Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Active Topics
Welcome to Legend of the Emblem. We hope you burn in hell.


You're currently viewing our unnecessarily awesome forum as a worthless lemmingguest. This means you are immensely retarded. Should you join our wondrous community, you'll be able to cry yourself to sleep faster than ever before, and use many member-only features such as making fun of kneehigh, possibly abusing your newfound modly powers, and voting on how you would like to die first. Registration is ridiculously simple, fast, and only costs you your soul, but this is 2010, we don't need no souls. Lucky you!


Click here to destroy your hope of ever being successful in life!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to not face the wrath of Posted Image.
Spoiler: click to toggle


haha this thing still says it's 2010 haha

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The human brain...molecules...and soul?; ,,,
Topic Started: Jun 13 2008, 05:58:20 AM (1,067 Views)
Reikken
Member Avatar


So I was thinking about the human brain, and I can see how molecules can make up the complex circuitry of the brain that can create all these complex thoughts and analyze input from senses, etc., much like a superamazingly sophisticated, though much slower in many ways, computer.

But what I can't see is how those molecules can create this conciousness. This me that's seeing these images and hearing these thoughts.

What I would expect a human made up of molecules to be would be akin to a complex robot.
But what I'm experiencing would be better described as a complex mecha piloted by me (or perhaps I only think I'm in control, but I am there regardless).

So how can this be? How can molecules, atoms, do that?
Or perhaps they can't, and this is what a soul is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDiJkhUMfw

http://myanimelist.net/profile/Reikken | http://www.last.fm/user/Reikken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

Actually, the brain's much better than a computer.

Try seeing how quickly it processes information when you've got a bajillion other things it has to run perfectly at the same time. Any lagging means your body just stopped some of its vital functions and you died. Great going.

Anyway.

Although I'm a proponent of the existence of a soul, I don't see how this could be a biological problem.

Your eye comprehends the images on this screen, sends it to the brain, where it is converted to visual information to be read by the command center. After that, impulses within the front area of your brain are fired and conscious thought occurs.

From a strictly realistic perspective, it's really just a glorified version of 1+1=2. But what about the speculation of possibility? Same type of calculation, but with the label 'if' attached. Philosophical musing? The struggle of a computer to calculate a problem with a large number of strange restrictions on limited RAM. Anything you can think of can be explained away with labels.

As for why there's a consciousness...how do you quantify a consciousness? Can you prove in some way that what you think is somehow separated from your body in a way beyond what a robot would have?


Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Whale


Wow, rei actually ponders the human brain on his spare time. :hmm: >_>

obligatory text <<
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

Rei's an awesome d00d. He has to ponder awesome topics.
Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reikken
Member Avatar


Lukannon
Jun 13 2008, 01:31:52 AM
As for why there's a consciousness...how do you quantify a consciousness?  Can you prove in some way that what you think is somehow separated from your body in a way beyond what a robot would have?

The consciousness part is indeed the main subject. I think I already agreed with you on the rest.

And no, because I can't know for sure that a robot or computer can't have consciousness. If consciousness is something that can be created by the right arrangement of atoms, which I can't at all see how--this is my central question, then a robot would indeed have consciousness were it built correctly.

I'm just assuming that it doesn't for the sake of trying to describe consciousness, something that I find very difficult, if not impossible, to describe directly. Much like trying to describe a rainbow to a blind person. I really can't. I could say it's arcs of color, but then what does color look like?

Though if you're asking me to prove that consciousness itself is somewhat separated from mere molecules, then again I can't. That's the question I'm asking in the first post. Is it separate? and if not, how?

Everything else I know of is so much different, so much more tangible than a consciousness, so that's why I can't at all see how it can be made up of physical particles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDiJkhUMfw

http://myanimelist.net/profile/Reikken | http://www.last.fm/user/Reikken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

A 'consciousness' isn't physical. Can we agree on this? That is, there isn't some special 'consciousness' particle.

However, if we agree that things like thought and the intake of stimulus can be reduced to a series of 1's and 0's, then there really isn't a need for consciousness to be separate from the brain. What would confuse you is the depth of thought that you can generate through that consciousness, correct? To you, it feels much deeper than simply running calculations through your head.

But if you get caught up in surface appearances like that, then you miss the fact that you CAN in fact reduce anything that goes on into something simple like that.

In other words, consciousness is an illusion generated by the processing of information via the brain. "I think, therefore I am." Rather, what it should be is "I am, therefore I think." As the brain processes information, your consciousness is only the conclusions generated by that information.

