The Final Answer to the Brain / Consciousness Mystery

Share thoughts and ideas regarding what can be done to meet contemporary humanity's need for rites of initiation and passage.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

What general solution will answer the mystery of the relationship between the material processes of the human brain and the phenomenon we all know as human consciousness?

a.) There is no mystery
1
7%
b.) The classical scientific solution
0
No votes
c.) The exotic scientific solution
6
40%
d.) There is no solution
3
20%
e.) Other
5
33%
 
Total votes: 15

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

The Final Answer to the Brain / Consciousness Mystery

Post by noman »

It was introduced about 400 years ago by Descartes and has since been referred to as ‘the mind/body problem’, ‘the explanatory gap’, and most recently ‘the hard problem’. Descartes solution was that there is a small organ in the middle of the brain called the pineal gland that is so sensitive so as to be moved by thought. This conduit connects our world of thought and ideas with the material world. His contemporary, Leibnitz, had another explanation. He said in his own way that the material world and the world of thought are like the visual and audio tracks of a film. They are synchronized by God so they never slip. Spinoza, a generation later said that the human consciousness and the human body are two aspects of one thing. All material things are conscious to a certain degree. Human beings have human consciousness. Oak trees have oak tree consciousness. And fire hydrants have hydrant consciousness.

A more modern version of the mind / body problem was offered by William James 120 years ago. He said that even though there is no longer any substance we can call consciousness, no soul, and no ‘ghost in a machine’; one still has to account for the function of the human brain to produce the phenomenon of ‘knowing’. It’s not just that we know – it’s that we know we know. How can an electro-chemical meat machine do that?

Many see the answer to the ‘explanatory gap’ as the next big step in science. Others believe it is a step that will never be taken. Still others believe there is simply no ‘step’ to take. I see this as a four horse race.

1.) There is no problem
2.) The classical scientific solution
3.) The exotic scientific solution
4.) There is no solution

These are four general categories though there are some interesting variations within each one.

There is no problem

Our own JCF associate Og, who works in the field of neuroscientific research, said there is really no great mystery to explain. Many in this debate agree. The human brain is like a toaster – but more complex. The result is the phenomenon of human consciousness. Some in this category will emphasis that human consciousness is really just an illusion – comparable to the illusion that the sun goes around the earth. We know the sun doesn’t go around the earth, but we still speak about the movement of the sun as though it does. And we speak of ‘our thoughts’ and ‘our mind’ as though it were a real entity.

The typical claim in this category is that brain and mind are two aspects of one thing. The brain does not ‘cause’ or ‘give rise’ to thought. The brain is simply ‘thought’ by another name. And ‘thought’ is brain by another name.

Consider a penny. It is a 2.5 gram material disk made of mostly copper. It is also a recognizable coin with monetary value. These are two attributes of one thing. You might say that the recognizable coin is due to a ‘social construct’ or a shared belief and is therefore not ‘real’ in the same way that human consciousness is real. But a good argument could be made that human consciousness is largely a ‘social construct’. Try raising a baby in a box without any human contact. After ten years imagine what level of consciousness this human being might have. Would he be able to reason, to form ideas beyond fundamental perceptions? Would he have a sense of self and know ‘I’ from ‘other’?

In this category there are also ‘pan-psychists’ who believe, like Spinoza, that all things are conscious to a certain degree. Then there are those who believe consciousness only emerges at a certain level of brain complexity. So a cat may be conscious, but not a snail.

The Classical Scientific Solution

Antonio Demasio, one of the leaders in this research and debate, said that he expects a comprehensible solution will be found by 2050. At the beginning of the 20th century there was a great mystery in the relationship between inorganic matter and living matter. But the standard scientific method came up with a solution. Francis Crick, who helped solve the inorganic / life mystery, was working on the brain / consciousness mystery right up until his death in 2004. It's a tough problem. But one that won't require any radical changes in our understanding of nature.

In this contest it is worth considering that this particular horse has a reputation for winning the big races.

