The Unequivocal Triumph Of Neuroscience - On Consciousness

Deleted User

Hello all,

Hope you're all doing well. As you all know, this website provides many interesting topics to discuss between all of us. Some of these discussions are, of course, more productive than others. However, there is one topic that is almost never productive. One topic that denizens of TPF seem to be under the impression that empirical research has left the door open for the discussion of philosophers to "speculate" about. This would be the topic of consciousness, and the nature of its presence here on Earth, and in the human race.

Now, all of you are absolutely entitled to your own personal opinions, formulated by whatever experiences you have concluded to be valid, of course. And I myself value your consciousness enough to respect your freedom to express all the interest in the world that you have on topics of such splendor. But, what I cannot permit to pass, intellectually, is the wholesale disregard of the entire corpus of neuroscientific research that has provided us clear, empirically tested, experimentally researched explanations of what consciousness is, and how it is produced. That source, according to all- as in, every single bit, that I know of- established evidence from which to draw conclusions, suggests that such source is, in fact, the human brain itself. Furthermore, that the functions that are producing the phenomenon are in no way separated from the perception of the phenomenon in any way.

Let's review some of that research, shall we?

Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 2019 meta-analysis:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full

"The generation of consciousness content depends on the integration of the various sensations in the posterior cortex of the brain."

"Neurological awareness is primarily anatomically located in the posterior cortical thermal region, including the sensory region, rather than the prefrontal network that is involved in task monitoring and reporting."

"Other parts of the cerebral hemisphere may be potential candidates for the maintenance of consciousness, including the back part of the brain."

"we hypothesize that there is a neural network of consciousness in which the paraventricular nucleus formally serves as the control nucleus of arousal, which is closely related to the maintenance of consciousness, and the neurons in the posterior cerebral cortex."

These observations and hypotheses were gathered from the compiled research of numerous scientists over a broad number of years, that provide complimentary and relevant data to one another that make it clear that consciousness is a production of the brain. This being the result of the operation of numerous independent, specialized structures of the brain, across all lobes and cortices that are connected by 80 billion neurons and numerous neuronal pathways that relay data to one another, integrated through recurrent sensory data feedback loops that provide the awareness, behavioral initiation/inhibition, conceptual generation, and thought that you know to be "consciousness."

Regarding thoughts, the reason most people seem unable to accept this basic understanding of cognition, and the source of thoughts, was summed up best in an article from the University of Chicago, which states, "Thousands of years of reflection on the human mind has left us hard-wired with concepts that are intuitive, descriptive, and wildly unscientific." However, the empirical evidence can no longer be ignored, especially by the philosophers of the world: https://neuroscience.uchicago.edu/attention

I am going to go ahead and open the thread simply with this, and take on any questions that I can answer from any of you. This was only one sample of data gathered on this topic in a sea of research that is complimentary to the same conclusions. I would like to see a legitimate debate on this topic, so I will provide only one ground rule in this discussion: Any and All assertions made about the nature of consciousness herein must be supported by some sort of evidence, or they will be dismissed.

Some related material to review for proper understanding of the brain: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/01/special-frontiers-neuroscience
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00058/full
https://www.aau.edu/research-scholarship/featured-research-topics/tracking-thoughts-moving-through-brain
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.00007/full
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(19)30332-0?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627319303320%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Addendum:

I am so, unbelievably disappointed in the responses contained in this thread. The endless dismissal of science with absolutely no support whatsoever is borderline sickening coming from a group of people that call themselves by the name of philosophy....

Joshs

↪Garrett Travers

Neuroscience has never led the way in the understanding of consciousness and behavior. It has always been the handmaiden of philosophy and personality theory. Whenever philosophical presuppositions concerning psychological phenomena undergo a shift, this is eventually reflected in changes in neuroscientific models, but at a considerable lag. Today’s
cutting edge neuroscience is grounded in the philosophical speculations of the American Pragmatists a hundred years ago.

In addition, it is easy to read into the neuroscientific research only what seems to be consistent with one’s philosophical presuppositions. For instance, you align with 18th century rationalism, so to you every result that comes out of neuroscience seems to verify your rationalism. But the work of leading neuroscientists like Damasio and the predictive processing group is not consistent with your view of the relationship between affective and cognition, among other things

Deleted User

But the work of leading neuroscientists like Damasio and the predictive processing group is not consistent with your view of the relationship between affective and cognition, among other things — Joshs

Evidence? That'll be required here. I see you have a pretty decent assertion, if you can support it. Your other comments are addressed in my OP.

bert1

Garrett, just to make sure we are not talking a cross purposes, what is the concept of consciousness that is operative in your OP? Do you have a definition of the word? Can you indicate what the neuroscientific theory of consciousness (if there is one single one, which there isn't as far as I know) is a theory of? To put it another way, what have you said about x when you say 'x is conscious'?

Joshs

Evidence? That'll be required here. I see you have a pretty decent assertion, if you can support it. Yo — Garrett Travers

I’m not interested in debating evidence. That’s like trying to parse the meaning of bible verses. Evidence is only intelligible relative to conceptual schemes. That’s the level at which I’d like to discuss this. See bert1 above

Deleted User

Garrett, just to make sure we are not talking a cross purposes, what is the concept of consciousness that is operative in your OP? — bert1

Basically what the article concludes "a neural network of consciousness in which the paraventricular nucleus formally serves as the control nucleus of arousal, which is closely related to the maintenance of consciousness, and the neurons in the posterior cerebral cortex. It is related to the integration of feelings and the generation of consciousness content. Besides, the claustrum also represents the key channel of the consciousness loop and the transmission of control information."

Do you have a definition of the word? Can you indicate what the neuroscientific theory of consciousness (if there is one single one, which there isn't as far as I know) is a theory of? — bert1

No, that's not really been established yet. But, fundamnetally, the wakeful attention that characterizes human cognition. And there are three major ones, from which the above quoted passages were informed as bodies of research: Global Workspace Theory, Quantum Theory, Integrated Information Theory. These form the basis of a very well informed view of consciousness, especialliy if you regard them as compatible. IIT is a functional theory, but is having some issues with falsification at the moment. Apart from that, it's very sound.

Deleted User

Evidence is only intelligible relative to conceptual schemes — Joshs

No it isn't, and this non-philosophical dismissal of scientific evidence is not acceptable:

"This fallacy is committed when a person makes a claim that knowingly or unknowingly disregards well known science, science that weighs against the claim. They should know better. This fallacy is a form of the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence."

https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#DisregardingKnownScience

Joshs

↪Garrett Travers

"This fallacy is committed when a person makes a claim that knowingly or unknowingly disregards well known science, science that weighs against the claim — Garrett Travers

I’m not disregarding well known science , I am
wanting to critique it based on its conceptual
foundation, which is different than refuting the evidence in favor of it. A scientific theory can be absolutely correct in asserting that it conforms with all the available evidence , and still be less useful than an alternative theoretical orientation.

Deleted User

I’m not disregarding well known science , I am
wanting to critique it based on its conceptual
foundation, which is different than refuting the evidence in favor of it. — Joshs

Okay, that's fine, we can play with that. Just understand, the parameter is set. Any assertion will require support. But, yeah, let's explore it.

A scientific theory can be absolutely correct in asserting that it conforms with all the available evidence , and still be less useful than an alternative theoretical orientation. — Joshs

It's very rare that such is the case, but fair enough. Tell me what your theory is that opposes the above research, where you got it, and let's see if I can't go track down some stuff from may database that my give it some support. What do you say?

Joshs

↪Garrett Travers

Evidence is only intelligible relative to conceptual schemes
— Joshs

No it isn't — Garrett Travers

I don’t expect you to agree with me , but I would like for you to be able to tell me where I am getting this idea
from , Have you heard it before? Do you know which approaches within philosophy of science assert it, and what their argument is?

Deleted User

I don’t expect you to agree with me , but I would like for you to be able to tell me where I am getting this idea
from , Have you heard it before? — Joshs

No, I'm clueless entirely on the subject, to my chagrin. Tell me, from whence do they stem, my friend?

Joshs

↪Garrett Travers

Tell me what your theory is that opposes the above research, where you got it, and let's see if I can't go track down some stuff from my database that my give it some support. What do you say? — Garrett Travers

Ok, I really like the research on consciousness that emphasizes levels of awareness, indicating that consciousness is not all or nothing but an integrative
princess that ties together memory, emotion, perception and cognition in amazingly interactive way. Equally important, I think, is emphasizing the role of awareness in predicting and anticipating. events.

theRiddler

What is consciousness? How does it work? What are it's qualities in relation to this dimension as well as all other hypothesized dimensions? How does it flow through time, and, a big question:

How did you prove that your brain is an adequate tool for locating it in your brain? Circular logic, much?

Nobody knows shit, and those who claim they do are trying to sell something. I don't even buy the transducer valve theory and even that can match you point-for-point.

You can't see consciousness -- you can't touch it -- and the idea anything you can physically perceive creates it sounds just as silly as the alternatives.

It's all just vying for control, but we true lovers of wisdom ain't afraid of neuroscience.

theRiddler

That isn't to say it would matter as to what consciousness is if the brain did produce it.

Boeing makes airplanes.

Deleted User

Ok, I really like the research on consciousness that emphasizes levels of awareness, indicating that consciousness is not all or nothing but an integrative
princess that ties together memory, emotion, perception and cognition in amazingly interactive way. Equally important, I think, is emphasizing the role of awareness in predicting and anticipating. events. — Joshs

Beautifully stated, my astute friend. Tell me, though, what have I, or the research above stated that isn't exactly aligned with this analysis?

Deleted User

That isn't to say it would matter as to what consciousness is if the brain did produce it. — theRiddler

Actually, it does. Everything that is true matters, it's what philosophy is all about.

Deleted User

What is consciousness? — theRiddler

It's written above with scientific support.

How did you prove that your brain 8s an adequate tool for locating it in your brain? Circular logic, much? — theRiddler

Circular logic doesn't apply to a computational entity that is constantly receiving data in cycle of ever recurring feedback loops. It only applies to assertions and propositions that rely on themselves as proof. Remember, A=A, at all times. My brain is an adequate tool for assessing what I, and thousands of other humans use it to produce, assess, create, conceptualize, implement, experiment, strategize, augment, and perform on a daily basis. The only thing you assert with a statement like this, is that it is more likely that you are wrong, because you refuse to use your brain. Which is little more than a proof-negative of your assertion.

It's all just vying for control, but we true lovers of wisdom ain't afraid of neuroscience. — theRiddler

Then you would read it.

Mww

Odd, innit? The brain does everything, neuroscience does the work to say what the brain is doing when it does everything, then, at the same time, one of the things the brain does, is be sufficient cause for some of us to say.....it makes not the least bit of difference to me, all else being equal, what the HELL my brain is doing. Sure, I got one, but I am never, as Everydayman, conscious of the one I got.

‘Nutha thing. Funny that the human in possession of the brain he investigates, came up with the parameters under which he proves how the brain he possesses works, but the brain never ever presents itself in accordance with the very parameters attributed to its functionality. So really, we didn’t find out how the brain works, but rather, the brain told us how it works.

And then makes it so we can ignore it.

Which is indeed an unequivocal triumph. Just....not of neuroscience.

Tom Storm

’m not interested in debating evidence. That’s like trying to parse the meaning of bible verses. Evidence is only intelligible relative to conceptual schemes. That’s the level at which I’d like to discuss this. — Joshs

That's a very interesting and useful perspective in all of this.

Deleted User

Odd, innit? The brain does everything, neuroscience does the work to say what the brain is doing when it does everything, then, at the same time, one of the things the brain does, is be sufficient cause for some of us to say.....it makes not the least bit of difference to me, all else being equal, what the HELL my brain is doing. Sure, I got one, but I am never, as Everydayman, conscious of the one I got.

‘Nutha thing. Funny that the human in possession of the brain he investigates, came up with the parameters under which he proves how the brain he possesses works, but the brain never ever presents itself in accordance with the very parameters attributed to its functionality. So really, we didn’t find out how the brain works, but rather, the brain told us how it works.

And then makes it so we can ignore it.

Which is indeed an unequivocal triumph. Just....not of neuroscience. — Mww

Emotional outbursts aren't relevant here.

Mww

↪Garrett Travers

What can I say. My brain made me do it.

Janus

↪Mww

No you are your brain; you (the brain referred to as Mww) did it. :rofl:

What if the 'folk' models produced by the brain(s) are more adaptively fit than the speculative interpretation of neuroscience which says that we are nothing more than our brains? Should we discard them nonetheless and suffer accordingly?

bert1

Basically what the article concludes "a neural network of consciousness in which the paraventricular nucleus formally serves as the control nucleus of arousal, which is closely related to the maintenance of consciousness, and the neurons in the posterior cerebral cortex. It is related to the integration of feelings and the generation of consciousness content. Besides, the claustrum also represents the key channel of the consciousness loop and the transmission of control information." — Garrett Travers

OK, so this identifies some relationships between consciousness and some brain activity. The relationships is one of 'maintenance', 'integration', and 'generation', and possibly others. So this is an account of one side of a relationship between two conceptually distinct things, yes? It may not be that they are distinct in substance, of course. But to have a relationship there must be two, no?

No, that's not really been established yet. — Garrett Travers

Thank you for your candour. I guess sometimes theory can proceed without identifying what a theory is a theory of. Do you think that is the case with the scientific study of consciousness?

But, fundamnetally, the wakeful attention that characterizes human cognition. — Garrett Travers

OK, thanks. So you are specifying humans. Are we not considering animals with brains here? If not, why not?

Also you are specifying wakeful attention. What about dreams when asleep? Are we conscious then?

And what about when our attention is very diffuse, almost as if we are not attending to anything in particular, and allowing an unanalysed body of stimuli determine our experience? Does that count as consciousness?

Global Workspace Theory, Quantum Theory, Integrated Information Theory — Garrett Travers

These are pretty speculative, no?

The Global Workspace Theory is interesting as I think it captures something of the phenomenal character of experience, namely that it feels container-like. But what is it exactly? I don't know enough about the theory. Is it a field, like the electromagnetic field? Or is it a property of an existing field? If so, how can we limit it to a brain as fields are everywhere? Or is it a kind of mathematical space, like a simulated virtual reality? If so, can't that happen outside a human brain also? IIT is, as you say, a kind of functionalism, as perhaps are the others as well. The IIT's two major proponents, Koch and Tononi have both come out as panpsychists of a kind. They think that inanimate systems are conscious, for example simple molecules, atoms and thermostats.

The trouble with all flavours of functionalism is that they tend to be silent when asked "OK, but why can't all that happen in the dark? What is it about any of that that necessitates phenomenal experience?"

Where do you stand on multiple realisability? That gets you out of the brain doesn't it?

There are several Quantum Consciousness theories I think. Are you thinking of the Penrose one?

These are all very different Garrett. And some don't necessarily involve brains. Are you sure it's all as settled as you think?

Mww

↪Janus

You betcha. And not only that, but anywhere but right here, the-brain-referred-to-as-Mww......isn’t.

Deleted User

What can I say. My brain made me do it. — Mww

And I'll bet that brain will never produce an argument here.

Deleted User

No you are your brain; you (the brain referred to as Mww) did it. :rofl:

What if the 'folk' models produced by the brain(s) are more adaptively fit than the speculative interpretation of neuroscience which says that we are nothing more than our brains? Should we discard them nonetheless and suffer accordingly? — Janus

lol, still waiting on arguments, hehaha

Deleted User

You betcha. And not only that, but anywhere but right here, the-brain-referred-to-as-Mww......isn’t. — Mww

mmmm, science.

EugeneW

"The unequivocal triumph of Garrett Travers"
or
"How a new thread leads to his defeat"

Janus

↪Garrett Travers

That wasn't intended to be an argument; it was a question.

Janus

↪Mww

O, the tragedy of a brain that doesn't understand itself...

EugeneW

What do you actually know about the brain and its connection to the body? Explain to me how a memory is formed. What happens when I recognize a face?

The Unequivocal Triumph Of Neuroscience - On Consciousness

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions