I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[annnnoid]

Nonpareil is absolutely correct. Zero evidence for consciousness outside the brain (or more generally, outside computers) has ever been presented.

Zero.

Lots of claims. Lots of claims that evidence has been presented.

Zero evidence.

It is also, of course, impossible. But the fact that it simply doesn't happen is more significant. Things thought to be impossible that happen anyway lead use to scientific breakthroughs. Things thought to be possible that don't happen are discoveries in waiting. Things thought to be impossible that don't happen.... Are impossible and don't happen.

There’s lots of evidence. It simply can’t be scientifically adjudicated. Just like the vast majority of what goes on inside your head cannot be scientifically adjudicated. Like I said…neither side has the empirical advantage. They can’t establish that it is valid, and you can’t establish that it isn’t….

…any more than it can be scientifically established what you dreamed last night
…or why you like chocolate chip cookies
…or whether or not you love your wife
…or how you feel when you ride a roller coaster
….etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Dude keep your extra chromosome out of this conversation, this is how we qualified detection

The inability to detect it doesn't matter so much as whether there is informational changes. Your concerns about the parrot are completely irrelevant. The fact that the image was barely recognizable is of no consequence to the fact that they were able to determine brain activity to an image. Trying to disassociate brain activity from experience is no longer a valid line of thought. Brain activity is physical and its participating in sensation. Deal with it. This little "believer" stuff you're prattling is nonsensical.

And I love how you're the one who loves to say that we have no definition of consciousness but you say you've provided (positive?) evidence that there is a mind outside the head.

That was how YOU qualified detection.

Quite apart from whatever nuanced discussion of information may have been occurring…Belz claimed that science has the ability to adjudicate every single variety and nuance of subjective experience.

Perhaps someone should advise the semantically challenged Belz that when he wants to claim that science has the ability to do something…he should use the words:

‘Science currently has the ability to do XYZ.’
….which, to just about any English speaking human being…is identical to:
“Science can do XYZ.’
…or are you one of those human beings who would interpret the second sentence to mean “sometime in the next thousand years science will be able to do XYZ”…?

…but, of course, that’s just me.

If you want to have a discussion about what, precisely, neural scanning is or is not capable of you will find yourself quite surprised at just how many of these folks fall by the wayside.

Nobody has been suggesting brain activity is disassociated from experience. That we can produce a stupidly unintelligible neural scan and associate it with some variety of external behavior is very old news (like I said…the same thing appeared years ago).

Not to mention that the mere capacity to relate specific neural activity to specific external activity is…at best…mundane. To begin with…any one of the trillions of creatures swarming this planet processes visual activity. It is hardly representative of highest order primate identity (‘us’ being the only thing we know of in possession of that which we call consciousness). Secondly…all that indicates is that somewhere in the physiology of the brain visual processing is translated into some manner of coherent neural activity (that can then be translated back into some vague representation of what is being processed). The relevant point is how does that specific neural activity relate to the conscious experience of the individual in question. Merely asserting that ‘neural activity IS consciousness’ (which is what invariably happens here) is as worthless as the words it is written with.

As has been quite clearly established…given the fact that nobody has any idea of the specific relationship between consciousness and the brain…and the fact that modularity of mind is anything but resolved…we’ll just have to conclude that the question of what that blurry image actually represents will also remain unresolved.

Unless of course you, or anyone else here, wants to answer those questions I’ve dropped innumerable times now. So far, everyone has avoided them like the plague.

The issue is the moronic claims that are consistently being made about a) the current capabilities of neural scanning b) the potential capabilities of neural scanning (“we can generate neural scans of parrots that look like month-old road kill now so just imagine what we’ll be able to do in the future”…wow…bare assertions or bust!) and c) what is actually understood about how the brain produces consciousness.

The other issue is what actually does constitute human behavior / consciousness and to what degree neural scanning can adjudicate these phenomenon.

Pixy (and his groupies)…constantly claims that mind is what the brain does. Behavior. But Pixy carefully avoids ever presenting a comprehensive list of what he actually means by the word ‘behavior.’ A minor oversight no doubt. Sometime in the next thousand years, in principle, it will appear.

As Larry quite accurately pointed out…these threads are riddled with nonsense and woo… and this time it’s all coming from the skeptics. Thus…true believers.

…and precisely where did I indicate that I had positive (definitive) evidence of consciousness outside the brain? If you take the time to read what I wrote…and take the time to think on it for more than three seconds…you will realize that definitive scientific adjudication is NOT a prerequisite for something to qualify as evidence.

Why that is indisputably the case should be obvious to anyone with any more than a fraction of a brain.

Let's see you dance to your own tune, here: Present ONE such pieces of evidence. ONE that survives even a cursory examination.

None shall be forthcoming.

All you have to do is look ( http://www.near-death.com/notable.html ). You can claim all you want that none of the examples listed on that page (and there are thousands of others) can be substantiated. But that is not what I said….was it. The simple fact is, they can’t prove they happened, and you can’t prove they didn’t.

You can whine till the cows come home that this or that rank stupidity explains what happened…but until you can directly adjudicate subjective experience ( and despite your idiotic claims of magical machines…no-one is anywhere close to achieving this capability) neither you nor anyone can even begin to establish that these claims are false.

…and, since perception and the abstract mind are, by default, the primary ontological reality (because these are the only things we actually experience)…claims of personal experience take precedence over any claims to the contrary barring explicit evidence of their duplicity.

IOW…it’s not even up to them to prove they happened…it’s up to you to prove they didn’t. And since you can’t even begin to do that…the claims stand.

This is self-contradictory nonsense. If a hypothesis cannot be scientifically evaluated, then, by definition, there can never be any evidence for it.

And, as has already been mentioned, this also means that, by definition, it is wrong.

It would obviously be a waste of time pointing out just how incoherent this statement is. Presumably you are, as usual, arguing something to the effect that science is the only valid approach to establishing the evidentiary quality of information. That science is the only valid epistemology (just like Pixy…just like Belz…just like tsig…what a surprise).

As I pointed out above…scientific adjudication is NOT a prerequisite for something to qualify as evidence.

…if you are actually silly enough to argue that this is false…then explain what specific varieties of science you referenced every moment since you awoke this morning.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who wins if it's a mix?

The Woo Slingers. Which is what this is all really about.

No one wants to deny reality. They just want to ignore it when it suits them.

 

[Belz...]

All you have to do is look ( http://www.near-death.com/notable.html ). You can claim all you want that none of the examples listed on that page (and there are thousands of others) can be substantiated. But that is not what I said….was it.

No, you said there was evidence of consciousness outside the brain, and when asked, you provide evidence that people hallucinate when their brain is oxygen-deprived. Tut tut.

 

[Belz...]

You can whine till the cows come home that this or that rank stupidity explains what happened…but until you can directly adjudicate subjective experience ( and despite your idiotic claims of magical machines…no-one is anywhere close to achieving this capability) neither you nor anyone can even begin to establish that these claims are false.

Stop lying, Annnnoid. We've already covered the machine and what "can" means. That you are acting as if I didn't explain this doesn't change reality.

…and, since perception and the abstract mind are, by default, the primary ontological reality

And again we come to the crux of the problem: you are using philosophy instead of science, ignorance instead of knowledge, and emotion instead of logic. You WANT there to be souls. Don't project your need onto reality.

 

[marplots]

The Woo Slingers. Which is what this is all really about.

No one wants to deny reality. They just want to ignore it when it suits them.

That last bit is worth having.

 

[annnnoid]

I'm a materialist, but I too am bothered by the almost religious adherence to objectivism on offer in this thread. The zealotry is embarrassing.

Reminds me of an observation by Scott Atran at the Beyond Belief conference a while back:

I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems.

 

[annnnoid]

No, you said there was evidence of consciousness outside the brain, and when asked, you provide evidence that people hallucinate when their brain is oxygen-deprived. Tut tut.

Evidence is that which supports a conclusion. In this case, there is vast amounts of evidence to support the conclusion.

You are claiming that these experiences are the result of oxygen deprivation. Can you prove this? Not even close.

Thus...your claim is worthless.

 

[Belz...]

Evidence is that which supports a conclusion.

Yes, and in this case it doesn't support your conclusion.

If your definition of "evidence" was true, pretty much everything would be evidence of every theory you can think of. No, evidence has to preferentially support a conclusion. In this case we KNOW that oxygen-deprived brains produce hallucinations of that kind.

You lose.

 

[Belz...]

