The brain and its magic of creation ex nihilo

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Posts: 125
Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley

The brain and its magic of creation ex nihilo

Post by phenomenal_graffiti »

1. Death as defined by Karen Gervais in her book: Defining Death, is the ability of consciousness (subjective experience) to cease to exist upon cessation of function of the brain:

"The individual's essence consists in the possession of a conscious, yet not necessarily continuous, mental life; if all mental life ceases, the person ceases to exist; when the person ceases to exist, the person has died. Upper brain death destroys all capacity for a conscious mental life, and it is therefore the death of the person."

-Gervais, Karen. (1986). Defining Death. New Haven: Yale University Press.


2. For those believing the brain creates consciousness, and if one accepts that consciousness as unambiguously defined by David J. Chalmers is experience, then every experience one shall have from birth to death is a creation of the brain.

3. All experiences from birth to death have a beginning, middle, and end. That is, when one has a visual perception of a chair in one's room, the visual perception does not last for the remainder of one's life (provided one does not die while observing the chair): one will (probably) eventually leave the room to walk outdoors, leave for work, walk to the kitchen for a meal, etc.

4. Before atoms accidentally formed cells, and eventually formed brains, consciousness did not exist. This means that in the entirety of infinity, something other than/that is not consciousness existed, as consciousness did not exist for billions of years until the fortuitous formation and function of the brain.

5. One believing the brain creates every instance of consciousness from birth to death corresponding believes there can be no consciousness or subjective experience whose existence is not due to some process in the brain.

6. If (5) is true, there is no such thing as non-brain created consciousness, and no such thing as non-brain created consciousness in the external world.

7. Consciousness, as it is actually experienced, is just a series of different experiences (noted by the existence of change of experience) interrelated and connected in a chain from birth to death.

8. The very fact that experiences change (one is looking at a chair then one exits the room and no longer visually perceives the chair in the room one left) indicates that experiences have a beginning and end.

9. There is a time, for every experience from birth to death, that an experience is not experienced.

10. If one believes that consciousness (subjective experience) ceases to exist at death and does not exist unless and until there is a brain that begins to function and generates consciousness, an experience, before it is experienced, is not created by the brain and as such does not exist.

11. If (10) is true, experiences do not exist before they are experienced, and cease to exist after they are experienced.

12. If (11) is true, the brain has the ability to cause something that does not exist to come into existence.

13. The brain possesses the magic of creation ex nihilo: the ability to create something without the use of material of anything in infinity that existed while the magically conjured entity was non-existent.

14. If visual perceptions, which are the only aspects of consciousness that depict (if they do depict) objects and events in the external world (non-visual perceptions are invisible reactions to external objects and events). and if the brain creates visual perceptions ex nihilo, visual perceptions doe not derive their existence from the external objects and events they are said to mimic and depict.

15. If visual perception or visually perceived objects are created ex nihilo, the external objects and events they are believed to mimic and depict had nothing to do with the nature of visual perception or visually perceived objects: given visually perceived objects did not exist before the brain magically conjured them from non-existence, their "similarity" to external objects and events are and can only be purely coincidental.

16. The nature of external objects and events cannot be known, as they are not creations of the brain.

16. We can only experience/perceive that which is created by the brain, and all experiences/perceptions created by the brain are magically conjured ex nihilo.

17. For those believing the brain creates consciousness and that there are external world-dwelling, not-consciousness composed doppelgangers of the content of visual perception, existence can be divided into two classes:

A. Everything created by the brain

B. Everything not created by the brain and as such cannot cease to exist alongside and in response to consciousness when it ceases to exist during experiential change or onset of death.

Any concept or process one imagines or observes falls either into the class of A or B. Unfortunately, some people confuse A for B or claim A is B.

18. Don't confuse A for B in your arguments. Always remember the dichotomy of A and B when speaking of objects, events, and processes in science. One is magically conjured from non-existence, the other exists outside the skull and perimeter of one's skin. Remember the difference.

19. For Panpsychists (like yours truly), there is no A or B.
We are currently living within the mind of Jesus Christ as he is currently being crucified. One may think there is no God, or if one believes in God, one thinks one lives outside the mind of Christ in a post-crucifixion present.

In other news...
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: The brain and its magic of creation ex nihilo

Post by NickGaspar »

I guess you meant to say "the mind" instead of the brain, but that is not the only problem with your post. First one important question. Why do you think that this list of ideas have any connection to Philosophy?
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Posts: 125
Joined: July 27th, 2009, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Berkeley

Re: The brain and its magic of creation ex nihilo

Post by phenomenal_graffiti »

I suppose most people think the brain creates or is responsible for the existence of consciousness, given that it seems most people think that death is cessation of existence of consciousness. Given these two extremes, it would seem that everything said above is on point. Where do you think this list of ideas should go in this forum?

