Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis

[Piggy]

Nobody has ever shown at any time or anywhere that consciousness = the activity of the brain. All we know is that there is a correlation.

Wrong.

No other mechanism for consciousness has ever been demonstrated as plausible.

Care to show me one that has?

I didn't think so.

In fact, the only model supported by evidence -- and it is entirely supported by every bit of evidence in existence -- is that the mind = the activity of the brain.

That is why our conscious experience is directly and predictably affected by drugs and mechanical interventions into the brain.

There is a direct correspondence, not a mere correlation.

 

[Piggy]

Are you seriously going to try and deny that your belief that neuronal activity causes consciousness (or "is" consciousness) is not just "faith" on your part?

There's nothing to "deny". That's like asking if I'm seriously going to try to "deny" that my belief that weather is a terrestrial phenomenon is a "faith". Why should I be put in the position of "denying" a counterclaim which is unsupported and ridiculous?

Change the physical structure and mechanism of the brain, and you change conscious experience in predictable ways. That's not a mere "correlation" as you falsely claim.

Faith has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I have no "faith" in anything.

 

[Piggy]

Would that include Daniel Dennett's claim that thermostats have beliefs?

(Pssst! The evidence for psi is much stronger!)

Nope.

Listen, I've had my fill of red herring.

Show me one -- just one -- instance where a head-to-head question has been resolved in favor of anything other than what you call "materialism".

One.

That's all I'm asking.

Just one.

You can't do it.

I don't care about claims that didn't pan out. I don't care about strawmen.

In every case where we've been able to test so-called materialist theories versus non-materialist theories, what you would call materialism has won out.

The planets are not pushed around by angels.

The weather is perfectly explained by physical theories.

Speciation is explained by evolution.

And so forth and so on, case after case, without exception.

Go ahead... try to cite a case where a non-materialist explanation has won.

You can't.

 

[Piggy]

Name me one single neuroscientist who claims to have validated causation as well as correlation.

John-Dylan Haynes.

All you want is one?

Damn, you're easy.

 

[Piggy]

Some reading for you, HypnoPsi:

http://www.consciousness-brain.org/

Every single validated advance in our understanding of consiousness is grounded in the model of consciousness as an activity of the physical brain.

No exception.

Period.

There is no other contender in the ring.

None.

 

[Lonewulf]

Nobody has ever shown at any time or anywhere that consciousness = the activity of the brain. All we know is that there is a correlation. Not even the speakers at the "2005 Skeptics Society Annual Conference: Brain, Mind and Consciousness" claimed that it has ever been validated that consciousness = the activity of the brain, even though they think it's true.

Your avatar is misleading, considering how much of it you shovel.

We understand neurons.

We understand that the brain is the one thing that regulates our body, and what parts of the brain govern what part of our consciousness.

If you remove the memory parts, you lose your memory. If you remove your spinal column, you cannot give signals to your body. If you remove cognitive parts, you lose cognition. If you lose speech centers, you lose speech. These processes only come back if those parts regrow back, or there is a way to find a loophole in the physical structure of the brain.

Either way, your claim makes no sense. It's like claiming that we don't know that fire burns; we just know that there is a correlation between being near fire and it tending to burn us. But that doesn't mean anything, right?

 

[Piggy]

Let me clarify something for you, HypnoPsi.

No scientist can claim to understand how the activity of the brain gives rise to conscious experience.

That is simply not known.

But your claim that causation has not been adequately demonstrated is patently false.

We don't yet understand the mechanism. But there is no competing theory out there. The challenge now is to shed light on that mechanism. And that is exactly what everyone in the field is working on.

To deny that science accepts the truth that consciousness = brain activity... it's like denying that science accepts the modern synthesis of Darwinian theory and genetic theory as the foundation of speciation. It just ain't so.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Er... Dawkins is a materialist, so I'm not ascribing anything to him.

Your quote:

This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard.

