An acceptance of Humes assertion that effects are not necessarily or even reasonably 'caused' precludes a subsequent reliance upon the 'scientific method' as a methodology towards 'preference.' It merely encourages particular types of preferences and subsequent hypothesis. — Marcus de Brun

An acceptance of an assertion?

I don't mean to be pedantic, but have you really read Hume?

To repeat myself: "There is no such thing as evidence for a scientific theory."
"We cannot gain direct evidence for [a] cause."

I'm not quite sure why you think this contradicts Hume in any way. It is also standard fare in the Scientific Method.

The basis for this knowledge is the scientific method, which if flawed (as it is) would mean that your use of the word knowledge might be revised to that of 'hypothesis'? — Marcus de Brun

I don't wish to be pedantic, but are you in any way familiar with Popper?

And, yes, we actually do know what causes the sun to shine.

An acceptance of an assertion? — tom

One makes an assertion, and another accepts or rejects an assertion?

I don't wish to be pedantic, but are you in any way familiar with Popper? — tom

No Tom, I know nothing of him or her but will rectify same and revert.

And, yes, we actually do know what causes the sun to shine. — tom

I have only the vaguest notion of what unites the effect sun-'shine' with its cause, or if there is such a cause. I agree that there are events that precede the event 'shine' but I do not think anyone has proven which event if any is the cause.

I am happy that you have some personal or shared certainty here, and I presume you are not including 'me' in the 'we'.

And Tom.... sincere apologies if I have come across as being offensive or some such. I am not great with words.

Your thought and (hopefully not my own thought) on the matter is not the enemy.

I will respond when I have looked at Popper and thank you for the reference.

M

One makes an assertion, and another accepts or rejects an assertion? — Marcus de Brun

Far better that one offers an argument, and the other offers criticism, don't you think?

Anyway, the important thing is that Popper solves Hume's "Problem of Induction" with his Scientific Method, and that knowledge of causes is indeed possible, and always fallible.

George,

I wanted to bring to your attention the following Youtube video by the British neuroscientist Anil Seth:

The Neuroscience of Consciousness

It's a great video because he does some really eye-popping live demonstrations and reviews our current state of experimental knowledge on the issue. Seth considers the "hard problem" too metaphysical, so he says he's more interested in finding and categorizing the neural correlates of conscious states. He has a theory of consciousness in which conscious experience is essentially a predictive process resulting from the body's dynamical interaction with the world.

I am recommending this video to you and everyone else not because I hope to convert you to my cause, but because I hope that seeing this video will get you to think about new issues that you may not have considered before.

Dr. Seth ends the video with two quotes that parody Descartes:

Conscious selfhood emerges because of, and not in spite of, our beast machine nature.

I predict, therefore I am.

It's a great video because he does some really eye-popping live demonstrations and reviews our current state of experimental knowledge on the issue. Seth considers the "hard problem" too metaphysical, so he says he's more interested in finding and categorizing the neural correlates of conscious states. — Uber

A bit like trying to figure out what program is running on a computer by imaging the CPU.

Have you read Karl Friston? He touches on similar themes to what you are describing.

The free energy principle: a unified brain theory?

This push to characterize the global state of the brain through free energy borrows heavily from thermodynamics and also condensed matter theory, where free energies are often used as order parameters that define the macrostates of different phases of matter and energy.

I'm not defending his understanding of the hard problem. But I do think people need to engage more with this issue beyond just considering the metaphysics of the hard problem, which is pretty much the only thing George has done in this entire thread.

Then why does everyone ignore the discovery that all universal computing machines are equivalent, which means that consciousness cannot be caused by neurones?

Seth is not suggesting that consciousness is caused exclusively by neurons. He would say that consciousness emerges from the dynamical interactions between the brain, the body, and the rest of the world. The exact mechanisms are still under study.

Seth is not suggesting that consciousness is caused exclusively by neurons. He would say that consciousness emerges from the dynamical interactions between the brain, the body, and the rest of the world. The exact mechanisms are still under study. — Uber

If that is the case, then why image the brain?

Also, why ignore the fact that tells us there is nothing particular about the brain. Any computationally universal device will do?

Maybe because he wants to learn more about the physical structure and interactions of the brain. He's a neuroscientist. Seth would say that the fact that we're living organisms, and the brain evolved to accommodate our needs as living beings, is what makes it special.

I would recommend that you watch his video. You are starting a pathetic war over nothing. I don't have the answer to every question you can pose while flaming the Internet. I posted a video so people could watch it and maybe learn something.

Anyway, the important thing is that Popper solves Hume's "Problem of Induction" with his Scientific Method, and that knowledge of causes is indeed possible, and always fallible. — tom

Tom

From what I have read of Karl Popper thus far in respect of his "solving" Hume's Problem, I remain entirely unconvinced. Please might you reference the Popper article or paper where you feel he has best achieved this solution? So that we might have an agreed 'Popper- position'.

M

Computer memory is solid state and is designed differently from neural memory. Neural memory is designed by nature to be at high potential, while computer memory is designed to be at low potential. The higher potential neural memory makes it an accident waiting to happen. This is its charm. Evolution was about inducing; sensory systems, harnessing, and structuring these accidents.

An analogy is having two rooms. The first room or computer room has the floor covered in mouse traps that are arranged in a fancy design, but none of the traps are set; low potential computer memory. The neutral room of arranged with mouse traps in another fancy design, but these traps are all set; under potential. If we move one trap in the computer room, we have a slightly new arrangement, If we do the same in the neural room, we can have a chain reaction, with the designed altered all by itself. If we add some inert structural elements, to the original neural design, we can structure the chain reaction.

After many years of contemplation, consciousness appears to be more connected to the brain's water, than to the organic hardware of the brain. Water is critical to the workings of all aspects of life down to individual proteins and including neural memory. The water is fluid but it will align, in part, with the organics. However, unlike the organics, the extended water is not structurally dedicated; solid state. It is more fluid, and therefore can take advantage of the many unique properties of the liquid state when moving neural potential along the organic-water interface.

In water, the hydrogen protons can quantum tunnel, and often do so in pairs, which is very unique. This is an expression of free energy potential, with quantum tunneling having the property of skipping steps in the normal hardware path. The water can sends signal beyond the fixed hardware; induce organic changes. This aspect of the physics borders on the metaphysical.

The main problem is the biological sciences do not give water enough credit in terms of its contribution to life. If we took any aspect of life and removed the water and added any other solvent, nothing works properly and there is no life. If we add water, everything works and life appear. Water has ti finger in every pie. The result of not stressing water enough is the life science tends to fixate on the brain using the assumptions of the solid state; organic structures. The water adds liquid state parameters which adds features not found in solid state models like computers.

The theory of entropy, for example, was originally developed for modeling steam engines. In the early days, when doing an energy balance around a steam engine, there was unaccounted for energy. Entropy was a term to define this unaccountable energy, that was measurable but not part of known theory. This original use of entropy was connected to some of the liquid state paradoxes.

For example, a glass of water open to the air sees air pressure as well as surface tension. The water is under pressure while being in tension. If this was a sold, and you added pressure and tension; push and pull, the net affect is obtained by adding the force vectors.

In the case of the glass of water, tension and pressure are not connected the same way as the solid. They are not exactly force vectors that add. The result is a different math result. If you use solid state assumptions; organic centric, something is missing. The metaphysical explanation senses the missing link, which is connected to liquid state water.

The water can sends signal beyond the fixed hardware; induce organic changes. — wellwisher

Hence, neuroplasticity?

This aspect of the physics borders on the metaphysical. — wellwisher

How so?

The main problem is the biological sciences do not give water enough credit in terms of its contribution to life...The result of not stressing water enough is the life science tends to fixate on the brain using the assumptions of the solid state; organic structures. The water adds liquid state parameters which adds features not found in solid state models like computers. — Wellwisher

Where can I read more about this idea, or related ideas?

One of the greatest neuroscientists of our time, Antonio Damasio, holds the view that consciousness is an emergent state. The following article from MIT gives a quick rundown of his theories.

The Importance of Feelings

I think variations of these views are now widely accepted in neuroscience. In another debate on this forum I cited several books by prominent neuroscientists saying that it's basically impossible to maintain dualism while pretending to care about reality. Materialism has already won. Now it's matter of filling in some (very important) details. — Uber

Details like this ,,, Given:

1) Neural Activity for the Color Red happens
2) A Conscious Red Experience happens

What is the explanation for 1 causing 2?

This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness that has never been answered by the Materialists. It is also the Explanatory Gap. We are no closer to understanding Consciousness now than we were a hundred years ago. The Materialists have won nothing.

I never claimed that the hard problem was solved. In fact I have been very explicit that it has not been solved. But only deliberate ignorance can be the reasom for claiming that we are no less closer to understanding consciousness than we were 100 years ago.

Most of my ideas are grounded on established water science. I have extrapolated this well research science of water, to the questions of life, based on my working knowledge of organic and water chemistry. A good summary of water science can be found at the link below.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html

Water is the most studied material in all of science. Nothing even comes close. Water has been found to be the king of all wild card materials, with over 70 known anomalies. Water breaks a lot of the rules that apply to other materials. Water, in life, has the capacity to add unique variables to the blend, that are not expected, based on the common trends in organic materials which are less anomalous. An organic centric biology does not take these water wild cards into account. It blurs them with statistics. The metaphysical is an attempt to add clarity to this classical materialism blur.

For example, a key water variable, which is critical to life and consciousness, is connected to a fifth force of nature, that can be generated by water at certain water-organic interfaces. This force has traditionally been called the life force. I prefer call it the entropic force, since it is a force that is generated by entropy. This force is not part of four forces of nature of classical physics. However, it can be easily measured, and is evident in osmosis.

Osmosis occurs when you partition water with a semipermeable membrane, such as life does with its many membranes. If we dissolve a solute, on one side of the membrane, that cannot diffuse through the semi permeable membrane, the water will diffusion through the membrane, toward the higher concentration solute side. The action of the water, driven by entropy, will build a pressure head. Pressure is force/area or entropic force/area.

Osmosis is a colligative property, meaning it is only dependent on the concentration of the solute, but is not dependent on the character of the solute. The character of the solute; ion, polar, non polar is connected to the EM force; electromagnetic force. This colligative property is not EM dependent. It is driven exclusively, by entropy, regardless of the local EM forces.

The metaphysical intuition that materialism can't explain consciousness, is correct, if we use only conventional thinking, based on the tradition of the four forces of nature. The entropic force is not part of that tradition, yet it has an impact on water, which then impacts the organics.

In the fountain analogy of consciousness, via neurons, the entropic force is at work as ions shift between the two sides of the membrane; neurotransmitters induce variable permeability, transmitting entropic signals through the water; inside and outside the neuron.

To know how this works and impacts the organics, you need to understand the nature of hydrogen bonding. This takes time to develop, so I will do this another time.

I never claimed that the hard problem was solved. In fact I have been very explicit that it has not been solved. But only deliberate ignorance can be the reasom for claiming that we are no less closer to understanding consciousness than we were 100 years ago. — Uber

If you agree that the Hard Problem is not solved then you must agree that we are no closer to understanding Consciousness now than 100 years ago. The Hard Problem was not a coined phrase back then but they had the basic idea that Neural Activity leads to Conscious experience. Today we know a vast amount more about the Neural Activity (Neural Correlates of Consciousness) but in spite of that we know zero about how this Neural Activity causes Conscious experiences. We don't even know what any Conscious experience really is. We only know we experience it.

Today we know a vast amount more about the Neural Activity (Neural Correlates of Consciousness) but in spite of that we know zero about how this Neural Activity causes Conscious experiences. — SteveKlinko

But at least we now know there is nothing particular about the neural nature of the activity that causes consciousness. It can be other types of activity. I think that is much more progress than it appears to be, and is almost completely ignored.

What other types of activity?

In the fountain analogy of consciousness, via neurons, the entropic force is at work as ions shift between the two sides of the membrane; neurotransmitters induce variable permeability, transmitting entropic signals through the water; inside and outside the neuron.

To know how this works and impacts the organics, you need to understand the nature of hydrogen bonding. This takes time to develop, so I will do this another time. — wellwisher

Thanks very much for the link and further explanations.

Hopefully you are committing your insights to writing, and I look forward to reading your exchanges with others on this forum who are more knowledgable in biology than myself (including the metaphysical implications).

Steve:

Today we know that conscious experience cannot exist separately from brain activity. That is a realization of fundamental importance. What we don't know is what brain states produce or affect what conscious states and vice versa.

Since we have no idea what Conscious experience actually is you cannot say anything definitive about Consciousness. We know nothing about whether Conscious experience can exist separately from Brain Activity. This is simply the state of our understanding at this point in time.

In fact we are getting to know quite well what Brain states produce what Conscious states. Just saying that a Brain state produces a Conscious state does not explain How the Brain state produces the Conscious state. This is completely and utterly unknown. There is absolutely zero Scientific progress on this. It is almost an embarrassment of Science that it has no clue how this happens after such a long time of trying.

You only think there has been no progress because you assume the whole puzzle will come fully formed, without any intervening steps. But the way we get from A, which is total ignorance about the brain, to Z, which is comprehensive knowledge about how conscious states emerge from brain states interacting with the rest of the body and the world, is by filling in those very steps.

Isn't the point that the idea that we are gaining any knowledge about emergence is what is in question? What Seth and the like are at most doing (under one understanding anyway, not saying it is mine) is showing in greater and greater detail that certain patterns of neural activity (in certain kinds of context, if you want to go externalist) are correlated with certain types of conscious experience. They are not (according to the same understanding) showing that those types of conscious experience could not occur in the absence of those patterns. Establishing emergence would need to involve some kind of corroboration that ruled out that kind of possibility, some kind of corroboration that there really could not be conscious experience in the absence of those patterns. So, in some sense, the idea seems to be that to establish emergence to any extent, they would already have to have solved the hard problem.

The way we gain knowledge about emergence, in our context, is by learning how small groups of neurons form certain networks in response to interactions with the rest of the body and the world. And then we learn how these small networks form progressively larger networks. And the process continues until we can reliably detect and demonstrate how the global properties of conscious experience emerge from these mesoscopic (and higher) degrees of freedom. At that point we may still not have solved the hard problem, but we will have made historic progress in our understanding of the mind.

Philosophical problems also have a way of changing, being redefined, or dying out. Two centuries from now, most people in these fields may not even think there is a hard problem to solve. The best analogy, which Seth made himself, is about how people centuries ago thought that life required an 'animating' force that moved our muscles around. No one believes that anymore because now we know about proton pumps and electrochemical gradients and ATP and all that jazz.

Yes jkg20 that's correct. But Uber is not alone. There are a lot of people that think we are close to explaining or even already have explained Consciousness. They need to understand the immensity of the Hard Problem. Uber I agree with the stepped concept. The problem is that when it comes to the Hard problem we are at step A. All the progress is with the Neural Correlates of Consciousness not with actual Consciousness itself.

Just so my position isn't bastardized by people who have a hard time reading: I do not think the hard problem has been solved, and I do not think we are close. I think the time horizon for a satisfactory solution is something like two or three centuries.

But just because the hard problem has not been solved does not mean we have not made progress in understanding conscious experience, as I suggested above.

If you think progress on the Hard Problem has moved beyond Step A then you don't understand the Hard Problem.

That must be it then. I'm sure only your immaculate mind can grasp what it means.