Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Its the year 2050 and we have lost several brave souls in our atempts to land men on Mars.Due to political and humanane reasons, scientists have developed a humanoid to replace the manned landings.
Although their bodies have been adapted to suit life on mars their reptilian brain is identical to humans so the self maintainance of the body needs no impute from its controllers back on earth.The mammalian brain serves as a direct response mechanism to advice its controller of any extra imput on the surroundings that may cause harm to the humanoid.It leaves the crucial decissions required about the long term aims and problematic events to the controller.It also when closed down for self maintenance computes the information gathered during the day and regulates its internal system for the next working exrcise.
If you came across this humanoid and you where not aware of its contact with Earth you would assume it as independant machine with no visible controller.We have great faith in its ability to survive,gather information and give direct contact with its alien environment.

"The oceans of my soul are from the beer I drank last night," to quote a line from an old song of mine, is kind of what it's like in the intercellular spaces of the brain. We carry our home with us . . . the sea of life.

The neuron is enclosed by a thin, double phospholipid membrane with the polar ends (phosphate) facing outward and inward, and the 'tails' (hydrocarbon) facing each other in what is the middle of the membrane. This envelopes a matrix structure (cytoskeleton) of protein strands--the thickest of the three types being the microtubules--along with all kinds of little goodies--such DNA, mRNA, mitochondria, smooth and rough endoplasmic reticulum, polyribosome, lysosome, Golgi, cytosol, and of course a Nucleus, among a good number of proteins and other stuff.

Outside the cell, we find a higher concentration of chloride ions (Cl-) and sodium ions (Na+), along with calcium ions (Ca2+)--quite like seawater; inside the cell we find higher concentrations of postassium (K+). Electrostatic and diffusion forces are at work, and protein molecues that work as ion channels to allow the diffusion of particular cations (positively charged ions) or anions (negatively charged ions) pass through the otherwise impermeable cell wall come into play. Additionally, ion pumps, using adenosine triphosophate (ATP) for energy, pump certain ions out of the cytoplasma, and plays a major role.

The neuron will be at rest, and have a resting potential (to produce a current) of somewhere around -65~-70 or so, due to the pumps, and is thus said to polarized (as in minus inside comparerd to positive outside). There will be events which are graded potentials which excite the membrane, but do not reach the threshold to produce an action potential. Also, it is importand to keep in mind that we are not talking about free electrons (as we usually are with electricity), but about the movement of charged particles, as a current.

In a given number of ways, Na+ channels allow an inflow of sodium, and for a brief moment (if the resulting potential reaches that threshold) a depolarization (to about +35 occurs). This is the action potential( or 'spike--which is less than two milliseconds of time duration--and is an all or nothing event. It is like a ripple of ion exchange starting, usually, from the axon hillock (where the axon meets the soma) and flowing down through all axon collaterals, stimulated vesicle release at the synapse.

The communicative element comes in especially the number of spikes per second (hertz) because the strength and time duration of each spike is the same. This is due to the ion flow across the membrane of the cell (with some factors determining that up stream, as well--neuromodulation, inhibitory firing from interneurons, etc.) and is the same for the squid as well as the human being. On this level, we see a bio-chemical field of events that makes the information processing that occurs in brain.



For an imaginative mind excercise, xris, I guess we could use imaginative scenarios to answer, or more pragmatic, real-life scenarios to answer, nevertheless, appeal to mind exercise must answer towards, or attempt to deal with, a concern that is, or at least appears to be, real--otherwise it would simply be irrelevant.

The repitative scientific knowledge of the brains functions that you post is very interesting and concludes that certain functions of the brain are very well understood.What i dispute is the notion that everything is known.Consciousness by consensus of scientific knowledge has not been found to be in any one part of the brain.
You will not accept any circumstantial evidence that finds the individuals experiences relevant and however much you explain the workings of the brain, i can not accept i am just an electro chemical jelly.Now whose right?

Of course everything isnt known but here we are talking about ridiculous claims that the mind and brain are not connected.



This is because consciousness is not only an epistemological and ontological barrier for third parties but also by plain ol' definitive barrier. Its called subjective experience for a reason.



Why not? Our feelings play no role in validating the truth besides disguising it.

The idea that those who oppose your reasoning are ridiculous is not a good idea when trying to have a reasonably debate.
How is it then the subject is still being debated by more learned than you or I?You cant prove the mind is not distinct from the brain, so dont claim you can.
My feelings come from experiences thats what science wont or cant accept, but i have to consider them as valid.We all have observed certain events in life and if we ignore them we become slaves to others opinions.

... that's not what science does ... science produces inductive theories based upon reproducible intersubjective observations ... since an immaterial mind has never been reproducibly and intersubjectively observed, it is a scientific theory that minds are not immaterial ... since a mind has never been reproducibly and intersubjectively observed in rocks and streams, but only in humans and higher animals, it is a scientific theory that minds are biological.

Of course, scientific theories are only as good as your observations ... for a long time it was a scientific theory in the West that swans were white - until a black one turned up in Australia ... so scientific theories are always refutable in the face of new and improved reproducible and intersubjective observations.

