Its an effort to get you to back up your own statements. — Harry Hindu

I do not need to back up a claim that we can learn things from study. The claim is not seriously in doubt.

"You are the one that have asserted that neurology cannot produce consciousness."

This doesn't make sense. I have asserted that it's highly improbable that science will produce an EXPLANATION of how non-conscious matter produces consciousness. I base this on the complete lack of progress so far on the Hard Problem.

This doesn't make sense. I have asserted that it's highly improbable that science will produce an EXPLANATION of how non-conscious matter produces consciousness. — RogueAI

No, you went further than that:

I don't accept the brain produces consciousness. The existence of some non-conscious stuff is simply asserted to be the case without a shred of evidence to back it up. Mercifully, the era of materialism is fast approaching an end. — RogueAI

(emphasis added)

Regarding your point, I disagree.
I have no expected timeline for when any particular problem will have a scientific explanation.
Neurology is very new and rapidly advancing; we probably know more from the last 30 years than all of the rest of human history put together. It's a strange time to give up.

I do not need to back up a claim that we can learn things from study. The claim is not seriously in doubt. — Kenosha Kid

Everything you said is to be doubted because you can't explain the observable difference between conscious processes and unconscious processes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Everything you said is to be doubted because you can't explain the observable difference between conscious processes and unconscious processes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. — Harry Hindu

As I said, you can't logically doubt that we can learn things and at the same time ask questions expecting to learn my viewpoint, or expect me to discern your meaning. You're obviously not ashamed to appear completely self-contradictory to defend an invalid position, but no one is obliged to lower themselves to that level. It's reasonable to expect a certain minimum degree of rationality on a philosophy forum.

Unless I'm wrong, in which case do explain how the inability to acquire data is consistent with asking questions expecting data, after which I'll furnish you with the apology you are due and the answer you requested. I shan't hold my breath.

As I said, you can't logically doubt that we can learn things and at the same time ask questions expecting to learn my viewpoint, or expect me to discern your meaning. — Kenosha Kid

I only doubt that we can learn things based on what you have said, not what I have said. You are the one that can't explain the difference between conscious and unconscious processes. If what you said works for you, then good for you.

I only doubt that we can learn things based on what you have said, not what I have said. You are the one that can't explain the difference between conscious and unconscious processes. If what you said works for you, then good for you. — Harry Hindu

Oh, I can explain it. I just can't learn it for you. We have reached an impasse: I shan't embark on a lengthy post describing how human beings learn things without a sign of good faith from you that this is a serious conversation, and you can't provide a sign of good faith, presumably because you have none. That, as far as I see it, is that.

Oh, I can explain it. I just can't learn it for you. We have reached an impasse: I shan't embark on a lengthy post describing how human beings learn things without a sign of good faith from you that this is a serious conversation, and you can't provide a sign of good faith, presumably because you have none. That, as far as I see it, is that. — Kenosha Kid

LOL. That is what I've been asking this whole time -- how human beings learn things. How is a scribble about unconscious processes, and what is the observable difference between conscious processes and unconscious processes?

That is what I've been asking this whole time -- how human beings learn things. How is a scribble about unconscious processes, and what is the observable difference between conscious processes and unconscious processes? — Harry Hindu

Iirc you were asking about how an unconscious mental process could feed into a conscious experience. We just ended up at how humans learn anything at all by a regression of lazy 'Why?'s. Since there's no end to that, and I have good reason to believe that humans learning things is not something you doubt, I'm drawing a line there. It is sufficient to accept that humans can learn within the scope of this question. (A different matter if the thread were about, say, child development.)

I don't think the brain produces consciousness because I think materialism is highly improbable (due to its ongoing failure to make progress on the Hard Problem) and dualism is incoherent. That only leaves idealism, and that entails brains don't exist (at least as physical things).

Well I just said, I disagree with the notion that we should give up on a physical model of consciousness. There is no guarantee in this universe of solving any problem in any given time, and we're making faster progress now than ever.

I also disagree about choosing a philosophy by elimination. There's always the possibility that there is another framing that we haven't thought of yet.

Iirc you were asking about how an unconscious mental process could feed into a conscious experience. We just ended up at how humans learn anything at all by a regression of lazy 'Why?'s. Since there's no end to that, and I have good reason to believe that humans learning things is not something you doubt, I'm drawing a line there. It is sufficient to accept that humans can learn within the scope of this question. (A different matter if the thread were about, say, child development.) — Kenosha Kid

No. For the umpteenth time, I'm asking what observable difference is between conscious and unconscious processes are.

Iirc you were asking about how an unconscious mental process could feed into a conscious experience. — Kenosha Kid

Here you seem to be asserting that the neurologist is conscious of the patient's unconscious processes before the patient is conscious of them:

There was a famous experiment a while ago that showed that neurological behaviour associated with motor responses fired before correlated decision-making processes in the prefrontal cortex. The subjects remember, from their limited but direct phenomenal experience, deciding to act, then acting, when in fact the action appeared to be unconsciously chosen and only consciously ratified -- or rationalised -- after the act. — Kenosha Kid

This reminds me very much of Daniel Kahneman's System 1 / System 2 model of the brain and his tests of it. Problems that appear amenable to pattern-matching (the thing that makes it easier to add 5 or 9 to things than 7 or 8) but that pattern-matching would lead to the wrong answer for follow a similar pattern. Human subjects swear blind they worked out the answer, when in fact they seem to be *receiving* an answer and ratifying it. Badly. That is, System 2 (the so-called rational, algorithmic part of the brain associated with conscious decision-making) receives a putative answer from System 1 (the dumb but hard-working pattern-matching part of the brain that acts without conscious input). — Kenosha Kid

No. For the umpteenth time, I'm asking what observable difference is between conscious and unconscious processes are. — Harry Hindu

So why are you challenging the idea that humans learn things at all?

It's basically where it occurs in the brain. See my and Isaac's lengthy and somewhat off-topic discussions on the Strawson v Dennett thread for examples. Reactions to visual stimuli, for instance, consist of chains of processes with feedback loops that evolve and dwindle according to factors like attention and memory. Some of those we are not conscious of, some we are. The difference comes down to the function of the bit of the brain running the process. For instance, much of our motor control, including what we call 'muscle memory', occurs in the cerebellum, which does not run conscious processes. That is, you can stick a knife in someone's cerebellum such that they struggle to walk without affecting their consciousness one iota.

Well I just said, I disagree with the notion that we should give up on a physical model of consciousness. There is no guarantee in this universe of solving any problem in any given time, and we're making faster progress now than ever.

We haven't made any progress on the Hard Problem. For the questionsHow are we conscious and Why are we conscious, science has nothing to say but conjecture. It's panpscyhism or computation or integrated information theory or quantum computations in brain microtubules. The fact that there's not even a framework for an answer to the Hard Problem is evidence of the fact that no progress has been made on it. I expect that lack of progress to continue. I think it's fundamentally incoherent to think that non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness, and that's why you're seeing such frustration on the part of materialists when it comes to consciousness, and why there's a temptation to handwave it all away, like the behavioralists did and people like Dennet still do.

I also disagree about choosing a philosophy by elimination. There's always the possibility that there is another framing that we haven't thought of yet."

Possibly, but from where we're at epistemically, it really comes down to "is there stuff outside the mind, is everything mind/thought, or is it some combination of stuff outside the mind and mental stuff?" In other words, physicalism, dualism, or idealism seem to be exhaustive. I don't think we're going to be discovering another "ism" to add to those three.

So why are you challenging the idea that humans learn things at all? — Kenosha Kid

I wasnt. I'm challenging how the information about unconscious processes got into the book we are learning about unconscious experiences from.