Vitalist nonsense versus Science.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
If you don't mind redefining what 'thinking' is then no.

Why not? They don't seem to be getting anywhere with their current definition.

However currently it is accepted that computers do not think, since thinking implies consciousness. If thinking is redefined so it does not imply consciousness then my pocket calculator can think, and an abacus can think with a bit of help.

Wait a minute...since when is it a bad thing to assume a computer is conscious? We assume a dog is conscious, and a computer can process and interact better than a dog can, can't it?

I think I've said all I can on this one. If consciousness was identical to brain states there'd be no explanation for why science is trying so hard to explain it.

Sure there would: They're constantly met with philosophical opposition. The proclamation that "the hard problem still stands" is going to get in the way of even the most impressive of theories. William Calvin's theory would be an enormous step in the right direction, if people would just drop the "hard problem" (not off-hand, but after the realization that it (the hard problem) is based on false premises).

The very fact that you have to use the word 'illusion' shows that even you think conscious thoughts are different to unconscious processes. How do you explain this difference? The difference cannot be explained as an illusion. One cannot have an illusion of being conscious when in reality one is not.

Not of "being conscious", of having been conscious of one thought, while unconscious of another. You were processing both thoughts, there was simply more "attention" being paid to the one, instead of the other. All of this falls right back on the Darwinian process that I've described numerous times, since the variant patterns are competing for supremacy in a closed working space.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Mentat
Sure there would: They're constantly met with philosophical opposition. The proclamation that "the hard problem still stands" is going to get in the way of even the most impressive of theories. William Calvin's theory would be an enormous step in the right direction, if people would just drop the "hard problem" (not off-hand, but after the realization that it (the hard problem) is based on false premises).

Without mentioning the validity of the hard problem in itself, I'd like to say that recognizing the hard problem will not 'get in the way' of any scientific theories of consciousness. At most the hard problem will call into question metaphysical assertions about consciousness which cannot really be conclusively supported or refuted by evidence anyway.

For instance, if Calvin's theory is fruitful, then no one who recognizes the hard problem will deny its fruitfulness-- they will just call into question its completeness. They will question if it really does explain everything that needs explaining, but that does not amount to refuting or standing in the way of the theory itself.

 

[Canute]

Mentat

I think we'll have to agree to differ. You seem to be saying that you don't know what subjective experiences are, and there's no way of defining them meaningfully to someone who doesn't know what they are like already.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the 'hard' problem' is not a scientific one. It's certainly not a problem in many philosophies, and isn't really even a 'western' philosophical problem, since it is generally scientists who insist that consciousness arises from brain rather than philosophers, who in the main go for idealism.

Philosophers, people who think while trying not to make assumptions, merely point out that IF consciousness arises from brain then it is impossible for science to explain it. This is a scientific problem, not a philosophical one.

I'll leave you with Max Planck, who expressed the problem perfectly.

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery in nature. And it is because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we try to solve.”

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Without mentioning the validity of the hard problem in itself, I'd like to say that recognizing the hard problem will not 'get in the way' of any scientific theories of consciousness. At most the hard problem will call into question metaphysical assertions about consciousness which cannot really be conclusively supported or refuted by evidence anyway.

For instance, if Calvin's theory is fruitful, then no one who recognizes the hard problem will deny its fruitfulness-- they will just call into question its completeness. They will question if it really does explain everything that needs explaining, but that does not amount to refuting or standing in the way of the theory itself.

I see what you mean.

But, then, couldn't a theory be complete by Science's standards, and still not satisfy the "hard problem" (which is, at its heart, a "why" question...or so it appears, anyway)?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
Mentat

I think we'll have to agree to differ. You seem to be saying that you don't know what subjective experiences are, and there's no way of defining them meaningfully to someone who doesn't know what they are like already.

So there is no way to define them...since an a priori assumption that I'm just going to know what you are talking about is not just illogical but the true enemy of logic (if you'll forgive my false logical piety ).

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the 'hard' problem' is not a scientific one. It's certainly not a problem in many philosophies, and isn't really even a 'western' philosophical problem, since it is generally scientists who insist that consciousness arises from brain rather than philosophers, who in the main go for idealism.

