Materialists -- On Consciousness

Being a materialist is kinda like being a creationist....denying the existence of something just because it violates your belief system.

Mazdaian said:

Being a materialist is kinda like being a creationist....denying the existence of something just because it violates your belief system.

Click to expand...

Or it just means we're comfortable saying "I don't know." Creationists make assumptions to avoid that statement all together. I cherish it.

Kuzcotopia said:

Or it just means we're comfortable saying "I don't know." Creationists make assumptions to avoid that statement all together. I cherish it.

Click to expand...

Well said. People can get very uncomfortable with uncertainty, and seek comfort in false certainties, aka religious dogma.

But materialism is being certain that the mind will be explained through physical processes alone. It's not about being uncertain, then you would simply say 'I don't know'

Mazdaian said:

But materialism is being certain that the mind will be explained through physical processes alone. It's not about being uncertain, then you would simply say 'I don't know'

Click to expand...

I consider materialism as a reasonable conclusion. I do expect that there will be additional evidence someday to map out the workings of consciousness completely.

But if we had repeatable empirical evidence that could verify that some aspect of consciousness is not rooted in material origins, then I would change my stance. I would assume that there are non material factors at work, and J would expect science methodology to explore those possibilities seriously. So far, I don't see any evidence that can be reasonably verified to support such a search any longer*.

What are your conclusions on consciousness, and what is your level of certainly? If your conclusion is not materialism, is there anything that could be done to convince you that materialism is a reasonable conclusion? What evidence would you need to change your stance to materialism?

*when I say any longer, it was assumed for thousands of years that consciousness was not material. Of the two of us, my stance is much newer and is emerging as a more reasonable stance every year that passes.

Kuzcotopia said:

I consider materialism as a reasonable conclusion. I do expect that there will be additional evidence someday to map out the workings of consciousness completely.

But if we had repeatable empirical evidence that could verify that some aspect of consciousness is not rooted in material origins, then I would change my stance. I would assume that there are non material factors at work, and J would expect science methodology to explore those possibilities seriously. So far, I don't see any evidence that can be reasonably verified to support such a search any longer*.

What are your conclusions on consciousness, and what is your level of certainly? If your conclusion is not materialism, is there anything that could be done to convince you that materialism is a reasonable conclusion? What evidence would you need to change your stance to materialism?

*when I say any longer, it was assumed for thousands of years that consciousness was not material. Of the two of us, my stance is much newer and is emerging as a more reasonable stance every year that passes.

Click to expand...

Actually no, your stance is not emerging as a more reasonable one any more. It was rather the main stance for several decades, but neuroscientists are starting to accept that there are aspects to consciousness which cannot be fully explained via physical processes. Ramachandran has made laws on qualia and Koch/Tononi's IIT asserts that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe.

You have no evidence whatsoever that points to how physical processes create consciousness, aside from strong emergence, which is identical to property dualism. There is no causative mechanism, and the very fact that you don't see how this damages your positions either means that you either do not understand the ontological gap, or you choose to deny its significance and claim ignorance. This is not whether consciousness is separate from the brain, or whether consciousness exists after death. This is simply a debate on the very nature of the mind, and again which has not be shown to be caused purely by the brain.

Science cannot explore consciousness because not everything is empirical nor mathematical. There is no color, sound, taste, or feelings in physical reality. There is no meaning or intention. Consciousness is an internalized aspect of a system, while we study the external properties through science. These are the unknowns, which as a materialist you have to admit either a) do not exist or b) come about magically through strong emergence. Being open to a form of dualism or other forms of monism is more reasonable than materialism, which posits that something which is non physical can be explained physically. Sounds like a faith position to me.

Mazdaian said:

Actually no, your stance is not emerging as a more reasonable one any more. It was rather the main stance for several decades, but neuroscientists are starting to accept that there are aspects to consciousness which cannot be fully explained via physical processes. Ramachandran has made laws on qualia and Koch/Tononi's IIT asserts that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe.

