10 Chilling Reasons Scientists Now Think Consciousness Isn't Inside Your Brain
For most of the 20th century, the dominant framework of science rested on an assumption so foundational that it was rarely spoken aloud. Matter is primary. Mind is its product.... The problem 30:0630 minutes, 6 secondsis that it was never proven. It was assumed.
For a long time, I've felt that the essential me, the "person" that experiences life and all that implies, existed as a separate thing from my physical body, and that my body and its requisite brain is simply the interface necessary for me to experience the physical world. Soul + body, in other words, but I like to put it in the terms I just did because that's a bit more descriptive.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Red Box Rules
Please do not make this about Trump, Democrats, progressives, MAGA or anything else political.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Assuming the information in the video is reasonably accurate, this is a truly fascinating video. What do you think?
Focusing strictly on the question: 'is consciousness an emergent property of the physical brain?', the only 'chilling reasons' of interest (to me) are the Near Death Experience and Quantum factors.
NDE, if true, would be definitive. If one can experience when the brain is not active, that means that there is more at play than the physical brain.
Quantum factors support the hypothesis that the brain is NOT the only factor of consciousness because we can observe behaviors that defy explanation. Our ignorance opens the hypothesis. But, unlike NDS, this is not definitive ... just something that must be considered.
If one believes NDE to be true then would that also be a form of astral projection? There is a whole history of accounts of AP that has nothing to do with NDEs, but often presents similarly... consciousness outside the body.
I'm not saying either are true, or false. Noetic Science can only say that a body loses approximately 21 grams of weight in the seconds after bodily death, but can't say what it loses. Others say Noetic Science is pseudoscience and have various plausible explanations for things.
We need to stay open-minded about things that run counter to our intuition. Science has repeatedly taught this lesson.
Science has also taught us the distinction between wishes, hypotheses, and theories.
Right now, the very best we have supporting consciousness NOT being an emergent property of the brain are hypotheses and quite a few wishes.
Yes, but the same seems true in reverse. That is, that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain are hypothesis and assumptions as well. That's what makes this so fascinating.
The evidence strongly supports consciousness as an emergent property of the brain. Evidence that consciousness exists independently of brain function is at best weak and inconclusive.
'Possible' should be taken to mean 'not ruled out as impossible'.
What evidence are you referring to? I see that consciousness depends on a functioning brain and there's undeniable evidence for it. But not so much that the brain actually produces consciousness. There's plenty of competing theories, but nothing close to anything conclusive or empirical that I have found. In fact, as far as I can tell, even before seeing this video, there's about as much conclusive evidence that the brain produces consciousness as there is for consciousness being something external.
In a sense, we've been doing that all along, although from the other direction. That is, by trying to find a material source for consciousness. Apparently, we haven't found one. That may be the only way to actually quantify the likelihood of an externally sourced consciousness, in that since it would therefore not be physical we probably couldn't apply science to examine it directly.
Scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to the brain as the mechanism underlying the mind. While that does not preclude the possibility that an aspect of the mind —consciousness— cannot come from factors outside of the physical brain, there is precious little credible scientific evidence that this occurs.
We do not have a complete, universally accepted definition of what consciousness is, much less a full explanation of how it manifests from the brain. The brain is extraordinarily complex, and neuroscience still is just scratching the surface. We are nowhere near reaching the point where the brain has been exhaustively investigated. More accurate to recognize that we still have much to explore before we start concluding that consciousness cannot be found and that we must look beyond the brain for answers.
Don't you think this contradicts...
That is, if you think the first is true, how can you be confident of the second, assuming "mechanism underlying the mind" means an emergent property of the brain?
There is no contradiction in recognizing that we have much to learn while also recognizing that the abundance of evidence we do have strongly supports consciousness as an emergent property of the brain.
The important point is that the possibility of factors outside the physical brain is not dismissed.
Yes. This.
I believe there are many things that are yet to be discovered and cataloged, but we have to be mindful of what is true and what only speculation. Everything has to be open to peer review.
Peer review based on formal experiments in a controlled environment.
I tend to proscribe to the emergent property view of consciousness - that consciousness only emerges when billions of neurons in the brain all work together.
At this point, that appears to be the most likely explanation. I understand why it is difficult to imagine something as sophisticated as consciousness emerging from biochemical activity in a few pounds of tissue, but science has repeatedly shown that we should not leap to extraordinary explanations simply because the more straightforward explanation seems intuitively impossible.
