the "the brain is a radio" analogy

Elind said:
I'm no "expert", anymore than Deepak is, but all this hinges on being able to prove an "immaterial" world outside of our imagination which is itself material based.

Sounds like a typical recursive woo argument to me.
Click to expand...


...and that is where your argument disappears. Neither our imagination nor whatever is outside of it is material-based. There is no such thing as 'material'. Not anywhere. There does not exist any science that has ever come anywhere close to locating anything that can empirically be described as 'material'. In fact...nobody actually has a clue what exists at the heart of everything that exists. Ironically, the current trend is towards something that is called 'information'...which could easily be argued to have more in common with consciousness than whatever not-consciousness may be.
 
annnnoid said:
Right now…consciousness itself is a ‘brain event’ that cannot be explicitly linked to a cause.
Click to expand...

Again you are dodging the question and answering a different one. In fact, this is the _only_ question you ever answer even when it's not being asked. Here is my argument again. Please address it and nothing else:

Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle. If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain. An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.
 
annnnoid said:
Right now…consciousness itself is a ‘brain event’ that cannot be explicitly linked to a cause. I won’t even bother going into the uncountable other neural events that cannot…because we either cannot explicitly measure them or because we simply do not understand them…be linked to a cause (and it would be trivially easy to confirm that these also exist…in abundance).

Given these indisputable facts…how is it possible, according to your latest argument, to explicitly exclude the possibility of unknown forces precipitating any of these events?
Click to expand...

Unknown forces acting in invisible ways, what good is this hypothesis?
 
annnnoid said:
...and that is where your argument disappears. Neither our imagination nor whatever is outside of it is material-based. There is no such thing as 'material'. Not anywhere. There does not exist any science that has ever come anywhere close to locating anything that can empirically be described as 'material'. In fact...nobody actually has a clue what exists at the heart of everything that exists. Ironically, the current trend is towards something that is called 'information'...which could easily be argued to have more in common with consciousness than whatever not-consciousness may be.
Click to expand...

I have here in my hand a baseball bat, it is made of materiel, I swing and hit your head causing an impact so your head is also made of materiel. (repeat as needed til point is driven home)

Q. E. D.
 
tsig said:
I have here in my hand a baseball bat, it is made of materiel, I swing and hit your head causing an impact so your head is also made of materiel. (repeat as needed til point is driven home)

Q. E. D.
Click to expand...

This is an irrelevant suggestion as events whether they occur in material or consciousness - have consequences
 
Argumemnon said:
Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle. If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain. An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.
Click to expand...

The way I read you statement:

Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle.

This of course leaves room for the possibility that there may be behaviours which go undetected.


If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain.

This tells me that behaviour affects the brain rather than the brain affects behaviour.
I would have thought that it goes both ways...

It also tells me that we cannot observe the "behaviour in the brain" directly so I am to assume that MIR is indirect observation and there is no such thing as direct observation...provided of course I am reading your statement correctly


An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.

This tells me that anything regarded as "an unknown force" would be something that can be indirectly observed to affect the brains behaviour but cannot be explained to be 'caused' by anything.

What it doesn't say though is whether there is any such "unknown force" which has ever been detected this way (because no example of what might be considered an 'unknown force' has been given.)

Which leads me to wonder what an 'unknown force' is and if no such thing as an unknown force has ever been detected, it can be assumed (until such time as one is detected) that such a thing does not exist.

I have read this thread (some posts more thoroughly than others) and admit that the concept of 'unknown force' didn't jump out at me so am left wondering how this became part of the subject.

I realize that part of the argument is that consciousness is not understood very well if at all by those studying the brain but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is an "unknown force" (in case that is what you are referring to - consciousness= unknown force) but if not, then what are you referring to by using that expression?
 
Navigator said:
Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle.

This of course leaves room for the possibility that there may be behaviours which go undetected.
Click to expand...

Obviously, but that's irrelevant to the argument.

If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain.

This tells me that behaviour affects the brain rather than the brain affects behaviour.
Click to expand...

The two aren't mutually-exclusive, nor does my argument address that because that is off-topic.

It also tells me that we cannot observe the "behaviour in the brain" directly
Click to expand...

That's wrong. We most certainly can.

so I am to assume that MIR is indirect observation and there is no such thing as direct observation...
Click to expand...

If you take the view that nothing is observed directly, sure. But that doesn't change the validity of the observation.

An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.

This tells me that anything regarded as "an unknown force" would be something that can be indirectly observed to affect the brains behaviour but cannot be explained to be 'caused' by anything.
Click to expand...

