Actually, the human mind is capable of far outstripping the requirements for 'successfully interpreting the world'. Any animal must do that if it is to survive. But h. sapiens has gone far beyond what can be rationalised solely in terms of the requirements for survival. You don't need to be able to weigh and measure the Universe just to get by. — Wayfarer

This has nothing to do with the idea that the consciousness does/does not come from the brain.

That being said, if you're implying there's something special going on, you're misinterpreting this. Life does not just, "Get by". It struggles daily against disease, predators, and in our social case, other human beings. Life is always seeking a way to one up things that would destroy it or cause it harm. It turns out, the most successful creature on this planet that is able to combat almost anything else, is the human being. Higher intelligence has incredible benefits to a person, and the tribe that person belongs to. This is not beyond what can be rationalized in the slightest.

Of course but that is because the interface/brain has been damaged. If a camera is damaged you can not see through it but that does not mean the camera sees. The body is an interface between the mind and the world. If the interface is damaged then of course information cannot reach the mind. But the mind is also conscious independently of the body. For example, it can think and it can say 'I think therefore I am'. The mind's knowledge is not restricted to the five senses. — EnPassant

I should have been clearer. The brain damaged individual can no longer consciously envision color. His eyes work fine. The person can no longer process language internally, their ears are fine. Phineus Gage's entire core personality changed. We are talking about the part of the camera that processes the light from the lenses. That is physical, and when that is broken, the light will not be processed any longer.

What has been established is that there is a physical analogue of the mind's interaction with the world via the brain. — EnPassant

This makes no sense. An analogue only works if you have something that you know between the two. For example, a foot is analogue to a paw. Both have a similar function, but are still different in structure. The problem is, you've given no structure for what the "mind" is, apart from the brain. The question that I will keep asking, and no one has offerred anything is, "If the mind is not produced from the brain, what is it?" Without evidence, all your saying is, "It could be something else". You can't make an analogue to something that "could" be. What "mind" is needs to be given some meaningful term to be used this way. Otherwise there is no analogue.

If you replace the meter stick with geometry you'll get very close. Geo-metry means 'earth measuring'. — EnPassant

Would you mind clarifying what you meant by this?

https://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

I looked through your articles. None of these provided any of the evidence that you would need.
1. The "IQ" measurement tests for people with lower brain mass do not measure the entire picture of the person. For example, there are "idiot savaants" who can have high IQ in things like math or art, but are unable to understand emotions, read faces, etc.
2. The key is to show if a change in brain health, size, etc, affects a person. None of these experiments show this. They only show the person in one unchanging brain state. A good experiment would be to examine a person in their 20's who has brain fluid build up, then check in ten years to see if major alterations to personality or capability have occurred.
3. A few of these sources are from the 80's and 90's, using some fairly old computer tech. One of the big studies in which people were questioning the accuracy of his scans was done before Microsoft invented Windows. A few findings within the last decade would be better. These old one's seem like "Bigfoots", if you know what I mean.
4. Many of the links to where these sources can be checked are broken and not working.

There is no evidence that the brain is conscious. What does exist is a materialistic dogma that insists there is no difference between the brain analogue and the mind. It is simply dogma. — EnPassant

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Dogma is a claim that the mind exists apart from the brain, when there is no evidence of that being the case. If you had something, anything that would show consciousness existing apart from the brain, then we could have a debate. Your second need to insist it is "Simply dogma" without such evidence is the way dogma actually works. You have not earned the right to use that word yet. Provide some evidence of a mind existing apart from the brain, and you can earn it.

No, because the mind is the processing brain.
— Philosophim

That has yet to be established. — EnPassant

No, it has clearly been established. What has not been established, is that consciousness is not part of the brain. I asked Wayfarer, and he was unable to provide any evidence of consciousness existing apart from the brain. The citations I've linked have clearly shown that damage to the brain can affect the consciousness of people's ability to see color, their core personality, and ability to comprehend language. There is not one person proposing that consciousness exists as separate from the brain that has any evidence to back their claims. That being said, feel free to be the first.

The question is; how closely does subjective experience resemble the objective reality that is the source of that experience? — EnPassant

None. The brain constructs a way of interpreting the world. Successful brains are able to interpret the world in such a way, that the actual contradict this interpretation as little as possible. Brains that aren't so good interpret reality in such a way that actual reality keeps contradicting their interpretation of reality. Its like a meter stick. A meterstick is a notched tool that helps us divide physical space. Physical space does not have an underlying grid of meters that we can't see or exist in some other dimension. But we can mark it that way if we like. And it is a useful construct that is rarely contradicted by reality.

But that does not mean the physical context is consciousness. — EnPassant

No, it does. I think you misunderstand the difference between correlation and causation. Don't make the opposite mistake and think, "Well just because something has causation, doesn't mean it might not be correlation." If every time I leave the house it rains, there is correlation. Causation only happens after we demonstrate that something necessarily needs to happen or the correlates can never happen. Since it also rains when I don't leave the house, my leaving the house is not causing it to rain.

Consciousness necessarily comes from the brain, because there is no alternative. I mean, feel free to show any evidence that consciousness comes from something else. But all of the articles I've linked combine to show that there is no alternative to consciousness coming from the brain.

I can give you a few examples of evidence that would cast doubt on the idea of consciousness being caused by the mind.

1. Evidence of consciousness existing in a human being with a completely dead brain.
2. Consciousness existing apart from the localized part of your head. For example, having your body walk away while your consciousness stays right here.
3. Evidence of serious brain damage/chemical changes/proper functionality without the slightest change in personality or character.

Philosophy of mind can only be about what we have knowledge of. We can make philosophy about the current science of the brain. Philosophy of mind as questioning whether the brain causes consciousness is dead and done. Science has long proved consciousness is produced by the brain. The only question at this point is, "But maybe we're wrong", which can be said about anything, and is a useless critique in any rational argument.

I guess technically on my account there is no such thing as an unexamined “belief“, because that would just be a “perception”: belief are what you get when you examine your perceptions and either affirm or deny their accuracy. — Pfhorrest

Ok, I think I see what you mean. However, that still leaves the problem that both inductive and deductive beliefs are counted as knowledge. So if you still hold to something even when it has been disproven, it then becomes something separate from knowledge, and becomes a belief.

At that point, we believe things that we know aren't true, and we know things that we can't believe are true. I think allowing inductive beliefs to be counted as knowledge is where the sticking point it. What if you held deductive beliefs that have not been disproven yet as knowledge, and inductive beliefs as mere beliefs?

Emotions are not a bad thing. They are just another way to think, in fact. — Olivier5

Absolutely. There is a time and place for emotional thinking. It is part of our intelligence, and shouldn't be dismissed. But when we are trying to come to rational conclusions, emotions can guide as a backseat driver but rationality needs to be ultimately controlling the wheel.

What on earth is an "emotional argument"? :chin: — TheMadFool

Yeah, I need to clarify that. What I should have typed was, "An argument motivated for an emotional outcome". Such things only need rationalizations to support. Certain feelings, like social ties, may cause us to do "irrational" things. Take family for instance. Lets imagine an adult person you know has a severely abusive mother that utterly devastates them emotionally whenever this person visits their parent.

Telling a person in such a situation that they should never speak to them again, might be "rational" from an outside perspective. After all, you would do the same with a stranger. But most people will not respond positively to this if they are looking to justify their emotional bond with their mother. You could give every reason in the world why the person is wrong in seeking to have a relationship with their mother, if you do not address this emotional bond that is the true motivation of a person's actions.

For many people, religion is not a rational belief, but an emotional belief that is built by the bonds of family, friends, ideals, and "God". These are strong motivators that a person will continually seek to rationalize, while ignoring "rational" arguments that destroy them.

Saying to a person, "Faith is not a rational argument" misses the point. Its not the faith in the technical aspects of a God that people often hold. Its faith in the emotional bonds, that are expressed through particular statements and rules. Saying, "Ha, there's a contradiction on page 5 and 10 on the bible!" is worthless. The bible is simply a rationalization tool to support the emotional framework. It doesn't need to be air tight. People didn't start believing in God because of page 5 or 10. They believed due to the emotional feelings and social bonds it gave them.

This applies in more than just religion. Sports, politics, and even beliefs in "ideologies and frameworks". Many people hold to their philosophical beliefs to satisfy emotional needs rather than rational needs. Its just the way people work. The adage of "People being rationalizing beings first, rational beings second" has been said in many forms and many ways over the centuries. Its a well worn hat. =)

what I'm saying is that such a situation is neurologically impossible. No matter how much you insist you did, there is no know (or even plausible) mechanism by which a belief can be formed without the sensory, or interoceptive inputs to form it. — Isaac

Ok? Are you purposefully being obtuse and avoiding the point?

The abstract point I'm making is we can have beliefs that are examined, and beliefs that are unexamined. Is an unexamined belief knowledge? — Philosophim

This is what my point is. You can always take a thought experiment and find a way to take it out of context. That is being dishonest to the conversation and the intent of the people involved. The thought experiment is to help you understand the abstract context of the above. If I have an unexamined belief (which has nothing to do with the technical neurological process of how that belief was formed) and it just so happens to be right, was my unexamined belief knowledge?

Your problem is you are trying to use rationality in which is an emotional argument. It will fail every time. Its not that they don't understand, they don't care.

People desire the emotions that a God brings them. So they justify whatever supports this. If you wish to persuade people against religion, you need to provide them an alternative argument that supports most of what they emotionally want.

These emotions are generally:

1. A desire and reason to do good
2. A clarity that there is good and evil
2. That there is greater purpose then oneself in life
3. A desire to feel worthwhile

A lot of atheists completely misunderstand the situation, and either disdainfully dismiss these emotions, or outright ignore them. If you don't fully understand the person you're chatting with, you will have an incredibly difficult time persuading them. Lose the mentality that the person before you is stupid, because that picture entails that's what you think of them. Gain the mentality that emotions are a large part of our processing, and that we are inherently beings that rationalize our desires, and rarely use rationality to create our desires.

Not trying to follow you around Wayfarer, we may just have common philosophical interests. =)

The = symbol does not mean "is". It means "The left side is the same as the right side". "Is" is involved in the definition, but the equals sign is only about equivalency in comparing two sides. I taught high school math for about 5 years. That being the case, language is often contextual. Many people view it = the same as "is", because it works for the most part.

"Is" and "exists" are arguably synonyms. I say arguably, because depending on people's contexts, they might use them slightly differently. They are not tightly defined words, so we should be careful in making tight arguments with them.

To leo, the problem is people have to accept your definition of truth. No one has agreed that truth is what is eternally unchanging. I think most commonly people view truth as what "exists" (Now you see why I addressed Wayfarer) despite our will and intentions. Sometimes truth is concurrent with our will, sometimes it is not. But that is all it is. If something happens to be eternal, then that is its truth. If something does not happen to be eternal, then that is its truth.

So lets alter your propositions to fit.

Define Truth as what "is/exists".

Assume that nothing exists. If that is the case, then we cannot put forward the proof that nothing exists, because the proof would then exist.

Therefore, it is certain that there is at least one thing that exists. If people agree that truth is viable synonym for "is/exists", then the use of truth with this definition describes a logical reality.

But this does not prove that something eternal exists. It also does not prove that truth must mean "what exists/is". After all, what we ascribe to words is our choice, and nothing inherent in reality dictates this. But, if we do with to ascribe this meaning to truth, we have proven that the meaning itself, is something logically concluded as something which cannot be contradicted.

"If the body is a physical context, then can't we extend this reasoning further and argue that the pain is not really in the brain either, but in the mind? — EnPassant

No, because the mind is the processing brain. Further, the pain signal is transmitted to the nerve as well, so its not merely localized in the brain. You are viewing the brain from a philosophical standpoint, when there is a much clearer scientific standpoint. The old ideas of philosophy of mind are outdated and dead.

If we are locating things in the body can't it also be argued that neuroscience is locating/contextualizing experience in a physical context in the brain but the real conscious experience is outside the physical context altogether? — EnPassant

No. The articles I've linked and the arguments I've been given clearly show that consciousness happens within the physical context of the brain.

Indeed, can physical matter, no matter how complex, have experiences? — EnPassant

Yes. You are physical matter. You are experiencing contexts. What you are having a difficult time believing is that physical matter is capable of this. You are the evidence it is. Physical existence is amazing. It all depends on the correct combination of interactions. Oxygen can be breathed, but combine it with hydrogen and one more part, and you drown.

The physical reality around us is spectacular. Even magical. But it is real, tangible, and physical. Same with your mind. The only evidence against this is an emotional framework. You don't want to accept it, because you fear you'll lose the wonder, the specialness, and the mystery. What you don't understand is its even MORE wonderful, special, and mysterious because it is real, and not a fantasy. After all, what other reason is there to continue to believe the idea that consciousness is somehow separate from the brain? When facts fail, only emotion will prevail.

I think you're over complicating the issue. The abstract point I'm making is we can have beliefs that are examined, and beliefs that are unexamined. Is an unexamined belief knowledge?

Further, the belief I mentioned did not tie to anything that would indicate Joe dated a woman last night. So my belief being correct was an accident, not tied to any rational justification.

Do 'we' know that? What does 'produce' mean, here? What is it that is being produced? And how is it being produced? And, is the brain 'a physical thing?' Extract a brain from a human, and it is still the same matter, but it's now an inert object, even though it's stil a physical thing. When situated in a living being, the brain has more neural connections than stars in the sky. It is no longer simply an object, but a central part of cognition and is central to any possible theory, including any theory about 'what is physical'. So in what sense is it a 'physical thing' in that context? — Wayfarer

I've provided all the answers to this a few times already.

What is physical is matter and energy.
There are living brains, which are chemically self-sustainable, active, and produce neuronal activity, and dead brains, which don't.

You're starting to postulate and throw, "but what if..."s out here without anything to back them up. A viable argument needs something to back those "what if"'s up. I can say, "What if unicorns are just really good at hiding?" You need some evidence, or its not a point of discussion.

But the fact of the existence of this school shows that the ground is already shifting towards a more 'mind-like' and top-down causal model of life and mind. — Wayfarer

Unless you show me that their models are divorced from the physical world, then no. And if you have evidence that their models are divorced from the physical world, then provide me such evidence. But as you mention later, that cannot be provided.

But as I've said - the contrary also works, and that is demonstrable by observation and experiment. Humans can perform mental acts which alter the physical configuration of the brain. A physical change to a brain is through injury or a medicine or substance which literally alters the material structure. But if the structure is altered through a volitional act, then that is mental in origin. — Wayfarer

You are repeating an old point again. I feel we're the conversation is starting to swirl, so its probably a good time to close it. I already addressed that by noting that consciousness is a physical act, so it is the physical acting on the physical.

That is 'brain-mind identity theory'. But 'wetness' does not stand in the relationship to hydrogen and oxygen that consciousness does in relation to matter. — Wayfarer

Why not? You need more than just an assertion. The entire point has been whether consciousness is a physical function of the brain. The models were are speaking about for consciousness do not deny this.

Besides, consciousness does not only work within the brain, it is present at some level in the operation of all living organisms. — Wayfarer

I've already mentioned animals and insects. And the origination of their consciousness is through neuronal activity. Again, these are all physical based consciousnesses. You don't see a bee postulating whether consciousness is physical right? That's because it doesn't have the physical brain to actually do it.

So, you're operating within the latter explanatory framework. So any 'theory of consciousness' that I would try and submit, would have to fit within that explanatory framework. But there's a fundamental problem with that, because to do so requires treating 'res cogitans' as an object - which it never is. There is no object anywhere called 'mind'. You can only deal with the question if you can conceive of the subject of the question in objective terms. — Wayfarer

And that is why Idealism is not used in science. I was wondering if you knew of some evidence based model I was unaware of, but it appears not. With that, the entire conversation has lead me to conclude the following from our discussion:

You are arguing with outdated philosophy. Philosophy is only useful if it is rational, and based upon our current understanding of the world. Your current philosophy, which is based on outdated and disproven models, is not rational. When certain philosophies have been disproved, they are fun to study for history, but are useless for practice. Philosophies become outdated all the time, and people can fall prey too them if they are unaware of their flaws.

Phlogiston theory is a good example of a failed philosophy. Phlogiston theory was a competing theory about how things caught on fire with the oxygen theory of chemistry. Lots of fun rationals were made with Phlogiston theory, but in the end, its lack of consistent evidential framework failed, and oxygen theory remained.

Further, you seem to be confusing models of understanding consciousness with the idea that these models are claiming consciousness is somehow separate from the mind, and is not physical in origin. All of modern science has concluded that consciousness coming from the mind is the most rational theory that we have. There is no viable model out there that states consciousness is separate from the brain's function. Any that try to are phlogiston theories at this point.

Now if you want to stick with phlogiston philosophy for fun, that's fine. People will believe what they want to believe at the end of the day. I've enjoyed the conversation to see if you had anything new or viable. I did learn a couple of new ideas and models from you, and thank you for your citations. Unfortunately, nothing you've presented counters the evidence based models that science has provided in modern day. So for me? I will stick with the evidence based models of the modern day.

I view "the hard problem" as not really a "problem". All its really doing is stating, "Figuring out how your subjective consciousness maps to your brain in an exact and repeatable model is hard."

Well, yeah. I think some people take the wrong conclusions from it. It doesn't mean consciousness doesn't originate from your brain. We all know it does. But do we have a model that states, "If I send 3 nanos of dopamine to cell number 1,234,562 in quadrent 2 you'll see a red dog?" Not yet.

The hard problem is simply predicting its difficulty. Part of philosophies job is to form ideas and examine if they are rational to pursue. If we consider the complexity of the mind, and the fact we would have to rely on subjective experience to create an exact model of consciousness for all things, its complexity is likely outside of our current technical and scientific know how today.

This is why people are trying to construct different models of consciousness that can avoid this problem of "exactness". Which is pretty normal. When people meet limits, build what you can regardless.

Can you really think of a scenario where you'd have zero justification though? — Isaac

Yes. I've formed beliefs that just sprang up out of nowhere. Usually I evaluate them afterwards. Sometimes though I have blurted out beliefs without thinking about them. They were not justified, more like emotional expressions. I believe justification requires some type of evaluation of your belief. It is very easy to commit to beliefs without any evaluation of them.

I just wanted to add that you provided a very nice analysis.

Government forbidding or not, what does this have to do with people respecting other peoples exercising their right to vote to suppress other people's rights to vote? Not trying to be hostile, just curious about this answer. — The Questioning Bookworm

No hostility taken! =) Please always point out where I might err or be criticized. I would never grow as a person otherwise.

This is how I see the system: A government determines how the citizenry will be governed, and what they can, and cannot do. The government ultimately determines whether voting is a thing its citizens can do. The government determines whether you have a right, or do not have a right. I am not isolating this to America. You might have an age requirement, land ownership requirements, citizenship requirement, etc. The government can also restrict what you can, and cannot vote on. You cannot vote on something that has not been proposed by a representative in America for example.

If a government decides, "You can vote at any time to take away the rights of certain citizens to vote", then if a person casts that vote, it is to be respected within that governmental democracy. If a government does not give any such citizen the right to take away the voting rights of others, then it should not be respected by the government.

As a real life example, different states in America have different rules for allowing felons to vote. Perhaps a state proposes a vote that forbids pedophile's from voting on state legislation. We should respect all votes. But lets say that the state proposes a vote that forbids all black people from voting in the presidential election. The US Federal government does not allow people to vote on that. So no matter the outcome of the vote, none of the votes are respected because they are not allowed by the government.

I suppose I'm using "respect" as "uphold the validity" of the vote. Now if you personally disrespect a person because of what they vote for, that's perfectly fine. But if you're asking if we should forbid or discount votes that are allowed by the government, but that we personally disagree with, I disagree. Does it make sense where I'm coming from?

On my account, you were weakly justified to believe your friend went on a date at first, and then when observation that could have falsified that didn't, your justification increased. It's difficult to state that in the terminology of "knowledge", because it's odd to say something like you "knew a little" at first and then "knew a lot" later. — Pfhorrest

Hm, I understand that is a consequence of your proposal, but does that make sense? I had zero justification for believing my friend dated a woman the night before. It was just a random belief. And I think that's the problem with your proposal. If you are to state knowledge is something we simply haven't had refuted yet, you allow beliefs without justification to be declared as knowledge.

And at that point, you allow all untested beliefs as knowledge. A "belief" then can only exist if one is shown their belief is contradicted. Because if all beliefs that are not contradicted are knowledge, they're not really just beliefs anymore right? This also results in all beliefs being against knowledge. Considering you agree with Popper, I don't think that is the conclusion you are intending to draw.

It depends on the limitations of the government. If the government forbids this, then no. If the government allows this, then yes.

I have always viewed life as a concentrated set of chemical and physical reactions that seeks to renew itself.

The sun is a chemical and physical reaction of gravity and burning hydrogen. Eventually, it will run out. But the sun does not seek to replenish itself. It will run out without any attempt to stop it.

A life on the other hand seeks water and food, things it needs to continue its chemical and physical reaction. When it can no longer do this by obtaining food and water, it does this by making a new copy of itself, or reproduction.

Once a life can no longer renew itself, the reaction ceases, and it is dead.

So yes, we can exist as life, and our life can die.

And you're simply assuming the opposite. And, what is 'physical', anyway? What does it mean? — Wayfarer

No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm taking what we know, which is that the physical brain produces consciousness. One thing you have not done is shown any evidence that it can be anything other than this. I'm not talking about theories, but facts. I have asked you a few times now, "If the mind is not physical, what is it?" I have already said what physical is, but I'll say it again. Matter and energy. Einstein confirmed that they are the same thing, just expressed in different forms.

My point, exactly. Can't be fit into the bottom-up scenario. — Wayfarer

You conveniently ignored the parts about placebo's we do know. I'm not talking about a bottom/top scenario. I'm talking about the brain processing and parts of that being consciousness. Consciousness works within the brain. It is not above it, or below it. Its like molecules of water reacting to the wind. Waves form. Molecules are part of the water. They explain the fundamentals of why the water reacts at a molecular level, but they are not below or above the water itself.

Have you ever heard Karl Popper's expresssion 'the promissory notes of materialism'? This refers to the tendency to say in just such cases, 'hey, science hasn't figured it out yet, but we will! It's just a matter of time!' — Wayfarer

The science of brain and consciousness is not binary. Its not, "We understand it all, or we understand none". We understand plenty of parts that show the mind is produced by the brain. When you alter the brain, you alter the mind. We're still figuring out to the science what exactly that entails. We have flashes of light here and there, but designing THE scientific process for how consciousness and the brain works is still in progress. I have asked you a few times now, and you still have not answered this vital question to your ideology. If consciousness is not the brains inner workings, what is it? Give me facts, evidence, a viable theory. If you can't, saying, "Well I just doubt it," is not a rational argument. We can express doubt about anything. What I am looking for is viable and rational alternatives.

— Wikipedia (For Chalmers) — Wayfarer

When people debate the meaning of philosophers even as old as Descartes, I don't think Wikipedia is a good source of summing up his philosophy. I'm going to post the first sentence of the Chalmer's paragraph again.

A nonreductive theory of consciousness will consist in a number of psychophysical principles, principles connecting the properties of physical processes to the properties of experience. We can think of these principles as encapsulating the way in which experience arises from the physical. — Philosophim

These are not ontologically distinct. These are descriptors that ultimately connect to the physical process. Water is molecules of H20, but we don't refer to water as H20. We say it has waves, flows, etc. But all of these terms are reducible to the molecular make up and laws of H20. That is all Chalmers is saying. He is NOT saying "Water" is different from "Molecules of H20". It is a different way of describing the mass of H20 molecules, basically a different measurement scale. Inches instead of millimeters. Even though one is feet, and the other is meters, they are different descriptors of "length" that describe the same thing. Perhaps in this we could call inches ontologically distinct from millimeters, but not the thing they are both measuring.

— Howard Pattee — Wayfarer

In other words, because semantic and semiotic laws can't be derived from physical laws. — Wayfarer

You have drawn the wrong conclusions from biosemiotics. They are talking about a conceptual model, not that the conceptual model does is not separated from physical laws. They're just saying the current conceptual model of physics is not adequate to describe the physical process of life.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-009-9042-8
"The solution proposed by Pattee, in short, is that signs and codes do not require new laws of physics, because they are a special type of constraints and constraints are an integral part of normal physical theory. The whole argument is developed in three logical steps: (1) life requires evolvable self-replication (a biological principle), (2) evolvability requires symbolic control of self-replication (von Neumann), and (3) physics requires that symbols and codes are special types of constraints (Pattee).

This proposal is undoubtedly a form of biosemiotics, because it states that semiosis exists in every living cell, and since it is based on the idea that signs and codes are physical constraints, it can be referred to as physical-constraint biosemiotics, or, more simply, as physical biosemiotics (Pattee himself, in a private correspondence with the author, has accepted that this is an adequate name for his approach)."

Models to describe systems are constantly being proposed and used. Again, the molecular model of water versus the flow model of water are two different ways of identifying and communicating the underlying physical reality. No where is Pattee claiming that the model of biosemetics supercedes or replaces the underlying physics.

So again, I sense a lack of understanding of what all of these conceptual models and word choices are about. All evidence points to consciousness being a function of the brain. No evidence points otherwise. Current physical models have a difficulty in marrying our generic concept of consciousness with the mechanics of the brain. Many models are proposed that can marry these two in such a way that it is easier to conceive of what is happening. BUT, they do not supercede the underlying physics, and should ultimately reduce to physical reality.

I appreciate the citations and information you've put forward. It has been a good conversation. But I can show you exactly what I would need to doubt the idea that consciousness does not result from the brain.

1. Provide an evidence based model that shows consciousness as necessarily existing apart from the brain. One that does not, and cannot, reduce down to the physical reality of the brain.

Because everything I know of reduces down to an evidence based model that shows consciousness as necessarily originating from the brain. If you can provide one, and it withstands an examination, I will concede that consciousness may be separate from the brain. If not, then I have no rational choice but to accept that consciousness is a function of the brain.

If you are engaging in philosophy, you are expecting your ideas to be exposed to pointed and rational criticism. Often the ideas of comfort are those that we don't want exposed to that criticism. If you wish to live with a comfortable idea that is not critiqued, then that's your choice. But its not philosophy.

Because, if it were a purely physical process, then intentionality would have no impact on it. In those experiments where a conscious mental activity causes changes to the brain structure, then the changes are brought about by a conscous act, not by a physical cause. If I tell you something that has physical consequences, that is different to my hitting you or giving you a physical substance. Intentionality is not a physical thing. — Wayfarer

I don't see your conclusion being rational. You're assuming that consciousness is not a physical process, therefore consciousness cannot be a physical process. The brain can communicate amongst its cells, and produce different outcomes through a physical process. You have shown nowhere where this is not the case.

I think what you might be missing is the idea of input and output, versus the processing in the brain itself. The brain changes based on internal processing, input, and output. Your sensory receivers of sight and sound are inputs. Your brain takes those inputs and molds them into something it can interpret. But sight and sound don't affect the brain directly, its the interpretation of that light and sound. The brain needs that physical light and sound to touch its physical nerves, which travel up the physical pathways to touch the physical neurons. A person can lose an input like sight or sound, but still the brain processes up there.

I'm sensing your view of neuroscience is outdated considering who you are citing. The philosophy of mind is an aside to modern day neuroscience. The idea of something apart from the physical brain is based on ignorance or superstition at this point. I'm also sensing you're focusing too much on humans. Think of a dog sitting around and scheming how to get the food off the table. A spider constructing a complex web. These are all physical beings that we attribute no extra essence to. It is the reality we live in.

I think you also misunderstand the placebo affect. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

"Placebos won't lower your cholesterol or shrink a tumor. Instead, placebos work on symptoms modulated by the brain, like the perception of pain. "Placebos may make you feel better, but they will not cure you," says Kaptchuk. "They have been shown to be most effective for conditions like pain management, stress-related insomnia, and cancer treatment side effects like fatigue and nausea."

This is often attributed to the idea that pain and fatigue are indicators that you need to rest or take care of yourself. If you can fool the brain into thinking its being taken care of, its wasteful to keep sending these signals out. But it doesn't actually cure you. This is still a physical process. "How placebos work is still not quite understood, but it involves a complex neurobiological reaction that includes everything from increases in feel-good neurotransmitters, like endorphins and dopamine, to greater activity in certain brain regions linked to moods, emotional reactions, and self-awareness."

It (Self-repair) is never observed in non-living matter. — Wayfarer

Ah, this is a simple misunderstanding between life and non-life. We're both made up of matter and energy. Life is a serious of complex chemical reactions that seeks to sustain its chemical reactions. A sun does not seek more hydrogen as it burns out. Therefore it is non-life. Anything which seeks to sustain its own reaction by seeking out a replacement for what it is burned, is called life. But its all the same matter underneath.

Go back to this post about the 'neural binding problem'. — Wayfarer

There is a paragraph in the first Chalmer's paper you linked me. "A nonreductive theory of consciousness will consist in a number of psychophysical principles, principles connecting the properties of physical processes to the properties of experience. We can think of these principles as encapsulating the way in which experience arises from the physical. Ultimately, these principles should tell us what sort of physical systems will have associated experiences, and for the systems that do, they should tell us what sort of physical properties are relevant to the emergence of experience, and just what sort of experience we should expect any given physical system to yield. This is a tall order, but there is no reason why we should not get started."

Even Chalmers is not claiming that consciousness is not separate from the physical. He understands that consciousness rises out of physical processes.

The Neural binding problem is only mentioning that we have not found the process by which the brain takes all of the visual information for example, and processes it into what we "see". It is merely noting that it is difficult to do so, and is in its infancy. The neural binding problem is not a claim there was an alternative to consciousness coming from the brain. It is merely identifying the difficulties of figuring out the exact process, and the challenges that it entails.

Everything points to consciousness being the physical process of the brain. We're trying to figure out exactly how that works right now, but there are no theories in science which are studying the consciousness as if it is somehow separate and not formed from the brain. Feel free to show me some if you know of them.

The rest of your statements are just a lack of understanding. Neuroplasticity is a very physical action that has limits on what it can do. Laws are a recognition of reality, and logic is a fundamental understanding of reality. 3 is greater than 2 because my brain can process the language of the numbers, represent the objects, and understands how to compare. Even a dog can observe the concept of greater and lesser.

Just because you don't understand neuronal activity, does not mean that it does not produce the things we all experience in reality. I do not understand your viewpoint. Concepts are physical results of your brain, within the brain itself. Maybe a comparison can help. Basic computer code is 1's and 0's. We can limit the expression of these 1's and 0's to 8 bits, and read the order of those 8 bits to represent different things. The computer represents its internal processing reality to these bits. It takes a TV to display those bits into something we understand. Will we ever understand the personal experience of a computer that is programmed to monitor itself? No, that experience can only be done with 1's and 0's, which we don't process in. But we do know those 1's and 0's build the computer program we are using and seeing. There is nothing magical or fantastical going on, its all just a physical process.

HippyHead, why are you posting this in the forums? You can personal message any of the moderators and state your opinion. This smacks of unnecessary drama, and a personal grudge.

All good Darkneos. I'm glad its working out for you! There is no shame in feeling a certain way and searching for answers. There are plenty of things we've all thought that are silly on hind sight, and I'm sure many today that will be silly in the future. =D

It is now known that neuroplasticity enables the brain to regain from a lot of damage by re-purposing. In those cases, the mind changes the brain - it's top-down causation. If physicalism were the case, this ought not to happen. — Wayfarer

Neuroplasticity has been known for decades. It is a physical process. If the "mind" repaired itself with no change to the brain, then you would have evidence of something apart from the brain. This "repairing" is also a remapping of neuron signals, not the growth of new brain cells. The plasticity of cells, and their ability to regulate in a community are well known. Why do you think your skin doesn't just continue growing and taking over? When you get a cut, its not your brain that tells your skin cells to divide. Its the activity of the cells themselves. You say "mind" as if it is something apart from the brain. That doesn't make any sense based on cellular biology. What evidence do you have that there is something separate from the brain?

There have been experiments where subjects have shown changes in brain matter simply by conducting thought experiments, such as imagining they're learning to play the piano (with no actual piano). So in those cases, and there are many, the mind shapes the brain. They are an example of top-down causation, which physicalism can't accomodate — Wayfarer

This example actually disproves physicalism. If a person was able to learn or do something WITHOUT a change in brain matter, then you would have something. The change in the brain means its obviously a physical change. Drawing any other conclusion is pulling something in we have no evidence of. Don't even include learning. When you do something, the brain fires away. We know we need it to actually do things. We know we have nerves that send information to the brain. The brain reacts and physically responds to outside stimulous. But there is no "mind" apart from the brains functioning here.

Ever heard of Wilder Penfield? — Wayfarer

No, I looked him up. First his conclusions are 60+ years old. That is a terrible reference when we've discovered so much today. Second, this was his opinion with clear falsification that was not tested. I found his reasons explored here: https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/why-pioneer-neurosurgeon-wilder-penfield-said-the-mind-is-more-than-the-brain/

So this post doesn't blow apart, the commonality between all three reasons is that he was unable to simulate rational thinking or agency. Which of course he wasn't. Rational thinking and agency are formed by several neurons being simulated and communicating with one another. A light electric shock on the surface of the brain is not accessing the entire complexity of the brain. His conclusion makes sense with the knowledge of the 50's, but does not make sense today.

Eccles is another person who proposed opinions in the 60's that he could also not confirm. Neuroscience from the 60's is an entire generation ago. To to examine him:

https://dana.org/article/neuroscience-and-the-soul/#:~:text=Eccles%20hypothesized%20that%20the%20liaison,was%20a%20kind%20of%20consciousness.
"To justify his hypotheses, it was necessary for Eccles to assume that contemporary physics could not detect, measure, or predict the supposed mental forces. In his Nature essay, he suggested that, while waiting for physics to improve, we should take note of “well-controlled experiments that give evidence that there is a two-way traffic between mind and the matter-energy system,” and went on to assert that “psychokinetic experiments leave little doubt that very slight changes can be produced by some minds on moving physical objects such as dice.” To support his hypothesis of nonphysical causation, Eccles also added the claims of extrasensory perception (ESP).3 In retrospect, these arguments seem weak; well-controlled experiments with ESP have repeatedly failed to support the claims of its exponents."

Finally,

What about, for instance, meaning. You can't get from 'the laws which govern molecules and energy' (i.e. physics, organic chemistry, etc) to 'the laws which govern semantics'. — Wayfarer

Yes you can. We know that there are certain parts of the brain that allow a person to grasp language. Animals and insects which lack these aspects of the brain are unable to communicate using language.
https://www.headway.org.uk/about-brain-injury/individuals/effects-of-brain-injury/communication-problems/language-impairment-aphasia/

Aphasia is the term for when a person has brain damage that limits their ability to communicate.

Whew! Long post. I can address the point about the hard problem later, but this is enough for now. I find the points you provided do not rationally lead to the idea of a mind existing outside of the brain. Feel free to cite more if you have it.

I don’t see the apparent contradiction. Can you elaborate? — Pfhorrest

Sure, you seemed to imply that any belief was justified, but then came and marked out "justified belief". Your explanation of Popper falsification cleared up the issue.

I’m basically applying the same standard of justification to belief as we usually do to action, at least in the modern free world: any action is by default justified, until it can be shown somehow wrong. We’re not obligated to do nothing at all except those things that we can prove from the ground up that we must do. We would normally consider than an absurd standard for justifying our actions, but it’s all too common to apply that standard to justifying our beliefs. — Pfhorrest

Hm. I think you've just put forward beliefs which haven't been disproven yet. Lets say I believe my friend Joe dated a woman yesterday. I ask him, "How did your date go last night?" supremely confident that he would date someone, just because I believe he would. No evidence, nothing. Joe replies, "It went great!"

Are we to say that I knew Joe dated a woman last night before I confirmed it? Popperian justification requires that we apply our beliefs, that they must be able to be falsified, and we must try to do so. Otherwise you're saying even induction is knowledge. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent at this point, so feel free to correct me if I am.

You really should read this review. — Wayfarer

The article I referenced was from 2019 and from 60 minutes, which is not a slouch in its reporting. I did read the published article that cast doubt on fmri studies, and its follow up corrections which pulled back much of its accusations.

But if fmri's aren't enough for you, here's another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_achromatopsia#:~:text=Cerebral%20achromatopsia%20is%20a%20type,the%20disorders%20are%20completely%20distinct.

Basically this is color blindness caused through brain damage. There's an interesting note about an artist who gained this later in life.

"Mr. I. could hardly bear the changed appearances of people ("like animated gray statues") any more than he could bear his own changed appearance in the mirror: he shunned social intercourse and found sexual intercourse impossible. He saw people's flesh, his wife's flesh, his own flesh, as an abhorrent gray; "flesh-colored" now appeared "rat-colored" to him.This was so even when he closed his eyes, for his preternaturally vivid ("eidetic") visual imagery was preserved but now without color, and forced on him images, forced him to "see" but see internally with the wrongness of his achromatopsia. He found foods disgusting in their grayish, dead appearance and had to close his eyes to eat. But this did not help very much, for the mental image of a tomato was as black as its appearance."

There's also the famous case of Gineus Phage, who's entire personality changed after having a rod blow through his brain and actually living through it.

Not to mention the countless medical studies in fixing mental illnesses like depression and others. Your brain is what shapes you. Just like a dogs brain shapes it. A monkeys brain shapes it. There is no underlying non-physical process causing dogs, monkeys, and humans to think. Damage the brain, you damage the mind. Feel free to post alternatives.

However...what about the much-talked-about concept of qualia in re consciousness that seems to be last remaining stronghold of dualism? Do you think the redness of a strawberries changes with age? :chin: — TheMadFool

If the parts of the brain that process "redness" decay, break, or lose functionality, then yes. I see this in my parents. My mother's taste in colors have changed over the years. From liking bright colors she now desires dark and muted ones. The only conclusion I can draw is that these colors give her a different feeling now, or "qualia" (experience?).

In the more extreme cases, there is documentation of Cerebral achromatopsia, or color blindness through brain damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_achromatopsia#The_case_of_the_colorblind_painter
"Cerebral achromatopsia is a type of color-blindness caused by damage to the cerebral cortex of the brain, rather than abnormalities in the cells of the eye's retina. It is often confused with congenital achromatopsia[1] but underlying physiological deficits of the disorders are completely distinct. A similar, but distinct, deficit called color agnosia exists in which a person has intact color perception (as measured by a matching task) but has deficits in color recognition, such as knowing which color they are looking at."

Of particular note, a painter became color blind through brain damage and the following snippet is cited.

"Mr. I. could hardly bear the changed appearances of people ("like animated gray statues") any more than he could bear his own changed appearance in the mirror: he shunned social intercourse and found sexual intercourse impossible. He saw people's flesh, his wife's flesh, his own flesh, as an abhorrent gray; "flesh-colored" now appeared "rat-colored" to him. This was so even when he closed his eyes, for his preternaturally vivid ("eidetic") visual imagery was preserved but now without color] and forced on him images, forced him to "see" but see internally with the wrongness of his achromatopsia. He found foods disgusting in their grayish, dead appearance and had to close his eyes to eat. But this did not help very much, for the mental image of a tomato was as black as its appearance.

So from this it does appear that his ability to experience the qualia of colors was also gone.

This leads to an infinite regress. You never end up getting at any fundamental understanding if it is always a step lower than your present understanding. Fundamental understanding would be fleeting and unattainable. This leaves us with simply understanding, and some understanding is only useful in a particular domain. Any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental understanding is incoherent. — Harry Hindu

Yep, we're just talking semantics. In trying to craft systems you oftentimes limit how far you go. Think of meter stick only recording millimeters. Millimeters are all you need for your purposes, so the fundamental measurement of a meterstick is millimeters. Same thing when we're talking about consciousness versus the brains function that creates consciousness. We can see consciousness as the meter stick, and the brains functions as the fundamental measurement of that consciousness.

Don't overcomplicate it. Water is a group of H20 molecules. The fundamentals of water when speaking on the atomic level are the interactions of atoms. Or whatever particular base you wish to speak about. Fundamental is a word that we used based on our context, nothing more.

What exactly do you mean by "arises from the brain"?
What exactly do you mean by "caused by their interaction?

Is it a temporal or spatial change that you are talking about? In other words, does the change occur over time, or over space? — Harry Hindu

All changes are over space, and space is temporal. You cannot have a change without space or time. An meaningful interaction is when one or more states interact to create a new state. So if a group of neurons fire to produce the conscious experience of feeling happy using dopamine and other technical brain processes, your consciousness feels happy.

Brains and their neurons are what are seen, so what would it mean for the sight of a brain to be in the brain? — Harry Hindu

How you see sight in your brain, is how you see sight in your brain. When the neurons fire as a group passing messages to one another, that entire process within you is what is letting you be conscious. This is internal to the system.

So I code for a living, so let me give you an example from here. Everything in your computer is 1 and 0. If I open up the hard drive, I don't see the game I've saved to my desktop. When I attack an enemy on screen, I can look at the internals of the computer and just see a lot of 1's and zero's all going through logic gates. This then emits into other parts of the system which is interpreted to create new things like the controller input, or the visual on your TV.

The only reason we see a visual representation is because we interpreted the 1's and 0's with something that emits a visual picture. Your brain is not emitting a visual picture. There is no light that emerges for us to "see". Your brain processes and creates your existence within the medium of the brain. Your "picture" is internal to this system.

Now, if we want to see a visual of what we are thinking, we would have to learn what the internal mechanism is doing, then translate it into a medium of sight. Researchers have already begun to do this with reading people's minds when they think of objects. Here is an example. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/functional-magnetic-resonance-imaging-computer-analysis-read-thoughts-60-minutes-2019-11-24/

Above, they were able to locate the place in the brain that lit up when people thought the word, "Screwdriver". This is reading the 1's and 0's. There is a further experiment that found out what numbers people were thinking by reading the brain, then hooked those results up to an audio device that "spoke" the number.

But 1's and 0's are not light emittance. I can't see the visual of what's going on. I can look at the process and see what results in the system. Your "sight" in your brain is not "light". Its not emitting a picture. There's no sound in your brain either. Its the interpretation of sound into a meaningful experience within your brain. If you want it expressed as sound, it has to be emitted as a particular vibration of air.

So, the brain does not emit light or sound. It processes external stimulous like light and vibrating air waves to construct a meaningful picture within itself, or consciousness. From my background, this is readily easy to understand, but if you are not familiar with processes like this, perhaps it is not easy to comprehend. This is not a slight on yourself, I'm just hoping this is a meaningful way of communicating what is going on.

Then what does it mean to be "physical"? If everything were "physical" then "physical" seems like a useless term. — Harry Hindu

Space is not physical. Where there is no matter or energy, we have "emptiness". So the term physical is very useful. If you wish to introduce a different term, feel free, as long as there is evidence for it.

While there are some people who are asking questions just to ask questions, there are plenty of people looking for answers to. You find them all over the board. =) Sometimes questions are repeated because new people have not found the answer yet. But I think you can find plenty of people are finding their own answers here and there.

Knowledge is merely justified belief, where justification itself implies a reason to think it is true; — Pfhorrest

any belief is justified (including contrary ones) until there is support to the contrary — Pfhorrest

Ok, I just wanted to make sure this was what you really believed, as on its face, it seemed contradictory.

I'm surprised you've never visited my thread here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1

I essentially start with the same Popper premise, but flesh out what justification entails. You might like it. And if you don't read it, that's fine to, just an invitation.

The "parts" and "wholes" are comparisons of views, or a comparison of measuring scales, like comparing millimeters to light-years and nano-seconds to centuries. Each of these measurements "make up" the larger scales, but those smaller measurements just aren't useful on such large scales, and vice versa. So I would reject your use of "fundamental" and instead say that there are certain scales that are useful, depending on what purpose we are trying to achieve. — Harry Hindu

We may be in agreement here, and differ only in semantics. Atomic theory is fundamental to the understanding of molecules. Quantum theory is fundamental to the study of atoms. What is fundamental is what is the directly prior set of rules and causality that arise to the current focus of study. What is fundamental to consciousness is the functioning of the brain.

I think you misunderstood. Brains are not molecular-sized objects. Neurons are. And neurons are made up of atoms, which are made up of quarks. A brain is a part of an organism. Organisms are part of a social group or species, etc. Between which layer does consciousness lie, and how do you explain the causal relationship between the upper and lower (underpinning) layers? — Harry Hindu

I hope the prior explanation answers this as well. Consciousness arises from the brain. No where else. You do not need to be around other people to be conscious. The causal explanation is also the same as you mentioned. Atoms cause molecules by their interaction. Molecules cause neuronal cells by their interaction. Neuronal cells cause a brain. And certain parts of the brain cause consciousness. This is straight forward science.

You said before that I am my brain, but now you say that I am merely one part of my brain. — Harry Hindu

Yes, so prior I was speaking in general terms. As in, mind/brain. The brain is composed of several different functioning sections that serve the body in different way. Sight is located in a different area then sound for example. Higher level thought is in the Neo Cortex, while the most primitive of bodily functions are handled by the brain stem. That is why a person can still breath even though they are in a coma.

Technically, consciousness would be the same. Certain areas of the brain create consciousness, while others do not.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaat7603
Here is a study on human consciousness in which we are mapping the locations of the brain.

Unfortunately, I don't see the contradiction. — Harry Hindu

You seem to be equating a mind as something different from the physical brain. It is not. No mind can exist without a brain. I was pointing out that you noted whether we examine something from a distance or close, its functionally the same thing. Thus brain and mind are the same.

Are choices "physical"? — Harry Hindu

Absolutely. Everything is physical Harry. What is there that is not physical? Do you think that when an ant makes a choice, it is not physical? When a cell chooses to eat another that there is some extra universal essence at play? A dog has a consciousness right? Mice, lizards, etc. We are made up of cells, which are molecules, and atoms. So is every living creature. Its all matter and energy.

Finally, your consciousness is physical. You can prove it right now. Stand up and walk somewhere. Look back. Is your consciousness where you just were? Or is it where you are now? It resides up there with you. You have to feed it and take care of it, or it grows weak, becomes confused, and dies. Make sure to use it well before its expiration date.

I'm extremely worried that it might be read as a theory in itself, whereas it's meant more as an illustration that on-going, high-profile research in a field that is itself a tad loosey-goosey shows that there is a lot of obvious potential for massive paradigm shifts in some pretty fundamental areas. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, you start off with the implication that you're going to discuss determinism, and by the end all I got were several different theories of big bang cosmology. =D

The idea that black holes sucked up the universe, then exploded into a big bang again has been around for decades at least. I suppose what is exciting is the actual science to back up the theories? What is the major cosmology shift you see in all of this?

Hi Baden, I guess I don't rhyme well with people in here, with my unorthodox thoughts. — Konkai

Konkai, I don't believe you have offended anyone. When you come to a philosophy forum, expect to have your ideas and beliefs challenged. We come to challenge, and be challenged by others. It can be painful to learn that our ideas are not widely accepted by others, and also painful to realize that others may be right.

But if you want to be a successful, intelligent, and rational person, such experiences are necessary for growth. You're young, and your feelings are completely understandable. Take it from us old timers who have been exactly where you are right now. You are not being judged or hated. You are being challenged so you will think about your beliefs in a more fully examined way.

But you are not a troll, your words are not worthless, and you are perfectly welcome and encouraged to stay.

Sadly, the brain does decay with time over aging. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596698/

"The effects of ageing on the brain and cognition are widespread and have multiple aetiologies. Ageing has its effects on the molecules, cells, vasculature, gross morphology, and cognition. As we age our brains shrink in volume, particularly in the frontal cortex. As our vasculature ages and our blood pressure rises the possibility of stroke and ischaemia increases and our white matter develops lesions. Memory decline also occurs with ageing and brain activation becomes more bilateral for memory tasks. This may be an attempt to compensate and recruit additional networks or because specific areas are no longer easily accessed."

Your brain will age and decay like your skin, your muscles, and every other part of you. Wisdom is not the only reason older people act the way they do. You will become dumber, slower, and make poorer conclusions and connections. New things will bother you more as your inability to quickly grasp them will frustrate you.

It is a terrifying prospect that every single one of us will face. Of course, due to your cognitive decline, you may very well be unaware of your lower level of intelligence. There is a reason 70 year old people are not often on the forefront of new discoveries and creativity.

I can't fool myself and say that one of these two scenarios can be suitable to my nature.
How do I know this?
I simply can't relate, speaking logically, the set of the various action/reaction rules that defines my nature/being... with such scenarios :( — KerimF

There is nothing wrong with this. Every one of us has our own path to walk, and outlook on life. At the end of the day, it is about whether our outlooks make us be better or worse people in life. You seem to be a fantastic individual KerimF, so it seems to work for you.

But our own personal views for what works for us do not necessarily work for others. I think you realize that too. It has been great to converse with you. =)

My response to this problem is similar to that of Robert Nozick: I say that knowledge is believing something because it is true, such that not only does one believe it, and it is true, but if it weren't true one wouldn't believe it. — Pfhorrest

Lets go over why this doesn't work.

1. People believe in things that aren't true all the time, but believe they are true.
2. People believe in things that aren't true, and ALSO do not have any contradictions to their conclusion that is true, based on a lack of evidence or critical thought.
3. The only way to know that what they believe isn't true, is to have an "outside observer" who knows the actual truth.
4. But if 1 and 2 are the case, then how can we trust the outside observer? Couldn't they also have the issue of 2? How do we know they aren't the same as 2? Meaning we haven't really discovered knowledge, because our current proposal has a giant hole it cannot fix.

The issue is trying to state that knowledge is a 100% grasp of the truth. Knowledge is a tool of rationality. It is our best approach to claiming the truth, much better than mere inductive beliefs. Basically, knowledge is a rational conclusion from the limited evidence and thought capability that we have. But it must always have the caveat that it is a conclusion that might lack the whole picture. While the only thing we can rationally conclude within the picture is likely the best course of action, we must always be open to the fact that we do not have the entire picture.

The "small component parts" would still be part of the "illusion", so Dennett can't ever escape his own visual illusion - even when talking about "fundamental" parts of a whole. His and your explanation sound visual to me. You can only hypothesize about the components by observing the "illusion" — Harry Hindu

I agree 100%. I am merely trying to break down what Dennet is saying. It doesn't mean I agree with him. I would define things as "Identities for particular purposes". Dennet isn't interested in studying the identity of consciousness as a personal experience, because he's not a psychologist. He's trying to get to the mechanical underpinnings that lead directly to consciousness. Of course, the mechanical underpinnings of the mind have further underpinnings like chemistry and physics. Even the atoms break down into quarks and electrons. Now Dennet may need fundamental chemistry to understand the mechanical processes, but he generally doesn't need that to observe how the mechanical processes work.

Of course, a psychologist or sociologist might be more interested in how consciousnesses work together. At that point, you don't necessarily need to understand the underlying physical workings of consciousness, just its expression. The identification becomes important depending on what you're trying to find out. In Dennets case, he's trying to find the underpinnings behind the personal consciousness we experience. So of course the result is not his concern, but the cause.

In

But what if consciousness doesn't operate at the molecular level? — Harry Hindu

That would need to be proven. So far, all every bit of scientific evidence points to consciousness being a physical process of the mind. You can zap a brain with electricity and change what a person is sensing and feeling. Check out videos and records when people have to have open brain surgery. Look up Phineus Gage https://www.verywellmind.com/phineas-gage-2795244

You are your brain. There is zero evidence that there is something separate from molecules and energy. Beyond Dennet, there is no, "what if" about this. Now if you wish to believe there is a soul or something separate, that's fine. Personally believe what you want to get you through your day and be a good person. But that is a personal belief, and has no basis in fact or reality. This is indisputable at this point in our scientific understanding. Any objection to this has no grounds in reality.

Observing a process from far away vs close up changes the way the process appears, but it is still the same process. The difference is not based the observed process being different from different vantage points, but our sensory systems' relationship with the process being different from different vantage points. — Harry Hindu

It's not other brains out there (naive realism), it's other minds, and brains are how some consciousness measures other minds (indirect realism). — Harry Hindu

Do you see the contradiction you made? You made the same mistake you just warned me about. There is no separation between mind and brain. When we observe it at a particular level, we see a brain. When we measure our personal experience, we observe a mind. But they're really just the same thing, looked at in a different way.

Of course to get TECHNICAL, we could say that the mind is merely one part of the brain. After all, there's a lot going on there that we don't really have any say or control over. So far I haven't been able to control my digestion or fat storage production. That's all regulated by the brain, but not the mind part of my brain.

But the mind part of the brain is a physical real thing. If we understand the mechanics behind it, we could understand how we work a lot better.

Ok, after reading your reply, I think I understand your real issue.

Your issue isn't Solipsism. Your issue is epistemology.

I want to pose to you a question. How do you know anything? What is the difference between belief and rational conclusions?

You are applying this question right now to "solipsism", but neglecting to apply it to everything else. Unless you first answer the question, "How do I know anything", then the you cannot know that solipsism is correct, or incorrect. At best right now, solipsism is a belief, and the idea that other people exist is also a belief.

But how do you know the food you eat will not kill you? How do you know the apple you eat tomorrow is still good?

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism.

No, the default here is that our interpretation of reality all exists in our mind. We are very constrained in reality, and need "something" to connect with. We see because light bounces off of objects, and this is provable. Try moving your mind outside of your head. Can't do it can you? There are serious rules and restrictions that require "something else" for us to interact with.

Fortunately we also have science to help us there. I highly suggest googling neuroscience. You should see all of the advancements scientists are making in understanding the brain. Why is this important? Because you'll realize that you and everyone else have a brain. That reactions from people are repeatable. That people need to eat, or they die. You learn that you were born of another person, like everyone else. It turns out that there are things beyond our sensations. That we can LACK a sensation, but still be affected by things in the outside world.

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists.

You can do a very simple experiment. Chat with another person. If they understand you, then you know that they at least think like you in terms of language. You can come across other people who speak in a different language than yourself. You can then learn that language, and find there has been a consistency all along. You could even test this yourself. Record people speaking spainish, learn spainish, then come back later and see that they were speaking something meaningful all along.

Solipsism is mostly the idea that you are the progenitor of the world. That is clearly false. The idea that we interpret the world through our own lens? That's just normal thinking. We all do that. But still, you might be saying, "Yeah, but how do I KNOW?!" And the answer to that is, "How do you know anything?" What separates the link from belief to knowledge? We're back again to epistemology, which is the core of the issue.

In my ramble, I just want to clarify the points.

1. The fact that our minds interpret the world does not mean our minds create the world. We need some "thing" to interpret.

2. The fact that we all interpret the world though our minds, but do not understand other things as they are in themselves, is not solipsism. That's merely a given in how we function.

3. The question of what separates our interpretation of the world as "beliefs" vs. "knowledge" is the question of epistemology. "How do we know other people exist?" is really just one of the many questions of "knowledge". Just like, "How do I know I exist", "This apple exists?" etc.

Conclusion: Start studying epistemology and neuroscience. Then you will be able to answer the real question, "How do I know anything?", which will lead you to the rest of your answers.

Ha ha! I'm glad you didn't take that the wrong way. Really, you've done a magnificent job with what you have.

Now, for what it's worth, I do think that there is a thread within the model that makes it stable across time and context (which is related to logic) — TVCL

I agree with you on a personal and intuitive level. You have a solid foundation which I feel is going to be very difficult for people to find a loose brick in.

Yes, I agree with problem 1. Epistemology is bogged down with a lack of clarity. I believe your proposal is a fantastic solution to problem 1.

Problem 2 is interesting. Back when I started epistemology, I actually began the investigation to know the idea of a God, and prove ethics. The problem was I couldn't prove any of those until I knew what knowledge was!

I believe I understand what you mean though. You are answering the problem, "Why should we seek knowledge?" Because you've realized we don't HAVE to seek knowledge. It is a choice. Please continue, I am interested to read where you want to take this!