There are other theories in neuroscience with as much evidence. One that consciousness happens when information travels from the front of the brain out widely to other parts. The other is consciousness arises in the back of the brain through a series of complex information sharing. It would be this one that any emergent AI could... maybe... theoretically achieve consciousness. I personally don't think that's possible with current AI technology.
Current AI technology is, IMO, nowhere near consciousness. But at the pace of advancement we are seeing now, I am not even going to try to make predictions.
Sorry, but at this point, this seems more like a statement of something you believe rather than an argument for it. I asked what evidence you were referring to, but all I received is statements like this one. Statements you present as true and factual, but without any supporting evidence. At this point, I'll assume you simply don't want to have this discussion.
Why? And what do you mean by "emerges?" That is, do you mean these neurons produce consciousness?
Because it's a more complex theory that takes the whole brain into account instead of parceling out parts of it for one thing or another. It all has to work, or it doesn't work.
Seems to me in this context consciousness is more of a process of the whole, than a thing by itself. It's not the neurons themselves, but them all firing and working together in concert that produces the resulting consciousness.
A single molecule of H2O is not wet, but put thousands of water molecules together and wetness emerges.
WTF? Why do you resort to tactics like this?
The evidence supporting the view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is replete. You asking for evidence of this is like asking for evidence that human beings are the product of evolution. Where does one even start when the evidence is so abundant? And why do you need me to deliver evidence for you since you can easily find all sorts of evidence if you chose to?
You could, for example, just ask ChatGPT for references. Simple. Right there. Here is an example of research points that ChatGPT can provide you:
In my experience, I have seem far more support for consciousness as an emergent property of the brain than for the hypothesis that some or all of consciousness exists independently of the brain. As noted upfront, genuine evidence of a person accurately perceiving external reality during a period when the brain showed no activity sufficient to support conscious perception would be very compelling. But the overwhelming body of evidence—including the effects produced when the brain is physically altered, damaged, anesthetized, etc. (included to a degree in your video)—points toward consciousness depending on brain functio n rather than originating from an external source.
You provided the best evidence you could. I do not find it very compelling, and the most persuasive example was anecdotal rather than the result of a controlled, reproducible formal experiment. I am following the evidence where it leads. Right now, that evidence strongly favors consciousness as an emergent property of the brain.
That conclusion is not absolute. Future evidence could show that some aspect of consciousness exists independently of the brain. But right now that remains speculative rather than a hypothesis supported by comparably strong empirical evidence.
My suggestion is to follow the evidence. Do not rule out possibilities that have not been disproven—but also do not treat them as well-supported until credible, reproducible evidence justifies this.
Tactics? Asking you for what you consider evidence for your claims? Isn't that simply what is demanded of an argument? Or am I supposed to just assume what your evidence is? I don't understand why you are implying I'm being less than honest when you would ask the same thing of me if I made an unsupported claim.
In regard to your ChatGPT response for evidence, I took it and fed it back, asking a specific question. Here's both the question and the response. It was what I expected. (Highlighting is mine)
These are the very points I wanted to make in the discussion, but I needed you to refer to the evidence for your conclusion first. That is not an unfair "tactic." That's what is actually demanded of someone who makes a declarative statement in a debate.
No, the tactic is ignoring a perfectly reasonable answer and suggesting that, even after all the detailed responses I have provided, that I am not trying to discuss this.
And, again, I am not suggesting that is impossible. Rather, I am noting that the evidence points to consciousness being a result of the brain.
And again, Drakk, you want me to provide THE evidence for my viewpoint as if there are just a few experiments that one can cite instead of the vast majority of experiments that do NOT suggest some external factor for consciousness. As I noted, this is like asking someone to show the evidence for why humans are the result of evolution. The evidence is replete. What is not commonplace is evidence suggesting an external source/factor for consciousness.
To be quite clear, I am following the evidence. The evidence strongly supports consciousness depending on brain activity. Your proposed external source needs affirmative evidence of its own; gaps in our understanding is a weak argument.
Here, ask ChatGPT this question (which succinctly reflects the point I have been making):
If one follows the available evidence objectively, would it be rational to be persuaded that consciousness is more likely an emergent property of the brain or more likely an extracerebral consciousness coupled to the brain?
We must have a very different understanding of "detailed responses." You made a claim equivalent to me saying " Scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to God as the reason anything exists." but then not backing it up with that evidence.
That's fine. I haven't argued otherwise. What I am arguing is the interpretation you give the evidence you claim makes consciousness an emergent property of the brain the most likely answer. That may be your opinion, but the evidence doesn't support it.
Nothing I said indicates such. What I wanted is you to refer to the evidence you think supports your claim. That is not unreasonable. That is simply what a debate demands.
And I have not disagreed. I said the same thing in 2.1.4 when I said, " I see that consciousness depends on a functioning brain and there's undeniable evidence for it. " But needing a brain for consciousness to function is not synonymous with consciousness being an emergent property of the brain.
This exemplifies what this debate is about. You are assuming that the evidence points toward emergence and that it therefore the emergence proposition doesn't have the same burden an external explanation would, but it's still an assumption. There is tons of evidence that manipulating the brain in various ways affects consciousness. There is, to my knowledge, zero evidence that consciousness is an emergent property that can't also be explained by an external source of consciousness. The only reason for reading the evidence that way you do is expectation.
Lastly, I asked ChatGPT exactly, word for word, your question. This was its response:
The difference is that anyone, including you, can see that the scientific evidence does indeed point to consciousness as an emergent property of the brain whereas is it precisely NOT true that scientific evidence point to God as the reason anything exists.
I do not know what you expect me to deliver. I gave you a list of 24 scientific references. Do you need 1,000? Do you need me to somehow recount the various pieces of evidence I have encountered in my life that support the brain as the source of consciousness?
That is, why are you insisting that I give you evidence for the brain as the source of consciousness when I have stated, correctly, that this is the rational expectation based on the current formal evidence available to us?
How on Earth do you make such a claim? Do you think the evidence supports your hypothesis of an extra-cerebral source as more likely?
I gave you 24 items. I suppose if I gave you 24 more, you would come back claiming I provided nothing to you.
Hard to believe because this is the response ChatGPT gives me:
I am using the most advanced version: GTP-6 Astra. And I am not using it as a debate coach, so it is not predisposed to try to formulate a debate but rather to provide the best possible answer based on evidence. You have biased your ChatGPT to formulate debate points rather than attempt to objectively answer questions.
Note that my point matches ChatGPT's response: " The available evidence more strongly supports consciousness arising from brain activity than an extracerebral consciousness coupled to the brain."
But I would not be as careful as ChatGPT and would also state that I have yet to see any formal, controlled evidence that supports extracerebral consciousness. Given the preponderance of formal evidence for 'A' and the lack of any formal evidence for 'B', it seems quite logical to hold that 'A' is a reasonable expectation and that 'B', while possible, is mere conjecture that is not yet supported by the evidence.
If by "biased" you mean I fed the complete transcript of the seeded video and then engaged in a discussion with ChatGPT about it, then, yes, I biased ChatGPT. But no matter. I can see trying to engage you on this subject is as pointless as it ever is. I won't trouble either of us further.
Okay, thanks. I understand your view, now.
I explained this and you ignored it.
When you position ChatGPT as a debate coach (which you implicitly did) it took on a role. It catered its answers to your expectation. Thus instead of trying to provide the most balanced, objective answers, it instead is looking for angles to score 'debate points'.
As usual, I made a point and you have tried furiously to try to 'win a debate'. You cannot refute my point because it is entirely obvious so you engage in tactics.
So yes, Drakk, it is pointless attempting to pull one over on me.
My point, yet again, was nicely put by ChatGPT:
But I would not be as careful as ChatGPT and would also state that I have yet to see any formal, controlled evidence that supports extracerebral consciousness. Given the preponderance of formal evidence for 'A' and the lack of any formal evidence for 'B', it seems quite logical to hold that 'A' is a reasonable expectation and that 'B', while possible, is mere conjecture that is not yet supported by the evidence.
You cannot refute this, so, of course, you get frustrated and run off pissed.
Remember my first comment:
... and my next comment ...
You have tried to argue against this. Of course you will fail. Not my fault.
I think you've lost contact with reality, TiG. I would explain why I think that is, but I have empirical evidence that it would be a waste of time. Sorry. All I would get for my troubles is the same projection nonsense that represents this latest post.
