Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[joobz]

Sure, you can do some measurements of conscious activity.

This is not something to easily dismiss. 25+ years ago, people doubted we'd be able to do this much. Creating a numeric scale by which to measure sedation is a rather impressive feat. Of course, it should be noted, that these measures are far from perfect. but they are infinitely better than what we had before.

But I was thinking along the lines of How do I measure my subjective experience of feeling proud of my kid during a baseball game? Is it greater than my experience of a good book? Less than a faded memory of my wife and I meeting for the first time? There's no scale that can be used nor agreed upon unit of measurement. The conscious experiences just are. They defy measurement. What other materialist phenomena is like that?

They don't defy measurement. How else would marketing and advertising companies be so effective at manipulating your subjective experience of love for your child?

 

[joobz]

Joobz: It's what Anesthesiologists do all the time. Indeed, people have used this rather simplistic quantification of consciousness to create an artificial anesthesiologist, called McSleepy.

We turn it on and we turn it off but none of us knows what it really is.

gravity: we can calculate it and predict it's effect but none of us knows what it really is.

 

[lemurien]

gravity: we can calculate it and predict it's effect but none of us knows what it really is.

John Mayer does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owFFVQYW1p8

 

[pakeha]

Yet another strawman-- an accurate statement would be

"in which a person who reports that there is a possiblity that the God of the Bible caused the Haiti earthquake since the God of the Bible was reported to use natural disasters to punish sin and rampant Voodoo would seem to be a sin.

Back to this thread.

Rampant voodoo a sin, DOC?
Why?

Anyway, do reply to the question I raised earlier
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7273786&postcount=65
when you're ready!

 

[Aepervius]

The "just" in my quote is important. If consciousness is just a description of neural processing, then two people who know nothing about neural processing should not be able to have a meaningful discussion of consciousness. Similarly, two people who speak in nothing but neural terms should be able to meaningfully explain to each other their subjective experience of seeing a sunset. Since the former happens all the time and the latter never does, consciousness is something more that just a description.

Pain hurts. It's not just a description of nerves sending messages to the brain. It's this subjective quality of experience that makes consciousness so difficult to decipher.

I put that with the "you can't explain love" fallacy.

It is indeed just a description of a message going to the brain. In some people the pain never hurt (can't remmember the scientific name) and such people usually get a lot of broken bones very young and often die early. There is another syndrom which I recall deemly make you feel the pain as a sort of pleasure, and some people like to have pain because it gives them sexual pleasure.

And then there is synesthesia and a serie of syndrom of miswiring. Some people never ever feel love. It is a completely foreign sensation for them. Mind you that does not make them robot, jsut human with a missing sensation.

So no, it is definitively not as simple as a lay person would put it in a meaningful way.

 

[Aepervius]

I was thinking about this during my kid's little league game. In fluid dynamics, there really isn't anything new when a bunch of molecules in an air or liquid start behaving a certain way. Turbulence and fluid dynamics just describe the rules they follow.

Contrast that when a certain number of neurons are arranged in the right way, with the right chemicals and electrical impulses. Now we get something new: consciousness and subjective experience. None of the individual neurons were capable of this, but together, they're capable of both.

That's also true when we combine certain elements and get new substances. Someone mentioned NaCl. True, something new emerges that isn't really like Na or Cl. However, in that case, we know exactly when the new substance is created: Na + CL. We don't have such knowledge in the case of consciousness: ?Neurons + ?Biochemicals +?arrangement +?electrical impulse= consciousness and subjective experience.

Something to think about, maybe.

That was done already and we have a name for that : emergent behavior. Many example were given, the one i particularly like are ants. Ants going at random are nothing, but give them a few very simple rules and they have a flock emergent behavior. That does not make them "more" that still is a bunch of ant running on the ground.

 

[Malerin]

turbulence is an emergent property based upon fluid dynamics. It is most definitely new and different compared to laminar flow.

New? Isn't it still just a description of molecules in motion? Isn't that like saying richness is a "new" emergent property when a person has a certain amount of money? There's nothing new there, we're just describing the person with a different adjective.

With neurons, we actually get something new that's not just a description of the state of the neurons: self awareness and conscious experience. This is more like combining two substances and getting a new substance.

That's called an emergent behavior. consciousness and subjective experience are emergent properties of neurology.

But consciousness and subjective experience aren't just behaviors. We often speak of our consciousness and our experiences as things. We seem to understand each other when we do this.