The hard problem is a philosophical take-off of a scientific assumption. Scientists assume that the brain performs conscious functions, philosophers are the ones that add the question of "why" these two should be related (which is not a question that scientists are capable of asking let alone answering).

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
So there is no way to define them...since an a priori assumption that I'm just going to know what you are talking about is not just illogical but the true enemy of logic (if you'll forgive my false logical piety ).

It is not difficult to define 'experience'. It is just impossible to do it scientifically, for fairly obvious reasons.

Think of it this way. It is agreed by everyone who has ever considered the matter that idealism is unfalsifiable. If we could show that consciousness arose from brain then this would falsify idealism. Ergo we cann show that consciounsness arises from brain, and therefore quite obviously we cannot show how it happens.

Why this argument is so little used I don;t know. As far as I know it is unrefutable. I you're around Hypno what do you think?

The hard problem is a philosophical take-off of a scientific assumption.

I notice you use 'take off' to avoid using 'refutation'.

Scientists assume that the brain performs conscious functions, philosophers are the ones that add the question of "why" these two should be related (which is not a question that scientists are capable of asking let alone answering). [/B]

The view of some scientists is that brain gives rise to consciousness. In order to justify this assumption, and explain how it is plausible, they search for the corrleates of consciousness. This is what scientists are looking for, and that search is the scientific study of consciousness.

Philosophers do not invent problems, they point them out. You seem to think that there is some dividing line between philosophy and science. There isn't one.

I do not understand where you get your idea of the scientific view, it is nothing at all like yours. There is no 'scientific view' n the origins of consciousness, nor yet a proof of its existence.

Yet for some reason scientists conclude that consciousness needs an explanation. It is hard to say why this is so, but presumably it is because although there is no scientific evidence for conscousness scientists are conscious human beings, and find it hard to dismiss the fact.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Canute
Think of it this way. It is agreed by everyone who has ever considered the matter that idealism is unfalsifiable. If we could show that consciousness arose from brain then this would falsify idealism. Ergo we cann show that consciounsness arises from brain, and therefore quite obviously we cannot show how it happens.

Why this argument is so little used I don;t know. As far as I know it is unrefutable. I you're around Hypno what do you think?

I don't think showing brain activity to be the cause of consciousness would necessarily falsify idealism. An idealist could still hold that the brain itself is just an idea in the mind of God (or still has a fundamentally idea-like nature, or somesuch).

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I don't think showing brain activity to be the cause of consciousness would necessarily falsify idealism. An idealist could still hold that the brain itself is just an idea in the mind of God (or still has a fundamentally idea-like nature, or somesuch).

Good point. I forgot the mind of God. Still, isn't there something a bit odd about the idea that God created brains and brains created our consciousness? Also by most defintions 'God' is consciousness, independent of physical attributes. So even if God did create brains then it remains the case that consciousness gives rise to brains.

But I think you're right. It's not as simple as I suggested. I'll try try to refine it a bit.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
I notice you use 'take off' to avoid using 'refutation'.

No, I used "take-off" because it took off from a scientific assumption...it doesn't refute the assumption, it's a hybrid version of it.

The view of some scientists is that brain gives rise to consciousness. In order to justify this assumption, and explain how it is plausible, they search for the corrleates of consciousness. This is what scientists are looking for, and that search is the scientific study of consciousness.

I beg to differ. None of the scientific theories of consciousness I've ever read have been about the correlates of consciousness, but have been instead about what processes in the brain are consciousness. Indeed this distinction is often stated rather plainly in one way or another, at the beginning of the book.

Philosophers do not invent problems, they point them out. You seem to think that there is some dividing line between philosophy and science. There isn't one.

That may be bad wording, Canute. Science is a branch of Philosophy ("philosophy" being the "love and pursuit of wisdom/knowledge/understanding"), but, in being a "branch" it is subject to limitations that Philosophy as a whole is not subject to.

I do not understand where you get your idea of the scientific view, it is nothing at all like yours. There is no 'scientific view' n the origins of consciousness, nor yet a proof of its existence.

