Philosophy Discussion Forums

Consul wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 11:41 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 9:44 am

Timothy McGrew wrote: But it is an interesting exercise to determine when the slogan is applicable. The answer appears to be that each version, positive and negative, applies under certain conditions. At a first approximation, we can take the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence...

An unjustifiable assertion. In the absence of evidence, there is no scientific or logical justification for reaching any kind of conclusion, other than 'no conclusion can be justified or reached'.

You're wrong!
For example, negative evidence or negative testimony does matter in court...

Please read again my text that you are supposedly responding to. I referred to matters where there is an "absence of evidence", not to negative evidence, which is evidence, of a sort. As I also said, in the post you're quoting from,

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 9:44 am In the absence of evidence, no analysis can take place: there is nothing to analyse. Thus, no formal scientific investigation can take place, and therefore no conclusion can be logically drawn. The proposition should not be accepted or rejected.

Consul wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 11:48 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 6:10 pm * I also question the dogma that cells are not alive.

Who says so? Cells are clearly biological or vital things. The question is whether they have mental or experiential properties. (You know my answer.)

My mistake, sorry. I meant "not organisms", that cells are only considered to be components of larger networks.

My objection comes down to machine analogies being applied to life. "Biological machine" is a common term for microbes and even plants. However, when we question this metaphor, we can see it's backwards. Life is never "like a machine". Rather, at times machines can seem lifelike. A huge semantic difference IMO.

Machines do not work for themselves but for a controller. While the same could be said of cells, ants, hyenas or humans. In life - including cells - life has inner drives, albeit very often unconscious, but machines are passive creations.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 9:50 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 6:10 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 1:17 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 8:55 pm I have no problem with your views, but your total confidence in them is premature in lieu of compelling evidence.

I'm going to write that down, and use it later, to make myself look impressive. So often, I have wanted to say this, succinctly, as you have done. 👍

Same here :)

Take black holes for instance. They were predicted decades earlier with Einstein's math. Belief in them at the time was not warranted, as there was no proof, but the models were solid.

Agreed. But I would like to add to what you say the thing that always bothers me about these things. As you say, "Belief in them at the time was not warranted", to which I would add 'Disbelief in them at the time was not warranted either'. We are often far too quick to jump to conclusions, even without any justification at all.

Good point! Both sides jumped the gun. There is incentive in science to do so because you can be first. It's fairly safe if the wrong assumption is a majority position, eg. belief that animals are unfeeling automatons earlier in the 20th century. But making equivalently wrong announcements without sufficient evidence with a minority position can harm a scientist's credibility.

So there is an incentive to be extra careful about challenging orthodox positions, which can lead researchers to groupthink. I suspect this is the case with consciousness researchers exclusively focusing on neurobiology, completely ignoring the extreme interdependencies with other body systems. I think it highly unlikely that this "brain in a vat" approach will work.

Life started with a metabolism, and nervous systems and brains only evolved to better feed and protect metabolic body structures. So I think that would be a respectable place to start when seeking the very most basic source of being. It would mean a multi-disciplinary approach to consciousness studies that starts with the brain-gut connection (at least) rather treating everything beyond the brain stem as a black box.

The topic speaks to humanity's basic lack of respect for all life forms. At a time when the planet is dying there is a burst of interest in establishing the reference for life. Let us hope this burst of enthusiasm succeeds, to debate the issue is itself absurd at this point.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 6:08 pm So there is an incentive to be extra careful about challenging orthodox positions, which can lead researchers to groupthink. I suspect this is the case with consciousness researchers exclusively focusing on neurobiology, completely ignoring the extreme interdependencies with other body systems. I think it highly unlikely that this "brain in a vat" approach will work.
Life started with a metabolism, and nervous systems and brains only evolved to better feed and protect metabolic body structures. So I think that would be a respectable place to start when seeking the very most basic source of being. It would mean a multi-disciplinary approach to consciousness studies that starts with the brain-gut connection (at least) rather treating everything beyond the brain stem as a black box.

No, the "cerebrocentrists" do not "completely ignor[e] the extreme interdependencies with other body systems." They just think that other body systems or mechanisms aren't part of the organ, i.e. the constitutive neurophysiological mechanisms, of mind and consciousness but only external influencers. Brains depend physiologically on the organisms of which they are part, but it is not the case that the body or organism as a whole, in its entirety is the organ of mind and consciousness.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 6:08 pmLife started with a metabolism, and nervous systems and brains only evolved to better feed and protect metabolic body structures. So I think that would be a respectable place to start when seeking the very most basic source of being. It would mean a multi-disciplinary approach to consciousness studies that starts with the brain-gut connection (at least) rather treating everything beyond the brain stem as a black box.

Do you think a real conscious Robocop is impossible? Note that he still has a brain, but his gastrointestinal tract (including his "gut brain" = enteric nervous system) is gone.
Take a look:

Consul wrote: ↑May 15th, 2021, 2:47 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 6:08 pmLife started with a metabolism, and nervous systems and brains only evolved to better feed and protect metabolic body structures. So I think that would be a respectable place to start when seeking the very most basic source of being. It would mean a multi-disciplinary approach to consciousness studies that starts with the brain-gut connection (at least) rather treating everything beyond the brain stem as a black box.

Do you think a real conscious Robocop is impossible? Note that he still has a brain, but his gastrointestinal tract (including his "gut brain" = enteric nervous system) is gone.
Take a look: [scene from Robocop video]

I am unsure whether such an entity would be capable of qualia. Without other organs I am unsure if there would be any emotions for the limbic system to regulate. Can we imagine what fear would feel like without increased heart rate or hormonal or other systemic effects? Seemingly, the only response a fearful event would muster in a Robocop is focus and speeding up of the brain - something a sophisticated machine could achieve without emotions.

I also think it's not a great idea. The speedy and seamless interfaces between brains and other body systems took aeons to refine. Meanwhile, human brains operate very much more slowly than computers. So a Robocop would probably be both mentally and physically slower and cumbersome than an equivalent robot. Qualia would only be a hindrance (despite the Robocop depicting AI as having insectoid levels of intelligence, no doubt to highlight "the human difference").

Consul wrote: ↑May 15th, 2021, 11:16 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 6:08 pm So there is an incentive to be extra careful about challenging orthodox positions, which can lead researchers to groupthink. I suspect this is the case with consciousness researchers exclusively focusing on neurobiology, completely ignoring the extreme interdependencies with other body systems. I think it highly unlikely that this "brain in a vat" approach will work.
Life started with a metabolism, and nervous systems and brains only evolved to better feed and protect metabolic body structures. So I think that would be a respectable place to start when seeking the very most basic source of being. It would mean a multi-disciplinary approach to consciousness studies that starts with the brain-gut connection (at least) rather treating everything beyond the brain stem as a black box.

No, the "cerebrocentrists" do not "completely ignor[e] the extreme interdependencies with other body systems." They just think that other body systems or mechanisms aren't part of the organ, i.e. the constitutive neurophysiological mechanisms, of mind and consciousness but only external influencers. Brains depend physiologically on the organisms of which they are part, but it is not the case that the body or organism as a whole, in its entirety is the organ of mind and consciousness.

Decades of neuroscience and billions of dollars have ultimately produced nothing whatsoever as regards the genesis of consciousness.

Zero results. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

In context, it is fair to imagine that neuroscience may never solve the hard problem. Thus, practitioners can be expected to continue (for the most part) to treat the hard problem with attitudes ranging from disdain to disinterest. In a sense, it hardly matters, because neuroscience is geared towards medical rather than philosophical outcomes.

It's reasonable to consider that a critical all-body attribute such as consciousness may not necessarily stem from a single organ. It's not outlandish to wonder if the interdependencies required for consciousness are more intrinsic than previously assumed. Other body systems may not "external influencers", as you suggest, but may be part of the process. The neurocentric approach over the years has occasionally raised hopes of solving the hard problem, but they have always turned out to be false flags.

The way neurocentrist thinkers dig in suggests to me that they want the brain to be the exclusive generator of consciousness. No doubt this pertains to arguments around materialism and metaphysics. Ideological battles such as these only serve to distract IMO.

Consul wrote: ↑May 15th, 2021, 11:16 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 6:08 pm So there is an incentive to be extra careful about challenging orthodox positions, which can lead researchers to groupthink. I suspect this is the case with consciousness researchers exclusively focusing on neurobiology, completely ignoring the extreme interdependencies with other body systems. I think it highly unlikely that this "brain in a vat" approach will work.
Life started with a metabolism, and nervous systems and brains only evolved to better feed and protect metabolic body structures. So I think that would be a respectable place to start when seeking the very most basic source of being. It would mean a multi-disciplinary approach to consciousness studies that starts with the brain-gut connection (at least) rather treating everything beyond the brain stem as a black box.

No, the "cerebrocentrists" do not "completely ignor[e] the extreme interdependencies with other body systems." They just think that other body systems or mechanisms aren't part of the organ, i.e. the constitutive neurophysiological mechanisms, of mind and consciousness but only external influencers. Brains depend physiologically on the organisms of which they are part, but it is not the case that the body or organism as a whole, in its entirety is the organ of mind and consciousness.

I think our current understanding of these matters is that the mind cannot be considered independently of the body. The two are closely interconnected on every level, to the point where one cannot really be considered without the other.

For example,
How the Gut's "Second Brain" Influences Mood and Well-Being

Scientific American wrote:...an often-overlooked network of neurons lining our guts that is so extensive some scientists have nicknamed it our "second brain"

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 16th, 2021, 7:07 amI think our current understanding of these matters is that the mind cannot be considered independently of the body. The two are closely interconnected on every level, to the point where one cannot really be considered without the other.

A (living) brain in a vat depends physiologically on the vat, but it doesn't follow that the vat is part of the organ of cognition and consciousness.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 16th, 2021, 7:07 amFor example,
How the Gut's "Second Brain" Influences Mood and Well-Being

Scientific American wrote:...an often-overlooked network of neurons lining our guts that is so extensive some scientists have nicknamed it our "second brain"

I've already affirmed several times that the brain is influenced or "informed" by extracerebral parts of and processes in the organism; but—once again—it doesn't follow that these are part of the constitutive neurophysiological mechanisms of cognition and consciousness. It doesn't follow that the brain isn't the only place in an organism where cognition and consciousness come into being. The central nervous system is influenced by the enteric nervous system, but cognition and consciousness are neither wholly nor partly realized by and present in the latter.

Consul wrote: ↑May 16th, 2021, 9:35 am …The central nervous system is influenced by the enteric nervous system, but cognition and consciousness are neither wholly nor partly realized by and present in the latter.

You feel and think with your brain, not with your stomach or colon.
What happens is that the brain receives neural stimuli from the enteric nervous system, which are then transformed by and in the central nervous system into bodily sensations referring to the stomach or colon.

Consul wrote: ↑May 16th, 2021, 9:40 am You feel and think with your brain, not with your stomach or colon.
What happens is that the brain receives neural stimuli from the enteric nervous system, which are then transformed by and in the central nervous system into bodily sensations referring to the stomach or colon.

The bodily sensations through which you perceive your stomach or colon are located in your brain, not in your stomach or colon.

Consul wrote: ↑May 16th, 2021, 9:42 amThe bodily sensations through which you perceive your stomach or colon are located in your brain, not in your stomach or colon.

Subjectively, bellyaches seem to be located in your belly; but that's a phenomenal illusion.

It must be comforting to be so certain about these partly-understood things.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 15th, 2021, 11:19 pm

Consul wrote: ↑May 15th, 2021, 2:47 pmDo you think a real conscious Robocop is impossible? Note that he still has a brain, but his gastrointestinal tract (including his "gut brain" = enteric nervous system) is gone.

I am unsure whether such an entity would be capable of qualia. Without other organs I am unsure if there would be any emotions for the limbic system to regulate. Can we imagine what fear would feel like without increased heart rate or hormonal or other systemic effects? Seemingly, the only response a fearful event would muster in a Robocop is focus and speeding up of the brain - something a sophisticated machine could achieve without emotions.
I also think it's not a great idea. The speedy and seamless interfaces between brains and other body systems took aeons to refine. Meanwhile, human brains operate very much more slowly than computers. So a Robocop would probably be both mentally and physically slower and cumbersome than an equivalent robot. Qualia would only be a hindrance (despite the Robocop depicting AI as having insectoid levels of intelligence, no doubt to highlight "the human difference").

To be (phenomenally) conscious is to have qualia. Robocop Alex Murphy may not be capable of having all sorts of experiences normal people can have, but he seems capable of having some sorts of experiences, including conscious thoughts (which aren't qualia-free) and visual&auditory sensations. He also seems depressed about his extreme situation (understandably), so it seems he can experience moods too.
Anyway, persons who are experientially/mentally severely impaired can still be conscious, can't they?