I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[Belz...]

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

The overlap is complete, actually. What's left ?

 

[dlorde]

... “We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”

I suspect Rees would follow that with, "... but it undoubtedly does".

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

And there never is. What you get instead is quote mining and excessive abuse of ellipses.

You also 'accused' me of thinking or trying to lead towards some eternal soul or whatever

As has already been explained, there isn't any other alternative. Either the brain is the source of consciousness or something else is, which is what you seem to be implying in your posts.

But whether or not that's what you're going for, this "accusation" business is just pointless bickering, and both sides should let it drop.

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.

It normally would be. But, as has already been explained, we actually have evidence.

We know that altering the brain alters consciousness in predictable, understandable, measurable ways. We therefore conclude, perfectly reasonably, that the brain is somehow tied to consciousness. This leaves us with two possibilities: either it is the source, via some method which is admittedly not yet perfectly understood, or it is a receiver.

The latter possibility is unsupported by any evidence, and would appear to contradict much of that which we do have. Consciousness itself can be altered by altering the brain. If the brain were merely a receiver, this would not be what we expect. The former, on the other hand, fits every piece of evidence perfectly.

All annnoid is doing - and all he's ever done - is demanding one hundred percent explanation of every single mechanism, then claiming "victory" when we can't explain every single nuance of how the brain functions.

That isn't actually an argument. It's just the argument from ignorance repeated ad nauseum.

Lack of perfect knowledge does not mean lack of enough knowledge to draw a rational conclusion.

 

[marplots]

(some snipped)

We know that altering the brain alters consciousness in predictable, understandable, measurable ways. We therefore conclude, perfectly reasonably, that the brain is somehow tied to consciousness. This leaves us with two possibilities: either it is the source, via some method which is admittedly not yet perfectly understood, or it is a receiver.

There is a third possibility - that the brain is a participant in constructing consciousness, neither the source nor the receiver, but part of a larger process which results in consciousness.

 

[dlorde]

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.

Integrated Information Theory has some interesting ideas. I recommend Damasio's book 'Self Comes to Mind' and Dehaene's book 'Consciousness and the Brain' for general background.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is a third possibility - that the brain is a participant in constructing consciousness, neither the source nor the receiver, but part of a larger process which results in consciousness.

In which case we're really just adding in the rest of the nervous system. Which is reasonable, but doesn't really change anything, since we know that all the input coming from the rest of the body is processed in the brain.

Unless you meant that there might be something outside the body which is involved, in which case you run right up against the same problem of the receiver option: it doesn't have any supporting evidence whatsoever, and actually runs counter to a lot of what we have already established.

 

[dlorde]

***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.

There is a body() of opinion that neural feedbacks from the body play a larger role in the generation of consciousness and sense of self than is generally recognised.

 

[marplots]

There is a third possibility - that the brain is a participant in constructing consciousness, neither the source nor the receiver, but part of a larger process which results in consciousness.

In which case we're really just adding in the rest of the nervous system. Which is reasonable, but doesn't really change anything, since we know that all the input coming from the rest of the body is processed in the brain.

Not just the rest of the nervous system, but hormones and other chemistry as well. Further, there's the embedding in a larger context - all the inputs and interactions from outside. If we grant that the brain can be altered by, for example, poor nutrition, then what we eat comes into play. In fact, anything that modifies the brain does the same. It's one of the arguments against a brain in a vat: what could such a brain have to think about?

Although necessary to learn physiology, I always had a sneaky suspicion that the "discrete systems" view was misleading.

 

[Lowpro]

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.

The NCC as Koch presents is part of his idea of calculating the integration function. The NCC and the Workspace Theory (in essence they're the same though the Workspace theory was specific to memory; I think Robin/Pixy would understand it better than myself. The NCC model is statistical and I prefer to reference it) do not consider the hard problem of consciousness (a problem that may or may not actually exist since it's not constrained). Koch's model, if true, would reasonably dismiss the hard problem of consciousness outright however.

Personally the NCC and Workspace theory are physiologically evident.

EDIT: as dlorde mentioned, feedback is probably more essential than we realize, and feedback interactions are the physiologist's playground (Damn you all look so small from my high horse )

 

[Nonpareil]

Not just the rest of the nervous system, but hormones and other chemistry as well. Further, there's the embedding in a larger context - all the inputs and interactions from outside. If we grant that the brain can be altered by, for example, poor nutrition, then what we eat comes into play. In fact, anything that modifies the brain does the same. It's one of the arguments against a brain in a vat: what could such a brain have to think about?

None of which I have any sort of issue with. I was already assuming the presence of hormones, other chemicals, and nervous inputs when I talked about the brain previously.

Apologies if that was unclear.

 

[Belz...]

The latter possibility is unsupported by any evidence, and would appear to contradict much of that which we do have. Consciousness itself can be altered by altering the brain. If the brain were merely a receiver, this would not be what we expect. The former, on the other hand, fits every piece of evidence perfectly.

There's a key thing in there for me: we alter consciousness by altering the brain. If the brain was a receiver, consciousness wouldn't be altered, only the expression of that consciousness, so the subject would never remember their consciousness being altered. This isn't the case.

If we instead posit that the consciousness being "transmitted" by the brain -- the source -- is not what _we_ actually perceive, but that we instead perceive our consciousness as transmitted by the brain, then there is no functional difference between that and the brain being the source of consciousness, itself, and then Occam takes care of the uknown in the equation.

 

[tsig]

If I understand correctly, neurologists claim that color, flavor, melody . . . these are not properties of matter, but are generated by brain wave activity. So the green of Summer, the sweet sticky meat of a ripe mango, the beauty of a Van Gogh, and experience of nausea - these are essentially hallucinations - because all that's really out there are various states of inert colorless, odorless, tasteless matter, in various quantities.

So those who accept materialism, that consciousness emerges from matter, they are the ones who don't accept the evidence of their own senses.

No, red is actually a different wavelength than green and water is different than a rock these are not hallucinations but aspects of reality.

 

[tsig]

I am not sure where the beauty, color, melody, etc comes from . . . but it sure would be nice if it came from the object - and not from an hallucination.

Chemical reactions in the brain induced by external stimuli as modified by remembrances of things past.

 

[tsig]

…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.

....buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut....You need to understand the quotes, not just have them.

 

[tsig]

There is a third possibility - that the brain is a participant in constructing consciousness, neither the source nor the receiver, but part of a larger process which results in consciousness.

What's the other participant?

I sense Occam stirring.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

But you're not just saying that you don't no. You're saying that nobody else knows. That's not true.

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.

Start with Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. It's not specifically about the brain, but it starts from mathematical principles and explains how consciousness can arise from material systems.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Nope. A couple of quotes taken out of context does not balance the enormous body of research papers. Claiming that it does is extremely dishonest.

Christof Koch, for one, is of the opinion that it is most decidedly not merely a physiological issue

Nope.

 

[annnnoid]

Nope. A couple of quotes taken out of context does not balance the enormous body of research papers. Claiming that it does is extremely dishonest.

Nope.

Oh I see…so what you’re saying is if we put all the research papers in a pile and weigh them they will be heavier than the conclusions presented in those quotes.

IOW…what matters is how much they weigh…not what they say.

I wonder what absurd fallacy that falls under?

As for those quotes:

…one of those people is the former head of the national academy of science.

…one of them is the director of the most ambitious neuroscience project in the history of the world.

…one of them is the director of one of the largest and most prestigious neuroscience labs in the world.

…and one of them is just a neuroscience prof. at MIT.

Additionally (as I pointed out), I have reviewed all of those positions with quite a number of practicing university level academics (it’s dead easy to get emails for just about anyone working at just about any legitimate university just about anywhere in the world…you should try it sometime, you might actually avoid sticking your foot in your mouth so often). There is no ‘context’. I simply send them the quote and indicate who wrote it and ask if they agree or disagree. The agreement rate is, without exception, between 80 and 100 percent for each statement (the statement about ‘no idea’ not surprisingly gets the lower endorsement).

…now I have to admit that the sample size is not enormous (a couple of dozen so far). But the institutions include Stanford, University College London, MIT, Cambridge, UCLA, Berkeley, Harvard, and Caltech.

So…
- those quotes not only come from acknowledged leaders in their respective disciplines (why is it…do you suppose…that leaders are called leaders???),
- they also explicitly and specifically summarize their fields of study (…and why is it…do you suppose…that we have this word ‘summary’ ???),
- AND they have been corroborated by what can reasonably be regarded as a representative sample of legitimate and credible colleagues (it’s called consensus).

Those are called facts. Pretending they're not is, by definition, dishonest (but don't let that stop you).

What is surprising (or not)…is how determined you (and the rest) are to ignore the facts (you’re almost behaving like […gasp!]…human beings!!!!). Like I said… Larry’s comment that you’re acting like a bunch of ‘true believers’ was quite accurate. At least you’ve got the thread right this time. Religion. Bang on!

 

[tsig]

Oh I see…so what you’re saying is if we put all the research papers in a pile and weigh them they will be heavier than the conclusions presented in those quotes.

IOW…what matters is how much they weigh…not what they say.

I wonder what absurd fallacy that falls under?

As for those quotes:

…one of those people is the former head of the national academy of science.

…one of them is the director of the most ambitious neuroscience project in the history of the world.

…one of them is the director of one of the largest and most prestigious neuroscience labs in the world.

…and one of them is just a neuroscience prof. at MIT.

Additionally (as I pointed out), I have reviewed all of those positions with quite a number of practicing university level academics (it’s dead easy to get emails for just about anyone working at just about any legitimate university just about anywhere in the world…you should try it sometime, you might actually avoid sticking your foot in your mouth so often). There is no ‘context’. I simply send them the quote and indicate who wrote it and ask if they agree or disagree. The agreement rate is, without exception, between 80 and 100 percent for each statement (the statement about ‘no idea’ not surprisingly gets the lower endorsement).

…now I have to admit that the sample size is not enormous (a couple of dozen so far). But the institutions include Stanford, University College London, MIT, Cambridge, UCLA, Berkeley, Harvard, and Caltech.

So…
- those quotes not only come from acknowledged leaders in their respective disciplines (why is it…do you suppose…that leaders are called leaders???),
- they also explicitly and specifically summarize their fields of study (…and why is it…do you suppose…that we have this word ‘summary’ ???),
- AND they have been corroborated by what can reasonably be regarded as a representative sample of legitimate and credible colleagues (it’s called consensus).

Those are called facts. Pretending they're not is, by definition, dishonest (but don't let that stop you).

What is surprising (or not)…is how determined you (and the rest) are to ignore the facts (you’re almost behaving like […gasp!]…human beings!!!!). Like I said… Larry’s comment that you’re acting like a bunch of ‘true believers’ was quite accurate. At least you’ve got the thread right this time. Religion. Bang on!

Do you have copies of these Emails?

(I predict willful waffling here)

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh I see…so what you’re saying is if we put all the research papers in a pile and weigh them they will be heavier than the conclusions presented in those quotes.

No, the evidence objectively falsifies your dishonest quotemining.