You are.

I had to shorten up this whole topic. It was much longer and explained things in better detail before, I think.OK, So here goes:The brain is a muscle, or an organ (whichever). It is made up of tissue.
Tissue is made of cells.
Cells are made up of water, and organelles which are made up of mollecules. Cells also have veins and membrane, and its all a molecular wonder ok?Now, molecules are made up of atoms. ATOMS are made up of:
Electrons
Neutrons
ProtonsElectrons are leptons with an electric charge of one.
Protons are baryonic hadrons made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark.
An up quark has 2/3 positive charge. A down quark has a -1/3 charge.
The net charge of a proton is 1. Because 2/3+2/3 = 4/3. 4/3 + -1/3 = 3/3 = 1.
Neutrons, I believe, are also baryonic hadrons and they are composed of 2 down quarks and 1 up quark.2(-1/3) + 2/3 = 0 - The charge of a neutron.Messanger particles from quarks emit to other quarks and they touchy and feelly each other over you know what I'm sayin?Also, da quarks, have a short range force, called the strong force or strong neuclear force. They overpower the electromagnetic force to keep the protons together from pushing apart.OK, so all we have here is:
Particles move.
Particles move.
Particles hit other particles and turn into energy.
New particles come from energy as the higher mass particles decay into lesser mass particles.
Particles move.
Particles change position.
Particles notify other particles to move.
Particles move.Please tell me where they become conscious?This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 10-30-2005 08:37 PM

RESPOND! NOW!This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 10-23-2005 08:39 PM

OK, I will breifify it, but I can't do it right now. Please don't shut the topic, I am still gona work on it.Hi AdminPhat, glad to see you too, and it's ARBIA!!!!
LOL: Guido Arbia!OK, I will check my email.Why is my topic too long though? Does it not make sense btw?
I thought it made sense. Am I thinking erashionally?

Did it.

Complexity is an illusion. How does consciousness occur? It is not of the complexity of moving particles is it?Each particle is individual, and operates individually. Do you think that a particle on the left side of your brain (an elementary particle) is aware of another particle that in 10 centimeters away? I don't think so.These complex mechanisms can be broken down to just individual particles. They just happen to interact with each other is such a chain way that they create the illusion of complexity.What makes us conscious is my question.

Yes I am and I would.I have tried to look for scientific claims of consciousness but I haven't gotten many results.

So then, do you suppose that if the human mind became complex enough to imagine in perfect detail anything that he wishes to imagine, and that he imagines a working brain, then that brain is conscious? Is not information entering that imagined brain, since it is all being mediated by the imaginaner's brain?I don't think so.Also, I don't believe that God does everything. I believe that God created the natural world and let in run. However, I do not think that consciousness arose from matter, there must be something seperate.I do not believe science can explain consciousness.Also, my idea of consciousness is the human ability to experience something. Not calculate sight, but experience sight. A robot can recieve visual input, and process it, and react based on it, and store it in memeory, and later react to it, but do you think it is conscious?How can information being processed account for consciousness when there is no such thing as interpreted information?Example: A computer can read sound waves, and produce some numbers from those sound waves. A human can hear sound from those sound waves.Sound Waves are NOT what we hear, we interpret it, and than here that.
But, how can we here the interpretation, when after the information is interpreted it is still particles, that can be intepreted as any other thing. What decides that as soon as our brain stores information in a specific format in memory, that it is seen by the person?

quote:

---

There is such a thing as interpreted information. Some people have full time jobs as interpreters.

---

Really? Than why do we need to interpret what is interpreted after the interpreter interprets it? They can interpet english to spanish, but than the brains of the spanish must interpret it as meaning. Even after this it is still a phyisal thing, not an interpretation.

quote:

---

This gets to the old problem of syntax vs. semantics.

​

As I write the reply, I am typing characters on my keyboard. It is those meaningless characters that are transmitted over the internet. Yet, as you read it, you somehow find it meaningful.

​

It is useful to use the term "syntax" to refer to the sequence of characters, including their structure (verb, noun, etc). Likewise, we normally use the term "semantics" to refer to the meaning.

​

Accordingn to one theory of language, we input the
the syntax, and then somehow interpret that to
yield the semantics.

​

But I think that is false. I think we somehow directly input the semantics, and we normally do not have to interpret the syntax. As an example of this, I suspect that you had no difficulty reading the paragraph before this, and you probably did not notice the error in its syntax.

---

It is simply that the brain is interpreting the words and sentences, although I don't see how it becomes known consciously from the activity in the brain. Your just not THINKING about the syntax, the brain is not in CHECK the syntax.Example: I gone to the moon yesterday.There is no reason for your brain not to understand that, as english can be loosley used and your brain is used to reading such things.But, if your brain is specifically in the mode of checking for syntax errors, if you intentionally look, then you will find errors, because now your brain is checking the syntax.If the english is bad enough, you will notice the errors immediatley, because than the brain has difficulty apply those words in that context, or it is not ussually applied that way so you feel awkward. But what is it that actually gives you the feeling of awkward, this is consciousness.

quote:

---

Actually, it isn't particles. Even the sound waves are not particles. They are motions of particles. But the information is in the motion. The particles are merely carriers of that motion.

​

You allude to one theory, which says that the information is stored in a specific format in memory and thereby seen by the person. I agree with you that this kind of theory does not adequately account for our experience. That's why I prefer theories based on the interaction between a person and the environment.

---

I know it is the motion of particles, I am not physically illiterate.
I understand the basic physics and laws of motion, you don't need to teach me that if I hit a metal bar, it will vibrate, thus vibrating the air, which goes all the way to your ears, which gets vibrated, and all that. Eventually your brain interprets it.

quote:

---

That's why I prefer theories based on the interaction between a person and the environment.

---

Which means that we don't experience are dreams correct?
We do not interact with the enviorment when we dream, it is fabricated in our minds and we also at the time, experience the dream.
So interaction between the brain and the enviorment cannot be the cause. There is no enviorment in our dreams, it is created from within our brain, therefore we are NOT interacting with the enviorment.

quote:

---

Let me clarify another point. I do not believe that brains can be conscious. People can be conscious, and their being conscious depends on them having brains. But it is the person, not the brain, that is conscious.

---

Therefore the person is a seperate entity of the brain. You have just stated that we have a soul.Are you saying that the brain creates the person and than the person observes the brain? Sounds perposterous to me.And when the brain stops does the person cease to exist? Is not the person seperate from the brain as you have just stated?

If I create an artificially intellegent program and tell it that it evolved from cocky balls from the begining of its learning, will it not believe me, enless I program it to know for certian I am its creator?

OK, then let's use the word UNDERSTAND.Does a computer understand? I don't think so. I think it just reacts to information. Likewise, the brain does the same. it can't of itself, suddenly experience information on its own. Unless you think we are all unconscious people walking around thinking we are conscious beings, it the brain doesn't do it.Think about it, why should the brain UNDERSTAND sound waves as sound, and electromagnetic within a certain spectrim waves as vision? I mean the actual experience, not the information processing. Because processors of information do not understand the information. When you touch something, information goes to your brain correct? And then what? Your brain must deal with it. How is your brain going to make you actually feel it? I can imagine chemicals reacting to it, and causing you to behave in certain ways, and think certain things.Everything that goes on in the physical world is particles/energy chaging position or energy changing states.You think that because all these processes are occuring the system should be conscious. I tell you that a system is an illusion, not consciousness.Suppose you have a straight row of 100 balls, and rubber walls. You apply masive energy to one ball (if possible) and it goes and hits the other balls in a chain reaction. It appears as a wave going back and forth. Do you think this is a system?Each ball is operating individually and doesn't give two shits about the other balls. The 1rst ball and the 3rd ball know nothing of each other, yet they seem to transfer motion between each other.If a system is complex enough, everything seems to co-operate, but they are just working as individual componets, which are made up of eventually individual elementary particles. They all seem to work togerther, but they work seperatley.Protons and Electrons don't know that each other are there. Yet they seem to co-operate with each other to come together. It is really the electromagnetic bosons called photons (I think) that transfer force from a proton to an electricon or visa versa.You might even argue that since parts of the system require the rest of the system to function, that the system is one whole. No.Suppose I have a deck of cards, and everyday, one magically disappers. Now you add 2 cards everyday, and the deck grows by 1 card each day. In your absence, the cards run down to 0, where no more cards and taken from the deck. Are me and the deck one system? I think not.
We may APPEAR to function as one whole, but in reality we are seperate componets only forming the ILLUSION of a system.Therefore, because there is no system, there can be no consciousness as a result of that working system as a whole.Results can only come from 1 part of the system, as they all lead to 1 final point, where there is a result. The result is not of the whole system.This time let's say you have a row of dominos, the form a complex masterpiece when they are all flipped over. Is the result of the whole thing? No, each part of the result comes into existance as an individual part 1 by one.

I agree. There is no process that USES those atoms in the physical. The atoms illusionarily make up the process. You should have read my other paragraphs.

No. Internal senses do not require the existance of the physical senses, therefore it is the brain alone. External senses are required to make known what a particular sense is percieved like, but once you know, you can imagine using the brain alone. The brain is just KEPT ALIVE because of your body.So once again, light enters you eyes, signals go to your brain. Your brain reacts, you say "WTF, did you see that guy over there?" at what point do I actually percieve. Such a process that makes us conscious is not found in the brain.In fact, I have read that scientist have not found the difference between conscious parts and unconscious parts. That they all appear the same, even though scientist clearly know the certain parts we are conscious of. Therefore, because of the lack of proof for consciousness in the brain, it cannot be the brain, otherwise why not be conscious of the whole thing, or unconscious of the whole thing.There must be something external doing it.

Obviouslly, I believe consciousness lies within the non-physical soul.
I believe the soul can access the physical but I do not believe that the physical of itself interacts with the soul.Therefore you cannot find evidence of such a thing scientifically because it can only explain things which are physical.

Like I said, the atoms make up the process, the process does not use the atoms.Let's go back to the row of balls. Suppose that we make the system more complex so that new balls feed into the chain as old ones are thrown out. Or you could imagine the balls constantly being hit by YOU, and 1 being run off a slope each time, and then you replace it. Cannot you be considered part of the system? I don't think that we can say anything is a system, just indivial parts seeming to co-operate.It is because there still exists working components that can replace the old one, that the process continues. The system is still an illusion. When there is no particles to formulate the system then the process ceases.On top of that, since new atoms are coming into the seen, than that is even more evidence that consciousness is not of the brain. Just because you add an extra working atom doesn't mean that atom suddenly says to the others: "Hey we brothers." Do you think one atom says to the other: "Because you are bound with me you become the consciousness that me and my brothers' result processes create"? I don't think so. Natural forces just bond them together and cause them to seemingly co-operate in a very indirect way. It is in such a way that anything can be considered a system.You could mark an area around yourself where there is air and say it is a system because air is moving into your nostrals. And since air is moving into your nostrals, the area works as a system because it emits air from it and sucks from around it more air. You can seperate the left and the right of the brain and say they are 2 systems or you can say they are 1. The fact of the matter is, there is no system. Systems are illusions. They are just words we apply to things which work because they are composed of smaller components that seem to cooperate to form the bigger system.We as humans just happen to be on a big scale that we see the result of these individual parts as a whole, and we can distinguish one accomplishment from another, and we can determine things as seperate systems. Like my computer is not your computer obviouslly. I do not use that as my INEXPLICABLE evidence but I do think it conveys a rather strong point.

No, I am not the unconscious entity, I am the conscious entity. What must be made to be conscious is the crap being transfered and manipulated throughout the brain.Just pretend all elementary particles are golf balls and don't imagine the bosons. What do you see on the quantam scale going on? Do you attribute that to consciousness?