The Exotic Scientific Solution

This might be considered a ‘dark horse’ in the race. But it is, nevertheless, a serious contender. The Oxford mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose believes that the laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

The most fascinating character in this category is David Bohm, a leading physicist from Berkeley, who was asked to work on the Manhattan project but was denied security clearance for his political views. In the 50s he fell victim to McCarthyism and was exiled to Brazil. He later became enamored by a spiritual teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti and eventually wrote philosophical works. Many believe David Bohm’s political life prevented him from receiving a Nobel Prize in physics. But the importance for this discussion is that David Bohm made a serious attempt to marry cognitive theory with modern physics.

Even if this horse doesn’t win the race, I have to admire Bohm’s maverick effort. The history of science has shown us that the strangest ideas of yesterday sometimes become the common sense knowledge of tomorrow.


There is no Solution


This reasonable claim says that there is nothing in the universe like human consciousness because it can’t be observed objectively. It can only be experienced subjectively. If we build a computer to behave just like a human brain how will we know whether it is conscious or not? We can’t ‘become’ the machine, nor expect the machine to ‘become’ us. This is why Harvard psychologist Stephen Pinker says there is something about the brain / consciousness problem that will never be solved.

As Alan Watts said ‘the mind is an eye that sees but cannot see itself’. So we will always have this mystery of self and mind to meditate on.

* * * * * * *

So there it is folks; the most exciting race of the 21st century. The trumpet has just played those two familar musical lines. The bell has rung, the gates have flung open, and the horses are now deep in stride heading into the first turn. But unlike an ordinary horse race you can bet on this race at any time.


So place-yur bets – and perhaps we can all meet back here in one hundred years or so to see which horses and riders are still in the race, or whether any single horse and rider has won.


For right now, I can't decide. So maybe I will choose selection 'e'. Still thinking about it.


- NoMan

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

A more modern version of the mind / body problem was offered by William James 120 years ago. He said that even though there is no longer any substance we can call consciousness, no soul, and no ‘ghost in a machine’; one still has to account for the function of the human brain to produce the phenomenon of ‘knowing’. It’s not just that we know – it’s that we know we know. How can an electro-chemical meat machine do that?
Experience of experience of experience.

More to come.

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

Many see the answer to the ‘explanatory gap’ as the next big step in science. Others believe it is a step that will never be taken. Still others believe there is simply no ‘step’ to take
.

How about "intelligence" in an inorganic container.

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

The human brain is like a toaster – but more complex
.

That which is complex is simple; that which is simple is complex.

All complexities are simplicities in waiting.

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Hey Noman,

Research into this field has been going on for quite some time. I believe the the leader in this field of cognitive neuroscience is Richie Davidson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Davidson

http://www.mindandlife.org/conf04.html

There appears to be evidence that the mind can change the brain. But don't take my word for it, explore the links above. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Okay Neo, so perhaps the mind can change the brain. But how is the connection made? How do ethereal thoughts have an effect on a material brain? Either there is an explanation for this phenomenon, or there is not an explanation, or there is no explanation needed - seems to me.

From Neo's second link:
Finally, what is the best theory or model to explain how sustained voluntary activity on the part of the person (the whole embodied being aware of the world) can be causally efficacious at the level of neurons and neural assemblies? This last question is an aspect of the well-known, outstanding "explanatory gap" in the neuroscience of consciousness: On the one hand, the assumption that mental processes are brain processes both regulates (or guides) scientific research and constitutes the overall scientific view of the mind. One the other hand, there is still no adequate explanation of how brain activity gives rise to consciousness and of what causal role consciousness may play in the brain's workings.

http://www.mindandlife.org/conf04.html
I've narrowed it down to two favorites. Horse number 4 and horse number 2. On the one hand, it just seems like this mystery will always be with us no matter how much science we perform. Dissecting a frog won't give us any clue as to what the frog's subjective experience is like. So horse number 4 looks good. But like I said, horse number 2 has won some really big races in the history of science and scares me - so I'm a little hesitant to place my bet.

- NoMan

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

Finally, what is the best theory or model to explain how sustained voluntary activity on the part of the person (the whole embodied being aware of the world) can be causally efficacious at the level of neurons and neural assemblies?
The flow of mass. www.rationalmechanisms.com

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

noman
It’s not just that we know – it’s that we know we know. How can an electro-chemical meat machine do that?


Free will. The ability to bind flows to augment experience, building of robust intuition.