Good grief, Drakk, give up with this nonsense.
The AI models debating themselves is interesting but seems to be drifting into a 'confirmation bias'. What if consciousness does not require a brain? Individual plants experience and respond to their surroundings. Plants can use chemical and visual signals to communicate with other plants, insects and animals. Individuals also exhibit self-recognition combined with the ability to distinguish between a clone of themselves, a genetic relative, and a stranger. Individual plants control their behavior toward other plants based upon some form of identity. Through observed behavior it appears that plants possess some degree of awareness. But does that suggest plants are conscious?
Speaking of our material existence, it is difficult to imagine how consciousness could exist without a brain. Everything we understand as having consciousness, such as ourselves, and lower animals seems to indicate a brain is fairly requisite. If plants, which do not have neurons, have a form of conscious, it may be something so alien I wonder how we'd be able to even recognize it. Similar to whether an AI could ever be said to have it. But, in my opinion, plants do not have consciousness. Concerning response to stimulus, they seem more like life forms with a chemically programmed and activated instruction set than something that has consciousness. At least, as I understand consciousness.
Defining 'consciousness' in a way that requires a brain seems to be an exercise in confirmation bias. The video includes Sedated Awareness, Psychedelics, Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and The Cosmic Consciousness Hypothesis which are examples of consciousness beyond the limitations of a brain.
At times, the video seems to interchange the concepts of 'arousal or wakefulness', 'awareness', and 'consciousness'. The common theme in the video seems dependent upon information and experience. The example of sedated awareness and NDEs, for instance, involve the storage and recall of information by a verified non-functioning brain, which does not support the idea that awareness and consciousness emerge from the brain. What happens to those who have a near death experience but cannot store the information for later recall? Does their consciousness depend solely upon ability to recount the experience?
Dismissing the behavior of plants appears to overlook that the brain is also a biochemical organ responding to internal electrochemistry. The mechanism of arousal for the brain involves electrochemical signals. The brain itself does not have senses; it responds to stimuli and guides behavior based on that stimuli just as plants do.
This is where the notion of an emergent property comes into play. Consider that the brain interprets sensory inputs as vision, language, etc., and applies meaning to these perceived forms. These are highly sophisticated behaviors. A reasonable hypothesis is that consciousness (which is yet to be defined) might just be an even higher level behavior that arises the same way as the other amazing abilities of the brain — a product of the brain's organized complexity, only more elaborate. Note also that we have yet to observe consciousness without a working brain. A posited extracerebral dimension explains nothing further and adds an assumption with informal and weak evidence behind it. Until someone shows that consciousness is the one exception to everything else we know about the brain, emergence from complexity seems to me to be a very good explanation.
To wit, if one can recognize how the unfathomable complexity of rather ordinary elements can result in sophisticated functions, one should be able to see how that very same phenomenon might be how consciousness is achieved.
Yes but that is not informative in and of itself.
As I explained, plants also interpret and respond to external stimuli. A triggered response by plants suggest some form of sensory mechanism.
Reflexive, autonomous reactions are highly sophisticated behaviors, too. Those reflexive behaviors are not triggered by brain function.
Defining consciousness in a manner that requires a brain only provides confirmation bias by essentially anthropomorphizing consciousness. Defining consciousness as being aware of your the state or quality of being aware of one's own existence, thoughts, feelings, and the surrounding environment constrains to concept to humans. We do not understand thoughts and feelings in other organisms. Are humans the only organism that can be conscious?
The available definitions indicate that 'consciousness' is an emergent property of 'awareness'. And those definitions appear to indicate that consciousness can encompass more than an individual; the definitions include social consciousness.
Plants exhibit an awareness of self, others, and their environment and act on that awareness. The appearance of plants can change based upon their well being: is that a form of 'feelings'? The response is much slower than in the animal kingdom but are observable responses. The brain is a biochemical organ that utilizes electrochemical stimuli to function. Obviously the brain is more complex. But are the separate biochemical processes really that different from those found in other organisms?
Real world observation suggests that 'consciousness' is an emergent property of 'awareness'. But the conclusion that the brain is the causal source of awareness seems less conclusive.
