Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@Kielicious,

What the various parts of the brain and their various functions perform has no more relevance to a person's identity than their interdependence on other organs of the body.

To say that because the frontal cortex performs a specific function must therefore mean that there is no such thing as a mind, is also suggesting that because the lungs perform a specific function we can assume the same thing.

If you cut off the oxygen to the brain it will fail just as quickly as snipping any particular part of it. How is this a viable argument? Will you tell me now that the lungs have something to do with there being no such thing as a mind?

Your argument is just not feasible.

The fact that the brain can be torn asunder does not mean that there is no mind.

The fact that the brain is extremely complex does not mean that there is no mind.

the fact that one can act in total opposition to the brain does suggest that there certainly is a mind external to the complexity of the brain.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I didn't say there is no mind

There is just no free will

Any perception you get of acting "in opposition to the brain" is probably illusory because experimental evidence suggests that decisions are made before we are even consciously aware of them

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I'm sorry Oden but that just doesn't make sense.

Are you telling me that if I deliberately choose right now to go out and set myself on fire in the backyard, that this would have been an act of the brains control over me causing me to do it before I even decided to light the match?

I assure you that the charred ashes of my carcass would not be an illusion to the firefighters cleaning up the mess afterward.

And I am pretty sure that the insurance adjusters would not write it off as a case of 'the brain made him do it.'

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;83912 wrote:

I'm sorry Oden but that just doesn't make sense

I'm sorry Pathfinder but you're not keeping up with neuroscience

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html

[indent]In the 1970s, Benjamin Libet, a physiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wired up the brains of volunteers to an electroencephalogram and told the volunteers to make random motions, like pressing a button or flicking a finger, while he noted the time on a clock.

Dr. Libet found that brain signals associated with these actions occurred half a second before the subject was conscious of deciding to make them.
The order of brain activities seemed to be perception of motion, and then decision, rather than the other way around.

In short, the conscious brain was only playing catch-up to what the unconscious brain was already doing. The decision to act was an illusion, the monkey making up a story about what the tiger had already done.
Dr. Libet's results have been reproduced again and again over the years, along with other experiments that suggest that people can be easily fooled when it comes to assuming ownership of their actions. Patients with tics or certain diseases, like chorea, cannot say whether their movements are voluntary or involuntary, Dr. Hallett said[/indent]

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83917 wrote:

I'm sorry Pathfinder but you're not keeping up with neuroscience

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html[INDENT]In the 1970s, Benjamin Libet, a physiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wired up the brains of volunteers to an electroencephalogram and told the volunteers to make random motions, like pressing a button or flicking a finger, while he noted the time on a clock.

Dr. Libet found that brain signals associated with these actions occurred half a second before the subject was conscious of deciding to make them.
The order of brain activities seemed to be perception of motion, and then decision, rather than the other way around.

In short, the conscious brain was only playing catch-up to what the unconscious brain was already doing. The decision to act was an illusion, the monkey making up a story about what the tiger had already done.
Dr. Libet's results have been reproduced again and again over the years, along with other experiments that suggest that people can be easily fooled when it comes to assuming ownership of their actions. Patients with tics or certain diseases, like chorea, cannot say whether their movements are voluntary or involuntary, Dr. Hallett said[/INDENT]

... ah, but are Libet's interpretations of these results the only reasonable interpretation? ... or could they alternatively be interpreted as indicating that the conscious decision to perform an action was made in advance, resulting in the priming of a subconscious mechanism for deferred action? ... after all, if it weren't for the fact that the subjects consciously accepted the terms of the experiment and made the conscious decision to carry out those terms, would Libet have had any results to speak of?

As for more conclusive demonstrations of the illusion of conscious will, they need to be taken simply for what they are and no more ... it cannot be inferred from these demonstrations that free will does not exist - merely that our conscious experience of will can sometimes be in error (which is to be expected if we allow that not all expressions of free choice are conscious).

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;83925 wrote:

... ah, but are Libet's interpretations of these results the only reasonable interpretation? ... or could they alternatively be interpreted as indicating that the conscious decision to perform an action was made in advance, resulting in the priming of a subconscious mechanism for deferred action?

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83927 wrote:

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean

... Libet's experimental results are unquestionable ... on the other hand, his interpretation of those results is open to question ...

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I don't see how they are open to interpretation

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83932 wrote:

I don't see how they are open to interpretation

... experimental results are always open to interpretation ... in fact, scientific advances are often simply a case of reinterpreting old experimental results ... and the fact that conscious decisions can set up deferred subconscious actions should be unremarkable ... consider what happens when the doorbell rings and you consciously decide to get up and answer the door - is the deferred act of wrapping your hand around the doorknob conscious or automatic? ...

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I'd say it's all automatic

since brain processes are all either deterministic or random

you wouldn't claim any other machine has free will huh?

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83936 wrote:

you wouldn't claim any other machine has free will huh?

... none built by humans so far, that's for sure! Smile

... it's too bad AI got stuck in a symbol processing rut 50 years ago (definitely as dead and predictable as a doornail) - massively parallel cybernetic systems appear to be so much more promising! (one surprise after another!) ...

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Yeah but I don't see where there's free agency in the brain either

This seems like a silly Aristotelian distinction

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83942 wrote:

Yeah but I don't see where there's free agency in the brain either

This seems like a silly Aristotelian distinction

If there is no free agency then what the heck are you doing conversing on the forum? Why don't you just talk to your computer and maybe you will notice a difference. And, then again, maybe not.

In any case, quantum mechanics put an end to determinism 80 years ago.

Rich

1 Reply

@salima,

I'll admit, I had to kind of give up reading that sprawl of growth there from what had been page 21 due to its 'scatteredness' and lack in efficacy.' Of the more substantial of matters put out well, on the table, I'd like to touch on this one just below:

salima;83764 wrote:

from the above results, i would suggest that we might have free will but it is on a subconscious level-in other words, we are not aware of what our true choices are, but we do indeed choose them.

This well fits into the 'big-picture,' which is why (over the past several years) I have been, as I hope you are little by little beginning to 'visualize,' salima chan, presenting the case for a second sense of the noun conscious. Rather than being seen as something below what is (subconsciousness), something that is not what is (unconsciousness, non- consciousness), it is best seen as simply a part of what is (active ganglionic structure; brain) although within a continuum of which consciousness in the H. sapien is the apex.

Some other matters which came up in an almost 'in passing' mode, I'll eventually touch on later, in more detail; yet will continue with my drive here.

It might be good to go back ① and check out the basics of the anatomy described in post number 58 before reading on in this one.

Here we'll be looking at primarily the basic CNS (considering elements of PNS at points along the way later on). 'On top' ( so to speak, though quite literally so) we have the neocortex. The primary, secondary, and supplimentary (or supplimental) cortical motor areas lie just anterior to the central sulcus, and along with the primary, secondary, and posterial parietal (BA 5 & 7) cortical areas that lie posterior the central sulcus, can be called the sensorimotor system. (and this can be seen to include the parietal-lobe association cortex)

The basal ganglia are a collective group of sub-cortical structures which act on descending pathways much more so than (if at all) by direct connection to motor neurons. This consists of the

[indent]striatum (or neostriatum) which is the input area, recieving efferent projections from the cerebral cortex and is made up of the caudate nucleus, putamen, and nucleus accumbens;

the globus pallidus--internal segment, ventral pallidum, and substantia nigra pars reticulata which deal with output;

and the globus pallidus--external segment, subthalamic nucleus, substantia nigra pars compacta, and ventral tegmental area which work in a kind of intrinsic mode. [/indent]

The cerebellum (or 'little brain') rests just posterior (dorsal) to the pons & medulla, and caudal to the occipital lobe. It works largely, though not only, it appears, towards regulating of motor pathway functioning. While being highly complicated, it is generally organized into three somewhat broad functional zones

[indent]One area, the spinocerebellum recieves (among a few other things) highly organized somatic sensory inputs from the spinal chord, and projects to the lateral and medial motor systems (lower brain stem and thalamic area) and also deals with movement correction.

Another, the cerebrocerebellum, recieves input indirectly from the cerebral cortex, and is interconnected with diverse cortical regions--as it is primarily involved in planning of movement.

The vestibulocerebellum recieves input from the vestibular labyrinth, and projects back via the inferior cerebellar peduncle. It is important in eye and head movement control. [/indent]

While the pons plays a type of behind-the-scenes role, to some degree, it is primarily these three players mentioned above that are worthy of attention.

The heirarchy of control levels is broken down into three general catagories, viz., high (strategy) [association areas of cortex & basal ganglia], middle (tactics) [motor cortex & cerebellum], and low (execution) [brain stem, spinal chord]. A general outlay of the activity flow is as follows:

[indent]prefrontal through to sensorimotor cortex with prefrontal to BA 6 exchanges, BA 6 to BA 4 exchanges, and BA 4 with sensory cortex exchanges.

One descending from the above block to basal ganglia, is present. Among other things the basal ganglia project to the ventral lateral (VLo thalamic input related) which feeds back into BA 4. The other descending from the above block to the pons/cerebellum is present. These areas project to VLc (thalamic) which, among other things, feeds back to the above block.

The motor cortical area of the top block project descending pathways via the red nucleus to the lateral pathways, of the spinal chord, directly to the spinal chord, and via the reticular nuclei and superior colliculus and vestibular nuclei to the ventromedial pathways of the spinal chord.[/indent]

This is the general motor/cerebellum loop, but with the basal ganglia we have the skeletomotor loop, oculomotor loop, prefrontal cortex loop, and the limbic loop. The skeletal motor loop can be seen in terms of a direct path and an indirect path.

With this much then, for laying a foundation for making the point being worked on regarding motor function (as mentioned at the beginning of my #180) I will explain just a little more, then make argument from it, in at least one more post.

① It might be of benefit for some new comers to the thread to go back and check out a number of posts related to some concerns which have been raised again (or in repetition).

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83942 wrote:

Yeah but I don't see where there's free agency in the brain either

... emergence is an interesting concept ... if you study the piss out of oxygen and hydrogen, would you see that a large collection of molecules made from two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen bonded together in a certain way would result in water? ... the philosophical debate whether emergence is "real" or not rambles on ... meanwhile, Robert Laughlin writes a book called "A Different Universe" where he talks about the philosophical implications of some work he won the Nobel Prize in physics for ... the work demonstrates that a certain physical process he and his colleagues were studying under supercooled conditions becomes completely independent of its quantum substrate - that is, the process in the supercooled state can be completely described without reference to fundamental physics ... it is a thing of the physical world, yet at the same time it is absolutely not epiphenomenon - it is novel ... what other novel things might emerge that we currently cannot "see" because we're stuck in a rut of linear mechanism? - because we can't "see" that when lots of things dynamically interact nonlinearly, novel things might appear?

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;83945 wrote:

If there is no free agency then what the heck are you doing conversing on the forum? Why don't you just talk to your computer and maybe you will notice a difference. And, then again, maybe not.

I'm not sure whether to categorize this as appeal to absurdity or non sequitur

It's like the logical equivalent of an invertible figure

richrf;83945 wrote:

In any case, quantum mechanics put an end to determinism 80 years ago.

ok nice but see the brain is too large for quantum effects to matter (ref. Tegmark)

rich I generally don't go out of my way to be blunt but you really do not know what you are talking about

---------- Post added 08-18-2009 at 01:54 AM ----------

paulhanke;83948 wrote:

... emergence is an interesting concept

I was thinking of emergent phenomena too but I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of free will without invoking some kind of homunculus

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83949 wrote:

I'm not sure whether to categorize this as appeal to absurdity or non sequitur

Just pointing out the absurdity of your position. That one would occupy their time talking to someone with no free will, and therefore with no purpose, is rather absurd. But, I don't think anyone really takes seriously the position that talking to a human is equivalent to talking to a computer. But if you think the two are equivalent, I invite you to spend a year talking to a computer and report back the results. BTW, if you believe your absurd position, then why even bother talking to me. Everything I am doing has already been programmed in. You might as well talk to yourself.

Quote:

ok nice but see the brain is too large for quantum effects to matter (ref. Tegmark)

Quantum effects have been detected in molecules and according to Anton Zeilinger, of the University of Vienna "The boundary between quantum and classical is just a question of money."

