Subjectivity and Science

[articulett]

Well, ketamine is a dissociative anaesthetic and it's ludicrously safe! They give it to 6 week old babies who need operations. Don't know much about the others. If you check the MAPS website there's probably a definition for hallucinogens somewhere.

There are researchers who believe MDMA (Ecstasy) is ready for Phase III clinical trials (given to lots of people) to treat PTSD.

Nick

That reminds me that I've heard that ketamine has shown very promising results in jump starting someone out of an intractable depression.

As a materialist, the question is, what is it doing in the brain and is there a way to enhance the effect or decrease negative effects.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think Mercutio would answer this by saying that it is a complex of behaviors and that we must look at not only the body but also the environment.

Consciousness is behaviour, yes; and to observe that behaviour we normally look at outward signs (the body) and also at what is stimulating that consciousness (the environment).

But if you confuse the easily visible signs of consciousness with the process of consciousness, then, um, you're confused. After all, we can also just shove a bunch of electrodes into your brain. It's just that this is considered impolite.

It is certainly the case that many of the higher functions that we label 'consciousness' depend critically on language and language makes no sense as private property -- we are part of a larger language community.

First of all, language does make sense as a private property; you are confusing shared language with language in general. I can make my own language, and as long as it has meaning to me, it's a real language.

Second, we seem to be getting further and further away from a definition of what consciousness is. What are these higher functions that depend critically on language, and why are they labeled "consciousness"?

Consciousness is being aware and self-aware. What else is needed?

So, consciousness, in that sense depends on many variables that cannot all be localized to any individual brain, or brain function.

You might as well say that breathing cannot be localised to any individual respiratory system, that digestion cannot be localised to any individual digestive tract.

 

[PixyMisa]

The World is the vessel into which all the unwanted aspects of the self are hurled, and God the vessel into which we put all the things that our existing worldview can't explain.

God of the Gaps?

Thus the nature of The World and the nature of God are dictated by the individual's concept of selfhood.

Erm?

God and The World are the ego's stooges who constantly clear up after him. Change your version of selfhood and you change the nature of god and the world. The 3 have an inter-defining relationship.

God is the Three Stooges? Now there's a theology that should win some adherents!

 

[hammegk]

Why should I define it? You're the one wittering on about things you are unable or unwilling to define.

How many other apriori denials of the, shall we say, "undefined things" does your position make?

If you wish to play, define consciousness. Where does it begin in the animal kingdom? What about plants? Viruses? Prions? ???

You seem to like to witter about it.

 

[articulett]

Consciousness is brain function.

Moreover, consciousness requires input from sensory organs to "program" it... in many ways a computer is like a brain. The brain in a vat straw man doesn't have input...

The brain grows and evolves much like the internet... it's an emergent phenomenon and self is the processor--the interpreter--the narrator.

I have yet to see a good argument for any sort of consciousness absent a living material brain and so all such entities are impossibilities per my understanding-- delusions. All it would take to prove me wrong is evidence to the contrary. But despite eons of such beliefs and semantics, there is no evidence that such things are other than delusions and misperceptions of the brain.

 

[hammegk]

Double post.

 

[Mobyseven]

Moreover, consciousness requires input from sensory organs to "program" it... in many ways a computer is like a brain. The brain in a vat straw man doesn't have input...

Actually, iirc, in the original 'brain in a vat' scenario the brain was receiving inputs (electrical stimuli, I assume) to trick the brain into believing that it was experiencing the world.

 

[PixyMisa]

How many other apriori denials of the, shall we say, "undefined things" does your position make?

Again, this is meaningless. If they're undefined, they're undefined. They can't be denied, because they're undefined. They can be ignored.

If you wish to play, define consciousness.

I have done, in this very thread.

Where does it begin in the animal kingdom?

Insects are certainly conscious. That's no surprise; the bee, for example, has on the order of a million neurons in its tiny brain. Orders of magnitude more complex than the circuit I described.

What about plants?

Probably not, though I'd have to examine more closely the mechanisms by which certain plants respond to their environments. Things like venus flytraps - do they have something that corresponds to memory, and a feedback loop that would form the basis of self-awareness? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Viruses? Prions? ???

No, since they only do anything at all as part of a larger system.

You seem to like to witter about it.

I did not bring the subject up. That was you. I asked you to clarify your statement; you refused. And yet you have repeatedly raised the same meaningless claim.

 

[articulett]

Actually, iirc, in the original 'brain in a vat' scenario the brain was receiving inputs (electrical stimuli, I assume) to trick the brain into believing that it was experiencing the world.

Oh... cool... that's like when they do brain surgery and they electrically stimulate various areas to see the sensations it produces...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Consciousness is brain function.

Look, I'm a neurologist, and even I'm not that dogmatic about it.

Brain function does not happen in a vacuum.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Moreover, consciousness requires input from sensory organs to "program" it... in many ways a computer is like a brain. The brain in a vat straw man doesn't have input...

The brain grows and evolves much like the internet... it's an emergent phenomenon and self is the processor--the interpreter--the narrator.

I have yet to see a good argument for any sort of consciousness absent a living material brain and so all such entities are impossibilities per my understanding-- delusions. All it would take to prove me wrong is evidence to the contrary. But despite eons of such beliefs and semantics, there is no evidence that such things are other than delusions and misperceptions of the brain.

I could be completely misreading him, but I don't think BDZ is arguing for consciousness absent a material brain, only that the whole process is much more complex. I would agree with that. But there is nothing woo and nothing non-physical involved.

 

[PixyMisa]

Look, I'm a neurologist

Cool.

and even I'm not that dogmatic about it.

That's fine too.

Brain function does not happen in a vacuum.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, perception is significant, yes, we commonly observe the effects of consciousness by reference to things other than the firing of neurons. Yes, we use language do describe consciousness and to communicate with others.

But those things aren't consciousness. Consciousness is awareness and self-awareness. That's brain function.

You might as well say that digestion doesn't happen in a vacuum, that we have to consider food as part of the system. Well, yeah, but food is an input to the digestive process. The process is what it is.

 

[PixyMisa]

I could be completely misreading him, but I don't think BDZ is arguing for consciousness absent a material brain, only that the whole process is much more complex. I would agree with that.

BDZ is very averse to making straightforward statements - as I said, he's been more forthcoming in this thread than I've ever seen before. And as you say, it's still hard to work out what he is actually arguing.

But when you say "the whole process is much more complex" - what whole process is more complex than what?

Upthread I described a circuit that is conscious in every way that matters: It can perceive, it can act, it can remember, it can reflect on its memories, it can reflect on its thoughts, and it can make decisions based on any combinations of those factors.

That circuit requires on the order of a hundred transistors. Perhaps twenty or so neurons would be required to do the same thing.

When you say the whole process is much more complex - presumably referring specifically to human consciousness here - well, yes, human consciousness is complex, but it's still just a big, messy, unreliable version of that little circuit. Consciousness is not inherently complex.

But there is nothing woo and nothing non-physical involved.

Absolutely.

 

[articulett]

I could be completely misreading him, but I don't think BDZ is arguing for consciousness absent a material brain, only that the whole process is much more complex. I would agree with that. But there is nothing woo and nothing non-physical involved.

And why does he think materialism is woo and how exactly is his philosophy different.

Yes, it's complex... but our inability to recreate it does not mean that materialism is wrong and that some other as yet heretofore unmentioned explanation is better or more useful or more right. The stomach digests... Legs give rise to walking... the brain creates consciousness--some of which are aware; much of which is autonomous...

Materialism explains the ideomotor effect for example... what alternative is there? If BDZ keep calling materialism woo, he must have some reason and some better fitting explanation, no? Or is he like a creationist calling evolution woo?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Materialism is an assumption. So is determinism. Science is a methodology that strives, with the assistance of these assumptions, to understand how things work.
Consciousness (Cogito, ergo sum) is a private event that cannot presently be explained in any manner by science, let alone by amateur philosophists.
To study humans and others scientifically, we need to focus on behavior. Empirical reliable data.

 

[JoeEllison]

Materialism is an assumption. So is determinism. Science is a methodology that strives, with the assistance of these assumptions, to understand how things work.
Consciousness (Cogito, ergo sum) is a private event that cannot presently be explained in any manner by science, let alone by amateur philosophists.
To study humans and others scientifically, we need to focus on behavior. Empirical reliable data.

Have you ever seen any other method produce any useful benefit?

 

[JoeEllison]

Pretend that two car dealers call me up, wanting to sell me a car. The first dealer claims that he's got a car that can get 40 miles to the gallon, and he wants me to try it out. The other dealer tells me that he's got a car that runs on water, and he wants me to believe him. The first dealer offers to drive a loaner to my house, and let me drive it over the weekend, pop the hood, take it to a mechanic to have it looked at, whatever I want. The other dealer wants to discuss my preconceived notions about how cars work, and how I should open my mind to new possibilities. The first dealer shows up with the car and a catalog of options and prices. The second dealer shows up with a DVD about how wonderful the world would be if it ran on water power instead of fossil fuels.

Now, which car do I choose, and why?

(Be careful, the answer might not be as obvious as you think.)

I noticed that none of the woosters wanted to deal with this.

Have you all noticed that none of them want to deal with anything practical, ever? I assume, based on all previous evidence, that their own ideas are as practical as the time spend examining their own belly buttons.

 

[Robin]

Materialism is an assumption.

No, it is a conclusion

So is determinism.

No, it is a conclusion

Science is a methodology that strives, with the assistance of these assumptions, to understand how things work.

How many times must I correct this misapprehension before people will go and read some of the philosophy of science?

Science does not require the assumption of materialism. It does not require the assumption of determinism. Empiricism is not Materialism and vice versa.

Consciousness (Cogito, ergo sum) is a private event that cannot presently be explained in any manner by science, let alone by amateur philosophists.

Cogito ergo sum was demolished centuries ago.

To study humans and others scientifically, we need to focus on behavior. Empirical reliable data.

As I have often pointed out, there is no reason why you cannot study consciousness from a standpoint of reliable empirical data.

 

[JoeEllison]

No, it is a conclusion

No, it is a conclusion

How many times must I correct this misapprehension before people will go and read some of the philosophy of science?

Science does not require the assumption of materialism. It does not require the assumption of determinism. Empiricism is not Materialism and vice versa.

Cogito ergo sum was demolished centuries ago.

As I have often pointed out, there is no reason why you cannot study consciousness from a standpoint of reliable empirical data.

Now, from where I'm sitting, it is acceptable to call materialism an assumption. It doesn't make a good goddamned bit of difference, because assumption or not, materialism WORKS. None of the competing arguments do anything whatsoever. They have never cured a diseased, or built anything of lasting value, or solved a single practical problem that humankind has faced.

 

[Robin]

Now, from where I'm sitting, it is acceptable to call materialism an assumption. It doesn't make a good goddamned bit of difference, because assumption or not, materialism WORKS. None of the competing arguments do anything whatsoever. They have never cured a diseased, or built anything of lasting value, or solved a single practical problem that humankind has faced.

If it is acceptable to call materialism an assumption then why did you need anything after your first sentence?

If it is an assumption it needs no justification. But you included 5 good justifications. I could supply many more.

Like I said, it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. Science does not need the Materialism as a starting point, science relies on pure Empiricism.

But at the end of the day Materialism is the only conclusion that makes any sense.