The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:01 am
You missed my point totally.
I know there is an emergence of human consciousness from observing empirical humans having and displaying their consciousness, i.e. self-conscious and other types of consciousness.
This is so evident empirically.
It is so evident to the person and others that human has wakeful, dream, and other types of consciousness.
Note consciousness in the modern perspective is;
All you have is an empirical fact that you are a conscious being. You don't have an empirical fact or proof that other humans are conscious since consciousness cannot be measured.
Based on the above definition, it is so easy to prove other humans are conscious beings. This is so common an accepted by Science, psychology, psychiatry, neurosciences, etc.
No. Based on that definition you only have a fact that you are conscious. You cannot measure consciousness therefore you cannot claim that other people are conscious as well. You don't have an argument as well.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
What is problematic at present is the 'hard problem of consciousness' which is not relevant in this case to prove a person is a conscious being from empirical evidences.
The hard problem of consciousness is very relevant here since you are claiming two things: 1) People are conscious and 2) Consciousness is an emergent property.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
I don't have to be bothered with whether the Universes "experiences" or not.
The onus is for you to prove that the Universe experiences which in my view is an impossibility to start with.
The onus is for you since you are claiming that consciousness is an emergent property. Regardless, I already provide my argument against strong emergence. Consciousness is a property that is not a function of properties of parts since parts are unconscious in your perspective. Therefore, the emergence of consciousness is impossible.
I am claiming human consciousness and mind is an emergent as inferred from empirical evidences of human actions and thoughts.
What has the above to do with the Universe that can experience?
Your empirical evidence just shows that you are conscious. You are claiming that your consciousness is emergent too so you need another evidence for this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
I am trying hard to understand your point but I believe your communication and explanation in this case is not clear.

I am still guessing your intended point;
Say there is on interdependent process of the Water Cycle, and there is one process for each iceberg in the ocean, but they are all interdependent.
Can we agree that there is only one process if everything in universe is interdependent? All parts of the universe move with each other if they are interdependent. Therefore, there is only one process.

Now, you are claiming that there are several persons who are conscious, have the ability to decide and cause. This means that the concept of person is a local thing, independent of other persons or things. That is true since you have the ability to decide independent of what is going around you.

Moreover, you need to show how there could be several conscious persons. Consciousness to you is a local thing. You are conscious but not the chair that you are sitting on it. So we have two things, one is conscious and another is not. You and chair are however interdependent in your perspective. There is one thing, you and chair together, not two things. Therefore, this one thing is either conscious or not. That is true since you cannot separate the chair from yourself in your perspective.
Everything that is empirical evident are interdependent [interlinked] within the Universe.
Yes, it is deterministic and there is only one process with loads of interlinking sub-processes.
There must be only one conscious being if there is only one process. There are several conscious beings in your view and there is one process, therefore, there is problem in your perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
Nope it is you who has to prove things [non living things] in the Universe has consciousness.
I don't have to prove how conscious is possible.
All I have to prove is humans are conscious and have various conscious states and act differently within these varying conscious states.
You yourself can confirm you are conscious and are subject to various states of consciousness and you can extrapolate that to all normal human beings.

We and all can raise the hypothesis, how consciousness is possible?, but we do not have to jump to conclusion like you do, i.e. there is an entity called mind that is responsible for consciousness.
Your jumping to conclusion or eagerness to get to a conclusion is heavily weighed by your psychology as explained by Hume.
I suggest you explore this psychological effect in detail, i.e. 'Know Thyself'.
Then prove that humans are conscious. Either empirically or logically.
It is not difficult to prove you [or other human] are conscious [as defined above] based on empirical evidence.
One basic thing, if a human is conscious [as defined], then he is not dead [as defined] and vice versa.
Surely it is easy to prove you are in sleep consciousness, waking consciousness, dream consciousness, drunk consciousness or even in an altered state consciousness.
You dispute such simple proofs?
Yes, you need more than that. A dead person could be conscious. You need empirical evidence, measuring his consciousness, to show that a dead person is not conscious. Consciousness cannot be measured. Therefore, you don't have any empirical evidence.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 am
You are merely making an assumption which is driven by desperate psychology as Hume had indicated. The details can be explained via evolutionary psychology. Check out Michael Shermer's 'Why People Believed in Weird Things'.

