Western Materialism

[Ostronomos]

Correlation refers to independent phenomenon. Minds are not independent of brains, but products of brains, which makes @1137 claim absurd. Let's see what answer is given for my question. My prediction: no examples. The member offered radios and radiowaves as an analogy, but really the analogy would be transmitter and radiowaves. Break the transmitter and the radiowaves end. Kill a brain and the mind ceases.

Here is the crux of your flawed proposition. You assume that brain = reality, not mind = reality. If the latter, then mind can expand and become limitless. If the former, then mind = matter.

 

[Ostronomos]

Years ago, when I was living in Chicago, I had occasion to ride a city bus every day at rush hour through a very busy part of the downtown. Busy in that there were many pedestrians walking in both directions on the sidewalks next to the bus, and that there was a lot of car traffic on the street, forcing the bus to make slow progress along it, and to stop at every corner for a significant amount of time. So for a while, out of both curiosity and boredom, I began running a sort of "experiment". I had noticed that when I sat by the window on the sidewark side of the bus, and I would idly stare at one of the passersby on the sidewalk, they would turn to see if someone, and who, was looking at them. And I became curious if they were somehow sensing that I was looking at them from on the bus.

To pass the time, I began to deliberately focus my attention on one of the pedestrians on the sidewalk near the bus that had their back to me, and wait to see if they would turn and look in my direction, as if wondering if and who was looking at them. And I was very surprised to discover how often this would actually happen. It's been many years so I don't recall the actual numbers, but it was somewhere near a quarter or a third of the time. Which I reckoned was WAY more often than would happen randomly. It appeared pretty clear to me that at least some of these people were able to somehow sense that they were the focus of someone else's attention. So then once I got off the bus, and walked among the throngs of pedestrians, I would see if I could sense anyone else looking at me. But there was too much noise and clutter and distraction for that. However people were sensing that they were being focused on, it was happening unconsciously.

There is a theory on mind that says that since it is immaterial, then we are said to have an immaterial nature. Could it be that we are not 100% material, but that our actual nature is founded on an immaterial source?

 

[1137]

Can you provide any examples of a mind existing without a brain? Use facts, not guesses.

The question is entirely backwards as I already explained. You rely on consciousness to even be aware of brains. You cannot ponder, know, or provide examples of a single thing without consciousness.

Correlation refers to independent phenomenon. Minds are not independent of brains, but products of brains, which makes @1137 claim absurd. Let's see what answer is given for my question. My prediction: no examples. The member offered radios and radiowaves as an analogy, but really the analogy would be transmitter and radiowaves. Break the transmitter and the radiowaves end. Kill a brain and the mind ceases.

My guy, we are aware of your faith. Do you have one single shred of evidence or argument for your faith that brain causes mind? Alternatives are irrelevant. You're starting to come off as extremely dishonest here.

 

[Ostronomos]

Can you provide any examples of a mind existing without a brain? Use facts, not guesses.

I will take up this challenge since I am probably the only one here who has had genuine supernatural experiences which I then later explained with scientific reason.

Let us turn our attention to the laws of Quantum Mechanics. It says that two entangled particles can influence each other (in terms of their properties like spin and charge) no matter how far apart in time and space they are.

Now, what if this phenomenon reflects a hidden gem of an idea about reality? What if mind and reality can become entangled at the highest level?

Recall that the higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation. What if non-separation between internal and external reality occurs at the pinnacle of reality?

 

[F1fan]

Here is the crux of your flawed proposition. You assume that brain = reality, not mind = reality. If the latter, then mind can expand and become limitless. If the former, then mind = matter.

How about you respond to what I write.

 

[F1fan]

I will take up this challenge since I am probably the only one here who has had genuine supernatural experiences which I then later explained with scientific reason.

Let us turn our attention to the laws of Quantum Mechanics. It says that two entangled particles can influence each other (in terms of their properties like spin and charge) no matter how far apart in time and space they are.

Now, what if this phenomenon reflects a hidden gem of an idea about reality? What if mind and reality can become entangled at the highest level?

Recall that the higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation. What if non-separation between internal and external reality occurs at the pinnacle of reality?

So you have no examples of a mind existing outside of a living brain. OK.

 

[F1fan]

The question is entirely backwards as I already explained. You rely on consciousness to even be aware of brains. You cannot ponder, know, or provide examples of a single thing without consciousness.

So you have no examples of a mind existing outside of a living brain either. OK.

My guy, we are aware of your faith. Do you have one single shred of evidence or argument for your faith that brain causes mind? Alternatives are irrelevant. You're starting to come off as extremely dishonest here.

We observe minds as a process and product of living brains. There are no exceptions. You offer no factual alternatives.

 

[1137]

My original response was unfair.

So you have no examples of a mind existing outside of a living brain either. OK.

I don't even understand the question, it makes no sense. The only reason I even know of living brains is through consciousness. The question is if you can show a brain without consciousness, and the answer is of course no (which is surely why you wont answer it).

We observe minds as a process and product of living brains. There are no exceptions. You offer no factual alternatives.

Observe how? You just make claim after claim after claim, is there one single empirical or logical reason we should even consider your faith? If you can't provide any then really we're done here, nobody should spend time on beliefs one won't even defend.

 

[F1fan]

My original response was unfair.

I don't even understand the question, it makes no sense. The only reason I even know of living brains is through consciousness. The question is if you can show a brain without consciousness, and the answer is of course no (which is surely why you wont answer it).

Dead brains don’t exhibit consciousness. Is there anywhere else that we see consciousness that isn’t a living brain?

Observe how? You just make claim after claim after claim, is there one single empirical or logical reason we should even consider your faith? If you can't provide any then really we're done here, nobody should spend time on beliefs one won't even defend.

You are complaining about what, exactly?

 

[1137]

Dead brains don’t exhibit consciousness. Is there anywhere else that we see consciousness that isn’t a living brain?

And you are aware of dead brains without reliance on consciousness... how?

You are complaining about what, exactly?

That you have this faith you want us to presuppose and yet cannot provide the slightest defense of it.

 

[F1fan]

And you are aware of dead brains without reliance on consciousness... how?

I never said we can't. But there's no sign of consciousness without a brain and it's neural network. No brain, no consciousness. Agree? If not, then give examples of consciousness existing without a brain.

That you have this faith you want us to presuppose and yet cannot provide the slightest defense of it.

What faith is it that I have?

And are you admitting faith is unreliable? I agree with that.

 

[Yerda]

Correlation refers to independent phenomenon. Minds are not independent of brains, but products of brains, which makes @1137 claim absurd.

Well, maybe. I suppose that is the crux of the matter.

Scientists and philosophers often talk about the neural correlates of consciousness. Is it absurd when they do it?

Let's see what answer is given for my question. My prediction: no examples. The member offered radios and radiowaves as an analogy, but really the analogy would be transmitter and radiowaves. Break the transmitter and the radiowaves end. Kill a brain and the mind ceases.

Yes, but if we destroy the receiver does our radio still play?

This is an objection I've heard before, that we don't create consciousness in our brain, but that our brain picks it up like a radio. It's an organ that allows us to tap into the field of consciousness or something like that. There's no evidence or even any reason that I can see to suppose this is true but it does pose an interesting problem. How do we test the ideas against each other?

What kind of evidence would support the "brain creates consciousness" hypothesis over the "brain recieves consciousness" hypothesis?

A member here used to point out that appeals of the "change the brain, change the consciousness" type contain an informal logical fallacy at their core - post hoc ergo propter hoc. And I can kind of understand that thinking.

 

[1137]

I never said we can't. But there's no sign of consciousness without a brain and it's neural network. No brain, no consciousness. Agree? If not, then give examples of consciousness existing without a brain.

Gods, ghosts, spirits, your own soul... again the question doesn't make any sense to start, the best we can ever tell consciousness is always present.

What faith is it that I have?

Physicalism.

And are you admitting faith is unreliable? I agree with that.

Yes, when people are fideists and hold their faith against logic and without evidence I think this is unreliable. If you yourself agree you are unreliable, I guess there's no need to engage further, but I appreciate some honesty finally.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, Tononi talks in general terms in that clip, which is part of a much longer interview. The key point he is making here is that consciousness is fundamental to our experience of reality, indeed to all intents and purposes it is our reality. All of our experience is by definition, conscious experience; therefore any attempt to describe, define, or construct a theoretical model of objective reality must begin by giving some account of the consciousness of the observer. Starting with the material world, and arriving at consciousness as an output of that, is putting the cart before the horse. Consciousness has priority, he argues, because the material world is something we access via our conscious minds.

I don't think it is worth trying to take such a top-down perspective of consciousness and figure out what its relationship is to physics. Rather, I would start with simple physical interactions and work my way up. Conscious experience is an interaction between a mind and a physical context. That is, the mind is conscious of something--its physical environment. An iron filing reacts to a magnetic field, but can it be said to be conscious of that field or the magnet that generates it? Certainly, they are not conscious of the magnet, but there is a sense in which they directly detect the magnetic field and interact with it. Just like humans detect their environment and interact with it.

Human bodies and iron filings are both physical objects. They both interact with their environment. What is it about physical human bodies that makes them interact differently with their environment than iron filings react with theirs? Both humans and iron filings feel forces of attraction and repulsion, but the human interactions are vastly more complex. We can proceed with such a bottom-up methodology to look at physical interactions between more complex physical objects than magnets and iron filings, but I think at some point it will become clear that the physical fields involving less complex objects are similar to the physical fields involving human behavior, only vastly different in scope. Iron filings obviously don't have brains. They don't build mental models to interpret the sensation of a magnetic attraction, nor do they have associative memories of their interactions. But we can build physical machines--robots--that have some of those more human-like interactions with their physical environments. So we have a means of investigating the relationship between brain activity in human bodies and the reality that those bodies interact with. I wouldn't say that an iron filing has a mind, but I would say that it has some rudimentary component of one.

The ideas Tononi, and philosophers of mind like David Chalmers express, have echoes in quantum theory where the measurement problem, and quantum contextuality, dictate that the observer necessarily interacts with the system she observes, and therefore cannot see the world from a neutral perspective, as it would exist independently of her observation. Similarly in cosmology, Stephen Hawking wrestled with the paradox that the search for the objective 'Archimedean Point' from which to view the universe, is doomed since we are within the universe looking out, rather than laboratory scientists examining an isolated system from the outside.

An interesting property of human thinking is that it can take different perspectives--first person, second person, third person, etc. What can be described from each of those different perspectives is different from descriptions based on the others. So it is wrong to say that one cannot see the world from a neutral or different perspective. One can imagine it from those perspectives. One of the problems with trying to wrestle with these problems as a scientist is that the models one comes up with to describe measured results are somewhat different perspectives on those results, and not all models are useful is solving real world problems. For example, quantum mechanics tells us lots of interesting things about the behavior of a baseball that a pitcher throws, but classical mechanics is a lot more useful in describing it from the perspective of the pitcher. And there is more than one way to interpret fact of the measurement problem, as the physicist Sean M Carroll has been at pains to explain in his popular book Something Deeply Hidden. You don't need to buy into Everett's MWI model of quantum mechanics to understand his point, but I think he makes it very well. Sometimes scientists get the science right and the metaphors wrong. and scientists have come up with a lot of metaphors while trying to explain the measurement problem.

"Our physical theories don't live rent-free in a platonic heaven. We are not angels, who view the universe from outside. We and our theories are part of the universe we are describing. Our theories are never fully decoupled from us."
- Stephen Hawking, quoted by Thomas Hertog, On the Origin of Time

See what I mean about scientists and metaphors? Why would we want to decouple ourselves from our theories? That doesn't make any sense at all. What we want to do is develop theories that provide us with useful ways to interact with the physical reality that we find ourselves in. Why suffer so much angst over the fact that we will never stop learning new and useful things about that reality?

 

[F1fan]

nWell, maybe. I suppose that is the crux of the matter.

Scientists and philosophers often talk about the neural correlates of consciousness. Is it absurd when they do it?

Who are the scientists?

Yes, but if we destroy the receiver does our radio still play?

It's a flawed analogy.

This is an objection I've heard before, that we don't create consciousness in our brain, but that our brain picks it up like a radio. It's an organ that allows us to tap into the field of consciousness or something like that. There's no evidence or even any reason that I can see to suppose this is true but it does pose an interesting problem. How do we test the ideas against each other?

There needs to be evidence to test any given claim. That means some claims that are not based on any observation or evidence can't be tested. And just because someone makes an outlandish claim, do we really need to give it any attention?

What kind of evidence would support the "brain creates consciousness" hypothesis over the "brain recieves consciousness" hypothesis?

What we call consciousness is a property of some living organisms. Why assume it is something that brains pick up? How does that make any sense?

Let's note these ideas come from theists who are desperate for their ideas of God to be demonstrable in some way, and this claim is one they often make. What they want is for consciousness to be from the "God source" and we humans (among other animals and organisms) pick it up. That includes Hitler, our friend Charlie Manson, every serial killer, sociopaths, priests that abused children, etc. You see my point here, even if consciousness comes from a God source it does not guarantee any better moral outlook.

A member here used to point out that appeals of the "change the brain, change the consciousness" type contain an informal logical fallacy at their core - post hoc ergo propter hoc. And I can kind of understand that thinking.

Maybe if the person is in a coma.

 

[F1fan]

Gods, ghosts, spirits, your own soul... again the question doesn't make any sense to start, the best we can ever tell consciousness is always present.

So your examples are things not known to exist? This isn't a serious answer.

If consciousness is present it is because there is a living brain being observed. How is consciousness detected outside of living brains. Use facts this time.

Physicalism.

So you think it is faith that we only can sense a nature that is physical? Do you have special powers to detect non-physical anything? Or are you bluffing with all this?

Yes, when people are fideists and hold their faith against logic and without evidence

Notice your position is without logic and evidence.

I think this is unreliable. If you yourself agree you are unreliable, I guess there's no need to engage further, but I appreciate some honesty finally.

Well you can't defend your position, so I guess you concede you can't show us you are correct. So we throw out your claims.

 

[PureX]

There is a theory on mind that says that since it is immaterial, then we are said to have an immaterial nature. Could it be that we are not 100% material, but that our actual nature is founded on an immaterial source?

Matter is a manifestation of energy like ice is a manifestation of water. So are space, and motion, and therefor time. Existence is all energy being expressed according to what is possible, and what is not.

But humans don't know what all is possible and what is not. So we don't know what all the forms and expressions of energy that are possible. We do know, or at least so far presume to know that matter is just one of them.

 

[Yerda]

Who are the scientists?

Francis Crick ad Christof Koch would be the first that spring to mind. It's a fairly common term in the cognitive sciences. Here's the wiki:

Neural correlates of consciousness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There needs to be evidence to test any given claim. That means some claims that are not based on any observation or evidence can't be tested. And just because someone makes an outlandish claim, do we really need to give it any attention?

Of course not, but we are on RF sending little text messages to each other for our own entertainment, so why not? There is no fun at all in simply dismissing the ideas we find a bit wacky and much more fun in entertaining them, in my experience.

Besides, there is something interesting there. How would we distinguish between the two cases?

What we call consciousness is a property of some living organisms. Why assume it is something that brains pick up? How does that make any sense?

We don't have to assume it. Can we rule it out based on evidence?

If I start from the understanding that nothing we have discovered about the nature of the world suggests any reason why brain matter should give rise to experiences I tend to see consciousness as a mystery. I'm sure (like 99% sure) that it results from what brains do, but that is an assumption on my part.

From this position I'm able to be more sympathetic to ideas that appear strange but I doubt are true.

Let's note these ideas come from theists who are desperate for their ideas of God to be demonstrable in some way, and this claim is one they often make.

Sure, we can attribute intentions if you like. But let's also note that the intentions of the messenger aren't a rigid guide to the truth of the message. We don't quite know how to rule the claim out. Unless you do?

What they want is for consciousness to be from the "God source" and we humans (among other animals and organisms) pick it up. That includes Hitler, our friend Charlie Manson, every serial killer, sociopaths, priests that abused children, etc. You see my point here, even if consciousness comes from a God source it does not guarantee any better moral outlook.

True.

 

[exchemist]

It did seem to me that TM was saying roughly the same thing when he talked about consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of brain activity. What that means is that any emergent physical system is going to have different properties from its components, so the description of the system's behavior will be at a higher level. For example, table salt has different properties from sodium and chloride atoms because its systematic interaction has different properties from its components. Similarly, water has different properties from hydrogen or oxygen. Radical reductionism tends to eliminate high level descriptions of systemic behavior.

I didn't find Tononi's description of consciousness very enlightening, but he was also trying to speak in very broad functional generalizations. A lot of it came of to me as a bit postmodernist in flavor. He certainly didn't connect any of those functions he spoke about to actual neural activity, but he also didn't bother to define consciousness. Like so many people who discuss the subject, he assumes that the listener just knows what it is. I think that one needs to analyze consciousness into different functional components first--for example, episodic memory, sensations from the peripheral nervous system and its interaction with the central nervous system (active perception), etc.

I too struggled to get anything useful out of that interview. To me, treating consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of brain activity seems the obvious way to look at it.

Massimo Pigliucci has a critique of the "hard problem" of consciousness here: What Hard Problem? | Issue 99 | Philosophy Now I find myself sympathetic towards that.

It get the feeling that a great deal of the discussion about consciousness is conditioned by our tradition of Cartesian dualism, whereby people think of the mind as an entity, distinct from the body. I suspect that too is a category error and that the mind is an activity, not an entity: the activity of the brain.

 

[F1fan]

Francis Crick ad Christof Koch would be the first that spring to mind. It's a fairly common term in the cognitive sciences. Here's the wiki:

Neural correlates of consciousness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is all well explained. Are you focusing on the "correlate" part of that title? What is described in your link isn't what 1137 was referring to as mind correlating to brain. that member's view is that consciousness is not a property of brains, but that it is some independent phenomenon that brains receive like a radio does radiowaves.

Of course not, but we are on RF sending little text messages to each other for our own entertainment, so why not? There is no fun at all in simply dismissing the ideas we find a bit wacky and much more fun in entertaining them, in my experience.

Yes we are having fun. But some are having fun by understanding what is true, or at least what is likely true about how things are. Others are looking to prop up their religious or political beliefs with ideas that are unlikely true or even implausible. Those claiming the mind is independent of brains are doing so for some motive that isn't trying to understand what is objectively true, and to my mind it is part of debate to expose these flaws of thinking to them so they can learn, if they want to. Some just get upset, and even insulting. They aren't having fun.

Besides, there is something interesting there. How would we distinguish between the two cases?

Follow the facts. With a lack of facts we follow what we understand of reality thus far. If you see a light in the night sky, is it a UFO, or satelite? If you hear a noise in your house while you were sleeping, is it a ghost or one of your cats? UFOs and ghosts are more fun, but is there evidence over the more likely explanation? With a lack of evidence we defer to the most likely explanations.

We don't have to assume it. Can we rule it out based on evidence?

Why is it even a consideration? Our imaginations could go anywhere. Look at those who believe we are living sims. Did anyone come up with that before videogames? Not to my understanding, but some are running with the idea due to social expeirence, not evidence.

If I start from the understanding that nothing we have discovered about the nature of the world suggests any reason why brain matter should give rise to experiences I tend to see consciousness as a mystery. I'm sure (like 99% sure) that it results from what brains do, but that is an assumption on my part.

Gravity is a mystery too, but is there any reason to believe gravity is some supernatural, or non-material, phenomenon? No. We didn't understand infections before germ theory. We work towards understanding nature by following the evidence. We shold be wary of those trying to find "God of the gaps" speculation that derails science. It's distraction, not sincere investigation.

From this position I'm able to be more sympathetic to ideas that appear strange but I doubt are true.

Why sympathetic?

Sure, we can attribute intentions if you like. But let's also note that the intentions of the messenger aren't a rigid guide to the truth of the message. We don't quite know how to rule the claim out. Unless you do?

Well we see all sorts of questions that we can't answer, like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It's asking a question that we can't answer, so to my mind it is more interesting to ask why a mortal would need to ask questions they know they can't answer. What is their intention other than some confusion and uncertainty? Look at those who think materialism is false, what is their basis for that judgment? We are material beings. The universe is material. There is no indication of there being "immaterial" anything, whatever than means. So what gives, except to justify beliefs that have evolved from religion?