Consciousness question

[HypnoPsi]

"Conclusive proof"? How many things in science do we have "conclusive proof" of?

There is considerable evidence to support what BDZ said; if you want to find it, just look for the things we keep telling Iacchus to read or watch, but which he ignores.

The burden of proof is on the one making an assertion as fact.

What considerable evidence is there that consciousness is, as the materialist believes, just neural activity?

What evidence is there that the noumenal world (of things in themselves) is made of "matter". What exactly is "matter" apart from a word without a definition? (It can't just be "that which is measurable" as both time and space are measurable but immaterial.)
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Can you offer conclusive proof of this claim?

Its not a claim, but a conclusion. And what for?

 

[Mercutio]

Not really - and in fact that's totally counter to the whole materialistic idea. Brains are very active during all stages of sleep and work as much in concert at night as they do during waking hours - if not moreso.

Umm...it is not the sheer amount of activity that matters; rather, it is which activity that goes on. Sejnowski's talk at the Brain, Mind, & Consciousness meeting in L.A. (too lazy to link it right now; it has been linked earlier in this thread and others), he discusses specifically the non-conscious brain activity that occurs during sleep. (For that matter, there is quite a lot of non-conscious activity that goes on while we are awake!)

One thing is clear: the idea that brain activity produces consciousness and anaesthetic eliminates it are mutually exclusive. The hypothesis has to become further refined somehow.

No. Not mutually exclusive. Not even close. Your misunderstanding is not a shortcoming of the idea.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What considerable evidence is there that consciousness is, as the materialist believes, just neural activity?

... materialists... dualists... spiritualists....

Boooring. those categories are so dumb!

 

[Dark Jaguar]

HypnoPsi, the reason why conciousness would go away when one is unconcious (a self defining term by the way) is simply that the brain has severly reduced activity, and those activities that produce the concious effect are not in effect. Namely, it is the same reason a computer process "goes away" when you turn off a computer.

So despite all those paragraphs, yes, going unconcious depriving one of conciousness is pretty indicitive of conciousness being simply the result of a physical process.

I only add that we would tell if a computer program (and it's not just about processing speeds, it's the programming that seems to be what will make a computer self aware) the same way we tell if a human aside from ourselves is self aware. It will be when we have sufficient evidence presented that NOT believing it is concious would be irrational.

 

[Mercutio]

The burden of proof is on the one making an assertion as fact.

Yes, of course. My quibble was with your "conclusive proof" standard.

What considerable evidence is there that consciousness is, as the materialist believes, just neural activity?

Start here. These videos are very user-friendly. Once you have them digested, you will know more about what questions to ask about other research.

What evidence is there that the noumenal world (of things in themselves) is made of "matter". What exactly is "matter" apart from a word without a definition? (It can't just be "that which is measurable" as both time and space are measurable but immaterial.)

Those questions are not material (pun intended) to the question of consciousness. The evidence and theories of consciousness are monism-neutral. (oh, and, Blackmore's presentation addresses your question a little bit. It is on the second video segment.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Its not a claim, but a conclusion. And what for?

How have you concluded brains produce consciousness? Why, for example, didn't you conclude consciousness creates brains?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Umm...it is not the sheer amount of activity that matters; rather, it is which activity that goes on.

Okay so you're saying you believe it's specific neural activity that generates consciousness. What specific activity and what makes you believe that?

To be true science - as opposed to faith - your theory should generate testable hypotheses that resist fair attempts at falsification.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

HypnoPsi, the reason why conciousness would go away when one is unconcious (a self defining term by the way) is simply that the brain has severly reduced activity, and those activities that produce the concious effect are not in effect.

What evidence do you have "that the brain has severely reduced activity" in anaesthesia or sleep? What type of activity are your referring to? Electrochemical or electromagnetic?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Mercutio]

Okay so you're saying you believe it's specific neural activity that generates consciousness. What specific activity and what makes you believe that?

To be true science - as opposed to faith - your theory should generate testable hypotheses that resist fair attempts at falsification.
_
HypnoPsi

Look at the videos. If you are honestly looking for evidence, you will find it there. There is plenty more to read after that.

I am saying that the evidence suggests that it is specific neural activity (Look for Koch, I think, talking about spindle cells) that is perceived as consciousness. There is also plenty of what is perceived as consciousness that is, in fact, illusory (not that it does not exist, but that it is not what it appears to be). This is also strongly suggested by the evidence.

Please, do not make your judgment that I am basing my conclusions on faith, when you have not yet examined the evidence I made available to you.

Remember, critical analysis does not merely apply to the scientific evidence; you need to apply the same critical analysis to your preconceptions about consciousness. The very phrasing of your questions implies some assumptions which are pushing your conclusions in a particular direction.

 

[HypnoPsi]

These videos are very user-friendly.[/URL] Once you have them digested, you will know more about what questions to ask about other research.

I'm not usually very tolerant of those who's debating tactic is to ask someone to "go off and familiarise yourself with this", but since you're referencing videos rather than a booklist, I'll go easy on you - and, when I have the time, take a look at your videos.

The problem is, I'm quite familiar with skeptics attitude to consciousness and well aware that they pretty much ignore the issue altogether, redefine terms or just conclude (for no reason whatsoever) that consciousness is cognition is nerual activity.

I'm asking you what evidence you have that neural activity produces consciousness?

Those questions are not material (pun intended) to the question of consciousness.

Yes, they are. If you're going to say that neural activity generates consciousness then you're going to have to say what "matter" actually is in the first place or your just explaining the unknown with the unknown.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, they are. If you're going to say that neural activity generates consciousness then you're going to have to say what "matter" actually is in the first place or your just explaining the unknown with the unknown.

Um, no. Pragmatically, we cannot know whether the stuff we speak of is material or ideal. And it does not matter. Dualism is incoherent, but either monism is based on axiomatic assumptions, and can explain the appearance of the other monism. So it is pointless to argue about what the stuff is, until such time as one or the other explanation actually does make a difference. The explanations work whether you are materialist or idealist.

I am glad you are not going to balk at the videos. To ask for specifics from them would be to do yourself a disservice; these are experts in their fields presenting current research in a very approachable format, and there is no way I could do it justice by simply saying "oh, it's spindle cells". You would (if you were serious about it, which I assume you are) then ask how I know that, and I would be back to citing the videos or the journal articles they are based on. As it was, the conference was a fascinating two days, and the more people who watch those videos, the more people will be glad they did.

 

[Tricky]

Not really - and in fact that's totally counter to the whole materialistic idea. Brains are very active during all stages of sleep and work as much in concert at night as they do during waking hours - if not moreso.

The argument that consciousness "goes away" during deep sleep or anaesthesia is an argument that consciousness is something other than electrochemical or electromagnetic brain activity.

While the brain is still functional, and indeed functional the way it is supposed to be during deep sleep, the function is different. I believe that even a cursory examination of neurology will reveal this. But consciousness does go away during deep sleep in that when you are in deep sleep, you do not exhibit any of the defining characteristics of consciousness.

Why should consciousness go away during anaesthesia or deep sleep if consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon or emergent property of nerual activity (which continues in deep sleep and anaesthesia)? What theory explains that from a solely materialistic view of consciousness?

Consciousness is not an ephenominon of all neural activity. Even people we call "brain dead" have some neural activity. Perhaps you are using a different definition of consciousness than most people use. Tell us what you mean by "conscious" and perhaps we can get around this communication problem.

And what of the materialistic support for robot consciousness? How and why should we ever assume robots conscious rather than in a state of something akin to permanent anaesthesia or deep sleep?

In my opinion, if robots (or computers) satisfy the characteristics of consciousness, then they are conscious. I do not believe that they do so at this point. If you think that robot satisfy the definition of conscious, and yet are not conscious, then you had better refine your definition of consciousness to exclude them. But even if you do, it is possible that some day you will have to refine it again to exclude them.

For an interesting take on this there is the first paragraph and last five paragraphs of the following article:http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/painless.html

I read the whole article. It is rather bizarre, what with references to something called "quantum consciousness". So I went back to their home page where I discovered this.

BLTC RESEARCH was founded in 1995 to promote paradise-engineering. We are dedicated to an ambitious global technology project. BLTC seek to abolish the biological substrates of suffering. Not just in humans, but in all sentient life.

I have alarm bells going off all over any kind of statement including the term "paradise-engineering".

