(May 21, 2014 at 1:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not quite...you don't know therefore you have nothing that supports your conviction that mind is an emergent property. In fact, you don't know because your materialist theories are incoherent promissory notes.

- effect of hallucinogens
- rapid loss of consciousness due to oxygen depravation
- effect of trauma
- effect of age
- electric stimulation forcing repetitive recall of qualia; the same qualia
- drastic difference in measured brain activity between fully conscioius and unconscious patients

This isn't definitive proof of course and the mechanism is still unknown, but it all points to the brain being the source of consciousness. You on the other hand have nothing but pure speculation. Your likely excuse for my list above is that the brain is some type of information exhange platform for your disembodied mind.You and your ilk will continue to cry that we are begging the question while ignoring that our position is methodological and subject to change based on new information; whereas, your position is dogmatic.

(May 21, 2014 at 1:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not quite...you don't know therefore you have nothing that supports your conviction that mind is an emergent property. In fact, you don't know because your materialist theories are incoherent promissory notes.

Ok, so when you're bouncing back and forth between monism, dualism and pluralism depending on the claim you're trying to advance, you conveniently don't have to provide a single shred of evidence to show your position is valid, let alone the assumptions you pretend to support by your position of the moment?

---

(May 21, 2014 at 2:27 pm)Chas Wrote:

(May 21, 2014 at 1:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not quite...you don't know therefore you have nothing that supports your conviction that mind is an emergent property. In fact, you don't know because your materialist theories are incoherent promissory notes.

So you are justified in just making some shit up and saying you're right.

OK, got it.

More accurately, making shit up about making shit up, supported by made-up shit.

---

(May 21, 2014 at 2:27 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 21, 2014 at 12:43 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: On the contrary, as many animals display the same sort if consciousness, you haven't explained why it's unnecessary, nor why evolutionary psychology is highly accurate at explaining behavior.

Simply, you are arguing that less complex algorithms are better adaptations to the environment

I don't think you're on the same page as me with regard to how the term consciousness is being used. I'm talking about the existence, rather than the non-existence of qualia.

Given that qualia are only the subjective awareness of the "algorithms" you're talking about, the elephant in the room isn't about comparative bioligy-- it's about why qualia exist rather than not-- since there's no good reason a brain (or any other machine) couldn't process any amount of information without having subjective experience about it.

So it boils down to personal incredulity supporting a position lacking evidence, because it supports a position you prefer.

(May 21, 2014 at 11:21 am)Chas Wrote: We experience consciousness/qualia, therefore we are sure that it exists - we don't need to know a mechanism for that.

What's this "we" stuff, Chasmatic 3000?

Quote:Yes, consciousness may require a biological brain, or maybe not.

But I don't care for your use of the term 'process' in that sentence. What do you mean by it?

I mean that there is a causal chain: sensory input, brain processing, behavioral output.

---

(May 21, 2014 at 11:58 am)Cato Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 9:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The one question materialists never answer is this: "What does consciousness actually do?"

Discriminates stimuli, reports information, monitors internal states, directs behavior and experiences the aforementioned.

Sounds like deterministic brain activity to me, except for the last part. But the problem is you haven't shown the last part is necessary for the first three. And if not, it has no evolutionary value, and its existence is therefore an accident of truly miraculous proportions.

---

(May 21, 2014 at 4:56 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: So it boils down to personal incredulity supporting a position lacking evidence, because it supports a position you prefer.

I don't prefer the position in which the brain is waved at and taken to be an explanation, because mind is unique to other properties, and our understanding of physics doesn't include a good theory of mind.

Given that others experience qualia, and that changes to brain structure or chemistry affect experience, the question is still wide open about what that relationship is. There are many possibilities:
-the brain represents a content generator for mind, which is like a canvas and which exists independently of the brain (substance dualism)
-mind is a physical property like any other, supervenient on certain structures and functions, and we just need more research to understand (physical monism)
-all the universe is mind, and it is the physicality which is the accidental byproduct (idealistic monism)

Let's select for now just the physical monist view. There are still many ways in which brain could be related to mind
-on a QM, atomic or molecular level: maybe a kind of elemental mental field or property is intrinsic to all matter, or to all matter of a certain type, and the brain brings the fields of a gazillion particles into relationship with each other, creating a unified, singular "mind."
-maybe mind is a special property created by the flow of information itself, independent of any specific physical mechanism
-maybe the brain structure is intrinsically aware, and we just can't remember that awareness which happens while we are in deep sleep

So, EVEN GIVEN that the human mind supervenes on the brain, whether you'd be likely to extend the concept of mind to other structures (or to the universe as a whole) depends on which of these cases is true.

Yes, I'm incredulous. I'm incredulous that waving at the brain narrows the possibilities sufficiently to establish a strong position on the OP.

I'm an interaction dualist. I provided scientific evidence in two earlier posts. Neither post received a serious response.

(May 21, 2014 at 7:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I'm an interaction dualist. I provided scientific evidence in two earlier posts. Neither post received a serious response.

Because it's only good science if it supports what I already think.

(May 21, 2014 at 8:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 21, 2014 at 7:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I'm an interaction dualist. I provided scientific evidence in two earlier posts. Neither post received a serious response.

Because it's only good science if it supports what I already think.

Your thesis isn't scientifically testable, and doesn't qualify as science.

And on the contrary, the answer is only accepted if it supports what either of you already think, as demonstrated many times over in this thread.

For instance, if a reply does not presuppose the supernatural directly influences the physical, then it is discarded, or bombarded with questions as to how that can be so, without ever even addressing the question of how the supernatural can influence the material world, or 1., how one would know the supernatural exists, 2., that it does influence the physical body.

(May 21, 2014 at 8:35 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Your thesis isn't scientifically testable, and doesn't qualify as science.

And on the contrary, the answer is only accepted if it supports what either of you already think, as demonstrated many times over in this thread.

For instance, if a reply does not presuppose the supernatural directly influences the physical, then it is discarded, or bombarded with questions as to how that can be so, without ever even addressing the question of how the supernatural can influence the material world, or 1., how one would know the supernatural exists, 2., that it does influence the physical body.

lol your sarcastometer is broken, I think.

Anyhow, I've never suggested any supernatural thesis. There's nothing supernatural about the idea that some kind of mind is intrinsic to all matter, or that it's intrinsic to the flow of information rather than a specific mechanism, or even that the whole universe is idealistic rather than physicalistic. In any of those cases, the reality of things is nature. Until the mechanism of mind is known, it's foolish to choose a single model and proclaim it to be scientific fact-- and the current state of things is that the mechanism of mind is NOT known-- nor is there even a moderately plausible physical explanation for the fact of qualia.

As for presuppositions, you have it exactly backward. I make fewer assumptions than you do. I see a rock as a collection of properties: shape, color, weight etc. I see its interaction with other objects as an additional property which may be interesting to observe and study. You insert additional ideas about the underlying nature of those experiences: they come from such and such, are formed in such and such a way, etc. But while the rock's properties are self-evident, the additional ideas you insert are both intrinsically unprovable and unneccessary to do good science.

And finally, we come to testing mechanisms. You claim there is a "scientific" view on consciousness. However, you cannot ever observe someone else's qualia. You can't prove qualia to exist, anywhere, in any form, in any physical structure or its functions. You simply. Do. Not. Have. Access. To. Others'. Qualia.

You talk about evidence, but it is exclusively implicit evidence for something that cannot even be shown to exist. You could make the same philosophical assumption about ANY intangible entity-- like God, or angels. You could say, "Well, since we already know God exists, and is only known to exist where humans are, God cares more about humans than about other creatures." But that would be bullshit. And so is the statement that "we all know qualia exists, and is only known to exist where the brain is, so the brain makes the qualia."

Don't believe me? Prove that you actually experience qualia, rather than just seeming to.

(May 22, 2014 at 1:41 am)bennyboy Wrote: Prove that you actually experience qualia, rather than just seeming to.

I don't understand the distinction in the context of this discussion. Seeming to is the only datum we have and you have yet to provide a demonstration of what you mean by actual. Until you do so seem to and actual are identical.

As an example, consider the proverbial rising of the sun. Before we collected and considered more input, it was right to conclude that the sun did rise everyday; it was consistent with observation.

The same can be said of the conclusion that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. We certainly don't yet understand how it works so speculating why is somewhat premature, but everything we observe points in this direction. Your dismissal of this path of inquiry as incredible in favor of the unsubstantiated assertion that consciousness is non-physical is no different than claiming God exists because we don't yet know precisely what caused the Big Bang.

I'm moving on. As usual only bennyboy has any real understanding of the issues involved.

(May 22, 2014 at 9:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I'm moving on. As usual only bennyboy has any real understanding of the issues involved.

I think the person providing the work of Dean Radin as evidence is more likely to be the one that doesn't understand.