The argument seems to be one very long fallacy of composition.

Just asking the question commits the Homunculus fallacy

This is a stolen concept fallacy. You are supposing here that consciousness is maintained by...a conscious being beyond our understanding?

Not that it matters, there are so many problems with your model that it took me two essays to outline them:

• Problems with the "out of body" model of consciousness
• Problems with the notion of a non-material aspect of the conscious process

You have just been PWNED by Deludedgod. Sorry you don't win and you don't even get a home version of the game. Thank you, drive through.

It's not magical, merely internally contradictory. If you suppose that consiousness must be maintained by a conscious being, then you must relinquish your claim that consciousness must be maintained by a conscious being, so, um, well, you see where I'm going with this.

That stolen concept fallacy aside, it is tremendously problematic to suppose that it is even possible for such a being to exist without any material constitution, as I went on to show quite precisely.

Ah yes, so using consciousness to explain the origin of consciousness does not solve the problem of where consciousness comes from. 

And yet, as MattShizzle has made clear, he actually believes he is conscious and aware, he thinks that his judgments have substance.  MattShizzle observed my behavior, it manipulated his consciousness, and he attempted to invoke humor for whatever reason.  His molecules were attempting to bring about a certain state to another conscious being.  His declaration of "winning" and "losing" is a remarkable usage of self awareness, the very thing I'm trying to get at.

That's quite simply impossible. You ever read a neuroscience textboox? You should. They are enlightening. Perception cannot exist without sensory equipment. It is not possible for the mechanism of perception to exist as a free-floating non-material entity. To say would be a stolen concept fallacy.

I am trained in this field so I suggest you read what I provided. You seem to cling to the notion of a mental control room, a notion which is far more illusory than you would like to think.

Interesting exmple of the way sentientmachine argues.

First, reasonably accurately repeat what I say" "So the consciousness IS what the mind is doing.".

Then draw the erroneous conclusions from a different statement which can seem superficially a bit like what I said, with the same or similar terms, but rearranged into a quite different assertion: "My mind does things.  And you say it causes consciousness. " Which definitely does not correspond to the previous statement.

This is either a deliberate, dishonest attempt to misrepresent my argument, or may actually reflect genuinely sloppy thinking.

Don Pardo please tell our contestant about their wonderfull consolation prize.

"Well Matt, they get a free lifetime supply of delusion, and wasted sundays. Name That Fallacy is a King World Production."

It's like an annoying brother glued to you that won't stop talking.  I'm sure it's very annoying, but it's in the name of Science.

So now I give you write access to my brain, and I likewise have write access to your brain, you can use my brain to do work you specify and I can have your brain do work I specify.  Do we share consciousness now?  yes. 

Now complete the switch, we make an agreement that I only use your brain, and you only use my brain.  After a few years of practice, we are able to do this, and not talk to eachother.

Now the scientist cuts the read/write access.  I am now in your body, and you are in mine.  The observer moved.  But the particles of the brain cell did not.

This stuff hurts my brain.  I'm just wasting everyone's time trying to understand this better.  This is the cause of Religion, Religion is the sweet escape from this annoying question.




 

" With the atheist world, consciousness seems to mockingly out of bounds.  With the theist world, at least you can invent candidate solutions and maybe speculate on what the ghost behind the machine is. "

Keyword there is invent.

"I stand corrected, but this subject almost demands that the observers adopt irrationality.  The internal observer wants things to make sense, and the problem of consciousness makes none, so to answer the question, irrationality is adopted.  It seems I've penetrated to the very core of RationalResponder's mission which is to force people to use rationality even when it hurts and makes the pain inside my brain much worse, it forces me to work harder."

 It only demands irrationality from someone who buys into a fantasy world where they never die and live happily ever after

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Even if were true, it would still constitute a fallacy of composition. What is it with you and fallacies of composition? You draw these meaningless conclusions about "matter" and then move toward asserting properties that material structures cannot have on the basis of the fact that their constituents cannot have them then you propose these equally ridiculous thought experiments which serve nothing but to demonstrate that these individual constituents cannot have these properties (which has no relevance whatsoever). Anyway, If you were to examine a rock on an atomic level, you'd find these giant covalent structures arrayed in a solid lattice. If you examined the brain on the atomic level, you would effectively be examining the contents of individual molecules within cells, and you would find these very precise interlocking reaction pathways within intracellular regions. If you were to examine the synaptic vesicles on an atomic level, you would be able to identify the logic gates (in the form of post-synaptic potentials). So please, do not try and get away with saying that on the atomic level, they are the same.

Let me describe the principle of computational logic gates in the brain and see if that helps you understand the process which is occuring. It took me a while to put this little presentation together, so, if you would be so kind...

The fundamental principle behind all signals between neurons in the brain is that of ion channels. These channels are gated. The cell membrane does not normally admit ions. The channels are shut unless they receive the proper signal. There are a variety of signals which will open the channels. Certain voltage differences across the membrane will open channels. Such channels are called voltage gated ion channels. VGIC are the most common types of channels in the logic gates in the brain, but they are not the only ones. There are, in addition, channels which open in response to the presence of ligands called neurotransmitters. These are called transmitter gated ion channels (TGIC). The other extremely important feature of these channels is that they are nearly always ion selective. Thus, we can separate the ion concentration gradients and voltage gradients that result from the charges of ions and the concentration of individual ions. This ability to differentiate between the concentration gradient and electric field is extremely important for the ability of neurons to transmit signals.

In neurons, this principle allows the propagation of an electrical signal from a transiently induced change in voltage to propagate along the neuron. Neurons are cells with long and spindly fibers that reach out from them. These long portions can be very long indeed, some of them extend almost 1.5m in length, from head to foot. These are called axons and they always propagate electrical signals away from the main body of a neuron. The neuron also has shorter outreaching arms that receive signals from other axons, called dendrites. Between an axon and a dendrite, a junction called a synapse forms and there is a gap, called a synaptic cleft, between the axon of one neuron and the dendrite of another. In this way, the two are electrically isolated.

If the electrical signal is conducted passively, it will get weaker at a rate directly proportional to distance travelled from its transiently induced signal. The signal needs to be propagated, or amplified at nodes along the axon in order for the maintenance of an appreciable signal.

Suppose that a transiently induced signal causes a slight depolarization of the membrane, raising the charge slightly (because the resting potential is negative). Because there is such a large induced change in voltage per cubic centimeter, this change will open channels that respond to it, in this case, Na+ channels. Because Na+ is maintained with a very high concentration outside the cell membrane, the influx of more Na+ down its electrochemical gradient will move naturally towards the Na+ equilibrium potential, since the cell is electrically excitable. This potential is roughly 50mV. The transient signal that allows for the movement of more Sodium into the membrane causes a greater depolarization which causes more sodium channels to open at an exponentially amplifying rate. That is, the flow rate of sodium ions into the neuron is a positive feedback loop which abruptly halts when the electric field induced blocks any more from entering. When the level of Sodium reaches a critical threshold, the nueron is said to fire and an electrical signal is propagated down the axon. However, this system is not enough to generate a proper action potential. If the exponential depolarization of the membrane simply occurred by the high concentration of VGNaC, then the membrane would repeatedly be subject to induced spasms, since the membrane would depolarize, and repeated adduction of Na+ into the cell membrane would cause the cell to stop at the Na+ equilibrium potential, and all of the Na+ channels would remain open. So, the neuron would simply sit there as the Na+ reached its equilibrium, freely moving through the open channels.

The cell is saved from these electrical spasms by two mechanisms. The first is Voltage gated Na+ channel inactivation and the second is Voltage gated K+ channels. These help to rapidly depolarize the membrane to bring it back to its normal potential in preparation for the membrane to fire again, which helps to rapidly close the Na+ channels.

The VGIC can exist in three states, open, closed and inactive. In the inactive state, the Na+ VGIC enters a refractory period where it cannot admit Na+, but also cannot close again for a small period of time, until the membrane is fully repolarized. There exists a mechanism on the Na+ VGIC that allows the blocking of the influx of Na+ while the channel is still open. This block is sensitive to membrane depolarization. There exists a similar mechanism on K+ VGIC which allows for their inactivation. The inactivation of Na+ VGIC also stops the action potential from spreading backwards, and ensures the signal is propagated unidirectionally along the axon.

