If, however, you agree that we know consciousness is real, then we at minimum can claim to have discovered three things being real: matter, energy, and the consciousness via which these are known. — javra

I do agree that consciousness is real, but consciousness is a word that represents an identity we observe, but does not assert it is its own composed entity. We don't say, "matter, energy, and water" exist right? Water is made up of matter and energy. Consciousness is made up of matter and energy. Consciousness is not another form of existence separate from matter and energy. If someone claims this to be, they must provide evidence to counter the evidence that shows consciousness comes from the brain, which is made out of matter and energy.

Excuse the limitations of the English language via which this is expressed, but not everything will be a thing, i.e. an entity. Processes are for example known to occur, and a process - though being something - is not a thing/entity. — javra

Processes are actions, and interactions with other entities. When an electron travels across a wire, we get the process of electricity. When that electron travels to your computer, and allows a signal to alter a logic gate, that is the process of computing. Processes are not separate from the matter and energy, they are the result of their interactions. These interchanges are matter and energy.

'

As of yet, no. And they may never be able to.
— Philosophim

Is this not the hard problem in a nutshell? — javra

Yes. The hard problem states it is difficult with our current models to evaluate what it is like to "feel" red. It is not stating that consciousness is not physical, nor that consciousness cannot be evaluated in terms of the physical. The easy problem notes that tieing the laws of nature to brain states is not the issue. But will science ever be able to produce the state of being a bat, and then have us feel exactly what it is like to be a bat? Maybe not. That is not relevant to stating that consciousness is separate from the brain.

You can propose that consciousness is some magical entity
— Philosophim

That's not what I proposed, but it's not surprising that it is how you read it. You show no sign of having actually grasped the argument that I proposed, so I'll give up. — Wayfarer

No, I grasp your arguments well enough. You do not see the consequences of your argument. If you cannot show what consciousness is in reality, yet you declare t is something separate from the brain, then you are necessarily proposing a magical entity. You are saying consciousness exists as something, but you have no evidence or explanation for what that something is. That's a magical entity.

But we can't talk realistically, and rationally, about things which we have no knowledge of being real.
— Philosophim

There's a lot written about dark matter. — Wayfarer

Dark matter is not a descriptor of known entities. It is a placeholder that describes logical conclusions within observed limitations. Here is a good read.
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

"If scientists can't see dark matter, how do they know it exists?

Scientists calculate the mass of large objects in space by studying their motion. Astronomers examining spiral galaxies in the 1970s expected to see material in the center moving faster than on the outer edges. Instead, they found the stars in both locations traveled at the same velocity, indicating the galaxies contained more mass than could be seen. Studies of the gas within elliptical galaxies also indicated a need for more mass than found in visible objects. Clusters of galaxies would fly apart if the only mass they contained were visible to conventional astronomical measurements.

Albert Einstein showed that massive objects in the universe bend and distort light, allowing them to be used as lenses. By studying how light is distorted by galaxy clusters, astronomers have been able to create a map of dark matter in the universe.

All of these methods provide a strong indication that most of the matter in the universe is something yet unseen."

What we can rationally discuss about dark matter is based on the data we have. While speculation also happens, as to what Dark Matter could be, it does not assert that the speculation is true, or that the existence of such speculation asserts that the regular physical laws of the universe or necessarily invalid.

I have shown several examples of the brain being the source of consciousness. For a proposition that consciousness is separate from the brain, it needs some evidence that it IS separate from the brain. Saying, "It might be," without any evidence as to how or why is nothing we can rationalize about.

No one, including philosophers and other breeds of thinkers from the world of science and other fields, will ever undertake anything worthwhile if fae doesn't have a stake in it whatever that may be. It would be superfluous to mention the man on the Clapham omnibus at this point. Given this is so, rationalization seems inevitable and is likely to be universal - happening everywhere, anywhere, to anybody. — TheMadFool

I agree!

What does it mean for an idea to 'match' or 'correspond' with reality? — Wayfarer

A claim about reality that is applied without contradiction.

For example, lets say I proposed that all sentience was non-physical, but consisted of a substance called sentisia. I could write a complex paper that details exactly how it works, and it would be incredibly logical and work within the framework. But if I can't find sentisia in reality, if I can't demonstrate its existence and use, all I made was a fantasy world framework.

. So far, the only thing we have discovered in the universe is matter and energy.
— Philosophim

Thereby 'affirming the consequent.' You frame the question in a certain way, and it means there's only a certain type of answer that will be accepted. — Wayfarer

That's not affirming the consequent at all. "All tigers are cats, therefore all cats must be tigers" is an example of affirming the consequent. I am stating that the only thing we have discovered in the universe is matter and energy, so those are the only things we can realistically analyze. Is it possible something else exists besides these? Sure, why not? What we know today could be contradicted tomorrow. But we can't talk realistically, and rationally, about things which we have no knowledge of being real.

Everything that we know points to consciousness forming from the brain. So that is the only thing we can rationally discuss. You can propose that consciousness is some magical entity, but unless you can show some evidence of this magical entity being real, it is a fantasy, and not a rational argument.

the objective sciences can't in principle provide complete description of the first-person point-of-view — Wayfarer

As of yet, no. And they may never be able to. But that just tells us there are either A. Things outside of our knowledge, or B. That we must work logically within these limitations.

Neither A nor B lead to the idea that all of the evidence that points to consciousness coming from the brain is somehow null or void. In the future if we find evidence in reality of consciousness existing apart from the brain, then we have something new that we can rationally consider. Until then, its just a fantasy, a "what if". "What ifs" that do not end ultimately leading back to some application in reality are just fun fantasy, not rational arguments.

Philosophim, for instances, simply assumes that there’s no difference between enzymes and concepts — Wayfarer

You might be misunderstanding my view. Reality is what occurs. Concepts match to reality. If a concept cannot match to reality, it is worthless. Concepts like thoughts and consciousness are fantastic, as long as at their core they represent reality. I am not a "physicalist", I am a "realist". So far, the only thing we have discovered in the universe is matter and energy. If a concept draws on "something else" without providing some reality of it, its just not any good.

Let’s assume nothing is eternal. Either this is true for a limited time, or for all eternity. — leo

Your options are incorrect. If it is eternal, it is either eternal for all time, or it is not eternal. You can't be eternal for a short amount of time.

But let continue with your modified premises.

If there is something that is eternal, then it is false that nothing is eternal. And this statement of false, would be eternal.
However, if there exists absolutely nothing that is eternal, then our statement is true. And this statement of true, would be eternal.

So what can we conclude from this? That the conclusion of logical, deduced statements which are fulfilled perfectly, are eternally true, or eternally false.

We can therefore conclude the general statement "At least one thing is eternal, therefore eternal things can exist."

Of course, this only applies to statements that accurately reflect reality, so I'm not sure how useful this is. Perhaps you can extend this or think of a use?

But what if one knew - using the model - that a given goal could not be pursued? — TVCL

Are you sure? Let's think about that. Now, I agree with you that knowledge as-such is not a goal, but what of the idea of positing a goal to be pursued if one does not believe that the goal can be attained? We can either say that a goal is a belief or at least based upon a belief: the implicit belief that the goal can be pursued. Now, like any belief, the goal is a working hypothesis - one knows that they can pursue a goal in so far as it is non-contradictory and in so far as the can, in fact, pursue it. — TVCL

Sure, let me break it down the way I see it as I've interpreted your stance so far, and see what you think.

Goals are the precursor to the search for knowledge. If goals are beliefs, then they are not the precursor to the search for knowledge anymore. The evaluating of beliefs to be applicable and consistent is knowledge. That would mean you would have to apply the method of knowledge to the goal itself, as its technically a belief.

But let me clarify what I mean by belief as well. A belief is an assertion that reality is a particular way. While in English we might say, "I believe I can reach my goal, we can also say, I don't believe I can reach my goal. The belief is not in the goal, but whether one can obtain, or not obtain one's goal. The outcome is what we can know, the motivation to seek that outcome is the goal.

Another way to see it is the goal itself is not true or false. What one discovers on the way to obtaining that goal is true or false. What we can determine from pursuing goals is that particular outcomes are false. So let us say my goal was to walk 1,000 miles in a day. I attempt it, and fail. I know that on that day, with what I prepared and did, I did not meet my goal that day. But what if I try something else? Maybe train for a month, or drink water more frequently then I did last time. The result is true or false based on all the circumstances one made in pursuit of the goal on that particular attempt. It does not mean that if you try another way, you will not meet the goal.

Thus I can look at some goals and evaluate certain attempts that have been made to determine if my pursuit of a goal in a particular manner will result in a success or failure. Take epistemology. We know that certain ways of trying to define knowledge fail. Part of evaluating epistemology is trying to examine why it failed, and then not repeating the same mistakes. But that doesn't mean that the goal of figuring out knowledge cannot be obtained if we don't try another way that has not yet been tested.

Admittedly, at this point the argument only goes as far as to argue that the model can reveal what sets of goals one should have in reference to their hierarchy of goals or even their primary goals. — TVCL

I understood that. I just don't think that is anything that people don't already understand. Evaluating what you want, and making sure that you don't want things that are at odds with each other is a given for most people. Your model has a specific purpose, and I think it does it very well. Its purpose is to answer the question, "Why use knowledge? And in evaluating this, we find knowledge is a rational methodology that will help us obtain our goals better than the alternative, irrationality.

it does not yet give an argument for which primary goal we should have as opposed to another. The only thing that is worth adding to this is that the model will reveal that not all primary goals are possible because some simply cannot be pursued. — TVCL

Yes, it is a very tricky thing to figure out what goals we must pursue over others. But perhaps this can start with the explanation that demonstrates certain goals cannot be pursued. Recall my examples of people pursuing goals that have failed time and time again. While I think we can both claim we can determine that an attempt at a goal can be knowledge of success or failure, at what point do we rule the goal out entirely as something someone should pursue? Is this even possible?

All the best returned as well. I feel this is an interesting exploration, and one I am not sure I have the answer to.

Breath in through the nose...scream out through the mouth.

Seriously though, that's more psychology.
https://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control

If you have something more specific in mind that isn't covered by psychology, feel free to follow up.

I've read the first and second of your essays, but neither address the degree to which deductive beliefs form networks. — Isaac

Oh fantastic! Lets take it there then. The first two build up knowledge from the self-subjective viewpoint. Part 3 goes into how knowledge works within society. I would love your comments on it there. Part 3 should answer how we resolve the point from Quine.

Nonetheless, there's an attempt to reason, no matter how contrived or affected, even in rationalization, right? Commendable in spirit then, if not in letter. — TheMadFool

Not necessarily. People are varied in their level of rationalizing, versus being rational. Rationalizing is an attempt to support one's emotional belief. If one rationalization fails, another will be invented depending on how much a person clings to that belief.

But I do believe that if you can rationalize, you have the potential to be rational. There are plenty of philosophers who rationalize. They may talk a good game, or create a system that fits within narrow confines, but in the end is not really rational.

Being rational requires a self-awareness of your emotional bias and desires. We need those biases and desires to care, but we need to measure ourselves that to times when we must let those biases and desires go in the face of contrary evidence.

Anyone can come up with reasons that confirm what they desire to be. Only the truly rational can conclude their desires were wrong. It is something we all have to be vigilant against, and can easily stumble on.

Faith is not an valid argument. — Gus Lamarch

Of course its not. Its not an argument they are giving you Gus. Pointing that out to them misses the entire point. Appealing to faith means, "I don't care about your rationality, this is what I believe".

Your picture will not do anything but make them roll their eyes at you. They get the argument. You can never change what a person believes by appealing to rationality, when a person abandons rationality as a reason for their belief. What you've been missing is people of faith are presenting you with rationalizations for their faith. You can dismantle rationalizations, but that does not dismantle faith.

If you want to get people to not believe in God anymore, you need to address the emotional and societal ties that bind that faith.

A good weekend to you again! I'll jump right in.

