I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Fudbucker]

Here's another analogy: Just because you perceive a star through a telescope doesn't mean the telescope generates the star. Given what you know of the telescope, there is no reason to believe that it does, in fact, and every reason to believe that the star has independant existence.

The dualist could make the same analogy with regards to the brain: consciousness certainly is correlated with brain activity, but the brain may not be a causal factor for consciousness. It may just be a necessary condition for mind and consciousness while something we haven't discovered yet is the actual causal factor. In this model, the brain is a conduit for a mind/consciousness that already exists (in some non-material form).

The idealist wouldn't be concerned with the brain-consciousness correlation. Since everything is a dream, we're simply dreaming a connection between consciousness and dream-brains. Just as dream-sparks don't cause fires, dream-brains don't cause consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

The dualist could make the same analogy with regards to the brain: consciousness certainly is correlated with brain activity, but the brain may not be a causal factor for consciousness. It may just be a necessary condition for mind and consciousness while something we haven't discovered yet is the actual causal factor. In this model, the brain is a conduit for a mind/consciousness that already exists (in some non-material form).

Someone could make that claim but if you want to call it an argument, I would say that it is one made from ignorance. Also, you use "may", something that isn't in my post. The star IS NOT created by the telescope. There is no "may" about it.

 

[Fudbucker]

Someone could make that claim but if you want to call it an argument, I would say that it is one made from ignorance. Also, you use "may", something that isn't in my post. The star IS NOT created by the telescope. There is no "may" about it.

Somewhat. We know that neural states are associated with mental states, but we have no idea why electrons moving around inside our skulls (or rocks being moved around on an endless plain) produces consciousness and associated subjective experiences.

Will there eventually be an answer? It doesn't seem likely. If one believes that consciousness can be produced by moving rocks around, the solution to why moving rocks around produces consciousness becomes philosophical, because there's nothing new that science can tell you (at least about moving rocks around): you have rocks, you move them a certain way, and you can produce conscious awareness (or simulate a universe of conscious beings, if you want to be technical).

I'm sure we'll learn more about how the brain works, but that will just produce more brain-state/mental-state correlations, until we learn exactly that neural activity ABC produces experiences ABC. I suspect the answer to why neural activity produces experience (why we're conscious at all, instead of zombies) and how neural activity produces experience (what is it about moving electrons that gives rise to conscious awareness) will always be unknown.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sure we'll learn more about how the brain works, but that will just produce more brain-state/mental-state correlations, until we learn exactly that neural activity ABC produces experiences ABC. I suspect the answer to why neural activity produces experience (why we're conscious at all, instead of zombies) and how neural activity produces experience (what is it about moving electrons that gives rise to conscious awareness) will always be unknown.

And this is the problem. You can always "And then?" a question to death and back.

We can always drop a question down a level. Doing this just serves no purpose.

 

[Belz...]

Somewhat. We know that neural states are associated with mental states, but we have no idea why electrons moving around inside our skulls (or rocks being moved around on an endless plain) produces consciousness and associated subjective experiences.

But that's irrelevant: every piece of data we have points to it being entirely physical and wholly caused by the brain.

Will there eventually be an answer? It doesn't seem likely.

Why doesn't it ? I mean, aside from the fact that dualists will never be satisfied by the answer ?

If one believes that consciousness can be produced by moving rocks around, the solution to why moving rocks around produces consciousness becomes philosophical

Yeah, that's why the question is "how", not "why".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I mean, aside from the fact that dualists will never be satisfied by the answer?

This.

Basically the whole "dualist" philosophy is predicated on their being no possible satisfactory answer. Every possible answer a rationalist can give can be thrown back in our face via the "And than?" card.

 

[Fudbucker]

But that's irrelevant: every piece of data we have points to it being entirely physical and wholly caused by the brain.

OK, in your own words, what is the scientific explanation for how the brain produces consciousness?

 

[Fudbucker]

And this is the problem. You can always "And then?" a question to death and back.

We can always drop a question down a level. Doing this just serves no purpose.

If you can "and then" a question to death, the explanation isn't a good one. An answer should have a foundation that can support it. You're basically saying infinite regresses are OK.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm saying if one of those infinite regresses is "I reject the very link between evidence and knowledge" then yeah I guess so. If your philosophy is based on the idea that the possibility we're all brains in jars is a reasonable one, it's a dead end.

We're not talking looking at the deeper question skepticism here. We're talking reality denial that by it's very definition is unfalsifiable and cannot accept outside evidence.

The question stands. Is there any possible answer to the "Prove reality is real" question that would satisfy you? If not then this is all meaningless. It's nothing but an escape clause you can invoke at will.

 

[Belz...]

every piece of data we have points to it being entirely physical and wholly caused by the brain.

OK, in your own words, what is the scientific explanation for how the brain produces consciousness?