Instead of speculating there is an entity called "mind" [ontological], it is more reliable to base my point on empirical evidences of human mental actions in relation to the brain, the whole person, the the whole environment and whole universe.

At present, psychology has a good grasp of "what is mind" psychologically and many mental problems can be resolved with what we understand 'what is mind' with medicines, various treatments and preventive measures. There is no need for psychologists and psychiatrists to search of the entity called mind within the brain of the person.

Why the majority seek to establish what is exactly mind in substance and entity wise is due to some inefficient psychological drives emerging from an existential crisis.
If this existential crisis is managed and modulated the person would not be bother and driven to search for an illusory mind-in-substance and mind-as-entity.

Note Buddhism has successfully introduce a solution to manage and modulate the existential crisis. This is why Buddhism do not accept there is a mind as an independent entity.
Did you read my argument?
Note sure what you meant?
I believe I have countered whatever you have raised.

I believe the crunch is you are not familiar with the serious contention between
the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical anti-Realists.
If so, can you explain what you understand of the above issue?
This I believe underlies and summarizes all the above issues.
So you didn't read my argument. Here it is again viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481. In this argument, I show that any change requires a mind. In another word, you cannot have any motion without mind. You are claiming that the mind is an emergent property that is the result of matter motion. I am challenging such a perspective by arguing that you cannot have any emergence such as mind since you cannot have any motion without mind.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:10 am

All you have is an empirical fact that you are a conscious being. You don't have an empirical fact or proof that other humans are conscious since consciousness cannot be measured.
Based on the above definition, it is so easy to prove other humans are conscious beings. This is so common an accepted by Science, psychology, psychiatry, neurosciences, etc.
No. Based on that definition you only have a fact that you are conscious. You cannot measure consciousness therefore you cannot claim that other people are conscious as well. You don't have an argument as well.
If need be, 'consciousness' can be measured.
If waking consciousness is say '100' in terms of responsiveness, then we can measure the degree of coma consciousness, drunk consciousness, and the likes relatively.
So we can measure consciousness in the above sense via empirical evidences.

The rest of your points seem to insist mind is an independent entity and has its related consciousness. This claim is not tenable.
I have pointed out the various issue re Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, the untenable substance theory, no causation, untenable 'dualism' theory, no mind-in-itself, and the likes. You don't seem to understand how the above untenable theories undermine your claim re an independent mind.

Btw, have you ever explored why you and gang are so stuck and insistence on an independent mind where there is none at all? You need to understand the psychological basis for the above.

Skepdick
Posts: 4426
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Skepdick » Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
  • Conscious = aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
Based on that definition robots are conscious.

All definitions which enumerate only inclusionary (positive) properties, without enumerating exclusionary (negative) properties fail in this way. Surely you know this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
If waking consciousness is say '100' in terms of responsiveness
And how would you measure "responsiveness"?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:59 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
Based on the above definition, it is so easy to prove other humans are conscious beings. This is so common an accepted by Science, psychology, psychiatry, neurosciences, etc.
No. Based on that definition you only have a fact that you are conscious. You cannot measure consciousness therefore you cannot claim that other people are conscious as well. You don't have an argument as well.
If need be, 'consciousness' can be measured.
If waking consciousness is say '100' in terms of responsiveness, then we can measure the degree of coma consciousness, drunk consciousness, and the likes relatively.
So we can measure consciousness in the above sense via empirical evidences.
No, responsiveness is not a measure for consciousness. You need a direct measurement of consciousness. What you are claiming is an indirect measurement.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
The rest of your points seem to insist mind is an independent entity and has its related consciousness. This claim is not tenable.
I have pointed out the various issue re Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, the untenable substance theory, no causation, untenable 'dualism' theory, no mind-in-itself, and the likes. You don't seem to understand how the above untenable theories undermine your claim re an independent mind.
You haven't even read my argument so how could you judge it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
Btw, have you ever explored why you and gang are so stuck and insistence on an independent mind where there is none at all? You need to understand the psychological basis for the above.
I am not stuck in the theory of an independent mind. That is the whole scientific community that is stuck in materialism claiming that mind is an emergent property not realizing that such an emergence is not possible.

commonsense
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by commonsense » Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:08 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
  • Conscious = aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
Based on that definition robots are conscious.

