Where does consciousness end, and the brain begin?

[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. Diving further into this, in the short quote provided something caught my eye:

For the ones in the middle — structures, formations, smudges and shapes that give us a pareidolic reaction that causes us to see a face — they used photographs that machine vision systems had falsely tagged as faces.

The machine vision tagged those face-like shapes as faces. Why? Easy, what does this machine lack, that humans have? Consciousness! The machine can only draw on shapes that roughly match, but a conscious entity can discern it after receiving data from the brain, no?

Let us discuss, then.

[Sniffy the Atheist]

Hi GabeDupuis, i don't understand your question. I guess you are looking at consciousness from a different perspective. The correct view based on the evidence is consciousness is a process that arises when certain neurons fire under a certain temperature with feedback from different bodily process. Our massive connection of neurons is where the magic happens. At this advanced stage of neuroscience, we can confidently say that psychological processes are in fact processes of the physical brain, neuroscientists laugh at cartesian dualism.

In the 1700's, the Philosopher Leibniz concluded that consciousness cannot be a physical process, modern philosophers and scientists like Thomas Nagel, John Eccles, John Searle and Roger Penrose have all appealed to the seductive idea that a neurobiological explanations of consciousness is impossible. However i urge you to take a look at the work of Patricia Churchland, Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennet. Always remember our intuitions are awful indication of the truth.

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by Sniffy the Atheist

Hi GabeDupuis, i don't understand your question. I guess you are looking at consciousness from a different perspective. The correct view based on the evidence is consciousness is a process that arises when certain neurons fire under a certain temperature with feedback from different bodily process. Our massive connection of neurons is where the magic happens. At this advanced stage of neuroscience, we can confidently say that psychological processes are in fact processes of the physical brain, neuroscientists laugh at cartesian dualism.

In the 1700's, the Philosopher Leibniz concluded that consciousness cannot be a physical process, modern philosophers and scientists like Thomas Nagel, John Eccles, John Searle and Roger Penrose have all appealed to the seductive idea that a neurobiological explanations of consciousness is impossible. However i urge you to take a look at the work of Patricia Churchland, Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennet. Always remember our intuitions are awful indication of the truth.

Not only untrue, but you broke the Haven's posting rules.

[GabeDupuis]

And seriously, "The correct view"? You're either the biggest troll, or the perfect example of blind faith. I leave room for doubt in my ideas, but you obviously do not. I've blocked you, I don't need your crap.

[Sniffy the Atheist]

Fine, i am not going to respond to your posts again. You have been unfriendly and mean to me from the time you joined the forum.
Goodbye

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by GabeDupuis

And seriously, "The correct view"? You're either the biggest troll, or the perfect example of blind faith. I leave room for doubt in my ideas, but you obviously do not. I've blocked you, I don't need your crap.

You're one of my new favorite people. I do think, however, there's a big over lap between consciousness and brain states. Fmris can help in identifying them, but i generally can conclude that consciousness tends to ' take over ' during extremely enlightening / experential times, rather than during mundane computation.

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by Iyace

You're one of my new favorite people. I do think, however, there's a big over lap between consciousness and brain states. Fmris can help in identifying them, but i generally can conclude that consciousness tends to ' take over ' during extremely enlightening / experential times, rather than during mundane computation.

Thank you for the RELATED and APPROPRIATE response Iyace. Yes, I agree with that. I also like to think of the brain as reacting to us, as well as being used by us. On the question of Sniffy, he just pushed me a bit too far with his stupid comments. I can't take him seriously at all.

[Craig Weiler]

Gabe,
First, thanks for that smackdown of Sniffy. He was being really obnoxious.

This is a really challenging question because it revolves around what the hell consciousness is in the first place.

I've written about it a lot. If you gather all the data together from quantum physics, cosmology, biology, parapsychology etc. The picture looks to be that consciousness is fundamental to the universe. You can explain EVERYTHING from that perspective.

If that holds, then the brain and body are just tools that consciousness uses to adapt to physical existence. The brain then, is a manager of consciousness, not the seat of it. There seems to be some evidence to support this.

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by GabeDupuis

Thank you for the RELATED and APPROPRIATE response Iyace. Yes, I agree with that. I also like to think of the brain as reacting to us, as well as being used by us. On the question of Sniffy, he just pushed me a bit too far with his stupid comments. I can't take him seriously at all.

Don't mind sniffy. He has an agenda here. I talked with a group of jehovas witnesses yesterday, and now that i think about it, they share the same realm as the sniffies of the world. They just pour their material on you, blindly following. Sure some of what sniffy punish is interesting, and I do read all of it. But he won't engage the material

[GabeDupuis]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

Gabe,
First, thanks for that smackdown of Sniffy. He was being really obnoxious.

This is a really challenging question because it revolves around what the hell consciousness is in the first place.

I've written about it a lot. If you gather all the data together from quantum physics, cosmology, biology, parapsychology etc. The picture looks to be that consciousness is fundamental to the universe. You can explain EVERYTHING from that perspective.

If that holds, then the brain and body are just tools that consciousness uses to adapt to physical existence. The brain then, is a manager of consciousness, not the seat of it. There seems to be some evidence to support this.

Yes Craig, I'm really flying on the same wavelength here with you. The brain as the manager, I like that. I've previously thought of the brain as something keeping the entity in check, assuring the survival of the organism... Have you perhaps read "The Doors of Perception"? I love Huxley's idea of the brain as a reducing valve.