On the Topic of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

Maybe we should break this out.....

This topic is an offshoot from another thread which was on another topic altogether.

This thread is "On the Topic of Consciousness"

I wouldn't pass judgements. My biggest question is why you have a brain type that is willing to jump into the unknown with some assurance, while I seem to have a brain type that doesn't. If I don't know, I leave it at not knowing.

I don't think it comes down to just the brain alone. I think there are many other factors involved. Clearly even from a secular point of view it is recognize that the brain "evolves" as we grow as individuals based much on how we experience life, etc.

For example the very concept of the "unknown" may mean something entirely different to me than it does to you. I mean, sure we could get out a dictionary and look up the term, but that really wouldn't help much because what you believe you know and what I believe I know are going to clearly be two different things. Especially considering my last sentence of the above paragraph. Our knowledge and beliefs evolve in our own brains based upon our own experiences, which clearly are not going to be the same experiences.

Consciousness: I don't know of any scientist that makes his or her living studying it who declares they know what it is.

This is true, but there may be quite a few scientists who feel like Daniel Dennett. Even though he is just a philosopher.

[youtube][/youtube]

I don't disagree with much of what Dennett says about how the brain functions. I don't disagree at all. But he doesn't touch on the real issues as far as I'm concerned. Near the very end of the above video he state a kind of Deepity of his own, "It's not that the Emperor has no clothes, but rather the clothes have no Emperor". The idea intended to imply that we are attempting to push too much onto consciousness that doesn't need to be there.

But for me none of this is satisfying.

I don't disagree with the fact that the brain is indeed a functional portal for the experiences that we have in this incarnated life. Therefore everything he observes and states about how the brain functions and how it "creates" much of our experience, is not in question for me.

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

I've watched several of his lectures, and thus far I haven't been convinced of his conclusions.

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

This is statement here goes back to what I had mentioned above, concerning how you and I may very well think differently due to our different experiences in life.

You speak of the term "supernatural" as though that's a meaningful term.

I have been a scientist my entire life. Isaac Newton, and certain Greek philosophies like Zeno and others were my childhood heroes. Albert Einstein was my next hero as I grew in my scientific knowledge. And today I hold many scientists in high regard and marvel at what they were able to discover and prove.

Just the same, in all of this, I have come to the profound realization that to date we cannot say what the true nature of reality genuinely is. Therefore does it even make any sense to speak of the supernatural, when we can't even say with certain what is natural?

So I'm not prepared to accept the insinuation that I'm "jumping off to assume something supernatural". All I'm doing is recognizing that we can't say where the boundaries of the natural world truly are.

So I don't feel that I'm actually leaping anywhere. I'm just recognizing that we can't know that things need to be restricted to what we believe to be a finite physical existence.

In fact, if you go back to Dennett's very argument perhaps you can see an irony there. He is proclaiming that we can't know nearly what we think we can know, yet he seems to think that he can make very clear conclusions from this evidence that our brains clearly trick us.

That's almost an oxymoron right there. If what Dennett says is true, that our brains can fool us considerably, then perhaps the entirety of physical reality is itself an illusion that we are being tricked into believing. What we believe to be "brains" may not be physical entities at all.

My position is that we know consciousness is affected by natural events, and we know nature exists... seems a very small slide to presume consciousness is a natural phenomenon. But not knowing, sure, I can't say it's not - but I haven't been offered ONE example of the supernatural. So, I simply can't presume it's supernatural. I can't even think of why I'd consider the supernatural when the supernatural has such a horrible track record.

Well, our difference of views here may indeed amount to the extremely different way we view the "supernatural". For you to say that the supernatural has a bad track record implies that you associate the term with just about any guess that anyone might come up with (and especially specific claims that have indeed been shown to be false).

Whilst those do indeed qualify as "supernatural", they may not qualify as the type of "supernatural" that I consider. In fact, the type of "supernatural" that I consider is actually quite natural. It simply amounts to nature that we haven't yet discovered or understood, so it's only in that sense that it seems to be supernatural to us, when in reality it may be perfectly natural.

Given this, there only seems to be the natural. Just because we don't know how consciouness works doesn't means it's because of the gods, or the supernatural or something else, or even "natural vs. I don't know".

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

Given these two facts, why presume we can't explain consciousness eventually?

I already gave my answer to this earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for clarity.

Copy and pasted from earlier in this very same post:

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

End of copy and paste

Yes, consciousness exists. And something is having an experience.

But what is it that is having an experience?

Energy and matter?

Electromagnetic fields?

Something else? Many people have suggested that the thing that is having an experience is some sort of "emergent property of complexity".

I suppose this is a valid philosophical idea, but it seems pretty strange to me that an abstract idea of an emergent property could have an experience.

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

To simply say that "consciousness" is a natural result of nature, still leaves me asking, "Who is the Emperor that is having this experience?"

