Progress in consciousness?

Why would derivation from mindless processes make intelligence an illusion?

The buck stops at core consciousness.

Hi Terry, your question implies that consciousness requires 'physicality'.
If that were true, then would'nt one or more of the five senses be able to detect it?

I suppose if it were that simple, we would have ending this thread in agreement a while back

Since when have people agreed just because one of them is right?

Gelisgesti wrote:

So let me explain the objection more precisely. Let's take as our example my decision to walk across the room. We say: my decision, a mental event, immediately causes a group of neurons in my brain to fire, a physical event, which ultimately results in my walking across the room. The problem is that if we have something totally nonphysical causing a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no physical event which causes the firing. That means that some physical energy seems to have appeared out of thin air. Do you see? Even if we say that my decision has some sort of mental energy, and that the decision causes the firing, we still haven't explained where the physical energy, for the firing, came from. It just seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

As our reading says, there is a physical principle, called the "Principle of the Conservation of Energy." According to this principle, "In all physical processes, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant." Or in a form you may have heard before: in any change anything undergoes, energy is neither created nor destroyed. This is a basic principle you probably learned about in high school physics. So the point is that nerve firings, which are allegedly caused by a totally nonphysical decision, would appear to violate the Principle of the Conservation of Energy.

Nerves and neurons use chemical energy (obtained from the food we eat) to generate electrical impulses. There is no violation of any physical law here.

My take on this is that the mind is a patterned energy field produced and sustained by the firings of millions of neurons in an intricate network. A neuron is stimulated to fire when impulses from other neurons exceed its threshold. Each neuron may be connected to thousands of other neurons. The network "reaches a decision" by adding and subtracting neurons to and from the network as their input reaches or fails to reach the threshold (in other words, it accesses memories, logical processes, and emotions) until a condition is achieved where the network is providing sufficient stimulation to the nerves that tell the body to do something. No mysterious mental forces are required.

Gelisgesti wrote:

Hi Terry, your question implies that consciousness requires 'physicality'.
If that were true, then would'nt one or more of the five senses be able to detect it?

We use a sixth sense to detect our own consciousness, and our other senses (vision, primarily) to observe the output of machines that detect the workings of the brain that are correlated with conscious processes.

BoGoWo wrote:

and why must 'consciousness' receive such 'adoration'; surely any living creature has a degree of consciousness which integrates its systems into a functioning unit. As the complexity grows so grows the degree, or perhaps 'complexity' of the more 'capable' entity.

Probably because consciousness is the closest thing we have to a soul, a mysterious entity that can survive the death of the brain. If consciousness is explainable by physical processes, there is no hope for eternal life or the belief that we are the pinnacle of creation.

jnhofzinser wrote:

I suppose if it were that simple, we would have ending this thread in agreement a while back

Since when have people agreed just because one of them is right?

................A computer program has several types (of) - if condition is met then perform function - or 'if then' statements. The statement 'if then'alone, will do nothing except maybe hang tthe program. The program needs to know 'what if' and 'what then'.
[such 'helpful' information, to the 'unclean']
In the brain the program of life,so to speak, is written as you live, line by line The random synaptic events that eventually lead to speach are not the same events that lead to the distinction of 'bear' vs 'bare'.

Google 'Action Potential' for the skinny on neuron firing.

Gelisgesti wrote:

................A computer program has several types (of) - if condition is met then perform function - or 'if then' statements. The statement 'if then'alone, will do nothing except maybe hang tthe program. The program needs to know 'what if' and 'what then'.
[such 'helpful' information, to the 'unclean']
In the brain the program of life,so to speak, is written as you live, line by line The random synaptic events that eventually lead to speach are not the same events that lead to the distinction of 'bear' vs 'bare'.

Google 'Action Potential' for the skinny on neuron firing.

My vote rates Terry's 'meaty' grasp of brain function well above anything "Googley".

...........I'll bet you did not know that your continual contentiousness does little to promote the discussion or to elevate your personal feelings of inadequacy.

Gelisgesti wrote:

...........I'll bet you did not know that your continual contentiousness does little to promote the discussion or to elevate your personal feelings of inadequacy.

And fortunately i can count on your assistance in bolstering my personal feelings of inadequacy, which need all the help they can get; thanks.

otherwise i would remain an arrogant prick!

...........If I were you I would'nt worry about beinrng an 'arrogant prick..... you have nothing to be arrogant about. :wink:

Each neuron may be connected to thousands of other neurons. The network "reaches a decision" by adding and subtracting neurons to and from the network as their input reaches or fails to reach the threshold (in other words, it accesses memories, logical processes, and emotions) until a condition is achieved where the network is providing sufficient stimulation to the nerves that tell the body to do something. No mysterious mental forces are required.

1 - if one considers every possibility worthwhile of discussing, no discussion will ever get finished. do you not think there are LIMITS to how ridiculous a comment be for it to be taken seriously? I think I have a very open mind...there is nothing that I enjoy more in an argument than having someone point out logical flaws I have made...but I will not waste my time discussing things which are self contradictory or not based on logic.

Conscious:
1. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.

Progress:
1.Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization:

stuh505 wrote:

1 - if one considers every possibility worthwhile of discussing, no discussion will ever get finished. do you not think there are LIMITS to how ridiculous a comment be for it to be taken seriously? I think I have a very open mind...there is nothing that I enjoy more in an argument than having someone point out logical flaws I have made...but I will not waste my time discussing things which are self contradictory or not based on logic.


Too bad, I personally have enjoyed reading things like: http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm

If it cannot be seen, smelled, tasted, heard, or touched, .... it does not exist.