Do you think consciousness itself causally affects human behaviour, or is human behaviour perfectly explicable in terms of brain activity?
If I talk about my experience of seeing the colour red, am I doing so because I had a conscious experience, or am I doing so because because my brain received an input (photons of ~700nm wavelength), made a calculation and generated a response?
If the former, how is that possible since that would alter the...
Consciousness is an area of research that have so far had the best of our smartest scientists. I do not even know if we will ever have anything resembling a satisfying answer to any of your questions.
Were you breastfed?
Consciousness IS brain activity, so your question is moot.
You know what red is because you cognize it from memory, and you can be aware of color without memory impinging itself all the time.
Without consciousness, you wouldn't know you exist. You would be asleep and nothing. So we're conscious because there's no point of existing if you don't know you exist.
Consciousness is to the body as music is to the violin. The substrate is necessary but not sufficient. However, uniquely, in the case of consciousness, the "music" can activate the violin and change its configuration. Everyone seems to forget that. Oh this hormone or that neurotransmitter caused his emotion and/or behavior. But - having emotion, and thought, can also write to the brain, changing the "brain chemistry". Not just the other way around. Good question.
Consciousness is self-awareness. This self awareness will not affect your behavior, on the contrary it alerts when your behavior changes or when you do mistakes. Brain is nothing but a media to connect the spirits to your mind. The spirits are the reason for your good and bad thoughts. They are not inducing these thoughts but they themselves think and transmit to your mind in the form of thoughts. You are just a listener. If you accept a bad thought, you are accepting a bad spirit. The possession of this spirit gradually changes your behavior.
God cannot watch each and every human being at the same moment. That's why He had created the spirits to watch, guide and determine the destiny of the human beings from their daily activities, talks and thoughts too. Your past determines your present and your present determines your future. God has given freewill to all creatures including human beings. According to this, all human beings have all right to live a life as they wish. But if it happens to be bad and hurts someone, they have to face the consequences. These consequences are created by spirits. It's a natural system. After death no one lives in any form. Heaven and hell are only for spirits. Spirits are separate elements. A human being is not a single spirit. A human being during his/her life time is living with many spirits which have joined one by one since birth. They are knowledge, skills, feelings, emotions, interests and everything. Even thoughts are not your own. For example, when you want to take a decision on a subject, one after another the spirits think and you just listen, choose or reject the ideas which they transmit to your mind through your brain in the form of thoughts. A human being is just a robot made of flesh, bones, tissues etc., and a toy of the spirits for their games.
Natural Selection Is Causing a Decline in Human 'Education Genes', Say Scientists
Evolution Says You're Weaker and More Disease Prone Than Your Ancestors
Human intelligence 'peaked thousands of years ago and we've been on an intellectual and emotional decline ever since'
We May Be Getting Dumber Much Faster Than We Think
Causality in the context of human behavior is perhaps best initially understood in terms of Kant's "Copernican revolution": one's awareness of redness develops the object. However, Kant elsewhere resolves this antinomy you note by positing that neuroarchetectonics first receives the 700 nm energy, even at quantum mechanical levels, and thus the representation of or awareness of red is a kind of neurocategorically-framed choice to actualize certain higher-order symbols (of a set of possible symbols presented to consciousness). This is physicist-mathematician Henry P. Stapp's position as well, which is substantiated by neurophysiologist James H. Austin, "Zen and the Brain" and subsequent related books (Austin began studies in Zen in the 1970s with Kobori-Roshi, a Rinzai Zen master, and has continued to practice Zen meditation). Edmund Husserl's phenomenological reduction may be understood as a kind of Western-scientific counterpart to "sitting Zen" or Vipassana oneness-meditation, in which the interplay between representation and object is held in a kind of bracketed dispassionate awareness; unlike the neuroarchetectonics of Zen or insight meditation, Husserl's epoche is a kind of active engagement with data as it arises into consciousness, enabling essential representational qualia, and essential qualities of the object, to be developed by a feedforward selective awareness. The actual neuroarchetectonics of Zen's quieting of awareness processes, and a new attractor arising (in the manner of Heidegger's "happening" process--Heidegger learned from his students Tanabe and Shuzo, as well as from Taoism; cf"Heidegger's Hidden Sources: East-Asian Influences on His Work") as generating insight is thus similar in output to Husserl's methodology, while Husserl's active participation in the evaluation process is more typical of Western science vis a vis phenomena such as "redness." (Husserl thus designated Heidegger's work as "cultural philosophy," rather than "scientific philosophy.") The key difference in this regard re Zen/insight meditation and phenomenology is the completely "tabula rasa" goal of meditation, during/after which a key novel input (that may be of a higher or lower order neuroarchetectonic source) arises or "happens," and, in a process that is clinically documented, develops a new cascading "awareness design" or insight--versus the more active or yang epoche approach of consciously monitoring and modulating all aspects of the phenomenological reduction or bracketing (similar in this radical mode to Descartes' radical suspension per doubting); hence, the Husserlian scientific approach to examination of paradigms and conditioning is more typical of Western science in general. Related: "Ideas" by Husserl and "Adventures of Ideas" by Whitehead.
Kindly allow me to quote from Dennett (1991): "A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the trajectory of a particle is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy...this principle of conservation of energy...is apparently violated by dualism" to which Stapp ("Quantum Universe," 2007) replies: "This [Dennett's] argument depends on identifying 'standard physics' with classical physics. The argument collapses when one goes over to contemporary physics, in which, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, trajectories of particles are replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which conscious choices can influence physically described activity without violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum physics. Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics."
Somewhat related; "One Magisterium: How Nature Knows through Us;" "Return to the One: Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization;" "The Slightest Philosophy," "A Philosophy of Universality," and "The Path of the Higher Self."
You will experience Red whether you are consciously noticing or not. Your brain will experience input and adapt your psyche to it whether or not you think it's significant. Imo, experience is unconscious. They can be explained scientifically, but not simply.
But that doesn't mean your consciousness is useless. Your mind is a vast system with millions of properties and processes. Everything has a job and a purpose. Your consciousness? That's the front desk clerk. You may not be aware of all the things going on inside, but it is your job to take messages from your manager and act on them. You act on the "rules" laid down by your superiors, even if you don't know why you have those rules. However, you also have the ability to question those rules. There's no guarantee that your complaint will make it to corporate, but you are powerful enough to try. And they can't fire you because you have job security.
Sorry, I find this illogical. It is not possible to be conscious without brain activity. .
Consciousness is caused from brain activity.
So everything we experience is a direct result of neurotransmitters in the brain. When you see red, it is a perception generated by interactions between neurons and neurotransmitters. Everyone perceives red differently because of genetics making each of our brains slightly different. We are able to have conscious experience due to interactions of different neurotransmitters. For example, if I alter your dopamine level I can change your perceptions. (Especially of color). Alterations in dopamine can cause visual and auditory hallucinations. Your conscious experience is caused from interaction in the brain.
The linear is always a result of the nonlinear, which can be found to be universally demonstrated. The 'emptiness' of the sky allows weather conditions to come and go. "Sound" and "motion" are only detectable against the ever-present background of 'silence' and 'stillness'. It is out of formless, intangible form, that ideas arise as tangible form. All physical matter and energy is entirely comprised of nonphysical subatomic particle charges that never physically interact. It's not really a question whether consciousness influences the physical. This has been well known and understood concept for thousands of years by ancient cultures.
Westerners are often are either unfamiliar with, or do not fully grasp what is meant by consciousness. Originating as the Sanskrit word 'chit', consciousness is a quality of awareness, and the capacity to 'know' that we know. .Because, in the West, the subject of consciousness is generally discussed without a well defined, intended meaning, the nature of consciousness typically comes with a mysterious connotation, based off of assumptions and misconceptions. One of the most common mistakes is taking consciousness as a product of brain activity, which misleads the discussion "out of bounds", and why the subject seems to remain "in the dark", as far as an intellectual examination is concerned.
Consciousness is a nonlinear, and immaterial field, that is "different" but not "separate" from the energy and matter it surrounds. The field of consciousness is what activates the brain and bodily functions, not the other way around. The linear paradigm of material form, most people are accustomed to cannot define or influence the encompassing field that the linear is consumed by. Fields exists within and outside of the objects they surround, like a field of electro magnetism that influences the polarity of an iron filing. This concept is usually ignored, and consciousness is made into an exception that linear thinking cannot account for, due to preconceived notions about how the dynamics of our world operate.
Another major obstacle to understanding the nature of consciousness is the presumption of "causality", as a result of linear observation. Because the mind's perception is programmed to view linear sequence, as a 'this' becomes a 'that', we impose a presumed "cause" that makes the change we perceive happen. The flaw of causality is that it implies a endless sequence of the 'cause' of the cause, which is where the concept falls apart. If energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only made to change form, it would suggest that our existence is 'eternal' and 'uncaused', without "beginning" and "end". The intellect is prone to making up explanation for what it cannot account for, based off of limited understanding, and routinely runs into paradoxes and contradictions we tend to pass off, out of habitual convenience.
The linear view, fixated on the sequential change of material form, which is transient, necessitates a causal agent, because, unaided, it does not register the nonlinear paradigm of the formless, by which our world fundamentally operates. The linear becomes a great barrier to discovering deeper and profound realities that or only accessible by exceptional insights, that are often rejected by conventional thinking. This is how the, so-called "experts", investigate the "origins of existence", through the "big bang", using the exact same science that tells them that the nature of our universe is to conserve itself, by 'Cosmic Law' (oops!). A proper understanding would save much time, effort and resources that could be better placed towards more promising pursuits.
It is one thing to use science to confirm what we may suspect about or existence, and another to use it to "prove" or "disprove" what we already assume. It has been revealed, for decades, that our tangible world is completely made of intangible attributes, yet the mainstream has yet to wrap their heads around the significance because it does not fit into their comfortable, "evenly squared box", of familiarity. The subject of consciousness is not generally well understood, by even the most prominent intellectuals, because it has been relegated to a category of thought that cannot be explained by the linear point of view.
The linear paradigm of material form is restricted to the 'contents' (components, specifics, and details) of existence, whereas the nonlinear is inclusive of form, yet is the formless 'context' (parameters, meaning, significance) of existence. A simple shift in awareness exposes underlying flaws and limitations that conceal deeper realities. "You cannot make out the 'dog in the clouds' if you only take them to be condensed water vapor." Form is a result of the formless, not by it's "appearances", but by it's 'essence', and potential to 'be what it is'. To 'exist' is a nonlinear expression, and cannot be limited to a 'this' and 'that', 'here' and 'there', 'now' and 'then'. Consciousness, individually and collectively, defines the context in which existence is taken, to the degree in which we are 'aware' of it.
Consciousness is a quality of existence, as 'wetness' is a quality of water. 'Wetness' is not something questionable, or something we substantial we "seek to find". We know where we find water, wetness is present. Water does not "cause" wetness. 'Wetness' is an innate quality that is ever-present within water, whether it exists as solid, liquid or vapor. The superficial "appearances" of existence do not last, and it is the formless 'essence' that always remains. You don't resolve the "mysteries" of consciousness and existence, by questioning them, only by how they are perceived to be. It is consciousness, itself, by which we are led to question, examine, and seek out the source of our existence.
Consciousness is a sort of orgasm of all the neurons being stimulated so much that they become aware of other things. Like the presence of another human being does that to us. We have to be very conscious of them and be especially aware of what they are doing. It could be the difference between life and death.
Neurologist Peter Fenwick says that these two ideas- that brain cell activity results in conscious thoughts and that conscious thoughts result in brain cell activity - both make sense.
Either way, you have a mystery.
The mind somehow making atoms move? Isn't that absurd?
Atoms somehow producing consciousness? Isn't that absurd?
Critics of the materialist assumption cite findings from parapsychology, such as near-death experience studies.
Susan Blackmore, a skeptic who has written a book criticizing the out-of-body hypothesis, wrote a letter to journalist Gideon Lichfield in which she admitted that science can't explain why the various events of the NDE occur in a particular order.
YouTube has a number of interesting videos. I recommend "The Mystery of Perception During Near Death Experiences - Pim van Lommel," a 40-min. review of NDE studies by the cardiologist whose NDE study was published in The Lancet, one of the world's most influential medical journals, and the MSNBC report about the Pam Reynolds case history.
Below: one of the researchers who discovered people blind from birth who reported seeing for the first time during their NDEs, and one of her subjects
I'm not going to get involved in the details but I will point out to you that an underlying assumption is that we can DEFINE "consciousness" and have an understanding of it. This is entirely false - and hence your questions simply reflect musings about an unknown and undefinable concept. BTW, don't try to use "self-aware" as a basis for understanding "consciousness" - this is a circular process since "self-awareness" presumes "consciousness".
Agree with Kaide although I'm not at all sure what "access" means here. But "first-person experience" is the result of consciousness and cannot be seen as defining it or describing it in any way. I get what you mean but, fact is, we have NO idea of what in the brain subsumes "consciousness"; the presence of electrical activity doesn't work because it is present even when one is "unconscious". Difficult stuff.
Scientists are alarmed by shrinking of the human brain
Six Ages of the World
In the Iron Age (or age of darkness), consciousness is asleep most of the time.
No more apps!Tech abuse is human behaviour & needs human behaviour to address it @WESNETAustralia #esafety17
Karen Bentley from @WESNETAustralia: Apps & tech can’t fix the problem. It’s a human behaviour and needs human intervention #esafety17 #dv
🔹🍃THE EFFECTS OF TRAUMA ON THE BRAIN 🍃| how it affects our behaviour| JOHN Riggs @TEDx#trauma #thebrain…
#GunControl is about predicting “normal” & “abnormal” human behaviour.
"#RichardThaler, an economist who recognises that human behaviour is not always strictly rational" )
"That's a very different sort of thing, you know--that's absurd. But
I must say I think Sir Lionel's behaviour is perfect." What would she
have said of Sir Lionel's behaviour had she known all the secrets of
A light sigh escaped the elder man, and then he resolutely closed his
lips. It was by behaviour such as this, by his almost diabolical
ingenuity in the art of being uncongenial, that Rupert had so largely
contributed to make his own house impossible to him. But where was the
use of either argument or expostulation with one so incapable of even
understanding the mainsprings of his actions? Moreover (_he_, above
all, must not forget it) Rupert had suffered through him in pride and
self-esteem. And yet, despite Sir Adrian's philosophic mind, despite
his vast, pessimistic though benevolent tolerance for erring human
nature, his was a very human heart; and it added not a little to the
sadness of his lot at every return to Pulwick (dating from that first
most bitter home-coming) to feel in every fibre of his being how
little welcome he was where the ties of flesh and blood alone, not to
speak of his most ceaseless yet delicate generosity, should have
ensured him a very different reception.