Now, it used to be a scientific theory that intelligence was biological ... humans display intelligence, ant colonies display intelligence, etc. ... but then someone reproduced ant colony intelligence on a computer ... so out the window went that scientific theory ... but that does not imply that intelligence is immaterial - a computer is a material thing, too, and so the scientific theory that intelligence is not immaterial still holds ... and given that intelligence has fallen from the ranks of the biological, it is scientific speculation that mind may also turn out to transcend biology (but not materiality).

Does this mean that someone can't take a non-reproducible and subjective experience as evidence that mind is immaterial? ... nope - you're free to believe whatever you want ... just don't expect anyone to count your personal experiences and beliefs and any arguments based upon them as scientific ... and if you think science is a waste of time, what skin is that off of your back? :bigsmile:

When have i stated that science is not relevant or is not the great solver of mysteries? I am not abusing science, i am disputing certain individuals reasoning that consciousness is a proven effect of a material world.When science has conclusively proven that the "I" is not ethereal, i will lie down and beg your serene forgiveness.

... don't hold your breath ... as I said, science can't prove anything - it can only construct theories (which are always open to revision/refutation) ... it is scientific to theorize a dependence relationship between consciousness and biology, given that there has never been a reproducible and intersubjective observation of a consciousness that exists independent of a biological being - hundreds of years of observations, billions of biological beings, and not a one ... to dispute that is to abuse science; to expect conclusive proof is to misunderstand what science is ...

The reason its still a heated debate is because people cant handle the truth, as evident by your post on feelings. Just like evolution vs creationism is still a 'heated' debate even though the amount of evidence for evolution is massive compared to the nonexistent evidence of creationism.



No you just consider them as-is. Should a schizo or a delusional accept their distorted view on reality as 'valid'? No, they should just take it for what its worth and not hold any biases towards reality itself. That doesnt mean to discard it entirely but rather realize what your experiencing is just that: what you are experiencing. Dont let your emotions control you and dont accept vague experiences as truth without considering the possibilities. There are alot of illusions out there no?

The difference is sir, that creation has been proven and only blind faith opposes it.
Consciousness has nothing to do with my experience but your inability to prove it does not exists separately from the brain.
Don't confuse my reasoning with your inability.

lol wut?



Its not my position to prove it doesnt exist separately from the brain, its your position to prove it does!

Is it right for me to ask you to prove I am not a ghost? No, and the same applies to what you said. I feel like I have said this a million times but to no avail. Do you see?

Ahh now we have it the claims of the consciousness residing in the brain have been reduced to, I cant so you must.I have never claimed I could, its you that have tried to prove something.
Its like you acceptimg all creationist by admission reject evolution.

wtf. I dont even know what you are talking about anymore.

I think you do..

I cannot decipher your last reply.

But Im sorry I was under the impression that you held a view different than the op; that you think the mind and brain are not connected. To which I said (in one way or another) to present your evidence and start trying to prove your position and you replied by saying I should do it for you!? ummmmmmmm no. That's no how debates work. Dont be lazy, do it yourself.

I don't think anyone has argued that the mind and brain are not connected. The question is whether or not consciousness is a biological problem: i.e. whether or not scientific enquiry can discover the cause of consciousness: i.e. whether or not science can provide an explanation of how electro-chemical processess cause conscious experience. Again, how is the issue; we all assume that this happens. I hold that science cannot provide such an explanation because science doesn't deal in intangibles, such as experience. Intangibles (the feeling of joy e.g.) cannot be rendered quantitatively or put into a form such that they can be related to tangible things (plasma membranes e.g.) in an equation.

... you could be right ... but note that the same could have been said of intelligence 50 years ago, whereas today we understand that the intelligent things that ant colonies do emerge from the massively parallel interactions of relatively stupid agents (ants) interacting in simple ways with the world and each other ... on the consciousness front, the philosophy of phenomenology is working to understand and describe what experience is - this will aid in the definition of scientific theories and experiments; the medical community is working to understand brain pathologies and injuries - this helps to home in on how different areas of the brain participate in and contribute to experience; and cognitive science is taking note of the advances in the understanding of intelligence to see what else can emerge from the massively parallel interactions of relatively stupid agents (neurons) interacting in simple ways with the world, the body, and each other ... so yeah, you could be right - but don't count science out just yet

I understand your points and largely agree. However, I am not contesting that science can explain how 'dumb' agents interact in such a way that highly 'intelligent' systems emerge. The fundemental problem remains. How can a set of phenomena in the objective world be shown to cause phenomena in the subjective world? In other words, I have no doubt that science will make stupendous gains in the understanding of consciousness and its relation to the physical brain, but it simply is not capable of answering the fundemental question of how exactly activities in the latter become subjectively experienced consciousness. The equation would something like 1 + red = good, if you get my meaning. The various phenomena involved are not of the same kind, and cannot be equated or linked causally as are, e.g., rising heat and evaporation of water.

Well we don't know that yet

Years ago life was thought to work under some vague vitalist principle but that turned out not to be the case

... and I think that is as much a consequence of our lack of understanding of what experience is, as anything else ... if experience can be demystified (as life and intelligence have been before it), I don't expect that the issue of relating it back to the physical world will look nearly so unachievable ...