• SteveKlinko
    395
    The Physicalists on this and various other forums complain about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

    1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.
    2) Conscious experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.
    3) The Conscious experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

    As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naïve and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious experience not the Conscious experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious experience. The Conscious experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

    The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious experience could be. If Conscious experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists those scary Conscious experiences will not hurt you.

    I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes for an Organism or Animal. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious experiences that exist in the Universe. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious experience so therefore the Conscious experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    I'm not convinced it's useful to attack sciencists on such a specific topic. Their problem is more general: they apply science where it cannot be usefully applied, outside of its area of relevance/use. Like using a hammer to design software. This (your OP) is an example, for sure, but there's so much more wrong with sciencism than just this. IMO, of course.
  • ssu
    8k
    SteveKlinko,

    The problem is that people see in your argument just the words "Science has zero understanding" and they stop reading there as they are offended by all the anti-science rhetoric they are confronted in our times.

    Sure, there's a lot we don't know. That doesn't mean that Science is useless.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    That doesn't mean that Science is useless.ssu

    No-one said it was. I have said that science is misapplied, and it should not be. That's not the same thing. Science is very useful, but only within its own sphere of relevance.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.SteveKlinko

    False.

    Let's start with that.
  • SteveKlinko
    395
    I'm not convinced it's useful to attack sciencists on such a specific topic. Their problem is more general: they apply science where it cannot be usefully applied, outside of its area of relevance/use. Like using a hammer to design software. This (your OP) is an example, for sure, but there's so much more wrong with sciencism than just this. IMO, of course.Pattern-chaser
    I'm attacking the Physicalists that push the, lets call it what it is, Lie that Science understands Consciousness even in the most fundamental way. Science really does have Zero understanding of Consciousness. I think most real Scientists would agree. My beef is with the dogmatic Physicalists on the different forums that don't want to debate about it. They just want to Insult anyone that defies their Beliefs. I don't know if most of these Physicalists even have a good Science background.
  • SteveKlinko
    395
    The problem is that people see in your argument just the words "Science has zero understanding" and they stop reading there as they are offended by all the anti-science rhetoric they are confronted in our times.ssu

    It's not anti Science to point out that Science does in fact have Zero understanding with regard to Consciousness. Most real Scientists would probably agree with the statement. The Physicalists have created this situation by pretending that Science has figured out Consciousness. The Physicalists will probably be the only people that are offended. It's Physicalist Lies like this that create the Anti Science rhetoric. In my case it's Anti Physicalist rhetoric. I suspect that the Physicalists who are the most uncivil, ironically have only a meager background in Physics.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Here's one of hundreds of examples we could reference re science understanding something about consciousness:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743249/
  • SteveKlinko
    395
    1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
    False.

    Let's start with that.
    Terrapin Station

    Science has made great progress with understanding the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. This is the Easy Problem of Consciousness. But Science has no Clue what actual Consciousness is. Exactly how does an experience like the Redness of Red in your Mind get generated from any kind of Neural Activity known to Science? The answer to this is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. And we truly have Zero understanding of this.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    You simply said "zero understanding with regard to consciousness."

    The neural correlates of consciousness aren't something with regard to consciousness?

    If you want to make a more specific, qualified claim, make that claim from the start, and then we can address that.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Re a blueprint of how color experiences work, we have a lot of research in the vein of this:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10651872

    If that sort of thing doesn't answer the question for you, you probably need to define just what question you're asking better.
  • SteveKlinko
    395
    You simply said "zero understanding with regard to consciousness."

    The neural correlates of consciousness aren't something with regard to consciousness?

    If you want to make a more specific, qualified claim, make that claim from the start, and then we can address that.
    Terrapin Station

    Sorry, but this topic does expect a certain minimum of prior knowledge of the issues of Consciousness. If you are just playing word games then I can't help you. If you did not understand the question then please read http://TheInterMind.com . Other than that I basically don't understand your complaint.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    I'm sending you a bill for needing to have my eyeballs rotated back to the front of my head.
  • SteveKlinko
    395
    Re a blueprint of how color experiences work, we have a lot of research in the vein of this:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10651872

    If that sort of thing doesn't answer the question for you, you probably need to define just what question you're asking better.
    Terrapin Station

    Thank You for the link but that kind of thing is all about the Neural Correlates of Color perception and not about the actual experience of Color in the Mind.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Thank You for the link but that kind of thing is all about the Neural Correlates of Color perception and not about the actual experience of Color in the Mind.SteveKlinko

    Hence "If that sort of thing doesn't answer the question for you, you probably need to define just what question you're asking better." Just what sort of thing are you looking for that that sort of blueprint isn't giving you?
  • SteveKlinko
    395
    I'm sending you a bill for needing to have my eyeballs rotated back to the front of my head.Terrapin Station

    I've seen that affect before. Good luck with your recovery.
  • SteveKlinko
    395
    Thank You for the link but that kind of thing is all about the Neural Correlates of Color perception and not about the actual experience of Color in the Mind. — SteveKlinko
    Hence "If that sort of thing doesn't answer the question for you, you probably need to define just what question you're asking better." Just what sort of thing are you looking for that that sort of blueprint isn't giving you?
    Terrapin Station

    I want to know How any kind of Neural Activity can result in the experience of the Redness of Red, for example, in the Conscious Mind. Mapping the Brain and Measuring the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for Red is the Easy Problem. I want to know the answer to the Hard Problem. That is, the Conscious experience of Redness itself.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    I want to know How any kind of Neural Activity can result in the experience of the Redness of Red, for example, in the Conscious Mind. Mapping the Brain and Measuring the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for Red is the Easy Problem. I want to know the answer to the Hard Problem. That is, the Conscious experience of Redness itself.SteveKlinko

    Why are you assuming that there's any difference?
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    "When we are anesthetized, we expect consciousness to vanish." In other words, they're treating "consciousness" as synonym for "being awake"? That's what it looks like.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    That paper doesn't actually use the terms "asleep" or "awake"
  • Wayfarer
    20.7k
    Leaving Aside your Questions, You Don't need to Randomly Capitalise Words.

    Do you believe in God, or is that a software glitch?

    An article about the promises and pitfalls of fMRI

    ...when you divide the brain into bitty bits and make millions of calculations according to a bunch of inferences, there are abundant opportunities for error, particularly when you are relying on software to do much of the work. This was made glaringly apparent back in 2009, when a graduate student conducted an fM.R.I. scan of a dead salmon and found neural activity in its brain when it was shown photographs of humans in social situations. Again, it was a salmon. And it was dead.
  • Herg
    212
    I want to know How any kind of Neural Activity can result in the experience of the Redness of Red, for example, in the Conscious Mind. Mapping the Brain and Measuring the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for Red is the Easy Problem. I want to know the answer to the Hard Problem. That is, the Conscious experience of Redness itself.
    — SteveKlinko

    Why are you assuming that there's any difference?
    Terrapin Station

    There are two groups of people in the scientific and philosophical worlds: those who hold the view that there is an unsolved and probably insoluble hard problem, and those who hold the view that there isn't. It is impossible for either group to explain to the other group why they hold the view they hold.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    That paper doesn't actually use the terms "asleep" or "awake"Terrapin Station

    No, but it does address consciousness as if it was binary - conscious or not-conscious - and physiological. Of course consciousness is a physiological thing, but it is also a mental thing. Examples of science treating consciousness in this physical way say nothing about whether science has any understanding of consciousness-as-a-mental-phenomenon, nor do they demonstrate any such understanding. You claim that science does have some understanding of consciousness, but your claims seem to be based on a physiological understanding of consciousness that is not relevant here. More to the point, your perception of consciousness as a purely physical phenomenon seems to say that you, and science, share a complete lack of understanding of what consciousness is. :chin:
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Of course consciousness is a physiological thing, but it is also a mental thing.Pattern-chaser

    "Also" there doesn't make any sense.

    Examples of science treating consciousness in this physical way say nothing about whether science has any understanding of consciousness-as-a-mental-phenomenon, nor do they demonstrate any such understanding.Pattern-chaser

    Sure they do. It would make no sense to say that they're not talking about consciousness as a mental phenomenon, as that's what consciousness is.

    Your comment is akin to saying "Examples of science treating ferns in this physical way say nothing about whether science has any understanding of ferns-as-a-botanical-phenomenon."

    The above is a sentence you could write. But it's not coherent just because it's a sentence you could write.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    I'm familiar with this stuff, I'm just challenging aspects of it that make no sense.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    It would make no sense to say that they're not talking about consciousness as a mental phenomenon, as that's what consciousness is.Terrapin Station

    Yes, it is, But that's not how the article you linked-to described it. It treats consciousness, as I said, as a physiological thing. The patient is conscious or not-conscious; awake or not-awake. This offers no indication that science has any understanding of conscious experience; what it feels like to a human to be conscious. Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim that things are other than I have described? :chin:
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    It treats consciousness, as I said, as a physiological thing.Pattern-chaser

    Because consciousness is a physiological thing. Mentality is a physiological thing. Experience, what something feels like, is a physiological thing. That was the point of my comment.
  • SteveKlinko
    395
    I want to know How any kind of Neural Activity can result in the experience of the Redness of Red, for example, in the Conscious Mind. Mapping the Brain and Measuring the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for Red is the Easy Problem. I want to know the answer to the Hard Problem. That is, the Conscious experience of Redness itself. — SteveKlinko
    Why are you assuming that there's any difference?
    Terrapin Station

    it's not about assuming a difference. It's when the Physicalists say "no further Explanation is needed" that I have a problem. They can't just say the Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity, they have to Explain how that works. Without an Explanation it is just a Belief.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    What makes any explanation necessary or not necessary? (I mean in general, not just re this issue.)

    Also what makes any explanation sufficient/adequate or insufficient/inadequate? (Again, in general.)
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    Because consciousness is a physiological thing. Mentality is a physiological thing. Experience, what something feels like, is a physiological thing. That was the point of my comment.Terrapin Station

    And will you eventually assert that any/all aspects of consciousness can be wholly defined, described and explained in terms of brain activity (neurons, synapses, and so on)? Is that where you're heading with this?
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    What makes any explanation necessary or not necessary?Terrapin Station

    Our wish to understand whether our beliefs are justified or not?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.