So it is only different because we don't fully understand it yet?
We don't fully understand earthquakes either. We have almost no ability to predict their. Does this make earthquakes somehow magical? No, of course not. We know that earthquakes are the emergent behavior of plate tectonics and geological processes. We wouldn't pretend to think that they were magically created.

But we have a very good idea what causes earthquakes. The question doesn't arise: why are there earthquakes at all?

OTOH what causes a bunch of neurons to produce conscious experience? Do we have any idea? And we can ask why is their such a thing as conscious experience? What is it's purpose? Could we have evolved without it?

 

[Malerin]

This is not something to easily dismiss. 25+ years ago, people doubted we'd be able to do this much. Creating a numeric scale by which to measure sedation is a rather impressive feat. Of course, it should be noted, that these measures are far from perfect. but they are infinitely better than what we had before.


They don't defy measurement. How else would marketing and advertising companies be so effective at manipulating your subjective experience of love for your child?

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

 

[Malerin]

That was done already and we have a name for that : emergent behavior. Many example were given, the one i particularly like are ants. Ants going at random are nothing, but give them a few very simple rules and they have a flock emergent behavior. That does not make them "more" that still is a bunch of ant running on the ground.

Again, we're back to "just". Consciousness has to be more than just emergent behavior. We can meaningfully talk about consciousness without talking about behavior.

 

[Twiler]

Again, we're back to "just". Consciousness has to be more than just emergent behavior. We can meaningfully talk about consciousness without talking about behavior.

Why can't it just be a type of emergent behavior? The fact that we have terminology to deal with it that doesn't consider it from this perspective does not indicate that this perspective is wrong.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Again, we're back to "just". Consciousness has to be more than just emergent behavior.

You mean "just" as in "Consciousness just has to be more than emergent behavior"?

 

[lemurien]

The neurological correlates of consciousness have been studied during the last couple of decades. Imaging techniques such as fast MRI and SPECT have shed a lot of light as to what kind of activation correlates with the presence of consciousness.
Studies on brain damage patients have shown that very few things are clear-cut.
There are, however, some general ideas as to what is required for consciousness to occur.

We are talking about human consciousness here, as no other animal is capable to report his personal experiences.
It is impossible to know what the content of their consciousness is.

A very simplified schema is as follows:
-There has to be a Self, the agent who is directly experiencing the content of his consciousness.
-There has to be a neural representation of the body state available to this Self.
-There has to be a neural representation of the signals of the external world delivered by our senses and processed by the networks of our brain available to the self.
-The human specialty: There has to be a representation of the juxtaposition of the presentations of the Self and the presentations of the internal and external world.

The human consciousness is in a sense folded in such a fashion that it can observe itself in the world. The key to this is the ability to maintain stable representations in the neural networks that is not dependent on actual sensory input.
We are looking at a situation where information is evolving in the neural media and reorganizing itself according to the feedback from the homeostasis sensing system, which again is closely related to our inborn values.

The complexity of the neural networks involved allow very well for all the functions to occur, there is no need for any spiritual hypotheses to explain how consciousness is brought about. Also, why such a system would be beneficial and selected for in survival is obvious.

Why we feel a certain way is a question that can be answered only partially with neuroimaging techniques. We can see certain areas known to be related to certain feelings like pride or shame light up and that's as far as it goes.
Why we feel ashamed, what we are ashamed of can only be approached with techniques of self-reporting.

The specific content of our consciousness, how it feels to be me, is evasive. I believe it will stay that way.

 

[Darat]

So all your conversations about how you feel about things are neurological discussions? Even when you were a kid and knew how you felt, but had no clue what a brain even was?

Some of my earliest memories are of things I didn't know what they were, as I matured I learned what to label some of those things as, for example sexual arousal and desire.

 

[dlorde]

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?

Yep - just as what you reap comes from what you sow.

 

[dlorde]

gravity: we can calculate it and predict it's effect but none of us knows what it really is.

Ultimately, nobody knows what anything really is - but we can learn how it behaves, and so far, that's been good enough.

 

[Malerin]

Why can't it just be a type of emergent behavior? The fact that we have terminology to deal with it that doesn't consider it from this perspective does not indicate that this perspective is wrong.

Because people don't talk of their conscious experiences as if they're just emergent neurological behaviors. In fact, nearly all the time, neurological behavior is the last thing we mean when we talk about how we feel.
How are you feeling?
Happy.
Sounds like your neurons are functiong well and your neurological chemicals are properly balanced.