You have no evidence whatsoever that points to how physical processes create consciousness, aside from strong emergence, which is identical to property dualism. There is no causative mechanism, and the very fact that you don't see how this damages your positions either means that you either do not understand the ontological gap, or you choose to deny its significance and claim ignorance. This is not whether consciousness is separate from the brain, or whether consciousness exists after death. This is simply a debate on the very nature of the mind, and again which has not be shown to be caused purely by the brain.

Science cannot explore consciousness because not everything is empirical nor mathematical. There is no color, sound, taste, or feelings in physical reality. There is no meaning or intention. Consciousness is an internalized aspect of a system, while we study the external properties through science. These are the unknowns, which as a materialist you have to admit either a) do not exist or b) come about magically through strong emergence. Being open to a form of dualism is more reasonable than materialism, which posits that something which is non physical can be explained physically. Sounds like a faith position to me.

Click to expand...

Your first paragraph has a lot of information for me to explore, but I'll need time to discuss it intelligently. I'll get back to you. If it sounds right, I'll alter my stance.

Mazdaian said:

Actually no, your stance is not emerging as a more reasonable one any more. It was rather the main stance for several decades, but neuroscientists are starting to accept that there are aspects to consciousness which cannot be fully explained via physical processes. Ramachandran has made laws on qualia and Koch/Tononi's IIT asserts that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe.

Click to expand...

Okay, I have been trying to piece alot of this together.

Here's my initial question regarding your last post:

You stated that neuroscientists are starting to accept this, so are you implying that the majority of neuroscientists are starting to accept this, the field itself, or just a few you consider to be "vanguard." From what I have seen, most of neuroscience is completely neutral on this issue. Individuals doing the research rarely, if ever, take a stance on this materialist - dualist - idealist, local vs. non-local consciousness debate, nor are they drawing any conclusions along that line of thinking.

To me, it looks like the vast majority of research is designed from a materialist methodology, and draws materialist conclusions. It's not an admission that quanta does not exist/is not important, but their conclusions don't acknowledge it as relevant to their findings.

So I guess I'd like to start there. What is the stance of neuroscience, as a field, on this issue?

Kuzcotopia said:

Okay, I have been trying to piece alot of this together.

Here's my initial question regarding your last post:

You stated that neuroscientists are starting to accept this, so are you implying that the majority of neuroscientists are starting to accept this, the field itself, or just a few you consider to be "vanguard." From what I have seen, most of neuroscience is completely neutral on this issue. Individuals doing the research rarely, if ever, take a stance on this materialist - dualist - idealist, local vs. non-local consciousness debate, nor are they drawing any conclusions along that line of thinking.

To me, it looks like the vast majority of research is designed from a materialist methodology, and draws materialist conclusions. It's not an admission that quanta does not exist/is not important, but their conclusions don't acknowledge it as relevant to their findings.

So I guess I'd like to start there. What is the stance of neuroscience, as a field, on this issue?

Click to expand...

This is the problem, you think a field which uses a methodology to study a topic becomes the correct philosophical stance. As a field the methodology of neuroscience is dedicated towards understanding the 'Easy' problem, how connections happen and neurochemicals work. Science has to work from a materialist perspective, because that is how science was designed. It is a tool.

Philosophically such a methodology is incomplete, which is why I referred to Ramachandran and Koch. Koch worked with Francis crick for years on NCC (neurological correlates of consciousness) and has adopted a panpsychist perspective now because he believes conscious experience is in part distinct from the physical strata which gives rise to it.

Mazdaian said:

It was rather the main stance for several decades, but neuroscientists are starting to accept that there are aspects to consciousness which cannot be fully explained via physical processes.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your response. However, I want to establish a baseline of what neuroscience accepts first. The above quote seems to imply that the field as a whole, or at least vanguard neuroscience, accepts your perspective that aspects of consciousness cannot be explained by the brain.