If the inactivation of Na+ channels was the only mechanism to ensure that the membrane was fully repolarized quickly, then it would be a long time before the inactive Na+ channel was restored to its closed state, since the membrane will decay towards its resting potential only slowly. Another mechanism ensures that the membrane is rapidly restored to its polarized state. These are the K+ VGIC. Like Na+ VGIC, the K+ VGIC can exist in three states, and a short peptide "leash" on the VGIC will respond to membrane depolarization and blocks the efflux of K+. This is necessary to maintain the K+ gradient for rapid restoration by the Na/K pump (potassium tends to move out of the cell due to its concentration gradient. The pump must maintain this or the gradients will be destroyed as the ions come to equilibrium across the membrane). The rapid efflux of K+ overwhelms the transient influx of Na+ and thus brings the cell back to resting potential more quickly.

The efflux of K+ through the membrane allows for the rapid repolarization (charge becomes more negative) of the membrane, and brings the cell back to its resting potential, which allows for the inactive Na+ channels to rapidly close in response to the firing of action potential. Now that we know how the signals are propagated, we should learn how they are translated once they reach the end of a neuron.

At the synapse there is a gap between the axon and the dendrite called the synaptic cleft which separates the two cells and keeps them electrically isolated. When the signal reaches the end of an axon, it signals the influx of Ca2+ through the VGIC that allow for it to enter. This in turn signals the release of neurotransmitters through synaptic vesicles into the synaptic cleft. These transmitters then bind to transmitter-gated ion channels and allow for the influx of Sodium into the post-synaptic neuron, which allows for the continued propagation of the signal. There are two ways, in general, that transmitters work. They can either be excitatory or inhibitory. The former will bind to ion channels that allow for the influx of Na+ hence depolarizing the membrane. The latter will bind to ion channels that allow for Cl- influx of K+ efflux for the repolarization of the membrane hence inhibiting the sending of signals throughout the membrane. The neurotransmitters are varied and can serve to do either, but they are usually confined to one role. Acetylcholine, serotonin and adrenaline are the principle excitatory neurotransmitters, while GABA, dopamine and glycine are usually inhibitors.

So, once a signal is propagated through the gap between two neurons, how does the other neuron respond? Additionally, how does the neuron integrate all the signals it receives from all the other neurons it is synapsed with? Neurons ultimately act as integrating computational devices by virtue of two principles: temporal summation and spatial summation. The cell body of a neuron and the dendrites are coated with the terminal of axons. There are numerous axon terminals that coat the cell body. There are two types of membrane potentials that the axons can transmit. They can transmit inhibitory posy synaptic potentials and excitatory post-synaptic potentials. Each potential will either help to depolarize or hyperpolarize the membrane therefore determining if it will fire or not. But the important principles is that firing is all or nothing. Below a certain threshold, the cell cannot start the positive feedback loop. Once the threshold is reached, the rate of depolarization is self-accelerating and so it acts like a very abrupt switch has been thrown. Overall, the sum of the potentials that are received by the cell body will determine whether or not the post-synaptic action potential is generated. Overall, the membrane gradient is uniform, but the overall potentials will determine the membrane potential. This is called spatial summation, and it is a principle method of computation by neurons.

Another key principle relates to the frequency of signals received by a single pre-synaptic membrane that forms a cleft with a pos-synaptic cell . This is called temporal summation. The frequency of action potentials will determine the signal that a pre-synaptic cell sends. If action potentials rapidly follow each other, they can superimpose to form larger potentials which have a greater influence on the signal it sends. This translates frequency into magnitude of PSP.

Yet this appears to be problematic since the firing of Action potentials is all or nothing. It would appear that a continuously graded variable is integrated over the surface of the neuron to produce an on/off response. If this were the case, then tremendous amounts of information would be lost in the signalling process and the whole exercise would be a huge waste. There must be some way that the neuron encodes the on-off response (fire or don't fire) in the form of a continuously graded variable. It does such a thing, in the form of firing frequency. 

Together, temporal and spatial summation provide the post-synaptic membrane with a compuational integration to form the total post-synaptic potential, the magnitude which is a continuously graded variable. This then needs to be encoded in a method that can be integrated for computation. The frequency of firing of an action potential by a post-synaptic membrane is directly proportional to the post-synaptic potential. This encoding is done at the base of the junction between the axon and the main cell body called the axon hillock. This is the basis for every logical operation performed in the brain.

This provides you with a sound basis of the universal principles of logic gates in neurons, but it doesn’t fully address the higher functions of these processors. One of particular interest is memory. A crucial function of the nervous systems in higher vertebrae is the ability to learn and remember. A key effect of this is Long term potentiation which occurs in neurons which mediates memory. A principle effect of this occurs in cells inside the hippocampus, and if the cells inside are destroyed, the organism seems to lose the ability to form long term memories. Although their ability to recall preexisting memories seems unhindered.

LTP, or long term potentiating is a remarkable ability of neurons in the hippocampus. It refers to a strongly enhanced response of a post-synaptic membrane to a pre-synaptic action potential that results from repeated rapid firing from the pre-synaptic membrane. This can last for days, weeks, etc. depending on intensity. When I say a strongly enhanced response I mean that the magnitude of the post-synaptic potential increases. LTP will occur on a post-synaptic neuron which is already strongly depolarized and that receives a signal from pre-synaptic neuron. If any other synapses are contacting the Post-synaptic membrane that are firing at the same time, those particular synapses will also undergo LTP at the surface of the post-synaptic membrane, even if those pre-synaptic membranes were only firing single action potentials. LTP works by the following steps:

The post-synaptic membrane has glutamate gated Na+ channels and NMDA gated channels which are Ca2+ permeable. The first are only transmitter gated, and therefore are opened when a pre-synaptic potential causes the release of glutamate into the cleft. The latter are a rare TVGIC (transmitter and voltage gated ion channel) that therefore integrate two signals. First, NMDA must be bound, or the channel won't open. Second, the channel has a plug in the form of an Mg2+ ion which can only be removed when the NMDA is bound and the membrane is depolarized. The influx of Ca2+ induces a signal whereby more glutamate TGIC are inserted into the membrane. As such, whenever that synapse fires again, the response of the Post-synaptic membrane is greatly enhanced. The loss or destruction of these cells blocks the formation of long term memories but does not impede recollection of pre-existing memories.

In conclusion, I hope you understand now that the object we are discussing is a highly integrated processer which has the capacity for functional dynamism. It’s ability to alter wiring and input-output sequences on the basis of its input values (the sense data it receives) as well as internal signals during embryonic development allow for a highly plastic processor. Surely you must understand now why all of your thought experiments utterly fail. The processes that the brain runs demands a fully integrated network of massively parallel processors. In all of your thought experiments, you attempt to draw conclusions about the nature of consciousness by examining individual processors (and even there, you fail to understand the nature of these processors).

Part of it was copied and pasted...from something that I already wrote.

HEHE I know where you are coming from so you are a guy that needs to get it repeated and repeated

If you remove parts of the brain you can eliminate pain or free will (having a human that re starts ).

If you remove parts of the brain you can eliminate pain or free will (having a human that re starts ).

If you remove parts of the brain you can eliminate pain or free will (having a human that re starts ).

If you remove parts of the brain you can eliminate pain or free will (having a human that re starts ).

If you remove parts of the brain you can eliminate pain or free will (having a human that re starts ).

If you remove parts of the brain you can eliminate pain or free will (having a human that re starts ).

HAHAHA NO you are  data on a data drive that is recording stuff  your brain is still in the brain in your original body. How are you able not know this and operate a computer at the same time ? To explain 2 computers A and B normally the A PC records on the A drive however now the impute from the A computer is linked to the B drive and vice versa. So now after I cut the link do I have the data from the B PC on the B drive ? Answer NO because the saving and deleting on the B pc haze bean don to the A drive. Do you comprehend now ?

I love when people do not address stuff that I write

Do you consider chat bots to be conscious ? They can have a human conversation with you.
Do you consider chat bots to be conscious ? They can have a human conversation with you.
Do you consider chat bots to be conscious ? They can have a human conversation with you.
Do you consider chat bots to be conscious ? They can have a human conversation with you.

chat bots
chat bots
chat bots and chat bots ageing some people simply over look  words I tipe in *chat bots* please address the concepts of chat bots in your next response.
 

Depends on what you mean by "complex." Conrad's "Game of Life" illustrates how very simple rules can result in extremely complex processes. The fundamental rules governing emergent consciousness may be quite simple, while the result of those rules is so complex as to be essentially indeterminate.