What?

Yet for some reason scientists conclude that consciousness needs an explanation. It is hard to say why this is so, but presumably it is because although there is no scientific evidence for conscousness scientists are conscious human beings, and find it hard to dismiss the fact.

Scientists conclude that consciousness needs an explanation because that is the entire purpose of science: to provide explanations for phenomena.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat

I beg to differ. None of the scientific theories of consciousness I've ever read have been about the correlates of consciousness, but have been instead about what processes in the brain are consciousness. Indeed this distinction is often stated rather plainly in one way or another, at the beginning of the book.

You have not read much then. The literature is awash with papers about NCC's.

What?

I thought I was clear. Science cannot prove that consciousness exists. Also, while there are many conjectures, there is no scientific view (i.e. view founded on scientific evidence) on the origins of consciousness. There will not be one until the hard problem is solved.

Scientists conclude that consciousness needs an explanation because that is the entire purpose of science: to provide explanations for phenomena. [/B]

The purpose of modern science is unclear to me, but I'll take your word for it. However do you not think it paradoxical that science is trying to explain something it cannot define and cannot show to exist?

 

[FZ+]

I think science has defined consciousness. The problem is that you don't like the definition.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Maybe Chalmers is recognizing and grappling with an innate, metaphysical, spiritual property of each particular vibrating string of matter that enables it to "stick-polarize-remember" fuzzy patterns in association with other levels of material organization within the whole. If such properties are tightly bound up with perception, then the focus of any sticky attempt to measure or perceive patterns of feelings of consciousness would seem likely to skew and render non-falsifiable the attempted observation. In other words, might understanding how basic particles of matter are able to polarize one another be requisite to reducing Chalmers' hard problem about consciousness? Sure glad I got that off my chest.

 

[Imparcticle]

However do you not think it paradoxical that science is trying to explain something it cannot define and cannot show to exist?

Or rather, we are having a hard time defining it ourselves. It obviously exists, does it not?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think science has defined consciousness. The problem is that you don't like the definition. [/B]

No, it hasn't been scientifically defined it yet. Individual scientists have individual definitions but they all disagree with each other. All widely agreed definitions are not scientific.

No scientific proof of its existence is available yet so you can't really say science has defined it. It's an odd situation.

 

[FZ+]

Individual scientists have individual definitions but they all disagree with each other.

Isn't that the whole point of science? Individual disagreement is what makes science work.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Isn't that the whole point of science? Individual disagreement is what makes science work.

I think so but this is pushing what Canute is saying a bit far I think. If I found a scientist who diagreed with evolutionary theory you'd probably be quick to say he wasn't a legitimate scientist. So disagreement only goes so far. There is generally agreement on a base level of established knowledge for the most part. I think when scientists disagree, they generally do it on the answer to a scientific question. But if they don't agree on the question itself, then it's hard to see how anything scientific can result.

 

[Canute]

Yes that's the point. And actually it's worse than that. There is no individual scientific definition of consciousness that works, never mind an orthodox one. Read any scientific paper or book on consciousness and the definition invariably leaves out the one thing philosophers (and common sense) say should left in, namely 'what it is like'.

This is the sort of crazy muddle (Chalmer's might say 'sleight of hand') that we get.

“…almost a decade ago, Crick wrote ‘Everyone has a rough idea of what is meant by consciousness. It is better to avoid a precise definition of consciousness because of the dangers of premature definition. Until the problem is understood much better, any attempt at a further definition is likely to be either misleading or overly-restrictive, or both’ (Crick, 1994). This seems to be as true now as it was then although the identification of different aspects of consciousness (P–consciousness. A-consciousness, self-consciousness, and monitoring consciousness) by Block (1995) has certainly brought a degree of clarification. On the other hand, there is little doubt that consciousness does seem to be something to do with the operation of a sophisticated control system (the human brain), and we can claim more familiarity with control systems than can most philosophers, so perhaps we can make up some ground there.” (Owen Holland and Rod Goodman)

 

[FZ+]

I found a scientist who diagreed with evolutionary theory you'd probably be quick to say he wasn't a legitimate scientist.

No I won't. It is a matter of attitude. If he had a credible reason, and a credible alternative, and positive evidence, then I wouldn't say that at all. Evolution theory has changed alot, due to people who disagreed.

But if they don't agree on the question itself, then it's hard to see how anything scientific can result.

Let's give an example, to disprove this.

Take one theory of everything. Scientists, legitimately practising the scientific method, have not only disagreed on candidates for this theory, but have also disagreed on what criteria it needs to fulfill. (Eg. marcus would tell you that a TOE needs to be conservative, not inventing new stuff. A string theorist may disagree.)

Read any scientific paper or book on consciousness and the definition invariably leaves out the one thing philosophers (and common sense) say should left in, namely 'what it is like'.

Common sense is a very bad word, as far as science is concerned. The fact remains that this is still a definition of consciousness, and the idea that experience sorts itself out is also legitimate. You may disagree with this definition, but that is your disagreement. Science has defined consciousness. Some people simply do not like it.

Speaking objectively, the way science can win this (if we see it as a competition), is to explain consciousness as far as its own definition. The rest, including the hard problem of experience, will probably prove intractable, and definitions requiring something more will probably fizzle out in time, simply by virtue of the fact it is a question made to be unanswerable, and eventually meaningless.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
No I won't. It is a matter of attitude. If he had a credible reason, and a credible alternative, and positive evidence, then I wouldn't say that at all. Evolution theory has changed alot, due to people who disagreed.

This whole discussion is really about what we arbitrarily label as "scientific". Now that I read your statement, I can see that you can pretty much claim anything you want to be scientific and there's not much I or Canute can say or do to change that. It's just a silly word game. I just interpreted Canutes original point to be that there are some standards with which all scientists agree. The scientific method for one. Your statement implies that scientists can disagree on anything and everything. It is hard for me to see how scientists can accomplish anything and contribute to established knowledge if they can't even get past what is a philosophical issue of defining the problem. Whether you want to call such things scientific or not, is subjective. You and Canute just disagree about the label.

Let's give an example, to disprove this.

Take one theory of everything. Scientists, legitimately practising the scientific method, have not only disagreed on candidates for this theory, but have also disagreed on what criteria it needs to fulfill. (Eg. marcus would tell you that a TOE needs to be conservative, not inventing new stuff. A string theorist may disagree.)

The only way this proof works is if we assume that TOE has a scientific definition LOL. If this is true then Canute could argue that it does not. Again, this is subjective whether we label anything as scientiifc. But I still argue it would be hard to establish a pragmatic benefit from an area with so much semantic confusion.

Also, I'm not sure that the TOE is what you claim but I could be wrong. I was under the impression the objective of a theory of everything is to tie all the known forces together. That's what it is. If a scientist doesn't think this, then he's not on the same page with what the objective of a TOE is to begin with. And he's just using the wrong word or phrase. Just like scientists are likely using the wrong word when they say "consciousness" to describe whatever it is they define it to be.

Science has defined consciousness. Some people simply do not like it.

I didn't see you dispute the claim that there was disagreement on the definition. You simply claimed that disagreement was scientific. So how exactly can you say "science has defined it?" when there are so many definitions?

Speaking objectively, the way science can win this (if we see it as a competition), is to explain consciousness as far as its own definition. The rest, including the hard problem of experience, will probably prove intractable, and definitions requiring something more will probably fizzle out in time, simply by virtue of the fact it is a question made to be unanswerable, and eventually meaningless.

"Unanswerable" is a distinction that unbiased philosophy should discern.

The more I think about this topic, the more silly it seems. I can actually agree with you if we want to assume that a scientific definition is one that allows for scientific inquiry via the scientific method. This understanding allows 500 different scientific definitions. But I think Canutes point was that there is no single "established" definition, which is evidence that the philosophical issue of consciousness is likely not being addressed(or cannot be) by science. Certainly not in a way that can contribute anything to "established" knowledge. It is likely science is studying something that it labels "consciousness" but it doesn't represent what people mean when they speak of consciousness.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Fliption

But I think Canutes point was that there is no single "established" definition, which is evidence that the philosophical issue of consciousness is likely not being addressed(or cannot be) by science. Certainly not in a way that can contribute anything to "established" knowledge. It is likely science is studying something that it labels "consciousness" but it doesn't represent what people mean when they speak of consciousness. [/B]

Yep, this is the problem. Individual researchers have their own definitions and they are all different. Scientific defintions of consciousness do exist (I collect them for a hobby, the sophistry is fascinating) but it is quite easy to pick holes in all of them. The only definitions that are widely agreed are unscientific 'philosophical' or 'folk-psychological' ones ('what it is like' etc), and these do not provide a basis for scientific research or theorising.

The problem seems to be that consciousness is incompatible with physicalism. For a while this did not matter because 'Behaviourism' shielded science from the problem. However now that Behaviourism is discredited the problem is back.

Up until Behaviourism most philosophers and many natural scientists were idealists. But in the meantime physicalism has taken over. Now that consciousness has become a scientific issue again this creates a clash between the orthodox metaphysical doctrine of physicalism and the facts. Perhaps this will be resolved but it seems unlikely, and many including me say it's impossible in principle.

It's not a competition and I'm not knocking science exactly, just suggesting that science can only explain the physical in terms of the physical and therefore cannot explain consciousness. The definition problem is the same problem as the explanation problem, since a 'theory' is really just an elaborate definition.

 

[FZ+]

I just interpreted Canutes original point to be that there are some standards with which all scientists agree. The scientific method for one. Your statement implies that scientists can disagree on anything and everything.

Nope. They cannot disagree in terms of attitude, or what you call the scientific method. And shouldn't the idea of what is science be left to those who consider themselves to be scientists?

That's what it is. If a scientist doesn't think this, then he's not on the same page with what the objective of a TOE is to begin with. And he's just using the wrong word or phrase. Just like scientists are likely using the wrong word when they say "consciousness" to describe whatever it is they define it to be.

Who decides? Again, we have a problem is that there are no real ultimate authorities. No one can say that the TOE is x, and all who say differently is wrong. Each is right, in a different context. They are not using the wrong word.

So how exactly can you say "science has defined it?" when there are so many definitions

The heart of matter is that science does not exist as a single block-like institution. If you mean science as in saying the grand old lord of science has decreed x, then yes, science has not defined. Science has not defined anything at all. But in terms of scientists knowing what they talk about in terms of consciousness, and then dealing with these in a scientific fashion, which is all this could mean, then they have defined it. Several times over.

It is likely science is studying something that it labels "consciousness" but it doesn't represent what people mean when they speak of consciousness.

Some people genuinely mean this when they talk of consciousness. And scientists' usual conception of ToE does not mean what people usually think of ToE as.

However now that Behaviourism is discredited the problem is back.

I don't think behaviourism is discredited at all. I don't even think it possible to discredit behaviourism, and we can't put limits of physicalism either.

 

[Fliption]

Who decides? Again, we have a problem is that there are no real ultimate authorities. No one can say that the TOE is x, and all who say differently is wrong. Each is right, in a different context. They are not using the wrong word.

There is no argument against what you're saying. Just like there is no way I can even prove that you exists. But both these views are extreme. Canute's point shouldn't be taken so rigidly. He is assuming that we don't live in a world of semantic anarchy the way you have described it. And I think it's a safe assumption for the most part. Especially in science.

As for consciousness, I guess the only point is that no scientific definition addresses the philosophical problems that have been around for centuries. So these definitions, regardless of whether they are "right or wrong", are not relevant to a philosophical discussion of consciousness because they aren't talking about the same thing.

 

[Canute]

To clarify a bit. Science is predicated on the non-existence of anything that does not have physical attributes. If consciousness has no phsyical attributes then it lies beyond science. This is why science cannot explain what underlies matter ('essence') or what underlies the existence of the universe ('fundamental reality'). This is not a criticism of science, just an observation on its self-defined limits.

Whether consciousness actually does have no physical attributes is a moot question. However it's a common view. McGinn and Descartes and others argue that it has no extension. If so it is not science's job to explain it.

On ToE's we might note that even Stephen Hawking thinks that such a thing is possible, for epistemilogical reasons (incompleteness theorems etc). Max Planck and others would agree for different reasons, in that we cannot include ourselves (consciousness) in the theory. Also a Toe in the sense of a theory that reconciles the fundamental forces is not a ToE. It is a theory of how the fundamental forces can be reconciled. IOW it is a ToE in a restricted sense only, and leaves out more than it includes.

Behaviourism has been discredited and nobody I know of still claims that there is any sense in it. In fact it never really caught on in the first place among researchers, it just won the hearts of the editors of a lot of journals and thus dominated the literature. It never did have that many supporters in the trade.

 

[Dayle Record]

It is really best if we do not clinically define, the undefinable. Even if we peeled off every iota of the skin of the onion, there would still be the nothingness, there would still be the magic of how the onion remembered itself by making seed, from its association from other onions. There would still me the millenia that made that seed mesh with the ground, to resist gravity and go both upward and downward, seeking different things, in opposition to different forces.

I warn any of you with this current climate of cavalier examination of the conscious process; that one's view of salient facts, varies wildly from another's views of the same facts.

If we come up with some sanctioned definition, then why not just let Deep Blue run the world, since that computer surely knows all languages by now, and can be filled with mathematical formulae that would properly dole out the world's resources? If we say the process, or this process or that process is it, then so defined it can be legislated. Life can be made in machine shops, and then with this much more predictible mentality, controllable mentality, perhaps our mentality will be abolished; or at least relegated to obsurity.

There are people in very high places in government, high places in industry, who have no regard for life, law, or certainly natural process. As far as I know, I am deeply engaged and invested in the natural process of my life. Neither Dr. A, nor Dr B, get to define the magic of it, certainly not in any official capacity, that might have legislative imperitive.

I know that as soon as possible, brain cells will be used as part of bio computational processes, hopefully for long space travel. The creation of cyborgs, is certainly well underway, in some places where ethical questions of stem cell, or embryonic tissue, aren't even asked; except where it helps win elections. All this mapping of the chemistry and energy of the brain, is for industrial use, aside from courtroom drama, or crowd control. Slave minds are being created, and there are already test subjects that are being used willingly and unwillingly for electromagnetic analysis, and control interface technology. NASA's mind reading trick, made the front page of MSN recently.

Seriously if we don't declare us, and our process of consciousness magical/sacred/fundamentally sacrosanct, then all our heads will be strip malls of sorts. In the future; you will think that you want something, and somewhere else, the powers that be, will be checking your work credits, to see if you may have it. What if that turns out to be the air that you breathe? What happens to the trained floating heads in space, when the funding drops off for the project that sustains them? Will we legislate that those humans made of human DNA, but not born of a woman, aren't by definition, human, with full rights?

I know this is tangental thinking, but we are being seriously "parted out" as they say in the auto wrecking industry. We have to be very careful about electing to accept "definitions" of very basic states of existence, that we hold to be our lives.

 

[hypnagogue]

I presume you are speaking out against the materialist conception of consciousness. While I do not agree with this conception, I hold my position because of what I believe to be the truth, not out of fear of the consequences of accepting the alternative. If consciousness really can be exhaustively defined as such and such process in the brain, so be it. The primary concern should be understanding reality, not fabricating arbitrary conceptions of it in order to maintain a certain value system. You might as well have sided with the church against Galileo if that is really your mindset.

 

[Canute]

Hi Hypno

As usual you've said what I was I was going to say. Let's have the truth, whatever it is.

There is no chance of materialism being proved or disproved anyway, for logical reasons, so there is nothing to fear from research except the responsibilities that might come with knowing what's true.

 

[Dayle Record]

I am not sure the "truth" can be known. We all know so differently. So what I am saying is that this territory is highly subjective, and to define it, might just be a form of totalitarian belief; to justify outrageous deployment of sentient tissues, and electromatic wavelengths that intrude on the sanctity of our minds.