PG
We are currently living within the mind of Jesus Christ as he is currently being crucified. One may think there is no God, or if one believes in God, one thinks one lives outside the mind of Christ in a post-crucifixion present.

In other news...
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: The brain and its magic of creation ex nihilo

Post by Gertie »

Re subjective experience coming into existence ex nihilo (points 1 - 13) -

If physical brains in motion somehow generate subjective experience, then the usual explanation would be that experience is a novel emergent property of physical brain processes. We see physical systems producing novel physical properties, and the argument is that in certain circs (ie brain processes) there exist the necessary and sufficient conditions to produce non-material subjective experience. It might be analogous to how H2O molecules in certain circs can be liquid, solid or gas, how wave patterns emerge in certain circs, how the property of wetness is emergent, etc. But all these novel properties can be reducible to processes of H2O molecules.


This posits that subjective experience is not some new substance which is created, but rather a new, emergent property of the same brain substance processes in particular circs, and reducible to brainstuff processes in a similar way that wet water or solid ice is reducible to H2O molecules in motion.


(The problem with this hypothesis is that we can understand the processes involved in material H2O molecules resulting in novel material forms within our scientific physicalist model, but not how brain processes could result in subjective experience. In other words our current scientific physicalist model can't explain it, or suggest how it might be explained).


The remaining points -


So the experience of seeing a chair for example, would result from the physical processes of photons hitting eyeballs, leading to certain physical processes in the brain's system, resulting in the emergent property of experiencing seeing a chair - very roughly speaking.


Such an explanation infers that chairs, eyeballs, photons and brains do have existence, that when we experience seeing a chair, our brain processes are representing a real thing as a result of physical interactions between the chair, photons, eyeball and brain.


In other words our subjective experience represents something real happening in a real world, which physically exists presumably independently of me or you experiencing it. (By comparing notes about our experience we come up with a model of the world we share which contains things we call 'chairs', based on the contents of our subjective experience. And agree the chair does not blink in and out of existence depending on whether it is being observed/experienced. That change happens unobserved, that a world existed prior to conscious beings, and create a scientific model of the world and how it works. With the caveat that our observations are flawed and limited).


The emergence hypothesis is coherent, it doesn't confuse A and B. But it is speculative. And so far at least is untestable. Panpsychism is an alternative hypothesis, so far similarly speculative and untestable. Your post doesn't really change that as far as I can see. Either or neither could be on the right track.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: The brain and its magic of creation ex nihilo

Post by NickGaspar »

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: February 9th, 2021, 4:21 pm I suppose most people think the brain creates or is responsible for the existence of consciousness, given that it seems most people think that death is cessation of existence of consciousness. Given these two extremes, it would seem that everything said above is on point. Where do you think this list of ideas should go in this forum?

PG
Well most people believe that because Science offers a Description based on established Strong Correlations on how the brain produces mind properties (not just our conscious states).
Death is a label we use to describe the cessation of a biological process called "life". It also affects brain function including the conscious states of all sentient beings.
Those two statements are based on observable facts.
Those aren't "extreme" since its what we directly observe. i.e our grandma dies, her heart stops circulating metabolic molecules to her brain and all her conscious states and behavior ends.This is the end of a biological process that was responsible for the existence of a living being (a direct observation).

What we want to take from those observations, has nothing to do with science or philosophy. ITs more of a pseudo philosophical approach than actual descriptions based on objective observations.

The property of consciousness, by definition , allow us to be aware of things that exist. In order to be aware/conscious of anything something must exist in the first. Our brains, through their nervous and sensory system, register organic and environmental stimuli allowing us to construct an accurate model of our organism and reality at our scale of interaction.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: The brain and its magic of creation ex nihilo

Post by NickGaspar »

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: February 9th, 2021, 4:21 pm
I will try to take a deeper dive in to your "list" in relation to what we really know about the brain, the mind and the property of mind known as "consciousness".

"1. Death as defined by Karen Gervais in her book: Defining Death, is the ability of consciousness (subjective experience) to cease to exist upon cessation of function of the brain:"
-Here is the first problem. Worlds have common usages that they get from different specialized or unspecialized fields of human intellectual activity.
i.e. Death has a completely different use in Biology, in Neuroscience, in poetry etc. So as I said about the definition you used, the cessation of the emergence of all mind properties (not just that of consciousness) is not an "ability'' but a direct result of the death of a biological system. Mind properties are contingent to specific biological organs and organisms.