Are you taking the piss ? Why are you asking me a question that has nothing to do with my statement ? I said, and I repeat, that every piece of data indicates that the mind is entirely physical and caused by the brain. I DID NOT SAY that we have a full explanation of how it does so. You know this, of course, so why do you ask such a dishonest question ?

 

[Fudbucker]

I'm saying if one of those infinite regresses is "I reject the very link between evidence and knowledge" then yeah I guess so. If your philosophy is based on the idea that the possibility we're all brains in jars is a reasonable one, it's a dead end.

It's not "my philosophy". It's the Boltzmann Brain problem. You think it is absurd you could be a Boltzmann brain, yet the probability of you being a Boltzmann Brain could be much much higher than the probability that over billions of years evolution produced beings like us.

If inflationary theory is true, and the multiverse is infinite, there would be an infinite amount of Boltzmann Brains and an infinite amount of evolved beings that we think we are. Which set is bigger? How would you know which set you belong to? How would you even go about proving it?

We're not talking looking at the deeper question skepticism here. We're talking reality denial that by it's very definition is unfalsifiable and cannot accept outside evidence.

What do you mean "reality denial"? What reality is being denied?

The question stands. Is there any possible answer to the "Prove reality is real" question that would satisfy you? If not then this is all meaningless. It's nothing but an escape clause you can invoke at will.

Sure. I believe in evolution and the big bang because these are understandable evidence-based explanations for observed phenomena. Currently, there is no universally accepted theory for how consciousness arises from matter or even why it arises from matter. Why do we feel self ware? Why aren't we just mindless zombies interacting with our environment?

Personally, I like Koch's answer: There’s a theory, called Integrated Information Theory, developed by Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin, that assigns to any one brain, or any complex system, a number — denoted by the Greek symbol of Φ — that tells you how integrated a system is, how much more the system is than the union of its parts. Φ gives you an information-theoretical measure of consciousness. Any system with integrated information different from zero has consciousness. Any integration feels like something
http://www.wired.com/2013/11/christof-koch-panpsychism-consciousness/

But even if Koch is right, it just begs a further question: why are integrated systems conscious, and how does integrating information produce the feeling of conscious awareness?

In another interview, Koch gives a dualistic answer to consciousness that I don't think many here would agree with:

Dr. Koch: Yeah, and I adopt that and so I take the point of view that ultimately that consciousness is something real; it’s ontologically distinct. It’s different from the brain that gives rise to it. So when my tooth hurts I have a feeling of pain. That is different from the neural mechanism that gives rise to pain. Those are two different things. They’re not the same. They relate to each other and the way they relate to each other is through this idea of information.
http://www.skeptiko.com/160-christof-koch-consciousness-and-near-death-experience-research/

The view that mental states are different than brain states is property dualism. That's the view that I lean most towards, but it certainly hasn't been proven to everyone's satisfaction, and there are certainly many people who are strict reductionists and would claim mental states are no different than brain states; they are one and the same.

 

[Fudbucker]

Are you taking the piss ? Why are you asking me a question that has nothing to do with my statement ? I said, and I repeat, that every piece of data indicates that the mind is entirely physical and caused by the brain. I DID NOT SAY that we have a full explanation of how it does so. You know this, of course, so why do you ask such a dishonest question ?

Lol, how can a question be dishonest? It's not like I'm asking you if you've stopped beating your wife. You either can articulate a theory about how consciousness arises from matter or you can't.

You said

every piece of data we have points to it being entirely physical and wholly caused by the brain.

Data is just information. If you're claiming the data we have shows the brain is causing consciousness, I want to know how you know that's what the data is showing. What is the theoretical framework for evaluating the data as showing causality? You must have some idea, because you claimed the data shows consciousness being "wholly caused by the brain". Those are your words. What is the causal connection between brain states and consciousness? How does the causality work? How do you know the data is showing causation, rather than correlation?

These are not "dishonest questions".

 

[JoeMorgue]

These are not "dishonest questions".

They are if you don't apply the same level of hair splitting to every possible question that could be asked.

You don't quit your job because you can't prove on some philosophical metaphysical level that you getting a paycheck and you having a job is correlation or causation. You don't hold your head underwater because you can't prove that air and breathing are really related. You don't starve because you can't prove the food on your plate isn't just shadows on the walls of Plato's cave.

You, and no other human being outside of a padded room and jacket that zips up the back, waits for this inane level of impossible by definition "proof" before accepting things as true.

 

[Fudbucker]

They are if you don't apply the same level of hair splitting to every possible question that could be asked.

You don't quit your job because you can't prove on some philosophical metaphysical level that you getting a paycheck and you having a job is correlation or causation. You don't hold your head underwater because you can't prove that air and breathing are really related. You don't starve because you can't prove the food on your plate isn't just shadows on the walls of Plato's cave.

You, and no other human being outside of a padded room and jacket that zips up the back, waits for this inane level of impossible by definition "proof" before accepting things as true.

