again, this is a strawman - I don't know any reasonable individual who would suggest that the brain has little or nothing to do with the mechanics of subjective experience . . . I am skeptical that the current research is showing us anything re consciousness, where it comes from and how it emerges . . . the research is just twitches or whack-mole-pop-neuroscience that will soon be regarded as a naive beginning - or even quackery.
…and you are, for the most part, correct (relatively speaking).
Those half dozen neuroscientists who, a little over a year ago, corroborated their observation that ‘we have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain’ were, each and every one, practicing professionals with decades of experience.
The folks you are having these enormously stimulating discussions with have a grand total of zero experience in the field (I don’t pretend to either…which is why I find folks who actually do and reference them).
To put it simply…there are those here who lack the ability to deal with the facts. Thus, your observation that they resemble ‘true believers’ is, unfortunately, quite accurate. They will endlessly trot out their manicured research papers (when they can even find any) while, at the very same time, blissfully ignoring the gaping holes in their own conclusions as well as the holes in the conclusions those very papers consistently highlight.
The only reason they complain about the quotes I introduce…is because they very clearly put the lie to their claims.
…and have you noticed…none of them ever provide anything resembling evidence to prove the quotes are wrong.
They say they’ve been taken out of context.
But do they ever produce evidence of this?...no.
They say the authors are unreliable.
But do they ever produce evidence of this?...no.
They say the claims are flawed.
But do they ever produce evidence of this?...no.
So I suggest…if the quotes and their conclusions are flawed…then answer the 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 (modularity of mind, remember, what you’re all claiming is evidence that we know how the brain works).
Notice that nobody…ever…answers any of those questions. Thus, the quotes…and their conclusions…stand.
To put it in words even these folks could comprehend…if we knew as much about IT as we know about how the brain produces consciousness…we still wouldn’t even have the most basic electronic calculator.
…and that’s…a…fact!
Wrong. Read how Libet established the timing of conscious decision-making. It's a direct measurement of consciousness. (And it proves that conscious decision-making is illusory.)
Libets research doesn’t even come close to proving that conscious decision making is illusory. The only thing that is illusory are such conclusions. There are masses of documented critiques of that research and its conclusions (Dan Dennet, for one, has dismissed them) so, at the very least, it’s anything but definitive.
…but don’t let that stop you from leaping to your typically ridiculous dogmatic position right atop the highest mountain of absurdity.
‘ It proves free will doesn’t exist.’…nope, not even close. That there are those who are drawn to such flawed conclusions does nothing more than highlight their own ignorance.
Nor does it represent anything remotely resembling the very point at which consciousness emerges. If for no other reason than that neural imaging does not possess anything close to the granularity required to adjudicate conditions at such a level.
Neuroimaging is a very blunt tool. There are over a 100 billion neurons in the human brain and several hundred trillion synapses (…+ a half trillion or so glial cells …which either do something or nothing depending upon who you talk to) (…a half trillion ‘things’ which either do something or nothing…what’s with that???). fMRI resolution is currently 2-3 mm. So…in that 2-3 millimeters you’ve got how many potential events occurring (I think the number is something like a couple billion)? There does not exist any variety of scientific instrument remotely capable of explicitly adjudicating even a minute fraction of them with any effective degree of granularity….either spatially or temporally.
So I suppose the fact that doctors and neurologists have direct observations and measures of consciousness is immaterial.
This is BS. As you well know, there does not exist, anywhere anyhow, a consensus on what consciousness even is (prove me wrong). That they are adjudicating something is inevitable. What they are adjudicating is invariably conditional.