"2. For those believing the brain creates consciousness, and if one accepts that consciousness as unambiguously defined by David J. Chalmers is experience, then every experience one shall have from birth to death is a creation of the brain. "

-Again we never state that our digestive track "creates" digestion, or the leaves of plants "create" photosynthesis. Consciousness, digestion, photosynthesis, mitosis etc. ALL are emergent properties of complex biological mechanisms. We use those words to group all the characteristics of an end result under a specific practical label. Unfortunately we are empirical beings and when our brain faces a "name" it automatically thinks in the term of an "entity"(substance, force,agent etc).

"3. All experiences from birth to death have a beginning, middle, and end. That is, when one has a visual perception of a chair in one's room, the visual perception does not last for the remainder of one's life (provided one does not die while observing the chair): one will (probably) eventually leave the room to walk outdoors, leave for work, walk to the kitchen for a meal, etc. "
-Correct, all our experiences are the processes. Processes begin evolve and reach the state of completeness over time. Your example is about an experience produced by external stimuli. The truth is that this experience can be "reproduced" by an internal stimuli through the chemically stored initial external stimuli in our brains.

4. Before atoms accidentally formed cells, and eventually formed brains, consciousness did not exist. This means that in the entirety of infinity, something other than/that is not consciousness existed, as consciousness did not exist for billions of years until the fortuitous formation and function of the brain.
-I don't see how we can justify the word "accidentally". From what we observe, Atoms have the predisposition to "clump" in to groups under specific conditions. Those conditions can be found in a really wide spectrum of states. As I said above , in order to keep our reasoning on track we need to define our words.
We need to avoid the word "existence" when we refer to emergent states or properties. So a brain exists as an entity(due to its physical properties, dimensions function etc) while emergent properties like consciousness, combustion, wetness, liquidity are contingent to physical structures that exist.
So they are real they manifest in reality but not in the classic for of existence.
That said, you are correct. For billions of years (based on our observations), mind properties in general couldn't be manifested in reality , because the necessary processes capable to produce such properties hadn't been in place yet.
-"5. One believing the brain creates every instance of consciousness from birth to death corresponding believes there can be no consciousness or subjective experience whose existence is not due to some process in the brain."
-Yes that is a scientific fact. A functioning brain in its "awaken" state is a Necessary and Sufficient explanation for the realization of our conscious states and the experiences they register. But to be specific. Our brain experiences far more things than our conscious states are able to process. We always have available a selected portion of what is urgent, important and necessary for our well being of our organisms.

"6. If (5) is true, there is no such thing as non-brain created consciousness, and no such thing as non-brain created consciousness in the external world."
-Since we can not really get a meaningful result from all those "ifs", the most rational position is tho understand that our current scientific position renders the claim"conscious states are the result of our brain states" is a Necessary, Sufficient and Objective conclusion that has already passed the position of just correlations or even "Strong Correlation". We are dealing with a Scientific Causal Description. There is no justification to assume a whole realm intervening in the Classical world. There is no need of Supernatural causation, when we are unable to detect, verify and describe such a causal mechanism.

-"7. Consciousness, as it is actually experienced, is just a series of different experiences (noted by the existence of change of experience) interrelated and connected in a chain from birth to death."
-The problem with the term "consciousness'' is that we never define WHICH aspect of the phenomenon we are referring to.
Are we talking about the ability to be conscious?
Are we talking about the specific content of a conscious state.
Are we describing the mechanism, the quality of the property or the experience or are we addressing all.
A general definition on what the mind property of conscious is,what it achieves and what enables it already exists for years.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex"
The exact size of the part of the brain needed to be aroused changes with our better and newer observations.
Now many , by consciousness, mean the content of the experience and its subjective nature. That is what our ability (to be conscious) produces.
We have many clues on how different areas of the brain responsible for memory, symbolic language, reasoning, sensory system,emotions etc come "on line" during a conscious state and make their "contribution" to the content available to that specific conscious state.

-"8. The very fact that experiences change (one is looking at a chair then one exits the room and no longer visually perceives the chair in the room one left) indicates that experiences have a beginning and end."
-Of course,our experience is a physical biological process(a brain process) and so is the external or internal stimuli invoking the experience.

"9. There is a time, for every experience from birth to death, that an experience is not experienced."

-There are many things our brains experiences (the pressure felt on our body when we sit, our pain or itch, our light thirst, our anxiety for a different matter, a background noise etc etc)but our conscious state can only process one at a time. The signal of a specific experience needs to exceed a specific threshold in order for it to be addressed a conscious state of our brain.

"10. If one believes that consciousness (subjective experience) ceases to exist at death and does not exist unless and until there is a brain that begins to function and generates consciousness, an experience, before it is experienced, is not created by the brain and as such does not exist."
-Maybe they believe in a substance that just happens to be labeled by the same word (consciousness). In science our labels identify actual properties and properties that can be described directly. Consciousness is a mental ability enabled by our brain states. This is what we observe and what we can describe, test, predict and verify.
Any claim beyond our descriptions stops to be Scientific or Philosophical one. This is because we don't have available epistemology that can be used to address philosophically such "ifs" about an unobservable substance hold responsible for a biological phenomenon. We did the same error with Life and Combustion(Orgone Energy, Phlogiston).

-"11. If (10) is true, experiences do not exist before they are experienced, and cease to exist after they are experienced. "
-That sounds like a tautology. A more useful statement, based on scientific evidence, would be that our brain experiences many things simultaneously and only those experiences that exceed a specific threshold of our brain functions, manage to be consciously experienced.
12. If (11) is true, the brain has the ability to cause something that does not exist to come into existence.
-Even if (11)was true, we don't get such an "ought" from such an "is". The brain is hooked on a complex sensory system that delivers stimuli from our organism and the external world. In the brain those stimuli are interpreted based on the model of reality formed by our previous experiences.
The stimuli are objectively there, they exist. Our brain just uses all its mind properties to construct an "accurate" representation of how those stimuli look in the real world.

13. The brain possesses the magic of creation ex nihilo: the ability to create something without the use of material of anything in infinity that existed while the magically conjured entity was non-existent.

-No it doesn't. If you ever pay attention to the process of a kid growing up, you will observe the "struggle"his/her brain gives to comprehend the world through the flood of stimuli rushing through the sensory system. Our childhood period is the stage where our brain tries to figure out what all those stimuli from different sensory organs mean about the appearance and essence of the world we are in. Really hard work for many years....nothing magical about it.

14. If visual perceptions, which are the only aspects of consciousness that depict (if they do depict) objects and events in the external world (non-visual perceptions are invisible reactions to external objects and events). and if the brain creates visual perceptions ex nihilo, visual perceptions doe not derive their existence from the external objects and events they are said to mimic and depict.

-That is factually not true. Sound, touch,smell all contribute to the depiction of the processes in the external world. They inform us for different but important aspects of an object. Its how our brain understands what a grainy surface is (relief) or why it is shiny etc. ALL sensory inputs train our brain to recognize visual perceptions. This is why babies reach to touch everything and shove them in their mouths.Its the attempt of our brain to understand the impression our eyes receive and form a model.

15. If visual perception or visually perceived objects are created ex nihilo, the external objects and events they are believed to mimic and depict had nothing to do with the nature of visual perception or visually perceived objects: given visually perceived objects did not exist before the brain magically conjured them from non-existence, their "similarity" to external objects and events are and can only be purely coincidental.
-As I explained before this "if" is a fallacious one. All aspects and features are a product of a natural stimuli created by the interaction of light,sound waves,skin sensors etc.

16. The nature of external objects and events cannot be known, as they are not creations of the brain.

-And here is reach the problem of bad language mode .
The word "know" has a specific meaning. To know something means that your claim is in agreement with the available objective facts of what we attempt to describe. That can only be achieved through evaluating the information available through our sensory system and the claim in question.
So I guess your argument "external objects and events cannot be known" is a red herring fallacy based on an idealistic version of an Ultimate Knowledge. That is not what knowledge is in real life. ALL our evaluations are within our Cataleptic Impressions and there is no way to go around them.
What we know is that "What we know" is our objective evaluation of stimuli that are verified by everyone.
That "ultimate" approach has zero philosophical value. We can not work upon that fallacy and produce anything of value (epistemic or wise).

-"16. We can only experience/perceive that which is created by the brain, and all experiences/perceptions created by the brain are magically conjured ex nihilo."
-We can only be conscious of one experience out of many that our brain has all the time and that experience is interpreted by the help of a long training period of the brain interacting with objective external and internal stimuli and by cross evaluating the expected results .

As a result, our brain renders a mental representation of the external world and internal needs by selecting and interpreting the stimuli under conscious attention based on a long training period. The "final" model is the one that is empirically verified by our senses.
i.e. a kid sees a brick wall, touches it, licks it and acknowledges as a physical obstacle. Any attempt to run through it verifies his initial evaluation of his brain. The same is true for a hot oven, a sharp knife etc etc.
We don't need to go to extreme pseudo philosophical presumptions about the ontology...we don't even need to discuss about ontology . We can only focus on the objective verification of our observations within our Cataleptic Impressions.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021