The brain is not sufficient for consciousness

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The perfect bodies which Adam and Eve are assumed to have had before the fall into sin.

They must have been very different from human bodies then.

 

[Eudaimonist]

They must have been very different from human bodies then.

Good point. There is much more wrong with human bodies than simply a shorter lifespan than Adam and Eve.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[miknik5]

If evolution wasn't a restriction, and we want to retain the overall morphology, we could rework the eye so the blood vessels and nerve fibres run under the photosensitive cells and the blind spot is eliminated, and the photoreceptors could face the direction of incoming light (octopus & squid evolved a camera-type eye independently, and got it 'right').

We could remove superfluous teeth now our jaws are shorter, and have multiple replacement sets.

We could sort our backs out so they're better suited to an upright bipedal gait.

We could sort out the urogenital area so the anus is further away from the genitals, reducing the incidence of infection; move the male urethra so it passes around rather than through the prostate, separate urinary output from seminal output; move the testicles inboard by reorganising the blood supply to keep constant temperature; sort out the female pelvis and birth canal to ease childbirth and still allow efficient gait; fix the structures between ovary and uterus to prevent ectopic implantation.

We could rearrange the nasopharynx to better separate food input from respiratory input, preventing choking, reorganise the lungs to a counterflow system, like birds.

We could redesign the knee and fuse the fragile bones of the foot to improve resilience and strength.

We could fix the recurrent laryngeal nerve so it goes directly from the base of the skull to the larynx instead of looping under the aorta(!).

It would be nice if we could switch on the gene that used to produce vitamin C, so we're not so dependent on external sources.

We could fix our lousy thermoregulation so we can maintain thermal homeostasis without sweating so much; fix sinus drainage; re-enable nerve and limb regrowth; tidy up the brain, so the left & right hemispheres deal with the left & right sides of the body, move the visual cortex to the front, nearer the eyes, and so-on...

There are plenty more, and probably thousands at the level of cell biochemistry, not to mention the mental side - cognitive biases, flawed heuristics; flaws of the senses, perception, processing, memory storage & retrieval; behavioural fragility and faults. Oh, and genetic diseases...

The flaws are mostly the consequence of evolutionary adaptation and repurposing.

Would that make us better at being a human being.

 

[com7fy8]

Wait - if God did not create the imperfect stuff, who or what did create it? Or are you suggesting that the perfect can give rise to the imperfect (which was the original problem)?

Also > @Eudaimonist >

My consideration is that God did not create the basic stuff that is less than He is, but He has organized it, so "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) is not mixed in with His Spirit of love, for one example of what He keeps from mixing. It is like how you would not want your used toilet water mixing in your beer or martini . . . maybe

So - - @miknik5 > no, He does not want the spirit of evil, but it exists; so He controls and organizes it so it is not just anywhere and everywhere.

And . . . trying to keep with the thread topic, here > "God is light" (in 1 John 1:5) > light shining on something can bring out its character. For example, UV light can cause different things to show differently in the dark, according to the nature of what is hit by the UV light.

Also, in life-giving sunshine, a worm on the sidewalk can burn, while a person can benefit from how sun rays help the person's skin to make vitamin D. Beings can have exact opposite reactions to the same potentially beneficial light. So it can be in one's brain and mind > God can light people and they can react in very different ways.

I understand that consciousness of the brain is related to how God lights us. But what is going on in each person's conscious experience can be different, because of each one's character which has to do with what the person is capable of feeling or not. In God's peace in our nature, we become more and more unable to experience fear, for one example > 1 John 4:17, Philippians 4:6-7, Hebrews 2:14-15.

 

[miknik5]

Also > @Eudaimonist >

My consideration is that God did not create the basic stuff that is less than He is, but He has organized it, so "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) is not mixed in with His Spirit of love, for one example of what He keeps from mixing. It is like how you would not want your used toilet water mixing in your beer or martini . . . maybe

So - - @miknik5 > no, He does not want the spirit of evil, but it exists; so He controls and organizes it so it is not just anywhere and everywhere.

