The Argument From Reason...

[Tassman]

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity.

https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

I will go with the "confident" majority of scientists despite Harris' questioning of them on this issue and leave you to cherry-pick an authority whom you think agrees with you. Note that Harris is an atheist and at no time suggests, because he questions the origins of consciousness, that "therefore god".

[seer]

I will go with the "confident" majority of scientists despite Harris' questioning of them on this issue and leave you to cherry-pick an authority whom you think agrees with you. Note that Harris is an atheist and at no time suggests, because he questions the origins of consciousness, that "therefore god".

Then you missed the whole point... And you are correct he is an atheist.

Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

[seer]

I will go with the "confident" majority of scientists despite Harris' questioning of them on this issue and leave you to cherry-pick an authority whom you think agrees with you. Note that Harris is an atheist and at no time suggests, because he questions the origins of consciousness, that "therefore god".

And it is not even a scientific question:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.

Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe

[Tassman]

And it is not even a scientific question:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.

Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe

It has yet to be established that there "is no evidence for consciousness existing in the physical world" There continues to be considerable scientific work on the functioning of the brain, consciousness and our thought processes.. For example: 'Decoding the neuroscience of consciousness - A growing understanding of consciousness could lead to fresh treatments for brain injuries and phobias'.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1

[seer]

It has yet to be established that there "is no evidence for consciousness existing in the physical world" There continues to be considerable scientific work on the functioning of the brain, consciousness and our thought processes.. For example: 'Decoding the neuroscience of consciousness - A growing understanding of consciousness could lead to fresh treatments for brain injuries and phobias'.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1

No you missed the point again. Science can not, even in principle, show first person experience. What is it like for me to smell a rose. Certainly you could map my brain and see the neurons that are active while I'm smelling the rose, but you can not know what it is like for me. It is not a physical question. You can assume that my experience of the rose is the same as yours, but you don't know - nor can you. You could map a dog's brain down to the detail but science can never tell us what it is like to be a dog in experience. And BTW your link has nothing to do with the question of first person subjective experience. Which IS the question. The atheist Thomas Nagel pretty much blew this field up years ago.

[Tassman]

No you missed the point again. Science can not, even in principle, show first person experience. What is it like for me to smell a rose. Certainly you could map my brain and see the neurons that are active while I'm smelling the rose, but you can not know what it is like for me. It is not a physical question. You can assume that my experience of the rose is the same as yours, but you don't know - nor can you. You could map a dog's brain down to the detail but science can never tell us what it is like to be a dog in experience.

There’s no point to be missed. One can compare first-person subjective experiences with those who have similar experiences. And because such “experiences” are basically physical they can increasingly be measured via a variety of means including neurophysiological tools such as electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) etc.

It is a physical question because there is absolutely no evidence for consciousness and intellect and subjective experiences surviving beyond the physical activity of the living brain. When the physical brain ceases to function YOU and your subjective experience cease to function. And all the rest is make-believe.

And BTW your link has nothing to do with the question of first person subjective experience. Which IS the question. The atheist Thomas Nagel pretty much blew this field up years ago.

Thomas Nagle is a philosopher NOT a scientist. He is not in a position to promote tested, verified conclusions – merely philosophical speculation.

[seer]

There’s no point to be missed. One can compare first-person subjective experiences with those who have similar experiences. And because such “experiences” are basically physical they can increasingly be measured via a variety of means including neurophysiological tools such as electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) etc.

It is a physical question because there is absolutely no evidence for consciousness and intellect and subjective experiences surviving beyond the physical activity of the living brain. When the physical brain ceases to function YOU and your subjective experience cease to function. And all the rest is make-believe.

This is completely wrong Tass, first I'm not speaking of what survives death or not. The argument is that physicalism is wrong, subjective experience proves that. I can right now taste and smell my mother's meatballs even though she is long dead and the receipt long lost. When I have this experience you certainly can map which parts of my brain light up but what you can't do, is have that experience yourself. And that subjective experience (the actual smell and taste) is beyond science.

Thomas Nagle is a philosopher NOT a scientist. He is not in a position to promote tested, verified conclusions – merely philosophical speculation.

So how does science tell us what the subjective inner life or experience of a bat is - even in principle.

[Tassman]

This is completely wrong Tass, first I'm not speaking of what survives death or not. The argument is that physicalism is wrong, subjective experience proves that. I can right now taste and smell my mother's meatballs even though she is long dead and the receipt long lost. When I have this experience you certainly can map which parts of my brain light up but what you can't do, is have that experience yourself. And that subjective experience (the actual smell and taste) is beyond science.

“That subjective experience” is your material brain in action. There is no ‘inner you’ separate from it. You ARE your brain – and when it ceases to exist YOU cease to exist. There is no argument against physicalism; there are no “truths” about consciousness that cannot be deduced from the physical brain by scientific methodology. Such a notion is merely unevidenced philosophical speculation.

[seer]

“That subjective experience” is your material brain in action. There is no ‘inner you’ separate from it. You ARE your brain – and when it ceases to exist YOU cease to exist. There is no argument against physicalism; there are no “truths” about consciousness that cannot be deduced from the physical brain by scientific methodology. Such a notion is merely unevidenced philosophical speculation.

Really then science should be able to reproduce the smell and taste of my mother's meatballs. Or know how it tastes to me. Like you said in the other thread: "are ALL subjective experiences and ultimately only "true" for the recipient."

Which puts these experiences beyond scientific investigation or knowledge. Which destroys physicalism....

[Tassman]

Really then science should be able to reproduce the smell and taste of my mother's meatballs. Or know how it tastes to me. Like you said in the other thread: "are ALL subjective experiences and ultimately only "true" for the recipient."

Which puts these experiences beyond scientific investigation or knowledge. Which destroys physicalism....

Your experience of meatballs on a specific occasion is not in principle beyond scientific investigation, just as the subjective experience of any sentient creature enjoying a specific pleasure is not beyond investigation. It depends upon many factors such as mood, genetic makeup, environmental circumstances and social pressures etc. But ultimately, it is a physical experience because it is dependent upon a functioning physical brain. No brain, no meatball experience for you nor favorite banana experience for a chimpanzee.

[seer]

Your experience of meatballs on a specific occasion is not in principle beyond scientific investigation, just as the subjective experience of any sentient creature enjoying a specific pleasure is not beyond investigation. It depends upon many factors such as mood, genetic makeup, environmental circumstances and social pressures etc. But ultimately, it is a physical experience because it is dependent upon a functioning physical brain. No brain, no meatball experience for you nor favorite banana experience for a chimpanzee.

Like you said: are ALL subjective experiences and ultimately only "true" for the recipient.

Even if the brain reproduces the taste and smell that experience is beyond science to know. Like you said it is ONLY true for me. Science can not reproduce the taste or smell no matter how much they know about the brain. Just as science could never know the inner life of a dog, how the dog experiences the world, no matter how well the map its brain.

[Tassman]

Like you said: are ALL subjective experiences and ultimately only "true" for the recipient.

Which is not to say they are actually “true”, particularly when it comes to subjective supernatural experiences - especially given that such experiences vary from person to person and can be contradictory. Ultimately, ALL subjective experiences are physical because their existence depends upon a functioning physical brain. No brain, no subjective experience.

[DaveTheApologist]

Which is not to say they are actually “true”, particularly when it comes to subjective supernatural experiences - especially given that such experiences vary from person to person and can be contradictory. Ultimately, ALL subjective experiences are physical because their existence depends upon a functioning physical brain. No brain, no subjective experience.

You're definitely missing the point.

A flame will not exist without fuel, heat, and an oxidizing agent. Remove any one, and the flame will cease to be. That does not mean that a flame is identical to the presence of fuel, heat, and an oxidizing agent. None of those, on their own or jointly, constitute an instance of combustion. The flame may be explained by the co-presence of these factors, likewise, the presence of heat may well be explained by the action of the flame once said flame is ignited.

So a thing can be wholly dependent on a set of other things, while still being distinct from them, and without epiphenominalism.

Now, the proof that consciousness is not physical can be seen from the history of philosophy. In the early modern period, secondary qualities (the color red as it appears in your visual field, the taste of sugar as it is tasted, the sound of middle C as it is heard, heat as it is felt) were relegated to the mind, along with anything that smelled like formal or final causes. Only primary qualities (size, shape, number, and motion) were regarded as existing externally. We've added to that list (things like mass, charge, temperature), but only those things which can be described in a mathematically precise way are allowed to be "physically fundamental."

Now, this method of sweeping anything that doesn't "fit" under the rug of the mind has proven to be extremely successful for the mastery of nature. But using the precedent of those successes as "evidence" that the same method will allow you to get rid of even what's under the rug itself is manifestly absurd. What are you going to do, claim that the mind itself is just a product of the mind? That's ridiculous.

Your options are pretty simple. Hold on to the idea that the apparent qualitative features of things, their apparently goal-directed causal tendencies, and distinctions between the categories they belong to either always or for the most part exist only in the mind - which, since the mind then has features that don't hold in the physical world, entails that the mind is distinct from the physical world - OR reject that idea, go for some kind of broadly classical world picture on which secondary qualities, teleology, and natural kinds are mind independent aspects of reality, and hope the result is more friendly to naturalism (spoiler alert - it isn't, but that's a story for another thread).

[seer]

You're definitely missing the point.

A flame will not exist without fuel, heat, and an oxidizing agent. Remove any one, and the flame will cease to be. That does not mean that a flame is identical to the presence of fuel, heat, and an oxidizing agent. None of those, on their own or jointly, constitute an instance of combustion. The flame may be explained by the co-presence of these factors, likewise, the presence of heat may well be explained by the action of the flame once said flame is ignited.

Great example!

[Tassman]

Now, this method of sweeping anything that doesn't "fit" under the rug of the mind has proven to be extremely successful for the mastery of nature. But using the precedent of those successes as "evidence" that the same method will allow you to get rid of even what's under the rug itself is manifestly absurd. What are you going to do, claim that the mind itself is just a product of the mind? That's ridiculous.

.

There is absolutely no evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the living brain.