Is the brain necessary for consciousness?

This is a nonsense statement. It is like saying gestation of respiration does not need to be self aware.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know what it is, I just do not know why you keep referencing it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well stop referencing it then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NO, Stuart Hameroff, a qualified anesthesiologist and researcher, found that. Read up on it. It's in my microtubule thread.

 

I do read what you are posting , but you are treating the subject in a superficial manner.

So rather than mincing words, let's consult an authoritative paper.

Emerging role of the brain in the homeostatic regulation of energy and glucose metabolism
Abstract

Central regulation of energy metabolism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892882/#[/quote]
Central Role of the Brain in Stress and Adaptation

more....
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/homeostasis

 

First, your description of Homeostasis is woefully inadequate.

And yes, Homeostasis is a sub-conscious process. The brain does not need to be consciously self-aware in order to control the biochemistry of the body. It is an autonomous regulatory process. That is why a person under anesthesia is unconscious , but his homeostatic processes remain functional.
It is only when there is something wrong that the conscious brain is notified by signals of distress, such as pain, discomfort, bloating, nausea.

 

Apparently you did not know that homeostasis is a sub-conscious process.
It does not need conscious awareness of the body's regulatory processes, necessary to maintain biochemical balance that keeps us alive!

 

Referencing what? Stop writing?

 

My university lecturer did not think so.

All metabolic process are subconscious, breathing is subconscious, making sperm is subconscious, digesting food, peristalsis, protein synthesis, sodium potassium pump even walking and talking to an extent.

It is obvious that you have come across a big word that sounds clever so you keep using it like quantum or space-time.
It is OBVIOUS that metabolism is subconscious, you do not need to keep saying it.
Anyone who has studied biochemistry, cell biology will know this.

 

He would not be satisfied with your original description. I would have given it a "d".

That's better.

And your point is?

I didn't say that metabolism is subconscious. Everybody knows that.
I said that homeostasis (and all that is covered by that term) is subconscious. Get your facts straight.

See what happens when you make premature accusations about my knowledge without taking a moment to consider what I post.

 

Via anesthesia, we have proven that consciousness resides in, or is an emergent property of the brain.
So that question has been answered.

For those who are actually interested in this subject, have a look and learn "current science" of the brain.

 

What?!?!?! I've been doing all of this for nothing?

 

I'm not sure that is even on topic. But I watched and found it to be poorly done and a little irritating. Okay, sensory information is relative to various influences. That could have been done in a few minutes instead of half an hour. More importantly, they use a very limited definition of consciousness and they said so. Do you remember that? And they specifically make the point that we don't understand the deeper concepts such as self awareness. I also find their language very sloppy. They generalize far too much. For example, they conclude by emphasizing how little we can rely on memories. I have memories of significant events in my life that are clear to me. If I happen to look at a reference for that information, such as a photograph from my childhood which I have not seen in many years, or if I find something I wrote when I was very young or at least many years ago, or even something I posted on the internet over twenty years ago, I almost never find any conflicts. Things are usually exactly as I remember them. Holes do occur from time to time but that probably depends more on context. Was it a stressful situation? Was it a very brief event? Was I sure of the facts at that time? What was important to me at the time? It isn't as if my memories are all wrong but the narrators make it sound like they should be. Generally, whenever they get tested, my memories are dead on.

My memory gets tested all the time for my work. If memories were as flawed as they try to make them sound, I wouldn't be able to do my job. Some things I do easily forget; names being the biggest example. I have never been good with names and have to drill them into my memory through repetition or word association. But I can tell you what someone said ten years ago; often verbatim. I can still tell you my drivers license number that I had from another State over thirty years ago, and my telephone number when I was ten years old. The memories I find to be most likely to be in error are minor details and insignificant events. I may not remember what the guy was wearing when he put a gun to my head because I didn't care, but I remember the gun and what he said very clearly because that is what mattered. (True story) The same goes for my job. I involuntarily commit to memory the important aspects of events and mostly ignore irrelevant information.

 

A radio can certainly produce noise where a signal should be present because it isn't properly tuned or has been damaged. If the signals aren't processed properly due to a failed component, they become meaningless. And if a radio gets tuned between stations, you can get a mix of signals; just to continue the analogy.

 

I think those memories are called engrams.

Memory engrams: Recalling the past and imagining the future

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577560/#

 

You're the one who insists on "using your own words". Now you complain that I am using my own words. Make up your mind.