Where does consciousness end, and the brain begin?

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

Nothing irritates me more than skeptics like Sniffy. He's all hat and no cattle. He will always contradict statements he doesn't believe in, but folds up like a cheap tent and resorts to evasiveness when pressed to prove his points.

I've been investigating and writing about consciousness for a number of years and I have no patience for that sanctimonious crap.

Okay, two things: Sniffy, you've already stated twice that you were leaving, and once that you weren't going to post on my threads. It's quite obvious that it is you who is more sensitive. For everyone else, I know he's a total troll, but let's ease up a bit, and stay on topic. Make a Sniffy complaint thread if you want.

[robbiehouston]

Let's not waste our time on Sniffy. He's got a bizarre agenda but honestly doesn't contribute much more than severe frustration to those of us who want to discuss exciting new findings about consciousness without gross pseudo-sceptical generalisations. That being said, just block him and the forum experience will be much better.

That being said, in regards to the initial post, I think the relationship between mind and brain is extremely intimate, with both effecting one another, tho in a correlative way, not a causal way. And upon death, it's sort of like stepping out of your car once you've arrived at your destination. Your true self emerges and you go on to do greater things.

That's what I believe at least

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by robbiehouston

Let's not waste our time on Sniffy. He's got a bizarre agenda but honestly doesn't contribute much more than severe frustration to those of us who want to discuss exciting new findings about consciousness without gross pseudo-sceptical generalisations. That being said, just block him and the forum experience will be much better.

That being said, in regards to the initial post, I think the relationship between mind and brain is extremely intimate, with both effecting one another, tho in a correlative way, not a causal way. And upon death, it's sort of like stepping out of your car once you've arrived at your destination. Your true self emerges and you go on to do greater things.

That's what I believe at least

Thank you for the response, Rob. So what I'm getting here is that you believe in an interactionist view, or is that a epiphenomenalist view? I'm more partial to free will, as it gives consciousness a useful purpose in the physical world, because in a practical sense, it's odd to think a system developed a complex way to trick an observer into thinking they have effects on the body... What's the point of a driver for a car that can drive itself, eh?

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by GabeDupuis

Hello everyone, hope you're having a good week. I was doing some exercise tonight when a thought occurred to me: "What comes first, consciousness, or brain activity?". A good example would be to think about something as simple as sadness. Do we genuinely initiate the neural activity associated with the sadness, or does it simply start up given the right circumstances, and we then attach appropriate thoughts to it, making it seem to be initiated by our consciousness? I am in favor of consciousness coming first, myself... Another reason I started thinking about this was when I read Sniffy's recent post "How the brain spots faces". That seems strange to me, for I'm pretty sure that the brain can't "spot" anything.

Christof Koch, Sniffy's favourite neuroscientist, wrote: "God could adjust synaptic release probabilities here and ionic channel openings over there, enough to affect the actions of the organism, yet without leaving an overt material trace, carrying out the hidden work of the Spirit." (here is the link) Translation: If you replace "God" with "consciousness", Koch is opening the door for consciousness not only to intervene, but in fact fully-determine the inner-workings of the brain. This is not his personal opinion about what actually happens, but he clearly considers it a hypothesis. In case it is true, then consciousness happens first, and the brain follows.

Here is one possible articulation of this hypothesis (one I particularly like).

Another hypothesis is Idealism, according to which the brain itself is a construct in consciousness, not the other way around. The brain would, if you will, be a mirror image of mind processes. Consciousness and brain processes would thus be correlated just as an object is correlated with its own image on a mirror. More here.

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by Bernardo

Christof Koch, Sniffy's favourite neuroscientist, wrote: "God could adjust synaptic release probabilities here and ionic channel openings over there, enough to affect the actions of the organism, yet without leaving an overt material trace, carrying out the hidden work of the Spirit." (here is the link) Translation: If you replace "God" with "consciousness", Koch is opening the door for consciousness not only to intervene, but in fact fully-determine the inner-workings of the brain. This is not his personal opinion about what actually happens, but he clearly considers it a hypothesis. In case it is true, then consciousness happens first, and the brain follows.

Here is one possible articulation of this hypothesis (one I particularly like).

Another hypothesis is Idealism, according to which the brain itself is a construct in consciousness, not the other way around. The brain would, if you will, be a mirror image of mind processes. Consciousness and brain processes would thus be correlated just as an object is correlated with its own image on a mirror. More here.

Koch said that? I can just imagine poor Sniffy's face . As for Idealism, and all the other theories, I'm already quite familiar, but thank you for the link Bernardo. Also, on an unrelated note, I found your blog post about the effects psilocybe mushrooms have on the brain very interesting, and I'll definately start reading your blog regularily. You do a good job on it.

[GabeDupuis]

Another hypothesis is Idealism, according to which the brain itself is a construct in consciousness, not the other way around. The brain would, if you will, be a mirror image of mind processes. Consciousness and brain processes would thus be correlated just as an object is correlated with its own image on a mirror.

I just recently came to this idea of the brain as a mirror image myself, and I think it a great way of putting it when dealing with Idealism.

[radicalpolitik]

Originally Posted by GabeDupuis

Koch said that? I can just imagine poor Sniffy's face . As for Idealism, and all the other theories, I'm already quite familiar, but thank you for the link Bernardo. Also, on an unrelated note, I found your blog post about the effects psilocybe mushrooms have on the brain very interesting, and I'll definately start reading your blog regularily. You do a good job on it.

I suspect he'll say 'how can this be reconciled with the searing light of science, the great Steven Pinker has blah blah blah blah blah'

[GabeDupuis]

Steven Pinker... Reminds me when I was at a book store in town, and I saw the bestsellers of the month... The only science/philosophy book up there was non other than Mr. Pinker.

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by radicalpolitik

I suspect he'll say 'how can this be reconciled with the searing light of science, the great Steven Pinker has blah blah blah blah blah'

Oh Sniffy... Quite the character.

[paqart]

A funny aside: without my glasses I read the title of the thread and thought (momentarily) that it was "where does consciousness end and skepticism begin?"

AP