The Argument From Reason...

[shunyadragon]

I asked whether you were willing to let irreducibly qualitative, subjective, or purposive elements into our ontology before you made that unsupported assertions.

I'll answer you when you answer me.

The answer is an emphatic NO when science provides a morethanadequare 'objective verifiable evidence for the relationship between the mind and consciousness. Subjective claims are so circular they bite you in the butt.

There is absolutely no evidence for any other cause for human and animal consciousness than the brain.

[seer]

Does anyone have any opinion of whether the heart, or other organs contribute to the totality of consciousness?

We're talking about where and how consciousness is experienced.

I don't think so.

[seer]

Nevertheless, we ARE conscious and we are aware of our consciousness hence, there IS physical evidence of consciousness in the world. But there is NO evidence of consciousness beyond the physical activity of the living brain.



Indeed. But there would be no consciousness if there were no creatures which were conscious.

Tass the point is, wetness is a physical quality consciousness is not. If you open up my brain, you will find electro-chemical reactions you will not find consciousness.

[Machinist]

Does anyone have any opinion of whether the heart, or other organs contribute to the totality of consciousness?

We're talking about where and how consciousness is experienced.

[Tassman]

That was not Harris' point - if we were not already conscious there would be no physical evidence of it in the world. Nothing about the physical brain would attest to it.

Nevertheless, we ARE conscious and we are aware of our consciousness hence, there IS physical evidence of consciousness in the world. But there is NO evidence of consciousness beyond the physical activity of the living brain.

Water would still be wet even if there were no creatures aware of wetness.

Indeed. But there would be no consciousness if there were no creatures which were conscious.

Most creatures, as far as we know, are not self aware (only a handful possibly are).

Around 10 animals are self-aware and possess a degree of consciousness which, like the human animal, ceases to exist when their brain ceases to function.

What is the physical difference in brains that are self-aware and ones that are not?

It’s a difference in degrees of intelligence e.g., several animals have a strong sense of numerical quantity but only the more intelligent human animal has the technical ability to do advanced mathematics.

[DaveTheApologist]

Failure to answer . . . There is absolutely no evidence for any other cause for human and animal consciousness than the brain.

I asked whether you were willing to let irreducibly qualitative, subjective, or purposive elements into our ontology before you made that unsupported assertions.

I'll answer you when you answer me.

[seer]

For the record, I was just responding to Machinist's question. The assumption is that everything is determined in the brain, which is not your position, I think

Correct, generally. I believe that the mind is emergent from the brain - but that the mind (thoughts, reasoning, experience, etc..) can in turn influence the physical. A looping effect if you will.

Incidentally, this doesn't apply to the existence or non-existence of God, does it?

It can, though you can be a non-materialist and not be a theist. Like Chalmers, Nagel, Levine, etc,,,

[Alien]

Tony, is that you?

Yes. Long time huh?

I mean to put something in the newcomers forum to let people who still remember me know what's been going on in my life. Unfortunately I got sidetracked ...

[One Bad Pig]

You are correct. I missed out an essential part. It would be necessary to find and copy over the "stored images" so they would be accessible to the observer's brain.

Incidentally, "self reporting" would be part of the verification process. Both participants would report what they thought or experienced and that would be used to fine tune the process. Hey, have you never read any science fiction? :-)

For the record, I was just responding to Machinist's question. The assumption is that everything is determined in the brain, which is not your position, I think?

Incidentally, this doesn't apply to the existence or non-existence of God, does it?

Tony, is that you?

[Alien]

It would make in impossible. You could never reproduce the image of my dear dead mother since a different mind has no such stored image. Of the smells and tastes of her cooking. Nor could you ever confirm my favorite color, food, song, etc... without my self reporting.

You are correct. I missed out an essential part. It would be necessary to find and copy over the "stored images" so they would be accessible to the observer's brain.

Incidentally, "self reporting" would be part of the verification process. Both participants would report what they thought or experienced and that would be used to fine tune the process. Hey, have you never read any science fiction? :-)

For the record, I was just responding to Machinist's question. The assumption is that everything is determined in the brain, which is not your position, I think?

Incidentally, this doesn't apply to the existence or non-existence of God, does it?

[seer]

Noted that this would in reality be a enormously difficult task as, for just one example, stuff is stored in different areas of the brain for each person.

It would make in impossible. You could never reproduce the image of my dear dead mother since a different mind has no such stored image. Of the smells and tastes of her cooking. Nor could you ever confirm my favorite color, food, song, etc... without my self reporting.

[Alien]

From Shuny's post:

When the team asked her to imagine playing tennis, they observed activity in a part of her brain called the supplementary motor area. When they asked her to imagine walking through her home, activity ramped up instead in three areas of the brain that are associated with movement and memory. The researchers observed the same patterns in healthy volunteers who were given identical instructions.


Were they able to see any first person experience in the subject's brain? The color of the walls, for instance...maybe associated memories, etc.?

Do you believe that this technology will continue to evolve until we actually can read the mind?

May I have a crack at this?

Everything we experience, from the most esoteric down to the most mundane, is only processable in the brain. So, in a sense, one could argue a form of monism where there is only thought. I'll stop that line of thought by saying I don't doubt the existence of the material world, but am making the point that all our knowledge is ultimately processed in the brain. So what? I hear you ask.

With that in mind, what would mind reading necessarily be? I general terms, it would be the reproduction of the subject's brain activity in the mind of the observer. So, here's a possible way that "minds" could be "read". Note that what I'm about to suggest is way beyond our current abilities, but doesn't introduce brand new concepts. First, have the subject think about something and map the electrical activity in the brain. Then induce the same electrical activity in the brain of the observer. One would expect that the observer would experience the same impressions of color etc as the subject.

I'll address one expected objection, which is that we would be in "just" the same position with the observer's brain, in that we only have the observer's mental impressions to work with, which presents the same problem as we had with the subject. I respond that, if we want to reproduce thought, then the best vehicle for that is the brain, just as the best vehicle for interpreting a movie on a DVD disk is a computer and a monitor screen. I would go on the suggest that the brain might be the only vehicle we have for that purpose. And remind the objector that the brain is the ultimate and only means we have for experiencing everything, as argued above.

Noted that this would in reality be a enormously difficult task as, for just one example, stuff is stored in different areas of the brain for each person.

[seer]

I will add this from another thread:

(1) If naturalism is true then we do not reason.

(2) We reason. Therefore,

(3) Naturalism is false.

[seer]

The mind and consciousness arise from the 'physical thing' the brain by the objective verifiable evidence as per references,and more references to follow. You have failed to provide an alternative cause that can be verified objectively.

Shuny, I said the brain and mind are interdependent - deal with what I actually said - or leave.

[seer]

Science has falsified the relationship and dependence of consciousness on the brain.You have failed to respond to the references, nor provide any objective verifiable evidence nor falsifiable hypothesis to support your assertions.

More references to follow . . .

No, no more to follow. No more references Shuny, or just leave. Explain in your own words.