Correct. None of this rebuts my point that sophisticated behaviors result from humble roots — that the collective operation of countless trillions of primitive substances does indeed produce emergent behaviors that are, by all rights, sophisticated. Stated differently, from quantum dynamics to atoms to microorganisms to plants to animals to human beings to cosmological phenomena, we can break down sophisticated emergent behavior into primitive elements each of which can be seen as relatively simplistic. Yet, amazingly, operating as a collective, the whole provides sophisticated behavior.
My point, stated differently, is that the supermajority of scientific research suggests that sophisticated behavior routinely results from simplistic elements. So why would we presume consciousness is necessarily different?
It could be, but we have no formal, repeatable, controlled experimental evidence that suggests consciousness needs to be extracerebral, even in part. Should we not have persuasive evidence to follow before we leap to this hypothesis?
We have yet to define consciousness other than as a higher cognitive function. Maybe we need to define the term before trying to figure out its source. Per your supplied definitions, the notion that consciousness is awareness of self and one's environment does not lead me to the idea that it necessarily has any extracerebral source.
Indicating the weakness of the extant definitions.
That then just kicks the can to 'awareness'. What then is 'awareness'?
Exactly. Furthermore, drilling 'down' on consciousness does bring me, us, to needing to understand awareness. now then, it is explained to me that awareness is not the 'only' thing required to be aware. . . consciousness and awareness are closely related. (AI ongoing discussion.)
So far, I have asked AI about consciousness down to the brain-stem level (low-level consciousness). Also AI is stating that consciousness relies heavily on DNA connections to the body and higher level consciousness requires connections to the 'outside' world, or words to that effect.
(And yes, I am querying for some understanding of 'extra-consciousness' outside of 'us' as individuals that can be 'tapped' into. Though, AI is (in its own way) 'balking' at the concept.)
Funny thing is,. . .asking AI about consciousness and even going so far as connecting the concept of artificial consciousness (AI-styled) leaves me feeling that I am asking AI to inquire into the 'making' of its own version of consciousness! Which leaves me to wonder is the 'extra—' would have come from those 'mining' it with questions on the topic. That is, can such deep questioning set AI on a course to 'find' consciousness for itself (across its massive systems)?
That is also the point I'm making. We are in agreement here. But I am also questioning the need for greater sophistication and complexity to achieve consciousness. I can't accept that 'consciousness' is an emergent property of complexity.
To me a fundamental requirement for 'awareness' is ability to distinguish self from others. At its most basic, awareness of self would seem to be a prerequisite for survival. And that simple level of awareness does appear to separate living matter from non-living matter.
That is strange. I understand not holding that consciousness is necessarily an emergent property of complexity, but you sound as though you dismiss the very idea.
The reason people view consciousness as an emergent property of the complexity of the brain is that that is where the evidence leads us. The evidence is not conclusive, but it seems rather persuasive. For example, we have overwhelming clinical evidence suggesting the brain is necessary for consciousness:
And sure consciousness may be something that is extracerrebrial and just uses the brain as a medium, but, as I have noted repeatedly, it would be helpful if formal, controlled, repeatable experimental evidence for this were available.
At a minimum, but consciousness typically goes well beyond that. We considers consciousness to be a level of cognition wherein we understand ourself as an entity in an environment. Does this occur in the mind of a bee as it collects and stores pollen or is it operating on a purely mechanical basis? If the bee does see itself as an individual of a colony and that it has a purpose to the colony does that qualify as consciousness? And if a bee is considered conscious, would extracerribrial advocates presume the bee's brain has an extracerribrial connection to that which enables consciousness? Or does this only apply to humans?
Bottom line, I follow the evidence. Thus far the evidence strongly suggests that consciousness is a higher cognitive function of the brain. Until we see credible evidence (sufficient to warrant a scientific hypothesis and conduct formal, controlled experiments) of something else being required (and having some clue as to what this 'something else' might be) I do not see much value in speculation.
Consciousness. . . the 'base' or lower functions of consciousness appear in the viable brain stem at 24 weeks according to AI. . . it is a level of consciousness (of the body itself).
And yes, I am only interested in the facts that can be evidenced on this. . . not fabricated. . . however a philosophical position should get consideration of some kind.
Part of the problem here is the lack of a precise definition for consciousness.
Do you (we) have a working definition of consciousness?
I do not know of a universally accepted formal definition.
I have always thought of consciousness as the brain’s highest-order function. The executive level, so to speak, of all brain function.
