What is consciousness?

[Plu]

Plu wrote:

I think it's pretty much proven and known that (electrical) energy in the brain is what generates our consciousness. So in that regard, you're not really suggesting any new approach I think, just the currently understood one.

Yes, but there are different types of electrical energy and there are also chemical energies influencing our brain's functions.  I am also suggesting other forms of energy may affect our brains in yet not understood ways.

For instance, currently there are scientists studying how magnetic fields effect the brain.  There are others who have for years studied the effects different chemicals and molecules have on our brain.  Maybe, if a scientist considered how the magnetic fields influence the chemicals and molecules in our brains, we would end up with a better understanding of what is going on.   Or maybe looking at a different type of energy not usually considered as having an effect on us.  For instance, how does higher or lower blood pressure effect our consciousness?  How are the chemicals and molecules effected by higher or lower body temperatures?  Can radio waves effect us in yet not understood ways?

There may very well be scientists exploring these different aspects, but I don't think we should rule anything out as far as the functioning of the brain.  Except God.  Yes, I agree God should be ruled out.  God should not be in any of the equations when exploring the brain.  There is no God, so God cannot cause anything to happen in our brains.  But, maybe by thinking of God, we cause chemical and electrical changes in our brains.  That sounds like an interesting study, which I think arguably has been done.

Now you've moved from using meaningless words like "soul" to extremely specific and testable hypothesises. That is how science runs. All of these are good examples.
But if someone goes to a scientist and says "maybe the brain works because of the soul", the only reasonable scientific answer to that is "piss off until you convert your nonsense into something we can actually test".

[mediumaevum]

If we had to find scientific evidence for everything, reporting a random failure of a laptop would not lead anyone to investigate the failure, let alone give you money back.
I am not saying this applies for "ghosts" or "souls" etc. I am just pointing out the possibility that IF in case they exist, they are so random that they cannot be testet, the same way you cannot reproduce a random error in machines.

Yet they do happen.

The only reason we can test machines and actually say they have a randomly occuring error, is because we investigate them throughly.
I doubt people with/without supposedly "psychic" abilities would like to stay for a year or more with electrodes placed on their heads or whatever is required of them to prove them right.

[Plu]

If we had to find scientific evidence for everything, reporting a random failure of a laptop would not lead anyone to investigate the failure, let alone give you money back.

If you did not have to give scientific evidence for random laptop failures, you could walk into a store, say "my laptop is broken" and receive a new one without even having to prove you even own a laptop.

Of course you have to give scientific evidence that your laptop is broken. Something like actually bringing in the laptop, showing what's damaged, and proving that you've bought it from those people.

[mediumaevum]

If we had to find scientific evidence for everything, reporting a random failure of a laptop would not lead anyone to investigate the failure, let alone give you money back.

If you did not have to give scientific evidence for random laptop failures, you could walk into a store, say "my laptop is broken" and receive a new one without even having to prove you even own a laptop.

Of course you have to give scientific evidence that your laptop is broken. Something like actually bringing in the laptop, showing what's damaged, and proving that you've bought it from those people.

You tell them the specific error of the laptop, but unlike atheists, the laptop sellers are at least offering the buyer to investigate the issue for a couple of weeks/months.

If I say I have encountered a ghost, you would not consider what I say at all. At least the seller in the store would listen to me what I have to say about the error in my laptop.

That's the big difference.

Millions of people around the globe report sightings of supposedly paranormal phenomena. While it certainly does not tell us that there is indeed something spooky happening, it does tell us that there is something that needs to be investigated.

The millions or billions of cool cash that some people offer to individuals for proving something paranormal, with scientific experiments, help little to nothing, not because the paranormal doesn't exist, but because the paranormal is like a random failure in a laptop: It can't be reproduced by command.

[Plu]

If you tell the seller in the store that your pc once randomly came alive and went all Skynet on you, they'd tell you to go away.

There's a major difference between a plausible problem (a machine crashing) and a completely implausible figment of someone's imagination (a machine suddenly becoming self aware)

Ghosts are entirely in the second category unless you bring in really good evidence of something real happening.

[Plu]

Millions of people around the globe report sightings of supposedly paranormal phenomena. While it certainly does not tell us that there is indeed something spooky happening, it does tell us that there is something that needs to be investigated.

Yeah, mental disorders. We do investigate those, actually.

[LikelyToBreak]

Plu wrote in part:

But if someone goes to a scientist and says "maybe the brain works because of the soul", the only reasonable scientific answer to that is "piss off until you convert your nonsense into something we can actually test".

Or they could ask, "What do you mean when you say the word soul?"  Then try to figure out if what the "soul" is, is testable or not.  True, it may just be nonsense.  But, on the chance that the energies for which a person may describe a "soul" could lead to something, it would be good to hear the person out.  