So, Annnnoid, do you agree that the aforementioned machine can, at the very least, identify patterns in the brain that correspond to specific visual experiences ?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Who wins if it's a mix?

It's irrelevant if it's a mix. For minds like yours and mine, the question if mind is material, or matter is mind, is fundamentally unanswerable*. It's a distiction without a difference. It's like Robin said upthread somewhere: We could call the stuff that makes up the objective universe shblerg** and be done with this discussion. Forever.






* As long as we agree there is an objective universe

**I may have misspelled this word.

 

[annnnoid]

Stop lying, Annnnoid. We've already covered the machine and what "can" means. That you are acting as if I didn't explain this doesn't change reality.

Y’know…if you don’t stop accusing me of lying I may have to actually start caring and report you.

…so you admit that science is nowhere near achieving the ability to adjudicate subjective experience. Good.

And again we come to the crux of the problem: you are using philosophy instead of science, ignorance instead of knowledge, and emotion instead of logic. You WANT there to be souls. Don't project your need onto reality.

Sort of like saying that the brain is a computer! That kind of philosophy?

Sort of like saying that consciousness is self-referential-information-processing! That kind of philosophy?

..and in case it has escaped your eagle attention…emotions are THE fundamental human epistemological reality (they easily precede rationality). Thus, emotional adjudication is, ultimately, the only legitimate adjudication available to a human being.

…and if you are going to insist that I have some need to proclaim the existence of souls, at the very least provide some evidence. I have now produced 939 posts. Find a single one where I proclaim the existence of a soul!

…otherwise I guess it is I who will have to insist that you retract your claim.

…but don’t bother. I couldn’t care less anyway.

Yes, and in this case it doesn't support your conclusion.

If your definition of "evidence" was true, pretty much everything would be evidence of every theory you can think of. No, evidence has to preferentially support a conclusion. In this case we KNOW that oxygen-deprived brains produce hallucinations of that kind.

You lose.

As usual…endless worthless assertions and question begging.

Where has it been definitively established that evidence is only valid if it preferentially supports a conclusion?
Where has it been definitively established that NDE’s are explicitly a result of oxygen deprivation and only oxygen deprivation?
Where has the explicit causal relationship between oxygen deprivation and NDE’s been established?
Where has it been definitively established that we know how anything at all is produced by the brain?
Where has it been definitively established that oxygen deprived brains produce experiences identical to NDE’s?
Where has it been definitively established that we have any explicit scientific capacity to accurately adjudicate subjective experience?
Where has it been definitively established that the experiences described in either these oxygen deprived events or actual NDE’s are not exactly what the individuals describe?

…your lack of critical thinking is, to echo Marplots…embarrassing.

So, Annnnoid, do you agree that the aforementioned machine can, at the very least, identify patterns in the brain that correspond to specific visual experiences ?

…again…you are jumping to your typically dogmatic conclusions. The machine can identify patterns in the brain that correspond to visual activity. Now…can you provide an explicit representation of how that relates to conscious experience.

No?...didn’t think so.

HINT: Merely claiming that the brain and the mind (the scan and the experience) are the same thing is …well…just a claim. That’s called religion (so you’ve got the right thread). Science is about explaining the actual mechanism…not standing on a hill and proclaiming the gospel according to Pixy!

 

[marplots]

It's irrelevant if it's a mix. For minds like yours and mine, the question if mind is material, or matter is mind, is fundamentally unanswerable*. It's a distiction without a difference. It's like Robin said upthread somewhere: We could call the stuff that makes up the objective universe shblerg** and be done with this discussion. Forever.






* As long as we agree there is an objective universe

**I may have misspelled this word.

It seems to be a human trait - to puzzle over unanswerable things. There's a certain benefit we get out of it. Like jogging, which takes you back where you started from, it appears pointless in one dimension, but seems worthwhile in another.

For me, the urge to explicate and grow verbose on the topic waxes and wanes. After awhile, it does distill down much as you say, but it's still interesting to grapple with if not done to excess. After all, while I might feel sated, I understand that better thinkers than I have extracted much from the topic, and because of it, there must be regions of the map I haven't explored. Who knows what dragons may lurk there?

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, maybe it isn't religious adherence. But seeing as how you are perfectly willing to dismiss an entire branch of Philosophy because you don't find it meaningful

Can you think of a better reason?