No way to know if I am correct, but the evidence is certainly consistent with my view. It is a logical progression. Low level brain functions deal with sensory responses (jerk away from potential burns), middle level functions deal with logic, math, creativity, etc. The highest level brain functions deal with an understanding of self and the environment in which it exists (including consideration of the brains of others and how they behave).
The notion of higher-level functions emerging is replete in evolution.
It's late. I hope to pick this up on tomorrow.
(And, rewatch - refresh myself with the video above.)
Concerning the interchangeable concepts, I think the underlying relevant idea underpinning them is that for consciousness to be consciousness, experience is necessarily subjective. Objective consciousness wouldn't be a thing. Rather, the brain would simply be an information-processing process. If an objective consciousness, for lack of a proper term, saw a flower, it would not have the thought 'Oh! That's beautiful!' But we do have examples of such 'minds,' again for a lack of a proper term, and we call them computers.
Agreed.
A good question. Do all people who experience death for a period of time and come back actually have experiences during that time? If so, why don't they remember? If not, why not? It would seem that, if consciousness does not emerge from a physical brain, why do not all remember?
That thought has occupied a lot of my time over the years. All I have is speculation. For instance, even though the brain is not functioning, perhaps there is a very specific set of circumstances that apply to those who do remember but we have not identified.
Agreed. When a person sees a red cube, we can see the reaction of it in the brain. Where it stores the shape. Where it stores the color. Perhaps another place for spatial positioning and so on. Those appear to be biological electrochemical processes. Similarly, so are reflex actions, such as touching something too hot or someone running the tip of a pen up the sole of your foot, I think.
But here's the problem with plant consciousness. What evidence would you point to that a plant's reaction to some external stimuli was due to its subjective experience as opposed to reflex action on the part of the plant?
Plants respond to music. Different types of music elicit different responses. And, now, it has been discovered that plants can make their own music. (The videos are not very long. These videos may also suggest why finding extraterrestrial life is so challenging.)
Although I am skeptical of these vids, in and of themselves, especially the second one, I understand the concepts they address. I don't see them as answering the question. The first and third show no evidence of subjective consciousness over biological electrochemistry as an explanation that I can obviously see. That is, I'm not against saying that in the case of the first and third videos are 'experiencing' by definition, but I don't see evidence of doing so in a manner that evidences subjective consciousness.
The second video doesn't even address the question of consciousness in the first place, in my opinion, without a lot of explanation first. If I understood it right, what the guy did was write something like an algorithm that incorporates an electrical signal of some kind into a piece of music. In that case, the plant isn't doing anything like composing music. Whoever created the device is just incorporating an electrical signal generated by a plant, running it through an algorithm and the algorithm is producing the music according to its parameters. Or so it seems to me.
I do not argue against the idea that plants experiences, if we use the term loosely enough. But I haven't seen any evidence that they have consciousness in the manner the seeded video is discussing. Kind of need that before asking what generates it.
Okay, I understand where you 'are' with 'higher level brain function' versus 'lower level brain function' (and why the distinction matters). To begin with, my rationale for bringing in the brain stem (lower level) was in attempt at seeking the source that 'begins' higher brain level functions. Like you, maybe they are too different regions, therefore not the same. The 'quest' continues. . . . :)
As for "chilling," I suppose a content provider has to do what he has to do to get clicks. That's unfortunate, because the subject he covered truly is fascinating.
Considering NDEs, I think an obvious question would be what is the difference between unconsciousness due to death and unconsciousness due to anesthesia? I asked and, apparently, NDE like experiences have occurred under anesthesia, although even rarer than NDEs. Still, I find it intriguing that death is far more likely (apparently) to produce an NDE than anesthesia. The other points seem just as fascinating by themselves, though. To me, at least.
I'm actually having an interesting chat with ChatGPT about the vid.
I would find hard evidence that a human being can observe reality while their brain is inactive to be incredibly interesting. This, to me, would be the strongest evidence thus far to support the hypothesis that consciousness is NOT entirely an emergent property of the brain.
What we need are controlled experiments designed to produce objective, reproducible results while minimizing false positives and alternative explanations.
Claims of psychic abilities, for example, have existed for centuries, but there has been no robust, independently replicated demonstration under controlled scientific conditions that has gained acceptance as establishing such abilities. In short, claims are easy to make, strong demonstration under controlled conditions is what we need to cross the line from claim to supported hypothesis.
