Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

Isn't that what Fudbucker is talking about? That elusive, mystical, magical thing that happens when all the nerves are firing to send the right impulses to the brain.

No.

FACT: We do not know how consciousness emerges from brain activity. We have some level of neural correlation, but there are many hard questions still unanswered.

Optical illusions like neon colour spreading and many others are still problematic, as no one believes there is a place in the brain where the illusion is represented at a neural level.

Qualia are a dead dodo. We actually inhabit a selfless reality. But consciousness is still not explained.

 

[Nick227]

It's entirely relevant. If mental states are the same as brain states, then knowledge of a brain state would be the same as knowledge of the corresponding mental state (and vice-versa). I.E., if a blind person knew everything there was to know about the physical process of seeing (nerve impulses, brain states, etc.), then that blind person would know what seeing is. I think that's ridiculous for obvious reasons: a blind person will never know what seeing is unless they experience it first-hand.

I think the problems come when you correlate "person" and "experience" in this way. Because we don't know exactly how the brain generates consciousness, we don't know how the brain actually is, outside of its appearance in consciousness.

Therefore, though statements like "this person experiences consciousness" seem to make sense, they may turn out not to do so.

 

[Nick227]

Your brain processes information. That's what it does. And that's where the question should end there as well.

Joe,

So, you're saying there's a place in the brain where a pale blue circle appears? Yes? That pale blue circle that seems to be present is actual neural activity? This is what you're saying, yes?

 

[tsig]

No.

FACT: We do not know how consciousness emerges from brain activity. We have some level of neural correlation, but there are many hard questions still unanswered.

Optical illusions like neon colour spreading and many others are still problematic, as no one believes there is a place in the brain where the illusion is represented at a neural level.

Qualia are a dead dodo. We actually inhabit a selfless reality. But consciousness is still not explained.

What kind of an explanation are you looking for?

 

[Nick227]

Yeah because the questions doctors are asking and the questions philosophers are asking are the same.

"Let's look deeper into the processes of these biological functions so we can understand them better."

"PROVE TO ME YOUR LIVER REALLY EXISTS! IT'S NOTHING BUT A P-LIVER! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN A LIVER'S QUALIA! YOU MATERIALIST! HEY LIVER AND LIVE ARE SIMILAR WORDS! I BET THAT PROVES SOMETHING!"

Wow it's like I typed the same sentence twice.

Joe,

You are as usual utterly failing to understand the issue, and just blindly careering on. Scientists understand the underlying processes of liver function. They don't understand how the brain gives rise to consciousness.

This has nothing to do with alleged qualia, nothing to do with proving something exists or not, nothing to do with woo-ism, whatever. They just haven't got there yet.

We have a very high level of correlation between brain activity and consciousness. We know that brain damage creates changes in conscious perception. Stan Dehaene's work with brain imaging shows that there are neural correlates of visual consciousness. But we still don't know how the brain gives rise to consciousness.

Once you can get actual pictures, as in visual images, from scanning neural activity associated with vision... then great. Then go ahead and make all these statements.

What you seem to be doing is taking Dan Dennett's "and then what happens" argument (his repudiation of the HPC) and using it to assert that there is now no remaining explanatory gap. There is. It may be huge. It may not.

 

[Nick227]

What kind of an explanation are you looking for?

tsig,

Please link me to the research that shows actual visual images being extracted from scans of neural activity.

As everything is so explained I'm sure this won't take you long. I'll just wait here.

 

[Aridas]

tsig,

Please link me to the research that shows actual visual images being extracted from scans of neural activity.

As everything is so explained I'm sure this won't take you long. I'll just wait here.

To clarify, are you asking about visual images like these? Or do you mean something else?

 

[marplots]

To clarify, are you asking about visual images like these? Or do you mean something else?

And that's from four years ago.

 

[tsig]

What kind of an explanation are you looking for?

tsig,

Please link me to the research that shows actual visual images being extracted from scans of neural activity.

As everything is so explained I'm sure this won't take you long. I'll just wait here.

Hilited the operative word in my question.

Who said everything is explained, I'm trying to find out what you would consider proof since your own experience as an "I" doesn't seem to convince you that an "I" exists.

 

[LarryS]

Hilited the operative word in my question.

Who said everything is explained, I'm trying to find out what you would consider proof since your own experience as an "I" doesn't seem to convince you that an "I" exists.

before providing a proof - it would be good to first provide an explanation (how consciousness arises from brain) - hell, I'd pay a dollar for plausible theory

 

[LarryS]

OK, I'd pay a dollar for a laughable theory

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What is the difference between the biochemical sensory input and the "feeling?"

One is the physical response, managed by the amygdala and sense organs, including the peripheral nervous system, without conscious intervention. The other is what you make of things consciously, and will vary with personality and experience. Action and reaction.

Physical: pin prick -> Ouch!
Reaction: Some emotion plus "Why me?"

 

[annnnoid]

And that's from four years ago.

…and you would be hard pressed to find anything resembling progress since then. Not to mention that those images are the result of a significant investment in what is referred to as ‘training’. Meaning that they did not just sit someone down, plug them in, and ‘voila’…out pops an image of a parrot that looks like a piece of road-kill drawn in crayon by a 2-year-old on acid.

Also… visual processing is lower-level cognitive activity. Any old rodent would do. Try coming up with the neural correlates of the number ‘2’.

The folks who achieved those seriously crappy images had these cautionary words to say about their work: fMRI is very noisy and only reveals a small fraction of brain information. Don’t read too much into this.

Maybe brain imaging will improve…but there are a number of reasons to conclude that there may be very real limits on what can actually be achieved. Something to do with the immeasurable complexity of what is being scanned (it’s not called ‘the-most-complex-object-in-the-known-universe’ for nothing), the resolution required (light-years beyond current capabilities), and the inconvenient fact that ‘live’ people just don’t want to have a hole knocked in their skull so the boffins can get a handle on what’s up.

A summary of the status quo would be this:

‘While these imaging techniques have come a long way, understanding what is happening on the cellular level will not likely happen without the advent of a new technology.’

New technology’s do, of course, happen. But I get the impression that in this case, a new technology would have to be not merely evolutionary, but revolutionary to overcome the inherent and significant obstacles involved.

…so don’t expect anything beyond ‘road-kill’ for quite some time (if at all). I guess for the foreseeable future we’re all (except for the exceptional few) just going to have to rely on what is grudgingly referred to as ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Meaning…if you want to know what’s up with me, I’ve to tell you.

 

[marplots]

…and you would be hard pressed to find anything resembling progress since then. Not to mention that those images are the result of a significant investment in what is referred to as ‘training’. Meaning that they did not just sit someone down, plug them in, and ‘voila’…out pops an image of a parrot that looks like a piece of road-kill drawn in crayon by a 2-year-old on acid.

Does it matter? It seems like they've crossed the philosophical divide and we are now into a question of fidelity. Apparently, there's a there there, and what remains is to improve instrumentation.

 

[LarryS]

there was little doubt that the brain generated objects of experience, and these images are 3rd person images of someone else's 2nd person experience - - - but the 'experience' itself is still in the realm of philosophy

 

[Nick227]

To clarify, are you asking about visual images like these? Or do you mean something else?

Thanks for the link. I'll check out out. Eta - I do now actually recall it got discussed years ago on this forum but weren't they taking liberties? They knew what they were looking for. I don't recall exactly.

I mean I want to see how actual neural activity correlates directly to sensory experience. If such and such a neural spike train or whatever is taking place, how that correlates exactly to the taste of cheddar and what exact change at a neural level will create say the taste of ham. Exact, hard laws between neural behaviour and sensory percepts.

 

[Nick227]

Who said everything is explained, I'm trying to find out what you would consider proof since your own experience as an "I" doesn't seem to convince you that an "I" exists.

You don't need an "I" to prove anything. Just as well really, as otherwise science would be really up **** creek, as opposed to just overstating its case.

As the philosophy coach says... There's no I in proof

Give me one example where you need an "I" to prove something, tsig.

 

[tsig]

there was little doubt that the brain generated objects of experience, and these images are 3rd person images of someone else's 2nd person experience - - - but the 'experience' itself is still in the realm of philosophy

Looks like a philosophy of the gaps.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Scientists understand the underlying processes of liver function. They don't understand how the brain gives rise to consciousness.

Because people are adding mystical, undefined vagueness to the already understood biochemical process because they don't want to science to have the answer.

Basically whenever science explains another factor in how the mind process information, people are just gonna tack on another "layer" of how the mind works and demand science answer "that" even thought "that" is at best a meaningless distinction without difference.

People get going "Science can explain how the brain works but the can't explain consciousness!" without being able to explain explain a meaningful difference between the two other than defining one part as the part science can't explain.

And yet again... everything you are saying about sciences "not understanding" how the brain works is 100%, categorically, across the board false.

This has nothing to do with alleged qualia, nothing to do with proving something exists or not, nothing to do with woo-ism, whatever.

Sure if we live in a world where homeopathy isn't Woo, sure. We don't we live in a world where homeopathy is 100% bullhockey, but sure whatever.

They just haven't got there yet.

Because everytime they "get there" people like you deny that "there" is there.

We have a very high level of correlation between brain activity and consciousness. We know that brain damage creates changes in conscious perception.

And that's sorta where the argument should stop and yet...

Stan Dehaene's work with brain imaging shows that there are neural correlates of visual consciousness. But we still don't know how the brain gives rise to consciousness.

Because you don't bother to define consciousness.

Once you can get actual pictures, as in visual images, from scanning neural activity associated with vision... then great. Then go ahead and make all these statements.

Woo the gaps it is.

What you seem to be doing is taking Dan Dennett's "and then what happens" argument (his repudiation of the HPC) and using it to assert that there is now no remaining explanatory gap. There is. It may be huge. It may not.

"Gap where whatever Woo I want to believe in goes" and "As yet unanswered question/nuance we can safely assume is going to function under a logical, rational framework" aren't the same thing.

We know as much about brain activity as we do about every other bodily function.

Just because our brains are "us" doesn't make them special or more likely to have some mystical woo underlying their function as anything else. Saying "Science knows how the brain works but can't explain consciousness" is like saying "Science knows how the heart works but can't explain blood flow." Brain function is consciousness unless you want to just define them differently just to have a hair split to shove woo into.

 

[Aridas]

Thanks for the link. I'll check out out. Eta - I do now actually recall it got discussed years ago on this forum but weren't they taking liberties? They knew what they were looking for. I don't recall exactly.

I recall seeing letters/words imaged mostly accurately in the past. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? I cannot comment directly on whether or not liberties were taken, though, partially given that it was just a "that's interesting, but moving on" thing for me.

I mean I want to see how actual neural activity correlates directly to sensory experience. If such and such a neural spike train or whatever is taking place, how that correlates exactly to the taste of cheddar and what exact change at a neural level will create say the taste of ham. Exact, hard laws between neural behaviour and sensory percepts.

As a general comment, you really should be careful not to fall into the trap of requiring total knowledge of how something works before allowing provisional conclusions to be reached and treated as valid for what they are (incidentally, it's fairly accurate to say that all the scientific method produces are provisional conclusions and it's only for the sake of more useful conversation that that's not beat on like a dead horse). Even moreso because, far too frequently, such demands end up being used alongside overwhelmingly less stringent requirements for the acceptance of some other potentially competing claim. Other than that, I'm mildly curious how you think that pursuing consciousness and it's relation to brain activity even could help either your initial attempt to argue that accepting materialism would actually damage the meaningfulness or significance of scientific method in any meaningful way or your more recent statement where you revealed that your actual annoyance is about scientists being quite harsh on homeopathy, so you're trying to make a case for why they don't actually have the right to be so harsh. When it comes to the former, that line of argument would be quite irrelevant. When it comes to the latter, the actual points that you could meaningfully back up with that line of argument fall into the "Well, DUH" category that simply could not meaningfully help your case.