Now that neurologists know what consciousness is, where it is, and how it is, I guess it won’t be long before they go into into a lab and create one.

Let’s see: One part living tissue, two parts electricity, and a dash of physical elements. Heat it up for a couple billion years and let it cool to 98 degrees. Yup that should do it. — Joe Mello

Strawman dismissed with laughter.

Let’s see: One part living tissue, two parts electricity, and a dash of physical elements. Heat it up for a couple billion years and let it cool to 98 degrees. Yup that should do it — Joe Mello

You don't know a peep about it. You should go contemplating God. It's obvious he made you for that.

There you go again, slandering your fellow "denizens". Is that your idea of a philosophical argument? — Gnomon

Slander would imply a falsehood in my statement, which wasn't there.

So, you place Scientists & Philosophers into the same professional category? Do you make no distinction? Do you hold philosophers to the same standards of evidence as scientists? Is Psychology a scientific endeavor, even though it produces no empirical results of its own? Do you think we are supposed to be doing Science on this forum? Do you have formal training as a Scientist or Philosopher? — Gnomon

I suppose it too much to ask that one reads what I say, rather than simply interpolate what they wish to hear into my statement. Philosophy that dismisses science is not philosophy, it is casuistry.

As usual, you missed the point. Did Einstein "validate" his own "claims". How do you define the job of a philosopher? Are we doing science on this forum? Like Einstein, I am skeptical of those who make knowledge claims of Incontrovertible Truth. Unlike wise old Albert, I am not skeptical of Quantum Entanglement . . . are you? — Gnomon

Let's try not just saying random things that don't make sense next time. And the topic is consciousness and the science related to it, so let's get to it.

You make such broad general allegations as-if Science is a canonical Bible, but you don't cite book, chapter & verse. Can you be more specific about a particular "unequivocal" Fact of Science that I've "disregarded". What evidence has been "Suppressed". Do you think the general consensus of science is Final canonical Truth. Where is it written . . . . . . ? — Gnomon

There's still no argument in any of this display here. Go ahead and present one, or we'll see you next time. I'll not be responding to any more of your insults, slights, mischaracterizations, or otherwise insufferable bullshit that you fabricate out of your whole-cloth-feelsies.

The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, — Gnomon

Of course these truths exist. They just differ from person to person, group to group, culture to culture. :smile:

I think some in the neuroscience field use terms like data and computation because they mistakenly believe that's how the brain works. It's the same conceptual error as with the term "information".

Others are aware that the terms are being used metaphorically, heuristically. — Daemon

I actually wouldn't find this to be suprising to found out is quite literally the case. I was just chatting with the wife about it tonight. It's impossible to pin down conceptually.

Gosh! I recently read a fascinating book, The Idea of the Brain, The Past and Future of Neuroscience, by Matthew Cobb. The modern scientists Cobb discusses seemed to be talking about many different aspects of consciousness, not just the wakefulness and attention you are focused on.

I'm afraid Cobb isn't too impressed by Global Workspace Theory or Integrated Information Theory though. He says neither is widely accepted! — Daemon

This is simply not the case. Did you read the paper I sent you? It's the leading theory.

He quotes French neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene, who has followed on from the ideas of Bernard Baars in developing global neuronal workspace theory: "consciousness is nothing but the flexible circulation of information within a dense switchboard of cortical neurons."

As Cobb comments, '"nothing but" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, and the theory does not explain why flexible and dense circulation of information causes consciousness to pop up.' — Daemon

I'm gonna need you to read the paper, man. I'm sorry, but this isn't a serious contention. That's not at all what the theory posits, and I won't stand for another misrepresentation of it. Either contend with the science at hand, or I'm gonna have to move on from interactions with you here on the thread.

On ITT Cobb says "Again, the link between consciousness and the chosen focus of the theory - in this case integration of information - is unclear. — Daemon

This is 100% true. The other statements were not.

I actually wouldn't find this to be suprising to found out is quite literally the case — Garrett Travers

If you know how the brain works you see that there is no computation at all in the brain. Even when you mentally perform a calculation. Computation and processing data is a human invention. Evidence on my side here.

I'm afraid Cobb isn't too impressed by Global Workspace Theory or Integrated Information Theory though. He says neither is widely accepted!
— Daemon

This is simply not the case. Did you read the paper I sent you? It's the leading theory. — Garrett Travers

Do you have an example of integrated information in the brain?

Do you have an example of integrated information in the brain? — EugeneW

No.

If you know how the brain works you see that there is no computation at all in the brain. Even when you mentally perform a calculation. Computation and processing data is a human invention. Evidence on my side here. — EugeneW

Yeah, I'm willing to accept that. 100%

No — Garrett Travers

All ion pulses run around in concert. There are 10exp(10exp20) possible paths to travel for parallel bundles of ion pulses. A smell is an integrated bundle running around in the olfactory region. Depending on previous smells you experience a smell. But such a process is not an explanation for the smell, in the sense that it tells what a smell is. Only the smell experience can tell you that. And there is no explanation what it actually is.

And there is no explanation what it actually is. — EugeneW

Currently, yes, that's correct.

Never.

Never. — EugeneW

You really believe that? Even after everything we have discovered up to this point with everything else in science? What happens if we do, then? Do you change your tune and say, "Yes, we figured it out, so-and-so kind of data is interpreted like so-and-so."?

I mentioned smell because that's a part of consciousness we can easily point to. The material aspect, that is. A smell process is embedded in the greater always present and functioning whole. But you can rather precise pinpoint the ion pathways in the brain, and processes in the body. Of course the whole body and brain is involved in a smell, but even if you would include all contributing, even if you'd include the whole universe, it's no explanation of the very smell smelled.

But such a process is not an explanation for the smell, in the sense that it tells what a smell is. Only the smell experience can tell you that. And there is no explanation what it actually is. — EugeneW

I agree with this. An experience is an experience, and no matter how closely we might be able to identify the neural correlates of an experience, we can never be justified in claiming that the experience is reducible to something which cannot be itself be directly experienced. Such a claim is necessarily unfalsifiable and hence is not a scientific claim at all (pace Popper).

:up:

:up: — Pantagruel

(likes strawman arguments cuz has none)

Such a claim is necessarily unfalsifiable and hence is not a scientific claim at all (pace Popper). — Janus

That actually may be so. I can second this. However, that does not negate the falsifiable science that has been done, which has revealed the important elements of consciousness I have expounded upon here.

What's between you and falsifiability? What's the big deal with falsifiability? Sir Karl Popper?

What's between you and falsifiability? — EugeneW

Just one more objective tool to add to the bag.

However, that does not negate the falsifiable science that has been done, which has revealed the important elements of consciousness I have expounded upon here. — Garrett Travers

Right, but I haven't disagreed with any of the experimental results of neuroscience. The tension I see is moving form those results to ontological claims such as that we are nothing but our brains. Because I still cannot but see the idea of moral responsibility as being inherently incompatible with the kind of determinism that follows inexorably from such claims.

In my view if we wanted to accept the conclusion that all thoughts, decisions and actions are exhaustively determined by neural activity, then we should be prepared to drop the notion of moral responsibility and deserved punishment, as opposed to necessary restraint, altogether.

then we should be prepared to drop the notion of moral responsibility and deserved punishment, as opposed to necessary restraint, altogether. — Janus

This is still something that doesn't makes. Moral culpability comes from the fact that we can conceptualize the nature of our actions, inhibit or initiate behavior, refine behavior, and make choices. It does not matter if it is natural. All is not permitted if we are naturally created.

This is still something that doesn't makes. Moral culpability comes from the fact that we can conceptualize the nature of our actions, inhibit or initiate behavior, refine behavior, and make choices. It does not matter if it is natural. All is not permitted if we are naturally created. — Garrett Travers

I don't deny that all of those are possible faculties of the body/brain, but they will only be realized by certain brains that are capable of them. And if they are realized by a particular body/brain they will simply inexorably happen (if determinism is the case), or in some sense randomly, but statistically reliably, happen (if indeterminism is the case) just as any other natural process does.

What I have found missing from your account and from the papers you've linked is any coherent and convincing account of how to make a principled ontological distinction between an inexorably unfolding neural process and any other causal process.

Also, I have never encountered a coherent and convincing account of how our normal notion (the one our legal system and the common moral judgements of people are based upon) of moral responsibility could be compatible with the idea that we cannot in any sense really be causa sui moral agents.

Now maybe we cannot help thinking in terms of moral responsibility and deserved punishment because that is way the brain (mind) has co-evolved with culture, and the needs of communities, but if determinism is the case then it would seem to follow that thinking that way is a kind of necessary illusion.

Of course all is not permitted in any case just because societies cannot permit any and all behavior.

lol. Yeah, right. They have no clue.

What I have found missing form your account and the papers you've linked any coherent and convincing account of how to make a principled distinction between an inexorably unfolding neural process and any other causal process. — Janus

Oh, well dude. They haven't figured that out yet. That's been clear. I never made that argument, and neither have they. Nor, have I meant to imply it. If I have, my apologies, that's not what I'm saying.

Also, I have never encountered a coherent and convincing account of how our normal notion (the one our legal system and the common moral judgements of people are based upon) of moral responsibility could be compatible with the idea that we cannot in any sense really be causa sui moral agents.

Now maybe we cannot help thinking in terms of moral responsibility and deserved punishment because that is way the brain (mind) has co-evolved with culture, and the needs of communities, but if determinism is the case then it would seem to follow that thinking that way is a kind of necessary illusion.

Of course all is not permitted in any case just because societies cannot permit any and all behavior. — Janus

I think you and I are on the same page here.

I’m all for neuroscience, but any thing that can be described as conscious are invariably more than brains and nervous systems. One can point to a conscious man’s toe and still be pointing to the source of “consciousness”, which is the conscious being itself.

What are you saying, exactly?

From what I can garner, not anything of substance.

Fact: Neuroscience has not explained consciousness. Period.

If I'm wrong, then, by all means, explain it. Explain how consciousness is produced.