Origins of consciousness

[Mal Kiever]

I've tried looking for an article which breaks down the processes in the brain which give rise to consciousness. I can't find anything, does anyone have a link?

[Autumnlicious]

There is nothing concrete, because if there were, it'd sink the dualists into oblivion.

Also, materialistic monists like me would be quite happy.

[paintpooper]

I can't remember the link but I recall reading something about it.

Basically a cell evolved to automate processes. An organ is a collection of cells to do a specialized feature. We don't have to think about digesting etc. Seems like a brain with consciousnesses would be the next step in evolution. A brain with consciousness is able to adapt on the fly to the environment without any specialized organs needing thousands of years to evolve.

[fr0d0]

Doesn't matter how it evolved (I believe poopy is correct) - consciousness is the separation of think and act.

This article addresses the subject: http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Quantum/...k-Part-1-4

[Justtristo]

I really should get around to reading Daniel Dennett's Consciousness explained or Susan's Blackmore Consciousness an Introduction so I can give an scientific explanation for consciousness.

[Welsh cake]

Considering we're not a single entity and merely comprised of billions of cells, I'm inclined to think the consciousness is nothing more than the by-product of the brain interacting with reality, an illusion, simple biochemistry.

[Autumnlicious]

That's a side stepping answer. He's looking at the origins/causes of concious thought as we know it. Suggesting that it is a 'byproduct' (really, what the fuck is a by product -- in a loosely defined biological system?) is stating the obvious. The mechanisms are in question, not the whole system.

Put simply, we don't know. Neuroscience and psychology are attempting to figure exactly that out, but from different approaches. One attempts to build a model from the ground up (which is difficult, considering that molecular level interactions are sources of change in the cell as a whole) while another attempts to distill down from what it observes and conjectures from the mind and it's actions and how such a system can be generalized to explain people. Bottom up versus top down.

Issue with the former is scale and complexity, the latter, is nigh impossible to verify/prove.

[Welsh cake]

Put simply, we don't know.

Which is a factually wrong statement. We know a lot about how the brain works, and how it often doesn't work. Electroencephalography is proof of this.

Its all physical. Brain chemistry. Electrical signals. We're just bags of egocentric meat Moros, nothing more.

[Mal Kiever]

But do we know the actual process that gives rise to consciousness? We know how a lot of things work and come about and we have explanations for them which can be demonstrated, but what about consciousness itself?

[Autumnlicious]

Put simply, we don't know.

Which is a factually wrong statement. We know a lot about how the brain works, and how it often doesn't work. Electroencephalography is proof of this.

Its all physical. Brain chemistry. Electrical signals. We're just bags of egocentric meat Moros, nothing more.

Bullfucking shit. He asked for, and I quote, "the processes in the brain which give rise to consciousness. "

We know there are processes. We know they interact.

That is all we know.

We do not have a cognitive model. We do not have objective measures of consciousness. We do not have cross species models of consciousness.

You're flat out wrong, for misinterpreting the scope of Mal's question and then attempting to snipe me. I've said nothing against the physical processes, and, in fact, hinted at my belief that there is only the physical.

Want to educate me on how I possibly didn't answer his question?

Because I sure as hell see a lack of definitive modeling -- one of the first applications of knowledge of the processes that give rise to consciousness.

"Know[ing] a lot how the brain works" is a shit answer when there are plenty of things we do not know, are not aware of and lack the information to model, to that which we do know but lack the appropriate materials and understanding to model them accordingly.