Neuroscience hasn't figured out how a conscious experience is produced. They somehow know...or I shouldn't say they, but sycophants like Garrett know that neuroscience has proven its the product of the amalgamation of the brain.

So, three things they don't understand:

1. The complete function of the brain.
2. Consciousness.
3. The environment in which said consciousness exists.

And yet...they kNoW tHeRe Is nO mystery. Ie. There cannot be ANY surprises.

You won’t get an argument from me — Mww

Called it.

be-all-end-all domain is utterly irrelevant to the guy wondering what to do about his neighbor’s dog digging up the carrot patch. — Mww

No it isn't. It's the most important Ethical understanding ever uncovered. It's just, people don't want to look at it long enough to notice.

I grant the science, and acknowledge the authority of brain machinations. But I am, at the end of the day, just a regular ol’ human being, and as such, philosophy has much more impact on me, than your science, of which I have no conscious need in my intellectual performance. — Mww

Okay. Did I imply that you did, or..?

You actually might be better off, if you acknowledged the fact that everybody thinks, but not a single human ever, is aware of their phosphorus ion count, activation potentials, nor the span of his synaptic clefts for the color “blue”. — Mww

Yes, because the functions of a system that generated the Large Hadron Collider are comparable to such observations. You're the second person this week to try to pull that on me. I'd make some time for neuroscience, my friend.

where should the productive emphasis reside? — Mww

Oh, that's easy, conceptualization.

So if everybody does this, but nobody does that....where should the productive emphasis reside? — Mww

Yes, and in light of that what could it even mean to say we are nothing but our brains? That claim itself is anything but an empirically falsifiable one. It's not the neuroscience that says this, but an interpretation of what it purportedly entails. We could equally (and groundlessly ) claim that we are nothing but fundamental particles, or we are nothing but meat robots. These sorts of claims are made by those of a fundamentalist spirit that fails to realize the importance of perspective and context.

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

Ya know....and I know you do....it was said many moons ago, that human reason is very good at contradicting itself. So if brain machinations are the be-all-end-all, and human reason is the conscious manifestation of the be-all-end-all of brain machinations, then it is the case that the brain both adheres to the absolute necessity of natural law, and at the same time, ensures the inevitability of contradicting itself. Which would seem pretty hard to explain, methinks.

That claim itself is anything but an empirically falsifiable one. — Janus

Except people go brain dead all the time, and there goes their bodies. Sever connection of one part of the body to the brain, bye bye body part. It can't be falsified, because it passes every test available that could falsify it. And no, it's pretty well asserted in neuroscientific community, even if there are still many mysteries to solve.

These sorts of claims are made by those of a fundamentalist spirit that fails to realize the importance of perspective and context. — Janus

No, fundamentalists say that the mind and body are separate, and provide no evidence for their assertions, all the while not realizing they're just parroting Christian postulates that they think their favorite philosopher(s) isn't simply regurgitating. But, sure, the fundamentalists claim there's no difference between mind and body

Which would seem pretty hard to explain, methinks. — Mww

That is correct, it's the hardest thing to explain of all time. But, observing something complex and mysterious is not an explanation of whatever it is that you guys think is going on. Which, I still have no clue about, because none of you have mentioned it. You guys just keep either insulting me, or just saying I'm wrong. Which is weird.

So if everybody does this, but nobody does that....where should the productive emphasis reside? — Mww

Definitelty not in the speculative sciences. Ethics perhaps?

Ethics perhaps? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes.

Neuroscience hasn't figured out how a conscious experience is produced. They somehow know...or I shouldn't say they, but sycophants like Garrett know that neuroscience has proven its the product of the amalgamation of the brain.

So, three things they don't understand:

1. The complete function of the brain.
2. Consciousness.
3. The environment in which said consciousness exists.

And yet...they kNoW tHeRe Is nO mystery. Ie. There cannot be ANY surprises. — theRiddler

Insulting me just makes you look more like someone who doesn't have an argument.

And no, it's pretty well asserted in neuroscientific community, even if there are still many mysteries to solve. — Garrett Travers

Sure, a community that arguably shares the same basic presuppositions; presuppositions which cannot themselves be scientifically tested/

No, fundamentalists say that the mind and body are separate, — Garrett Travers

There are fundamentalists on both sides, and the fact that you don't recognize that speaks to your own presuppositions not to science per se.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for either side; I am neither atheist nor theist. dualist nor monist; I like to keep an open mind on undecidables. That said I do have my leanings, but they are something I'd not care to argue for, being as how there is no objective measure of mere plausibility.

You guys just keep either insulting me, or just saying I'm wrong. Which is weird. — Garrett Travers

I haven't said you are wrong. I've merely thrown you some problems for your position which you've utterly failed to address. You may be wrong or you may be right, but where you are definitely wrong, in my view, is over-zealously overstepping the bounds of scientific warrant in regard to your claims.

And if you read back over the threads you've participated in with an honest eye, I think you'll find that the move to insult has generally been initiated by you.

Ya know....and I know you do....it was said many moons ago, that human reason is very good at contradicting itself. So if brain machinations are the be-all-end-all, and human reason is the conscious manifestation of the be-all-end-all of brain machinations, then it is the case that the brain both adheres to the absolute necessity of natural law, and at the same time, ensures the inevitability of contradicting itself. Which would seem pretty hard to explain, methinks. — Mww

Yep, nice concundrum! I predict we will continue to receive promissory notes for the 'be-all-and-end-all-explanation, from neuroscience, though. It might be like nuclear fusion; it was only fifty years away fifty years ago , it's only fifty years away today and will probably be fifty years away in fifty years.

In any case in regard to any explanation which claims to be final; it flies in the face of science which is perennially provisional, and only warranted within its own limited empirical ambit, to boot.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for either side; I am neither atheist nor theist. dualist nor monist; I like to keep an open mind on undecidables. That said I do have my leanings, but they are something I'd not care to argue for, being as how there is no objective measure of mere plausibility. — Janus

No, I don't think so. Had that been the case, you would have addressed something I've asserted with the data.

I've merely thrown you some problems for your position which you've utterly failed to address. — Janus

You've not done any such thing. Not in any realm of imagination. You just keep saying it.

but where you are definitely wrong, in my view, is over-zealously overstepping the bounds of scientific warrant in regard to your claims. — Janus

Yeah, how? That was the point of the thread. Support this opinion, and you'll have presented a problem for my position for the first time tonight.

And if you read back over the threads you've participated in with an honest eye, I think you'll find that the move to insult has generally been initiated by you. — Janus

lol, no.

Insulting me just makes you look more like someone who doesn't have an argument. — Garrett Travers

I believe th @theRiddler is positing a riddle there, whereas Diogenes was the master of arguing with insults. I think we can all learn something from both of them.

No, I don't think so. Had that been the case, you would have addressed something I've asserted with the data. — Garrett Travers

You "don't think so" what? I don't need to see the data to know that it cannot support the kind of claim you are making. Yours is a metaphysical or ontological claim. Empirical data has no bearing on those.

What you are claiming is undecidable, pure and simple. If not it could be demonstrated by experiment. Only philosophically uneducated people take scientific results to prove anything about ontology. I've raised questions and you've refused to even attempt to answer them.

For example I asked you whether you thought that conscious awareness was prior or subsequent to its correlated neural process. Libet's experiment seem to show that it is subsequent; which, if true, would mean that the nature of conscious awareness may be completely determined by neural processes,

Along these lines, the Churchlands believe that conscious awareness is epiphenomenal which means that it plays no part in decision-making. If this were true then the brain follows its own inexorable processes, thus being effectively a natural process.

You want to claim that people are morally responsible, but such a claim would be absurd if we are nothing more than a natural process. From a purely rational perspective our moral status would be the same as any other natural process, notwithstanding the brain/body's much greater complexity.

You have no answer for this objection, apparently, and so try to deflect the question, so as not to show the weakness of your position. At least the Churchlands are consistent in their eliminativism. And so is Dennett for the most part, although he too does not want to admit that there is no free will, and hence moral responsibility, even though everything he writes points to that conclusion. You can believe whatever you like, but at least be intellectually honest enough to be consistent.

If you take pointing out inconsistencies in your position as insult then that's your problem, not mine.

You "don't think so" what? I don't need to see the data to know that it cannot support the kind of claim you are making. Yours is a metaphysical or ontological claim. Empirical data has no bearing on those.

What you are claiming is undecidable, pure and simple. If not it could be demonstrated by experiment. Only philosophically uneducated people take scientific results to prove anything about ontology. I've raised questions and you've refused to even attempt to answer them. — Janus

This is just you saying stuff, no argument here. This is not a matter for ontology, or metaphysics. This is an empirical science. And it is quite literally not undecidable. There is no evidence to suggest anything else is producing consciousness. The neuroscientific community doesn't even dispute that the brain is the source of consciousness. Some scientisits point out gaps in knowledge, or try to address philosophical theories. But, none concluded that this isn't a neural process.

For example I asked you whether you thought that conscious awareness was prior or subsequent to its correlated neural process. Libet's experiment seem to show that it is subsequent; which, if true, would mean that the nature of conscious awareness may be completely determined by neural processes, — Janus

Why don't you post that experiment, and then compare it to this study that identified a core network of structures in the brain that must be in operation to ensure consciousness. It discovered that "the activity of a restricted network of core midline brain structures including the thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), and the angular gyri in the inferior parietal lobules were consistently associated with the connected state." Connected state meaning consciousness. The important thing to note about this study, is that those structures were subcortical, meaning it isn't simply the cerebral cortex pulling all of the weight, which is likely what's suggested by the study you're referencing, and indeed that the cerebral cortex actually relies on this network to support things like memory and executive function. In other words, demonstrably subsequent: https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/8/1769 That's from this year, by the by. February. Deserves everyone's attention.

You want to claim that people are morally responsible, but such a claim would be absurd if we are nothing more than a natural process. From a purely rational perspective our moral status would be the same as any other natural process, notwithstanding the brain/body's much greater complexity. — Janus

No, it would not. You just keep saying this stuff for no reason at all. Those natural process include, again, the ability to integrate new data, inhibit/initiate behavior, and conceptualize frameworks of behavior informed by endless accrual of multisensory data. There's nothing true about your statement. Nothing about it being natural changes anything whatsoever on any conceivable level about human ethical culpability, or conceptualization, at all whatsoever. It is specifically conceptual frameworks, mind you, that encapsulate ethics as an emergent phenomenon. Humans are the source of ethics. It is not negated by natural emergence of consciousness. That would be like saying sight isn't sight if it is natural. It's God-tier level miscalculation.

You have no answer for this objection, apparently, and so try to deflect the question, so as not to show the weakness of your position. At least the Churchlands are consistent in their eliminativism. And so is Dennett for the most part, although he too does not want to admit that there is no free will, and hence moral responsibility, even though everything he writes points to that conclusion. You can believe whatever you like, but at least be intellectually honest enough to be consistent. — Janus

Except I've addressed it over and over again, just did once more above.

If you take pointing out inconsistencies in your position as insult then that's your problem, not mine. — Janus

No inconsistencies have been shown to be present as of yet. Still waiting on that. You, again, just keep saying as much.

I have incontrovertible evidence that this thread is the product of my laptop. It appears on my screen as a result of complex processes that take place in the cpu modified by and modifying RAM and SSD. And it's just the sort of theory I would expect from a machine.


Bowser's theory of consciousness is that it is entirely digital, but Mario believes in meatspace souls that somehow inhabit or haunt the digital world and influence it.

You guys just keep (....) saying I'm wrong — Garrett Travers

I’m not. Nothing wrong with the science, which is why I’m not arguing about it.

I mean....how can “we hypothesize....” be argued?

Ethics perhaps? — Merkwurdichliebe

Maybe. I was going for pure rational thought, as that which everybody does, or the manifest appearance of a purely rational thinking subject, as that which everybody seems to be, and that having ethical decision-making subsumed under it, so.....

Aha! This is the real problem. Philosophers (and people interested in philosophy) do not like learning science (including me) because its strict and complicated. Meanwhile, scientists rarely learn philosophical principles because its unfashionable and also probably difficult (ie: "philosophy is dead"). So philosophers are therefore useless because we essentially are not up to date with the relevant knowledge of our fields and scientists are unimaginative because they seldom integrate the capacity for historical, moral, aesthetic and other kinds of "philosophical" or more visceral human thinking.
Its a real problem because many scientists do not know how to communicate the importance of their ideas, and philosophy programs at universities are not very popular because they don't make an impact on the intellectual world.
There are acceptations to this (a really good example is Daniel Dennet). But more people should have an open mind and learn different fields in my opinion. I'm an undergraduate student and I'm going to try to take a neuroscience class before my degree is over. But I would encourage scientists to branch into the humanities as well. It's a complicated world, and I do not think it can be adequately addressed with one kind of thinking.

Hello. Quick question here. First post here in the forum btw:



How will science know what it is like to be something?

How will science objectively know a subjective experience?

Or is this what science is even hoping for?

I mean....how can “we hypothesize....” be argued? — Mww

Wouldn't have the slightest clue.

How will science know what it is like to be something?

How will science objectively know a subjective experience?

Or is this what science is even hoping for? — Watchmaker

Welcome to the forum, hope all is well with you. Science isn't really concerned what it is like to be something, they're more interested in discovering the workings of what is, and process by which it does something, which happens to be understood quite well. All neural computation is a subjective experience, that's why they use numerous patients in multiple experiments for each study. Nobody can "know" any subjective eperience but their own, but they can reveal the processes.
And no, not that I'm aware is science rally hoping for this, I'm sure they're out there, but it isn't a focus that I've bumped into. But, now that you say something, I'll go have a look around and see if I can't come up with something, eh?

The neuroscientific community doesn't even dispute that the brain is the source of consciousness. — Garrett Travers

I find it interesting that if photons (EM radiation) superposition with electrons (atomic orbitals) to form percepts, this does not necessarily have to happen only in a brain. Paves a way from physiology to the subjective experience of consciousness with which it has seemed so incompatible.

Bowser's theory of consciousness is that it is entirely digital, — unenlightened

Problem is, the collective parallel ion pulse currents in the brain don't constitute information referring to something else like in digital computers. The connection strengths between neurons can be changed due to synaps widening.

I find it interesting that if photons (EM radiation) superposition with electrons (atomic orbitals) — Enrique

What do you mean with this? I don't think photons are superpositioned with electrons in orbitals. How do you envision this?

Paves a way from physiology to the subjective experience of consciousness with which it has seemed so incompatible. — Enrique

I'm under the impression that the role these particle interactions play are supplementary to the global structure of the brain. Have you discovered data that would suggest otherwise?

It's a complicated world, and I do not think it can be adequately addressed with one kind of thinking. — SatmBopd

Yes, which is why I try to stay up-to-date on the science that is important to the field. I have concluded that if one's positions are not compatible with the science, that such a positions are anti-philosophical in their core exploration. One simply cannot disregard what empirical data are revealing.

I don't think photons are superpositioned with electrons in orbitals. How do you envision this? — EugeneW

Look at my previous post on the second page for some more detail. The OP to my thread A Physical Explanation for Consciousness has way more detail still.

I'm under the impression that the role these particle interactions play are supplementary to the global structure of the brain. Have you discovered data that would suggest otherwise? — Garrett Travers

The data will come from experiments that can measure both the way light interacts with atoms and the structures in a brain that mediate this interaction to produce complex superpositions. It's new science, methods such as perhaps spectroscopy etc. have not yet been adapted for it.

Yep, nice concundrum! — Janus

It is. The human brain is a fascinating contraption, even so.

Address this, please:

"Gradual uploading:
Here the most widely-discussed method is that of
nanotransfer. One or more nanotechnology devices (perhaps tiny robots) are
inserted into the brain and each attaches itself to a single neuron, learning to
simulate the behavior of the associated neuron and also learning about its
connectivity. Once it simulates the neuron’s behavior well enough, it takes the
place of the original neuron, perhaps leaving receptors and effectors in place and
uploading the relevant processing to a computer via radio transmitters. It then
moves to other neurons and repeats the procedure, until eventually every neuron
has been replaced by an emulation, and perhaps all processing has been uploaded
to a computer."
http://consc.net/papers/uploading.pdf

What do you think would happen to your consciousness if your brain was gradually replaced while you were awake?