Am I getting my point through to you? A consciousness is not inherently physical, but what a consciousness IS is the interplay of information generated and processed by the brain, a process which IS entirely physical. Just like the concept of 'mixing' isn't physical. Mixing is inherently a physical action, but the concept of mixing itself is not.

I'm really saying this mostly for the sake of argument, but also because if you argue from this kind of boring, scientific point of view you can actually qualify it in some way.
Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Creepy Old Guy With a Parrot
Member Avatar
The greatest sniper that ever lived

Get a lobotomy
Credit to myself, for asking Nyck to make this. I did the real work
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reikken
Member Avatar


No, it's not the depth or complexity of thoughts, calculations, or whatever; I can see how even the most complex thoughts can be explained as physical processes.

It's the awareness, for lack of a better word.
For example, the visual information from my eyes goes into my brain, gets processed, influences thoughts, etc., but at the same time, I am also consciously seeing the images.
Terrible explanation, I know, but I can't do much better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDiJkhUMfw

http://myanimelist.net/profile/Reikken | http://www.last.fm/user/Reikken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

How do you qualify 'consciously seeing?'

What's the difference between 'consciously seeing' and 'seeing?'
Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raak
Member Avatar
... Oh crap.

Lukannon
Jun 13 2008, 03:00:24 PM
How do you qualify 'consciously seeing?'

What's the difference between 'consciously seeing' and 'seeing?'

I think the difference would be something like this:

"Seeing" is simply that, seeing. Observing the images without no further analysis.

"Conciously seeing" the image includes analyzing the image, what it means, what does it make me feels, etc.

I would make this more in-depth, but I have to go and I'm lazy =p
Posted Image
The Team, the legends.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reikken
Member Avatar


Bleah. I think this is hopeless. Consciousness is something that defies explanation. I can't describe it any more than I can describe color.

And no, that's not it, raak.

It's
receiving visual data and seeing an image (what I referred to as "consciously seeing") and then perhaps analyzing it or whatever else
vs
receiving visual data and then perhaps analyzing it or whatever else.

The step of consciously seeing that I'm talking about is not necessary to process the visual data, and it's not really part of the processing. It's like, the brain could go on and make sense of the image and figure out what it is by matching it to memory, etc., but instead it first forwards the image to your conscious awareness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDiJkhUMfw

http://myanimelist.net/profile/Reikken | http://www.last.fm/user/Reikken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

So, wait...

Are you saying something like:

Instead of visual information immediately processed and used to form a conclusion, it is first registered as stray data and allowed to be messed with in free thought?

That is...

stimulus > intake > processing > conclusion

vs

stimulus > intake > processing > thinking about it as a stand-alone information > conclusion

?
Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raak
Member Avatar
... Oh crap.

Screw philosophy. It never liked me and I don't like it back :angry:
Posted Image
The Team, the legends.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wight
Member Avatar
Robin Goodfellow

Consciousness is all fine and good, but the really remarkable thing is our ability to be self-conscious. Brains are brains. They work the same way. Yet somehow, a dog's brain is incapable of registering self-consciousness, while humans are born with that ability. It is the self-consciousness that makes the essence of humanity and is unexplainable by any scientific means as of yet. It is the self-consciousness that enables us to perform higher thinking processes.

Going on this whole 'seeing and analyzing' thing, a dog can see and analyze as well. It is conscious. A dog sees food. It analyzes it as food. It eats it if it's hungry. We see food. We analyze it as food. And we are able to determine its impact upon ourselves. So we reject the food because we weigh 300 lbs, have high blood pressure, and a bag of potato chips will not do anything to help that situation. Dogs will never do that because they have no sense of self. So that, to me, is what's important.
Posted Image
If we shadows have offended, think but this and all is mended;
That you have but slumber'd here, whilst these visions did appear . . .
~A Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare~


~Credit to Tiltyu of FESS for the banner~
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

Two things.

A) Can you prove dogs have no sense of self?

B) Can you prove that dogs eating whatever they have is not a result of having no sense of self but from lacking the information required to make the other choice?

Yeh.
Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wight
Member Avatar
Robin Goodfellow

A) Experimentation leans heavily towards that conclusion. Obviously, it is impossible to empirically prove that, but society accepts that dogs are not self-conscious in the way that humans are.

B) This question, I believe, is void, since a dog's self-consciousness (or lack thereof) isn't really a matter of debate. But if we're going along these lines, if dogs do have a sense of self and only lack the nutritional information necessary to make food choices, then their sense of self should tell them that, "I cannot move as fast as I used to. Something is wrong." If they do not understand how exercise and food impacts weight, it seems to me as if they would learn eventually just from experimentation if they really did have a sense of self.

"I ate a lot. I feel lethargic now."
"I ran around a lot. I feel energetic."
Posted Image
If we shadows have offended, think but this and all is mended;
That you have but slumber'd here, whilst these visions did appear . . .
~A Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare~


~Credit to Tiltyu of FESS for the banner~
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

A) What experimentation? Also, common opinion doesn't really mean anything except when backed up by something more concrete.

B) Biologically, becoming fat is not really a bad thing. All animals do learn to make food choices based on experimentation(that's why viceroy butterflies can defend themselves by imitating monarchs), but in the case of a fat dog, from the dog's standpoint, that isn't a negative. Evolution favors the animal that can put on as much food as possible...this is true even in the case of humans. The difference is that for humans, there are two factors that are very important towards keeping weight down: social stigma, and the knowledge that obesity leads to health complications. The latter is unknown to dogs, the former is irrelevant because it's entirely subjective based on the current incarnation of human society.

This is especially true for the current breed of pet dogs, particularly toy dogs or old dogs, who's livelihood no longer depends on their physical capability to hunt. In the case that it did, not only would they be running around a lot more(and hence gain incredible benefits from all the exercise they get) but food would also be in a much shorter supply. Because that was normally the case, evolution favored an animal that could eat a lot in a short amount of time, lethargy or not, in order to stave off starvation and obtain as many calories possible from one feeding window. In fact, the idea that over-eating leads to lethargy is one that is cheerfully accepted by all animals. Look at wolves, which gorge themselves on up to forty pounds of meat per meal and then just lay around.

Whoa unnecessary wall of text.
Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luneth
Member Avatar
Possibly Fake Luneth

This calls for a quote from The Flaming Lips

" 'Cause it's hard to say what's real
when you know the way you feel."

-Unit 3000-21/One More Robot
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
Consciousness is something that defies explanation. I can't describe it any more than I can describe color.


It is certainly possible to define color, however, if not describe it. If you can define what you mean by consciousness, perhaps it'd be easier to understand what you're trying to say.

Quote:
 
So we reject the food because we weigh 300 lbs, have high blood pressure, and a bag of potato chips will not do anything to help that situation. Dogs will never do that because they have no sense of self. So that, to me, is what's important.


I would peg that as the difference between logic and instinct. Human beings use logical reasoning, such as:

porcupine quills are sharp --> sharp things can pierce flesh --> don't touch porcupine

Other animals, however, either have to rely on previous experience with said porcupine or a natural aversion to it. I believe logical ability is one of the three unifying characteristics of human beings (the other two being creativity and emotion, but I won't go into that), and that's what you seem to be talking about here. "Sense of self" seems to me to be but one aspect of logical capacity.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jaguarman117
The spirit of the Jaguar!
Member
If you really get to not only thinking about the electrochemical reactions in the brain you eventually come upon a chain of thought I find really interesting.

The brain works through electrochemical impulses and reaction>What causes those reactions?>The interaction between different atoms and molecules>Why do these reactions occur the way they do?>It's a direct result of the way the brain is formed and what atoms and molecules mak up different parts of tissue>Why is our brain arranged/formed the way it is?>Evolution of life from the first strands of simple proteins to the complex life we see today>What caused those proteins to form?>Interactions between matter and energy in the forms of heat, electricity(lightning), and solar energy>what allowed that to happen?>The big bang.

So eventually the whole awareness vs. No awareness come down to whether you think the world was created by a God or Gods, or whether you think the big bang happend.

Personally really don't care what he answer is. The fact is I'm here whether I like it or not, or I'm aware of it or not I'm going to live life and die. If there's anything after great, I get to stick around. If not, oh well it was a pretty good run.


As for consciousness itself. There was an experiment done a few years ago on human babies quite simply they put the baby in front of a mirror and put some red paint or something on their nose. At first all babies reached for the mirror as if it were another child, after roughly 6 months the babies started reaching for their own noses. Whether the experiment showed the existance of consciousness or not is debatable, but it was an interesting experiment anyway.
[size=7]You shot *Insert team-member name here*, you team killing fucktard!

Yeah, that's great, now hurry up and die you fucking prick.[/size]

To anyone who disagrees with me: Put that in a memo entitled, "Shit I already know!"

