Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SteveKlinko]

I don't dismiss the Scientific approach, but rather I just observe that Science has made Zero progress Explaining Conscious Experiences.

My criteria for a good Explanation of Conscious Experience is when the Explanation is celebrated as the most important discovery of Human history. There will have to be Nobel Prizes involved. The Hard Problem must be solved as a result of this Explanation. If that Explanation is overturned someday then so be it. That's how Science works. No amount of up front Philosophizing about the meaning of Explanation will help.

So again, we'd need a GENERAL philosophy of explanations as I outlined. If you consider something like bridge construction, say, to be explained, and the criteria for it being explained do not include Nobel prizes and the like, then we can't really consider Nobel prizes a criterion for explaining consciousness. The general philosophy of explanations needs to apply to anything and everything we consider explained; it needs to work as a demarcation criteria between "x is explained" and "y is unexplained" in general, for everything we could consider.

Re "science making zero progress explaining consciousness" what area or field has made non-zero progress in this?

Your analogy about Bridges is simply Incoherent. We are not building Bridges, we are trying to discover the secret of our Existence.
When I say Science has made Zero progress, I of course mean all Areas and Fields have made Zero progress.

What are you even reading? There was no analogy about bridges.

To have a general philosophy of explanations, as we'd need in order to debate whether we have explanations of various things, our criteria for explanations need to work for any arbitrary thing that we consider explained. Bridges are an example, not an analogy. If we believe that bridge construction (and functioning, etc.) is explained, then our criteria for explanations need to work for that particular example.

I must be Hallucinating your words about Bridge Construction above. Oh, an example not an analogy. Ok then as an example, Bridge Construction is Incoherent and Irrelevant. We are trying to discover the secret to our Existence.

[SteveKlinko]

. . . as the criteria need to work for any example we could think of, by the way.

Again, we'd need criteria that work as demarcation criteria for partitioning out explained versus unexplained things, for everything we could input. Otherwise we don't really have a philosophy of explanations, and we can't proceed to argue based on whether something is explained or not, because we can't even characterize what explanations ARE exactly.

I disagree that we cannot proceed. I am proceeding. When you figure out the definition of Explanations let me know and we'll see if my Explanation is compatible. Other than that we are at an Impasse on this argument.

[SteveKlinko]

But take the Conscious Experience of Redness. What possible combination of material substances and interaction of substances including any kind of Neural Activity will Logically all of a sudden produce a Redness Experience in a Conscious Mind. It is not even Sensible to expect that any kind of Material combinations or Neural Activities can ever produce a Conscious Experience. This bottom up expectation for Conscious Experience is completely unfounded and there is Zero Scientific evidence for it. It is however as good a Speculation as anything. The Huge Explanatory Gap for it must be Explained.

Saying that x produces y implies that x is different from y, because nothing can produce itself; so there is a duality or dualism between the producer and the produced. To say that experiences are produced by neural processes is to affirm propert dualism.

My contrary contention is that the brain doesn't "produce" consciousness (like the liver produces bile). Experiencings of red(ness) aren't produced by neural activity, because they are patterns of neural activity with characteristic parameters. Experiences aren't produced by neural processes, because they are composed of (lower-level) neural processes which collectively constitute and are thus identical with them.
Experiences aren't like clouds hovering over a lake; they are like waves on the lake's surface.

I also don't think Neural Activity produces Conscious Experience. If I have not mentioned the Connection Perspective in any of my replies to you let me know.

[Terrapin Station]

So again, we'd need a GENERAL philosophy of explanations as I outlined. If you consider something like bridge construction, say, to be explained, and the criteria for it being explained do not include Nobel prizes and the like, then we can't really consider Nobel prizes a criterion for explaining consciousness. The general philosophy of explanations needs to apply to anything and everything we consider explained; it needs to work as a demarcation criteria between "x is explained" and "y is unexplained" in general, for everything we could consider.

Re "science making zero progress explaining consciousness" what area or field has made non-zero progress in this?

Your analogy about Bridges is simply Incoherent. We are not building Bridges, we are trying to discover the secret of our Existence.
When I say Science has made Zero progress, I of course mean all Areas and Fields have made Zero progress.

What are you even reading? There was no analogy about bridges.

To have a general philosophy of explanations, as we'd need in order to debate whether we have explanations of various things, our criteria for explanations need to work for any arbitrary thing that we consider explained. Bridges are an example, not an analogy. If we believe that bridge construction (and functioning, etc.) is explained, then our criteria for explanations need to work for that particular example.

I must be Hallucinating your words about Bridge Construction above. Oh, an example not an analogy. Ok then as an example, Bridge Construction is Incoherent and Irrelevant. We are trying to discover the secret to our Existence.

It's not at all irrelevant to what we need to de re a philosophy of explanations if we're to critique anything on the grounds of whether we have an explanation or not. Again, this is work we'd need to do first in order to not just be talking out of our asses.

[Terrapin Station]

oy vey re not being able to fix typos here:

"what we need to DO re a philosophy of explanations."

You can just ignore this as everyone else does. But then it's pointless to critique whether we have an explanation of anything. You could say whatever you like. If we don't have a philosophical account of just what explanations are, just how they work, and why they are whatever we're claiming they are, then critiques focused on explanations are just pissing in the wind. You don't have to care about that, but it doesn't change the situation. <shrug>

[Sy Borg]

Experiences aren't produced by neural processes, because they are composed of (lower-level) neural processes which collectively constitute and are thus identical with them.
Experiences aren't like clouds hovering over a lake; they are like waves on the lake's surface.

This is an angle I've not seen from you.

Hmm, so if the activity of neurons themselves are consciousness, then that's a concession that echinoderms and cnidarians are actually conscious to some extent. Previously, based on the global workspace hypothesis, you were pretty unsure that any consciousness would be experienced by animals with nerve rings rather than brains.

[Consul]

Experiences aren't produced by neural processes, because they are composed of (lower-level) neural processes which collectively constitute and are thus identical with them.
Experiences aren't like clouds hovering over a lake; they are like waves on the lake's surface.

This is an angle I've not seen from you.

Hmm, so if the activity of neurons themselves are consciousness, then that's a concession that echinoderms and cnidarians are actually conscious to some extent. Previously, based on the global workspace hypothesis, you were pretty unsure that any consciousness would be experienced by animals with nerve rings rather than brains.

To say that all experiences are (constituted by) neural activities is not to say that all neural activities are (constitute) experiences. Certain types of neuroelectrical wave patterns are experiences and other ones are not. Not all neural activities or processes are alike, since there are structural and functional differences marked by different parameters.

By the way, there is an electromagnetic field theory of consciousness:

"The electromagnetic field theory of consciousness proposes that conscious experiences are identical with certain electromagnetic patterns generated by the brain."

(Pockett, Susan. "The Electromagnetic Field Theory of Consciousness: A Testable Hypothesis about the Characteristics of Conscious as Opposed to Non-conscious Fields." Journal of Consciousness Studies 19/11–12 (2012): 191–223. p. 191) [free PDF]

Field Theories of Consciousness: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

[Consul]

By the way, there is an electromagnetic field theory of consciousness.

I don't know if it's true, but the idea of phenomenal consciousness as a dynamic field of brainwaves is very interesting. Phenomenality may be some type of neuroelectricity, with particular experiences being particular wave patterns in a unitary neuroelectrical field.

[SteveKlinko]

oy vey re not being able to fix typos here:

"what we need to DO re a philosophy of explanations."

You can just ignore this as everyone else does. But then it's pointless to critique whether we have an explanation of anything. You could say whatever you like. If we don't have a philosophical account of just what explanations are, just how they work, and why they are whatever we're claiming they are, then critiques focused on explanations are just pissing in the wind. You don't have to care about that, but it doesn't change the situation. <shrug>

Yikes!

[Consul]

Neuroelectric symphonies in the brain – Why shouldn't one of them be my field or stream of subjective experience?

[UniversalAlien]

"Does Consciousness Exist Outside of the Brain?
Is consciousness actually a property of the universe like gravity or light?"

The prevailing consensus in neuroscience is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. When the brain dies, the mind and consciousness of the being to whom that brain belonged ceases to exist. In other words, without a brain, there can be no consciousness.

But according to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick, a highly regarded neuropsychiatrist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near-death experience (NDE) for 50 years, this view is incorrect. Despite initially being highly incredulous of NDEs and related phenomena, Fenwick now believes his extensive research suggests that consciousness persists after death. In fact, Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity.

Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”

Indeed, the eye can see only the wavelengths of electromagnetic energy that correspond to visible light. But the entire EM spectrum is vast and extends from extremely low energy, long-wavelength radio waves to incredibly energetic, ultrashort-wavelength gamma rays. So, while we can’t actually “see” much of the EM spectrum, we know things like X-rays,............

............But the wondrous experience of consciousness itself seems to require a brain to give rise to it and a brain-based mind to perceive it.

{Copyright 2019 Clifford N. Lazarus, Ph.D.}

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -the-brain

[Terrapin Station]

oy vey re not being able to fix typos here:

"what we need to DO re a philosophy of explanations."

You can just ignore this as everyone else does. But then it's pointless to critique whether we have an explanation of anything. You could say whatever you like. If we don't have a philosophical account of just what explanations are, just how they work, and why they are whatever we're claiming they are, then critiques focused on explanations are just pissing in the wind. You don't have to care about that, but it doesn't change the situation. <shrug>

Yikes!

On that we agree.

[SteveKlinko]

Neuroelectric symphonies in the brain – Why shouldn't one of them be my field or stream of subjective experience?

Could be and anything is possible, but there is no chain of Logic that gets you from Neural Activity to Conscious Experience.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have given the Illusion proposition all the consideration that it deserves. Decades worth of consideration. Illusionism of one form or another has always been there making a mockery out of the Reality of the World as I know it. There is no Chain of Logic that takes you from the Conscious Visual Experience that I have, to the realization that it is not really there. This is pure Hucksterism. They have got to do better than that. It's almost as if the Illusionists actually do not have Conscious Experiences like I have. They may be Experiencing more at the level of the Neural activity and actually do not have the Qualia of the Visual Experiences. Maybe the Lights are out in their Minds. Seems to me the usual move that I see with Illusionism is that they are the ones, in fact, casually dismissing Conscious Experience. It is up to them to Explain how what is so Obviously true can be so Illusory and wrong.

The thing is, we're looking here for something that current knowledge and wisdom simply doesn't cover. We're looking for something new, that we don't currently have. In this context, I find it odd that you will casually discard ideas that might prove useful without evidence. You seem to just dislike them, so you throw them away. How will you find what you're looking for, if you won't consider such possibilities as there are?

Your 'arguments' against (in this case) 'illusionism' are little more than insults. I see little or no logic in your dismissal.

It's that High Def, Wide Screen, multi Color, Visual Experience that I use to move around in the World without bumping into things. This Visual Experience is there, and it has a purpose. If you did not have that Experience you would bump into things.

I don't take issue with this, but it has no relevance (that I can see) to the discussion we're having here.

Sorry, you can have an open mind about things but as the old saying goes: Don't be so open minded that your Brain falls out of your head and onto the floor.

Oh yes, very drole. I think perhaps you have missed the point of the warning carefully concealed within this 'witticism'. Consider this, if you will:

If you want to continue your study of Conscious Experience with the starting point that it doesn't really exist then your journey is over. I start with the assumption that my Conscious Experiences are real things that must be and can be understood. I do understand that you are not alone in this incomprehensible proposition. But we are at an Impasse on this.

I don't know whether this is a straw-man argument, or whether it has its own Latin description. I have always called it 'Binary Thinking'. Whatever we call it, it is a logical fallacy, one that is more common than it should be.

The misunderstanding here is that considering possibilities is the same as accepting them as true, or believing them to be true, without justification. It is very-definitely not the same. On the contrary, if our considerations lead us to blindly believe/accept what we are considering, we're doing it wrong.

Possibilities are just that. If we're looking for a solution that our current thinking doesn't offer, then we must necessarily consider other, different, possibilities. That doesn't mean that the ones we look at are the right ones, only that we don't yet have the right ones, so any possibility is just that: a possible solution to our problem. This logic explicitly does not require that we accept a different approach just because it's different, or just because it's possible.

There is no impasse here. It's just that your approach seems to involve sticking rigidly to your own preferred avenues of exploration. Your choice. No-one can force you to do otherwise, and nor should they, even if they could. Good luck with your cogitations.

[SteveKlinko]

"Does Consciousness Exist Outside of the Brain?
Is consciousness actually a property of the universe like gravity or light?"

The prevailing consensus in neuroscience is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. When the brain dies, the mind and consciousness of the being to whom that brain belonged ceases to exist. In other words, without a brain, there can be no consciousness.

But according to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick, a highly regarded neuropsychiatrist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near-death experience (NDE) for 50 years, this view is incorrect. Despite initially being highly incredulous of NDEs and related phenomena, Fenwick now believes his extensive research suggests that consciousness persists after death. In fact, Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity.

Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”

Indeed, the eye can see only the wavelengths of electromagnetic energy that correspond to visible light. But the entire EM spectrum is vast and extends from extremely low energy, long-wavelength radio waves to incredibly energetic, ultrashort-wavelength gamma rays. So, while we can’t actually “see” much of the EM spectrum, we know things like X-rays,............

............But the wondrous experience of consciousness itself seems to require a brain to give rise to it and a brain-based mind to perceive it.

{Copyright 2019 Clifford N. Lazarus, Ph.D.}

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -the-brain

I agree.

The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp.

I would like to introduce the term Connectism, to identify this new Philosophical concept. Connectism provides a new and refreshing Connection Perspective with respect to Conscious Experience. With proper usage you would say that you are a Connectist because of your Connectist views on Connectism. Connectism is similar but different from Dualism because the Dualist does not emphasize the Connection aspect of the PM to the CM. The IM is the central connecting component within Connectism. The PM is Connected to the IM and the IM is Connected to the CM. So Connectism is actually a Triple Mind perspective, in contrast with the Double Mind perspective of Dualism.