4 ms·

Oh, please, cut this cosplay out. In every surgery room of the whole world you could see how chemical compounds administered to patients would turn them unconsc

by lngnmn 10y ago

Oh, please, cut this cosplay out. In every surgery room of the whole world you could see how chemical compounds administered to patients would turn them unconscious and back. This implies that the consciousness is a product of the brain, not some immaterial substance, divine presence or other kind of abstract crap. This also implies that it is not mere an abstract idea of so-called pure reason ("soul", "I" and "god" are such idea, "awareness" isn't), but a valid linguistic label associated to a real high-level biological phenomena (a set of coordinated processes). In every neurology department which deals with brain injures and pathology one could see the evidences that the states of consciousness and even its pretense or absence are bound by particular parts of the brain, which, in turn, is an artifact conditioned by the evolutionary forces and constraints of this particular universe and its physical laws. The way medical science went from Phineas Gage to modern maps of the brain centers, insights into how the vision sub-system works, etc. constitutes the experimental proofs you are asked for. The proof could be considered still incomplete (but nevertheless it is valid because there is not a single contradiction in what is experimentally confirmed), because there is no way to describe step-by-step the whole development from a single fertilized egg to you, but there is no doubt that there is nothing extra to that mere "mechanical" process, and that the mind is what the brain does and that conscious, which some people would call primordial awareness, is mere a product of the brain activity, which can be affected by chemical compounds and even switched on and off, which, BTW, happens every time you fall asleep (because it is not required) and wake up.

MikkoFinell 10y ago
I didn't ask whether consciousness is abstract crap, nor did I ask about vision subsystems (which aren't even unique to brains), nor did I ask you to explain the whole process of development from fertilized egg to me. Well, unless that has something to do with the experiment that would show that consciousness exists, which it may or may not, at least you drew no apparent connections in your post. I asked you to describe the experiment which proves that consciousness exists. Merely saying that consciousness is a product of the brain is like proving dark matter by saying it's a product of the universe. I hope you can understand why that is not a convincing argument.
- lngnmn 10y ago
  > Merely saying that consciousness is a product of the brain is like proving dark matter by saying it's a product of the universe. This statement is nonsense. The presence or absence of consciousness could be empirically verified and experimentally tested. The presence or absence of dark matter could not be empirically verified because the concept which is referenced by this pair of words belongs to the category of abstract ideas. Notice, that consciousness is not an abstract idea, it belong to the category of biological processes. You have here a logical error of assuming existence of an abstract concept, which neither could be empirically verified nor experimentally tested. There is a subtle difference between a product of the physical brain and a product of group-thinking or sectarian beliefs. While the concepts which form the basis of this or that system of beliefs are certainly exist inside the consciousness of the individual believers and certainly are presented in their shared vocabulary, the phenomena which these concepts presumably accurately and completely capture does not exist anywhere in the universe.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The presence or absence of consciousness could be empirically verified and experimentally tested. No, it can't; there are various behavioral traits that are conjectured to be indicative of consciousness that can be tested, but consciousness itself can either be tested nor observed in anyone except the observer. > Notice, that consciousness is not an abstract idea, it belong to the category of biological processes. No, consciousness is not a biological process, it's a phenomenon which is assumed to occur as a product of biological processes, though it's often conjectured that it could also occur as a product of other processes as well.
    - lngnmn 10y ago
      Yes, consciousness is a product of various behavioral traits, but its presence could be empirically tested. There are simple quick medical procedures which could tell whether a man (or even a dog) is conscious or not, and there is an ultimate test in a fMRI scanner which could prove that the patient has no consciousness. Any religious nonsense about validity of the fMRI test is plain stupidity. Some limited artificial consciousness is obviously possible, even artificial self-consciousness, at least in theory. But possibility does not imply existence.

by lngnmn 10y ago

MikkoFinell 10y ago

I didn't ask whether consciousness is abstract crap, nor did I ask about vision subsystems (which aren't even unique to brains), nor did I ask you to explain the whole process of development from fertilized egg to me. Well, unless that has something to do with the experiment that would show that consciousness exists, which it may or may not, at least you drew no apparent connections in your post. I asked you to describe the experiment which proves that consciousness exists. Merely saying that consciousness is a product of the brain is like proving dark matter by saying it's a product of the universe. I hope you can understand why that is not a convincing argument.

lngnmn 10y ago
> Merely saying that consciousness is a product of the brain is like proving dark matter by saying it's a product of the universe. This statement is nonsense. The presence or absence of consciousness could be empirically verified and experimentally tested. The presence or absence of dark matter could not be empirically verified because the concept which is referenced by this pair of words belongs to the category of abstract ideas. Notice, that consciousness is not an abstract idea, it belong to the category of biological processes. You have here a logical error of assuming existence of an abstract concept, which neither could be empirically verified nor experimentally tested. There is a subtle difference between a product of the physical brain and a product of group-thinking or sectarian beliefs. While the concepts which form the basis of this or that system of beliefs are certainly exist inside the consciousness of the individual believers and certainly are presented in their shared vocabulary, the phenomena which these concepts presumably accurately and completely capture does not exist anywhere in the universe.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The presence or absence of consciousness could be empirically verified and experimentally tested. No, it can't; there are various behavioral traits that are conjectured to be indicative of consciousness that can be tested, but consciousness itself can either be tested nor observed in anyone except the observer. > Notice, that consciousness is not an abstract idea, it belong to the category of biological processes. No, consciousness is not a biological process, it's a phenomenon which is assumed to occur as a product of biological processes, though it's often conjectured that it could also occur as a product of other processes as well.
  - lngnmn 10y ago
    Yes, consciousness is a product of various behavioral traits, but its presence could be empirically tested. There are simple quick medical procedures which could tell whether a man (or even a dog) is conscious or not, and there is an ultimate test in a fMRI scanner which could prove that the patient has no consciousness. Any religious nonsense about validity of the fMRI test is plain stupidity. Some limited artificial consciousness is obviously possible, even artificial self-consciousness, at least in theory. But possibility does not imply existence.