Of course, it would only be a start, but it's a requisite to the "brain as a radio" theory.
 
Darat said:
That's not been true for literally decades.
Click to expand...

And to be really accurate it's not been true for literally hundreds and hundreds of years and probably not been true since we first gained the ability to communicate via a narrative.
 
Argumemnon said:
Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle. If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain. An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.
Click to expand...

I can not speak for annnoid, but I think that he has left the brain is 'like a radio' analogy behind and is presenting a case that no one has demonstrated how via the behavior of neurons and/or molecules, the brain acquires qualities of mind.
IOW, the main function of the 'brain is like a radio' analogy is to point out the difference between causation and correlation.
I cut/pasted this from an article Chopra wrote: "When the brain lights up, its activity is like a radio lighting up when music is played. It is an obvious fallacy to say that the radio composed the music. What is being viewed is only a physical correlation, not a cause."
 
LarryS said:
I can not speak for annnoid, but I think that he has left the brain is 'like a radio' analogy behind and is presenting a case that no one has demonstrated how via the behavior of neurons and/or molecules, the brain acquires qualities of mind.
IOW, the main function of the 'brain is like a radio' analogy is to point out the difference between causation and correlation.
I cut/pasted this from an article Chopra wrote: "When the brain lights up, its activity is like a radio lighting up when music is played. It is an obvious fallacy to say that the radio composed the music. What is being viewed is only a physical correlation, not a cause."
Click to expand...
But to suggest it is a correlation (really he is suggesting it is a reaction) is a hypothesis in itself. It implies that the conscious activity happened first, 'out there in the ether' and the brain reacted to it by receiving it.
Ok, all is needed then is some evidence of this consciousness acting first.

We can look at an analogy of sorts. parts of the brain fire off when I attempt to move my hand. Then, the hand follows by moving. WE can measure this pretty well. For the Deepak to be right, the conscious force will act first by creating the idea of...."I want an apple". Then that force will enter our brain and our brain will 'light up' in reaction.
Sounds like a decent experiment to me. Has anyone detected that force yet?
 
LarryS said:
I can not speak for annnoid, but I think that he has left the brain is 'like a radio' analogy behind
Click to expand...

Then he is off-topic. That IS what I was discussing.

and is presenting a case that no one has demonstrated how via the behavior of neurons and/or molecules, the brain acquires qualities of mind.
Click to expand...

That is literally the only thing he ever talks about. Let him stick to the topic.
 
This is really the heart of the question - do we assume the physical and develop an explanation of subjective experience, or, do we assume subjective experience and develop an explanation of the physical?
 
The Sparrow said:
But to suggest it is a correlation (really he is suggesting it is a reaction) is a hypothesis in itself. It implies that the conscious activity happened first, 'out there in the ether' and the brain reacted to it by receiving it.
Ok, all is needed then is some evidence of this consciousness acting first.

We can look at an analogy of sorts. parts of the brain fire off when I attempt to move my hand. Then, the hand follows by moving. WE can measure this pretty well. For the Deepak to be right, the conscious force will act first by creating the idea of...."I want an apple". Then that force will enter our brain and our brain will 'light up' in reaction.
Sounds like a decent experiment to me. Has anyone detected that force yet?
Click to expand...

Actually what we find (in some decision tests) is that the motor neuron activity related to the decision starts first and then the consciousness becomes aware of the decision.


http://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/
 
LarryS said:
This is really the heart of the question - do we assume the physical and develop an explanation of subjective experience, or, do we assume subjective experience and develop an explanation of the physical?
Click to expand...

No, the heart of the question is whether the radio analogy makes any sense, is falsifiable, testable, or useful.
 
annnnoid said:
...and that is where your argument disappears. Neither our imagination nor whatever is outside of it is not material-based.
Click to expand...
ftfy.

True, our imagination is not material. It is pure information, just like data in computer. A computer itself however is made of physical material, without which the data stored in it could not exist. Just like our brain.

There is no such thing as 'material'. Not anywhere. There does not exist any science that has ever come anywhere close to locating anything that can empirically be described as 'material'.
Click to expand...
material
noun:
1. The substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed.

2. anything that serves as crude or raw matter to be used or developed.

3. any constituent element.

In fact...nobody actually has a clue what exists at the heart of everything that exists.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, we know exactly what it is ;)

42: The answer to life, the universe and everything

Ironically, the current trend is towards something that is called 'information'...which could easily be argued to have more in common with consciousness than whatever not-consciousness may be.
Click to expand...
Correct, but it is not a mystical concept. Like a computer, the brain stores and processes information. Part of that processing involves a technique which we call 'consciousness'. We don't know exactly how it works, but neither does anyone know exactly how Microsoft Windows works...
 
