If I could take your brain and stick it in a pickle jar, would you still be conscious?

Assuming one was somehow able to keep the brain alive once it was in the pickle jar.
What would happen? Would you be in a perceptual dream like state? Is our conscious just the product of our five senses?

Shouldn’t you wait until after we have a clue about what consciousness is to ask this question?

What brine would you use?

Gotta be Claussen…they are the best.

What’s a tour brain?

Sure, why not? We don’t know entirely how consciousness works, but we do know that it’s in the brain. You’d be blind, deaf, mute, numb, and otherwise free of sensory input, but there’s no reason to believe that the nature of consciousness would change just because you’re not connected to all your sensors – paralyzed people don’t live in a “dream state” just because they can’t use most of their body.

Now, the complete lack of outside information might drive you insane after a time. But fundamentally, I don’t see how this is any different from being in an (exceptionally good) sensory deprivation tank with your body intact, and that doesn’t interfere with consciousness.

Boar’s Head is better, and more appropriate.

No, not even if it was connected up to fake inputs and outputs [PDF].

I haven’t read the whole thing, but it seems a fairly flawed analysis. For example:

Going by this logic paralyzed people couldn’t be conscious; but as far as we can tell, they are.

Going from what is seen with people who have “locked in” syndrome I’d expect a brain-in-a-vat to be emotionally flattened; input from the body appears to be crucial for emotions. And judging from sensory deprivation experiments I’d expect it to go crazy. But I would expect it to be conscious.

Wow. I’ve never seen such a mass of speculation and misused anecdotes masquerading as science. That whole paper is basically philosophical assertions wrapped in a mass of technobabble. It basically states that consciousness is body-wholistic, then goes on for 39 pages just assuming that’s true, in order to prove that consciousness is body-wholistic, basically by the “it’s really complex, so you couldn’t fake it even if you could fake it exactly” argument–sort of a specialized case of Searle’s Chinese Room argument (and subject to the same criticisms). I imagine this was never peer reviewed?

Hypothetical question? Moved to IMHO from General Questions.

samclem, moderator

Schroedinger’s Brain:

You can’t tell if it’s conscious or unconscious until you interact with it, which necessarily entails exchanging some kind of sensory experience with it (there must be some fundamental particle that mediates this). But by exchanging some sensory experience with the brain in the vat, you collapse that brain’s conscious/unconscious superposition, only to find that it’s in one state or the other.

If it were your brain in a pickle jar, would you want to be conscious?

It was conscious the last time I did it.

Well, getting the brain out was the easy part. The hard part was getting the brain out!

How do you know that you aren’t simply the conscious expression of a brain in a jar that is dreaming that you are a physical entity posting and responding to posts in a reality that it has simply conjured up?

The same way I answer for all similar questions: because I refuse to believe that I, or at least my consciousness, am (a) that creative and (b) that weird/screwed up.

Brain, brain, what is brain!?!?

This is actually a matter of great philosophical discussion and argument, with roots going back to Descartes:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/

I had to have a brain operation last year and when I woke up the doctor told me “Now we’ll have to take your brain out.” I was a bit alarmed but assumed a brand new scientific procedure had been invented that allowed the removal and survival of brains. (I was probably still under the influence of anesthesia at the time.)

Anyway, I consented and it turned out he was only removing a drain.

If, as seems extraordinarily likely, consciousness is an emergent property, emerging from the complex system of the brain interacting with it’s environment, then no, there wouldn’t be. For it to be possible, the brain would have to generate a sufficiently complex and coherent system by itself, without input.