I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[PixyMisa]

Do you have copies of these Emails?

(I predict willful waffling here)

To be fair, legitimate and competent scientists can say some pretty stupid stuff when they stray outside their fields of expertise. We've seen a quote of Christof Koch's trotted out several times as some kind of evidence of... Something... When what Koch is saying is known simply to be a mathematical impossibility.

That's why quotemining and appeals to authority are worthless. Koch is an authority on consciousness, true. But he doesn't know anything about the mathematical underpinnings of computer science.

 

[Tassman]

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!

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but is there any reason to think that 'consciousness' has not arisen naturally? You seem to be implying that we don't know "therefore God" - or have I misunderstood you? If the latter then you are merely presenting a god-of-the-gaps argument and they have never fared well for believers; the gaps keep getting filled in by natural explanations.

 

[Lowpro]

Anyone noticed that Bernardo has since been taking to Twitter and FB with this? That's where Ian Mannering and others have crawled out of the woodwork for >.>

 

[PixyMisa]

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but is there any reason to think that 'consciousness' has not arisen naturally? You seem to be implying that we don't know "therefore God" - or have I misunderstood you? If the latter then you are merely presenting a god-of-the-gaps argument and they have never fared well for believers; the gaps keep getting filled in by natural explanations.

Well, yes. If you ask a neuroscientist exactly how human consciousness arises from brain function, they'll tell you we don't know. We've mapped out a lot of the function of the brain, including some of the key operational components of consciousness, but this work is far from complete.

But if you suggest that consciousness is anything other than brain function, they'll look at you as if you're crazy. Which of course you would be.

 

[dlorde]

If you ask a neuroscientist exactly how human consciousness arises from brain function, they'll tell you we don't know. We've mapped out a lot of the function of the brain, including some of the key operational components of consciousness, but this work is far from complete.

But if you suggest that consciousness is anything other than brain function, they'll look at you as if you're crazy. Which of course you would be.

Quite - I think this is why annnnoid relies so much on isolated, contextless quotes; in isolation they can be recruited to support a wider claim than they originally referred to. In their full context I suspect they're far more specific than would be useful to his position.

 

[surreptitious57]

The problem with consciousness is that while it is contingent on the physical it is not actually physical itself. Least not by the standard definition of what physical is. Which is that which has property or dimension. Consciousness has neither. So one cannot just examine it under a microscope like one would with any type of observable matter. It is not something that can be referenced by the five senses. Being self conscious is not something that can be subject to the rigours of the scientific method because objectivity cannot be guaranteed since only the individual who is experiencing it knows that it actually exists. Which is why it is more appropriate a subject for philosophy than science. The problem here however is that philosophy deals in ideas not in evidence or proof so any conclusion cannot be demonstrated. The best theories so far with regard to it are either supervenience or materialism but neither of these can be scientifically tested. So it is then the hardest problem in all of science because it cannot be objectively investigated by it. Maybe the time will come when it will have to be accepted as simply an unanswerable question. Untestable hypotheses may be true but if they cannot be demonstrated then they are disregarded. And consciousness is at this point in time a prime candidate for such consideration. And there is also the other problem of objectivity being compromised as one cannot use the very same means of investigation as the methodology for the thing being investigated. The most objective means would be artificial intelligence. Though anything less than absolute proof one way or the other would be problematic for exactly the same reasons

 

[Belz...]

The problem with consciousness is that while it is contingent on the physical it is not actually physical itself. Least not by the standard definition of what physical is. Which is that which has property or dimension.

No, we've already explained that physical is "that which interacts with other physical things." Counsciousness most certainly does so.

So one cannot just examine it under a microscope like one would with any type of observable matter.

But we can examine it like we can examine people running. "Running" isn't an object, it's an action.

Being self conscious is not something that can be subject to the rigours of the scientific method because objectivity cannot be guaranteed since only the individual who is experiencing it knows that it actually exists.

No, that's cheap, centuries-old philosophy. That has nothing to do with empirical science, and thus it philosophy's limitation.

So it is then the hardest problem in all of science because it cannot be objectively investigated by it.

Your premise is false, therefore your syllogism is unsound.

The most objective means would be artificial intelligence. Though anything less than absolute proof one way or the other would be problematic for exactly the same reasons

This highlights a problem with the "hard problem", namely, that it defines itself as something that can never be solved. If we made sentient computers, its proponents would never admit that they are conscious like you and I. It's an unfalsifiable concept, best discarded.

 

[The Man]

... Being self conscious is not something that can be subject to the rigours of the scientific method because objectivity cannot be guaranteed since only the individual who is experiencing it knows that it actually exists.

How do I know that? I've experienced things in dreams that did not actually exist. Even to the point of experiencing being awake and fully conscious when I was still asleep. How do I know that this current experience of presumably being conscious exists any more than those where, for the most part, I wasn't conscious but still asleep? One morning at least three times I dreamt that I had woken up and gotten out of bed to go about my day only to find latter that I was indeed still asleep. Why can't consciousness just be an illusion, a self referential narrative our brain processing produces to give a perspective of continuity and agency that isn't really there? Sure I say this is the awake fully conscious experience of me now, but knowing that I have been wrong about that experience before how do I know I'm still not wrong now?

 

[tsig]

How do I know that? I've experienced things in dreams that did not actually exist. Even to the point of experiencing being awake and fully conscious when I was still asleep. How do I know that this current experience of presumably being conscious exists any more than those where, for the most part, I wasn't conscious but still asleep? One morning at least three times I dreamt that I had woken up and gotten out of bed to go about my day only to find latter that I was indeed still asleep. Why can't consciousness just be an illusion, a self referential narrative our brain processing produces to give a perspective of continuity and agency that isn't really there? Sure I say this is the awake fully conscious experience of me now, but knowing that I have been wrong about that experience before how do I know I'm still not wrong now?

You don't wake up from reality.

 

[The Man]

But one can wake up to reality and that reality may be that ones sense of self is more of an illusion than anything else.

 

[tsig]

But one can wake up to reality and that reality may be that ones sense of self is more of an illusion than anything else.

Mine isn't. Others will have to look to themselves.

 

[surreptitious57]

No one denies in principle the physical reality we all experience. Even if it is an illusion it is one that cannot be referenced from outside it. For that one would have to exist outside of ones own physical body or outside the physical Universe or be dead. Only one of those is actually possible but because death is non reversible it is not a very popular means of leaving this reality which we all experience. And so we are some what resigned to just accepting it regard less of what we may post about it on rational fora. Though death is nothing to be afraid of for it is not actually possible to experience it as such. Something that is only thought of when one is paradoxically alive when one has precisely zero frame of reference for it. Even though we were dead before we were born and for virtually all of known time too

 

[The Man]

No one denies in principle the physical reality we all experience. Even if it is an illusion it is one that cannot be referenced from outside it. For that one would have to exist outside of ones own physical body or outside the physical Universe or be dead. Only one of those is actually possible but because death is non reversible it is not a very popular means of leaving this reality which we all experience. And so we are some what resigned to just accepting it regard less of what we may post about it on rational fora. Though death is nothing to be afraid of for it is not actually possible to experience it as such. Something that is only thought of when one is paradoxically alive when one has precisely zero frame of reference for it. Even though we were dead before we were born and for virtually all of known time too

Well, technically that is the very thing, in principle, idealism denies, a physical reality. In practice though, as you note, we all seem resigned to it.



I'm trying to find a TED talk on anesthesia that I heard some time ago but here is another NPR talk on anesthesia.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=135516582&m=135635065

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/25/135516582/you-wont-feel-a-thing-your-brain-on-anesthesia

 

[The Man]

Sorry still can’t find the talk but here is another article and the paper it refers to.

http://www.sleepdt.com/general-anesthesia-is-pharmacological-coma-not-sleep/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3162622/

If I recall correctly from the talk the “burst suppression” referred to in the latter sections represents a stronger more synchronized brain activity at a lower average frequency. In effect what we refer to as consciousness is basically different parts of the brain talking to each to other and by getting them to dance to the same slow tune, so to speak (the “burst suppression”), they can’t communicate the same way as before and you are unconscious but more like in a coma than just sleep (which lacks the “burst suppression”)

 

[Brian-M]

The problem with consciousness is that while it is contingent on the physical it is not actually physical itself. Least not by the standard definition of what physical is.

It's analogous to a running computer program in that way. Not physical itself, but being performed by physical processes.

Which is that which has property or dimension. Consciousness has neither. So one cannot just examine it under a microscope like one would with any type of observable matter.

But you can, in principle, examine the physical processes performing it and map out the logic underlying the performance of consciousness. Analogous to looking at the machine code for a computer program and figuring out how it works from there.

Being self conscious is not something that can be subject to the rigours of the scientific method because objectivity cannot be guaranteed since only the individual who is experiencing it knows that it actually exists.

Not true that it is not subject to the rigors of the scientific method. Experience may not be able to be studied directly, but the behavior of the subjects can be studied. Behaviors such as self-reports or performance on aptitude tests and interactions with other people.

The self-reports of the subjects and the observed behaviors can be studied and compared with the associated changes in brain-activity. If certain types of brain activity is associated in similar behavior and self-reports from subjects who have no contact with each-other, then you can assume that there's a correlation between the two.

 

[punshhh]

Even though we were dead before we were born and for virtually all of known time too

This cannot be established.

 

[punshhh]

Well, technically that is the very thing, in principle, idealism denies, a physical reality. In practice though, as you note, we all seem resigned to it.

Idealism denies, presumably, an exclusively physical reality. I see no reason why, with an idealist ontology, there would not be any physical material.

Well we are all resigned to the reality that something with the appearance of physical reality exists. Surely with an idealist ontology, this would also be the case?

 

[PixyMisa]

This cannot be established.

It already has been.

Idealism denies, presumably, an exclusively physical reality. I see no reason why, with an idealist ontology, there would not be any physical material.

Or any reason why there would be. All you can do with idealism is provide post-hoc rationalisations.

Well we are all resigned to the reality that something with the appearance of physical reality exists. Surely with an idealist ontology, this would also be the case?

Why?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is the materalism out beyond the event horizon of the formless?

 

[Dancing David]

The problem with consciousness is that while it is contingent on the physical it is not actually physical itself. Least not by the standard definition of what physical is. Which is that which has property or dimension. Consciousness has neither. So one cannot just examine it under a microscope like one would with any type of observable matter. It is not something that can be referenced by the five senses. Being self conscious is not something that can be subject to the rigours of the scientific method because objectivity cannot be guaranteed since only the individual who is experiencing it knows that it actually exists. Which is why it is more appropriate a subject for philosophy than science. The problem here however is that philosophy deals in ideas not in evidence or proof so any conclusion cannot be demonstrated. The best theories so far with regard to it are either supervenience or materialism but neither of these can be scientifically tested. So it is then the hardest problem in all of science because it cannot be objectively investigated by it. Maybe the time will come when it will have to be accepted as simply an unanswerable question. Untestable hypotheses may be true but if they cannot be demonstrated then they are disregarded. And consciousness is at this point in time a prime candidate for such consideration. And there is also the other problem of objectivity being compromised as one cannot use the very same means of investigation as the methodology for the thing being investigated. The most objective means would be artificial intelligence. Though anything less than absolute proof one way or the other would be problematic for exactly the same reasons

So I suppose the fact that doctors and neurologists have direct observations and measures of consciousness is immaterial.