Recalled Experience of Death (RED)

[jeremyp]

There is no feasible explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
Correlation does not define causation.

There's no feasible explanation of how a single entity of conscious awareness can exist independently of a brain.

[Sriram]

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining qualia and subjective experience through neural activity. Once we understand that consciousness is  a property of the self or subject, then the need to explain subjective experience through neural activity does not arise at all. It becomes fundamental.

Like trying to explain the experience of virtual reality merely through pixels, circuits and software. It is not possible. But once the person watching the VR is taken into account the experience is self explanatory.

[torridon]

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining qualia and subjective experience through neural activity. Once we understand that consciousness is  a property of the self or subject, then the need to explain subjective experience through neural activity does not arise at all. It becomes fundamental...

However, you have it the wrong way round.  The 'self' is a property of consciousness, or a product of a conscious mind.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/The_Illusion_of_the_Self

[Nearly Sane]

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining qualia and subjective experience through neural activity. Once we understand that consciousness is  a property of the self or subject, then the need to explain subjective experience through neural activity does not arise at all. It becomes fundamental.

Like trying to explain the experience of virtual reality merely through pixels, circuits and software. It is not possible. But once the person watching the VR is taken into account the experience is self explanatory.

'Understand' here seems to mean 'accept with no reason or evidence'. You are, as you so often do, begging the question. And the hard problem has absolutely nothing to do with it. Indeed it argues precisely against the idea that you can generalise like you want to.


It's very like Alan Burns when he uses the idea of quantum to assert something that it in way backs up. It illustratrs in both that you don't understand the 'hard problem' and he doesn't understand the quantum world.

[Nearly Sane]

However, you have it the wrong way round.  The 'self' is a property of consciousness, or a product of a conscious mind.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/The_Illusion_of_the_Self

One of the things that I find odd about Sriram's, and Alan Burns', approach is that they assert things to be true from their experience but deny the experience of others who experience is differently. I don't have the 'single entity' experience they hold to. Or rather 'I' don't seem to based on descriptions

[jeremyp]

Like trying to explain the experience of virtual reality merely through pixels, circuits and software. It is not possible. But once the person watching the VR is taken into account the experience is self explanatory.

Virtual reality is a consequence of pixels, circuitry and software.

I feel the analogy works the opposite way to what you expect.

[Enki]

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining qualia and subjective experience through neural activity. Once we understand that consciousness is  a property of the self or subject, then the need to explain subjective experience through neural activity does not arise at all. It becomes fundamental.

Like trying to explain the experience of virtual reality merely through pixels, circuits and software. It is not possible. But once the person watching the VR is taken into account the experience is self explanatory.

If the 'subject' is a stone then there is no evidence that consciousness is present. If the 'subject' is a Thompson's gazelle then all the evidence points to its consciousness emanating from its brain. If you are talking about the idea of 'self' then you seem to be talking about self awareness which is an aspect of consciousness, not something which is dependent on it. Either way you add nothing of clarity to the hard problem of consciousness.

[Sriram]

Virtual reality is a consequence of pixels, circuitry and software.

I feel the analogy works the opposite way to what you expect.

The pixels, circuits and software only create the virtual reality and present it. To whom is it presented? To the person watching the VR! This is the subject.

Similarly the brain, nerves, neurons, senses and mind create the reality around us and present it to Consciousness.....which is the one experiencing the reality.

[torridon]

Similarly the brain, nerves, neurons, senses and mind create the reality around us and present it to Consciousness.....which is the one experiencing the reality.

Not quite right.  The 'presentation' of all that sensory information is consciousness.  You cannot be conscious of your consciousness, that makes no sense.

[Nearly Sane]

The pixels, circuits and software only create the virtual reality and present it. To whom is it presented? To the person watching the VR! This is the subject.

Similarly the brain, nerves, neurons, senses and mind create the reality around us and present it to Consciousness.....which is the one experiencing the reality.

We're in 'If a tree falls in the wood, does it make a sound' territory here, aren't we. Which I found fascinating for 6 and half minutes when I was 14.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The pixels, circuits and software only create the virtual reality and present it. To whom is it presented? To the person watching the VR! This is the subject.

Similarly the brain, nerves, neurons, senses and mind create the reality around us and present it to Consciousness.....which is the one experiencing the reality.

Leaving aside your odd terminology here ("present it to" etc) that we become aware of thoughts as they emerge from the subconscious does not require or imply a separate consciousness somehow floating about the place, untethered from minds.   

[Alan Burns]

There's no feasible explanation of how a single entity of conscious awareness can exist independently of a brain.

I never claimed it is independent of the brain.
The entity of awareness perceives and interprets sensory brain activity into conscious meaning.
It also has the power to interact with physical brain activity to enable our gift of free will.

[Alan Burns]

Not quite right.  The 'presentation' of all that sensory information is consciousness.  You cannot be conscious of your consciousness, that makes no sense.

No.
The sensory information exists in physical form - but this does not define our conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness requires some means to perceive and interpret the sensory information into the meaningful thoughts which formulate our awareness.

[jeremyp]

Similarly the brain, nerves, neurons, senses and mind create the reality around us and present it to Consciousness.....which is the one experiencing the reality.

No they don't create the reality around us. That exists independently of neurones. What they do is create the consciousness that experiences reality.

[jeremyp]

I never claimed it is independent of the brain.
The entity of awareness perceives and interprets sensory brain activity into conscious meaning.
It also has the power to interact with physical brain activity to enable our gift of free will.

What evidence do you have that "the entity of awareness" is not part of the brain?

[Enki]

The pixels, circuits and software only create the virtual reality and present it. To whom is it presented? To the person watching the VR! This is the subject.

Similarly the brain, nerves, neurons, senses and mind create the reality around us and present it to Consciousness.....which is the one experiencing the reality.

You seem to be presenting some form of dualism here, a dualism which seems to be pure conjecture on your part. I see no reason why you should separate 'self' from the 'nerves, neurons, senses and mind' and the reality they create.

[Enki]

I never claimed it is independent of the brain.
The entity of awareness perceives and interprets sensory brain activity into conscious meaning.
It also has the power to interact with physical brain activity to enable our gift of free will.

What entity of awareness? An entity is a thing with an independent existence. What does it consist of? Where exactly in the brain is it located? How and where does it interact with other entities?  Can its power be measured? If you can't answer these then you are in the realm of pure speculation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No.
The sensory information exists in physical form - but this does not define our conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness requires some means to perceive and interpret the sensory information into the meaningful thoughts which formulate our awareness.

The subconscious is mainly located in the limbic system, especially the Amygdala. Brain stem and some cortical regions (like insula) are also involved but the main activity is in the limbic system.

Consciousness on the other hand is situated in the cortex, especially the prefrontal and posterior occipital cortices and the claustrum.

Both locations are parts of the brain. To justify your religious beliefs though you assert to be true instead a magic soul conjecture for which there is no evidence at all. When pressed on why you think this to be the case you collapse into one or several logically false arguments (argument from incredulity, shifting the burden of proof etc).   

Why you persist with this vapid idiocy is unknowable, but persist with it you do nonetheless.

[Sriram]

A nice TED video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY&t=601s

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

A nice TED video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY&t=601s

Do you think that some part(s) of the talk supports you? Which part(s)?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The subconscious is mainly located in the limbic system, especially the Amygdala. Brain stem and some cortical regions (like insula) are also involved but the main activity is in the limbic system.

Consciousness on the other hand is situated in the cortex, especially the prefrontal and posterior occipital cortices and the claustrum.

Both locations are parts of the brain.

You are using labels to indicate which parts of the brain can show activity which correlates with conscious awareness.
This in no way offers any explanation for what comprises conscious awareness or how it can manifest within material reactions alone.

To justify your religious beliefs though you assert to be true instead a magic soul conjecture for which there is no evidence at all.

The evidence lies in your demonstrable ability to consciously manipulate your own thought processes to offer arguments to justify your consciously chosen objective.  An ability which you have deemed to be a logical impossibility within the limits of materialistic behaviour.

 When pressed on why you think this to be the case you collapse into one or several logically false arguments (argument from incredulity, shifting the burden of proof etc).   

My ability to argue any case is ample evidence of my God given freedom.

Why you persist with this vapid idiocy is unknowable, but persist with it you do nonetheless.

I continue to witness to the truth of our own God given power to think, to choose, to perceive the difference between good and evil.

[Sriram]

A ten minute interview on consciousness with Hoffman....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynTqCFBhRmw


A ten minute interview with Tononi on consciousness...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK72pPa_gSE&t=70s

[jeremyp]

You are using labels to indicate which parts of the brain can show activity which correlates with conscious awareness.
This in no way offers any explanation for what comprises conscious awareness or how it can manifest within material reactions alone.

Identifying where certain mental activities are located is the first step to understanding them.

The evidence lies in your demonstrable ability to consciously manipulate your own thought processes to offer arguments to justify your consciously chosen objective.  An ability which you have deemed to be a logical impossibility within the limits of materialistic behaviour.

Nobody has shown that our conscious abilities are a logical impossibility within the limits of materialistic behaviour.

My ability to argue any case

You don't have an ability to argue a case. You simply repeat the same old tired assertions again and again without providing any evidence or justification.

[Outrider]

There is no feasible explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.

You can claim that, of course and I can claim otherwise. Do you have a basis for that statement, because otherwise it just feels like an argument from personal incredulity.

Correlation does not define causation.

No, it doesn't. But the fact that correlation does not define causation is not a sufficient basis to claim 'therefore gods'.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are using labels to indicate which parts of the brain can show activity which correlates with conscious awareness.

Yes. And when these parts are damaged then the functionality of subconscious and conscious activities is changed or impaired. This is a pretty good indication that these activities are occurring in these parts of the brain. It does not though suggest that an invisible little gremlin called a “soul” is not is only pulling the strings but also selecting different parts of the brain to which it also somehow decides to attach those strings.       
 

This in no way offers any explanation for what comprises conscious awareness or how it can manifest within material reactions alone.

But it does explain that different parts of the lived experience emanate from different parts of the brain, which is the point.

The evidence lies in your demonstrable ability to consciously manipulate your own thought processes to offer arguments to justify your consciously chosen objective.  An ability which you have deemed to be a logical impossibility within the limits of materialistic behaviour.

Why do you persist with this stupidity given how many times it’s been falsified without you even attempting a rebuttal of the falsifications you’re given? That’s not evidence of a “demonstrable ability to consciously manipulate your own thought processes” at all – instead it’s just a poorly thought-out story you tell yourself – and it’s impossible not just “within the limits of materialistic behaviour” but, more importantly still, within the limits of logic.   

My ability to argue any case is ample evidence of my God given freedom.

You’ve shown no ability actually to argue for anything, and specifically “my God given freedom” is just a repetition of a blind faith claim, not an argument. 

I continue to witness to the truth of our own God given power to think, to choose, to perceive the difference between good and evil.

What you actually continue to do is dishonestly to run away from the plethora of actual arguments that show you to be wrong.