Just as the model allows us to discover which means do or do not facilitate the attainment of particular goals, it allows us to discover which goals we can or cannot pursue as-such. After all, if one's belief that a given goal can be pursued cannot be put into action, that belief is not applicable and is therefore not knowledge. Therefore, if we are seeking knowledge the process of discovery will rule out those goals that cannot be pursued. — TVCL

I just want to clarify a breakdown here. This is where I see an issue with goals being blended with beliefs. A goal does not start out with any idea that the goal can, or cannot be obtained. As we obtain beliefs that are attempts to reach the goal, there may be several failures along the way. But those failures do not indicate that the goal should not be pursued anymore. Look at the many failures of epistemology. Does that mean we should abandon the goal of trying to figure out knowledge? I think not. =)

A goal isn't really a belief. Its an objective someone wants to reach. As you've stated, its the first step toward pursuing knowledge, but it is not knowledge itself. We can believe we can reach that goal, or believe that we will fail in our obtainment of that goal. Knowledge applies to the beliefs that we farm in pursuit of that goal, but I hesitate to claim that knowledge of the beliefs along the way should determine what goals a person pursues.

Why we pursue goals is a weight of personal interest, societal benefit, and energy and time investment needed in its pursuit. Thomas Edison had a goal of creating a cheap and easily manufactured light bulb. He went through 3,000 theories over the course of two years at making such a light bulb before he succeeded. If he hadn't succeeded after 3,000, should he have tried another 3 thousand? At what point of trying to obtain the knowledge he desired should he have quit?

In your mafioso example, I don't feel we're addressing knowledge, or what we should do. We're just addressing that certain goals have conflicts. If my goal is to go left and right at the same time, we find a contradiction of definitions, and therefore a contradiction of goals. This is different from exploring beliefs, and then finding that there is a contradiction in one's beliefs about reality using applicability and consistency.

So I think not pursuing conflicting goals is a given. But that doesn't answer the question of when we should start or stop pursuing goals that are not in conflict with our other goals, but over time and effort have never yielded results.

Given the model, we should search for knowledge if we want to be better equipped to pursue our goals. — TVCL

As such, I think an adjusted sentence would be, "Given the model, we should search for knowledge if we want to better equipped to obtain our goals". We can pursue our goals in many ways. Knowledge lets us know when we have obtained that goal. But does it necessarily show us that we cannot obtain that goal? I think that is the overall issue.

What I am saying is that the theory that brain = mind is a default position, a theory, not a proven fact. — EnPassant

No, that's not a theory. That's a hypothesis, a postulate, a proposal. Not a theory when speaking in terms of science.

"a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. "
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Evidence can be data, physical facts or convincing argument. But in your world view - if I understand you correctly - only physical facts are admissible as evidence. — EnPassant

Lets clarify then. First, a "convincing argument" means a rational argument concluded with deduction. Deductions must then be applied and tested against reality to ensure we had the entire picture, and that the deduction holds when faced with other people, or use in reality.

For example, we could deduce in physics that if X object is applied Y force in a vector, it will accelerate at Z speed. So we go outside, we do that, but it doesn't work. We think about it for a moment and we realize we didn't take into account the wind. So we go indoors without any wind, and it turns out our deduction works. We just forgot to take wind as a factor.

If you make a claim about reality, you must test it against reality. It is not that everything MUST reduce to physical reality, it is that we have discovered no reality that is not physical (matter and energy). Same with consciousness. We have not discovered any application of "deduction or rational argument" that consciousness exists apart from the brain. It does not exist. I'm sorry. You seem very passionate about this, which implies there must be some emotional reason why you keep wanting this. I am not saying you don't have to give up on your desire that consciousness exists separate from the mind, but you have to demonstrate in some way, that your theory about consciousness actually exists in some way that can be demonstrated.

Finally, I am not a logical positivist. I am not accusing you of holding any particular philosophy, I am asking you to think rationally for yourself. Please do the same for me.

How do you decide which is the first premise? Is it just the one you first thought of (temporally arranged)? In my example - A belief that A and a belief that evidence exists contrary to A (which we're calling a belief that B) - which is the 'first' premise and why? — Isaac

1. Have a belief A
2. Demonstrate that it is impossible for A to be contradicted through deduction.
3. A can become a prime premise for B, etc.

Again, I spend a few paragraphs on it, with lead up there. If you want to know how I do that, or if you think the above does not satisfy what you are looking for, it is best we take the conversation there, and not distract from the thread here.

3) Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws. — Chris1952Engineer

True. That doesn't mean physics is flawed though. For physics purpose is not to explain why, but to explain what and how. I'm sure as an engineer, you understand that it is a tool for a particular job, and should not be criticized because it is the wrong tool for a different job.

I can put the same question to you; what evidence is there that the brain is conscious? — EnPassant

I already answered this several times. I told you very clearly that you cannot use an "analogue" on something you haven't already proven exists. You are either ignoring this, or do not understand. Go back and read those answers, then feel free to try to counter them. But if you are not going to address the words I've already spoken, I'm not going to repeat them.

So why can't someone offer an alternative theory? — EnPassant

Again, showing you either did not read, or understand what I've already written. You absolutely may offer an alternative theory, but it must have evidence to compete with another theory that has evidence. You have zero evidence of how consciousness can exist apart from the mind.

Provide some evidence of a mind existing apart from the brain
— Philosophim

It doesn't work like that. — EnPassant

You are right. Because there is none. It works like that for evidence that consciousness comes from the brain. It is on you to demonstrate A. Why this is false, which so far, you have not. Or B. Provide evidence that consciousness does not come from the brain, which you have not.

The Greeks invented geometry to measure the physical world. Their calculations are congruent with the actual world which is why they were able to create their famous architectural pieces. This means that geometry and deduction about the world is very similar, if not identical, to the objective world. So, to a large extent, we are conscious of what is actually there. — EnPassant

Ok, so you agree with my meter stick analogy and point then. Please go back and read my replies to you carefully about evidence for consciousness coming from the brain, and why the use of "analogue" does not work. If you address them, then we can continue the conversation.

Either way, how do you avoid the problem I mentioned at the beginning that one cannot distinguish the presence/absence of evidence from unchecked belief? — Isaac

You must demonstrate that the first premise in the chain is incontrovertible. I do that in my theory here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge
I do not want to distract from the OP's point here however. If you are interested in exploring how I solve this problem, feel free to visit.

