Consciousness

KP_PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Nov 13 13:10:23 EST 2003


"pavan03" <Monsieur_Lynx at brown.edu> wrote in message
news:68f44414.0311122058.5ab06b5d at posting.google.com...
| "Dio" <dadaismo at tin.it> wrote in message
news:<9yasb.6880$9_.283969 at news1.tin.it>...
| > Is consciousness produced only by brain or it could be produced
by a machine
| > too?
|
| Ah, there are 2 different views here.
| One is called physicalism, the
| other's called dualism.
| 1)Physicalism would hold that all
| that exists in the universe is matter.

Not True.

All that Exists within physical reality is
energy.

"Matter" is comprised of 'condensed'
[relatively-concentrated] energy.

| There's no such thing as a non-physical soul.

This's an assumption that derives in absence-
of-understanding with respect to the full spec-
trum of energydynamics that are possible with-
in physical reality.

That is "soul" is just a verbal symbol that's used
during discourse, but whose refferants [instance-
of-use connotations] vary in accord with individ-
ually-unique experience.

That is, invoking the verbal-symbol, "soul"
does not 'instantiate' the Existence of
an entity that's specifically-correlated to the
individually-unique connotation[s] that the one
who invokes the verbal-symbol 'addresses'.
[The 'same' is True with respect to =all=
'language' usage, and it's good to keep-
such-straight.]

| We don't perceive anything like a mind, or a
| soul, so how do we know such things exist?

"Mind" is easy to perceive, sometimes, so
easy, as in Norman and Kirkcaldie's disc-
cussion, that the Existence of "mind" fairly
'grasps' one's own "mind", leaving it lifted-
up - thereby leaving one's own "mind", right-
there, flat-out Visible to one's self.

That which is only incompletely connoted by
"soul" is more 'difficult' to perceive, but most of
the 'difficulty' inherent derives in the fact that,
as above, the verbal-symbol, "soul", is routinely
invoked in individually-unique ways.

| What we call consciousness is produced by
| the brain.

It is, Verifiably, but only in a way that is rigorously-
coupled to external experiential energydynamics.

What breaks-down at death is this rigorous-
coupling between biological energydynamics
and universal energydynamics, which persist
even though the particular biological-eneregy-
dynamics' rigorous-coupling to them has brok-
en-down.

Big-Difference.

| 2)Dualism holds that 2 distinct types of things
| that exist.

That's ancient Dualism, that's typically attributed
to Rene Descarts [even though such attribution
does not, routinely, address what Descartes
addressed, which is another instance of individu-
ally-unique connotation presuming to 'be the
whole thing', when it is, in fact, just an individually-
unique 'view'.]

The actual Problem that's been inherent has been
the fact that individuals have presumed that their
individually-unique "mind"-sets, out of which arise
their individually-unique verbal-symbolic usage,
are, somehow, 'priviledged', in that they are pre-
sumed to instantiate energydynamics within the
nervous systems of other individuals that are 'ex-
actly-similar' to the energydynamics that under-
pinned the manifestation of the verbal-symbol
by the first individual.

Although this is approached in Maths, it just
doesn't happen within Human experience. [It
routinely doesn't happen in Maths be-cause
Maths has never [yet] encompassed all of
physical reality, which is why theoretical efforts
invoking Maths have always been 'replaced'
by subsequent theoretical efforts invoking
refined Maths.]

Anyway, there is a "duality" that exists at the
heart of the stuff that you are discussing. It is
that biological information-processing
["nervous"] systems function to 'seek' optimiz-
ation of an energydynamics 'goal', and Cogni-
tion, Affect, Volition and Behavior are produced
as by-products of the degree to which the
underpinning biological energydynamics are,
in fact, optimized.

[For those who have it, this is the "duality" that
is what's discussed in the "Automation of Know-
ing ms. [AoK].]

| One is matter, the other is consciousness.

=Both= are energydynamics.

| What I am (or you are) is consciousness.

What I am (or you are) is 100% energydynamics.

| The body that I'm *in* (note the very careful
| use of terminology here--people often ask
| questions like whether or not I *have* a soul.
| That is, they identify themselves with the
| body and wonder whether or not there's a
| soul *in* them, which leads to puzzlement
| over what death is, problems of personal
| identity, etc. etc.)

The body I'm in is 100% energydynamics.

| So you see, people who believe in
| physicalism would think of the brain
| as somehow producing consciousness.

It is the =interaction= of Universal energy-
dynamics and an individual subset of the
Universal energydynamics that is referred
to as constituting a nervous system
Verifiably 'produces' Consciousness.

| Then, when the brain stops functioning,
| there is no more consciousness
| "produced" by it.

