Consciousness Continued: A fresh start

No. That statement was the correction itself.My statement means that consciousness seems to behave in concord with the activity in the brain. This does not mean that the brain causes consciousness. I did not make this clear at first, so it needed to be corrected. No, I corrected a different statement. My statement wasn't clarifying what I wished to convey. I made a mistake when I type it up. The meaning that was behind it was the same. My intent was to say what I finally did when I corrected it. I just mis-used words by mistake. By interaction I don't mean that the soul and the brain are communicating or that there is some kind of signal being transmitted between the two. I am merely saying that the state of the soul is in concord with the state of the brain. Affect the brain and you affect the mind because the mind is the result of the syncronization between the soul and the brain. Destroy the brain, and you destroy the mind, leaving only the potential for consciousness and free will. The force does not show up because the recieving end of it shows no evidence and the sending end of it is so suttle that it appears as if all that is happening in the brain is a direct result of the previous state of the brain.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think you are still having the misconception of that Consciousness has to be a thing. It is not. It is simply a name given to the state of mind or group of behaviours that we group together and call Consciousness. It doesn’t have a separate existence at all, it is a concept: one ironically facilitated by the very behaviours that it encompasses.

​

What I don’t get is why, despite the points I have made (which I feel highlight that it is highly probable the root cause of ”consciousness’ is the complex, unplanned, emergent behaviour of our brains own neural activities), the fact that you, have admitted a strong correlation between recorded electrical activity in the brain and when the owner of that brain is engaged in conscious thought, the fact that you still hold the brain physically necessary for thought and action, What I don’t get is why you still insist that consciousness isn’t simply a process of the brain?

​

What good solid evidence do you actually have for consciousness being separate from the mechanisms of the brain?

---

By consciousness I mean the medium by which we experience sensation, thoughts, and perceptions.What good solid evidence do you have the consciousness is the result of mechanisms in the brain?I don't have enought time right now to throughouly argue against your statement because I am in school. I will post another reply in response to it.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Try and mentally conceive how 500,000,000 little switches (the combined transistor count for the PS3s Cell Prosessor & RSX graphics chip) could possibly achieve this:

---

I can easily imagine that.

quote:

---

Is ”Solid Snake’ (the character in the picture) and all his friends, enemies and adventures real? I mean physically real? No, they are not. Yet we perceive them as events and things despite being virtual.

​

Now if these characters and events are not physically real does that necessarily carry that their cause is not physically real? That they had some supernatural cause? Of course not. Any one seriously suggesting so would, quite rightly, be laughed clean out of town as crazy.

---

Virtual existance does not have a physical cause. It is the combination of our soul and are brain that create the imaginary events in the mind. The computer does not create the virtual existance. The computer just displays images on the screen based on computer programming. I know how because I have coded a break-out game in C++ before. It is just mathematics, really. The events never become real. Only in the mind of a person do the events exist.

quote:

---

Langton's ant shows that simple rules can give rise to complex behavior, while the PS3 is proof absolute of the power of a large number of little switches to deliver extra ordinary results. With these two facts applied to the human brain it seems almost inconceivable that consciousness isn’t a highly likely natural outcome. At the very least, we should not exhibit any surprise. As far as I can see, there is absolutely NO reason to invoke the supernatural.

​

Edited by ohnhai, 23-05-2006 05:50 AM: deleated a stray word to improve readability.

---

This doesn't apply to consciousness because consciousness is not a behavior. Consciousness is experience. It is the true "I am" of a person, something that artificial intellegence cannot produce.