Yes, but I am not suggesting that we do.
…then you’d be one of the first ones here who’s actually agreed with the conclusions of those neuroscientists I’ve quoted.
"What are these huge unanswered questions? Is it that we don't know the mechanism by which the brain produces consciousness? It is not necessary to understand HOW the brain produces consciousness in order to draw the provisional conclusion, from the mountain of data which you have agreed does in fact exist, that consciousness arises from the brain.
I believe I presented a comprehensive list of the questions in post 1257.
Point one: It’s a provisional conclusion (as I’ve repeated ad nauseum).
Point two: What is consciousness? What is it that actually does arise from the brain?
Point three: There are valid reasons to believe the issue may be far more complicated than that. Not least of all being the fact that the brain is effectively the most complex object in the known universe and consciousness is all-but the greatest scientific mystery there is (for reasons that will not be explored here). An example of what this implicates can be found with Cristof Koch who regards ‘consciousness’ as some variety of extra-corporeal generic reality.
Is it that we don't know what consciousness IS? I will claim subjective evidentiary primacy that consciousness does exist, and the mountain of evidence we do have indicates that it arises from the activity of the brain."
Nice that you’re confirming the legitimacy of subjective evidence. Doesn’t change the fact that there is nothing resembling a consensus on what consciousness is?
Do you know what it is…since it ‘is’ you? …of course you don’t.
Are even you capable of a consensus on what consciousness (aka: you) is?
Since you are, in fact, this thing, why do you NOT know what it is? Do you lack the ability to explore / experience / encounter your own reality? Why?
Does this mean that you do not know what you are? Does it mean that you do not know ‘who’ you are? It is interesting to note…that if you explore all the major philosophies and religions of the world…they all refer to ‘know thyself’ as one of the most essential purposes of life.
What does that mean…know thyself…in scientific terms?
…my take on it…if you want to know what consciousness is, go and find out. No science required.
Generally speaking, consciousness is regarded as a range of behavior. Another poster…well-known for his materialistic POV…vehemently insisted that something is conscious if it demonstrates conscious behavior. Thus, computers are conscious.
When pressed to present a definitive list of these so-called conscious behaviors (so we can recognize when something is, or is not, conscious) he quickly vanished. No list ever materialize, and none ever will until we can either explicitly adjudicate subjective experience (consciousness) or until we can explicitly understand how the brain generates it.
No one has a definitive list. No one…anywhere. There are lots guesses, lots of ideas, lots of theories, lots of lots of things, but no clear answers.
Basically, no one knows what the actual range of conscious behavior actually is. And, as you pointed out, no one has any idea how any of it is created in the first place.
I would be especially interested in:
1. "If during awake craniotomy, a neurosurgeon stimulates a particular patch of cerebral cortex and the patient experiences an OBE, reporting that they are floating above the floor looking down, and this experience ceases when the current is turned off, but reappears again when current is again applied, what conclusion do you draw?
I suggest that the activated cortical circuits have generated an experience, an out of body experience, which is essentially a hallucination. It is a conscious feeling which does not correspond with the reality that the patient is in fact lying on the operating table."
What is your interpretation?
Your interpretation may be correct. First of all, it is…and can only be…an interpretation. You have a grand total of absolutely zero ways of verifying it.
Secondly…your interpretation may not be correct. Perhaps the patient is experiencing some variety of authentic event, whether it is artificially stimulated or not. We still have no way of verifying it.
One of the most hilarious hypocrisies I encounter in this whole debate is the degree to which many skeptics summarily dismiss these anecdotal reports based on the fact that anecdotal statements (self-report, personal observations, etc.) do not qualify as a legitimate form of evidence…
….yet at the very same time they are far more than legitimate enough to qualify as confirmation of a hallucinatory event (is there any other way to confirm that someone has had a hallucination other than for them to describe the thing?).
Here is the link confirming that OBEs can be generated by direct brain stimulation:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6904/full/419269a.html
I’ll look at it when I have time. I have no doubt that such events can occur. I also have no doubt that whatever neuroscientists are claiming about the process, they cannot claim to have the slightest ability to coherently adjudicate the resulting subjective experience to determine the veracity of what is actually occurring.
It is also worth noting…that the one word most often used to describe many of these experiences is the word: ‘indescribable’.
How does science quantify such a word to render a definitive verdict?
2. "I'd love to see the positive results which convince you that psi exists.
I am not aware of any controlled studies which have demonstrated that it exists."
Science is not the only valid epistemology. I’m sure you’re aware of that. The POV often taken here is that…if a phenomenon cannot be credibly adjudicated by science…then there must be some variety of limitation in the phenomena.
Nope, there is a limitation in the science.
The simple fact is, science may simply lack the ability to effectively adjudicate the issue at this time. There are people who experience these things. Human beings possess a functional and valid epistemology that precedes science. Such events represent positive results. If you haven’t experienced such a thing I wouldn’t expect you to automatically believe them. If you’re a skeptic with any degree of intelligence I’d expect the opposite. Interesting to repeat what dlorde once posted though:
I've had several hyper-vivid lucid dreams over the years; you don't forget them.
Here is another link which may help you understand why all the
neuroscientists I know believe that brain activity gives rise to consciousness, even though they cannot explain the mechanism. Even an individual's sense of morality is altered by brain damage.
http://www.nature.com/news/the-split-brain-a-tale-of-two-halves-1.10213
I’ve no doubt that just about everything about an individual can be altered by brain damage in one way or another. You keep saying this as if it somehow makes all those other issues go away. I’ll repeat those unanswered question just to balance it out.
- What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
- What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?
- How is this process expressed through the biochemistry of neurons?
- What part of the system actually has the experience(s)?
- What are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?
- Why (for example) does the amygdala have the physical dimensions and bio-chemical constitution that it has (and how did it achieve that condition) and in what specific ways do these elements determine its cognitive functionality?
- Is there any consensus on the meaning of the word ‘consciousness’?
- Is there any consensus on what constitutes normative (conscious) human behavior?
- Is there any consensus on what constitutes pathological cognitive activity?
- Is there any consensus on what range of cognitive activity the human brain is capable of generating…or not generating?
- What capacity does science currently posses to coherently adjudicate subjective experience?
What it comes down to is the very simple question: What is a human being (aka: consciousness)?
Science currently does not come anywhere close to having a definitive answer. These events do not violate any known physics, biology, chemistry, neurology, psychology, or anything else (except peoples incredulity). They are even consistent with various alternate paradigms (paradigms which science also has no ability to explicitly adjudicate).
…and the fact remains…that subjective experience has evidentiary primacy.
We can't all agree on what consciousness is or isn't, or even whether it is a thing or not, so we can make up any story we want.
Yes of course bruto…quite obviously I am just making up any story I want. Do let me know when you have something intelligent to contribute.
