Thread: The difference in the brain between unconsciousness and consciones

Hi. I am a 17 year old student from Norway who are wondering/ thinking about the world's, the life's and everything's mysteries, i am now wondering if we have a soul or something like maybe something magic inside us, and i want to get information that can help me to find out what i think is true soul or no soul to find out this i belive we must take a look at our brain. So my question is what is the diffrences in a human brain from when it is conscious to when it is unconscious? or awake to sleep?If you have a theory about this you are welcome to post it.

I'd like someone to explain how it is that the mind, consciousness or 'soul' can reside outside of the brain or in spite of a missing brain.

Because if the brain is there and it's wonky- the person is wonky, too. Making a case for the existence of a soul or outer consciousness requires a whole lot of apologetics and fancy word salad.

While intelligence, awareness, and adaptation are remarkable emergent qualities of life, it is not magical.
Think of whales who have the ability for long distance communication, is this magical? How about a bat's sonar, magical? How about homing pigeons, are they magical creatures?
The answer is no, evolution has provided many species with extra-ordinary abilities, but unless we call all these abilities magical, we cannot claim magic for ourselves.

i'm not really sure that you guys understand the meaning of my question, i just want to know: do anyone of you know the difference between a unconsciuos brain and a conscious brain? for example the brain activity?

Using medical equipment, such as MRI, CAT and EEG, there have been a lot of studies on this. The differences are pretty well defined.

Going a bit off topic...

But a while back, scans of mens brains and womens brains were taken and then compared. What they found (I'm simplifying this quite a bit) was that mens brains are different from womens brains. Big surprise there...
They then scanned brains of transexual.Transgendered people and compared. They found that the trans brains matched those of the gender they identified with.
Essentially, demonstrating that "he" really was a woman trapped in a mans body.

There really is no such thing as 'uncounscious' if you're alive, the brain is constantly active and processing information. But brain activity is less active than a brain that is fully awake and alert.

I agree with Sparky, brain is always working ( just as heart ), but there's a difference when brain is more active ( doing hard psychological tasks and solving problems, collecting data from the environment ) and when brain is less active ( coma, sleeping ).

This forum!!

I'd like someone to explain how it is that the mind, consciousness or 'soul' can reside outside of the brain or in spite of a missing brain.

Because if the brain is there and it's wonky- the person is wonky, too. Making a case for the existence of a soul or outer consciousness requires a whole lot of apologetics and fancy word salad.

Then make your own thread instead of hijacking this one, dude.

Using medical equipment, such as MRI, CAT and EEG, there have been a lot of studies on this. The differences are pretty well defined.

Going a bit off topic...

But a while back, scans of mens brains and womens brains were taken and then compared. What they found (I'm simplifying this quite a bit) was that mens brains are different from womens brains. Big surprise there...
They then scanned brains of transexual.Transgendered people and compared. They found that the trans brains matched those of the gender they identified with.
Essentially, demonstrating that "he" really was a woman trapped in a mans body.

Why are you posting this in a thread about consciousness?

There really is no such thing as 'uncounscious' if you're alive, the brain is constantly active and processing information. But brain activity is less active than a brain that is fully awake and alert.

Cringe. Ayayay.

My friend, you seem to misunderstand the definition of consciousness. Consciousness relates to our awareness of our surroudings, not how active our minds are. No one's discussing whether the brain stops working when you fall asleep.

Consciousness =/= wakefulness

While intelligence, awareness, and adaptation are remarkable emergent qualities of life, it is not magical.
Think of whales who have the ability for long distance communication, is this magical? How about a bat's sonar, magical? How about homing pigeons, are they magical creatures?
The answer is no, evolution has provided many species with extra-ordinary abilities, but unless we call all these abilities magical, we cannot claim magic for ourselves.

This is not a damned philosophy forum. The question is about the neural correlates of consciousness. Keep your eyes on the science.

I have seen a show about this..and i do agree with the activity of the brain only being slightly less active when one is asleep..

i also think that the 'unconscious' he is refering to is that stuff that we do not think about, the stuff that is automatic, not like breathing and such but more of the knowledge we gain without thinking about it..

i often think of it as; when you walk into a room and get the feeling that there is something out of place..but you cannot identify it..i think that we really do see what is out of place, but we cannot identify it because it is such a thing as we give it no thought in our daily rituals..

i also think it is an error to associate an unconsious thought process with spirituality or our soul..
our unconcious is a part of our physical existence..the soul is not..

as far as any scientific data to support the existence of the soul..there is none...

but there has been loads of it done about unconsiousness..

and philo behave before you get my focus..(ask NeverFly..not something that is pretty..)

Bonk- "Onion!"

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Bonk- "Onion!"

you throwing stuff at me?
<gets his biggest nut ready..>

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Bonk- "Onion!"

you throwing stuff at me?
<gets his biggest nut ready..>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CqbO_5FKRc

Originally Posted by Sparky

There really is no such thing as 'uncounscious' if you're alive, the brain is constantly active and processing information. But brain activity is less active than a brain that is fully awake and alert.

No i beg to differ, that is i do not agree. Even thought we have brains not everything we do, select to do is done consciously. Our hearts do not beat by conscious thought, many decisions we make are subconsciously made. The movement/unfolding of 'natural selection' in evolution has not yet been charted by science. Yet in the most simplistic definition of the word 'select', i believe that selection can be taken to mean 'choose', that is between the type of environment and the type of life-form evolving a choice is made. In the evolution of life natural selection relates to survival of the fittest, or, what thrives and survives and what goes extinct. All of have the ability to make selection unconsciously, subconsciously, or consciously.


Paul.

that is between the type of environment and the type of life-form evolving a choice is made. In the evolution of life natural selection relates to survival of the fittest, or, what thrives and survives and what goes extinct.

where is the choice in survive or go extinct?
there is no 'choice'..if the form wasn't able to adapt..it died.
there isn't any choice in adaptation..if your water hole dried up, there was no choice but to seek out another source.
once inteligence came along, it gave the ability to choose, and some can argue that those choices can run counter to adaptation purposes..


All of have the ability to make selection unconsciously, subconsciously, or consciously.
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

that is between the type of environment and the type of life-form evolving a choice is made. In the evolution of life natural selection relates to survival of the fittest, or, what thrives and survives and what goes extinct.

where is the choice in survive or go extinct?
there is no 'choice'..if the form wasn't able to adapt..it died.
there isn't any choice in adaptation..if your water hole dried up, there was no choice but to seek out another source.
once inteligence came along, it gave the ability to choose, and some can argue that those choices can run counter to adaptation purposes..


All of have the ability to make selection unconsciously, subconsciously, or consciously.

[/QUOTE]

Natural selection, nature selecting, nature choosing. Are you suggesting that selection/choosing can only be done with a brain?

Paul.

Natural selection, nature selecting, nature choosing. Are you suggesting that selection/choosing can only be done with a brain?

the natural selection process is not a congnitive construct, the brain has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Natural selection, nature selecting, nature choosing. Are you suggesting that selection/choosing can only be done with a brain?

the natural selection process is not a congnitive construct, the brain has nothing to do with it.

Correct, natural selection has nothing to do with the brain [except in circumstances where it becomes a tool for a species survival.]

You miss the point i am makeing.

At the end of every equation comes a selected result. The 'result' is brought about by factoring in all circumstances of the equation.

Although the generated circumstances of the equation may be random in nature, the 'selected result' is always true/correct and directly relates to the circumstances.

In short, nature selects without having a brain.

Paul.

At the end of every equation comes a selected result. The 'result' is brought about by factoring in all circumstances of the equation.

where is the choice in math?
1+1 always equals 2..

2 is not a selection, it is a result.

a selection would be :does 1+1 = 1,2,or 3?
NS doesn't play like that.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

At the end of every equation comes a selected result. The 'result' is brought about by factoring in all circumstances of the equation.

where is the choice in math?
1+1 always equals 2..

2 is not a selection, it is a result.

a selection would be :does 1+1 = 1,2,or 3?
NS doesn't play like that.

FFS. That's right 1+1=2 the result is directly related to the sum. 2 is the selected result.

NS works in exactly the same way except the equation is far far more complex because all circumstances are factored in.