I suspect this is the real secret: the rules will turn out to be quite simple, to the point where we are able to artificially re-create the emergent system one day. But that's my suspicion, rather than actual knowledge.

This is an interesting thought. In fact, it absolutely requires the entire universe to result in "You." Part of the emergent pattern of intelligence is the relationship of the matter, energy, and forces within the organism that is "You." If the universe had been much different at any time in the past, "You" wouldn't exist, as that arrangement that makes up "You" would be different, or not exist. Somebody else might exist in your stead, or homo sapiens may have failed while the neanderthals succeeded, or any other infinite chain of possibilities.

Consider: if something had been different in your childhood, you wouldn't be you anyway. The temporal stream of self-awareness that makes up your consciousness would have been diverted along another path, and you wouldn't be were you are today, thinking the thoughts you think today.

Damnit! I can only blame that on lack of coffee this morning. Damn it!

I stand (sit) corrected. Highly embarrassed, and very corrected.

More complex than the most complex known entity in the universe?

GAHHH! *Smashes head*. What the bloody hell is it with you and fallacies of composition!

Hello Mr. Spence

Good to talk with you.  I am sorry to post in this fashion but i am not sure I would like to give out my email as required for an account.

With respect sir,  if you cannot even label or number the neurons responsible for consciousness how can you say they are responsible for consciousness?  And, if you say all the neurons are responsible for consciousness and that it is something the brain does how can you prove it?  I have seen many theories and papers on the subject be it daulism vs materialism vs take your pick but have yet to see any proof.

Though it is not my intent whatsoever to create strife, I must point out that in this post and others I have seen you use the phrase "it seems" on more than one occassion.  This is a phrase that does not constitute proof.

I have been looking into the theory of emergent properties but have found only conjecture at best.  If consciousnes is a property how then do you measure it?  If as i have heard others say it is measured in behavior well......... humans change their behavior at will.   Which begs the question: do properties have a will?

I would also ask that if the brain dies how can you PROVE the consciousness disapates?

I am pressed toward the notion that these things simply cannot be identified by science or the "Scientific method"  This methodology works fine for the natural world but we are in a different place my friends.  Science simply does not have the capabilityWhy then use a hammer when a saw is required?

I would conjecture, and only conjecture, that the brain is merely a translator, of what we percieve through our senses, for the soul.  Perhaps a good analogy would be that of an airplane (brain) and inside the airplanes cockpit, but not part of it, resides the pilot who monitors his controls(senses/perception).

Again it was not my intent to offend if I have done so.  I just have honest questions.  I look forward to your rebuttle!

This tells me immediately that you do not actually understand what neurons are or how they work. Therefore, I suggest you read my second to previous post (the long one) entirely, and please pay close attention to what is indicated below.

The brain is subdivided into regions responsible for various functions and there are over 9,000 types of nuerons present in the system. It's not so much the individual neurons that matter, than (a) their capacity to form integrated circuits and (b) their ability to overturn, which is arguably more important. We biologists (I'm a biologist) have a rule: Everything in biology is stochastic. Now, this is true of the process of evolution, of the workings of individual cells, of trends in populations, in everything in biology, and it is true of neural systems as well. To ask how many neurons are required for a conscious experience to occur is sort of like asking how many molecules of Janus kinase are required to initiate the Jak-STAT pathway.

That's not necessarily an important question. In science, we usually differentiate between qualitative and quantitative analysis, but a more important question would be: How do you define it?

This is what you are looking for:

Problems with the notion of a non-material aspect of the conscious process

And yes, that is my writing.

