Dualism

[Edwardo Piet]

I know someone who seems to believe 'Matter' is separate to 'Mind' because he says how no one has found exactly where consciousness is yet...and he says "How do you know it's even in the brain?"--to paraphrase-- and he says how no one has found where the connection between 'Mind' and 'Matter' is...

As is brilliantly demonstrated in the film Surrogate (which was my idea first!!) you think you are wherever you perceive yourself to be.

Indeed it is my--at least current--view that like Dan Dennett says...to paraphrase: 'People don't like consciousness being explained if it can be explained as a bag of tricks....but consciousness is a bag of tricks.'

This still remains one of the 10 mysteries of the brain, can't remember what the other 9 are..

It's certainly believed to be a mystery like many people...but I see no reason to treat it anything other than a puzzle...like Dennett says - it's a bunch of tricks. When people did more research on the brain they found no 'centre' for consciousness....and what Dennett argues is when there's competition between different events in the structures of the brain going - why does there need to be a gateway from 'mind' to 'matter'? Why does anything need to "Enter" consciousness? Dennett argues that consciousness is the state of the brain itself - it's not as if another process has to happen. So there's no evidence for 'consciousness happening' - because there doesn't have to be one 'cut-off point' where it happens - consciousness can simply be a 'smear' of the competition in the brain. He says a common phrase tends to be--to paraphrase--"Ok...then what happens?" as in "What next...when does the consciousness come?" - but Dennett argues that consciousness is 'the fame in the brain'...whatever is 'winning'--at the time--is conscious...

To quote from the Wikipedia Article 'Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness' (which is also a book by Dennett):

'The main tenet of "Fame in the Brain" is that consciousness, much like fame, is not the cause, but the aftermath. Dennett asks us to imagine an author whose book has yet to be released, but will result in unimagineable fame. On Tuesday, when the book is to come out, he is scheduled to go on Oprah, be interviewed on the BBC, and likely be nominated for several awards. However, on Monday, an earthquake destroys the entire city of San Francisco. Naturally, all the media hype that would have revolved around this author is drowned in the focus on San Francisco. Dennett asks, can this man be considered "famous"? He says that the man is in fact not famous even though the book that would have made him famous remains unchanged. This is because fame, according to Dennett, is not about the cause of the fame, but about the aftermath: the interviews, the magazine covers, the paparazzi, etc. Consciousness is the same way. In order for something to be considered "conscious," there must be enough correlating neural events that go with it (e.g. memory formation).'

And since I have not seen a refutation to Dennett's argument and indeed no one has 'found' consciousness..I certainly think it's the least complex hypothesis and most rational--at least for now--to believe that indeed there isn't consciousness to be 'found' but the workings of the brain itself--the state of the brain, the 'fame in the brain'--is indeed consciousness..whatever is 'winning', whatever wins over the brain - is conscious. It doesn't need to be 'kindled'. Consciousness is the aftermath.

EvF