to store the data of any sensory interaction, nor any nervous system to have such sensory input. A rock is just a bunch of minerals/ mineraloid particles, and there's nothing more to "being a rock" than its immediate physical chemical bonds. On the other hand, consciousness can be observed in a myriad of organisms with a biological brain to store the data in and be able to interact with. Just to clear this up, the entirety of neurological evidence suggest that consciousness arises in the brain, as defined by neural correlates throughout hundreds of studies and experiments (Dehaene has a great book on this).

> It's quite clear that whatever consciousness is, it's not purely physical. Consider, do your thoughts and emotions possess physical attributes (mass, velocity, weight, shape, color, etc)? No.

This is simply wrong and a ridiculous claim. Your thoughts and emotions DO have physical attributes as they are physically constituted of neurons which are physical electrically excitable cells interacting across further physical synapses and other nervous system structures. The moment your brain activity is stopped, or certain key parts and functions impaired, your consciousness vanishes, and there is no evidence to support otherwise.

Furthermore, every single behavioral and cognitive attribute you posses is based on the interaction of the instinctual reptilian and mammalian complex and the more complex and abstract functions of the neocortex. In order to talk about consciousness you need to talk about its emergence along phylogenesis in evolution, and more importantly how brain development from species to species constitutes the development of brain functions. Acting overly perplexed and dumbfounded of scientific knowledge regarding consciousness is no different than invoking ideas of intelligent design based around assumptions such as the seeming complexity of eyeballs.

>Thus, when you look at the thoughts and emotions themselves..directly.. experientially, you find that they are distinct from physical objects which possess physical attributes. That's why contemplative neuroscience is a very interesting research field.. because they're looking at how the brain can be modulated by modulating consciousness directly.. subjectively.. and the effects that that has on the brain and biology (e.g., neuroplasticity, palcebo, epigenetics).

You're confused about what you're experiencing during a conscious state. Every single thought, emotion, perception, analysis, instinct, and state of consciousness you experience is manifested as such through the physical networking and cascading information in many different areas of the brain, each in charge of very different tasks that overall attribute a perceptually unified consciousness, which of course is not true at all. Hemispheric lateralization and split brain patient studies clearly demonstrate the division of cognitive perception along networks of individualized mechanisms that have direct psychological correlates. It is entirely possible, and well documented, that certain key functions of consciousness (awareness, memory, perception, self distinction, spatial recognition, internal evaluation, etc.) can be impaired or completely cut off, resulting in a vividly (or not so vivid depending on what function or specific physical network is impaired) different experience, yet still within a conscious perspective. Cut off the corpus callosum that connects the two hemispheres and you end up with two completely separate conscious states depending on which size you find yourself on. A stroke on the left hemisphere will impair language concepts and time perceptions and your perception shifts to the intrinsically broad spectrum of understanding of the right hemisphere which focuses on the present input of information.

>And let's not forget the quantum consciousness model, too, which is just as valid, if not more, than the neuronal theory, since the neuronal theory has no testable predictions, has no theoretical framework to explain how you get "awareness" or "subjectivity" out of matter, and not only that, but it lacks the afforementioned empirical data and cannot even explain "spooky" phenomena that have been consitently reported throughout human history.

Again, there is no real data or grounded study for any of the proposed quantum mind theories. You're literally disregarding the entirety of the very empirical evidence you yourself seem to think is missing, when in actuality neurological theories are entirely grounded, peer-reviewed, well established, highly studied, and rigorously experimented and tested, and there are many emerging studies that discuss consciousness as we should, that being in depth and without linguistic misinterpretations. The vagueness of the term is highly problematic when talking about these topics. A lot of recent studies suggest a global overview of brain activity to build the foundation of consciousness, meaning different aspects of cognition are really just different mechanisms of operation that when complementing each other's outputs allow for the structural emergence of a seemingly unified state of consciousness.

I'm sorry but you don't seem to have much basis and knowledge on this subject unfortunately, please don't act as if you understand these concepts and openly spread misinformation and further strengthen misconceptions if you haven't actually studied these topics extensively, which you obviously haven't as demonstrated by your lack of knowledge of neuroscience, it's bad manner to do so in this subreddit.