Mazdaian said:

As a field the methodology of neuroscience is dedicated towards understanding the 'Easy' problem, how connections happen and neurochemicals work. Science has to work from a materialist perspective, because that is how science was designed. It is a tool.

Click to expand...

So neuroscience does not accept that perspective?

Mazdaian said:

Philosophically such a methodology is incomplete, which is why I referred to Ramachandran and Koch. Koch worked with Francis crick for years on NCC (neurological correlates of consciousness) and has adopted a panpsychist perspective now because he believes conscious experience is in part distinct from the physical strata which gives rise to it.

Click to expand...

Oh we'll get to all that, but not until this initial question has been answered.

Does the field of neuroscience, or a fair proportion of neuroscientists, accept that there are aspects to consciousness that cannot be explained?

Kuzcotopia said:

Thank you for your response. However, I want to establish a baseline of what neuroscience accepts first. The above quote seems to imply that the field as a whole, or at least vanguard neuroscience, accepts your perspective that aspects of consciousness cannot be explained by the brain.

Click to expand...

There are bright minds which accept that consciousness cannot be fully explained only through causal mechanisms in brain, that it is a property of the universe. Some of these are Koch and Tononi with IIT, Penrose and Hameroff with Orch OR as well as others like Ramachandran who think there is more to reality than material monism. They are either panpsychists, neutral monists or some sort of dualists.

There are many neuroscientists like Steven Pinker who say simply 'we don't know' or 'we may never know'. They are called new mysterians, who think that understanding consciousness might be beyond our intellectual capacity.

Kuzcotopia said:

So neuroscience does not accept that perspective?

Click to expand...

Which perspective? Most neuroscientists are probably a mix of all three philosophically speaking, but focus on the material as it is part of their job and training. There isn't some sort of official Neuroscience governing body which makes edicts. If you understood why consciousness is such a conundrum, you wouldn't be looking for arguments from authority.

Kuzcotopia said:

Oh we'll get to all that, but not until this initial question has been answered.

Does the field of neuroscience, or a fair proportion of neuroscientists, accept that there are aspects to consciousness that cannot be explained?

Click to expand...

Most neuroscientists accepts the Hard Problem, which is currently not explainable in any way, shape or form. Some bring up new theories, others bring in different philosophies, others say we don't know and a few say there is no mystery at all. I feel that the last view is slowly being diminished.

The field which does make definitive statements is the tech field and AI research, which needs people to pump funding into A.I. research and their industry. They have even created new religions, like the Singularity movement, which makes false promises of replicating the human mind, creating robo god and virtual heaven. A lot of so called 'rational' atheists gobble up these predictions as it satisfies their need for something greater and the like, which is also why they latch on to computationalism as the main model for the mind.

These are marketing gimmicks which many idiots fall into. But in reality any respectable neuroscientist would dismiss such bold claims.

Mazdaian said:

Being a materialist is kinda like being a creationist....denying the existence of something just because it violates your belief system.

Click to expand...

Well not recognising the existence of an imaginary, unevidenced and redundant magical dimension is pretty reasonable. How do you imagine it violates a belief system?

Mazdaian said:

But materialism is being certain that the mind will be explained through physical processes alone. It's not about being uncertain, then you would simply say 'I don't know'

Click to expand...

Sure and that is exactly what the materialist position is - I don't know.

Mazdaian said:

Which perspective? Most neuroscientists are probably a mix of all three philosophically speaking, but focus on the material as it is part of their job and training. There isn't some sort of official Neuroscience governing body which makes edicts. If you understood why consciousness is such a conundrum, you wouldn't be looking for arguments from authority.

Click to expand...

I think that runs both ways. And as far as I'm concerned, the opinion of Neuroscientists who only use empirical methods to study the brain, and do not specifically express an opinion on the matter, might as well be materialists, though it's all irrelevant. I am not trying to appeal to authority, as much as I'm trying to establish the "state" of today's neuroscience. You made a claim about the conclusions of the field, and I'm addressing it.

Mazdaian said:

Most neuroscientists accepts the Hard Problem, which is currently not explainable in any way, shape or form. Some bring up new theories, others bring in different philosophies, others say we don't know and a few say there is no mystery at all. I feel that the last view is slowly being diminished.

Click to expand...

That's a rather unsubstantiated claim, based on speculations of what most neuroscientists believe. Seeing a TED talks or a couple of youtube videos by a neuroscientist doesn't mean the field as a whole cares deeply on this issue at all. We've established that you care about this issue. But It's important not to reframe the state of the research, and its breadth, just to conform to your personal level of interest by proffering labels like idealist, dualist, materialist.

I would wager you find this subject far more important that most neuroscientists. As I said, the personal opinions of most in the field is largely irrelevant.

Mazdaian said:

The field which does make definitive statements is the tech field and AI research, which needs people to pump funding into A.I. research and their industry. They have even created new religions, like the Singularity movement, which makes false promises of replicating the human mind, creating robo god and virtual heaven. A lot of so called 'rational' atheists gobble up these predictions as it satisfies their need for something greater and the like, which is also why they latch on to computationalism as the main model for the mind.

These are marketing gimmicks which many idiots fall into. But in reality any respectable neuroscientist would dismiss such bold claims.

Click to expand...

Don't get how this is relevant.

So alot of what I've replied with so far is just about relevance of reserach, and whether of not this line of inquiry is even important. But that brings up a good question. You think it's very important issue. Would you mind sharing why? Why should everyone read this research, and why is it so important to have an opinion on this at all?

Kuzcotopia said:

I think that runs both ways. And as far as I'm concerned, the opinion of Neuroscientists who only use empirical methods to study the brain, and do not specifically express an opinion on the matter, might as well be materialists, though it's all irrelevant. I am not trying to appeal to authority, as much as I'm trying to establish the "state" of today's neuroscience. You made a claim about the conclusions of the field, and I'm addressing it.

Click to expand...

Not really. Like I stated before if they use empirical methods to study the Easy Problem, it doesn't make them materialists. The state of today's neuroscience is that there is a huge mystery called consciousness and noone knows what it is.

Kuzcotopia said:

That's a rather unsubstantiated claim, based on speculations of what most neuroscientists believe. Seeing a TED talks or a couple of youtube videos by a neuroscientist doesn't mean the field as a whole cares deeply on this issue at all. We've established that you care about this issue. But It's important not to reframe the state of the research, and its breadth, just to conform to your personal level of interest by proffering labels like idealist, dualist, materialist.

I would wager you find this subject far more important that most neuroscientists. As I said, the personal opinions of most in the field is largely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Your thinly veiled condescending tone isn't really necessary here, when you're the one who doesn't really know jack about neuroscience. I've been studying this for a while, you're the one who doesn't even know basic concepts in the field.

I don't find this subject far more important than neuroscientists. It is the biggest mystery in neuroscience. The very fact that you don't wish to recognize it further proves that you are trying to maintain your own bias. I would wager that you don't want to change your belief system in the face of a massive philosophical challenge, and continue living with your own world view. It is the main reason why you are now changing your stance to one of 'materialism is right' to 'why should we care'.

Kuzcotopia said:

Don't get how this is relevant.

So alot of what I've replied with so far is just about relevance of reserach, and whether of not this line of inquiry is even important. But that brings up a good question. You think it's very important issue. Would you mind sharing why? Why should everyone read this research, and why is it so important to have an opinion on this at all?

Click to expand...

Well it's the title of this thread first of all. It is the most important question in neuroscience. Anyone who has worked in neuroscience knows this. The field of neuroscience is tied in with A.I. as well, so it is highly relevant.

Mazdaian said:

The very fact that you don't wish to recognize it further proves that you are trying to maintain your own bias. I would wager that you don't want to change your belief system in the face of a massive philosophical challenge, and continue living with your own world view. It is the main reason why you are now changing your stance to one of 'materialism is right' to 'why should we care'.

Click to expand...

Educate me.