The last sentence here irks me greatly. You think you have some non-scientific methodology that provides you with hitherto uncovered insights that neuroscience has missed? It irks me equally when people say something like "It is the job of science to investigate the material world", implicitly stating that there is some "non-material" world which can be accessed by the methodologies of another discipline. It seems that “metaphysics” is a label applied to something until scientific investigation demonstrates a meaningful model behind it. I stress that since it is the job of science to investigate phenomenon then it appears, from an epistemological standpoint, to be problematic to say that we can conclude in a phenomenon that cannot be investigated by science (in other words, that a phenomenon is "non-material". Why is this so? Consider it. When it is through some complicated causal chain, which via deduction, we can link some model or external object to some feature of our perceptual experience, then we are performing a scientific investigation. Solely by means of using our intuitive understanding based on our immediate perceptual experience, we wouldn’t get very far, but, by means of accumulating knowledge, we can effectively link causal chains of experienced phenomenon to an external world behind the experiences. Thus, for example, we would be unable to conclude in “dark matter” on the basis of our analysis of galactic motions through telescopes if we didn’t already have an understanding of what galactic motion should look like based on Relativity, which in turn, we wouldn’t have been able to conclude in if we didn’t have a set of equations describing our intuitive basis for relative motion, called “Newtonian mechanics”, which in turn we wouldn’t be able to conclude in unless we had…You get the idea. So, in effect, by asserting that some phenomenon is beyond the realm of science (or, equivalently, isn't material), we are, in effect, asserting that such a feature has no causal relationship, however complicated it may be, that is needed to explain our perceptual experience. Obviously, there is some confusion about this. We don’t perceive, for example, “electron density”, but through a complex causal chain employing deductive experiments and prior knowledge also based on experiments, we can link electron density to some feature of perceptual experience. If there was no way whatsoever to link some phenomenon to some feature of our perceptual experience, however complex the linking chain might be, then, in effect, we are making assertions about phenomenon that, through no amount of deduction or investigation, can we make conclusions about based upon our perceptual experiences, which are the source of all our knowledge (although, as Kant pointed out, not all our knowledge is derived from perceptual experience. There is a difference). So, you are on impossible ground, epistemologically speaking. To make your assertion, you must relinquish any knowledge claims you might make about this phenomenon at all.

Even if that were meaningful (it's not), it's incredibly problematic and creates a mess. It's not even worth considering as a model.

Problems with the "out of body" model of consciousness

And yes, that is my writing.

This is a homunculus fallacy. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't actually answer the question. It merely sidesteps it and abdicates responsibility in favor of this "non material" phenomenon (about which we know nothing) supposedly accounting for this process. You have nothing here but a mystery of your own devising.

I don't seem to have an edit link available on my old post. I was going to add a retraction of one statement at the bottom of it. I was a bit hasty and didn't notice an erroneous statement. So, I'll correct it here:

Lack of evidence does not constitute evidence of lack. You, sir, are a moron.

A minor, but important quibble: The original phrasing of that idea was "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." But proof is not the same as evidence. As it happens, absence of evidence when evidence is expected is in fact evidence of absence.

If someone says there's an apple inside a box, and I open the box and see no evidence of an apple, then that is evidence that an apple is not in the box.

If someone claims to be psychic, and we do a double-blind study to test his claims, and we find no evidence that his claims are true, then that is evidence that he probably isn't psychic. The more such negative evidence we gather, the more confident we can be in our claim that he's not psychic.

Likewise, we can test ideas about the afterlife too. Some people claim they were floating above their bodies during surgery. But when this claim is tested by placing stickers on the tops of light shades hanging from the ceiling, no one has yet been able to report the details of these stickers (such as a number or word) from their out-of-body experience. This is evidence of absence of disembodied consciousness. Other tests add more weight to the claim that the consciousness is tied to the body.

Not proof, but evidence. They are different.

Why?

Prehaps your right, but doesn't everyone have some ridiculous beliefs somewhere in their brain?  You can't get rid of them all.  Even if a person is totally scientific with everything, as the scientific method has duped scientists into believing things which were found to be incorrect and ridiculous.  The only way to get rid of all ridiculousness is to not think at all.  To educate yourself you have to be bold and try to make sense of it all.  You have to crawl before you can walk.

According to deludedgod, I can't be held responsible for believing in ridiculous things, as my current state is absolutly determined by an elaborate system of mechanical resposes to stimulus. 

Thanks for raining on my happy parade...

Be careful with your ability to convince people their minds are ultimately mechanistic and worthless in the grand scheme of things.  There is an evolved trigger in the mind to off yourself when you feel worthless.   Delusions are necessary for a conscious life to feel worth when ultimately there is provibly none.  To go on and continue living knowing that the sum total of everything you could concievably create or build or destroy is as meaningless as any other energy transfer going on in the universe is a difficult truth to swallow.

In conclusion, you all suck.  This is my last post, have fun with it MattShizzle.