That's a difficult question that goes beyond the neurology of consciousness. There is no evidence of conscious experiences other than related to the brain. Therefore the immediate answer is yes, the brain creates consciousness. The problem pertains to what consciousness "is". It is not measured directly although the activity and correlations between brain regions underlying conscious experiences can be objectively measured. Consciousness is at the same time something that it is subjectively present and objectively absent. In other words, the brain is empty of consciousness despite being its source. The ultimate answer likely requires a deeper theory of physics capable to explain a universe where consciousness exists and is harmonized with our current knowledge about the neurology of consciousness.
Yes.
The question is which exact area is crucial for producing consciousness. At the moment there are no unified ideas about the theory of consciousness. Please have a look at the paper attached where thalamic hypothesis of consciousness is scrutinized. And I also attach a very new ms by Scott and colleagues describing different theories of consciousness.
That's a difficult question that goes beyond the neurology of consciousness. There is no evidence of conscious experiences other than related to the brain. Therefore the immediate answer is yes, the brain creates consciousness. The problem pertains to what consciousness "is". It is not measured directly although the activity and correlations between brain regions underlying conscious experiences can be objectively measured. Consciousness is at the same time something that it is subjectively present and objectively absent. In other words, the brain is empty of consciousness despite being its source. The ultimate answer likely requires a deeper theory of physics capable to explain a universe where consciousness exists and is harmonized with our current knowledge about the neurology of consciousness.
Brain organizes background fundamental consciousness into the useful consciousness we know, in the same way that the rest of the body is organized dust and macro action. Evolution had to have something to seize upon and exploit: matter, electricity, gravity, consciousness.
Dear Karl!
So what is consciousness in the end? I mean the definition, which includes both fundamental and useful consciousness in your terminology. Is consciousness another kind of matter?
Valery Nikolaevitch Mukhin At bottom it is physical. A new form of charge and energy (Level 1). From this are built separate qualia (Level 2). These are bottled in a unified mind (Level 3). Humans use full language and formal abstractions (Level 4).
Karl Sipfle, Valery Nikolaevitch Mukhin
When we propose qualia, we implicate the subjective experience. That is the experience of the subject, which is not accessible to anybody else. The subject cannot prove the existence of this experience, because if the information about it comes into the public domain, we can no longer call it subjective. Thus, the existence of subjective experience is the same indefensible hypothesis as qualia. Hence, it can also be considered that subjective consciousness and its phenomena do not exist until proven otherwise.
Ivan R. Borovets , Provability is not the same as truth. We are probably wrong if we assume it doesn't exist (which is also not provable!).
Also, if we are able to detect the processes going on when someone has a subjective experience, then there is effect and evidence into the "outside" world (especially if I can verify the detections resemble those for my own experiences), though nothing about what is real has changed.
If we defined the term subjective to mean it must only be detectable by the subject (most likely because that was practically true at the time), that does not change any realities and we must just be careful with our use of words.
Regards
Dear colleagues! Ivan R. Borovets Karl Sipfle Abhay Padsala and others!
Let's define consciousness at last, as we are scientists here!
The discussion does not make sense until a clear definition appears, as each implies his own and therefore there is no subject for discussion!
Dear Valery Nikolaevitch Mukhin ,
1. I'm open to working my language around any of several reasonable definitions.
2. I'd suggest here simply "consiousness is the ability to have subjective experiences."
3. One much larger definition I take from my Question "What is consciousness?" (stop by :) ):
Human consciousness is fundamental physics consciousness, forming assemblies to make qualia, connected by physics field and axons into a whole, enhanced by language.
The variation in definitions seem to largely involve which of these big layers is included.
Level 1. Fundamental Consciousness, the smallest elements of the physical world need to manifest consciousness. Some call this pre-consciousness.
Level 2. Qualia (sentience). Subjective experiences. Typically the lowest element in philosophical discussions (which often enter error from an assumption that these are must be the lowest element in the actual world).
Level 3. Mind. At the bottom, a unified "place" where multiple qualia can occur, enhanced with various amounts of information processing ability.
Level 4. Human mind. Language, formal abstraction, meta-cognition, awareness of personal mental self. (Some believe Level 4 is necessary to have "consciousness").
This is the "full stack" of consciousness IMO.
- Badges
- Science topic