How materialists know brain produces mind

[allfoak]

Nicely said. I try to look for common ground as its just more pleasant. If you find yourself wondering about something to do with materialism, feel free to PM me and I might be able to answer your question or just help out if need be.

Perhaps the common ground is that we are both seekers of truth.

Common ground is hard to find for many these days because there is so little ground on which to stand.

Spoiler: Common Ground

 

[Laika]

Perhaps the common ground is that we are both seekers of truth.

Common ground is hard to find for many these days because there is so little ground on which to stand.

Spoiler: Common Ground

Seekers of truth? I think I can live with that.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Actually, forget my whole "theory." Since I couldn't find an article at the time, then I had to resort to my own personal explanation of things which didn't work out at all. Therefore, here is what I truly wish to talk about here:

I have heard Graziano say that awareness doesn't exist and that it is a simplified model of attention in the brain fooling you into thinking you are aware and are having actual experiences. But my question is, do awareness and actual experience exist by his very definition? In other words, isn't this simplified model of attention the actual awareness and experience itself? If that is so, then I think scientific materialism is still a valid worldview. If not and he is truly saying that experience and awareness are illusions and the brain fooling itself, then I am not so sure.

If he is saying that awareness and experience do not exist at all, then that doesn't make sense to me. When you perceive an optical illusion, that illusory perception is still information in the brain. If we were to take a look inside your brain, then we should find information of a perceived image that wasn't there in the physical world. This should also apply to awareness and experience itself. In other words, awareness and experience should also be information in the brain.

It should be that simplified model in the brain. To say that awareness and experience do not exist at all just doesn't make sense to me. He says that awareness and experience are mere concepts. But even concepts are information inside the brain. Therefore, awareness/experience and information in the brain are actually the same thing according to his theory. The brain just has a different way of looking at that information then. This different way of looking at it is what would yield awareness/experience.

It is no different than a situation where you have a clock. Looking at it from the front side, it goes clockwise. But looking at it from the back side, it goes counter clockwise. But the question is, does it go clockwise or counter clockwise? The answer here would be both. To see it going counter clockwise is just simply a different way of looking at the clock. This analogue would also apply to the physical stuff (neurons) in the brain and awareness/experience.

You can look at the brain as being nothing more than information. That is, nothing more than physical stuff. But a person would report to you how this information was awareness/experience for him/her. So the question is, is the brain nothing more than just information? Is the information nothing more than just physical stuff? Or is all that physical stuff (information) actual awareness and experience? The answer here would be both as well. To have awareness and experience is just simply a different way of looking at that information in the brain.

Also, my whole analogue with the clock makes me think whether this was nothing more than an analogue, or if there is actually some scientific connection here. I wonder if there is some actual science here that connects my analogue with awareness and experience. Maybe perhaps a new theory of consciousness can come from this. Or maybe it is nothing more than just an analogue. I lack the scientific knowledge to determine which is the case. But maybe someone who has a lot of scientific knowledge can make this determination.

Here is the video in which he explains:

I have also watched this video as well:

My question here is, if our experiences are nothing more than just some simplified inaccurate model that our brains construct, then why is it that experience is so powerful and profound to us? Why is it that we would prefer to have experiences of joy, meaning, and value in our lives over being a biological non-sentient machine? This, to me, implies that experience is something more than a mere simplified model. It must of had a greater reason for having come about through evolution.

My next question is, why isn't this simplified model in the brain just simply simplified information in the brain and nothing more? Why is it experience at all? Aren't we still at the hard problem here then? He attempts to explain how our brains construct our sense of experience, but doesn't this still need to be taken further into trying to explain how simplified models in the brain become experiences for us? Even if you take the idea that it is just information of having an experience, then why isn't that still just information? There needs to be an actual transfer from brain processes over to experience and I am still not seeing that even in Graziano's theory.

Thirdly, why wouldn't a full accurate model also have awareness? Why is it that only the simplified model has awareness? If you can't get awareness from a full accurate model, then what makes you think that you can get awareness from a simplified inaccurate model? I would imagine that a full model of paying attention to something would bring full awareness.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have recommended this article previously, and will do so now.

A Ghost in the Machine - Daylight Atheism

 

[siti]

...if our experiences are nothing more than just some simplified inaccurate model that our brains construct, then why is it that experience is so powerful and profound to us?

I would say this is precisely because the model is 'simplified and inaccurate' - its the brain doing 'poetry' - distilling from an endless stream of impossibly tangled sensory data an elegant and concise (which is really just another way of saying 'simplified and inaccurate') 'map' of current reality to guide our thinking and actions.

why wouldn't a full accurate model also have awareness?

I suspect it might (but I think I would stray far off topic if I follow this thought). As to why humans have to 'make do' with a cut down version I think is just evolutionary pragmatism - first no organism has yet emerged with the capacity to process and reprocess so much data intelligently and second of what benefit would the entire quantum mechanical description (which would be the most complete description we could possibly hope for so far) of a sabre tooth tiger been to our stone age ancestors? It would probably have just got him consumed (literally) by his confusion. In most situations, the stripped down construct our brain provides is exactly the punchy and powerful take home message we need.

The mistake often made, perhaps, is the assumption that experience, awareness, consciousness...etc. are qualitatively distinct categories of reality that have to be reached by miraculous leaps and bounds rather than simply (well not simply - exceedingly complex in fact) gradually emergent 'levels' of the same 'information-processing' capacity that exists on a continuum from the most fundamental levels of reality to (and past?) the level of human thought.

My problem with this materialistic interpretation is not whether it is sound enough or whether it is capable of explaining mind, consciousness etc., but the idea that we arbitrarily limit the emergence of holistic computational complexity (awareness, consciousness...etc.) at the level of the individual biological organism. But like I hinted above, that is drifting off-topic so I should probably start a new thread on that subject some time.

 

[idav]

Is that something that could be proven? Or maybe the better question is how would it be proven?

Once your asking about consciousness, we mean specifically human consciousness. No other animals have the level of consciousness that humans have rudimentary forms can be seen throughout the evolutionary scheme with all the pieces needed for the complexity of the human brain. It is easy to go from the premise that the brain is causing some sort of awareness in any given biological being.

 

[George-ananda]

How materialists know brain produces mind

I don't think they claim to 'know' how at this time. They believe someday they will figure it out. But, being materialists, they believe the mind will be explained as a product of material interactions.

 

[David T]

Scientific materialists claim that the brain produces our experiences in the first place. They would claim that they have empirical evidence to support this idea. The idea is that since there is an experiencer in the brain, then stimulation of neurons in the brain can be experienced. Since you have information of an experiencer in the brain and since this information is wired to all other neurons in the brain, then that is what allows you to experience stimulation of those neurons.

Therefore, since you have an experiencer in the brain, then that is what makes all the neurons in the brain no longer just physical stuff and what actually allows you to have experience. So all the physical stuff (neurons) in the brain and experience are actually the same thing. But an experiencer is what makes experience possible.

In order for the brain to have experiences, then you need the capacity to have experience in the first place because without the capability of having experiences in the first place, then you cannot have any experience at all in the brain. So what is it that unlocks this capacity? I am quite sure it is something known as 'awareness.'

Only a brain that is aware can have experiences. The experiencer I explained can only be defined as an experiencer if he/she has the capability of having experiences. That is the very definition of an experiencer in the first place. Without the capability of experience, then we cannot call this an experiencer. Therefore, since I explained that it is awareness that is this capacity for experience, then the experiencer would have awareness and this is what makes experience possible in the brain according to modern scientific materialism.

 

[David T]

This has a fundemental flaw it's self referential. There is no such thing as experience independent of neurology including any statements about neurology. Since that's a fact any therefore stAtement is inherently flawed if it doesn't account for itself. This post has not done that. . It's identical to religion I believe x to be true therefore x is true because I believe it to be true. Further more a starfish does not have a brain does it experience? If you say no, in religion that's self deluded nonsense bending reality to fit your perspective if you say yes then the post is false.

 

[Nous]

There is no such thing as experience independent of neurology

I'm not sure what that is intended to mean.

Did you deduce it from a fact? If so, what fact?

 

[David T]

I'm not sure what that is intended to mean.

Did you deduce it from a fact? If so, what fact?

How would you be able to deduce otherwise? I am not saying there events that dont happen independent of the breain thats clear but we dont experience independent of the brain that's disembodiement, nor is the brain the totality locus of experience.

 

[Nous]

How would you be able to deduce otherwise?

Now I'm even less sure what your claim--that "there is no such thing as experience independent of neurology"--is supposed to mean. Neurology is:

. . . a branch of medicine dealing with disorders of the nervous system. Neurology deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of conditions and disease involving the central and peripheral nervous system (and its subdivisions, the autonomic nervous system and the somatic nervous system); including their coverings, blood vessels, and all effector tissue, such as muscle.[1]​

Neurology - Wikipedia

In the OPs and throughout the following thread, evidence is presented of people having complex, coherent experiences, forming memories, engaging in logical thought processes, and having veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective during clinical death: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

 

[David T]

Now I'm even less sure what your claim--that "there is no such thing as experience independent of neurology"--is supposed to mean. Neurology is:

. . . a branch of medicine dealing with disorders of the nervous system. Neurology deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of conditions and disease involving the central and peripheral nervous system (and its subdivisions, the autonomic nervous system and the somatic nervous system); including their coverings, blood vessels, and all effector tissue, such as muscle.[1]​

Neurology - Wikipedia

In the OPs and throughout the following thread, evidence is presented of people having complex, coherent experiences, forming memories, engaging in logical thought processes, and having veridical perceptions from an out-of-body perspective during clinical death: Do Realistic Interpretations of NDEs Imply Violation of the Laws of Physics?

No. It implies what we call consciousness is a part of the enviroment as well not just the brain. We aren't surrounded by a big deadvoid except between our ears. We have a dead sun dead water dead earth dead sky virtually all is dead accordingly to contemporary science and christianity!!! Weird how they align so much.


Let me clarify a bit. The original post placed experience in the brain I asked what about a star fish. You carried it even further out into the enviroment as well. My original statement of circularity is that you can't make a statement without it being neurological itself particularly in context to material reductionism. The whole think should be framed into cognitive science anyway I am not a reductionist I tend to see everything as one phenomena rather than separated objects in cause and effect like a clock. Way more organic and dynamic. I could be called a theoretical panpsychism type but to me thats not really accurate just convienence of communication.

 

[Nous]

No. It implies what we call consciousness is a part of the enviroment as well not just the brain. We aren't surrounded by a big deadvoid except between our ears. We have a dead sun dead water dead earth dead sky virtually all is dead accordingly to contemporary science and christianity!!! Weird how they align so much.


Let me clarify a bit. The original post placed experience in the brain I asked what about a star fish. You carried it even further out into the enviroment as well. My original statement of circularity is that you can't make a statement without it being neurological itself particularly in context to material reductionism. The whole think should be framed into cognitive science anyway I am not a reductionist I tend to see everything as one phenomena rather than separated objects in cause and effect like a clock. Way more organic and dynamic. I could be called a theoretical panpsychism type but to me thats not really accurate just convienence of communication.

I think I "see" what you're saying here. I especially like this: "We aren't surrounded by a big dead void except between our ears."

 

[David T]

I think I "see" what you're saying here. I especially like this: "We aren't surrounded by a big dead void except between our ears."

Yea we are more alike on being non reductive. I moved from brain centric to star fish I was working my way to the surrounding enviroment!!!

 

[Nous]

Yea we are more alike on being non reductive.

Yes, reductionism does not paint a correct picture.

 

[siti]

Yes, reductionism does not paint a correct picture.

I think it doesn't paint a complete picture - but it's hard to see how we could properly understand the fundamental reality without employing some kind of reductionism. The mistake is not in taking a 'reductionist analytical' approach but in assuming that the answers it gives are all there is to know. I can't recall who, but somebody once wrote to the effect that it would be "absurd to imagine that the ten commandments could be deduced from the standard model of particle physics". Don't want to go too far off-topic so I'll post a few thoughts on the problem of reductionism in a separate thread.

 

[Nous]

I think it doesn't paint a complete picture - but it's hard to see how we could properly understand the fundamental reality without employing some kind of reductionism. The mistake is not in taking a 'reductionist analytical' approach but in assuming that the answers it gives are all there is to know.

I agree completely! In fact, I was trying to allow for what is true about reductionism, which is why I stated my sentence as I did.

I must say, you are quite perceptive and intelligent for a chimpanzee.

 

[siti]

I must say, you are quite perceptive and intelligent for a chimpanzee.

Yeah - I was discussing chimpanzee spirituality (of all things) in another forum a few years back and since I seemed to some of the other posters to be advocating strongly in favour of chimpanzee intelligence they thought I might actually be one. As a joke I changed my avatar and...well...my Mum always told me if I 'pull a face' it might stick - it did. But I really kept it to show 'doubters' that I think we are really no more, and more strikingly significant IMO, no less - than 'thinking apes'. It kind of relates to the current discussion because unless we see ourselves as we really are, we are very unlikely to have any chance of finding out what the world that got us there is really like. And we are very definitely connected intimately - most intimately - to the rest of the living world. If we imagine ourselves aloof, as if we are 'looking in' on the world from above it - we will get the wrong picture.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Scientific materialists claim that the brain produces our experiences in the first place. They would claim that they have empirical evidence to support this idea. The idea is that since there is an experiencer in the brain, then stimulation of neurons in the brain can be experienced. Since you have information of an experiencer in the brain and since this information is wired to all other neurons in the brain, then that is what allows you to experience stimulation of those neurons.

Therefore, since you have an experiencer in the brain, then that is what makes all the neurons in the brain no longer just physical stuff and what actually allows you to have experience. So all the physical stuff (neurons) in the brain and experience are actually the same thing. But an experiencer is what makes experience possible.

In order for the brain to have experiences, then you need the capacity to have experience in the first place because without the capability of having experiences in the first place, then you cannot have any experience at all in the brain. So what is it that unlocks this capacity? I am quite sure it is something known as 'awareness.'

Only a brain that is aware can have experiences. The experiencer I explained can only be defined as an experiencer if he/she has the capability of having experiences. That is the very definition of an experiencer in the first place. Without the capability of experience, then we cannot call this an experiencer. Therefore, since I explained that it is awareness that is this capacity for experience, then the experiencer would have awareness and this is what makes experience possible in the brain according to modern scientific materialism.

Are you saying that:

If all consciousness is a result of sense perception, then
we must have perceived consciousness in order to have it.

But in order to perceive consciousness, we must already have it
to actually be able to have any such perception.

So consciousness cannot be the result of sense perception.

hmm?