5 ms·

> I believe the most plausible explanation is that there is a precise structural and functional integration located in the brain which gives rise to consciousne

> I believe the most plausible explanation is that there is a precise structural and functional integration located in the brain which gives rise to consciousness. Without sufficiently explicating what that structure may be and how it interfaces with the purported non conscious parts of the body, it is too big of a leap to claim that a locale that is not even the whole brain is essential to consciousness. Regarding the psychoactive compounds, I am not convinced it gives the evidence you think it does. There are way too many confounds, and I don’t think dampening creates the brain in a vat condition anyway. There are plenty of counter examples though, if you’re interested check out embodied cognition. There are cool experiments like people’s cognitive skills diminishing when they are prevented from making hand gestures.

skohan 5y ago
I never made a concrete claim that consciousness is located in a specific brain region. I speculated that, but the truth is we don't know if it's one sub-region which represents consciousness, or a combination of many. As for "how it interfaces with the purported non conscious parts of the body", this part is incredibly obvious. Afferent nerves take information from sensory receptors into the brain, and efferent neurons transport motor signals from the brain to the muscles. There's no mystery at all about the interface: if consciousness is a product of some sub-region of the brain, the interface is the set of synapses carrying information into and out of that region. > it is too big of a leap to claim that a locale that is not even the whole brain is essential to consciousness. I would argue the evidence is incredibly strong that consciousness is localized at least within the brain, if not within a more specialized subset of the brain. Basically every intervention we know about which is capable of having a profound effect on consciousness has to act on the brain. You can amputate an arm or a leg, and consciousness remains intact. However psychoactive drugs interfering with normal activity at the synapse, and trauma to the tissue of the brain causes reliable and repeatable effects on consciousness. If consciousness is indeed a property which originates outside the brain as well, why is it that we can only affect it by taking physical action at the brain itself? As for the argument that it's not "the whole brain", there's a lot of evidence for that as well. For instance, people with various forms of brain damage can lose certain functions without losing consciousness. For instance, people with lesions in the primary visual cortex may not be able to see, but they surely retain their consciousness and subjective experience. > ...embodied cognition. There are cool experiments like people’s cognitive skills diminishing when they are prevented from making hand gestures. This one is very easy to explain and there's no revelation there. Basically all of psychology research has shown that if you divide someone's attention, they perform worse on cognitive tasks. If you artificially require someone to restrict their hand movement, they must spend some of their cognitive capacity thinking about their hands, so they're going to do worse at everything else relative to baseline. If this didn't happen, it would be extremely shocking.
- acituan 5y ago
  > I never made a concrete claim that consciousness is located in a specific brain region. I speculated that, but the truth is we don't know if it's one sub-region which represents consciousness, or a combination of many. Perfect, thanks for admitting what you don’t know. Now tell me how can you be confident that it has to be exclusively “brain” regions if you can't even point to the locale. Why can't it be brain regions + sensorimotor loop for example? > As for "how it interfaces with the purported non conscious parts of the body", this part is incredibly obvious. Afferent nerves take information from sensory receptors into the brain, and efferent neurons transport motor signals from the brain to the muscles. Let’s stick with the credibly obvious. You’re not describing me the interface, you’re merely talking about general pathways. I am asking you the location of the entrance of Walmart, you’re describing me the highway that takes you to the general direction. The truth is, we don't know the entrance(s). > There's no mystery at all about the interface: if consciousness is a product of some sub-region of the brain, the interface is the set of synapses carrying information into and out of that region. “Information”? Individual neurons can’t carry information any more than a single fiber of your Cat5 twister pairs can carry an http header. At best neurons are carrying data that eventually is made into information. Guess what is the bulk content of that data? Sensory data. And it is more a multi-directional protocol of information processing than mere transport of dead data. Remove all of that, even if just the history of any sensory input, what is consciousness conscious of exactly? Thoughts? Are they formulated in language? Where did the brain-in-the-vat learn the language from, why did it learn it? There is more than one way your argument doesn't add up. > You can amputate an arm or a leg, and consciousness remains intact. You’re right. Also you can damage brain regions, and consciousness remains intact. But by that token maybe amputated arm and leg was just not critical enough to reduce consciousness, like those removed brain regions? Maybe a more severe disembodiment is required before consciousness is impeded? Therefore your example proves little. Conversely, you can induce so much sensory pain that consciousness is overwhelmed, diminishes or is entirely lost. Phenomenon like chronic pain evidence some amount of peripheral processing. Phenomenon like blindsight point to learning without conscious awareness. In sum, only thing we know is brain is involved in consciousness, it is a constituent of it, but we have no information as to what the exact list of constituents are, and research points in the direction of body being involved just as much. > This one is very easy to explain and there's no revelation there ... they must spend some of their cognitive capacity thinking about their hands, so they're going to do worse at everything else relative to baseline. This was actually controlled for in the experiment with binding feet, and the effect was sustained. (Alibali, M. W., Spencer R. C., Knox L., & Kita S. (2011) and Davoli, C. C., Brockmole J. R., & Goujon A. (2011)) There are a great many deal of papers on this topic by the way, as embodied cognition is a very active research area. > I would argue the evidence is incredibly strong that consciousness is localized at least within the brain, if not within a more specialized subset of the brain. Yes you keep making willful assertions of the strength and obviousness of your claims, but you fail to provide any evidence that back you up with proportional certainty. I'm sorry but you can't just handwavingly disregard any research that disconfirms your perspective and make rhetoric/sophistry do the heavylifting of your argumentation.