When Luigi Aloisio Galvani touched a dead frog's leg with an electrical lead and it twitched, consider how it was thought of back when he first did it.  It was no doubt considered nonsense because everyone knew muscles were controlled hydraulically.

mediumaevum wrote in part:

The millions or billions of cool cash that some people offer to individuals for proving something paranormal, with scientific experiments, help little to nothing, not because the paranormal doesn't exist, but because the paranormal is like a random failure in a laptop: It can't be reproduced by command.

The trouble with that analogy is, we couldn't even come up with a test for the paranormal, even if it was a regularly occurring phenomenon.  That being said, we could come up with psychological tests of for the people saying they have witnessed paranormal events.  Might yield some interesting results.

[Plu]

Plu wrote in part:

But if someone goes to a scientist and says "maybe the brain works because of the soul", the only reasonable scientific answer to that is "piss off until you convert your nonsense into something we can actually test".

Or they could ask, "What do you mean when you say the word soul?"  Then try to figure out if what the "soul" is, is testable or not.  True, it may just be nonsense.  But, on the chance that the energies for which a person may describe a "soul" could lead to something, it would be good to hear the person out.  

When Luigi Aloisio Galvani touched a dead frog's leg and it twitched, consider how it was thought of back when he first did it.  It was no doubt considered nonsense because everyone knew muscles were controlled hydraulically.

They are effectively the same thing except for the attitude, but I personally think that scientists are way too patient with fucking idiots as it is. Basically if you compare amount of time needed to hear out all the idiots vs number of things that the scientists eventually pried out of them, it'd probably be faster to just lock the door and focus on the actual research; you'd discover the same things in the end with less time wasted.

[LikelyToBreak]

Plu wrote:

They are effectively the same thing except for the attitude, but I personally think that scientists are way too patient with fucking idiots as it is. Basically if you compare amount of time needed to hear out all the idiots vs number of things that the scientists eventually pried out of them, it'd probably be faster to just lock the door and focus on the actual research; you'd discover the same things in the end with less time wasted.

I was thinking more along the lines of when the scientists get stuck on a problem.  Like my trigonometry instructor told me, "When you get stuck on a problem, just start solving any part of the problem you can.  Then the part you are stuck on may become clear to you."  

Which gave me an idea.  Since investigating why people believe in God, some have suggested there maybe evolutionary reasons for it.  As far as the paranormal phenomenon is concerned, I came up with an evolutionary answer.  Ghosts and such are scary.  When people get scared they get horny.  Which is why dates to amusement parks with roller coasters are so popular.  Maybe paranormal phenomenon caused those "witnessing" them, to mate more than those who didn't witness them.  A little off topic, but it does kind of explain something about our consciousness.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Excuse me, Mr. Mediumaevum:

I personally define conscious awareness as being aware of your own existence, not necessarily by senses like touch, hear, taste, smell, see etc. but more like if I close my eyes and lie in a totally quite room where there are nobody else and I am not disturbed, I often see, hear and touch a totally different world. I have no control of my own thoughts, and I even doubt whether they are thoughts at all, as they seem so real.

If you are any type of creature with a nerve center advanced enough to form memories and experience from processed information, then you are going to be aware of your own existence. By the time you get to our level, you have a nerve center advanced enough to self-reflect and use idle processing power to plan, conceptualize, and fit information into a larger picture to make more sense of the world. A by-product of this is that we are capable of asking the question, "Why am I here?"

None of this requires an external structure beyond the brain. So whence cometh the soul?

You forgot to respond to this.

[Atheon]

Note, that towards the end where the scientist casually mentions that his colleagues didn't think his experiment would work.  There are a bunch of naysayers out there which will not consider anything other than the physical brain as being able to influence us.  Then some guy, like the guy in the video, comes along and shows us something amazing about the brain.

But he didn't say anything about non-physical stuff happening to the brain. He showed us something amazing, but it's still 100% physical.

Sure, we're only just beginning to understand the very basics of that extraordinarily complex piece of physical tissue called the brain. There's a hell of a lot we don't know. Hence science. Research.

[mediumaevum]

Excuse me, Mr. Mediumaevum:

I personally define conscious awareness as being aware of your own existence, not necessarily by senses like touch, hear, taste, smell, see etc. but more like if I close my eyes and lie in a totally quite room where there are nobody else and I am not disturbed, I often see, hear and touch a totally different world. I have no control of my own thoughts, and I even doubt whether they are thoughts at all, as they seem so real.

If you are any type of creature with a nerve center advanced enough to form memories and experience from processed information, then you are going to be aware of your own existence. By the time you get to our level, you have a nerve center advanced enough to self-reflect and use idle processing power to plan, conceptualize, and fit information into a larger picture to make more sense of the world. A by-product of this is that we are capable of asking the question, "Why am I here?"

None of this requires an external structure beyond the brain. So whence cometh the soul?

You forgot to respond to this.