The rigorous-coupling between the Univers-
al energydynamics and an individual in-
stance of biological energydynamics has
broken-down. The Universal energydynamics
continue, sans the individual instance of
biological energydynamics.

| People who divide up existence into physical
| substances (that is, something made of matter),
| and non-physical substances (soul, that is,
| I, the thing that persists though the body I'm in
| continuously changes),

What "persists" is 100% energy =dynamics=.

Within the energydynamics there is nothing
that 'persists' in a 'static' way.

| would say the *presence* of consciousness,
| that is, my existence, makes this brain function.

What makes nervous systems able to function
is the degree to which they are coupled to
the Universal energydynamics.

As this breaks-down, the ability of a nervous
system to 'function' breaks-down, in a rigor-
ously-coupled way.

| When I'm no longer there, there's no point
| in my brain continuing to function.

When the individual instance of the Universal
energydynamics that is a nervous system
breaks-down, the biological energydynamics
are 'no longer there'.


| In this view, the brain is reduced to a purely
| mechanical device, just sending signals to
| the right parts of the body, knowing about
| as much as any other machine does, and
| "producing" consciousness the way my
| computer produces consciousness (that is,
| not at all).

'Knowledge' of the Universal energydynamics
is literally embodied in the biological energy-
dynamics that constitute what is referred to as
"a nervous system".

The 'difference' that you address with respect
to "knowing" derives in the fact that the problems
that confront a biological system with respect
to its on-going functionality [with respect to its
Survival] are 'defined' experientially, and such
experiential 'definitions' are, 'typically', extremely-
very-much-more-delimited than are the Universal
energydynamics with respect to which robust
'Knowledge' is, in fact, embodied within nervous
systems.

That is, within commonplace experience,
'knowledge' with respect to how to acquire
'food' and 'shelter' has been deemed to 'be
relatively-practical, while all of the 'Knowledge'
of the Universal energydynamics that's right-there
Verifiably extant within nervous systems' biological
energydynamics has been deemed to 'be incon-
sequential'.

A closer look reveals that the 'deeming' inherent
has been Erroneous.

That is, it turned-out that the only way to Assure
acquiring 'food' and 'shelter' runs right-through
the middle of 'Knowing' the Universal energy-
dynamics.

[For those who've been following the discussion
of NDT's stuff in bionet.neuroscience over the
course of the last decade+, this "only-way"-ness
is what I've actually been discussing. This's been
the the 'finnish-line of the 'race' I've been 'running'
in b.n.]

|    The first view is fairly prevalent, and I think
| the reason for that is
| 1)We observe that consciousness is very closely
| tied to the brain.
| 2)Most of the people who think of the brain as
| producing consciousness don't think of
| consciousness as a "substance", so to explain
| consciousness in terms of what they see (that is,
| the brain controlling the operation of the body),
| they assume that the brain somehow produces
| "awareness".

Consciousness is =not= a "substance".

It is, as above, an individual subset of the
Universal energydynamics.

That is, it's 'just' energy, ordered in ways that
rigorously-couple its dynamics to [within] the
Universal energydynamics.

| But an important point to make is just
| because there are correlations between
| the brain and what I experience doesn't
| mean that the brain itself is somehow
| producing consciousness,

The brain, itself, doesn't.

It's as has been discussed above.

The biological energydynamics coupled to
the Universal energydynamics 'produce'
Consciousness.

[This's why one can 'talk one's self blue-in-
the-face', but, if no one hears [or otherwise
experiences one's 'talking one's self blue-
in-the-face'], no one's Consciousness
detects the stuff that's right-there in one's
'talking one's self blue-in-the-face'. So,
in the end, who is it to whom "publish or
perish" applies most-significantly? :-]

| nor does it mean that it's possible to
| explain consciousness strictly in terms
| of the physical body.

False. It's as above. The body embodies
the rirorous-coupling that exists between
the Universal energydynamics and the
body's individual instance of biological
energydynamics.

Just explain the rigorously-coupled energy-
dynamics.

[Whoops! It's already done :-]

|   In other words it's entirely possible that
| there is this substance that's composed
| of consciousness (which is what I am,
| what you are).

Nope. What I am, what you are, and what
anyone else is, is energydynamics.

| If I exist, then then this body functions.
| When there's no longer a soul in it,
| then this body becomes a corpse. The
| soul would then be the sentient thing--
| that is, what's capable of experiencing,
| what's aware of the objects perceived
| by the physical body.  It's a bit of a
| strange concept, because an "individual"
| is then not the body, but the soul in the
| body. And knowledge, instead of being
| reduced to electrical signals/composition
| of atoms, would then be stored in me
| (the soul), that substance that's made of
| consciousness.

When the biological energydynamics
break-down, to the degree of that, the
energy that was formerly in the biological
energydynamics 'just' returns to become
one with the Universal energydynamics.

There is no longer any rigorous-coupling
between the biological energydynamics
and the Universal energydynamics, and
why should there be? The biological energy-
dynamics have no relevance outside of
the body. So the energy that's relesaed
as the body breaks-down 'just' reverts to
being One with the Universal energy-
dynamics, and behaves accordingly.

|    What if the brain actually does store
| knowledge?

Brains do, but such 'knowledge-storage'
occurs as a by-product of nervous systems'
'seeking' to optimize their energydynamics
with respect to a biologically-relevant 'goal'.

'Funny' thing is that understanding the duality
inherent transforms nervous systems' function-
ing in a way that enables it to 'embrace' the
Universal energydynamics :-]

| 1)If brain cells get replaced over time, so
| should the knowledge that's stored in it.

First, 'knowledge' is, itself, dynamic, and
thank God that it is, because, during com-
monplace experience, there's nothing but
individual-uniqueness that must be handled
'socialably'. It wouldn't be functional to ad-
dress all the individual-uniqueness that's
encountered during comonplace experience
in a 'static', never-changing, way.

Second, the available Neuroscience experi-
mental evidence discloses that nerve-cell
'replacement' is delimited to hippocampal
stem cell activity, which does not 'replace'
the vast majority of nerve cells comprising
'the brain'.

Third, to the degree that such 'replacement'
does occur, the new cells' functionalities can
acquire their 'marching-orders' in interaction
with the cellular constituency that already
exists.

The most-significant thing remains the degree
of rigorous-coupling that exists between the
Universal energydynamics and the individual
instance of biological energydynamics that
is referred to as a "nervous system".

Be-cause of this rigorous-coupling, if the
Universal energydynamics alter, the
biological energydynamics alter.

'normally' such occurs as a result of the
interaction of individual instances of the
biological energydynamics.

Such interactive energydynamics also
embody the Universal energydynamics, and
occur in a way that's rigorously-coupled to
them.

| 2)If knowledge is stored in my brain,
| rather than in me, then when I'm no longer
| there, and my brain's still around, one
| would expect to find "knowledge"
| contained in it!

To the degree that the biological energy-
dynamics that constituted the living 'brain'
have broken-down, this's False.

'knowledge' is 'stored' in the biological
energydynamics.

| 3)The input that enters my eyes for
| example, is simply light waves.

Which, through your eyes, carry energy
into your nervous system, thereby impacting
upon the biological energydynamics of your
nervous system.

| This somehow would have to be converted
| into "knowing" what's out there, which is
| bizarre--how would anything be able to extract
| knowledge out of light rays?

It's easy be-cause the energy 'contained within'
the light is rigorously 3-Dimensionally-ordered
with respect to the Universal energydynamics
and the biological energydynamics are also
rigorously-ordered with respect to the Universal
energydynamics.

Consciousness 'says':

"See that telephone pole?"

"Walk around it, rather than trying to walk
through it."

Look and  see for yourself, 'Knowledge' of the
Universal energydynamics is right-there, through-
and-through, such rigorous-3-D-coupling of the
biological energydynamics to the Universal
energydynamics.

|    What if the brain actually does produce
| consciousness?

Again, it doesn't.

It's the rigorous-coupling of the biological
energydynamics to the Universal energy-
dynamics that does.

| 1)The question then would be, what is
| then aware of what the brain produces?
| You have a brain producing consciousness.
| For example, let's assume that when light
| rays bouncing off an object enter the eye
| & reach the brain, the brain somehow
| produces "awareness" (whatever that
 means) of that object.  What then perceives
| this? If an object produces light/sound,
| there has to be an observer? Clearly,
| **I** must perceive whatever the brain is
| producing. What then am I? It follows
| then that I am something distinct from the
| body, which would then go against the
| concept that everything is physical in nature.

False.

Experiencing one's 'local portion' of the
Universal energydynamics 'just' drives the
biological energydynamics that are rigorously-
coupled to the Universal energydynamics.

'Awareness' is in the biological energy-
dynamics' altering in a way that's rigorously-
coupled to the 'local portion' of the Universal
energydynamics that the biological energy-
dynamics have 'experienced'.

| [note: I don't agree with the viewpoint that
| [if?] the brain produces some sort of
| consciousness, then there is something
| which perceives it. Rather, I like to think of
| the brain as a sort of an "engine" for the
| body--just a bunch of parts mechanically
| functioning. Changes to it however, result
| in an experience being perceived by me,
| since the body is a medium for the soul.
| And this matter-consciousness gap is
| something to be resolved later...]

It stands Resolved.

It's all 'just' the 3-D energydynamics.

| 2)Has anyone observed the brain producing
| consciousness?