And . . . trying to keep with the thread topic, here > "God is light" (in 1 John 1:5) > light shining on something can bring out its character. For example, UV light can cause different things to show differently in the dark, according to the nature of what is hit by the UV light.

Also, in life-giving sunshine, a worm on the sidewalk can burn, while a person can benefit from how sun rays help the person's skin to make vitamin D. Beings can have exact opposite reactions to the same potentially beneficial light. So it can be in one's brain and mind > God can light people and they can react in very different ways.

I understand that consciousness of the brain is related to how God lights us. But what is going on in each person's conscious experience can be different, because of each one's character which has to do with what the person is capable of feeling or not. In God's peace in our nature, we become more and more unable to experience fear, for one example > 1 John 4:17, Philippians 4:6-7, Hebrews 2:14-15.

I'm not sure that I agree with you referencing something to me as if somehow I believe this. I know He is the One who holds all things back so that we are not totally consumed. I do not attribute evil to God sir. So I am not sure where you got an idea that I did

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Would that make us better at being a human being.

If being a human being means having all the physical and behavioural flaws that humans have, then no.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... My consideration is that God did not create the basic stuff that is less than He is...

Is there any explanation for where this 'basic stuff' came from if God didn't create it? I was always taught that God created everything (and it's the basis of the 'uncaused first cause' explanation for the origin of everything).

 

[miknik5]

If being a human being means having all the physical and behavioural flaws that humans have, then no.

You only corrected the physical flaws. Which is why I asked will this make us better at being human beings


I was more concerned about the.....inner hidden (not based on physical inward things) being of the man

 

[com7fy8]

I'm not sure that I agree with you referencing something to me as if somehow I believe this.

I did not mean that you believe it. I used the " @miknik5 " only to bring your attention to something I wrote which was in answer to what you wrote. I apologize if in any way I wrote what meant you agree, but I don't think I did. I did not think you would agree, but I answered, anyway.

I know He is the One who holds all things back so that we are not totally consumed. I do not attribute evil to God sir. So I am not sure where you got an idea that I did

I, also, have not thought that you attribute evil to God. And it is written that He "cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone" > in James 1:13. And I don't think I wrote anything which meant or directly said you think otherwise. But in case you think I did, you certainly are right to take an issue with me misrepresenting you, since it is clear you have said no such thing, plus the context of things you write have indicated no such thing.

Is there any explanation for where this 'basic stuff' came from if God didn't create it?

My only consideration is it didn't come from anywhere, but has always existed. But God's creativity comes in, not in bringing inferior stuff into existence, but in forming it into something so it is organized.

And . . . like I consider - - light can bring out the true character of something, though the light itself is not the cause of that thing's character and what it can do or not do. So, in our dreams, I consider . . . we are conscious while we are being lit up; and how we are and what we can do in dreams could be an indication of our true nature!

I was always taught that God created everything (and it's the basis of the 'uncaused first cause' explanation for the origin of everything).

You asked lolololololololololololol lolol And certain atheists have been saying to think outside the box; so . . . they asked for this Except this is off-topic, I think. So, let's stay with if the brain is enough so there can be consciousness.

I have offered that only God is light and, I'll add, only God is autonomously alive in love; but He is able to effect lesser beings and share the effect of His love in us (Romans 5:5). So, things composed of less than God can need Him to somehow activate and organize them. And only God can transform us into having quality of character of love so we can be alive in real love . . . all-loving (Matthew 5:46, Ephesians 5:2) love > 1 John 4:17.

The quality of a being's consciousness can be limited to its own nature. The brain is only physical; so it is very limited; and because it is not alive and active, of itself, it can be turned off and on, up and down in its level of activity . . . like a varying-intensity lightbulb. Actually, though, I am in question that our brain is really ever conscious, but possibly we humans experience our physical brains to be conscious but while really spiritually we are being conscious and the brain activity is just a physical coincidence.

I think we could consider that if things like the physical sun and dirt and water are not personal and conscious, then the brain made from things of dirt and water and sunshine-indirectly would not of itself be able to have conscious experience. It is only a fancy combination of dirt materials and sun energy and water. And Bible translations do say we have minds which are spiritual > I understand, going by Ephesians 4:23 and Philippians 2:4-11; and Philippians 4:6-7 says God's peace will guard our "minds" if we pray the way this scripture says to pray > I understand that God's peace is spiritual and would effect our personalty's mind at the spiritual level > and, by the way, this would effect our quality of consciousness which would not be at the physical brain's level of function.

So, don't you at least consider, that One non-physical could have some input?

Or, are you willing to consider that each atom or photo is an autonomously conscious being which can spin and move around and form into various get-togethers with other atoms and other particles, playing and having fun in different ways? How could stuff like sunlight and atoms produce consciousness if they are not themselves conscious? Ones in logic are saying you can't make something out of nothing; so why not consider that you can't produce conscious from what isn't conscious?

But if I'm correct, this is not convenient for psychiatrists of certain ways of seeing things. So, as you more or less know, ones can tend to stay with what is convenient. My idea would mean God has a lot more control than human egos want to believe He does. We tend to want to worship and glorify what we can do and control autonomously.

 

[miknik5]

I did not mean that you believe it. I used the " @miknik5 " only to bring your attention to something I wrote which was in answer to what you wrote. I apologize if in any way I wrote what meant you agree, but I don't think I did. I did not think you would agree, but I answered, anyway.

I, also, have not thought that you attribute evil to God. And it is written that He "cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone" > in James 1:13. And I don't think I wrote anything which meant or directly said you think otherwise. But in case you think I did, you certainly are right to take an issue with me misrepresenting you, since it is clear you have said no such thing, plus the context of things you write have indicated no such thing.

My only consideration is it didn't come from anywhere, but has always existed. But God's creativity comes in, not in bringing inferior stuff into existence, but in forming it into something so it is organized.

And . . . like I consider - - light can bring out the true character of something, though the light itself is not the cause of that thing's character and what it can do or not do. So, in our dreams, I consider . . . we are conscious while we are being lit up; and how we are and what we can do in dreams could be an indication of our true nature!

You asked lolololololololololololol lolol And certain atheists have been saying to think outside the box; so . . . they asked for this Except this is off-topic, I think. So, let's stay with if the brain is enough so there can be consciousness.

I have offered that only God is light and, I'll add, only God is autonomously alive in love; but He is able to effect lesser beings and share the effect of His love in us (Romans 5:5). So, things composed of less than God can need Him to somehow activate and organize them. And only God can transform us into having quality of character of love so we can be alive in real love . . . all-loving (Matthew 5:46, Ephesians 5:2) love > 1 John 4:17.

The quality of a being's consciousness can be limited to its own nature. The brain is only physical; so it is very limited; and because it is not alive and active, of itself, it can be turned off and on, up and down in its level of activity . . . like a varying-intensity lightbulb. Actually, though, I am in question that our brain is really ever conscious, but possibly we humans experience our physical brains to be conscious but while really spiritually we are being conscious and the brain activity is just a physical coincidence.

I think we could consider that if things like the physical sun and dirt and water are not personal and conscious, then the brain made from things of dirt and water and sunshine-indirectly would not of itself be able to have conscious experience. It is only a fancy combination of dirt materials and sun energy and water. And Bible translations do say we have minds which are spiritual > I understand, going by Ephesians 4:23 and Philippians 2:4-11; and Philippians 4:6-7 says God's peace will guard our "minds" if we pray the way this scripture says to pray > I understand that God's peace is spiritual and would effect our personalty's mind at the spiritual level > and, by the way, this would effect our quality of consciousness which would not be at the physical brain's level of function.

So, don't you at least consider, that One non-physical could have some input?

Or, are you willing to consider that each atom or photo is an autonomously conscious being which can spin and move around and form into various get-togethers with other atoms and other particles, playing and having fun in different ways? How could stuff like sunlight and atoms produce consciousness if they are not themselves conscious? Ones in logic are saying you can't make something out of nothing; so why not consider that you can't produce conscious from what isn't conscious?

But if I'm correct, this is not convenient for psychiatrists of certain ways of seeing things. So, as you more or less know, ones can tend to stay with what is convenient. My idea would mean God has a lot more control than human egos want to believe He does. We tend to want to worship and glorify what we can do and control autonomously.

Unbelievable and awesome post!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...How could stuff like sunlight and atoms produce consciousness if they are not themselves conscious? Ones in logic are saying you can't make something out of nothing; so why not consider that you can't produce conscious from what isn't conscious?

This is called the 'fallacy of composition', as old as philosophy itself, countered by 'synergy', or, as Aristotle put it, "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts". Recently it's been popular to include this in the concept of 'emergence'. One could say (very approximately) that consciousness is to the components of the brain as wetness and waves are to water molecules.

 

[com7fy8]

This is called the 'fallacy of composition', as old as philosophy itself, countered by 'synergy', or, as Aristotle put it, "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts". Recently it's been popular to include this in the concept of 'emergence'. One could say (very approximately) that consciousness is to the components of the brain as wetness and waves are to water molecules.

Well, you could say that some cold wood with some sunlight and a magnifying glass can produce fire which is the sum effect. But that fire effect is coming from within the components of the wood and sunlight, both which have forms of energy.

So, why not consider it possible that atoms have consciousness to contribute? After all, consciousness involves energy, and atoms are now considered to be composed of energy, maybe with their sum effect seeming "physical" to us humans. But how do you know things considered to be nonliving are not conscious??

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So, why not consider it possible that atoms have consciousness to contribute?

Because there's no reason to think that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...But how do you know things considered to be nonliving are not conscious??

Consciousness is complicated, it requires information processing. We only see indications of consciousness in complex creatures that have complex nervous systems - that can process information.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, you could say that some cold wood with some sunlight and a magnifying glass can produce fire which is the sum effect. But that fire effect is coming from within the components of the wood and sunlight, both which have forms of energy.

I have no good reason to think that consciousness is energy. It may involve energy, in the sense that the dynamics of any system involves energy, but the complexity of the brain suggests that there is something else that is more fundamental.

So, why not consider it possible that atoms have consciousness to contribute?

I have considered the idea. I just don't find it credible.

After all, consciousness involves energy, and atoms are now considered to be composed of energy, maybe with their sum effect seeming "physical" to us humans.

Atoms are physical. Energy is physical. Physics studies the physical. That's why it is called "physics".

Energy in physics is not something mystical.

But how do you know things considered to be nonliving are not conscious??

I can't say that I "know" this, but I just have no good reason to conclude this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[com7fy8]

Understood, everyone. I personally do accept that atoms and sun light energy are not conscious. I was just curious what you think. Thank you

I think consciousness comes from deeper than physical forms of atoms and energy, but it can seem like the brain is its own source of consciousness. Especially if you do not believe in the existence of nonmaterial being . . . spiritual . . . being a possible cause of consciousness, then it can be easy to assume it is of the brain.

 

[Freodin]

Understood, everyone. I personally do accept that atoms and sun light energy are not conscious. I was just curious what you think. Thank you

I think consciousness comes from deeper than physical forms of atoms and energy, but it can seem like the brain is its own source of consciousness. Especially if you do not believe in the existence of nonmaterial being . . . spiritual . . . being a possible cause of consciousness, then it can be easy to assume it is of the brain.

Why? Because of the WOW factor?

If you consider "consciousness" as an attribute / behavioural expression of a physical system, there is no need at all to add some outside source to it.

 

[miknik5]

Why? Because of the WOW factor?

If you consider "consciousness" as an attribute / behavioural expression of a physical system, there is no need at all to add some outside source to it.

Well what happens when the "natural system" and order of things clearly crashes?

 

[Freodin]

Well what happens when the "natural system" and order of things clearly crashes?

What do you mean?

 

[miknik5]

What do you mean?

2Thesselonians 2