I can't/won't.

[Hydra009]

Note, that towards the end where the scientist casually mentions that his colleagues didn't think his experiment would work.  There are a bunch of naysayers out there which will not consider anything other than the physical brain as being able to influence us.  Then some guy, like the guy in the video, comes along and shows us something amazing about the brain.

But he didn't say anything about non-physical stuff happening to the brain. He showed us something amazing, but it's still 100% physical.

I made the exact same point earlier.  Didn't stick.

[LikelyToBreak]

Atheon wrote in part:

But he didn't say anything about non-physical stuff happening to the brain. He showed us something amazing, but it's still 100% physical.

Hydra009 wrote:

I made the exact same point earlier. Didn't stick.

Seems I have to address you guys specifically for you to pay attention.

I wrote on page 4.

I think we may be having trouble with the fact that words have different meanings. Here is a list which may help.

Quote:
soul (noun)
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5. a human being; person.

physical (adjective)
1. of or pertaining to the body: physical exercise.
2. of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3. noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter.
4. pertaining to the physical sciences, especially physics.
5. carnal; sexual: a physical attraction.

energy (noun)
1. the capacity for vigorous activity; available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy.
2. an adequate or abundant amount of such power: I seem to have no energy these days.
3. Often, energies. a feeling of tension caused or seeming to be caused by an excess of such power: to work off one's energies at tennis.
4. an exertion of such power: She plays tennis with great energy.
5. the habit of vigorous activity; vigor as a characteristic: Foreigners both admire and laugh at American energy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

When I am referring to "soul" I am talking about the fourth definition of soul. I am, maybe incorrectly referring to "physical" as being solid matter and thinking of "energy" as being different. Like how we have a radio (matter or physical) and radio waves (energy). Thus, when I am talking about the physical brain, I am talking about the solid physical components, and thinking of the energy elements as a different state. So, what I was thinking was the hard drive of a computer has the material hard drive and it has information maintained with different energy states. It is just an analogy.

I'm not a neuroscientist, nor a physicist. I use language imprecisely. And what I am trying to get across, is that if we look at things in different ways, we may end up with a new understanding of something. Think about brainstorming for a minute. Say you are in a brainstorming meeting for Company A tasked with coming up with ways to improve production, and to get things started someone says, "I'm thinking of pink elephants." The discussion starts and ends up deciding on revising the drug policies for the company to better improve production. Are there naturally occurring pink elephants. Not that I know of. The pink elephants didn't even matter. What mattered is that they got people thinking about things in a way they may not have before.

It seems many here are stuck on the "soul" as being the religious separable, intangible, part of our body. This is the religious prejudice I have been trying to point out. Granted, I have not been as clear as I would have liked, and didn't differentiate what I meant by physical and energy very well, but tried I to clear it up with an analogy. Which some seemingly took exception to. Yes, radio waves, magnetic fields, electromotive force, are all physical. But, they are not what we would normally think of as solid matter either. Because I may be referring to different states of energy, I am not saying that energy is God. I didn't think atheists would have a problem with not seeing God in different states of energy. It seems I was wrong.

frosty wrote in part:

Quote:
Obviously my post was ignored, but I wonder what proponents of the 'soul' have to say when confronted with the accusation that the 'soul' is simply a gap filler.

I thought your previous post was more directed toward mediumaevum so I didn't answer. I hope my explanation of "soul" explains why I don't see it as a gap filler. It is the consciousness we have as ourselves. Not the "soul" the angels take care of. That being said, yes it is a gap filler because we, I don't understand our consciousness as well as would be desired. I am not suggesting a God given spark of life.

Colanth wrote in part:

Quote:
Science doesn't know yet, we're still investigating. But "we don't know" doesn't mean God did it" any more than it means "we have souls".

Science isn't going to look for a soul any more than it's going to look for a god. It's going to look AT minds, and go wherever that takes it.

Where I have said "God did it?" And didn't I explain that when I refer to "soul" and I was talking about consciousness and memories. Maybe scientists are not going looking for God, but they very well may look for different types of energies effecting our consciousness and memories.

I'm not going to address each every person who took the time to post, but I have tried to clear up their concerns with this post. I am not trying to convert you to new-age God worship. I do think you should brainstorm different ideas and see where the ideas take you though. And I would suggest you get over being consumed with the idea of God being implied in everything. Things are the way they are, and that is what they are.

[FrankDK]

> why don't _I_ experience the world from the perspective of each and every living creature at the same time?

Light strikes the retina of your eyes and causes certain neurons to fire.  These conduct the electro-chemical impulses to the visual cortex of your brain, where they are interpreted as vision of external objects.  The only neurons connected to your brain are your own, so you don't see, hear, smell, etc., things from any one or any thing else's perspective, only your own.

Consciousness is an illusion provided by the brain that aids in causing survival-enhancing behaviors.

Frank