Yes. Your saying, above, that, "Changes to
[the brain] however, result in an experience
being perceived by me", indicates that =you=
have.

| If not,then there's no scientific evidence that
| the brain produces consciousness.

All one has to do is look in the Neuroscience
stacks. To the degree that anything in-there is
replicable, it directly addresses how nervous
systems' energydynamics interact with the
Universal energydynamics to yield Conscious-
ness.

The 'problem' has actually been that there's
so much Evidence substantiating the above,
that folks've just had a hard 'time' integrating
it all.

The "cup [of Evidence] overrunneth".

| If the electricity observed is itself
| consciousness, then why can't matter &
| energy found elsewhere be considered
| consciousness?

Be-cause such stuff does not possess
nervous systems' rigorous-3-D-coupling
to the Universal energydynamics.

Same reason one can't use water for a
chair, unless one performs work to lower
its temperature to alter its energydynamics
sufficiently to take it through the liquid->solid
phase transition.

Our nervous systems function in ways that
enable them to accomplish the exactly-
analogous thing with respect to their 'local
portions' of the Universal energydynamics,
and it's all Spectacularly-Wonderful because
they take 'just'-energy, and construct every-
thing else out of it, both internally and extern-
ally. When one walks from point A to point B,
for instance, one's nervous system does the
3-D-energydynamics-work necessary to
'construct' the stuff of that walk 100% out of
energy - just like when I froze the water to
construct a 'chair', our nervous systems
literally 'grasp' this or that 'scrap' of energy
within their 'local portions' of the Universal
energydynamics, and transform it into both
alterations to their own energydynamics
and, as overall Universal energydynamics
permit, alterations to their local portions' of
the Universal energydynamics.

| If it's argued that the brain still somehow
| does produce consciousness, we then
| have a case of a physical substance
| producing something non-physical.

It's all 'just' energydynamics.

All of it 'physical'.

A small 'portion' of the problem has been
the overly-loose conntation of the verbal-
symbol "physical".

The larger 'portion' of the problem has been
that folks've carried-over really-ancient
'conceptualizations' of "God", and have
persisted in invoking them [in a way that
amounts to dictating to God 'what God
must be' :-]

Why not just seek Truth, and find God?

You know - instead of trying to dictate to
God that God 'must be' this or that.

Why not just let God tell you what God is?

|    It seems like this viewpoint that the brain
| produces consciousness is so problematic,
| and that question that you ask does raise an
| interesting point. If the brain actually produces
| consciousness, isn't it possible that some
| other machine can also produce consciousness?
| What if a device were constructed that
| mimicked the electricity of brain waves, would
| it then be "thinking" or producing consciousness?

Not necessarily. One can 'mimic' brain waves
with a tape recorder.

But one can see that, while its functioning is
rigorously-coupled to the Universal energy-
dynamics, the tape recorder does not replicate
the 3-D energydynamics of a nervous system.

| The answer, at least to a dualist, would quite
| obviously be no, who would argue that
| consciousness is a substance, whose
| presence makes the body "alive", not
| something produced by matter.

Energy, and the ability to 'consume' it,
in a way that's rigorously-coupled to the
Universal energydynamics in a 'moving
toward' way, is what "makes the body
`alive`".

| Indeed, just because there are changes
| to my body (controlled by my brain)
| whenever I am conscious of something,
| does that mean that my brain has
| something to do with "producing"
| consciousness or that consciousness
| can be explained solely in terms of the
| brain?

It does "mean that [your] brain has some-
thing to do with `producing' conscious-
ness", but it does not "mean that con-
sciousness can be explained solely in
terms of the brain".

The latter requires that the rigorous-
coupling of the biological energy-
dynamics to the Universal energy-
dynamics be addressed, rigorously.

|    So essentially, substance dualism has
| to be thoroughly rejected before the
| viewpoint that the brain produces
| consciousness can be brought forth

Nope, one just has to see the energy-
dynamics.

| [which leads to a whole MESS of
| problems--you can't define life,

See above in this discussion.

| you can't explain the continuity to an
| individual through a changing body,

See above in this discussion.

| you can't explain how everything in the
| physical world is deterministic but we
| are not,

We are, the Universal energydynamics
are just exceedingly-'Generous'.

| you can't explain what was there in a
| living body that's not there in a dead
| body,

See above in this discussion.

| it becomes fuzzy to decide which
| material things are conscious, and
| what things aren't, etc.)

Only those that are rigorously-coupled
to the Universal energydynamics in a
'moving toward' way are.

| Yes, I know I'm equating I=soul=
|consciousness, which I believe has
| been done before. Perhaps more light
| could be shed concerning this?
|
| Monsieur Lynx

Why not just seek Truth, and find God?

Cheers,

ken [k. p. collins]






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list