Induction is not the recognition of patterns. Induction is drawing a conclusion that does not necessarily conclude from the premises, or evidence involved. — Philosophim

That's not induction specifically, that's just any invalid inference. — Pfhorrest

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Induction_(philosophy)#:~:text=Induction%20or%20inductive%20reasoning%2C%20sometimes,but%20do%20not%20ensure%20it.
"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it."

I leave you to consider the statements of my last post with the definition of induction clearly defined.

Induction doesn't give you certainty like deduction does, but noticing patterns (which is all induction really amounts to) is still a way to form beliefs — Pfhorrest

Induction is not the recognition of patterns. Induction is drawing a conclusion that does not necessarily conclude from the premises, or evidence involved. Deduction is drawing a conclusion that necessarily must be concluded from the premises. With those definitions, what do you think about my earlier statement?

It's not until you wonder to yourself "is that really right though?" — Pfhorrest

You may not necessarily have thoroughly vetted the idea yet, so that belief may not count as knowledge. If you have thoroughly vetted it, such that you would have already found that it was false if it were false, then you know it. — Pfhorrest

What counts as thoroughly vetting then? So it seems we can have beliefs that have not been examined that are not knowledge. Once we start examining them, when do we stop? At what point do we say that's been enough? Who determines the criteria for what is false? What if I believe Bigfoot exists? This is where induction versus deduction comes in handy. Deduction can give a clear, reproducible answer. If we use induction to believe Bigfoot, necessarily two people could come to two contrary conclusions. I've got to run though, sorry I can't flesh this out better. Just think about induction and deduction as defined here and how that would fit in with your knowledge theory.

The issue of whether a belief is 'examined' is another matter - the effort one puts in to gather even more external data relevant to the belief. Here the issue is scaler and the answer can be none, but in fifteen years of working on beliefs I've yet to see any evidence of a single belief which is 'unexamined' in this sense. — Isaac

My apologies then. I see where you drew this conclusion from my point. Of course there is a reason for every belief at some level. I mean, Joe is male, and I've seen him date women before. There's something. When I mean by "examined belief", is a consciously examined and processed belief. Its like entering into a room and feeling dread. You might instantly form a belief that the place is dangerous from that. But do you know it is dangerous? This is where a person has to actively and consciously examine their beliefs. What is evoking dread? What is actually unsafe in this room?

I think most of us intuitively feel that a "gut reaction" is not necessarily knowledge, but can be a guide that we examine to gain knowledge. The point at which instinct crosses into knowledge is the question of epistemology. I think the OP is trying to do away with that, because it can be a tricky thing to answer. I feel that it more avoids the question of epistemology though, then solves it.

A question that I think is worth considering is, in what sense do numbers exist? — Wayfarer

Its a good question that touches on language and identity. One ability we all have is to take the sum of experience we have, and then create discrete identities within it. You can see a field of grass with a sheep, but take that image and identify a blade of grass, and a piece of grass. Basically we can take and parse that image however we like.

Language and symbols are the attempt to communicate the ability to discretely experience. "1" as the concept is the idea that in a picture of experience on a portion. That is the "1" within the infinite. "2" is the concept that if we take 1 identity, and 1 very similar identity, we then create a new identity of including them together.

Numbers as the concept describing this ability to discretely experience are things most of us can easily reproduce, so they are easily communicated. The symbol is just a medium of communication through sight, sound, smell, etc. that are distinct enough to recognize that we can trigger the concept within us again.

One question I would ask is this: is there anything that exists that does not have a temporal beginning and ending (i.e. begins and ends in time) and is not composed of parts? — Wayfarer

I don't know. And that may be because of our ability to discretely experience anything. A part is an identity we create. Normally this is because that part has some function that is different form that around it. Yet if I think of even a perfectly round sphere, someone will try to make a North pole, a South pole, and divide it up. =)

As for time, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "beginning". Time is really a concept we invented to note that what is now is different from a memory of what was then. As for something which does not end, that is also not likely to be known. So far existence has existed for billions of years to our limited knowledge. Yet even that is such a small time compared to "never ending".

Actually, the human mind is capable of far outstripping the requirements for 'successfully interpreting the world'. Any animal must do that if it is to survive. But h. sapiens has gone far beyond what can be rationalised solely in terms of the requirements for survival. You don't need to be able to weigh and measure the Universe just to get by. — Wayfarer

This has nothing to do with the idea that the consciousness does/does not come from the brain.

That being said, if you're implying there's something special going on, you're misinterpreting this. Life does not just, "Get by". It struggles daily against disease, predators, and in our social case, other human beings. Life is always seeking a way to one up things that would destroy it or cause it harm. It turns out, the most successful creature on this planet that is able to combat almost anything else, is the human being. Higher intelligence has incredible benefits to a person, and the tribe that person belongs to. This is not beyond what can be rationalized in the slightest.

Of course but that is because the interface/brain has been damaged. If a camera is damaged you can not see through it but that does not mean the camera sees. The body is an interface between the mind and the world. If the interface is damaged then of course information cannot reach the mind. But the mind is also conscious independently of the body. For example, it can think and it can say 'I think therefore I am'. The mind's knowledge is not restricted to the five senses. — EnPassant

I should have been clearer. The brain damaged individual can no longer consciously envision color. His eyes work fine. The person can no longer process language internally, their ears are fine. Phineus Gage's entire core personality changed. We are talking about the part of the camera that processes the light from the lenses. That is physical, and when that is broken, the light will not be processed any longer.

What has been established is that there is a physical analogue of the mind's interaction with the world via the brain. — EnPassant

This makes no sense. An analogue only works if you have something that you know between the two. For example, a foot is analogue to a paw. Both have a similar function, but are still different in structure. The problem is, you've given no structure for what the "mind" is, apart from the brain. The question that I will keep asking, and no one has offerred anything is, "If the mind is not produced from the brain, what is it?" Without evidence, all your saying is, "It could be something else". You can't make an analogue to something that "could" be. What "mind" is needs to be given some meaningful term to be used this way. Otherwise there is no analogue.

If you replace the meter stick with geometry you'll get very close. Geo-metry means 'earth measuring'. — EnPassant

Would you mind clarifying what you meant by this?

https://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

I looked through your articles. None of these provided any of the evidence that you would need.
1. The "IQ" measurement tests for people with lower brain mass do not measure the entire picture of the person. For example, there are "idiot savaants" who can have high IQ in things like math or art, but are unable to understand emotions, read faces, etc.
2. The key is to show if a change in brain health, size, etc, affects a person. None of these experiments show this. They only show the person in one unchanging brain state. A good experiment would be to examine a person in their 20's who has brain fluid build up, then check in ten years to see if major alterations to personality or capability have occurred.
3. A few of these sources are from the 80's and 90's, using some fairly old computer tech. One of the big studies in which people were questioning the accuracy of his scans was done before Microsoft invented Windows. A few findings within the last decade would be better. These old one's seem like "Bigfoots", if you know what I mean.
4. Many of the links to where these sources can be checked are broken and not working.

There is no evidence that the brain is conscious. What does exist is a materialistic dogma that insists there is no difference between the brain analogue and the mind. It is simply dogma. — EnPassant

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Dogma is a claim that the mind exists apart from the brain, when there is no evidence of that being the case. If you had something, anything that would show consciousness existing apart from the brain, then we could have a debate. Your second need to insist it is "Simply dogma" without such evidence is the way dogma actually works. You have not earned the right to use that word yet. Provide some evidence of a mind existing apart from the brain, and you can earn it.

No, because the mind is the processing brain.
— Philosophim

That has yet to be established. — EnPassant

No, it has clearly been established. What has not been established, is that consciousness is not part of the brain. I asked Wayfarer, and he was unable to provide any evidence of consciousness existing apart from the brain. The citations I've linked have clearly shown that damage to the brain can affect the consciousness of people's ability to see color, their core personality, and ability to comprehend language. There is not one person proposing that consciousness exists as separate from the brain that has any evidence to back their claims. That being said, feel free to be the first.

The question is; how closely does subjective experience resemble the objective reality that is the source of that experience? — EnPassant

None. The brain constructs a way of interpreting the world. Successful brains are able to interpret the world in such a way, that the actual contradict this interpretation as little as possible. Brains that aren't so good interpret reality in such a way that actual reality keeps contradicting their interpretation of reality. Its like a meter stick. A meterstick is a notched tool that helps us divide physical space. Physical space does not have an underlying grid of meters that we can't see or exist in some other dimension. But we can mark it that way if we like. And it is a useful construct that is rarely contradicted by reality.

But that does not mean the physical context is consciousness. — EnPassant

No, it does. I think you misunderstand the difference between correlation and causation. Don't make the opposite mistake and think, "Well just because something has causation, doesn't mean it might not be correlation." If every time I leave the house it rains, there is correlation. Causation only happens after we demonstrate that something necessarily needs to happen or the correlates can never happen. Since it also rains when I don't leave the house, my leaving the house is not causing it to rain.

Consciousness necessarily comes from the brain, because there is no alternative. I mean, feel free to show any evidence that consciousness comes from something else. But all of the articles I've linked combine to show that there is no alternative to consciousness coming from the brain.

I can give you a few examples of evidence that would cast doubt on the idea of consciousness being caused by the mind.

1. Evidence of consciousness existing in a human being with a completely dead brain.
2. Consciousness existing apart from the localized part of your head. For example, having your body walk away while your consciousness stays right here.
3. Evidence of serious brain damage/chemical changes/proper functionality without the slightest change in personality or character.

Philosophy of mind can only be about what we have knowledge of. We can make philosophy about the current science of the brain. Philosophy of mind as questioning whether the brain causes consciousness is dead and done. Science has long proved consciousness is produced by the brain. The only question at this point is, "But maybe we're wrong", which can be said about anything, and is a useless critique in any rational argument.

I guess technically on my account there is no such thing as an unexamined “belief“, because that would just be a “perception”: belief are what you get when you examine your perceptions and either affirm or deny their accuracy. — Pfhorrest

Ok, I think I see what you mean. However, that still leaves the problem that both inductive and deductive beliefs are counted as knowledge. So if you still hold to something even when it has been disproven, it then becomes something separate from knowledge, and becomes a belief.

At that point, we believe things that we know aren't true, and we know things that we can't believe are true. I think allowing inductive beliefs to be counted as knowledge is where the sticking point it. What if you held deductive beliefs that have not been disproven yet as knowledge, and inductive beliefs as mere beliefs?

Emotions are not a bad thing. They are just another way to think, in fact. — Olivier5

Absolutely. There is a time and place for emotional thinking. It is part of our intelligence, and shouldn't be dismissed. But when we are trying to come to rational conclusions, emotions can guide as a backseat driver but rationality needs to be ultimately controlling the wheel.

What on earth is an "emotional argument"? :chin: — TheMadFool

Yeah, I need to clarify that. What I should have typed was, "An argument motivated for an emotional outcome". Such things only need rationalizations to support. Certain feelings, like social ties, may cause us to do "irrational" things. Take family for instance. Lets imagine an adult person you know has a severely abusive mother that utterly devastates them emotionally whenever this person visits their parent.

Telling a person in such a situation that they should never speak to them again, might be "rational" from an outside perspective. After all, you would do the same with a stranger. But most people will not respond positively to this if they are looking to justify their emotional bond with their mother. You could give every reason in the world why the person is wrong in seeking to have a relationship with their mother, if you do not address this emotional bond that is the true motivation of a person's actions.

For many people, religion is not a rational belief, but an emotional belief that is built by the bonds of family, friends, ideals, and "God". These are strong motivators that a person will continually seek to rationalize, while ignoring "rational" arguments that destroy them.

Saying to a person, "Faith is not a rational argument" misses the point. Its not the faith in the technical aspects of a God that people often hold. Its faith in the emotional bonds, that are expressed through particular statements and rules. Saying, "Ha, there's a contradiction on page 5 and 10 on the bible!" is worthless. The bible is simply a rationalization tool to support the emotional framework. It doesn't need to be air tight. People didn't start believing in God because of page 5 or 10. They believed due to the emotional feelings and social bonds it gave them.

This applies in more than just religion. Sports, politics, and even beliefs in "ideologies and frameworks". Many people hold to their philosophical beliefs to satisfy emotional needs rather than rational needs. Its just the way people work. The adage of "People being rationalizing beings first, rational beings second" has been said in many forms and many ways over the centuries. Its a well worn hat. =)

what I'm saying is that such a situation is neurologically impossible. No matter how much you insist you did, there is no know (or even plausible) mechanism by which a belief can be formed without the sensory, or interoceptive inputs to form it. — Isaac

Ok? Are you purposefully being obtuse and avoiding the point?

The abstract point I'm making is we can have beliefs that are examined, and beliefs that are unexamined. Is an unexamined belief knowledge? — Philosophim

This is what my point is. You can always take a thought experiment and find a way to take it out of context. That is being dishonest to the conversation and the intent of the people involved. The thought experiment is to help you understand the abstract context of the above. If I have an unexamined belief (which has nothing to do with the technical neurological process of how that belief was formed) and it just so happens to be right, was my unexamined belief knowledge?

Your problem is you are trying to use rationality in which is an emotional argument. It will fail every time. Its not that they don't understand, they don't care.

People desire the emotions that a God brings them. So they justify whatever supports this. If you wish to persuade people against religion, you need to provide them an alternative argument that supports most of what they emotionally want.

These emotions are generally:

1. A desire and reason to do good
2. A clarity that there is good and evil
2. That there is greater purpose then oneself in life
3. A desire to feel worthwhile

A lot of atheists completely misunderstand the situation, and either disdainfully dismiss these emotions, or outright ignore them. If you don't fully understand the person you're chatting with, you will have an incredibly difficult time persuading them. Lose the mentality that the person before you is stupid, because that picture entails that's what you think of them. Gain the mentality that emotions are a large part of our processing, and that we are inherently beings that rationalize our desires, and rarely use rationality to create our desires.

Not trying to follow you around Wayfarer, we may just have common philosophical interests. =)

The = symbol does not mean "is". It means "The left side is the same as the right side". "Is" is involved in the definition, but the equals sign is only about equivalency in comparing two sides. I taught high school math for about 5 years. That being the case, language is often contextual. Many people view it = the same as "is", because it works for the most part.

"Is" and "exists" are arguably synonyms. I say arguably, because depending on people's contexts, they might use them slightly differently. They are not tightly defined words, so we should be careful in making tight arguments with them.

To leo, the problem is people have to accept your definition of truth. No one has agreed that truth is what is eternally unchanging. I think most commonly people view truth as what "exists" (Now you see why I addressed Wayfarer) despite our will and intentions. Sometimes truth is concurrent with our will, sometimes it is not. But that is all it is. If something happens to be eternal, then that is its truth. If something does not happen to be eternal, then that is its truth.

So lets alter your propositions to fit.

Define Truth as what "is/exists".

Assume that nothing exists. If that is the case, then we cannot put forward the proof that nothing exists, because the proof would then exist.

Therefore, it is certain that there is at least one thing that exists. If people agree that truth is viable synonym for "is/exists", then the use of truth with this definition describes a logical reality.

But this does not prove that something eternal exists. It also does not prove that truth must mean "what exists/is". After all, what we ascribe to words is our choice, and nothing inherent in reality dictates this. But, if we do with to ascribe this meaning to truth, we have proven that the meaning itself, is something logically concluded as something which cannot be contradicted.

"If the body is a physical context, then can't we extend this reasoning further and argue that the pain is not really in the brain either, but in the mind? — EnPassant

No, because the mind is the processing brain. Further, the pain signal is transmitted to the nerve as well, so its not merely localized in the brain. You are viewing the brain from a philosophical standpoint, when there is a much clearer scientific standpoint. The old ideas of philosophy of mind are outdated and dead.

If we are locating things in the body can't it also be argued that neuroscience is locating/contextualizing experience in a physical context in the brain but the real conscious experience is outside the physical context altogether? — EnPassant

No. The articles I've linked and the arguments I've been given clearly show that consciousness happens within the physical context of the brain.

Indeed, can physical matter, no matter how complex, have experiences? — EnPassant

Yes. You are physical matter. You are experiencing contexts. What you are having a difficult time believing is that physical matter is capable of this. You are the evidence it is. Physical existence is amazing. It all depends on the correct combination of interactions. Oxygen can be breathed, but combine it with hydrogen and one more part, and you drown.

The physical reality around us is spectacular. Even magical. But it is real, tangible, and physical. Same with your mind. The only evidence against this is an emotional framework. You don't want to accept it, because you fear you'll lose the wonder, the specialness, and the mystery. What you don't understand is its even MORE wonderful, special, and mysterious because it is real, and not a fantasy. After all, what other reason is there to continue to believe the idea that consciousness is somehow separate from the brain? When facts fail, only emotion will prevail.

I think you're over complicating the issue. The abstract point I'm making is we can have beliefs that are examined, and beliefs that are unexamined. Is an unexamined belief knowledge?

Further, the belief I mentioned did not tie to anything that would indicate Joe dated a woman last night. So my belief being correct was an accident, not tied to any rational justification.

Do 'we' know that? What does 'produce' mean, here? What is it that is being produced? And how is it being produced? And, is the brain 'a physical thing?' Extract a brain from a human, and it is still the same matter, but it's now an inert object, even though it's stil a physical thing. When situated in a living being, the brain has more neural connections than stars in the sky. It is no longer simply an object, but a central part of cognition and is central to any possible theory, including any theory about 'what is physical'. So in what sense is it a 'physical thing' in that context? — Wayfarer

I've provided all the answers to this a few times already.

What is physical is matter and energy.
There are living brains, which are chemically self-sustainable, active, and produce neuronal activity, and dead brains, which don't.

You're starting to postulate and throw, "but what if..."s out here without anything to back them up. A viable argument needs something to back those "what if"'s up. I can say, "What if unicorns are just really good at hiding?" You need some evidence, or its not a point of discussion.

But the fact of the existence of this school shows that the ground is already shifting towards a more 'mind-like' and top-down causal model of life and mind. — Wayfarer

Unless you show me that their models are divorced from the physical world, then no. And if you have evidence that their models are divorced from the physical world, then provide me such evidence. But as you mention later, that cannot be provided.

But as I've said - the contrary also works, and that is demonstrable by observation and experiment. Humans can perform mental acts which alter the physical configuration of the brain. A physical change to a brain is through injury or a medicine or substance which literally alters the material structure. But if the structure is altered through a volitional act, then that is mental in origin. — Wayfarer

You are repeating an old point again. I feel we're the conversation is starting to swirl, so its probably a good time to close it. I already addressed that by noting that consciousness is a physical act, so it is the physical acting on the physical.

That is 'brain-mind identity theory'. But 'wetness' does not stand in the relationship to hydrogen and oxygen that consciousness does in relation to matter. — Wayfarer

Why not? You need more than just an assertion. The entire point has been whether consciousness is a physical function of the brain. The models were are speaking about for consciousness do not deny this.

Besides, consciousness does not only work within the brain, it is present at some level in the operation of all living organisms. — Wayfarer

I've already mentioned animals and insects. And the origination of their consciousness is through neuronal activity. Again, these are all physical based consciousnesses. You don't see a bee postulating whether consciousness is physical right? That's because it doesn't have the physical brain to actually do it.

So, you're operating within the latter explanatory framework. So any 'theory of consciousness' that I would try and submit, would have to fit within that explanatory framework. But there's a fundamental problem with that, because to do so requires treating 'res cogitans' as an object - which it never is. There is no object anywhere called 'mind'. You can only deal with the question if you can conceive of the subject of the question in objective terms. — Wayfarer

And that is why Idealism is not used in science. I was wondering if you knew of some evidence based model I was unaware of, but it appears not. With that, the entire conversation has lead me to conclude the following from our discussion:

You are arguing with outdated philosophy. Philosophy is only useful if it is rational, and based upon our current understanding of the world. Your current philosophy, which is based on outdated and disproven models, is not rational. When certain philosophies have been disproved, they are fun to study for history, but are useless for practice. Philosophies become outdated all the time, and people can fall prey too them if they are unaware of their flaws.

Phlogiston theory is a good example of a failed philosophy. Phlogiston theory was a competing theory about how things caught on fire with the oxygen theory of chemistry. Lots of fun rationals were made with Phlogiston theory, but in the end, its lack of consistent evidential framework failed, and oxygen theory remained.

Further, you seem to be confusing models of understanding consciousness with the idea that these models are claiming consciousness is somehow separate from the mind, and is not physical in origin. All of modern science has concluded that consciousness coming from the mind is the most rational theory that we have. There is no viable model out there that states consciousness is separate from the brain's function. Any that try to are phlogiston theories at this point.

Now if you want to stick with phlogiston philosophy for fun, that's fine. People will believe what they want to believe at the end of the day. I've enjoyed the conversation to see if you had anything new or viable. I did learn a couple of new ideas and models from you, and thank you for your citations. Unfortunately, nothing you've presented counters the evidence based models that science has provided in modern day. So for me? I will stick with the evidence based models of the modern day.

I view "the hard problem" as not really a "problem". All its really doing is stating, "Figuring out how your subjective consciousness maps to your brain in an exact and repeatable model is hard."

Well, yeah. I think some people take the wrong conclusions from it. It doesn't mean consciousness doesn't originate from your brain. We all know it does. But do we have a model that states, "If I send 3 nanos of dopamine to cell number 1,234,562 in quadrent 2 you'll see a red dog?" Not yet.

The hard problem is simply predicting its difficulty. Part of philosophies job is to form ideas and examine if they are rational to pursue. If we consider the complexity of the mind, and the fact we would have to rely on subjective experience to create an exact model of consciousness for all things, its complexity is likely outside of our current technical and scientific know how today.

This is why people are trying to construct different models of consciousness that can avoid this problem of "exactness". Which is pretty normal. When people meet limits, build what you can regardless.

Can you really think of a scenario where you'd have zero justification though? — Isaac

Yes. I've formed beliefs that just sprang up out of nowhere. Usually I evaluate them afterwards. Sometimes though I have blurted out beliefs without thinking about them. They were not justified, more like emotional expressions. I believe justification requires some type of evaluation of your belief. It is very easy to commit to beliefs without any evaluation of them.

I just wanted to add that you provided a very nice analysis.

Government forbidding or not, what does this have to do with people respecting other peoples exercising their right to vote to suppress other people's rights to vote? Not trying to be hostile, just curious about this answer. — The Questioning Bookworm

No hostility taken! =) Please always point out where I might err or be criticized. I would never grow as a person otherwise.

This is how I see the system: A government determines how the citizenry will be governed, and what they can, and cannot do. The government ultimately determines whether voting is a thing its citizens can do. The government determines whether you have a right, or do not have a right. I am not isolating this to America. You might have an age requirement, land ownership requirements, citizenship requirement, etc. The government can also restrict what you can, and cannot vote on. You cannot vote on something that has not been proposed by a representative in America for example.

If a government decides, "You can vote at any time to take away the rights of certain citizens to vote", then if a person casts that vote, it is to be respected within that governmental democracy. If a government does not give any such citizen the right to take away the voting rights of others, then it should not be respected by the government.

As a real life example, different states in America have different rules for allowing felons to vote. Perhaps a state proposes a vote that forbids pedophile's from voting on state legislation. We should respect all votes. But lets say that the state proposes a vote that forbids all black people from voting in the presidential election. The US Federal government does not allow people to vote on that. So no matter the outcome of the vote, none of the votes are respected because they are not allowed by the government.

I suppose I'm using "respect" as "uphold the validity" of the vote. Now if you personally disrespect a person because of what they vote for, that's perfectly fine. But if you're asking if we should forbid or discount votes that are allowed by the government, but that we personally disagree with, I disagree. Does it make sense where I'm coming from?

On my account, you were weakly justified to believe your friend went on a date at first, and then when observation that could have falsified that didn't, your justification increased. It's difficult to state that in the terminology of "knowledge", because it's odd to say something like you "knew a little" at first and then "knew a lot" later. — Pfhorrest

Hm, I understand that is a consequence of your proposal, but does that make sense? I had zero justification for believing my friend dated a woman the night before. It was just a random belief. And I think that's the problem with your proposal. If you are to state knowledge is something we simply haven't had refuted yet, you allow beliefs without justification to be declared as knowledge.

And at that point, you allow all untested beliefs as knowledge. A "belief" then can only exist if one is shown their belief is contradicted. Because if all beliefs that are not contradicted are knowledge, they're not really just beliefs anymore right? This also results in all beliefs being against knowledge. Considering you agree with Popper, I don't think that is the conclusion you are intending to draw.

It depends on the limitations of the government. If the government forbids this, then no. If the government allows this, then yes.

I have always viewed life as a concentrated set of chemical and physical reactions that seeks to renew itself.

The sun is a chemical and physical reaction of gravity and burning hydrogen. Eventually, it will run out. But the sun does not seek to replenish itself. It will run out without any attempt to stop it.

A life on the other hand seeks water and food, things it needs to continue its chemical and physical reaction. When it can no longer do this by obtaining food and water, it does this by making a new copy of itself, or reproduction.

Once a life can no longer renew itself, the reaction ceases, and it is dead.

So yes, we can exist as life, and our life can die.

And you're simply assuming the opposite. And, what is 'physical', anyway? What does it mean? — Wayfarer

No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm taking what we know, which is that the physical brain produces consciousness. One thing you have not done is shown any evidence that it can be anything other than this. I'm not talking about theories, but facts. I have asked you a few times now, "If the mind is not physical, what is it?" I have already said what physical is, but I'll say it again. Matter and energy. Einstein confirmed that they are the same thing, just expressed in different forms.

My point, exactly. Can't be fit into the bottom-up scenario. — Wayfarer

You conveniently ignored the parts about placebo's we do know. I'm not talking about a bottom/top scenario. I'm talking about the brain processing and parts of that being consciousness. Consciousness works within the brain. It is not above it, or below it. Its like molecules of water reacting to the wind. Waves form. Molecules are part of the water. They explain the fundamentals of why the water reacts at a molecular level, but they are not below or above the water itself.

Have you ever heard Karl Popper's expresssion 'the promissory notes of materialism'? This refers to the tendency to say in just such cases, 'hey, science hasn't figured it out yet, but we will! It's just a matter of time!' — Wayfarer

The science of brain and consciousness is not binary. Its not, "We understand it all, or we understand none". We understand plenty of parts that show the mind is produced by the brain. When you alter the brain, you alter the mind. We're still figuring out to the science what exactly that entails. We have flashes of light here and there, but designing THE scientific process for how consciousness and the brain works is still in progress. I have asked you a few times now, and you still have not answered this vital question to your ideology. If consciousness is not the brains inner workings, what is it? Give me facts, evidence, a viable theory. If you can't, saying, "Well I just doubt it," is not a rational argument. We can express doubt about anything. What I am looking for is viable and rational alternatives.

— Wikipedia (For Chalmers) — Wayfarer

When people debate the meaning of philosophers even as old as Descartes, I don't think Wikipedia is a good source of summing up his philosophy. I'm going to post the first sentence of the Chalmer's paragraph again.

A nonreductive theory of consciousness will consist in a number of psychophysical principles, principles connecting the properties of physical processes to the properties of experience. We can think of these principles as encapsulating the way in which experience arises from the physical. — Philosophim

These are not ontologically distinct. These are descriptors that ultimately connect to the physical process. Water is molecules of H20, but we don't refer to water as H20. We say it has waves, flows, etc. But all of these terms are reducible to the molecular make up and laws of H20. That is all Chalmers is saying. He is NOT saying "Water" is different from "Molecules of H20". It is a different way of describing the mass of H20 molecules, basically a different measurement scale. Inches instead of millimeters. Even though one is feet, and the other is meters, they are different descriptors of "length" that describe the same thing. Perhaps in this we could call inches ontologically distinct from millimeters, but not the thing they are both measuring.

— Howard Pattee — Wayfarer

In other words, because semantic and semiotic laws can't be derived from physical laws. — Wayfarer

You have drawn the wrong conclusions from biosemiotics. They are talking about a conceptual model, not that the conceptual model does is not separated from physical laws. They're just saying the current conceptual model of physics is not adequate to describe the physical process of life.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-009-9042-8
"The solution proposed by Pattee, in short, is that signs and codes do not require new laws of physics, because they are a special type of constraints and constraints are an integral part of normal physical theory. The whole argument is developed in three logical steps: (1) life requires evolvable self-replication (a biological principle), (2) evolvability requires symbolic control of self-replication (von Neumann), and (3) physics requires that symbols and codes are special types of constraints (Pattee).

This proposal is undoubtedly a form of biosemiotics, because it states that semiosis exists in every living cell, and since it is based on the idea that signs and codes are physical constraints, it can be referred to as physical-constraint biosemiotics, or, more simply, as physical biosemiotics (Pattee himself, in a private correspondence with the author, has accepted that this is an adequate name for his approach)."

Models to describe systems are constantly being proposed and used. Again, the molecular model of water versus the flow model of water are two different ways of identifying and communicating the underlying physical reality. No where is Pattee claiming that the model of biosemetics supercedes or replaces the underlying physics.

So again, I sense a lack of understanding of what all of these conceptual models and word choices are about. All evidence points to consciousness being a function of the brain. No evidence points otherwise. Current physical models have a difficulty in marrying our generic concept of consciousness with the mechanics of the brain. Many models are proposed that can marry these two in such a way that it is easier to conceive of what is happening. BUT, they do not supercede the underlying physics, and should ultimately reduce to physical reality.

I appreciate the citations and information you've put forward. It has been a good conversation. But I can show you exactly what I would need to doubt the idea that consciousness does not result from the brain.

1. Provide an evidence based model that shows consciousness as necessarily existing apart from the brain. One that does not, and cannot, reduce down to the physical reality of the brain.

Because everything I know of reduces down to an evidence based model that shows consciousness as necessarily originating from the brain. If you can provide one, and it withstands an examination, I will concede that consciousness may be separate from the brain. If not, then I have no rational choice but to accept that consciousness is a function of the brain.