The Argument From Reason...

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

There is no need to claim any more than “nature did it” regardless how little we understand the process at this stage. It is reasonable to assume that consciousness, as with everything else in the evolutionary process, evolved via Natural Selection with the selective enhancement of specific natural qualities among us and many of the higher animals.

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—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view.



If we look for consciousness in the physical world, all we find are increasingly complex systems giving rise to increasingly complex behavior—which may or may not be attended by consciousness. The fact that the behavior of our fellow human beings persuades us that they are (more or less) conscious does not get us any closer to linking consciousness to physical events. Is a starfish conscious? A scientific account of the emergence of consciousness would answer this question. And it seems clear that we will not make any progress by drawing analogies between starfish behavior and our own. It is only in the presence of animals sufficiently like ourselves that our intuitions about (and attributions of) consciousness begin to crystallize. Is there “something that it is like” to be a cocker spaniel? Does it feel its pains and pleasures? Surely it must. How do we know? Behavior, analogy, parsimony.



Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. 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.

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

[Tassman]

That is an assertion, I asked why and how consciousness came about beside asserting that nature did it. And I never said that some creatures don't have a degree of self-awareness. Many creatures have opposable thumbs - so? That does not make human consciousness any more explainable,

There is no need to claim any more than “nature did it” regardless how little we understand the process at this stage. It is reasonable to assume that consciousness, as with everything else in the evolutionary process, evolved via Natural Selection with the selective enhancement of specific natural qualities among us and many of the higher animals.

"According to anthropologists, many animals have a kind of consciousness, but only humans and the great apes are self-conscious. Apparently, the big and complex brains of humans and apes, which may have evolved for other tasks, blossomed with an added sense of self"..

https://www.livescience.com/4908-hat...ciousness.html

[seer]

I just didn't think the wolf comparison was valid: wolves evolved without empathy (or self awareness) and their kind survived ok, there fore humans wouldn't have needed empathy or self awareness to survive.

To me, that is like saying :

wolves evolved ok without quills, therefore porcupines didn't need them either.

The thing is consciousness is not like any physical qualities necessary for survival. Read the link.

[Machinist]

Did you read my link? And to have genuine empathy you would first need consciousness. So consciousness gives rise to empathy, that does explain why self awareness in the first place.

I just didn't think the wolf comparison was valid: wolves evolved without empathy (or self awareness) and their kind survived ok, there fore humans wouldn't have needed empathy or self awareness to survive.

To me, that is like saying :

wolves evolved ok without quills, therefore porcupines didn't need them either.

[seer]

My point is (again, playing devils advocate here), is that empathy was not necessary for the survival of wolves. It was however necessary for the survival of humans.

That just seems like a likely argument any evolutionist would make.

Empathy exists, and any evolutionist is required to maintain that it is an evolved feature. The only thing they could say as to why it evolved is because it aided in the survival of humans (not wolves, elephants, kangaroos, etc)...just humans...specifically humans.

Did you read my link? And to have genuine empathy you would first need consciousness. So consciousness gives rise to empathy, that does explain why self awareness in the first place.

[Machinist]

You are missing the point read read my last link to Tass. And BTW other species use the community to survive like wolves, with out any noticeable empathy. So empathy is not necessary to be strong, and survive.

My point is (again, playing devils advocate here), is that empathy was not necessary for the survival of wolves. It was however necessary for the survival of humans.

That just seems like a likely argument any evolutionist would make.

Empathy exists, and any evolutionist is required to maintain that it is an evolved feature. The only thing they could say as to why it evolved is because it aided in the survival of humans (not wolves, elephants, kangaroos, etc)...just humans...specifically humans.