We're not that far from understanding consciousness either. It appears to be simple, conceptually: see the global workbench theory. Consciousness is a process that receives input from other modules and generates its own output (decisions), except it's a serial thing. It processes one thing at a time and has access to of its own recent previous states.

Great book about the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Brain-Deciphering-Codes-Thoughts/dp/0670025437

(Inaccuracies in the text above are probably my poor interpretation, not the book's fault)

Sometimes I ponder the same idea. Ultimately we won't know until consciousness is better understood. The research is moving forward.

A great book on the matter is:

Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts
by Stanislas Dehaene (Author)


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670025437/

That book has now been added to my library, thank you. Link for anyone interested.

As far as the "It's only a really convincing simulation" goes:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
If a simulation is so convincing of faking his consciousness that there's nothing we could do (except maybe open up the soft- and hardware) to differentiate it from something we would consider conscious, then by all means it is conscious. I know I'm conscious, because I have my own thoughts to prove it to myself. But everyone else in the world might just be a clever robot. But it's senseless to assume this because it's not functional.

I think this argument ultimately comes down to "there's something special about us" rather than accepting consciousness too is 'just' a product of complex mechanics. As I mentioned somewhere else, the problem is we don't have a clear definition of what is conscious and can therefore not test for it.

I've read a few. My interest is AI. Of them all I'll recommend two:

• Consciousness and the Brain
  
• On Intelligence
  
  
  edit - sigh I am now unable to reply to people who have replied to me. Would love to talk about neuroscience and consciousness and Ai but I guess well meet on another sub

Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0670025437/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_Q6Qzub003NK0X

Comprehensive, current, a generally pleasant read/listen.

Currently reading a book titled Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts, I would highly recommend it if you're interested in the science of consciousness.

In terms of going back to uni to do an undergraduate in neuroscience, i don't think it's worth it. I'm about to start an honours in visual neuroscience, but before finding my project I was talking to a prof about honours projects and he said he had a computer science graduate doing a project with him on alzheimer's. A lot of neuroscience these days involves programming so you have a huge one up there (i'll be learning programming for my project). In terms of how to get into the field, you could probably go straight into post grad if you have good marks with your current undergrad degree. Honours or Masters degrees, or as ciaoshescu mentioned you may be able to do an internship, i'm not to sure how that would work though.

Good luck on your journey!

>There is no evidence that consciousness is directly link to any particular piece of brain matter.

I disagree.

http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Brain-Deciphering-Codes-Thoughts/dp/0670025437

>There is growing evidence that consciousness is an emergent property...possibly just a pattern; that existence is infinite, and time just another dimension to move around in.

Cite? Even one to a disputed book or study would help.

>It's not woo, but it does require a bit of hope that the science is pointing us to something less depressing than nothingness.

I'm curious..why do you find "nothingness" depressing?

Stanislas Dehaene - Consciousness and the brain - profoundly interesting book that explores the history of, and latest developments in neuroscience & psychology for the purpose of understanding consciousness.

> You haven't explained what's wrong with defining the term this way.

Sure I have. It's an attempt to define something into existence (in a roundabout way). All our evidence shows that what we generally refer to as consciousness is instead an emergent property from the processes in our brains.

I'm sure you must be familiar with some of the work in this area? In any case, here's a couple of quite interesting articles and books on the subject in case not:

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Brain-Deciphering-Codes-Thoughts/dp/0670025437


https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254735485_Consciousness_as_the_Emergent_Property_of_the_Interaction_Between_Brain_Body_and_Environment







(Note the third research article begins with "according to the assumption that consciousness is the emergent property of the interaction between brain, body, and environment," however there is some interesting references and further reading from here as to why that is a reasonable assumption given the evidence.)

Indeed, the concept doesn't even make any sense without this, as it would constitute an unevidenced exception to every analogous circumstance in any context, and wouldn't be explained or have any supporting framework. This is treading dangerously close to special pleading, if not outright crossing the line.

>Face saved by the bell, eh?

Heh. :) Not at all, it's just that these discussions are of more use to those following along but never participating (the vast majority according to most data on IP accesses to forums such as these) and while often interesting are of less utility when limited to just the two of us.

Take care.


Edit: my links disappeared! I'll re-add them, sorry.