If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?

It just seems strange to me that the clothes (i.e. matter and energy) should be able to have an experience.

So this simply leaves the door to the "supernatural" (i.e. nature that we simply don't yet understand) wide open.

I'm not saying that the secular view is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying that the purely secular view seems every bit as strange to me as the supernatural view.

In other words, that view doesn't "hit the spot" as being an obvious conclusion to accept either.

I'm not going to automatically accept Dennetts "Deepity" that "The clothes have no Emperor" as being the profound answer to this question. That's just as absurd as any other Deepity, IMHO.

So this is where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that the supernatural necessarily has to exist. But I am claiming that, insofar as I can see, it's on precisely equal footing with any other conclusions at this point.

Seeing that they are on the same footing, I don't mind using intuition and gut feelings to consider one over the other. So with that in mind, I confess that I lean toward the mystical view. But clearly I could be wrong.

[Ooberman]

So far I haven't asserted anything that I should back up, I haven't even represented 'the other side'.

Then why not offer something?

I have merely criticized you for not properly backing up your assertion that the mind is a physical property of the brain.

Yes, but with an argument from ignorance.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that consciousness can't emerge from matter and energy.

Why can't it?

We have explained our position, Dennett has (the video in the OP), and instanc has alluded to even better arguments for our position.

I think it's time for the arguments for the other side. Personally, I'm getting tired of the arguments from ignorance.

There are certainly good arguments for the brain/mind materialism out there, user Scourge99 makes some good points in this thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

On the other side there are conceptual arguments, such as the conceivability argument. The mind and the brain seem to be categorically different, which would suggest that one cannot be reduced to the other. The law of identity dictates that if it is logically possible for A to exist without B, then concept A in fact is not identical to B. Now, Descartes and many others have wrote lengthy books to show that it is logically possible for the mind to exist independently from the brain (note that nobody is claiming that this would be actually possible, merely a logical possibility). If that is true, then it is illogical to hold that properties of the mind, such as pain, would in fact be merely fibres and neurons firing in the brain. In my opinion material dualism (the one endorsed by theism) can be proved wrong quite conclusively. The middle ground, which makes an interesting case I think, holds that the mind is indeed an emergent property of the brain, but that it is not a physical property.

If you are aware of those different alternatives, then why not pick one? As I see it, I simply take the leading view, provisionally, and roll with it.

I'm not going to pretend that we here are going to have the capacity to know which is the right answer.

This is why some of these debates are rather silly. Non of us have the expertise to go any further than the research, and we are all woefully ignorant on all the research.

My position is that I can easily see how consciousness either emerges from matter & energy or is some version. I really can't understand a dualist view.

Heck, I used to think of "me" as the Emperor - watching from above, in a way - but now I see myself as the immediate Sensor: the clothes. I am sensing and reacting. I am my neural network. There is no This vs. That.

It can't be reduced because it already is reduced.

[Goat]

The brain has to be orgianized in a specific manner to be aware. When it is not organized in that fashion, we are not aware.

Agreed.

A conclusion is that 'The matter consisting of the brain has to be in a specific pattern to be aware'...

Yes.

which leads to the conclusion that 'Matter is specific arrangements might be aware.

I don't understand what this means. What has this got to do with the initial claim that consciousness is purely a physical property?

That isn't quite the claim. The claim that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical property.. which is a bit different.

[instantc]

What has this got to do with the initial claim that consciousness is purely a physical property?

That isn't quite the claim. The claim that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical property.. which is a bit different.

Did you mean that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical entity?

That is also what the dualists hold (although some go as far as suggesting that the mind is an independent immaterial entity, but they tend to have a religious agenda), so I really don't see any disagreement here. I thought you were endorsing the physicalist position, that the brain is a physical entity with purely physical properties.

[Goat]

What has this got to do with the initial claim that consciousness is purely a physical property?

That isn't quite the claim. The claim that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical property.. which is a bit different.

Did you mean that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical entity?

That is also what the dualists hold (although some go as far as suggesting that the mind is an independent immaterial entity, but they tend to have a religious agenda), so I really don't see any disagreement here. I thought you were endorsing the physicalist position, that the brain is a physical entity with purely physical properties.

Yes, I do. without the physical, you don't have the mind.

[instantc]

What has this got to do with the initial claim that consciousness is purely a physical property?

That isn't quite the claim. The claim that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical property.. which is a bit different.

Did you mean that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical entity?

That is also what the dualists hold (although some go as far as suggesting that the mind is an independent immaterial entity, but they tend to have a religious agenda), so I really don't see any disagreement here. I thought you were endorsing the physicalist position, that the brain is a physical entity with purely physical properties.

Yes, I do. without the physical, you don't have the mind.

But, that doesn't mean the mind is a purely physical property of the brain, does it?

[Goat]

What has this got to do with the initial claim that consciousness is purely a physical property?

That isn't quite the claim. The claim that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical property.. which is a bit different.

Did you mean that consciousness is an emergent quality of a physical entity?

That is also what the dualists hold (although some go as far as suggesting that the mind is an independent immaterial entity, but they tend to have a religious agenda), so I really don't see any disagreement here. I thought you were endorsing the physicalist position, that the brain is a physical entity with purely physical properties.

Yes, I do. without the physical, you don't have the mind.

But, that doesn't mean the mind is a purely physical property of the brain, does it?

There is no evidence that it is anything but a physical property of the brain. We know through that, and MRI's (which sees the brain neurons in actions), that the brain phyiscally works to produce the mind.. so we have evidence of that.

We have no evidence that the mind is separate from brain activity.

Until such evidence an be forthcoming.. that is testable and repeatable, with a mechanism described on HOW it works, then it is a reasonable conclusion to say that 'The mind is caused by the physical processes in the brain'.

There will always be searchers looking to show the mind is separate from the brain/body. So far, their claims are not credible, their 'research' , if you can all it that, is sloppy, and their arguments are full of flaws.

It would be FUN if one of these folks actually come up with it. I personally like seeing things found out that upset the standards of what is expected... it makes things interesting. However, there is a lot of 'woo' in these "researchers" (and I use that term sarcastically at this point) efforts.

This is one of things I wish to be proven true, if nothing else to shake up complacency, and to open up whole news areas for new questions.

So far, they haven't... and in my opinion, it is highly unlikely they will.

[instantc]

There is no evidence that it is anything but a physical property of the brain.

On the contrary, as far as I can see, there is no evidence that it is anything else but a non-physical property of the brain.

We know through that, and MRI's (which sees the brain neurons in actions), that the brain phyiscally works to produce the mind.. so we have evidence of that.

Non-sense, we know for near certainty that the brain produces the mind, but nobody has the slightest idea of how it is done.

We have no evidence that the mind is separate from brain activity.

Nobody has argued this, we all agree that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. The dualist side just argues that it is not a physical property.

Until such evidence an be forthcoming.. that is testable and repeatable, with a mechanism described on HOW it works, then it is a reasonable conclusion to say that 'The mind is caused by the physical processes in the brain'.

This is like saying that until we have evidence and a full explanation of the big bang, it is reasonable to conclude that God created the universe.

If you assert that the mind is a physical property of the brain, you have to be able to back it up with evidence, you cannot just assume it in the absence of a conclusive alternative explanation. Otherwise you do the same mistake that many theists do in arguing for God, you simply wait to be proven wrong, instead of making arguments to back up your claim.

There will always be searchers looking to show the mind is separate from the brain/body. So far, their claims are not credible, their 'research' , if you can all it that, is sloppy, and their arguments are full of flaws.

Again, only people with a theistic agenda tend to claim this, I'm not interested in discussing material dualism.

It would be FUN if one of these folks actually come up with it. I personally like seeing things found out that upset the standards of what is expected... it makes things interesting. However, there is a lot of 'woo' in these "researchers" (and I use that term sarcastically at this point) efforts.

Obviously, since you are now talking about material dualism, which is completely unwarranted speculation in my opinion.

[Ooberman]

There is no evidence that it is anything but a physical property of the brain.

On the contrary, as far as I can see, there is no evidence that it is anything else than a non-physical property.

Is software running on your computer a physical property? Maybe we have a difference in definition?

It appears Dualists are slowly shifting their definitions to align with materialists...

[instantc]

There is no evidence that it is anything but a physical property of the brain.

On the contrary, as far as I can see, there is no evidence that it is anything else than a non-physical property.

Is software running on your computer a physical property? Maybe we have a difference in definition?

A software can be reduced to physical activity in the different parts of the computer. We know this because we build those parts. This kind of reductions do not pose the same conceptual problems as consciousness does.

In fact, everything we have ever encountered, apart from the mind, has been successfully reduced to physical properties. That is the major argument for materialism of the mind.

It appears Dualists are slowly shifting their definitions to align with materialists...

This is not the case, there are material dualists that believe in spirits and that kind of stuff, which is usually due to a spiritual agenda. Then there are those who simply acknowledge that the mind is an emergent property of the brain on the one hand and that conscious experiences cannot be reduced to physical brain activity on the other hand. That's called property dualism, and as far as I know, it is the only form of dualism that is taken seriously among scholars. In principle, property dualism has nothing to do with material dualism.

[Goat]

There is no evidence that it is anything but a physical property of the brain.

On the contrary, as far as I can see, there is no evidence that it is anything else but a non-physical property of the brain.

Can you please show why you reject the fact the mind changes when the brain gets modified.. or altered with drugs, and also can you explain why you reject the MRI evidence of showing how the brain reacts when people have to use their mind?