Argumemnon said:
Again you are dodging the question and answering a different one. In fact, this is the _only_ question you ever answer even when it's not being asked. Here is my argument again. Please address it and nothing else:

Every behaviour of the brain is detectable in principle. If a force, known or unknown, affects the brain -- that is, causes the brain to have a behaviour -- then we can detect indirectly by observing that behaviour in the brain. An unknown force will simply result in a behaviour we cannot link to the cause.
Click to expand...


I am dodging the question???? Pot…meet kettle.

YOU just said that consciousness IS brain behavior. Right there in that quote I included. That is your quote…isn’t it???...and those words do actually mean what they say…don’t they? Perhaps YOU should learn the meanings of the words YOU use or stop using them.

If YOU do not wish to receive answers to YOUR questions, then DON’T post them in the first place.

Not to mention that….besides cognitive activity, I CLEARLY pointed out that there are vast numbers of neural events that science can neither adjudicate (measure) nor explain. This is trivially easy to confirm and there isn’t a neuroscientist on the planet who would dispute it.

So…even excluding consciousness (which is just plain stupid since this entire thread is about consciousness and it is the single most defining feature of brain activity…but have it your way), we are still left with a vast range of neural events that can neither be observed nor explained.

So answer the question then. How is it possible to explicitly exclude the possibility of unknown forces being involved in any of these events if we can neither measure them nor explain them?

Argumemnon said:
That's wrong. We most certainly can.
Click to expand...


…yet again with this garbage. Do you have the slightest understanding of the range of scanning technology available and the very clear category, spatial, and temporal limitations that these technologies operate under? Do you know what that means? Apparently not!

It means that your claim is garbage. It means, as I have CLEARLY pointed out a number of times now (so who’s the one dodging????) that there are a vast number of neural events that cannot be adjudicated. They happen…we have no way of explicitly measuring either that they are happening or what is happening.

These are what are called facts. It is trivially easy to substantiate them. Should you wish to challenge them I can easily reference multiple wiki pages that support them and I can get comments from a multitude of neuroscientists that confirm the accuracy of them.

Darat said:
That's not been true for literally decades.
Click to expand...


Really…and what planet do you live on? There are those of us for whom ‘the brain dunnit’ does not actually qualify as ‘the cause’.

This is the current consensus position in neuroscience (for the umpteenth time): “ We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”

It may come as a major surprise to you but the words actually mean exactly what they say. Feel entirely free to demonstrate that they are wrong. So far no one has come anywhere close. As I pointed out earlier, there is a practicing cognitive scientist who has posted on this very thread who has confirmed the accuracy of this statement.

…and not only that…but no one even knows what ‘consciousness’ is…or even if it is a differentiated ‘thing’. Thus…not only do we not know how it’s created, we don’t even know what is created.

And JFYI…those who make the positive claim are required to present EVIDENCE to support it. Thus, if you are actually going to disagree with the current scientific consensus and insist that we either know what this thing is or how it is generated by brain activity…then produce some bloody evidence for once. Otherwise your claims are garbage! Sorry…I’m just getting sick of pointing out the blindingly obvious to a group of people whose first commandment is….

….EVIDENCE!

The Man said:
Actually what we find (in some decision tests) is that the motor neuron activity related to the decision starts first and then the consciousness becomes aware of the decision.

http://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/
Click to expand...


It’s truly funny how frequently these extraordinarily selective ad-hoc rationalizations are trotted out as if they somehow support some sweeping neurological revelation. I think the most relevant point is found in the words “in some decision tests”. I could very easily add a pile of additional qualifications that render the conclusions so often plucked from these dumb studies all-but meaningless. The first question to ask is: Provide an empirical definition of ‘decision’. Right there this, and every other study utterly collapses.

…but that doesn’t ever seem to stop ignorant skeptics from leaping on this stuff as if it’s some kind of conclusive evidence against free will, God, subjective experience, idealism, the supernatural, paranormal activity…and your mothers pink underwear.

Argumemnon said:
No, the heart of the question is whether the radio analogy makes any sense, is falsifiable, testable, or useful.
Click to expand...


It makes sense to those who use it, it is no more or less falsifiable or testable than what science currently has available, and it is useful to those who subscribe to it.

Next supposedly conclusive challenge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom