How could consciousness be an emergent property of the brain?

>>3002663

The problem is, friend, is that there is such a thing as the burden of proof. We don't understand consciousness, yet, but every shred of evidence we do have is that it comes from the brain.

If you are proposing something else you need to say what and provide suitable evidence, not simply ask lots of questions and nitpick.

Literally the same exact shit was said about memories. It's obviously a physical-tied property.

>>3002663

Do atoms not 'behave'? Do they not react to their situation? All things in the universe have rules, and as such act accordingly. Those rules just get a little complicated with enough dimension.

>>3002663
It's all a spectrum, who only privilege the human brain because we ourselves are human and happen to have the most sophisticated brains on earth so we consider ourselves special. But take even a human with inoperable brain tumors and now the degree of consciousness is apparent. Besides, compared to some galactic space hypersquid with a massive genius brain, you yourself are barely considered conscious.

>>3002697
He didn't ask IF mental states are properties of the brain, but how.

Which is the most interesting question there is.

>>3002697
Perhaps he isn't proposing something else and is merely curious

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain in a similar way to how life is an emergent property of unliving chemicals

>>3002663
What do you mean

>How could consciousness be an emergent property of the brain?

Are you stupid or something? How could it not?

>>3002663

>"subjective experience"

How do you know you have "subjective experience?" I'll tell you how: your brain makes you believe you did. And there's absolutely nothing magical about your brain making you believe something. We need a way to refer to sensory inputs as though it were an object itself so that we can easily build ideas around them and communicate about them to other people. That's why our brains make us believe we have qualia that aren't really there. It's the same principle behind the abstractions of money or numbers. Neither money nor numbers exist in the way physical objects like rocks or water do, but we can deal with these imaginary things as though they were real and it's really beneficial to do that.

>>3004117
explain how it works then

several nobel prizes waiting for you

>>3004181

>several nobel prizes waiting for you

Not him, but no. You and many others are assuming there's some magical secret yet to be discovered about the brain and consciousness. There isn't. As time goes by more mundane details will be documented and more vague associations between brain activity and processes will be identified. That's it. People expecting more are going to hold back the progress of AI in a bad way because you'll literally never believe anything that gets built will actually "count."

>>3004070
What galactic entity are you talking about?

Nobody gets it, anon. Alot of people think/say they do though

>>3004227
Any hypothetical species that has a more sophisticated brain than modern humans.
It's to illustrate our concept of "conciousnes" is a reflection of our own brain, if we found a species that was more intelligent than us we'd be forced to examine our own position on the spectrum instead of assuming a special place.

>>3004197
Most people both itt and elsewhere believe in some sort of identity theory or physicalism. Again, the question is HOW.

Or you could just dismiss one of the most heavily researched questions by philosophers and scientists

>>3004286
>most people both itt and elsewhere believe in some sort of identity theory or physicalism
Oh boy. You truly underestimate the stupidity of people.

>>3005024
We'll obviously I'm not saying most people know or are even familiar with those terms. But you don't think most people would give a physicalist/materialist flavoured answer to the problem of consciousness?

>>3002663
>How could consciousness be an emergent property of the brain?

IT COULD NOT.

observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (i.e. observations that do not directly act upon the phenomena), can actually change the phenomena; the 1998 Weizmann experiment is a particularly famous example.[1] These findings have led that the conscious mind can actually affect reality

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics

>>3005208
It is apparently

>>3005233
90% of neuroscientists agree. They must be right.
What about the other 10%? Forget them.

>>3003107
Senses, memory, etc are all electrical impulses. You're never living in the present just experiencing what happened. As every second progresses how do you know that everything before wasn't a manufactured memory? You really could be living in some matrix esque shit

>>3002663
intelligence is easily explicable with physics. qualia not so much.

don't treat them as the same thing.

>>3002697
Burden of proof arguments favor Solopsism. There's literally no evidence humans have concious experiences, and so no way there's any evidence it's related to the brain.

>>3004076
In that case the only applicable answer is that we aren't sure yet and we won't have any definitive answers for quite some time yet as the brain is a very complex organ and there is still much about it we don't yet fully understand.

>>3005271
>No evidence of consciousness.
>Requires consciousness to perceive what is said.
Sure thing pal.

>>3005233

NO.

>>3005289
Explain yourself sandboy

>>3005219
Observer can be a single photon you dumbfuck. It does not refer to a conscious observer.

>>3005024
I certainly do think it's physically explained, but nope. Lurk more. You'll be amazed at the mental gymnastics.

>>3005370
Meant for
>>3005180

>>3005219
The energy states are affected by instruments you stupid fuck. The double slit experiment isn't some guy sitting in a chair and watching electrons pass through slits.

>>3005279
Oh, I've got consciousness. I've just not seen any evidence you guys do.

>>3002663
Consciousness isn't an emergent property of the brain. It's an emergent property of language. Every animal is conscious to the degree that they treat themselves as beings of agency. A dog might not have moral agency but that is simply because it can not rationalize through language. When we say that we are sapient what we really mean is that we can use language in order to describe experience. Qualia seems to be in no way exclusive to human beings.

What seems clear to me is that we are in fact not conscious; not in the colloquial sense of the word anyway. Unrestricted mental linguistical agency is an impossibility if you do not belive in the existence of something akin to the soul. Some other anon said it earlier but the belief that our mental faculties are not bound to the same forces which dictate any kind of causal relationship we observe in the universe, is at this time, only holding us back.

>>3005412
How do you know you have consciousness?

>mental states
>qualia
>sense data
>representation

Conceptual traps, all.

>>3005464
How so anon?

>>3002663
>How could consciousness be an emergent property of the brain?
It couldn't. Not in any way that's consistent with a materialist understanding of the universe, anyway. There's a reason they call the hard problem of consciousness ... you know, fucking HARD.

Nothing will stop people from tying themselves into philosophical knots to avoid admitting this, though.

>>3002663
Who's to say animals aren't all conscious in the way you describe, just remarkably stupid or alien by comparison?