I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[Belz...]

It's a quote he found, from a neuroscientist. Don't remember which one. Obviously it's not true, but it's all he's got, which is why we see it so often.

Yeah, quote mining to support one's beliefs. I realised that half-way through writing my post, which is why I added the "nor is it accurate" bit.

 

[Pup]

I ask again: what are you suggesting as an alternative?

Either the brain generates a consciousness or it acts as a receiver for an external one. There isn't a third option.

That's where I get stuck. What is the alternative? What problem does it explain better than the current scientific consensus?

It's not my field, not something I really care about more than a casual interest, so when people insist there must be something more, it feels like being stopped on the street by a flat-earther who insists I should ignore the scientific consensus and believe what he says. Okay, fair enough, what evidence does he have? What does his theory explain better? Why is he trying to convince me, rather than his scientific peers? I'm willing to listen, but there needs to be some meat there.

 

[Belz...]

That's where I get stuck. What is the alternative? What problem does it explain better than the current scientific consensus?

It's either residual dualism, ignorance, or simply the need to feel smug/smart by taking a super-skeptical approach, which actually doesn't make one seem smart.

 

[annnnoid]

It's a quote he found, from a neuroscientist. Don't remember which one. Obviously it's not true, but it's all he's got, which is why we see it so often.

It’s just a quote I found??????

…L….O….L!

Why is it you folks have so much trouble facing the facts? Anyone would think you’re a bunch of true believers or something (…actually, someone just came to that very conclusion…what a surprise).

You all know very well where that quote came from (Geraint Rees…remember him Nonpareil…the guy you said was an idiot until you discovered he was the department head at one of the most prestigious neuroscience centers in the world).

It’s also been corroborated by fully 90% of the neuroscientists who have reviewed it.

…but of course, they’re just neuroscientists. You, on the other hand, are chat room experts. Doubtless you all have the superior point of view.

But since you’re all so convinced it’s nonsense…here’s another summary of the situation. This one from the head of the Blue Brain Project (y’know…THAT Blue Brain Project). No doubt he’s also an idiot, and the quote isn’t true, and it’s also all I’ve got:

Even building McKiernan’s single-neuron models is a fiendishly complicated task. “For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury,” she says. “At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength.” It’s ignorance all the way down.
“For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need,” says Markram. Worse still, experimentally mapping out every molecule, cell and connection is completely unfeasible in terms of cost, technical requirements and motivation.

Doesn’t it just sound so much like the situation is no more than "a bit murky" ("ignorance all the way down"..."a tiny tiny fraction of what we need")???

Or how about another quote from a complete idiot (I guess it’s not all I’ve got). This moron’s name is Bruce Alberts. He’s a biochemist, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, and past president of the US national academy of science

“As a coauthor of a textbook in cell biology that is updated at 5-year intervals, I am painfully aware of the huge gap that remains in our understanding of even the simplest cells,” he writes.

“…huge gaps in understanding.” Isn’t it impressive how much we know!

How about another one. From a neuroscientist at MIT (who, for the time being, will remain nameless).

There is considerable controversy over how the areas of the brain are defined. Indeed the whole issue about "modularity of mind" is contentious

(modularity of mind specifically refers to those stupid video’s that were recently introduced on this thread which had everyone in a fit to proclaim the issue resolved).

Some argue that cognitive modules are encapsulated and physiologically distinct while others think that cognitive functions recruit groups of neurons and form distributed systems.
We know even less about how these areas of the brain produce functional behaviors. These are all protein-based, of course, but the mechanisms are complex and largely unknown.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Now this guy is just a neuroscientist at MIT of course. Doubtless he simply does not know what he’s talking about. But then again…do his words sound like things are no more than ‘a bit murky’? He uses words like ‘considerable controversy’, ‘contentious’, ‘largely unknown’.

…but again…he’s just a neuroscientist…at MIT. What does he know!

But let’s dispense with the irrelevant opinions of stupid neuroscientists. They’ve got decades of professional experience, they do nothing but study this stuff, but they’re stupid, they’re wrong, and it’s all I’ve got. Why don’t we take a moment and see what the tiny little cabal of experts at ISF knows since you’re all so convinced that we’re no more than a pebble drop from explaining you and me. Perhaps you could answer the following questions:

- What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
- What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?
- How is this process expressed through the biochemistry of neurons?
- What part of the system actually has the experience(s)?
- What are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?
- Why (for example) does the amygdala have the physical dimensions and bio-chemical constitution that it has (and how did it achieve that condition) and in what specific ways do these elements determine its cognitive functionality? When you’re done explaining that, provide equivalent explanations for every other significantly differentiated brain region.

The word ‘computation’ does not qualify as an answer (merely an admission of ignorance).

…better be careful how you answer Nonpareil…I might just have another neuroscientist lurking up my sleeve.