I've marked the pertinent bit. You're claiming that there exists a group of people identifiable as "materialistic atheists". I am simply pointing out that your assignation is incorrect, and that "materialistic atheist" is a false representation of atheism. There is no such thing as a "materialistic atheist". The two terms cover different aspects of philosophy.

Nothing in this quote ascribes materialistic atheism to any atheist who would deny they are a materialist. It's a general statement about materialistic atheists getting a bad press...

There is no such thing as "materialistic atheism". IT IS A STRAWMAN.

Again, nothing in these quotes ascribes materialistic atheism to any atheist who would deny they are a materialist. These quotes about about materialistic atheists.

There is no such thing as "materialistic atheism". IT IS A STRAWMAN.

Not even this quote ascribes materialism to an atheist who would deny materialsm!!

There is no such thing as "materialistic atheism". IT IS A STRAWMAN.

I find this statement to be absolutely incredible. When I entered this thread I realised that I would have to specify materialistic atheism specifically as the view I was criticising. I realised this was only right and proper since it would be wrong for me to say "atheists" believe matter self-generated - for the very simple reason that reads as saying "all atheists".

Had I only said "atheists" I would have been heavily criticised - and rightfully so. Yet here I am being criticised for being specific!

I am criticising you for using a false construct of atheism. You are attempting to ascribe an extra attribute to atheists as a group, "Materialism". This is a logical fallacy, and you are incorrect to link these two terms.

Look, neither "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism" are a construct of mine. I am using the term/s only to specifically make clear which view I am criticising - and I utterly deny ascribing the view to any atheist who would deny materialism.

I've been using the above term to specifically exclude atheists who are not materialists - not as a catch-all for anyone who happens to be an atheist. Sheesh!

If it is not a term you devised, then you are using it incorrectly (and it's still a strawman). The two philosophical viewpoints should be considered in isolation. You, as far as I can gather from your other posts in this thread, are attempting to discredit the view of Materialism. This has nothing to do with Atheism, which is a completely independant philosophical viewpoint!

You're trying to link Atheism to Materialism and you are wrong to do so.

Horsesh*t! I have quite transparently and openly been doing the exact opposite. I am totally and fully aware that not all atheists are materialists and would never try to equate the two or link them improperly. I have been providing a critique of materialistic atheism and nothing more.

And I am pointing out that you have constructed the term "materialistic atheism" and it's a strawman of the atheist position! You are critiquing a strawman which you yourself created.

Look, if you want to try to discredit Materialism, go for it. I think you and Piggy are involved in that discussion right now. However, realise that even if you do discredit Materialism, you do not then automatically discredit Atheism. You would have to do so in a separate set of arguments.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Piggy]

What's more, HypnoPsi is attempting to establish "materialism" as a faith-based "metaphysic", as though folks who do not harbor any faith in unsubstantiated speculations were somehow choosing to "believe in" the philosophy of "materialism".

This is incorrect.

One might as well argue that there's a faith-based metaphysic called Thingsfalldownism which denies, on the basis of mere belief, that things fall up.

A refusal to hold faith-based beliefs in entities and concepts not demonstrated to be real... this is not in any way a "faith" in itself.

My good pen is somewhere in this house. I was using it last night, and I haven't gone anywhere since. I thought I left it here on the desk, but it's not here.

My belief that the pen is somewhere in the house, and that I am misremembering where I placed it, or the cat batted it under the closet door, or some such... this is not any kind of faith or philosophical -ism.

And it would not be reasonable to offer the competing theory that my dead uncle Rankin's spirit could be haunting my home and hiding things, then to posit both theories as equally likely (or unlikely) beliefs based on their own types of faith.

The poltergeist scenario requires a lot of unsupported speculation. The a-poltergeistic scenario requires none.

Similarly, a failure to buy into faith-based speculations is not itself any sort of faith.

 

[Piggy]

Regarding the correspondence of consciousness and brain activity.

When we see such direct correspondence, we're pretty much stuck with the classic choices:

A gives rise to B

B gives rise to A

Some other mechanism C gives rise to A and B


In this case, there is no evidence of any C, no model of what it might be. It is superfluous.