NS is far superor to our cognitive choosing in so much as it always reflects the only true answer of the given circumstances.

AGAIN: Between the niche enviroment and the type of evolving lifeform NS is made. NS relates to survival.

Paul.

Originally Posted by pfrankinstein

NS is far superor to our cognitive choosing in so much as it always reflects the only true answer of the given circumstances.

This is incorrect, and you're using an incorrect analogy.
In an equation there's only one "right" answer.
NS selects whatever works. What is selected is not THE answer, it's AN answer - one of a number of possibles.
There is no "true" answer for a given set of circumstances.

Originally Posted by pfrankinstein

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

At the end of every equation comes a selected result. The 'result' is brought about by factoring in all circumstances of the equation.

where is the choice in math?
1+1 always equals 2..

2 is not a selection, it is a result.

a selection would be :does 1+1 = 1,2,or 3?
NS doesn't play like that.

FFS. That's right 1+1=2 the result is directly related to the sum. 2 is the selected result.

what is this FFS?
and still the result is not selected..you do not have a choice to what 1+1 equals.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by pfrankinstein

NS is far superor to our cognitive choosing in so much as it always reflects the only true answer of the given circumstances.

This is incorrect, and you're using an incorrect analogy.
In an equation there's only one "right" answer.
NS selects whatever works. What is selected is not THE answer, it's AN answer - one of a number of possibles.
There is no "true" answer for a given set of circumstances.

Well not totally incorrect. 'A spread of correct selected answers' instead of 'only true answer' would have been a better description of what actually happens. After all it is the accepted spread that gives us the wide variaty of spieces.

Paul

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Originally Posted by pfrankinstein

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

At the end of every equation comes a selected result. The 'result' is brought about by factoring in all circumstances of the equation.

where is the choice in math?
1+1 always equals 2..

2 is not a selection, it is a result.

a selection would be :does 1+1 = 1,2,or 3?
NS doesn't play like that.

FFS. That's right 1+1=2 the result is directly related to the sum. 2 is the selected result.

what is this FFS?
and still the result is not selected..you do not have a choice to what 1+1 equals.

A Q for you squirral.

Two asteroids collide in space, would you say that the spread of the debris field was random or selected?

Anyone.

Paul.

Originally Posted by pfrankinstein

A Q for you squirral.

Two asteroids collide in space, would you say that the spread of the debris field was random or selected?

neither, it was a result of the direction, energy, composition, etc..of the collission.
if we were able to determine account for all the factors we would be able to predict the trajectory of each and every particle.
(eek..did i say determine?)

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

if we were able to determine account for all the factors)

And there's the rub to complex systems....we usually can't know all the factors therefore predictions often have what appear to be random elements and characteristics that often grow in time.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

if we were able to determine account for all the factors)

And there's the rub to complex systems....we usually can't know all the factors therefore predictions often have what appear to be random elements and characteristics that often grow in time.

So are we saying that the 'random' result of the given scenario is an illustion created by our inability to factor in all circumstance?

Yet. Nature calculates and factors in all circumstances. So, the position of every star in the universe, random or selected?

[I tend to think that there is an element of randomness for natural results below a cetain level and at certain speeds.]


Paul.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Originally Posted by pfrankinstein

A Q for you squirral.

Two asteroids collide in space, would you say that the spread of the debris field was random or selected?

neither, it was a result of the direction, energy, composition, etc..of the collission.
if we were able to determine account for all the factors we would be able to predict the trajectory of each and every particle.
(eek..did i say determine?)

'Giant impact' Moon origin theory was calculated by such means.

NS has long been understood to be operateing within the realm biology and Darwinian evolution.

The laws of physics and chemistry operating on all inorganic material in outer space also produces 'primitively selected' results.

Primal selection is constant.

Paul.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Originally Posted by pfrankinstein

A Q for you squirral.

Two asteroids collide in space, would you say that the spread of the debris field was random or selected?

neither, it was a result of the direction, energy, composition, etc..of the collission.
if we were able to determine account for all the factors we would be able to predict the trajectory of each and every particle.
(eek..did i say determine?)

Direction, energy, composition etc... Yes. That is what i meant by complex equation.

Paul.