RS
Last edited by richard silliker on Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Now you're talkin RS. A quick look at your website tells me you two are working on an 'exotic scientific' explanation. You and many other people - hacking away at the problem.

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

noman
In this category there are also ‘pan-psychists’ who believe, like Spinoza, that all things are conscious to a certain degree. Then there are those who believe consciousness only emerges at a certain level of brain complexity. So a cat may be conscious, but not a snail.


What we are talking about here is capacity for scope and extension.

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

noman
We can’t ‘become’ the machine, nor expect the machine to ‘become’ us. This is why Harvard psychologist Stephen Pinker says there is something about the brain / consciousness problem that will never be solved.
Machine : any given aggregate of mechanisms that implement a mechanism.

Mechanism : any given aggregate of levers that implement a lever.

Complex Mechanism : any given machine that implements its acquisition through its expression and implements its expression through its acquisition - metabolism.

We are the machine.

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

noman wrote:I've narrowed it down to two favorites. Horse number 4 and horse number 2. On the one hand, it just seems like this mystery will always be with us no matter how much science we perform. Dissecting a frog won't give us any clue as to what the frog's subjective experience is like. So horse number 4 looks good. But like I said, horse number 2 has won some really big races in the history of science and scares me - so I'm a little hesitant to place my bet.
My two cents' worth for what it's worth--until the problem of the explanatory gap is resolved, we're essentially left with as-ifs and what-ifs. Fine with me since I love a good mystery, and nothing intrigues me more than mind... My hunch is that modern science and modern philosophy working in tandem have the potential to fill this gap someday, but I'll not hold my breath that this happens anytime soon. :wink:

And just to complicate things more, noman, how is "consciousness" to be defined for the purpose of this discussion? Uh, good luck with this one. :P

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

I’m not specifically addressing anyone; I’m just throwing this out here for comment.

It seems to me that everyone forgets the scientific fact that manifested life does not need a brain to live. A seed does not have a brain. But when you give it Earth, Air, Water, and Fire (the sun) to grows into a flower which “knows” how to produce its own food from sunlight. How can this be if the brain is the “source”?

The same life essence that makes the flower grow, is the same life essence in humans (unless we just deny the fact we are not part of life or the Earth). So IMHO, humans have difficulty conceiving of this life essence because we are aware of our own life, we are aware that the brain controls thinking, but no matter how far we dig, we will never find the life essence. So I feel the only way this can be understood is through meditative contemplation and reasoning (which are not scientific).

Hence the Buddha remaining silent and holding a flower. This also reminds be of a parable from an unorthodox gospel.
7. AND there were certain men of doubtful mind, came unto Iesus, and said unto him: Thou tellest us that our life and being is from God, but we have never seen God, nor do we know of any God. Canst thou shew us Whom thou callest the Father-Mother, one God? We know not if there be a God.

8. Iesus answered them, saying, Hear ye this parable of the fishes. The fishes of a certain river communed with one another, saying, They tell us that our life and being is from water, but we have never seen water, we know not what water is. Then some among them, wiser than the rest, said: We have heard there dwelleth in the sea a wise and learned Fish, who knoweth all things. Let us journey to him, and ask him to shew us what water is.

9. So several of them set out to find this great and wise Fish and they came at last to the sea wherein the wise Fish dwelt, and they asked of him.

10. And when he heard them he said unto them, O ye foolish fish that consider not! Wise are ye, the few, who seek. In the water ye live, and move, and have your being; from the water ye came, to the water ye return. Ye live in the water, yet ye know it not. In like manner, ye live in God, and yet ye ask of me, “Shew us God.” God is in all things, and all things are in God.
Just a “thought”. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

Neoplato
It seems to me that everyone forgets the scientific fact that manifested life does not need a brain to live. A seed does not have a brain. But when you give it Earth, Air, Water, and Fire (the sun) to grows into a flower which “knows” how to produce its own food from sunlight. How can this be if the brain is the “source”?
"life" is a complex mechanism. A seed requires a constraint, soil, to grow. All growth occurs from the outside inward.

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

RS Wrote:
A seed requires a constraint, soil, to grow. All growth occurs from the outside inward.
I see this from a different point of view. I see the soil as the stimulus, not a constraint, and the flower growing forth out of the seed.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Locked