The brain is not sufficient for consciousness

[bhayes]

http://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servan...ges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/


It seems as though evolution has struck another landmine. One of the biggest problems of evolution is explaining the origin of consciousness and the mind because it doesnt conform to evolutionary principles although thats what evolutionary psychologists would have you believe. The above article shows that the brain is not sufficient for human consciousness, the mind, or life. Evolutionary psychology says that the mind and everything that you are is based on adaptive mechanisms which arose in our "Pleistocene past" and you are nothing more than a cognitive neural program (whatever that means). This is obviously not true but it is the only explanation which evolution provides. To say that we are evolved is to agree with the assumption that we are merely a bag of chemicals and nothing more, with no meaning. This also is obviously not true because you live as if your life means something, even if you dont consciously acknowledge it. Can anyone explain why evolution is still not gone away?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This nonsense again?

What that example shows is that the brain has enough plasticity to rewire itself as needed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jayem]

This nonsense again?

What that example shows is that the brain has enough plasticity to rewire itself as needed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Exactly. This is chronic hydrocephalus that developed slowly over 30 years. The OP should see what happens to someone's level of consciousness and cognitive function if far less fluid than that accumulates on the brain acutely.

 

[devolved]

This is obviously not true but it is the only explanation which evolution provides. To say that we are evolved is to agree with the assumption that we are merely a bag of chemicals and nothing more, with no meaning. This also is obviously not true because you live as if your life means something, even if you dont consciously acknowledge it. Can anyone explain why evolution is still not gone away?

Evolution as a science hasn't yet provided explanation for how we have arrived with complex brain. We've only had it as a solid science for less than a 100 years. Do you expect us to explain all of the mysteries of our origins in a single generation?

If you do, you should reject science and believe in something much less complex.

Evolutionary psychology says that the mind and everything that you are is based on adaptive mechanisms which arose in our "Pleistocene past" and you are nothing more than a cognitive neural program (whatever that means).

A mind is a computational process. It takes an input and it gives you an output. But, what we are is much more than that, because much of who we are is a memetic form of information that doesn't get passed on genetically.

Just look up feral children, and see what we really are without memetic programming that we rely on.

This is obviously not true but it is the only explanation which evolution provides.

Evolution doesn't provide this information. Evolution attempts to explain development. You are talking about neurophysiology.

To say that we are evolved is to agree with the assumption that we are merely a bag of chemicals and nothing more, with no meaning.

No, it's doesn't mean that. Perhaps it could subjectively mean that to people who are cynical about certain view of reality... but why would it matter to the rest of us?

This also is obviously not true because you live as if your life means something, even if you dont consciously acknowledge it.

Yes, surprisingly it means something even to people who believe that evolution is how we got human beings... and that would include the majority of Christians on this planet who would think so.

Can anyone explain why evolution is still not gone away?

Because it really likes you, and wants to be your friend

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Shouldn't this be in the 'Physical & Life Sciences' forum?

I notice that in the article, the paper's author is quoted as saying the man is "missing 90% of his neurons" when all they've established is that his brain has been slowly compressed by ventricular expansion; the Lancet article linked as the source gives no figures for it. So the 90% figure seems to be guesswork and can only refer to the reduction in brain volume since there is no non-invasive way to establish the neuron density. It would not be a surprise if some neurons had been lost - the guy's IQ is pretty low, but the quote seems unjustifiable.

The other link is to the author's very interesting (and superficially plausible) thesis that the brain learns to be conscious.

There is nothing whatever in the article, or the links it provides, to justify the title or the OP of this thread, and Cleeremans, the cognitive psychologist quoted in the article, explicitly thinks the opposite is the case, that the brain learns to be conscious, and by implication, must be essential for consciousness.

So the OP and thread title are thoroughly misleading and incorrect. Thanks for the link though, it leads to a very interesting paper.

Just sayin'

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Shouldn't this be in the 'Physical & Life Sciences' forum?

I notice that in the article, the paper's author is quoted as saying the man is "missing 90% of his neurons" when all they've established is that his brain has been slowly compressed by ventricular expansion; the Lancet article linked as the source gives no figures for it. So the 90% figure seems to be guesswork and can only refer to the reduction in brain volume since there is no non-invasive way to establish the neuron density. It would not be a surprise if some neurons had been lost - the guy's IQ is pretty low, but the quote seems unjustifiable.

The other link is to the author's very interesting (and superficially plausible) thesis that the brain learns to be conscious.

There is nothing whatever in the article, or the links it provides, to justify the title or the OP of this thread, and Cleeremans, the cognitive psychologist quoted in the article, explicitly thinks the opposite is the case, that the brain learns to be conscious, and by implication, must be essential for consciousness.

So the OP and thread title are thoroughly misleading and incorrect. Thanks for the link though, it leads to a very interesting paper.

Just sayin'

It would very interesting if we had some baseline assessment of neuropsychological functioning prior to the onset of the hydrocephalus post-shunt-removal so that we could gauge change over time. I wonder why he wasn't monitored closely after the shunt was removed, or perhaps he was?

 

[miknik5]

With all that said

How would any neurologist explain what happened to Nebuchadnezzar
I mean one day he is a capable ruler and the next day his mind is changed to the mind of an animal

I know that this wouldn't appear to be the typical reality

But then a again when what is stated in 2thessonians2 actually does happen...
What will be the "reality " experienced in that time

 

[Archaeopteryx]

With all that said

How would any neurologist explain what happened to Nebuchadnezzar
I mean one day he is a capable ruler and the next day his mind is changed to the mind of an animal

I know that this wouldn't appear to be the typical reality

Something acute presumably?

 

[miknik5]

Something acute presumably?

To say the least
But I was actually looking for someone to say more

 

[Chriliman]

http://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servan...ges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/


It seems as though evolution has struck another landmine. One of the biggest problems of evolution is explaining the origin of consciousness and the mind because it doesnt conform to evolutionary principles although thats what evolutionary psychologists would have you believe. The above article shows that the brain is not sufficient for human consciousness, the mind, or life. Evolutionary psychology says that the mind and everything that you are is based on adaptive mechanisms which arose in our "Pleistocene past" and you are nothing more than a cognitive neural program (whatever that means). This is obviously not true but it is the only explanation which evolution provides. To say that we are evolved is to agree with the assumption that we are merely a bag of chemicals and nothing more, with no meaning. This also is obviously not true because you live as if your life means something, even if you dont consciously acknowledge it. Can anyone explain why evolution is still not gone away?

Interesting! We're living in an age where the evidence is pointing more and more towards a living God as the ultimate cause of life and not meaningless nature. Of course this won't stop the skeptics from trying find a natural explanation that is ultimately meaningless in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that God is proving himself through natural evidence(since this is what the skeptics are asking for), such as someone having normal consciousness while missing 90% of there brain! Seriously!

The skeptic can either say this was a special case where the man maintained consciousness through the intact 10% of his brain somehow or they can admit that consciousness may not necessarily come from the brain. Where does it come from then? Not God, that's impossible! Oh wait, no it's not.

Thanks for the information!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Interesting! We're living in an age where the evidence is pointing more and more towards a living God as the ultimate cause of life and not meaningless nature. Of course this won't stop the skeptics from trying find a natural explanation that is ultimately meaningless in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that God is proving himself through natural evidence(since this is what the skeptics are asking for), such as someone having normal consciousness while missing 90% of there brain! Seriously!

The skeptic can either say this was a special case where the man maintained consciousness through the intact 10% of his brain somehow or they can admit that consciousness may not necessarily come from the brain. Where does it come from then? Not God, that's impossible! Oh wait, no it's not.

Thanks for the information!

Ummm... what? How does any of that follow?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To say the least
But I was actually looking for someone to say more

An acute neurological condition like encephalitis perhaps.

 

[Chriliman]

Ummm... what? How does any of that follow?

How does it not?

What are your guesses as to how a person could remain normal and conscious while missing 90% of their brain?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How does it not?

What are your guesses as to how a person could remain normal and conscious while missing 90% of their brain?

I don't know. No one does. That's what makes it interesting.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't know. No one does. That's what makes it interesting.

It is interesting, indeed! Anything that causes us to question the very fundamentals of what we believe is indeed very good and interesting!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is interesting, indeed! Anything that causes us to question the very fundamentals of what we believe is indeed very good and interesting!

But what you said simply doesn't follow... and seems to be approaching an argument from ignorance.

 

[Larniavc]

With all that said

How would any neurologist explain what happened to Nebuchadnezzar
I mean one day he is a capable ruler and the next day his mind is changed to the mind of an animal

I know that this wouldn't appear to be the typical reality

But then a again when what is stated in 2thessonians2 actually does happen...
What will be the "reality " experienced in that time

An acute brain injury or episode of psychosis or ingesting a psychotropic compound would do it.

 

[Chriliman]

But what you said simply doesn't follow... and seems to be approaching an argument from ignorance.

How is it ignorant to assume consciousness could come from somewhere other than the brain when there is clear evidence of someone maintaining normal consciousness while only having 10% of their brain?

The fact that I already believe consciousness ultimately comes from God has no bearing on the logical assumption stated above.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is it ignorant to assume consciousness could come from somewhere other than the brain when there is clear evidence of someone maintaining normal consciousness while only having 10% of their brain?

Because we don't know how brains give rise to consciousness under normal conditions, much less in chronic hydrocephalus. There's a lot we don't know about how the brain works.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But what you said simply doesn't follow... and seems to be approaching an argument from ignorance.

Oh how I would love it if common logical fallacies would be against the forum rules...