Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[Robin]

If consciousness is more than just emergent behavior, then there's something new that arises when enough neurons are arranged in the right way. This is a trivial point.

That is far from a trivial point. What emerges? Some substance?

The question is, how does it emerge? Why does it emerge?

What is "it" that you are asking about? A substance? A process?

Why are switches a necessary condition for consciousness?

Because even if it were not the case that consciousness is a computation, it would still be the case that consciousness was entirely dependent upon computation.

Will materialism give us answers to these? How much progress has it made?

What if Materialism could not give us the answer to these questions?

Can you name the metaphysical system that can give the answer to these questions? If so then tell us the answers it provides.

If not then why do you think this is a problem specifically for Materialism?

 

[Robin]

And we can ask why is their such a thing as conscious experience? What is it's purpose?

It seems obvious to me the survival advantages of pain and fear. It seems obvious to me the survival advantages for an organism in having a model of it's environment and being able to place itself in that environment. So I don't get what you don't get about it. Can you single out some aspect of consciousness that does not appear to have a survival advantage?

Could we have evolved without it?

No, because it is trivially true that without it we would not be "we". That which evolved without consciousness would be something else.

 

[Darat]

...snip... Can you single out some aspect of consciousness that does not appear to have a survival advantage?

...snip...

Posting on an internet forum...

 

[dlorde]

Posting on an internet forum...

On the contrary, I think this is an example of the kind of activity that drove the evolution of our kind and level of consciousness.

Collaboration with others (e.g. hunting) requires recognition of behavioural commonalities, the ability to predict or anticipate behaviour. As social and cultural behaviours become more complex and sophisticated, this becomes emphasised. For prediction and anticipation of complex behaviours, modeling through introspection becomes of increasing value - e.g. "If I was him, I'd do this/that/the other". This introspective modeling of behaviour and the associated requirement to distinguish self from other, seems very likely to result in a sense of self and self-awareness - if it isn't a necessary requirement... Internet forums seem prime examples of our need to exercise these faculties and broadcast our individual sense of self in posting our arguments and opinions.

 

[Belz...]

"...if materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react."

I suppose it entirely depends on your definition of "reason". Nobody said it had to be a first cause. In fact, I could say:

"If mental processes are nothing but spiritual actions, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of spiritualism). souls can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Spirits don't reason, they are mere creations of God."

 

[joobz]

So what's the scale these companies use to measure subjective experience? What's the unit of measurement?

The number of units sold.
the only measure they care about.


As for your other comments, Pixa has addressed them well, so I don't need to go much further. All I can suggest is try to explain the fundamental difference between the processes given as examples of emergent properties (e.g., salt formation, turbulence, earthquakes, weather patterns, ...) and consciousness which doesn't rely upon "Lack of knowledge." We have yet to see any emergent property that requires magic, so why should consciousness?

 

[lemurien]

On the contrary, I think this is an example of the kind of activity that drove the evolution of our kind and level of consciousness.

Collaboration with others (e.g. hunting) requires recognition of behavioural commonalities, the ability to predict or anticipate behaviour. As social and cultural behaviours become more complex and sophisticated, this becomes emphasised. For prediction and anticipation of complex behaviours, modeling through introspection becomes of increasing value - e.g. "If I was him, I'd do this/that/the other". This introspective modeling of behaviour and the associated requirement to distinguish self from other, seems very likely to result in a sense of self and self-awareness - if it isn't a necessary requirement... Internet forums seem prime examples of our need to exercise these faculties and broadcast our individual sense of self in posting our arguments and opinions.

You brought up an important feature of the human way to look at things: The theory of Self. The primary assumption in predicting other people's behavior is that he will behave the same way I would in the similar situation.

Since the feature has evolved and seems to be ubiquitous, it probably is an efficient strategy. It does backfire, however as in magical thinking where the random events of Nature are assigned to be makings of subjects something like us, only invisible. Animism and religions are nice examples.

Also, it backfires in the situation where the subject himself is not normal.
A paranoid sees enemies and threats everywhere, a Pollyanna gets robbed and raped over and over again.

The perceived Self seems to be highly culture-dependent. The Asiatic communalism vs. modern Western individualism, for instance. Probably also there would be difference in the way a family dog and a dingo perceive themselves.

 

[Ignosticist]

However, let's let that thread be. In this thread you seem to be hung up on the mind vs. brain problem. I ask you again, if "mind" is separate from "brain", why is it that severe trauma to the brain severely impacts the mind?

I do not I believe that the following is true, but just for the sake of the argument, and since DOC seems unable to make any argument to save his own thread: What if the brain is just an antenna for the "soul/mind signal", when the brain gets damaged, the "signals" from the "soul/mind " are transmitted "wrong", and that is why severe trauma to the brain appears to severely impacts the mind...

 

[yy2bggggs]

There is some good evidence that conscious awareness is very much a figurehead, like a prime-minister or CEO, that gets important updates and can make decisions in situations the lower levels are unable to resolve, but although it has very little day-to-day control, it feels that it is in charge, and will invent plausible explanations for actions it knows very little about.

Something seems a bit off about this description. It suggests that when we feel we're in control, we are specifically consciously aware of a notion that our conscious awareness is in control.

I don't think that actually happens. As I mentioned in another thread, while driving on autopilot, I feel that I'm in control (as opposed to, say, that I'm simply shaking involuntarily in such a way as to just be happening to drive a car). But it doesn't feel like I was consciously aware of it.

This introspective modeling of behaviour and the associated requirement to distinguish self from other, seems very likely to result in a sense of self and self-awareness

And here you seem to be making a distinction between a sense of self and a sense of self-awareness, as I would. But the very act of drawing this distinction calls into question whether this "CEO" really exists as described.

It's the self that is the agency, not the self-awareness.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I do not I believe that the following is true, but just for the sake of the argument, and since DOC seems unable to make any argument to save his own thread: What if the brain is just an antenna for the "sou/mind signal", when the brain gets damaged, the "signals" from the "soul/mind " are transmitted "wrong", and that is why severe trauma to the brain appears to severely impacts the mind...

That makes no sense. If the brain's an antenna receiving inputs from a mind, then brain damage shouldn't affect the mind, but only the brain. A broken signal may slur your speech, or make your left arm go limp, but it wouldn't make you think your dead wife is controlling your left arm, or that your mother was an alien imposter.

 

[Ignosticist]

That makes no sense. If the brain's an antenna receiving inputs from a mind, then brain damage shouldn't affect the mind, but only the brain. A broken signal may slur your speech, or make your left arm go limp, but it wouldn't make you think your dead wife is controlling your left arm, or that your mother was an alien imposter.

Why not? what if the part of the signal I am not receiving (or I am receiving in a distorted way) is precisely the part that allows me to know that my mother is my mother and not an alien imposter? maybe may "soul/mind" still knows she is my mother, but, my damaged brain makes me act as if she was an alien imposter...

How could anyone tell the difference?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Why not? what if the part of the signal I am not receiving (or I am receiving in a distorted way) is precisely the part that allows me to know that my mother is my mother and not an alien imposter? maybe may "soul/mind" still knows she is my mother, but, my damaged brain makes me act as if she was an alien imposter...

How could anyone tell the difference?

Again, it makes no sense. I ask you, "who is that?" You say, "an alien imposter", because your brain has to know it is your mom to say it is your mom.

Presumably, the brain doesn't know, but the mind knows and controls the mouth; so why do you say it is an imposter? If the brain has to know for the mouth to say it's mom, then what are these radio signals doing at all?

 

[devnull]

10 Query "What's your name";A$
20 Print "Hello,"; A$

That's as best as I can remember BASIC on my old Commodore.

Input, not query.....

 

[Ignosticist]

Again, it makes no sense. I ask you, "who is that?" You say, "an alien imposter", because your brain has to know it is your mom to say it is your mom.

If you think that the brain is only like an antenna to the "real" mind/soul then if the brain is damaged, it misinterprets the answer from the "soul" (mom) as if it were "alien".

Presumably, the brain doesn't know, but the mind knows and controls the mouth; so why do you say it is an imposter?

Exactly, if we follow the "brain as a connection to the soul" the brain knows nothing, it is only an antenna. And if the signal it receives is distorted, it propagates that distorted information to the mouth. Again, by this logic, the brain has, at most, some small "local working memory" that it uses to propagate the "soul signals" to the rest of the body

If the brain has to know for the mouth to say it's mom, then what are these radio signals doing at all?

Connecting to the soul man... the brain is just a bridge between your sould and your body . DOC... where are you, here I am trying to somehow argue for your POV (even if it is just for fun)... you can not expect me to do all the job, do you?

 

[lemurien]

I do not I believe that the following is true, but just for the sake of the argument, and since DOC seems unable to make any argument to save his own thread: What if the brain is just an antenna for the "soul/mind signal", when the brain gets damaged, the "signals" from the "soul/mind " are transmitted "wrong", and that is why severe trauma to the brain appears to severely impacts the mind...

What if the current status of neurophysiology does not need such a hypothesis but is doing fine as it is?

 

[PixyMisa]

If you think that the brain is only like an antenna to the "real" mind/soul then if the brain is damaged, it misinterprets the answer from the "soul" (mom) as if it were "alien".

Except of course that this hypothesis collapses instantly when you actually examine neuropathologies in detail. If you pursue it, you end up in the uncomfortable position that every individual neuron is responsible for sending and receiving very specific (but undetectable) signals to a remote, immaterial mind... And that simultaneously, the actual detectable signals travelling between neurons and having measurable physical and behavioural effects are somehow irrelevant.

Phineas Gage, we salute you.

 

[PixyMisa]

What if the current status of neurophysiology does not need such a hypothesis but is doing fine as it is?

Well then, the current status of neurophysiology must be wrong!!!2!

Probably big farmers.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well then, the current status of neurophysiology must be wrong!!!2!

Probably big farmers.

Yeah, they're the primary producers of this sort of thing.

 

[lemurien]

Except of course that this hypothesis collapses instantly when you actually examine neuropathologies in detail. If you pursue it, you end up in the uncomfortable position that every individual neuron is responsible for sending and receiving very specific (but undetectable) signals to a remote, immaterial mind... And that simultaneously, the actual detectable signals travelling between neurons and having measurable physical and behavioural effects are somehow irrelevant.

Phineas Gage, we salute you.

It is true that we can perceive radio frequency EM waves. When you crank up the volume high enough, you can send messages to people. The sound quality is not excellent but it is doable. The energies needed are not hazardous.

Before you cry foul, look here http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc28/sc4/Human Perception FINAL.pdf

"Human auditory perception of pulses of radiofrequency (RF) energy is a well-established phenomenon that is dependent upon the energy in a single pulse and not on average power density. RF-induced sounds can be characterized as the perception of subtle sounds because, in general, a quiet environment is required for the sounds to be heard. The sound is similar to other common sounds such as a click, buzz, hiss, knock or chirp. "


Now, then, if consciousness would be broadcast by some other entity using any form of energy known to modern physics, we should by now have some idea about about what it would be. Alas, nothing has been found with the most sensitive detectors.

True, with supraconductor devices the minuscule magnetic fields induced by neural activity can be measured and analyzed but even they cannot spot any external program source. People in the massively protected Faraday's cage do not fall unconscious. Their cellular phones cease to function, to be sure.

So, we'd have to assume an unknown form of energy and a transmitter operated by an Entity that has not shown any evidence of its existence.

So why not just stick to neurophysiology.
I admit, it takes a bit more effort than Goddidit but it also gives something in exchange.

 

[marplots]

I would like to know, if my brain is a radio receiver for soul info, am I always getting the signal for my own soul, or am I at risk of picking up someone else's soul signal?