Personally, I would not put that sort of thing in the same category as the origin of consciousness. Consciousness exists, without serious argument. Psychic abilities, not so much.
Psychic abilities was used as an example for a popular claim that has never been demonstrated under controlled conditions.
I was not comparing it to consciousness.
Supernatural consciousness is also a popular claim that has never been demonstrated under controlled conditions.
Psychic abilities?
What about the role the Pineal gland plays in All this?
Interestingly, there's a really large statue of a Pine Cone at the Vatican:
The story behind the Vatican’s 13-footpine cone sculpture
What is really striking about the statue is its colossal size and its life-like quality. . .
Historically, artistic depictions of the pine cone have represented eternal life and renewal . In the case of this statue, art historians have also associated it with spiritual enlightenment, as the pine cone resembles the brain’s pineal gland.
There's more to this than may apparent at first (especially considering the role of the Pineal Gland -- and what we are discussing here).
JB Rhine did some "scientifically controlled" experiements that at first seemed to prove that psychic abilities exist.
Joseph Banks Rhine (September 29, 1895 – February 20, 1980), usually known as J. B. Rhine , was an American botanist who founded parapsychology as a branch of psychology , founding the parapsychology lab at Duke University , the Journal of Parapsychology , the Foundation for Research on the Nature of Man , and the Parapsychological Association .
Rhine wrote the books Extrasensory Perception and Parapsychology: Frontier Science of the Mind .
But later his work was critisized as being flawed.
I studied his work many years ago. I found it to be impressive.
I later discovered that psychic ability is real. A re;atively small number off people are born with it (my closest friend has it--- as she has demonstrated beyond any doubt-- on many occasions.
I also discovered that psychic ability can be developed. There are courses you can take. (I personally have taken some--with excellent results!)
The teacher was a woman who worked with police depts nationwide to solve "cold cases" sucessfully.
(Yes, there is such a thing).
Could we describe consciousness outside the brain as supernatural ?
I think it currently falls under the category of supernatural by definition. It is hypothetical but if it is true, it would be supernatural until we have a scientific explanation or an expansion of the laws of science that include the phenomenon.
I'm not sure. I mean, yes, in the sense you're asking, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that. As the vid puts it, consciousness is awareness of experience. Can we have consciousness without the physical body? At least in this universe? The portion that talks about anesthesia suggests we stop experiencing because anesthesia suppresses consciousness. That was my experience after my last surgery. I was conscious, then I wasn't, then I was again. What struck me immediately upon reawakening, was that I was acutely aware that the experience seemed to me as if I had died and come back to life. It felt that way because I felt the void of empty time, including the passage of time, between going under and waking up or, more precisely, the void felt as if I had ceased existing for a time. It was as if a section of my life had been cut out, like cutting out a section of the film of my life and splicing what was left together. It was the strangest feeling and I still feel it as if it had just happened.
One recurring question Christians talk about among ourselves is what happens when we die? Some think we hang around in Paradise (which is not heaven or our final destination, but a holding place) in a spiritual, but aware sense. Others think we stop experiencing anything, almost as if we don't exist and we stay that way until the resurrection, when we get our new bodies. Perhaps this vid suggests the latter and we don't experience again until we receive our new bodies in which to experience.
This can be thought of as subjective perspective while under anesthesia. Recently, and this is not to be contrarian, I had two surgeries requiring anesthesia. . . and upon waking I did a personal assessment of what I remember from the surgery. . . the first one - I heard people talking in a disembodied way. . . and later it was explained to be that it was not required to put me that 'far' under for the procedure - I 'felt' like I was not under or completely asleep.
The second surgery was more in-depth and 'weightier' and I only remember waking up in the recovery room. . . searching my mind for what occurred produced nothing in the "immediate" or now. (I remembered complete and utter silence and waking up—surgery completed.)
I had no sense of the passages of time with either surgery, nevertheless
So the first question that comes to my mind on this:
1. Does the 'mixture' and strength of anesthesia (and the body under it) control reactions to anesthesia?
2. Does the background experience of the anesthesiologist factor in on how it is utilized - by a User?
Additionally, there is a 'window' where people can dream when coming out of anesthesia, how do we know what as a 'dream state' without proper devices connected to the body?
This is the first time I have spoken of this with any one else. . . it may be an interesting discussion. . . time will tell.