Really, who talks like this? A definition of conscious experience and self-awareness has to correspond to how we actually talk about our conscious experiences. Consciousness is just emergent behavior fails utterly in this regard. If consciousness = emergent behavior of neurons, then talk of consciousness would always be synonomous with talk of the behavior of neurons and vice-versa. Since it's not, we can junk it as unworkable.

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. The question is, how does it emerge? Why does it emerge? Why are switches a necessary condition for consciousness? How many does it take?
Will materialism give us answers to these? How much progress has it made?

 

[PixyMisa]

New? Isn't it still just a description of molecules in motion?

Sure.

With neurons, we actually get something new that's not just a description of the state of the neurons: self awareness and conscious experience.

Wrong in every way. Consciousness is a process, not a thing; it's neural activity. A particular type of neural activity, but it is, requires, and implies nothing more.

This is more like combining two substances and getting a new substance.

Like salt?

But consciousness and subjective experience aren't just behaviors.

Yes they are.

We often speak of our consciousness and our experiences as things. We seem to understand each other when we do this.

Sure. But they're not objects. They're processes.

The language is inexact; that's hardly unusual. It doesn't change reality.

But we have a very good idea what causes earthquakes. The question doesn't arise: why are there earthquakes at all?

That's because we've answered that question.

OTOH what causes a bunch of neurons to produce conscious experience?

Self-reference.

Do we have any idea?

Yes. It's self-reference.

And we can ask why is their such a thing as conscious experience?

Sure. Ask away.

What is it's purpose? Could we have evolved without it?

No. Self-reference is the only feasible way to manage behaviours of the complexity our species demonstrates. With a brain of human complexity, and self-reference an evolutionary necessity, consciousness of some kind is unavoidable.

 

[dlorde]

The specific content of our consciousness, how it feels to be me, is evasive. I believe it will stay that way.

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. A very entertaining read on this idea and the research behind it is 'Incognito' by David Eagleman.

 

[PixyMisa]

Because people don't talk of their conscious experiences as if they're just emergent neurological behaviors.

People don't talk about solid objects as though they were almost entirely empty space, or their interactions with them as though they were mediated by virtual photons.

People are wrong.

In fact, nearly all the time, neurological behavior is the last thing we mean when we talk about how we feel.

Except for the ones who know something about the subject.

Really, who talks like this? A definition of conscious experience and self-awareness has to correspond to how we actually talk about our conscious experiences.

That's one option. The other option is for it to correspond to reality.

Consciousness is just emergent behavior fails utterly in this regard. If consciousness = emergent behavior of neurons, then talk of consciousness would always be synonomous with talk of the behavior of neurons and vice-versa. Since it's not, we can junk it as unworkable.

This is simply the argumentum ad populum. Cuts no ice here.

If consciousness is more than just emergent behavior

It's not.

then there's something new that arises when enough neurons are arranged in the right way.

Therefore, there isn't.

There, wasn't that easy?

This is a trivial point. The question is, how does it emerge?

Self-reference.

Why does it emerge?

Because that's what the word means.

Why are switches a necessary condition for consciousness?

They're a necessary condition for any sort of information processing.

How many does it take?

Depends on the precise level of consciousness you require. Plausibly, a few dozen.

Will materialism give us answers to these?

Materialism?

How much progress has it made?

You don't seem to grasp what materialism is.

Science, on the other hand, has answered all of these questions and continues to gather more information.

 

[TimCallahan]

Strawman, the title of that thread said "could" the recent disasters be from God, I didn't say it was because I don't know for sure. In that thread I never say this or that disaster is definitely from God. I give some reasons why the places where the disasters occur "could" be from a God punishing sin. For example I point out that Haiti (the location of a devastating quake) is heavy into Vodoo and I mention a saying in Haiti that "the people there are 80% Catholic and 100% into vodoo" (or something like that). Also after the quake 29 (or maybe 39) expected vodoo priests were murdered because some thought they brought on the plague that occurred afterward. It would seem that the God of the Bible would not be too happy at the infestation of Voodoo on that island. Heck, even one of their long term leaders several years ago was into voodoo.

And you also failed to mention important addidtional information about the Northridge quake which is a second strawman. I've noticed many times people are loosey goosey about the facts when they say derogatory things about me.

Now back to this thread.

No, it's not a strawman. You came on like gangbusters with a strong inference that all these things were evidence of God's wrath on sinners. When I pointed out that the Lisbon earthquake of the 1700s happened in a Christian country, you countered that Portugal was heavily into the slave trade. Now your trying to say you only meant that the disasters could have come from God.

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?