skohan 5y ago

I never made a concrete claim that consciousness is located in a specific brain region. I speculated that, but the truth is we don't know if it's one sub-region which represents consciousness, or a combination of many. As for "how it interfaces with the purported non conscious parts of the body", this part is incredibly obvious. Afferent nerves take information from sensory receptors into the brain, and efferent neurons transport motor signals from the brain to the muscles. There's no mystery at all about the interface: if consciousness is a product of some sub-region of the brain, the interface is the set of synapses carrying information into and out of that region. > it is too big of a leap to claim that a locale that is not even the whole brain is essential to consciousness. I would argue the evidence is incredibly strong that consciousness is localized at least within the brain, if not within a more specialized subset of the brain. Basically every intervention we know about which is capable of having a profound effect on consciousness has to act on the brain. You can amputate an arm or a leg, and consciousness remains intact. However psychoactive drugs interfering with normal activity at the synapse, and trauma to the tissue of the brain causes reliable and repeatable effects on consciousness. If consciousness is indeed a property which originates outside the brain as well, why is it that we can only affect it by taking physical action at the brain itself? As for the argument that it's not "the whole brain", there's a lot of evidence for that as well. For instance, people with various forms of brain damage can lose certain functions without losing consciousness. For instance, people with lesions in the primary visual cortex may not be able to see, but they surely retain their consciousness and subjective experience. > ...embodied cognition. There are cool experiments like people’s cognitive skills diminishing when they are prevented from making hand gestures. This one is very easy to explain and there's no revelation there. Basically all of psychology research has shown that if you divide someone's attention, they perform worse on cognitive tasks. If you artificially require someone to restrict their hand movement, they must spend some of their cognitive capacity thinking about their hands, so they're going to do worse at everything else relative to baseline. If this didn't happen, it would be extremely shocking.

acituan 5y ago
> I never made a concrete claim that consciousness is located in a specific brain region. I speculated that, but the truth is we don't know if it's one sub-region which represents consciousness, or a combination of many. Perfect, thanks for admitting what you don’t know. Now tell me how can you be confident that it has to be exclusively “brain” regions if you can't even point to the locale. Why can't it be brain regions + sensorimotor loop for example? > As for "how it interfaces with the purported non conscious parts of the body", this part is incredibly obvious. Afferent nerves take information from sensory receptors into the brain, and efferent neurons transport motor signals from the brain to the muscles. Let’s stick with the credibly obvious. You’re not describing me the interface, you’re merely talking about general pathways. I am asking you the location of the entrance of Walmart, you’re describing me the highway that takes you to the general direction. The truth is, we don't know the entrance(s). > There's no mystery at all about the interface: if consciousness is a product of some sub-region of the brain, the interface is the set of synapses carrying information into and out of that region. “Information”? Individual neurons can’t carry information any more than a single fiber of your Cat5 twister pairs can carry an http header. At best neurons are carrying data that eventually is made into information. Guess what is the bulk content of that data? Sensory data. And it is more a multi-directional protocol of information processing than mere transport of dead data. Remove all of that, even if just the history of any sensory input, what is consciousness conscious of exactly? Thoughts? Are they formulated in language? Where did the brain-in-the-vat learn the language from, why did it learn it? There is more than one way your argument doesn't add up. > You can amputate an arm or a leg, and consciousness remains intact. You’re right. Also you can damage brain regions, and consciousness remains intact. But by that token maybe amputated arm and leg was just not critical enough to reduce consciousness, like those removed brain regions? Maybe a more severe disembodiment is required before consciousness is impeded? Therefore your example proves little. Conversely, you can induce so much sensory pain that consciousness is overwhelmed, diminishes or is entirely lost. Phenomenon like chronic pain evidence some amount of peripheral processing. Phenomenon like blindsight point to learning without conscious awareness. In sum, only thing we know is brain is involved in consciousness, it is a constituent of it, but we have no information as to what the exact list of constituents are, and research points in the direction of body being involved just as much. > This one is very easy to explain and there's no revelation there ... they must spend some of their cognitive capacity thinking about their hands, so they're going to do worse at everything else relative to baseline. This was actually controlled for in the experiment with binding feet, and the effect was sustained. (Alibali, M. W., Spencer R. C., Knox L., & Kita S. (2011) and Davoli, C. C., Brockmole J. R., & Goujon A. (2011)) There are a great many deal of papers on this topic by the way, as embodied cognition is a very active research area. > I would argue the evidence is incredibly strong that consciousness is localized at least within the brain, if not within a more specialized subset of the brain. Yes you keep making willful assertions of the strength and obviousness of your claims, but you fail to provide any evidence that back you up with proportional certainty. I'm sorry but you can't just handwavingly disregard any research that disconfirms your perspective and make rhetoric/sophistry do the heavylifting of your argumentation.