What we do have, clearly, is the ability to alter something about consciousness somehow either by temporarily eliminating it entirely from the brian or wiping out memory of the time spent under anaesthesia (or a combination of both). Having a variable factor that we can manipulate is the beginning of a scientific investigation but we have no idea where it will lead us.

It seems to me that a big part of what we call consciousness involves memory. You have to remember what was said (even if only briefly) in order to reply in a way that implies you are conscousness. Even people in the semiconscious state of dreaming can remember what they were dreaming. Even if you are receiving-but-not-recording, that simply doesn't fit any definition of consciousness that I am aware of.

One thing is clear: the idea that brain activity produces consciousness and anaesthetic eliminates it are mutually exclusive. The hypothesis has to become further refined somehow.

They are not mutually exclusive. It depends on the kind of anesthetic. But certainly anesthesia strongly modifies consciousness, and in some cases, may turn it off completely.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Look at the videos. If you are honestly looking for evidence, you will find it there. There is plenty more to read after that.

I'll confess some interest in viewing your videos at some point (I am downloading them now), since the whole issue of consciousness (from both sides) is something I endeavour to follow as closely as time permits. But if you're going to continue on this debate you're going to have to stand on your own two feet. As the JREF challenge points out, theories, models, anecdotes aren't really relevant here - or to me - no matter how compelling you find them or how much faith you have in them.

What do you have that's testable or demonstrable?

Why should I or anyone - why do you - believe that neural activity (either of a certain quality or in a certain quantity) produces consciousness?

I am saying that the evidence suggests that it is specific neural activity (Look for Koch, I think, talking about spindle cells) that is perceived as consciousness.

Why are you taking that as fact when it could just be post hoc reasoning? Why do you believe that interrupting a specific type of activity in the brain or in specific neurons genuinely eliminates consciousness (temporarily or permanently) rather than just interrupting it's connection to the body?

The newsreader on my TV screen is, indeed quite literally, made of electrons travelling along the cathode ray tube in the form of EM radiation to create a picture, but pulling the plug on the TV doesn't eliminate him.

There is also plenty of what is perceived as consciousness that is, in fact, illusory (not that it does not exist, but that it is not what it appears to be). This is also strongly suggested by the evidence.

How so?

Please, do not make your judgment that I am basing my conclusions on faith, when you have not yet examined the evidence I made available to you.

You are either basing your "conclusions" on demonstrable evidence or on faith. I don't personally have a million dollars to offer you to demonstrate that X causes consciousness but, if I did, how would you demonstrat it?

Remember, critical analysis does not merely apply to the scientific evidence; you need to apply the same critical analysis to your preconceptions about consciousness. The very phrasing of your questions implies some assumptions which are pushing your conclusions in a particular direction.

I can neither recall any time when I was not nor envisage any time when I will cease to be. It's a perfectly plausible theory that I didn't exist before I was born just as it is a perfectly plausible theory that I will cease to exist when I die - but that's all.

Scientists commonly believe that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only be converted (or, ultimately, that matter and energy are somehow the same thing). We believe these things for two very simple reasons. Firstly, (what we call) "matter" and "energy" do indeed very much seem to exist and, secondly, we have never seen evidence that either "matter" or "energy" can be created or destroyed.

In the exact same way, consciousness very much seems to exist and we have no evidence that it can ever be created or destroyed.

It's very simple really.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

How have you concluded brains produce consciousness? Why, for example, didn't you conclude consciousness creates brains?

What do you even mean by that? We certainly observe brains that don't have consciousness associated with them, but never the reverse. We never seen consciousness without a biologically active brain.

 

[HypnoPsi]

While the brain is still functional, and indeed functional the way it is supposed to be during deep sleep, the function is different. I believe that even a cursory examination of neurology will reveal this.

That's true but, ultimately, it's all just an organisation or protons, neutrons and electrons with some EM radiation flowing around in various patterns. Why should we believe that a specific pattern creates consciousness? Why not another pattern? The brain is very coherent during deep sleep, REM sleep and anaesthesia.

But consciousness does go away during deep sleep in that when you are in deep sleep, you do not exhibit any of the defining characteristics of consciousness.

People don't demonstrate awareness of their surroundings during deep sleep. Neither do we have any recollection of deep sleep. But why conclude it's "gone"?

Tell us what you mean by "conscious" and perhaps we can get around this communication problem.

Skeptics have tried this infinite regression tactic with me before. "Define consciousness", "now define sentience", "now define awareness", etc., etc., etc., etc.,.

