It's new science, methods such as perhaps spectroscopy etc. have not yet been adapted for it. — Enrique

I can't fuckin wait to see what happens there. It gives me shivers. This is the future of ethics as a branch, in my defendable opinion.

Hey, man, thanks for stopping by and being cool. These cats here are overwhelmingly predisposed to non-realism and mind/body dualism and any time I bring this stuff up, they go ballistic. I appreciate you.

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

I don't know, Rouge, I've worried about this problem since I was 9 years old and watched The Matrix for the first time, hah. I don't think it would be possible to replace it, I think the process would have to be something more akin to duplication. The brain doesn't work with the same data integration that we build computers for, it's more chemical, particle, and structural analysis, we work with binary and code. It's just not the same. But, just assuming it could happen, I'd be pissed. You're talking about the single most unethical kind of experiment ever created. What do you think about that?

The human brain is a fascinating contraption, even so. — Mww

It's only the coolest thing since Cartesian machine ghosts.

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. — EugeneW

Firstly, Blah-blah-blah neural networks.
Secondly, it's an analogy. I am not reporting the actual thoughts of game characters.

The lesson is that within a world, everything appears to be a feature of that world, but we know in the case of digital worlds that avatars are not mere game artefacts, but take input from a human from another world. But we only know it from outside the game world. The game artifacts and avatars are not distinguishable from within. So by analogy, that there is not necessarily any detectable 'soul input', does not entail that it is all quarks and probability waves.

The game artifacts and avatars are not distinguishable from within. So by analogy, that there is not necessarily any detectable 'soul input', does not entail that it is all quarks and probability waves. — unenlightened

Right, this illustrates the point of this thread, and the research that I left in it, with serious clarity, thank you. The emergent properties of consciousnes are akin to eyesight, or what is displayed on a computer screen in accordance with its coding: It's a transformation of data into an interpretable representation, that can be used for navigation of the world, or as UI in the case of computers. There's not some damn ghost in there made of magic and unicorn-quarks. It's an immense computational processessing network of systems beyond basic human calculation.

The emergent properties of consciousness... — Garrett Travers

Do you distinguish between consciousness and its contents?

Firstly, Blah-blah-blah neural networks. — unenlightened

That's what this thread is about. If it's about neuroscience blah blah I use neuron blah blah. It's just a transformation of what we experience in that blah blah language. You can reduce every language to blah blah, seen from another bloh bloh language. All blah blah can be translated into bluh bluh or bleh bleh. Neuronal networks just offer a means to think or feel. An experienced consciousness cant be explained by neuronal networks. It depends on which part of it you value.

So by analogy, that there is not necessarily any detectable 'soul input', does not entail that it is all quarks and probability waves. — unenlightened

We are all composites of quarks or deeper. Nobody knows what they are though, so they can't explain consciousness. You can only experience their interior.

Do you distinguish between consciousness and its contents? — unenlightened

Not really. I'm inclined to with modern views on consciousness pervading the topic, but when I think about it, when I say something like "my song" when referring to a piece that I have composed, I am talking about the same emergent consciousness as I would be if I said "my thoughts." See where I'm going? It is more likely that consciousness is itself emergent in whatever capacity it is so emergent. "He is what he is," so to speak. You are you, singularly, in whatever productive form that happens to emerge. What do you think about that?

Machine ghosts being one more in a long list of conceptualizations the brain foists on the unsuspecting and unprepared human?

Not to over-nitpick a casual truth, but Ryle, 1949, is responsible for machine ghosts, not poor ol’ Rene.

not poor ol’ Rene. — Mww

Is that right? Now, that is interesting, I'll have a look at that.

Machine ghosts being one more in a long list of conceptualizations the brain foists on the unsuspecting and unprepared human? — Mww

Yes, especially when people aren't informed by what the empirical observations have to reveal on the subject. However, the science that is present needs to be assessed by philosophers.

I'm inclined to with modern views on consciousness pervading the topic, but when I think about it, when I say something like "my song" when referring to a piece that I have composed, I am talking about the same emergent consciousness as I would be if I said "my thoughts." See where I'm going? It is more likely that consciousness is itself emergent in whatever capacity it is so emergent. — Garrett Travers

Whether consciousness emerges or intrudes is rather the question of the thread, and your claim that neuroscience has answered the question whilst still unclear as to what it means to be conscious has not found much favour. But My inclination would be to say that to be conscious is not merely to see, but to be aware of the seeing, and not merely to think but to be aware of thinking, not merely to act but to be aware of acting. And further, to be aware equally of not seeing and not thinking and not acting. This marks a clear distinction between consciousness and content of consciousness, which might be useful to the investigator, and answer some of those awkward questions about dreams and so on.

Yes, I think that conclusion is useful. I would only want to play devil's advocate a little, and offer that this respect for evidence has a tendency (or so I perceive) to (sometimes) produce unimaginative and robotic thinking that has so much regard for rational thought that it excessively de-emphasizes the day to day human, more intuitive experience.

I think that our emotions and irrational tenancies can sneak their way into even the most diligent and professional scientific and rational pursuits, so an inability to reflexively question rational thought and hold it as sacred is also dangerous in my opinion.

That you say that something that is not in accord with science is anti-philosophical, for example, is a little bit extreme, in my view. It assumes that to be philosophical is inherently good, which is a claim that I do not take for granted. Once empirical data reveal something, as human beings we automatically interpret, and therefore project ourselves onto it, even if its on a very sophisticated level. I do not think it is likely that we are capable of disinterestedly absorbing empirical evidence and using it with pure epistemologicaly defensible accuracy.

That said, it would be easy to use my argument to pick apart the usefulness of science to an excessive, and I think incorrect degree. I still think it is important to take empirical investigation seriously. Just that we should still be humble in doing so.

I don't know what would happen to my consciousness during gradual brain replacement!

The thing about the Matrix (and computer consciousness) is that, essentially, who I am (and my subjective experiences) would be reducible to CPU(s). Which is to say that who I am (and my subjective experiences) is essentially a series of switching operations- switching operations abc is the pain of stubbing my toe, switching operations xyz is the experience of seeing a beautiful sunrise, cde is the taste of a peach, etc. That, to me, is an absurdity.

Whether consciousness emerges or intrudes is rather the question of the thread, and your claim that neuroscience has answered the question whilst still unclear as to what it means to be conscious has not found much favour. — unenlightened

It really has among neuroscientists. What's not really finding favor is any claim of consciousness from a single point within the brain. I have never been able to find a full-throated denunciation of the idea that consciousness is not sourced by neural function. It would be like saying sight is somehow epiphenomenal to the brain, it just doesn't make sense.

But My inclination would be to say that to be conscious is not merely to see, but to be aware of the seeing, and not merely to think but to be aware of thinking, not merely to act but to be aware of acting — unenlightened

Yes, the neuroscience community highlights specifically wakefulness, and attention.

And further, to be aware equally of not seeing and not thinking and not acting. This marks a clear distinction between consciousness and content of consciousness, which might be useful to the investigator, and answer some of those awkward questions about dreams and so on. — unenlightened

No, my friend, it marks a potential line of demarcation that is still worth exploring, but as of the moment has no support in the form of evidence. It's quite literally like that. I highly recommend you review the papers I've left. Kindly, of course.

Yes, I think that conclusion is useful. I would only want to play devil's advocate a little, and offer that this respect for evidence has a tendency (or so I perceive) to (sometimes) produce unimaginative and robotic thinking that has so much regard for rational thought that it excessively de-emphasizes the day to day human, more intuitive experience. — SatmBopd

That's because we haven't started talking ethics yet. I have no interest in robotic reguritation of fact. What I despise is robotic dismissal of fact that 90% of this thread's participants have taken part in, as I knew they would with exactitude. That's why I set the parameter. To demonstrate that unless you are starting your exploration from the facts, you have no exploration. You are merely talking opinion. Which is fine, just not here.

I think that our emotions and irrational tenancies can sneak their way into even the most diligent and professional scientific and rational pursuits, so an inability to reflexively question rational thought and hold it as sacred is also dangerous in my opinion. — SatmBopd

100%, but this is overwhelmingly supported across hundreds of experiments. THis particular topic is just not one of those things.

That you say that something that is not in accord with science is anti-philosophical, for example, is a little bit extreme, in my view. — SatmBopd

No, it's basic logic. It's called a disregard for known science fallacy, it's part of basic intro philosophy training in academia.

It assumes that to be philosophical is inherently good, which is a claim that I do not take for granted. Once empirical data reveal something, as human beings we automatically interpret, and therefore project ourselves onto it, even if its on a very sophisticated level. — SatmBopd

I would never assert such, and I have never heard such asserted in my training. That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if your philosophical deliberations are not predicated on facts, then they are not philosophical. They are personal ruminations, thoughts.

I do not think it is likely that we are capable of disinterestedly absorbing empirical evidence and using it with pure epistemologicaly defensible accuracy. — SatmBopd

I agree. We all have our Beysian priors. That does not mean we are incapable of proper analysis.

I still think it is important to take empirical investigation seriously. Just that we should still be humble in doing so. — SatmBopd

I respect that. However, I don't really value humility as a virtue. I value consistent effort to achieve knowledge, irrespective of one's demeanor. However, I think insults as arguments is exactly where humility is no longer present. And so, I have just desceibed most people in this thread. Which again, I already knew would happen, no humility needed. I hope you can accept that, friend.

The thing about the Matrix (and computer consciousness) is that, essentially, who I am (and my subjective experiences) would be reducible to CPU(s). Which is to say that who I am (and my subjective experiences) is essentially a series of switching operations- switching operations abc is the pain of stubbing my toe, switching operations xyz is the experience of seeing a beautiful sunrise, cde is the taste of a peach, etc. That, to me, is an absurdity. — RogueAI

Yes, it's far more complex than that interpretation. I don't think it's something we'll have to ever worry about. Maybe we'll wait for neural link to come out and see. Until then, I shall stay skeptical. Thanks for being cool, bud, I know you're not entirely convinced of my OP proposition, but I appreciate you actually interacting.

:up:

Lol you sound way more educated than me, so fair enough, total respect.

I just want to try to take you up on this point:

That you say that something that is not in accord with science is anti-philosophical, for example, is a little bit extreme, in my view.
— SatmBopd

No, it's basic logic. It's called a disregard for known science fallacy, it's part of basic intro philosophy training in academia. — Garrett Travers

I understand the desire to ask questions (call it philosophy if you like) as a completely open ended game with no rules. Philosophical/ inquisitive thinking created logic and science, as well as morality, monotheism, and untold numbers of other ideas and frameworks of understanding. Of the creations of philosophical/ inquisitive thinking, logic and science do appear to be the most active and useful, especially for the specific purpose of understanding the world (which I do not think is the only valid end to pursue in philosophy).

To then say that disregarding science is anti-philosophical, as I understand it, is to assert that of the creations of philosophical/ inquisitive thinking, science and logic are not only the most important, but that the others just aren't important at all, at least unless they consult logic and science first.

I just think that this is a very substantial claim. Before the Greek Philosophers, there wasn't logic or science (at least not in the same, publicly continuous way). I don't really know what it would have been like to live before then, but I cannot just take it for granted that the human condition was just categorically more disconnected from "knowledge" or whatever else important is to be gained from science, at least not without a rigorous historical investigation, and even then I can't be 100% sure without having lived there.

Do decide on a victor, or champion among the children of philosophical investigation is to end it in my opinion. I think it would be best for humanity to keep our minds open to new possibilities, better than science, better than knowledge and truth. Science basically gives us inventions, and new trivia, which wile solving some problems also opens up untold new questions. I just think we should stay on our toes, and not get overly comfortable or reliant upon a specific framework of understanding, even if it is as useful as logic or science.

when people aren't informed by what the empirical observations have to reveal on the subject. — Garrett Travers

You know how that would go, even if they were informed of such reveals: they would still want to know what the observations alone can’t tell them. Which is.....how exactly does that work? I see this stimulus, then I see this display corresponding to it. What happened in between?

the science that is present needs to be assessed by philosophers. — Garrett Travers

Wonder what the scientists think about that. Is the philosopher qualified to assess the reveals of empirical science, or merely the credibility of the logic presupposed by them?

Philosophical/ inquisitive thinking created logic and science, as well as morality, monotheism, and untold numbers of other ideas and frameworks of understanding. — SatmBopd

This, my friend. This is why understanding the nature of consciousness, in a definitive way, is going to change ethics forever. This is the only reason I even care.

To then say that disregarding science is anti-philosophical, as I understand it, is to assert that of the creations of philosophical/ inquisitive thinking, science and logic are not only the most important, but that the others just aren't important at all, at least unless they consult logic and science first. — SatmBopd

No, there's nothing wrong with having views you formulate as a result of emotion, or whatever other framework you operate with. It's just, if you are going to approach things from this tradition, disregarding established science is akin to something you might liken to being sacrelige in thological terms. It's just not what we do, professionally speaking.

I just think that this is a very substantial claim. — SatmBopd

The most.

I don't really know what it would have been like to live before then, but I cannot just take it for granted that the human condition was just categorically more disconnected from "knowledge" or whatever else important is to be gained from science, at least not without a rigorous historical investigation, and even then I can't be 100% sure without having lived there. — SatmBopd

Beautiful line of inquiry, brother. I would agree. I would say we more or less lacked the framework. It's like cosmology without Einstein and Hubble, it's just not a framework that can give us what we're after yet. And that is what the ancients were dealing with.

Do decide on a victor, or champion among the children of philosophical investigation is to end it in my opinion. I think it would be best for humanity to keep our minds open to new possibilities, better than science, better than knowledge and truth. Science basically gives us inventions, and new trivia, which wile solving some problems also opens up untold new questions. I just think we should stay on our toes, and not get overly comfortable or reliant upon a specific framework of understanding, even if it is as useful as logic or science. — SatmBopd

I'm halfway there. I think it gives us platforms within frameworks of approach to knowledge that are invaluable. But, I like you, cannot wait for the next big thing. However, science has been the frameworks since Bacon, so I'm doubting anything is coming soon.

You know how that would go, even if they were informed of such reveals: they would still want to know what the observations alone can’t tell them. Which is.....how exactly does that work? I see this stimulus, then I see this display corresponding to it. What happened in between? — Mww

I get that, and that's totally fair. I don't claim that we know what we do not. And we don't know that yet, not beyond basic biochemistry, neuropharmacology, and neuronal pathways and such. But again, is this the same line of questioning that you apply to your own sight, or sense of smell? What happened there? Who knows? We'll get there. But, what is definietly where we have to start from to get there, is accepting it as heppening in the first place.

Wonder what the scientists think about that. Is the philosopher qualified to assess the reveals of empirical science, or merely the credibility of the logic presupposed by them? — Mww

Both. However, the technical stuff needs to be a partnership between researchers and philosophers. Something that I actually hope to do in my academic and professional career after my Master's. It's case sensitive, I would say.

all of you are absolutely entitled to your own personal opinions — Garrett Travers

Thank you for granting us this right! :grin:

what I cannot permit to pass, intellectually, is the wholesale disregard of the entire corpus of neuroscientific research that has provided us ... — Garrett Travers

Well, this sounds a little too stern ...
But ... whom are you referring to? Who is disregarding neuroscience research "wholesale"? That would be quite absurd.

"Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 2019 meta-analysis" — Garrett Travers

1) Re "The definition of consciousness remains a difficult issue that requires urgent understanding and resolution. Currently, consciousness research is an intensely focused area of neuroscience.": How can there be a research on something that it is so difficult that one cannot even present any definition? In other words, how can a whole research be based on something that cannot be defined?

2) Re "to establish a greater understanding of the concept of consciousness": Since when is Science dealing with concepts, i.e. with abstract ideas? This sounds quite off-beat ...

3) Re "an accurate assessment of the level of consciousness ...": How can one talk about "levels" of something that they cannot even define?

4) Re "proposes our assumptions with regard to the network of consciousness": What? Network? Do they talk about Neural Networks in the field of Artificial Intelligence? And this, again, about something that they cannot even define?

Again, no one can disregard neurology as a whole. It has done --and still does-- a lot of good work in the field of medicine. But as you can see from the above, these guys are not even able to present a decent paper, i.e., one that is coherent and makes sense. Concepts! Science dealing with concepts, and particularly, with things that it cannot define? This is quite absurd.

That is why I say that Science should only deal with things that it knows and handles well: physical things. It should not enter and get involved in fields that are of a non-physical nature. It is out of its jurisdiction. The tools and methods it uses do not apply there. Simple as that. The above case is a good example.

Garret, I suggest that you leave the subject of "consciousness" to philosophy. Which, anyway, is what TPF is all about! :smile:

The human brain is a fascinating contraption, even so.
— Mww

It's only the coolest thing since Cartesian machine ghosts. — Garrett Travers

I think that the most interesting things we can learn about the central functions of the human brain , such as the nature of perception, learning, memory, rationality, consciousness and emotion, are in fact not at all unique to the human brain. They are already present in incipient form in the simplest living organisms. I recommend Evan Thompson’s Mind in Life

http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2012_03.dir/pdf3okBxYPBXw.pdf

for an excellent perspective on the origins of cognition in living systems. So I would argue the ‘coolest thing’ isnt specifically the human brain, but the general functional organizing principles shared by all living systems.

I think that our emotions and irrational tenancies can sneak their way into even the most diligent and professional scientific and rational pursuits, so an inability to reflexively question rational thought and hold it as sacred is also dangerous in my opinion.
— SatmBopd

100%, but this is overwhelmingly supported across hundreds of experiments. — Garrett Travers

In the past you have characterized emotions as though they were the opposite of rationality. I’m wondering whether you would agree with the predictive coding model of emotion, considered by many psychologists to be the among the most promising neuroscientific theories of emotion.

“Emotions are constructed in just the same way that percepts are constructed; that is, they are predictive models of the likely causes of the sensory input, made by
re-stitching together past experiences and then classifying the current experience as an
amalgam of past experiences of a similar nature.”

http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/93282/3/Getting%20WarmerSept16.pdf


Also Evan Thompson:

“ Sense-making comprises emotion as much as cognition. The enactive approach does not view cognition and emo-tion as separate systems, but treats them as thoroughly integrated at biological, psychological, and phenomeno-logical levels (Colombetti 2005, 2007, 2009; Colombetti and Thompson 2005, 2007; Thompson 2007). By contrast, the extended mind thesis and the debates it has engendered to-date have neglected emotion and treated cognition as if it were largely affectless problem solving or information processing (Adams and Aizawa 2008; Clark 2007). Sense-making is viable conduct in relation to what has salience and value for the system. What has salience and value also has valence: it attracts or repels, elicits approach or avoidance.

Such action tendencies in relation to value are the basis of emotion. Hence, as Walter Freeman argues, ‘‘emotion is essential to all intentional behaviours'' (Free-man 2000). To describe cognition as embodied action (Varela et al. 1991) implies that cognition comprises motivated action tendencies and thus is also essentially emotive. Motivated action, especially when it involves affect, is a mode of self-regulation. Cognition as embodied action is more a matter of adaptive self-regulation in precarious conditions than abstract problem solving. The point here is not to deny that we can and do engage in high-level problem solving. Rather, it is that this kind of narrow cognition presupposes the broader emotive cognition of sense-making.

Attention to the inseparability of emotion and cognition is an emerging trend in cognitive science. For example, Marc Lewis (2005) argues that appraisal and emotion processes are thoroughly interdependent at both psycho-logical and neural levels (see also Colombetti and Thompson 2005). At the psychological level, one is not a mere means to the other (as in the idea that an appraisal is a means to the having of an emotion, and vice-versa); rather, hey form an integrated and self-organizing emotion-appraisal state, an ‘emotional interpretation.' At the neural level, brain systems traditionally seen as subserving sepa-rate functions of appraisal and emotion are inextricably interconnected.

Hence ‘appraisal' and ‘emotion' cannot be mapped onto separate brain systems. In a recent review, Pessoa (2008) provides extensive evidence from neuroscience that supports this view of the neural underpinnings of emotion and cognition. He pre-sents three converging lines of evidence: (1) brain regions previously viewed as ‘affective' are also involved in cog-nition; (2) brain regions previously viewed as ‘cognitive' are also involved in emotion; and (3) the neural processes subserving emotion and cognition are integrated and thus non-modular. In Pessoa's view, ‘‘complex cognitive-emo-tional behaviours have their basis in dynamic coalitions of networks of brain areas, none of which should be con-ceptualized as specifically affective or cognitive'' (Pessoa 2008, p. 148)

Thank you for granting us this right! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Acknowledge, not granting.

Well, this sounds a little too stern ...
But ... whom are you referring to? Who is disregarding neuroscience "wholesale"? That would be quite absurd. — Alkis Piskas

Just read the thread, you'll notice.

How can there be a research on something that it is so difficult that one cannot even present any definition? In other words, how can a whole research be based on something that cannot be defined? — Alkis Piskas

Because, for years people have been trying to pin down what structure(s) actually produces consciousness. The propblem has been too many philosophical deliberations on this throughout the years being diviorced from science. As one researcher put it in her meta-analysis:

" This is even more astonishing than the “astonishing hypothesis” (Crick, 1994) of a neural correlate for consciousness itself, because it means dismissing the fact that all contemporary science, including mathematics and physics, stems from nothing else but philosophy. Thus, quite ironically, the contemporary science of consciousness is based on the preconception that all reality has to be material in the sense of measurable by the known tools of physics, and that consciousness must be a direct product of physical activity in the brain." lol
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.762349/full

How can one talk about "levels" of something that they cannot even define? — Alkis Piskas

They do define it. Just not in terms that align with traditional views on the subject.

What? Network? Do they talk about Neural Networks in the field of Artificial Intelligence? And this, again, about something that they cannot even define? — Alkis Piskas

Qualify these questions, they don't make sense to me. And finish actually reading the paper, it explains everything.

But as you can see from the above, these guys are not even able to present a decent paper, i.e., one that is coherent and makes sense. Concepts! Science dealing with concepts, and particularly, with things that it cannot define? This is quite absurd. — Alkis Piskas

You're so far off the beaten path that I am forced to conclude that you did not read the paper. Consciousness was a concept long before it was study in neuroscience, that is what they are describing, and such is mentioned in the paper. C'mon man, you're more intelligent than this, I know I've seen your comment quality.

That is why I say that Science should only deal with things that it knows and handles well: physical things. It should not enter and get involved in fields that are of a non-physical nature. It is out of its jurisdiction. The tools and methods it uses do not apply there. Simple as that. The above case is a good example. — Alkis Piskas

They do, and the papers I've provided even in this message demonstrate such. This is an assertion predicated on confusion, not on having read the data. There are numerous methods for analyzing neural activity. Here's a really good one that identified the core subcortical systems that maintain consciousness: https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/8/1769/tab-figures-data You're going to need to actually read it to understand this issue.

Garret, I suggest that you leave the subject of "consciousness" to philosophy. Which, anyway, is what TPF is all about! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Lol, no. You all need to catch up, because you're operating on outdate conceptions of the topic. I'll be here when you're ready. What a stitch!

In the past you have characterized emotions as though they were the opposite of rationality. I’m wondering whether you would agree with the predictive coding model of emotion, considered by many psychologists to be the among the most promising neuroscientific theories of emotion. — Joshs

So, no, I have said that emotions are involved in the reasoning process, but are not themselves rationality. I do think it is interest, predictive modelling, it's elemental in some neuroscientific research, so I think we'll see more and more out of it. Here's a good recent on the subject of mixed emotion using the model, pretty thorough: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5669377/

I'm in accord with everything in those passages, and have said as much, in different terms, in the past.

Considering your 1300 posts in one month you seem to be in a manic mind state, like euphoric missionaries were when bringing the gospel truth to the ignorant pagans in the new world. Transforming reality into a scientific materialistic view, devoid of that which it tries to explain in the first place is means that this approach is incapable of explaining consciousness. It can only describe consciousness, meaning it can tell if it's present in a system of particles interacting with the world around it.

You all need to catch up, — Garrett Travers

I don't. I actually know how the brain functions. And let me tell you, it's more than matter in motion. You must shed the blinkers and prejudices though. If you value empricism and evidence you would see material is an emergent property. Your prejudicial blinkers prevent you though from seeing the evidence.

I don't. I actually know how the brain functions. And let me tell you, it's more than matter in motion. — EugeneW

I agree.

You must shed the blinkers and prejudices though. If you value empricism and evidence you would see material is an emergent property. Your prejudicial blinkers prevent you though from seeing the evidence. — EugeneW

I do see that. I simply don't conclude anything past what the evidence demonstrates, is all. And I am very oppositional to assertions that do.