All definitions which enumerate only inclusionary (positive) properties, without enumerating exclusionary (negative) properties fail in this way. Surely you know this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
If waking consciousness is say '100' in terms of responsiveness
And how would you measure "responsiveness"?
I’m unsure that it would solve the problem of measuring consciousness, but the Glasgow Coma Scale—and newer, improved scales—is designed to measure the depth of a loss of awakeness of a victim of head trauma.

A score of 15 (the max for the GCS) demonstrates normal awakeness. It should be noted—and this makes me doubt that the scale measures consciousness—that a P-Zombie could also score 15. Perhaps this result indicates that the level of consciousness simply appears to be normal.

But the value of the test is its usefulness in making a prognosis on the trauma victim recovering consciousness or whatever passed for consciousness prior to being injured. This is where the numbers 0 to 14 can indicate and measure responsiveness.

If one can execute simple, one-step commands, eg raise your right hand, then I believe the score is 14. If one cannot follow commands but responds to a painful stimulus either by withdrawing from the stimulus or by pushing the stimulus away, one would score 13, I believe.

Other particular responses are measured by assignment of specific point values. 0 is a sign of brain death, pending confirmation by another means.

Skepdick
Posts: 4426
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Skepdick » Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:36 pm

commonsense wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:08 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
  • Conscious = aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
Based on that definition robots are conscious.

All definitions which enumerate only inclusionary (positive) properties, without enumerating exclusionary (negative) properties fail in this way. Surely you know this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
If waking consciousness is say '100' in terms of responsiveness
And how would you measure "responsiveness"?
I’m unsure that it would solve the problem of measuring consciousness, but the Glasgow Coma Scale—and newer, improved scales—is designed to measure the depth of a loss of awakeness of a victim of head trauma.

A score of 15 (the max for the GCS) demonstrates normal awakeness. It should be noted—and this makes me doubt that the scale measures consciousness—that a P-Zombie could also score 15. Perhaps this result indicates that the level of consciousness simply appears to be normal.

But the value of the test is its usefulness in making a prognosis on the trauma victim recovering consciousness or whatever passed for consciousness prior to being injured. This is where the numbers 0 to 14 can indicate and measure responsiveness.

If one can execute simple, one-step commands, eg raise your right hand, then I believe the score is 14. If one cannot follow commands but responds to a painful stimulus either by withdrawing from the stimulus or by pushing the stimulus away, one would score 13, I believe.

Other particular responses are measured by assignment of specific point values. 0 is a sign of brain death, pending confirmation by another means.
And that is a perfectly acceptable use of that scale in a medical context.

You are looking for negative indicators, not positive one.

Inability to X minus 1 point.
Inability to Y minus 5 points.

Every "inability" draws you further away from the normative "functioning brain" - and that's OK. It's used to assess risk.

It's a case of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Whereas a philosopher would default to: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Of course - both principles are useful in different contexts.

commonsense
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by commonsense » Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:46 pm

Thanks, Skepdick. I doubted that a coma scale could measure (positive) consciousness, but my doubt was just an uneasy feeling. Thank you for clarifying that doubt for me.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:11 am

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 am
  • Conscious = aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
Based on that definition robots are conscious.

All definitions which enumerate only inclusionary (positive) properties, without enumerating exclusionary (negative) properties fail in this way. Surely you know this?
As usual your responses are robotic and psychopathic.

Note I stated;
There is a long list [in other meanings] of what constitute human consciousness that can be verified empirically. One critical one is self-consciousness specific to humans.

The subject the theme of the discussion is human consciousness.

It is possible for robots to be labelled 'conscious' [as defined specifically] but that is qualified as robot-consciousness [mechanical] not human-consciousness [biological]. That would be a separate OP.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
If waking consciousness is say '100' in terms of responsiveness
And how would you measure "responsiveness"?
This has to be specifically human responsiveness and not those of robots or other non-humans.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:58 am

No. Based on that definition you only have a fact that you are conscious. You cannot measure consciousness therefore you cannot claim that other people are conscious as well. You don't have an argument as well.
If need be, 'consciousness' can be measured.
If waking consciousness is say '100' in terms of responsiveness, then we can measure the degree of coma consciousness, drunk consciousness, and the likes relatively.
So we can measure consciousness in the above sense via empirical evidences.
No, responsiveness is not a measure for consciousness. You need a direct measurement of consciousness. What you are claiming is an indirect measurement.
Why not?
If one is in coma-consciousness, he would not be able to response like what an ordinary person would response in a waking-consciousness.
If a person is in deep-sleep consciousness, he would not response to certain stimuli like a person in waking-consciousness.
There are various ways to define what is 'responsiveness' in relation to the various states of consciousness of a human person.

Direct measurement of consciousness??
What is your theory or expectation on that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
The rest of your points seem to insist mind is an independent entity and has its related consciousness. This claim is not tenable.
I have pointed out the various issue re Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, the untenable substance theory, no causation, untenable 'dualism' theory, no mind-in-itself, and the likes. You don't seem to understand how the above untenable theories undermine your claim re an independent mind.
You haven't even read my argument so how could you judge it?
I did read that link.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
Btw, have you ever explored why you and gang are so stuck and insistence on an independent mind where there is none at all? You need to understand the psychological basis for the above.
I am not stuck in the theory of an independent mind. That is the whole scientific community that is stuck in materialism claiming that mind is an emergent property not realizing that such an emergence is not possible.
Why not possible when what is mind is inferred from empirical evidences.
This is like inferring gravity exists from observing the falling of apples from the tree to the ground and its other effects. Thus the concept of gravity is linked [interdependent] with the human conditions.
There is no way one can determine what is gravity-in-itself.

Note I am not into Philosophical Materialism and I do not agree with philosophers and scientists who hold such views.
You cannot claim the whole of the scientific community is into Materialism [philosophical] since most scientists are not philosophers and they do not hold philosophical views.
Scientists are merely professionals who practices Science in accordance to the Scientific Framework and System and most don't give a damn for Philosophy.

If you are not stuck with the theory of an independent mind, then it has to be an interdependent mind, i.e. interdependent with the subject.

Note my approach is to start from empirical evidences which is verified and justified based on Science then proceed into Philosophy.
You are starting from a baseless speculation of 'what is mind' which is driven more by psychology, emotions and faith, e.g. common sense causation.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:39 am

commonsense wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:46 pm
Thanks, Skepdick. I doubted that a coma scale could measure (positive) consciousness, but my doubt was just an uneasy feeling. Thank you for clarifying that doubt for me.
The coma-scale is at least a good start where it can be improved upon in various ways if we are to be serious in measuring 'consciousness' [to be defined].
The extreme of non-consciousness is the certification of brain-dead in its most precise measurement.

I don't see it as difficult to measure different responses in relation to various stimuli for the various types of consciousness, e.g. waking, sleeping, dreaming, while drunk, in coma, in altered states of consciousness, etc. while discounting for age and other differences.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am

If need be, 'consciousness' can be measured.
If waking consciousness is say '100' in terms of responsiveness, then we can measure the degree of coma consciousness, drunk consciousness, and the likes relatively.
So we can measure consciousness in the above sense via empirical evidences.
No, responsiveness is not a measure for consciousness. You need a direct measurement of consciousness. What you are claiming is an indirect measurement.
Why not?
Because you are making an assumption that there is always a correlation between consciousness and responsiveness. My nephew was in a coma a year ago. He couldn't respond to external stimuli but he was conscious all the time.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
Direct measurement of consciousness??
What is your theory or expectation on that.
There is no way to directly measure consciousness.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
The rest of your points seem to insist mind is an independent entity and has its related consciousness. This claim is not tenable.
I have pointed out the various issue re Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism, the untenable substance theory, no causation, untenable 'dualism' theory, no mind-in-itself, and the likes. You don't seem to understand how the above untenable theories undermine your claim re an independent mind.
You haven't even read my argument so how could you judge it?
I did read that link.
What is it about?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:14 am
Btw, have you ever explored why you and gang are so stuck and insistence on an independent mind where there is none at all? You need to understand the psychological basis for the above.
I am not stuck in the theory of an independent mind. That is the whole scientific community that is stuck in materialism claiming that mind is an emergent property not realizing that such an emergence is not possible.
Why not possible when what is mind is inferred from empirical evidences.
Because the only evidence that you have is mind not its emergence.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:59 pm