I have concluded that it doesn't work because consciousness is best described as a singularity and, as such, both indefinable and impossible to contrast against anything else - except unconsciousness. Thus our consciousness is that which we have when we're not unconscious.

In my opinion, if robots (or computers) satisfy the characteristics of consciousness, then they are conscious.

Why? What are "characteristics of consciousness" are you referring to?

They are not mutually exclusive. It depends on the kind of anesthetic. But certainly anesthesia strongly modifies consciousness, and in some cases, may turn it off completely.

Okay, so you're going with the theory that something specific within or about neural activity generates consciousness.

What?

How?

Does this theory generate any testable hypothesis?

As I pointed out in a post above, science concludes that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed because we have no evidence that it can be created or destroyed. What evidence is there, really, that consciousness can be created or destroyed by neural activity or non-activity?

As Randi's challenge advises, forget about theories, models and anecdotes and how convincing they seem to you. What demonstrable, replicable evidence is there that "X" causes consciousness and that without "X" consciousness is not?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

What do you even mean by that? We certainly observe brains that don't have consciousness associated with them, but never the reverse. We never seen consciousness without a biologically active brain.

Don't we? I have relatives who swear blind they have seen deceased family members. I have friends and aquantances who swear blind they have seen "ghosts" as well. I don't know if they're telling the truth or aren't just mistaken - and nobody can produce this on demand - but we can't conclude it's not true either.

It's either the case that the physical creates consciousness, that consciousness creates the physical, that they're both somehow the same thing or that they both have a common source (which could be further sub-divided into the Western Judeo-Christian view of a "Creator God" or the Eastern Hindu-Buddhist view of a "Transcendental Source").

For what reason have you concluded it's the physical that creates consciousness?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

People don't demonstrate awareness of their surroundings during deep sleep. Neither do we have any recollection of deep sleep. But why conclude it's "gone"?

Um, because it's gone? Just a thought.

I have concluded that it doesn't work because consciousness is best described as a singularity and, as such, both indefinable and impossible to contrast against anything else - except unconsciousness.

No.

Consciousness is a perfectly straightforward informational process. It only seems odd because you are observing it from the inside, and as such, cannot directly compare it with any other examples.

As I pointed out in a post above, science concludes that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed because we have no evidence that it can be created or destroyed. What evidence is there, really, that consciousness can be created or destroyed by neural activity or non-activity?

Yahzi's Bat.

As Randi's challenge advises, forget about theories, models and anecdotes and how convincing they seem to you. What demonstrable, replicable evidence is there that "X" causes consciousness and that without "X" consciousness is not?

As above.

 

[PixyMisa]

Don't we? I have relatives who swear blind they have seen deceased family members. I have friends and aquantances who swear blind they have seen "ghosts" as well. I don't know if they're telling the truth or aren't just mistaken - and nobody can produce this on demand - but we can't conclude it's not true either.

Nobody has ever produced any reliable evidence of any such thing, despite 5000 years of recorded claims. We would be extremely foolish not to dismiss it out of hand.

It's either the case that the physical creates consciousness, that consciousness creates the physical, that they're both somehow the same thing or that they both have a common source (which could be further sub-divided into the Western Judeo-Christian view of a "Creator God" or the Eastern Hindu-Buddhist view of a "Transcendental Source").

Which tells us nothing.

For what reason have you concluded it's the physical that creates consciousness?

Because damage to the brain causes damage to the mind, while the converse is not even remotely true.

 

[PixyMisa]

By the way, you didn't answer the question. What do you mean when you suggest that "consciousness creates brains"? Do you mean one consciousness generates one brain? Always? Sometimes? How does it happen that we get two consciousnesses associated with one brain if we sever the corpus callosum? Why do brains persist when consciousness is gone? Why does consciousness create brains and not cabbages? How is it possible to get drunk, then? Does consciousness create beer? If so, why do we have to go through all the messing about with barley and hops and so forth?

Or are you talking about Berkelian idealism? In that case, why is there a physical universe? Why are consciousnesses individual and separate, able to communicate only through physical means? Why do they cease to communicate when the physical brain fails? And once again, how is it possible to get drunk?

[Yes, I know how to get drunk. But I'm a materialist. I want to know how Ian manages it... ]