Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

Joe,

Name me one scientist working in consciousness research who says they've got there. Just one. Link me one paper where one scientist says one time - we've got there.

Exactly. That's what this whole song and dance has been, one big circular bootstrap defining something as itself and then proving itself using that definition.

"Science can't explain every aspect of consciousness."
"Science has a reasonably complete bedrock understanding of the fundamentals of how the mental process works."
"Scienc....

[blah, blah, babble and more babble still]

Ah, so you can't actually find one scientist or scientific paper that backs up your perspective. Great, Joe.

 

[Nick227]

So what? A century ago, we did't have a physically accurate theory of electricity yet. That didn't make it magic.

I agree entirely. Who's saying it's magic? I haven't seen one person on this thread say it's magic, though I may have missed something.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who's saying it's magic? I haven't seen one person on this thread say it's magic, though I may have missed something.

That's because no one is explaining what they mean at all.

"Science can't explain it!" is a codeword for magic and I have zero intentions of playing naval gazing semantic word games.

Explain, without self definition, special pleading or distinctions without difference, how this "concussions" that you keep alluded to being this unexplainable thing differs from normal understood mental functions.

 

[Nick227]

The brain IS the someone. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Well, it would be a great explanation if it remotely fitted with the evidence. Which unfortunately it doesn't... because

Objectively - if the brain is the someone, how do you account for vast amounts of processing that you're not aware of? Are you saying the brain isn't aware of it? Or are you saying that consciousness is only happening to a part of the brain? Or that some trains of neural processing are qualitatively different from other strands and possess a mysterious property of consciousness?

Subjectively - does it seem like your brain is someone? Do you behave in this manner? Do you go, for example, into a pub and say to the barman "Brain wants a pint"? Do you talk to other people in the third person as Brain?

 

[Nick227]

Why the assumption that science isn't the thing that's gonna figure it out?

Joe,

Who, in this thread, is saying that science isn't going to figure it out? Take a look. I can't see anyone saying this, though maybe I missed something.

What I'm saying is that science hasn't got there yet. Which, if you care to actually read studies and keep up to date, is what all the scientists are saying also.

Go and actually read something or watch the annual Tucson Science of Consciousness conference on YouTube or whatever. No one is saying we've got it all figured out.

 

[Nick227]

There must be a pre-linguistic code that we share with other species underlying language, onto which we homo sapiens have mapped a symbolic code. It will take time, but when this nut is cracked, many dominoes will have fallen first, and others later will fall fast.

We need to look at how a top-down attention management system decides what gets into consciousness. It has to be using a map of some kind. Or, yes, symbolic code. This would allow a neural basis for optical illusions, and the interaction of neural processing with the map could create the sensation of awareness. Maybe!

 

[MRC_Hans]

I agree entirely. Who's saying it's magic? I haven't seen one person on this thread say it's magic, though I may have missed something.

No, they have carefully avoided the term 'magic'. But what, in your vocabulary, is it then? If the mind is NOT an emergent propery of the brain, what do you claim it is?

Hans

 

[Nick227]

Either or both of "life" and "someone" would need to have distinctly non-standard definitions for this to do anything other than demonstrate that you simply don't have a viable argument along these lines.

Utter rubbish.

Even if we rephrase as the brain is programmed to behave as though consciousness, or awareness, is happening to someone - what is so non-standard?

Do you not believe right now that there is someone reading these words? Is that a non-standard someone?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, it would be a great explanation if it remotely fitted with the evidence. Which unfortunately it doesn't... because

Objectively - if the brain is the someone, how do you account for vast amounts of processing that you're not aware of?

Ehh? Are you aware of all the computation that goes on in your computer every time you hit a key?

Are you saying the brain isn't aware of it? Or are you saying that consciousness is only happening to a part of the brain?

Awareness is one product of the brain. And yes, it can be shown experimentally that only a small part of what happens in the brain is brought to the conscious level.

Or that some trains of neural processing are qualitatively different from other strands and possess a mysterious property of consciousness?

There is nothing mysterious about it. It is just that computation on the concsious level is energy-consuming and slow. Therefore, the brain has a filter that sorts out which information neets to be brought to the attention og the conscious level. This is known science.

ETA: Here is a link to something about it http://www.simplypsychology.org/attention-models.html Just so you can see that science is at work on it. If you wanna know more, do your own research.

Subjectively - does it seem like your brain is someone? Do you behave in this manner? Do you go, for example, into a pub and say to the barman "Brain wants a pint"? Do you talk to other people in the third person as Brain?

I'm sure you can see how silly those questions are. Does your claimed -whatever it is, not actually the brain- 'I' talk about the brain in third person? .... Why should the brain itself do?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Joe,

Who, in this thread, is saying that science isn't going to figure it out? Take a look. I can't see anyone saying this, though maybe I missed something.

What I'm saying is that science hasn't got there yet. Which, if you care to actually read studies and keep up to date, is what all the scientists are saying also.

Go and actually read something or watch the annual Tucson Science of Consciousness conference on YouTube or whatever. No one is saying we've got it all figured out.

No, we haven't figured it all out. So what? ... Philosophy of the gaps?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Utter rubbish.

Even if we rephrase as the brain is programmed to behave as though consciousness, or awareness, is happening to someone - what is so non-standard?

Do you not believe right now that there is someone reading these words? Is that a non-standard someone?

What do YOU claim is reading these words?

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

Joe,

Who, in this thread, is saying that science isn't going to figure it out?

Well that's the thing. Science has figured it out to a pretty reasonable degree and people are just refusing to accept that. You could say "Science hasn't figured it out!" to anything if you apply the same level of hair splitting, semantics, special pleading, and tacking on of extra meaninglessness you have here.

Sure there's some gaps and clarification needed but science understands how the brain works as well as it understands how the stomach or liver works, but no one is doing a bunch of philosophical hand wringing over those.

Science understands how the mind works enough for people to stop freaking out over it.

So you're saying it, in so many words. If you haven't accepted science has it "figured out" by now you aren't going to.

Take a look. I can't see anyone saying this, though maybe I missed something.

I have no intention of playing the "Show me where I said those exact words" game with you. I can infer.

What I'm saying is that science hasn't got there yet.

And I'm saying that science has and you just won't accept it.

Which, if you care to actually read studies and keep up to date, is what all the scientists are saying also.

Given the fact that you have done nothing but spout off factually wrong information about the state of modern neuroscience, have defended the across the board wrong concept of homeopathy, and are playing the old "Science is wrong, science is wrong!" card I do not believe I will kowtow to your intellectual superiority at this time.

 

[abaddon]

Ah, so you can't actually find one scientist or scientific paper that backs up your perspective. Great, Joe.

Sean Carroll.

 

[Nick227]

"Science can't explain it!" is a codeword for magic and I have zero intentions of playing naval gazing semantic word games.

Well, I've never said science can't explain it, or if I did then just in the temporal sense, as in it can't explain it right now. I can't be arsed reading all the posts but I don't recall anyone else saying that science can't ever explain consciousness. I've said science hasn't explained it yet.

I do feel it would help if you would actually read the posts instead of just reacting as though everyone is some mad alternative type. As I've pointed out to you... actually your arguments are more woo than that of any new-ager. You're making claims for science that no scientists are making.

 

[Nick227]

Sean Carroll.

He says there are no explanatory gaps for science in understanding consciousness?

 

[abaddon]

I agree entirely. Who's saying it's magic? I haven't seen one person on this thread say it's magic, though I may have missed something.

Well, that would be you. Sure, you have not used the word magic, but everyone can see that although you did not say that word, that is exactly what your arguments are intended to do, shoehorn "magic" in by any means fair or foul no matter which way you slice it.

 

[Nick227]

Ehh? Are you aware of all the computation that goes on in your computer every time you hit a key?

Nope. Which reinforces my point.

There is nothing mysterious about it. It is just that computation on the concsious level is energy-consuming and slow. Therefore, the brain has a filter that sorts out which information neets to be brought to the attention og the conscious level. This is known science.

So, you're saying that there is a qualitative difference between conscious and non-conscious processing at a neural level? Or what exactly? How are conscious and non-conscious processing distinguished at a neural level?

 

[Nick227]

Well, that would be you. Sure, you have not used the word magic, but everyone can see that although you did not say that word, that is exactly what your arguments are intended to do, shoehorn "magic" in by any means fair or foul no matter which way you slice it.

Point me to an example.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I've never said science can't explain it, or if I did then just in the temporal sense, as in it can't explain it right now. I can't be arsed reading all the posts but I don't recall anyone else saying that science can't ever explain consciousness. I've said science hasn't explained it yet.

Yet you have used the 'science can't explain it' as a crucial argument for ... Mmm whatever it IS you are arguing. - As the argument unfolds it seems to become more and more vague what you are actually trying to claim.

Hans

 

[Nick227]

What do YOU claim is reading these words?

Hans

Reading and response are taking place inside the brain, as far as I know. This does not mean that the brain is a "someone"