No, responsiveness is not a measure for consciousness. You need a direct measurement of consciousness. What you are claiming is an indirect measurement.
Why not?
Because you are making an assumption that there is always a correlation between consciousness and responsiveness. My nephew was in a coma a year ago. He couldn't respond to external stimuli but he was conscious all the time.
Note I stated there are various states of consciousness.
The basic human consciousness is being alive and not dead [brain dead with no consciousness at all].
Obviously your nephew has basic primal human consciousness but was in coma-consciousness and thus not in wakeful-consciousness.
When a person is coma in general, he would not be able to respond from external and internal stimuli, except the autonomic ones.
Some in coma will have minimal responses, then this determines the degree of coma a person is in.
We can differentiate the above types of consciousness by the types of their responsiveness to various stimuli based on empirical evidences.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
Direct measurement of consciousness??
What is your theory or expectation on that.
There is no way to directly measure consciousness.
There are ways to measure 'consciousness' as I had described above.

I don't understand your point why we cannot directly measure consciousness?
What are your conditions for consciousness to be measured directly.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
I did read that link.
What is it about?
I read but it does not click with me.
I don't want to waste time expounding and countering it.
Your link: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481
Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused. There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must exist a mind that has ability to experience and cause.
If you consider a cup of water in room temperature then it put into a freezer for some time to turn the water into ice. But there is no change in the number H20 atoms except their molecular arrangement.
There is no need to infer there is a mind from the above.
We have already infer a human mind from empirical human acts which will experience a change from the state of water to ice. Nothing special here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am

I am not stuck in the theory of an independent mind. That is the whole scientific community that is stuck in materialism claiming that mind is an emergent property not realizing that such an emergence is not possible.
Why not possible when what is mind is inferred from empirical evidences.
Because the only evidence that you have is mind not its emergence.
I have already explained, it is from empirical evidence of human actions that we inferred there is an emerging mind [as a placeholder] and not as a specific entity-in-itself.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am

Why not?
Because you are making an assumption that there is always a correlation between consciousness and responsiveness. My nephew was in a coma a year ago. He couldn't respond to external stimuli but he was conscious all the time.
Note I stated there are various states of consciousness.
The basic human consciousness is being alive and not dead [brain dead with no consciousness at all].
Obviously your nephew has basic primal human consciousness but was in coma-consciousness and thus not in wakeful-consciousness.
When a person is coma in general, he would not be able to respond from external and internal stimuli, except the autonomic ones.
Some in coma will have minimal responses, then this determines the degree of coma a person is in.
We can differentiate the above types of consciousness by the types of their responsiveness to various stimuli based on empirical evidences.
There is one state of consciousness but several states of responsiveness. You are mixing these.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
Direct measurement of consciousness??
What is your theory or expectation on that.
There is no way to directly measure consciousness.
There are ways to measure 'consciousness' as I had described above.

I don't understand your point why we cannot directly measure consciousness?
What are your conditions for consciousness to be measured directly.
To don't use brain activity. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon in your perspective so you should be able to measure it directly.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am
I did read that link.
What is it about?
I read but it does not click with me.
I don't want to waste time expounding and countering it.
Your link: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481
So you are basically against my theory without knowing what it is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:33 am

Why not possible when what is mind is inferred from empirical evidences.
Because the only evidence that you have is mind not its emergence.
I have already explained, it is from empirical evidence of human actions that we inferred there is an emerging mind [as a placeholder] and not as a specific entity-in-itself.
No, the only empirical evidence that you have is that you are conscious. You don't have any evidence that your consciousness is emergent.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:54 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:04 am