Have you even considered those areas where materialism is weak?

No. There aren't any.

 

[PixyMisa]

There’s lots of evidence. It simply can’t be scientifically adjudicated.

So there's no evidence. Got it.

 

[PixyMisa]

... Said every God-botherer ever.

False equivalence, poisoning the well.

 

[H'ethetheth]

It seems to be a human trait - to puzzle over unanswerable things. There's a certain benefit we get out of it. Like jogging, which takes you back where you started from, it appears pointless in one dimension, but seems worthwhile in another.

For me, the urge to explicate and grow verbose on the topic waxes and wanes. After awhile, it does distill down much as you say, but it's still interesting to grapple with if not done to excess. After all, while I might feel sated, I understand that better thinkers than I have extracted much from the topic, and because of it, there must be regions of the map I haven't explored. Who knows what dragons may lurk there?

I would be lying if I said that this conclusion was immediately obvious to me. Of course I had to read a little about what other people have thought about these things, and thought about it myself until I reached this conclusion.
My point is that the fact that people vehemently adhere to that (fairly solid) conclusion in a discussion should not embarrass you.

 

[annnnoid]

So there's no evidence. Got it.

So prove that science is the only valid epistemology.

...actually...prove that you yourself function only within this epistemology. You do realize that such a conclusion would constitute an admission of psychosis? Not to mention that's it's patently impossible, blatantly dysfunctional, and indisputably impractical.

So either you admit you're psychotic...or at the very least neurotic...or you admit science is not the only valid epistemology.

Your choice.

 

[marplots]

I would be lying if I said that this conclusion was immediately obvious to me. Of course I had to read a little about what other people have thought about these things, and thought about it myself until I reached this conclusion.
My point is that the fact that people vehemently adhere to that (fairly solid) conclusion in a discussion should not embarrass you.

It strikes me as a prohibition against intellectual musings, the very thing I enjoy. That's what cast it in a religious light for me. The idea of the sacrosanct and the certain, in contrast to the exercise embodied in discussing the issues, seeing what nuances might emerge, what paths could be followed.

 

[PixyMisa]

It strikes me as a prohibition against intellectual musings, the very thing I enjoy.

There's no "prohibition". There's nothing that resembles a prohibition in any way.

Some ideas simply aren't true. You are free to discuss idealism all you like, just as you're free to discuss Harry Potter.

If you want to argue that either one represents reality in any way, though, you're going to have a rough time establishing your claim.

 

[Belz...]

Y’know…if you don’t stop accusing me of lying I may have to actually start caring and report you.

…so you admit that science is nowhere near achieving the ability to adjudicate subjective experience. Good.

I find it amusing that you ask me to stop accusing you of lying, and follow it with a lie.

Science isn't done and done when it comes to brain function, but if it can approximate the image you're seeing, it's getting there.

Sort of like saying that the brain is a computer! That kind of philosophy?

The brain computes, so it's not much of a stretch calling it a computer.

..and in case it has escaped your eagle attention…emotions are THE fundamental human epistemological reality

Only to a pseudo-philosopher. That's why science is the superior fact-finding tool.

…and if you are going to insist that I have some need to proclaim the existence of souls, at the very least provide some evidence.

Your posts are ample evidence that you are dead-set against the idea of explaining human experience scientifically. There's only one cause I know of, but I'm willing to be proven wrong; so tell me: why are you so dead-set against that idea ?

…but don’t bother. I couldn’t care less anyway.

Of course you don't care. That's why you're so hysterical when someone makes even the suggestion that science may crack the so-called "hard problem".

As usual…endless worthless assertions and question begging.

It's not question-begging. It's simply that you are IGNORANT of the scientific knowledge on this topic. As I tell you again and again: your ignorance is not a convincing argument.

…again…you are jumping to your typically dogmatic conclusions.

I am asking you a question. Do you even read the posts you reply to ? I will ask again:

Do you agree that the aforementioned machine can, at the very least, identify patterns in the brain that correspond to specific visual experiences ?

No?...didn’t think so.

Perhaps you should wait for my reply before deciding that I won't reply.

HINT: Merely claiming that the brain and the mind (the scan and the experience) are the same thing is …well…just a claim.

No, it's not.

Again, your predilection for dualism is evident.