If you're reading Larry don't expect any answers from this bunch. You will be sad to discover that your description of them as a bunch of ‘true believers’ was quite accurate.

 

[Belz...]

It’s just a quote I found??????

…L….O….L!

And that sums up your argument entirely.

 

[Lowpro]

And that sums up your argument entirely.

Pretty much. At least the neuroscientists are smart enough to recognize the that it's a physiological issue and not a matter of this silly materialism vs idealism issue.

 

[annnnoid]

And that sums up your argument entirely.

…yeah, of course. The head of the Blue Brain Project, the head of the National Science Foundation, the head of an international neuroscience foundation, a professor at MIT…they obviously have nothing to say.

...but you do!

....buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut.....I notice you didn’t answer a single one of those questions. In case you had missed it, you are the one who keeps claiming all of those questions are answered or close to being answered. I can easily find evidence to support the conclusion that they are not (answered...I have other quotes...they're easy to find). You have yet to provide a anything to the contrary.

Until you do...Larry's conclusion is easily supported (you're nothing more than a bunch of 'true believers').

Your claim…your evidence.

 

[LarryS]

Care to support that claim with evidence ?

Once you've done that, let me tell you this: it's quite fair for someone to examine their own motivations on a topic like this. For instance, when I was dead-set against abortion, I had to look deep down and think about whether, beyond my perceived "reasons" to be against it, I had some latent religious teaching getting in the way. I did. Once I realised it, I got rid of that, and all my objections to abortions dissapeared.

People who keep saying that there must be "more" to consciousness might have a similar problem. I'm simply suggesting to annnnoid that he does this introspection to determine that. I'm not holding my breath, mind you.

You also 'accused' me of thinking or trying to lead towards some eternal soul or whatever, so naturally it appeared to me you think folks who disagree with you must be part of a conspiracy or something.

Anyways, as I've stated before, I don't have an alternative explanation - and I would think, especially on a skeptics forum, that an honest I don't know is preferred to wild-eyed speculation.

BTW, have you seen any descriptions, illustrations, or models of how the brain generates consciousness? I honestly would like to see one. It wouldn't have to be as thought out and understood as a process like photosynthesis . . . but something along those lines.

 

[Lowpro]

BTW, have you seen any descriptions, illustrations, or models of how the brain generates consciousness? I honestly would like to see one. It wouldn't have to be as thought out and understood as a process like photosynthesis . . . but something along those lines.

Christoph Koch's NCC model is one. I think most models do not consider consciousness to be "generated" rather than consciousness is the integration of brain activity. If it means anything, Koch's model isn't earth shattering, rather it recognizes the stochastic nature of the integration which means the idea of 1:1 neuron stimuli no longer needs to be considered for consciousness; the integration is enough.

Is that true? If the physiology fits the assumptions of the model it probably is and so far the physiology does not say otherwise (annnoid's contentions for showing the biochemistry is nonsensical; there's nothing that is contradictory to biochemistry for this model). This also means the local sources for consciousness doesn't matter as much because the integration doesn't necessitate local discrete areas, only that the areas are integrating. Physiologically speaking that's a more cogent model not just for consciousness, but for biochemistry in general.

 

[annnnoid]

Pretty much. At least the neuroscientists are smart enough to recognize the that it's a physiological issue and not a matter of this silly materialism vs idealism issue.

That is called inference. The simple fact is, any honest neuroscientist has to conclude that they don’t know what the issue is. Simply because (as those quotes VERY clearly illustrate)…there is so very much about which science is still in the dark. Christof Koch, for one, is of the opinion that it is most decidedly not merely a physiological issue (though, no doubt, he fully expects the physiological issues will be far more than sufficient to consume the attention of his entire working life).

…and you’re right. Ultimately materialism or idealism is irrelevant. That’s nothing more than a metaphysical issue…until you start studying the thing that generates the conditions that generate metaphysical issues. Then the (so far purely hypothetical) question has to be asked: what is the specific physiology from which our entire conceptual condition occurs? IOW…is it possible to physiologically establish the veracity (or degree thereof) of metaphysical statements (Sam Harris seemed to be suggesting that very thing)?

 

[Belz...]

Pretty much. At least the neuroscientists are smart enough to recognize the that it's a physiological issue and not a matter of this silly materialism vs idealism issue.

Yeah. This "we don't understand it fully so we don't know if it's in the brain or in magic fairies" is getting tiresome.

 

[Belz...]

…yeah, of course. The head of the Blue Brain Project, the head of the National Science Foundation, the head of an international neuroscience foundation, a professor at MIT…they obviously have nothing to say.

...but you do!

....buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut.....I notice you didn’t answer a single one of those questions. In case you had missed it, you are the one who keeps claiming all of those questions are answered or close to being answered. I can easily find evidence to support the conclusion that they are not (answered...I have other quotes...they're easy to find). You have yet to provide a anything to the contrary.

Until you do...Larry's conclusion is easily supported (you're nothing more than a bunch of 'true believers').

Your claim…your evidence.

Well that's not at all my claim, but then with all that froth you probably missed that little detail.

 

[LarryS]

Yeah. This "we don't understand it fully so we don't know if it's in the brain or in magic fairies" is getting tiresome.

what's tiresome is your strawman conspiracy theories

 

[Belz...]

You also 'accused' me of thinking or trying to lead towards some eternal soul or whatever, so naturally it appeared to me you think folks who disagree with you must be part of a conspiracy or something.

Then you have zero clue of what "conspiracy" means. We all have biases so it's very fair to ask each other and ourselves to question them.

Anyways, as I've stated before, I don't have an alternative explanation

If you don't have an alternate explanation, then why doesn't the obvious default conclusion do ?

 

[Lowpro]

That is called inference. The simple fact is, any honest neuroscientist has to conclude that they don’t know what the issue is. Simply because (as those quotes VERY clearly illustrate)…there is so very much about which science is still in the dark. Christof Koch, for one, is of the opinion that it is most decidedly not merely a physiological issue (though, no doubt, he fully expects the physiological issues will be far more than sufficient to consume the attention of his entire working life).

…and you’re right. Ultimately materialism or idealism is irrelevant. That’s nothing more than a metaphysical issue…until you start studying the thing that generates the conditions that generate metaphysical issues. Then the (so far purely hypothetical) question has to be asked: what is the specific physiology from which our entire conceptual condition occurs? IOW…is it possible to physiologically establish the veracity (or degree thereof) of metaphysical statements (Sam Harris seemed to be suggesting that very thing)?

Heh I mentioned Christof Koch already so I'll jump on that. When he said it wasn't merely a physiological issue I'd like to know the context. The NCC model isn't a physiological model, it's an informational one (re: statistical) and the hope is that the model predicts the physiology. I can see that being what he may have meant.

EDIT: on the idea of the metaphysical issues I find both sides weird and yet I'm a materialist by the nature of my arguments rather than my subscription to the metaphysical view. The brain is directly involved in sensation; that much we can safely agree with I would hope. I believe Koch argued (at least in Quest for Consciousness) that Koch argued that consciousness may be nothing more than the robust zombie rather than a distinction between the zombie and the "above the zombie" (I can't remember what he actually called that zombie). I personally think that an evolutionary selection model would apply well to the integration model but I have no good way to make that model.

 

[Belz...]

The NCC model

You mean this:



?

 

[Lowpro]

You mean this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_608054412ccbe5ea6.jpg[/qimg]

?

God I wish. If the idealists were right then I could fire photon torpedoes with my mindbrain.

 

[dlorde]

Late to the feast, but...

... I am conscious of (looking at) a specific image, then, a region of my brain is stimulated and I am now conscious of a different image.

I can infer that stimulating the brain generated the 2nd object, and I became aware of it, but consciousness was there before during and after - so I can't infer consciousness was generated by the stimulation or by the brain activity.

Er, the brain activity was also there before, during, and after the stimulation. Further, consciousness changes as brain activity changes, as stimulation changes... so it would not be unreasonable to infer a correlation between consciousness and brain activity.

 

[LarryS]

Heh I mentioned Christof Koch already so I'll jump on that. When he said it wasn't merely a physiological issue I'd like to know the context. The NCC model isn't a physiological model, it's an informational one (re: statistical) and the hope is that the model predicts the physiology. I can see that being what he may have meant.

EDIT: on the idea of the metaphysical issues I find both sides weird and yet I'm a materialist by the nature of my arguments rather than my subscription to the metaphysical view. The brain is directly involved in sensation; that much we can safely agree with I would hope. I believe Koch argued (at least in Quest for Consciousness) that Koch argued that consciousness may be nothing more than the robust zombie rather than a distinction between the zombie and the "above the zombie" (I can't remember what he actually called that zombie). I personally think that an evolutionary selection model would apply well to the integration model but I have no good way to make that model.

Thanks for the NCC reference - I'll dig into that when I have time. A brief scan of the wiki page implies much of NCC is speculative, ie, may require study of the "body rather than mind"***, quantum consciousness whatever that is, and so on.


***BTW, recently I watched a video where the presenter posited that a model of more complex states of consciousness, ie higher emotive states and sense of self/identity, should also include the 'major' organs of the body as well as the brain. I must admit it sounded kooky at the time.

 

[LarryS]

Late to the feast, but...


Er, the brain activity was also there before, during, and after the stimulation. Further, consciousness changes as brain activity changes, as stimulation changes... so it would not be unreasonable to infer a correlation between consciousness and brain activity.

I don't think any reasonable person would deny there's a correlation, including myself.