I'm not crazy, I'm totally and completely sane. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go blow up that dead body.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

I really, really, REALLY do not think you can reduce the question of consciousness down to atheism VS theism. That's...that entire chain of logic is really rather iffy. The point is whether or not the impulses are the end of it, and that's something you don't really need to go back to the origin of the brain to answer.

In other words, "Theism VS Atheism" helps in picking an answer, but not in empirical terms, and it's a question that doesn't require the input of that kind of belief.
Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jaguarman117
The spirit of the Jaguar!
Member
Actually it essentially is the end question. If there is/are God/Gods, then they would probably create humans with consciousness. I know I would, it'd make things much more interesting.

If there isn't/aren't God/Gods, then it'd be logical to assume that we're just infinitely complex, moving bag of matter.

In the end the answer sholdn't really matter. Whether you make a particular decsion because you're conscious of it or because there are impulses in your brain, doesn't matter because the fact is that you made a decision and you will feel he implications of it's result.
[size=7]You shot *Insert team-member name here*, you team killing fucktard!

Yeah, that's great, now hurry up and die you fucking prick.[/size]

To anyone who disagrees with me: Put that in a memo entitled, "Shit I already know!"

I'm not crazy, I'm totally and completely sane. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go blow up that dead body.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lukannon
Member Avatar
403 forbidden

It's pointless to say that the answer is irrelevant because the premise is the question itself. It's like a guy asking "Is the glass half-empty or half-full," and you saying "it doesn't matter." Sure, the end result is the same, but the point of discussion is not the consequences of the answer but the answer itself.

And 'consciousness' does not necessarily require some outside spark for us to have it. Hence the question. IF God exists, then sure, we're likely to have a consciousness, but that doesn't mean we couldn't not have one. IF God didn't exist, then sure, we're likely to not have one, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have one either. Not to mention the question isn't "soul," which would be more in line with that reasoning, but "consciousness," which is a little different.
Yuuno-anon
 
As ripped as your roids and rage make you, they cannot UNFATTEN YOUR SPIRIT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jaguarman117
The spirit of the Jaguar!
Member
Oh, I see you point now. If the question is are the impulses it? Then I say they are, because there's nothing else that we have discovered that can achieve these sort of...I have no idea what to call it.
[size=7]You shot *Insert team-member name here*, you team killing fucktard!

Yeah, that's great, now hurry up and die you fucking prick.[/size]

To anyone who disagrees with me: Put that in a memo entitled, "Shit I already know!"

I'm not crazy, I'm totally and completely sane. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go blow up that dead body.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lemon
Member Avatar
I didn't know you could change this

The word you're looking for is 'sentience', I think. We are as alive as a tree is, we think, they don't. Unless there's a tree somewhere that does, which is biologically impossible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blade Myrmidon
there's never enough time

Oh, how interesting.

An old thread, but I'll revive it.

Souls are a touchy subject. I personally am indifferent to whether we do or don't, but many questions arise to the legitimacy of them. Particularly having logically sound definitions for souls. BUT, I don't think this is necessarily a relevant question to how it interplays with the human brain and registering experiences and thoughts, etc., since well, that doesn't really explain anything anyway.

I think wiki sums up questions about this fairly well (regarding Reikken and consciousness), particularly these ones:

# "Why should physical processing give rise to any inner life at all?"
# "How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
# "Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"

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

I feel like this is what Reikken was initially trying to grasp with. Of course, this is something that would be incredibly difficult to answer, and all I can respond with is clarification of his problem. lol.

How would we even bridge the gap between chemical impulses to experience? I think Luk may have touched on it a bit, before going on to an ontological argument regarding consciousness.

Of course, there's a view against this, but it completely rejects the idea that consciousness is anything more than it's physical functions, ie. that consciousness IS the process of all those physical impulses and that we're over-complicating things... It's in the above wiki article under Deflationary accounts, if you wanted to take a look.
b7
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nova
Administrator

This idea that molecules can't define soul has been around since the Greeks. As science progressed, theories like moral relativism/nihilism/expressivism became popular to "fit in" with the scientific worldview.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reikken
Member Avatar


Blade Myrmidon
Nov 11 2011, 11:29:10 PM
I feel like this is what Reikken was initially trying to grasp with.
quite so
I was actually thinking about this again the day before yesterday.

Interesting article. thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDiJkhUMfw

http://myanimelist.net/profile/Reikken | http://www.last.fm/user/Reikken
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · SRS Deb8 · Next Topic »
Add Reply