Because you are making an assumption that there is always a correlation between consciousness and responsiveness. My nephew was in a coma a year ago. He couldn't respond to external stimuli but he was conscious all the time.
Note I stated there are various states of consciousness.
The basic human consciousness is being alive and not dead [brain dead with no consciousness at all].
Obviously your nephew has basic primal human consciousness but was in coma-consciousness and thus not in wakeful-consciousness.
When a person is coma in general, he would not be able to respond from external and internal stimuli, except the autonomic ones.
Some in coma will have minimal responses, then this determines the degree of coma a person is in.
We can differentiate the above types of consciousness by the types of their responsiveness to various stimuli based on empirical evidences.
There is one state of consciousness but several states of responsiveness. You are mixing these.
Only on state of consciousness??
You are living in your own silo world.
I suggest you google 'states of consciousness' to get out of that silo of yours.
To don't use brain activity. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon in your perspective so you should be able to measure it directly.
You are forcing your meaning of 'consciousness' into my concept of consciousness.
As explained my definition of consciousness and mind is different from yours.
I have already explained my definition of consciousness and the different states of consciousness and how they can be differentiated in terms of responsiveness and other measurements.
I read but it does not click with me.
I don't want to waste time expounding and countering it.
Your link: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481
So you are basically against my theory without knowing what it is.
Note my subsequent comments on it re change of H20 from water to ice.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am

Because the only evidence that you have is mind not its emergence.
I have already explained, it is from empirical evidence of human actions that we inferred there is an emerging mind [as a placeholder] and not as a specific entity-in-itself.
No, the only empirical evidence that you have is that you are conscious. You don't have any evidence that your consciousness is emergent.
I have empirical evidence humans are conscious.
Such a consciousness is an emerging phenomenon, i.e. emergent.

I believe you keep having the wrong understanding that the 'emergent' is a thing-in-itself, but in my case, the emergent is not a thing-in-itself.
What is emergence to me is merely conditioned upon the empirical evidences and nothing more.
Where I see emerging dark clouds the empirical evidences point to a certain process of the Water Cycle. There are no dark_clouds-in-itself.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:54 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am

Note I stated there are various states of consciousness.
The basic human consciousness is being alive and not dead [brain dead with no consciousness at all].
Obviously your nephew has basic primal human consciousness but was in coma-consciousness and thus not in wakeful-consciousness.
When a person is coma in general, he would not be able to respond from external and internal stimuli, except the autonomic ones.
Some in coma will have minimal responses, then this determines the degree of coma a person is in.
We can differentiate the above types of consciousness by the types of their responsiveness to various stimuli based on empirical evidences.
There is one state of consciousness but several states of responsiveness. You are mixing these.
Only on state of consciousness??
You are living in your own silo world.
I suggest you google 'states of consciousness' to get out of that silo of yours.
A person either experience (is conscious) or doesn't (is not conscious). These are two states of consciousness, on or off. People who are in coma are conscious but they simply don't respond because the brain doesn't provide stimuli to them and if the brain does provide stimuli they cannot respond since the part of the brain that is responsible for the response is corrupted.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:54 am
To don't use brain activity. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon in your perspective so you should be able to measure it directly.
You are forcing your meaning of 'consciousness' into my concept of consciousness.
As explained my definition of consciousness and mind is different from yours.
I have already explained my definition of consciousness and the different states of consciousness and how they can be differentiated in terms of responsiveness and other measurements.
I am not forcing you to follow my definition of consciousness. Consciousness to me is not emergent and instead is a property of mind. Consciousness to you is an emergent phenomenon. It is something extra than brain activity. So if that is true then you should be able to measure it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:54 am
I read but it does not click with me.
I don't want to waste time expounding and countering it.
Your link: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481
So you are basically against my theory without knowing what it is.
Note my subsequent comments on it re change of H20 from water to ice.
What do you mean? Do you understand my argument?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:20 am
I have already explained, it is from empirical evidence of human actions that we inferred there is an emerging mind [as a placeholder] and not as a specific entity-in-itself.
No, the only empirical evidence that you have is that you are conscious. You don't have any evidence that your consciousness is emergent.
I have empirical evidence humans are conscious.
Such a consciousness is an emerging phenomenon, i.e. emergent.
No. You only have evidence that humans are conscious. To show that consciousness is an emergent property you need to show that the person is not conscious before a specific time/condition and suddenly become conscious afterward. That is the meaning of emergence.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests