Question for Atheists...

[anna.]

Once again, if you know all the neural correlates (not saying we do, but it seems like a feasible goal), what else is required to 'understand consciousness'? If you know how to predict what a person is experiencing from, say, brain scans, what else is required?

If neuroscientists acknowledge the hard problem, and if they know there's something "else" required to understand consciousness, how do you think non-neuroscientists find it so easy to toss out solutions?

Let me give an analogy. We say some things have electrical charge. We say that because those things act in certain ways in certain conditions. To know those conditions and be able to predict the behavior in new situations *is* understanding what charge is.

Again. That falls under the purview of the easy problem. We understand how neurons fire, for example. What we don't know is why neurons firing in a certain part of the brain produces joy, or sadness.

I fail to see how the same would not be true for consciousness. If we are able to predict conscious states and find correlates with neural activities, isn't that *exactly* what is required to understand consciousness?


Well, if it is my brain that is processing the information, it makes sense that I am the one that experiences it, right? My brain wouldn't be processing the information and someone else experiencing it, right? We feel the process because 'feeling the process' is precisely what the brain does: it makes up a model that includes 'you' and processes incoming information with respect to that model. That *is* feeling or experiencing. I'm not sure what else is required.

If that was the case, wouldn't neuroscience be heralding this great achievement? Where's the celebration?

 

[anna.]

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Gee, never heard that one before!

1. Feelings are subjective, science is objective.
2. Science explains the "how". The moment you ask "why" you are performing religion or philosophy.

Science doesn't ask why? Are you serious?

 

[Bird123]

I don't know but the idea that things are designed and that there is a god are very common ideas in religion. If you've just made it up yourself and still can't present it logically, then that's even worse.

So you can't logically understand what I have been saying nor see where I am pointing for you to Discover what I have Discovered for yourself?????

Sounds like you do not want to be open to all possibilities in favor or your beliefs. That's your free choice to do so. How can you ever Discover anything outside your box of Beliefs???

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

Gee, never heard that one before!



Science doesn't ask why? Are you serious?

It doesn't ask any "why" that cannot be turned into a "how". "Why" is often used as a weasel word to smuggle in purpose or intent.

 

[ppp]

Gee, never heard that one before!



Science doesn't ask why? Are you serious?

It doesn't ask any "why" that cannot be turned into a "how". "Why" is often used as a weasel word to smuggle in purpose or intent.

 

[Bird123]

I do seek. I don't assume.

Who said anything about randomly? They came about through the very precise laws of physics. i don't know why so many people assume that the opposite of 'random' is 'intended'.

Hmm. But wasn't it you that said the purpose of the sun is to provide energy for life?

Once again, you assume there is a purpose without first showing that there is. This is not, in my opinion, the path of reason.

And many stars almost identical to the sun with no planets. Not all stars have planets.

that is an assumption, isn't it? Can you support it?

No, I do not have to consider that if I don't think there is a God at all. Do you have a demonstration of that?

Simple answers like assuming there is always a purpose? I would agree.

Some times they do. other times they do not. I don't assume that simply because there is a function, that some intellect was involved (so no purpose is assumed).

I would say that you need to widen your views. Allow for the possibility that your assumptions might be wrong.

And you do realize it, right? You have yet to say anything that I didn't realize was going on, yet I come to a different conclusion than you.

The energy supplied to your home has purpose but is not a goal. Eternity has purpose.

Name a function that has no purpose. It does not exist. One can only be blind to the purpose.

I would say there are few planets or suns that mankind could not learn something from them. They serve a purpose. Perhaps, with more study, one can stumble on the purpose. On the other hand, without taking the effort to Discover, one limits that view to see what actually is. Waiting for the answers to show up by themselves to accept or reject Discovers very little for oneself. Where would the world be today if everyone waited for others?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[anna.]

It doesn't ask any "why" that cannot be turned into a "how". "Why" is often used as a weasel word to smuggle in purpose or intent.

But science does ask why. The difference is whether why is to cause or intent. Cause is the easy problem. Intent is the hard problem.

 

[ppp]

But science does ask why. The difference is whether why is to cause or intent. Cause is the easy problem. Intent is the hard problem.

F=ma
What is the intent of the existence of that physical relationship? Whose intent? How was intent established? Please cite the peer reviewed papers from the appropriate mainstream physics science journals.

 

[anna.]

F=ma

We're talking about consciousness, not physics.

What is the intent of the existence of that physical relationship? Whose intent? How was intent established? Please cite the peer reviewed papers from the appropriate mainstream physics science journals.

Never said physics was about intent. Never mentioned physics at all, for that matter, but for the sake of any sort of relevance to the study of consciousness at all, you could say physics is representational of the easy problem. The hard problem remains hard.

 

[ppp]

Never said physics was about intent. Never mentioned physics at all, for that matter, but for the sake of any sort of relevance to the study of consciousness at all, you could say physics is representational of the easy problem. The hard problem remains hard.

We are talking about science and the fact that it addresses "why" only in the sense of "how". And we are discussing this because people use the ambiguity of "why" to try to sneak in purpose and intent.

There is no evidence that there is a hard problem of consciousness, save in the sense that we simply havent figured it out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are talking about science and the fact that it addresses "why" only in the sense of "how". And we are discussing this because people use the ambiguity of "why" to try to sneak in purpose and intent.

There is no evidence that there is a hard problem of consciousness, save in the sense that we simply havent figured it out.

Yeah, in the same sense as not all of the human life can be done objectively with evidence and rationality.
The God of the gap is not really about that, but about subjectivity in effect. But that is not limited to theism or even religion.

 

[Polymath257]

But science does ask why. The difference is whether why is to cause or intent. Cause is the easy problem. Intent is the hard problem.

Intent is a common issue in, for example, archeology. There are standard ways of showing intent. For example, we look for items that either cannot or are extremely unlikely to be produced naturally.

Certain types of bone fracture, for example, happen naturally when a rock falls on a bone. But, when that rock is driven by someone trying to break open that bone, the fractures looks different. So, when we find a bone with the right type of fracture, we can say there was intent involved in fracturing that bone.

Similarly, rectangular arrays of rock with good joints tend not to happen naturally. So, when we find such, we know that some sort of intelligence was around and constructed that wall of rocks.

On the other hand, rocks do naturally fall off rock faces and gravity makes then fall. So it is very common to have piles of rocks at the bottom of rock faces. So, when we find such, we do NOT attribute that pile of rocks to an intelligent agent: we attribute it to the work of erosion and gravity.

One aspect of this is learning what sorts of things can happen without intelligent intervention and what sorts of things cannot. There is a great deal of ordered structure that can arise naturally. Water can, for example, sort rocks according to size. So, when we find rocks sorted according to size in a place where we know there was running water, we do not attribute that sorting to an intelligence.

Nature is full of feedback mechanisms that produce ordered structures that can be remarkably complex. That tells us that complexity alone is not a sign of intelligent agency, especially when such feedback occurs. This is the case, for example, with living things and evolution. The type of feedback that natural selection provides naturally leads to an increase of complexity over generations.

 

[Polymath257]

The energy supplied to your home has purpose but is not a goal.

The energy from the electrical company does: it was made by humans to supply our needs. The energy from the sun, however, has no purpose that I can see.

Eternity has purpose.

A nice claim. Any evidence?

Name a function that has no purpose. It does not exist. One can only be blind to the purpose.

The chemical bond between atoms has a lot of function. But no intelligent agent is involved, so it has no purpose.

I would say there are few planets or suns that mankind could not learn something from them. They serve a purpose.

Once again, you take a very human-centric view of purpose. Yes, *we* can use that information for the purposes *we* decide. But that does not mean there is a purpose independent of us.

Perhaps, with more study, one can stumble on the purpose.

For there to be a purpose, there has to be an intelligent agent involved. Most function has no such agent, and so has no purpose.

On the other hand, without taking the effort to Discover, one limits that view to see what actually is. Waiting for the answers to show up by themselves to accept or reject Discovers very little for oneself. Where would the world be today if everyone waited for others?

And you assume the answers before you even start. Is that really the path of wisdom?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

But science does ask why. The difference is whether why is to cause or intent. Cause is the easy problem. Intent is the hard problem.

Science asks and answers the 'why' question by explaining in terms of more fundamental laws of nature. So, we can ask why a motor works and reduce it to the laws of electromagnetism. We can ask why planets orbit the sun and reduce it to the law of gravity.

The 'why' questions don't address 'intent' except in a few areas of science where we *know* there are conscious agents involved *(archeology, for example). And it is a very tricky thing in some cases to establish 'intent'.

But, at the most fundamental level, science *cannot* address the question of 'why' because there is no deeper level of explanation. ALL that can be done is describe, not explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Nature is full of feedback mechanisms that produce ordered structures that can be remarkably complex. That tells us that complexity alone is not a sign of intelligent agency, especially when such feedback occurs. This is the case, for example, with living things and evolution. The type of feedback that natural selection provides naturally leads to an increase of complexity over generations.

Yeah, but in a sense for subjective, it is cause and effect different from cause and effect in non-live.
Here is an expample of objective and subjective cause and effect.
On the surface of earth a human throws a ball, that a dog fetches. Some of that cause and effect happens subjectively as not independent for brains. Now it is natural/physical, but not objective for all of the cause and effect.

 

[Polymath257]

We're talking about consciousness, not physics.



Never said physics was about intent. Never mentioned physics at all, for that matter, but for the sake of any sort of relevance to the study of consciousness at all, you could say physics is representational of the easy problem. The hard problem remains hard.

And what, precisely, is 'consciousness'? What is 'hard' about it? Why would you expect there to be anything past physics (well, and chemistry and biology) involved in consciousness?

One of the biggest problems in the study of consciousness is that nobody seems to be able to agree on what is being studied. For example, is an earthworm conscious or not? How about a bacterium? All living things? How about a thermostat (Chalmers argued they are conscious)? Is a person conscious when dreaming? Under 'conscious sedation'? Under anesthesia? During non-REM sleep? Are plants conscious?

Until the definitional questions are answered, no progress on the question can be made. Until we are all talking about the same phenomenon, only confusion will exist in the subject.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And what, precisely, is 'consciousness'? What is 'hard' about it? Why would you expect there to be anything past physics (well, and chemistry and biology) involved in consciousness?

One of the biggest problems in the study of consciousness is that nobody seems to be able to agree on what is being studied. For example, is an earthworm conscious or not? How about a bacterium? All living things? How about a thermostat (Chalmers argued they are conscious)? Is a person conscious when dreaming? Under 'conscious sedation'? Under anesthesia? During non-REM sleep? Are plants conscious?

Until the definitional questions are answered, no progress on the question can be made. Until we are all talking about the same phenomenon, only confusion will exist in the subject.

It is not that it is not physical and all that in the end in some sense. It is that it is subjective in the end. The hard problem is in effect connected to the claim that only the objective is real. The problem is that is without objective evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

It is not that it is not physical and all that in the end in some sense. It is that it is subjective in the end. The hard problem is in effect connected to the claim that only the objective is real. The problem is that is without objective evidence.

OK, so what is hard about it beyond "simply" finding the neural correlates of conscious states?

 

[F1fan]

So you can't logically understand what I have been saying nor see where I am pointing for you to Discover what I have Discovered for yourself?????

You assume you are wise and have something to offer all others. You over-estimate yourself here, and don't seem capable of understanding this. You keep trying to teach ideas that have no use for thinkers. You're like a drug dealer who doesn't understand why former addicts non-users aren't buying your product. You're just flummoxed. It's gone way over your head why your beliefs are limited to you only, and not usable by others.

Sounds like you do not want to be open to all possibilities in favor or your beliefs.

Being open to possibilities does not mean a thinker will accept them. That is why thinkers require evidence, not possibilities. You lack evidence.

That's your free choice to do so. How can you ever Discover anything outside your box of Beliefs???

By not assuming the things you want to believe are true, and being honest in a search for truth. This is why thinkers don;t agree with what you claim is true: lack of evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I guess you also say that about all your possessions... including your house.

Possessions and to possess are temporary. Alexander's hand did not have anything in it when he was cremated, nor will I have.

What is it that you seek?

I don't seek anything. I have sought and found what I was seeking.