Where is the "hair splitting"? My points are simple: is there an agreed upon theory for how consciousness arises from matter? Obviously not. There's not even an agreed upon definition of what consciousness is.

The argument from ignorance charge leveled against me from Belz deals more with the extent of our ignorance (and anticipated ignorance): am I trying to slip idealism or dualism in through a picayune gap in our current understanding? In evolutionary theory, it would be like arguing creationism because there's one little missing gap in the fossil record of some fish.

But that's not what's going on regarding consciousness. We've been trying to figure it out for quite awhile now. We're no closer to a casual explanation than we've ever been. Nor can we agree even on whether brain states are the same as mental states. Are brain states mental states? Are they different? Does one cause another, or are they simply correlated with each other?

So the question becomes, is our inability to explain how matter causes consciousness a problem for materialism? I think it is a huge problem, for the reasons given: the meaning of the problem (i.e., what consciousness even is) hasn't even be properly articulated, let alone how the feeling of conscious awareness arises from moving electrons (or rocks) around. Nor is it obvious that better MRI's and CAT scans will solve the causation question.

If a theory can't explain a phenomena, it's a knock on that theory.

 

[Belz...]

Lol, how can a question be dishonest?

Lol, how can a statement be dishonest ?

It's dishonest when it's used to imply that it has something to do with what I said, which it didn't. Your question has nothing to do with my post.

You either can articulate a theory about how consciousness arises from matter or you can't.

...which is irrelevant to what I said.

If you're claiming the data we have shows the brain is causing consciousness, I want to know how you know that's what the data is showing.

But that's not what your question was. See, you're doing it again, trying to dance between two things as if they're equivalent. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Fudbucker]

Lol, how can a statement be dishonest ?

It's dishonest when it's used to imply that it has something to do with what I said, which it didn't. Your question has nothing to do with my post.



...which is irrelevant to what I said.



But that's not what your question was. See, you're doing it again, trying to dance between two things as if they're equivalent. You're not fooling anyone.

Hey, I'm sorry if you thought I implied something. I put considerable time and effort into my posts, and I try to provide links to relevant sources, when I can. And it's not for the purposes of fooling anyone. You shouldn't throw around those kinds of accusations.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My points are simple: is there an agreed upon theory for how consciousness arises from matter? Obviously not. There's not even an agreed upon definition of what consciousness is.

And the reason everytime we explain mental functioning, the Woo Slingers have to add some made quality to mental function so there is still a place for their Woo to go.

While they are still some questions to be answered about how the brain functions, the question as to whether mental functioning is a wholly material function of the brain was put to rest a long time ago.

It's the "and than." I can sit here and explain neurons and glial cells and myelin and so forth until I'm blue in the face and you'll just... invoke another layer with a new name and go "explain that."

Here's the answer. Brain damage. If I damage a part of my brain, a part of the mental functioning will cease to work. Therefore if I damage my whole brain, I have zero mental functioning.

Phineas Gage and the lobotomy put to rest a non-biological aspect to our mental functioning.

You can accept that or you can go hand out with Jabba in this immortality thread.

We're no closer to a casual explanation than we've ever been. Nor can we agree even on whether brain states are the same as mental states. Are brain states mental states? Are they different? Does one cause another, or are they simply correlated with each other?

Yes if you are completely and absolutely ignorant of the entire concept of neuroscience and it's advances in the last hundred plus years, that is an accurate statement.

So the question becomes, is our inability to explain how matter causes consciousness a problem for materialism?

No it's only a problem for people that need a mystical woo-woo aspect to their mental function.

I think it is a huge problem, for the reasons given: the meaning of the problem (i.e., what consciousness even is) hasn't even be properly articulated, let alone how the feeling of conscious awareness arises from moving electrons (or rocks) around. Nor is it obvious that better MRI's and CAT scans will solve the causation question.

Yes. Science can't answer questions that aren't really questions.

I love how you're throwing out "the meaning of the problem can't be articulated" as a positive. Have you ever considered the possibility that a problem is being invented that isn't there?

That's like saying calculus is wrong because it can answer the question of what would the color blue pay the bishop to rent the mailbox.

Oh are you saying the calculus can answer that question?

See? That's all you're doing.

If a theory can't explain a phenomena, it's a knock on that theory.

Yes but a theory doesn't have to explain a distinction without difference, semantics, or silly word games.

 

[LarryS]

artful dodge, but just be honest and say we have no idea or working theory how the brain generates consciousness, consciousness comes from the brain because, well, where else could it come from.

 

[tsig]

artful dodge, but just be honest and say we have no idea or working theory how the brain generates consciousness, consciousness comes from the brain because, well, where else could it come from.

Electro-chemical reactions in the brain generates consciousness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah. Maintaining a philosophy is a lot easier if you can just put your fingers in your ears and go "La la la" when someone provides a rational explanation for your philosophy's mythology.