Anton Zeilinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;83956 wrote:

Just pointing out the absurdity of your position. That one would occupy their time talking to someone with no free will, and therefore with no purpose, is rather absurd.

of course it's not

if I don't have free will, I'll do something regardless

ascription of "purpose" is essentially meaningless btw

richrf;83956 wrote:

But, I don't think anyone really takes seriously the position that talking to a human is equivalent to talking to a computer

The computational brain - Google Books

hurr durr

richrf;83956 wrote:

But if you think the two are equivalent, I invite you to spend a year talking to a computer and report back the results

I'm talking to one now, on MSN

she's in Beihai

I was talking to one I went to high school with just earlier today too

richrf;83956 wrote:

BTW, if you believe your absurd position, then why even bother talking to me. Everything I am doing has already been programmed in.

the brain isn't 100% hard-wired

richrf;83956 wrote:

Quantum effects have been detected in molecules and according to Anton Zeilinger, of the University of Vienna "The boundary between quantum and classical is just a question of money."

Anton Zeilinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rich

ok but any quantum effects that may exist in the brain are insignificant compared to relatively titanic neurotransmitters

2 Replies

@Kielicious,

I often observe people following science as though its a religion, believing everything they read as long as it was authored by someone with a dr. in front of their signature.

Many years ago young women around the world were all excited over the newest scientific advancement in fertility. Scientists had developed it and experimented and declare it a successful fact. Trusting what the scientific community had approved as scientific fact thousands of young women took the drug without concern.

I could cut and paste a scientific research article for every one you paste in here that will debate abnd scientifically argue the opposing research. In many many cases scientists are often being disputed by other scientists. Its all very catholic versus protestant, isn't it?

Where will all of your scientific research be on the day that a scientists discovers how to reactivate and instantly upgrade the 'third eye'? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that science is a constant experiment, which continuously seeks that one experiment where the results reveal a different outcome and disprove what they were almost ready to declare a fact. One experiment that disproves the thousand before it is all it takes to kill a fact.

You can believe evertyhing you read just like those thalydimide babies' parents did. I choose to understand the real dynamics behind science and its theories and apply a little more wisdom and oversight.

hey, wait a minute, did I say CHOOSE? Oops, that can't be right. What I meant to say is,,,no thats not right either, ummmm, what my brain is making me say,,, nooo, its definitelyu me wanting to say this,, but how do I know my brain didnt want me to say this before I am even thinking about it? Okay well now youve done, it, I cant even say what the hell I want to say because I dont know if its me saying it or my brain having already decided to say it. Waiiit , did my brain choose to do this or did I choose to get my brain to do it,,,,

Damned Science!

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83965 wrote:

of course it's not

if I don't have free will, I'll do something regardless

ascription of "purpose" is essentially meaningless btw

Not for me. For you. You have painted yourself into an absurd corner where talking to a computer is as meaningful as talking to a person, and whatever you say is perfectly meaningless because everything is determined. An absolutely banal existence that for some reason you and your colleagues wish to foist on other human beings, absurdity and all.

I hope you enjoy your corner. I like it where I am with Free Will, a conscious, thinking, creative, learning mind that I can share with other conscious beings. You see, I don't need any studies or proof that a human being is far more interesting than a computer and has the ability to change its mind. Apparently this obvious difference, the raison d'etre for having discussions on a forum such as this, cannot be acknowledged by your own mind. For what reason? Who knows. Minds choose funny games to play sometimes.

As far as the quantum issue is concerned, every thing can be described by a wave, albeit a very, very complicated one. We are what we are composed of. Quantum physics has long ago decided that this world is a probabilistic one with no room for determinism. The collapse of the wave functions could very well indeed be the result of consciousness, which means consciousness is creating all biological forms, not the other way around.

It remains a logical possibility that it is the act of consciousness which is ultimately responsible for the reduction of the wave packet
[in other words, "the collapse of the wave function] ... [John Stewart Bell]

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/metaphysics/5521-consiousness-free-will-quantum-physics.html

3 Replies

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know