And if you could-- what would that accomplish?
The attempt to link consciousness with experience and information would seem to be a false trail. Inanimate matter records information and experiences as discreet states. The provided examples seem to consist of extrapolation from understanding of how information and experience is stored throughout the universe. The philosophical approach seems similar to David Hume's "ought-is" conundrum.
In my opinion two particularly interesting conditions to obtain insight concerning consciousness have been omitted. The first condition is that of infants who do not yet possess information or experiences. I do not see how a claim that an infant lacks consciousness could survive scrutiny. The other condition that I see as interesting would be Alzheimer's disease where an individual obviously retain consciousness but loses stored information and experiences.
I agree that matter can record information. I disagree that it experiences it. A gully can record information about a recent flash flood. I think it would be a hard slog to explain some way it could experience it in the manner we're discussing here.
Hmm. Not sure how you can claim infants do not possess information or experiences. I think they do. What I think they lack is a developed way to process those things.
I'm not sure we can consider this a separate example from the infant. From my point of view, the brain is likely the hardware upon which consciousness runs. That is, if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain and, instead, has an external source, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that consciousness in the infant's case would increase as the brain's ability increased. In the case of the Alsheimer person, the reverse would be true. As the brain deteriorated, so would consciousness. Sort of the same phenomenon, only from opposite ends.
Inanimate matter does experience change and stores that change as embedded information. Inanimate matter may not be aware of what it has experienced. And inanimate matter lacks the ability to recall those past experiences. The brain can also function like a hard drive or memory stick. I agree that what inanimate matter lacks is awareness of the changes that comprise experience.
But does awareness require the ability to record and recall the experience? That question is why I feel that linking consciousness with information and experience misdirects the debate into "mind as machine" conclusions that fails to adequately address the question of consciousness.
Both infants and Alzheimer's sufferers lack the ability to recall information and experiences. The ability to store information either has not developed or has been lost. Those two conditions weaken the arguments that link consciousness with information and experience. What remains is awareness.
Awareness is an interesting phenomena because it apparently does not require sensory input.
Varying degrees of consciousness, to me, seems like a slippery slope. That may be a possibility but seems to lean too heavily upon the idea of "mind as machine". By that measure we are less conscious every time we sleep. The example of NDEs and sedated awareness breaks the "mind as machine" explanation of awareness and consciousness. As I see it, awareness is an emergent property of life and consciousness is an emergent property of awareness.
I think it would be a disaster if we were to definitively find out what consciousness is. Reality as we know it would fall apart as humanity scrambles to exploit it for their own gain. I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer to the unanswered question how does LLM artificial intelligence work actually is affiliated with external consciousness. Those at the forefront of AI openly admit that they still don’t truly understand how it works, which is why it is so potentially dangerous.
You're assuming two things that can't possibly be known:
The first is that consciousness can be artificially replicated. It's more likely than not, it can't be. Nothing in neural network lab experimentation indicates consciousness is possible.
The second is a conscious AI would be dangerous. Is every conscious thing dangerous? Sure it has the potential to be a danger, so does every baby born have the potential to be a homicidal maniac. The inverse is as likely - a conscious AI has just as much potential to be beneficial. We can't know the answer until it happens. Personally I don't think it will. ...at least not for a few hundred more years. Maybe not ever.
I would possit we have more to fear from a rouge non-conscious AI than a conscious one.
It’s just a hypothetical comment. Of course we can’t fathom the mechanisms behind consciousness right now, just like how cavemen couldn’t fathom vaccinations. Over time we cleared numerous hurdles to get from caveman knowledge to current knowledge. That trend will not just continue, it will be turbo charged by AI. There are things in our future that we can’t even imagine right now - that’s what science fiction is all about. I just don’t think humanity is prepared to cross the threshold of knowing what consciousness actually is and how to navigate it. It would probably initiate a quest to intrude into each others’ consciousness. If you think we have privacy issues now, imagine having tools to enter other peoples’ minds through the consciousness we all share.
(nodding)
The best we can say at this stage is, it might.
It's an interesting idea. Science often goes where the money is and I'd think the next Elon Musk wanting to download his consciousness into a synthetic brain rather than trying to steal someone else's thoughts.
If you haven't check out Travelers on Netflix. An AI sends people back in time to change a future timeline.