It is well established that drugs, trauma, electrical stimulation, and physical manipulation affecting the brain have a corresponding effect on conscious experience. We are beginning to map these correspondences and to more fully describe the underlying mechanisms. The "brain gives rise to consciousness" model is confirmed at every turn.

However, there is no valid "consciousness gives rise to brain" model to be had.

When we look at developmental studies, the case becomes even clearer. We can actually see changes in cognition as a child's brain develops. Clearly, it's the physical brain which is driving the process.

This model permeates all current valid research, and is verified by the progress being made by those who are working within it. There is no progress being made by anyone working within any other model.

For a good general introduction, read Pinker's "How the Mind Works" and Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".

 

[HypnoPsi]

In fact, the only model supported by evidence -- and it is entirely supported by every bit of evidence in existence -- is that the mind = the activity of the brain.

Consciousness is either indistinct from matter/energy (and, by extension, information processing) or it is a distinct pheonemena.

Nobody anywhere - ever - has published any evidence that consciousness is just IP or E/M. There's no evidence in existence to support the "model". There's absolutely nothing at all. (That must be why you've dropped the claim that it's been "validated repeatedly".)

On the other hand, many researchers have published positive results for the existence of psi (conscious activity distinct from matter) and continue to do so.

Even though you're acting like that's a bitter pill to swallow, at least you're stating your thesis and unlike any other ten a penny wuss you're making efforts in the direction of science. I can respect that even if I think your thesis is nonsense.

So then, what neuroscientist do you know who has ever gone on the record cliaming to have evidence that "validates" that consciousness is just activity of the brain? (You never know, you might get lucky and find one.)

That is why our conscious experience is directly and predictably affected by drugs and mechanical interventions into the brain.

Our cognitive processes are directly and predictably affected by drugs and mechanical interventions in the brain. But since the 'mind' is just the experience of IP in consciousness, what of it? Effecting physiology only effects the ability of consciousness to to interact in the world in the usual manner. I can mistune a radio or TV set.

There is a direct correspondence, not a mere correlation.

Are you doing astrology now?

You don't have any evidence at all that neural activity causes consciousness let alone the mountains of validating evidence your posts would suggest, do you?

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Are you seriously going to try and deny that your belief that neuronal activity causes consciousness (or "is" consciousness) is not just "faith" on your part?

There's nothing to "deny". That's like asking if I'm seriously going to try to "deny" that my belief that weather is a terrestrial phenomenon is a "faith". Why should I be put in the position of "denying" a counterclaim which is unsupported and ridiculous?

Actually, the weather is a terrestrial, lunar and stellar phenomenon and we can directly observe (pretty well nowadays) how the moon causes the tides and how weather fronts are caused by the environment and activity on the sun (although the latter one is still a bit more theoretical).

That a machine has underlying mechanics is not in dispute. You've yet to show that consciousness is a machine or the effect of a machine.

Comparing consciousness to the weather is just plain silly.

Change the physical structure and mechanism of the brain, and you change conscious experience in predictable ways. That's not a mere "correlation" as you falsely claim.

Of course it's just a correlation. Drop a radio from a ladder and you'll experience a quite predictable result as well. You're just dancing around the issue here because you know you don't have any way to establish causation - which is the only thing any sober minded consciousness researcher is going to accept as evidence.

The only thing that's evidence for causation is evidence for causation - simple.

Faith has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I have no "faith" in anything.

Just one little piece of evidence changes the status of your beliefs from being faith based to evidence based - just one. Surely you know better than to just expect anyone to take your word for it because you believe something?

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Piggy]

Consciousness is either indistinct from matter/energy (and, by extension, information processing) or it is a distinct pheonemena.

Nobody anywhere - ever - has published any evidence that consciousness is just IP or E/M. There's no evidence in existence to support the "model". There's absolutely nothing at all. (That must be why you've dropped the claim that it's been "validated repeatedly".)

On the other hand, many researchers have published positive results for the existence of psi (conscious activity distinct from matter) and continue to do so.

Ok, obviously you're too far out in fantasyland to have a rational conversation.

1. Every scrap of evidence supports the model that consciousness is (yes, is) the activity of the brain. That's why altering the brain -- thru chemicals, electrical stimulation, probes, trauma, etc. -- alters consciousness. That's why cognition develops as the brain develops in kids.

2. I haven't dropped anything.

3. There is no evidence for psi.

Your posts are so breathtakingly contrary to fact and reason that there's no point going on with this.

 

[Piggy]

So then, what neuroscientist do you know who has ever gone on the record cliaming to have evidence that "validates" that consciousness is just activity of the brain? (You never know, you might get lucky and find one.)

Read Pinker and Dennett, follow their cites.

Read any of the studies from the brain-consciousness site. Every one of them is immersed completely in the model that consciousness = brain activity.

But you won't. Because if you're still saying all this, you're willfully ignorant.

 

[Piggy]

I can mistune a radio or TV set.

Astounding. So what, you think our brains are receivers for some distant signal? If that were true, there would be some evidence of it. There's not. Your analogy is false.

You're inventing a totally unsupported entity and tossing it into the equation, despite the fact that the equation already adds up.

You screw with the hardware and the computer goes wonky. Same for the brain and the mind.

Mind = activity of the brain. Again, read Pinker and Dennett, follow their cites. You'll find all the verifying studies you can handle.

 

[Piggy]

Comparing consciousness to the weather is just plain silly.

Not at all. Both are emergent complex phenomena arising from physical activity.

Every study out there demonstrates causation. You like the radio analogy because it allows you to propose that we're receivers of some sort. Trouble is, no one has ever detected any incoming signal, and no investigation of the brain has supported a receiver model.

It's more like a computer or CD player -- drop those and they go wonky -- because the computing and the music are results of the activity of the machine.

Same with the brain.

Now go read Pinker, Dennett, and the brain-consciousness studies. Til then, I think we can stick a fork in your BS argument.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Our cognitive processes are directly and predictably affected by drugs and mechanical interventions in the brain. But since the 'mind' is just the experience of IP in consciousness, what of it? Effecting physiology only effects the ability of consciousness to to interact in the world in the usual manner. I can mistune a radio or TV set.

If the brain is simply a receiver, then please explain how I can interfere with the signal arriving to the brain. If that model is correct there must be a way. Why have we never stumbled upon it?

If there is an immaterial mind what form does it take? Is it a unity? If not, how do you know? What can you say about something that has no material reality, no extension, and no effect on the brain when the brain is "turned off"?

You don't have any evidence at all that neural activity causes consciousness let alone the mountains of validating evidence your posts would suggest, do you?

_
HypnoPsi

Yes we do. We can watch the metabolism of the brain increase with certain tasks. Turn off that metabolism and the brain doesn't function, mind stops. Give anaesthesia and there is no mind, no experience. If there were a separate "mind" that existed independent of the brain then it would continue to have some experience wouldn't it? If not, how can it even be said to exists since it has no material reality, no extension, and no action? We have a word for "stuff" like that -- non-existent.

Dang, Piggy got there first. Nice to see you back Piggy.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If the brain is just a receiver, you'd think there would be a signal to measure. Heck, we should be able to intercept thoughts with a scanning device. But no, the reality is that the brain creates consciousness through biological processes. Hypnopsi lives in his own little world where a magic thing called "consciousness" works outside of the laws of the universe. He may as well say it's a soul, because that's what he's suggesting consciousness is.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm really digging Piggy's posts. He talks good.

 

[Moochie]

I edited my bullet points into the Dawkins/O'Reilly video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA66lP2GkiE

Good going, E.G.

I'm rather happy that Bill isn't throwing in with "you guys."

I'm rather amazed that Bill can spell b-a-n-e. Wonders never cease.

M.