Consciousness is a Biological Problem

I have a good friend who is a bit like you, Rich. He's the head of psychiatry at a local hospital, he's a little younger than you but he's older than I. He's very into spirituality, very into philosophy, very into music, i.e. an eclectic guy -- and he believes deeply in god but has no idea why he does, I think it's just visceral.

But he rationalizes it in a way (and admits it), and quantum physics is central to his conception of it.

I think that his and your presentation of quantum physics isn't necessarily tied to the state of the art in quantum physics. Rather, the idea of uncertainty (not just Heisenberg's, but also the uncertain particle vs wave identity of quanta) has philosophical implications that you extrapolate. It's very creative, that's for sure.

No.

My position is coherent and consistent from following the path of evidence -which is another thing the 'skeptics' dont have: evidence. I see you can dish out the criticism but where's your argument? Do you present anything other than obnoxious residue marinated in bias? You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? Oh, wait... you base truth on the value of personal subjective feelings. Not observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable data.

We can use the above post as an example of what not to do. It lacks anything and everything that would be considered substance. Rich's post can be summed up as, "You're wrong!!!11!11!". Again, this is why I and others have stopped responding to you.

You followed the path of evidence and then when faced with a giant canyon you decided to take a giant leap of faith. There is absolutely zero evidence that consciousness is anything but what it is - consciousness. You decided that a little wiggling neuron was consciousness because that is your belief and apparently your faith. It was convenient for you and your belief system.

First measure consciousness and then tell me where it is coming from, not the other way around. Measuring a wiggling neuron tells me nothing about consciousness anymore than measuring the size of a TV picture tells me anything about the TV studio that is transmitting the picture.

Keep following the evidence, and if you can't go any further, then just stop and wait to see what new evidence may be unearthed - over time. Not everything is decided today. But if you must take a leap of faith, then by all means do, but don't castigate those who have done the same.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 11:47 PM ----------



Thanks Paul. I try to be.

Rich

*yawn*


Still waiting rich...

Or should I reply back the same way as you: No ur wrongz!!!1!1!

All I said is that I don't know. How can I be wrong?

As far as your viewpoint is concerned, I think it is a giant leap of faith to say that neurons are the source of consciousness. There is no way of knowing, since you cannot measure or observe consciousness using instrumentation. Consciousness can only observe itself. But believe what you want to believe.

Rich

You dont know, and yet, you do know... :listening:



apparently you're never wrong



No its not. Read the OP.

Nope. I don't know. I just believe in a certain way which is always changing. When it comes to consciousness, my viewpoint is always being modified based upon new observations and experiences.

All I can do is observe my own consciousness and wonder what it is.

Rich

Kiel, what is wrong with 'what ifs'?

When you are following this trail of evidence from which you refuse to stray, and you suddenly come to a 'gaping chasm' as Rich puts it, what exactly do you do. What goes through the mind of the biologist when their evidential trail ends? Why is it so wrong at that point to ask 'what if'? Which way do you look ? Do you just stare straight ahead and wait for something to happen or do you continue to explore, to search for further evidence that you can use to move a little farther down the trail?

It's the curious mindset of 'what if' that has brought you all of your evidence to this point and now that you have accumulated a certain amount of it you choose to stop looking and begin to draw conclusions as though the trek is over.

What Rich, Xris, I and a few others are suggesting is that the trek is far from over, and there are still many questions and thinking to be done. We have all walked down the same path, but for some reason you have grown tired and lazy and want to end the trek here and satisfy your decision by telling yourself that you have all the answers now and there is nothing more to consider.

Well, that's okay if you want to remain at this juncture, but why do you want to call those who have the energy and curiosity to walk farther and keep searching deluded and derailing?

There is much more to this story. If you are satisfied with what you have try not to get in the way of the explorers who have the courage to strive on. Just suppose, what if while you are sitting there on the trail counting up your evidence, you look down and a rock begins to wiggle. Do you tell yourself 'rocks can't wiggle' so this does not deserve investigation? Do you tell yourself that the rock is wiggling because its biological components are making it wiggle? Or do you pick up the rock to see what is making it wiggle. We all know that you would pick the darned thing up and become very curious about it.

And if you could not find the reason for the rock to be wiggling you would become very interested in the force behind its movement. WHAT is causing this rock to move? And you would react this way to any thing that you happened upon that acted in such a manner that went beyond what you considered normal.

Thge only difference between you and your biology friends, and me and my philosophical friends is that you have chosen to accept life and its most minute aspects as normal. You have picked the rock into so many little pieces looking for your answer that it has now become normal. We on the other hand are still amazed by its tenacity and mystery and refuse to stop rolling it around. We want to know what is making it wiggle and are not satisfied with all of the evidential dust that we have stirred up while pounding it apart.

You might have a mountain of dust and moelcules for evidence, but we still do not know what the mysterious force is that causes this thing to wiggle.

You, sitting there on the side of the trail of satisfaction, know very well that you would react exactly the same way that we would when you come across something wiggling that should not be wiggling in your normal world.

Well, welcome to our world Kiel. Here nothing is normal and we ask 'what if' about anything that shows sign of life. It is the world that all of your biologists began in. You call it Metaphysia, we still call it earth.

There is nothing wrong with it, as you pointed out unless you are a materialist. Materialists have painted themselves in the corner. They know that they have only one life. There is nothing transcendental. So, they must have an answer to everything now, in this life. They are in a rush and therefore rush to all kinds of conclusions. And it leads to blind faith.

As for me, I don't know. I don't know what is behind it all. I don't know if life is transcendental but I believe there is evidence. I don't know what is making my fanny wiggle but it sure feels like it is my consciousness which only I can observe.

Maybe is good enough for me. I don't have to know what is in the cave before I start exploring. I enjoy the discovery of something new, and there is always something new.

Rich

... I think you misunderstand scientists ... it's not that scientists have grown tired and lazy, but that they've moved past old metaphysical ideas that haven't panned out (such as substance dualism and the Unwiggled Wiggler ) and are off exploring frontiers that are unreachable to philosophers who tend to be "unsatisfied with all of the evidential dust" and are willing to throw it out with the bath water ... stated another way, scientists are willing to weigh various metaphysical positions against the available evidence and then use the one or two that best aligns with the evidence as points of departure into new frontiers ... that is not to say that false starts and dead ends don't occur - they do, and it is evidence that points them out so that scientists can back up and try again (Kuhnian paradigm shifts) ... but I think we're so far past the "biological" signpost with respect to (human) consciousness that any backing up scientists might need to do would still result in a biological approach ... (for example, even if it were to turn out to be the case that the human body is a "consciousness receiver", the implication is that for consciousness to express itself in this world it needs such a consciousness receiver and since all consciousness receivers that have been observed in this world are biological that consciousness in our world is a biological problem, yes?)

To reiterate a point made earlier by ACB (with a slightly different spin), there are scientists who ignore philosophy (to their detriment), there are scientists who practice philosophy (to their benefit), there are philosophers who practice science (to their benefit), and there are philosophers who ignore science (to their detriment) ... that the scientists participating in this thread are doing so in a philosophy forum gives you an idea of what kind of scientists they are.

A couple of observations here if I might...

Some folks latch on to perspective answers in the area of natural sciences just as in any other theory. We're tossing together pieces of a puzzle; some seem to fit so we leave 'em there, call them a theory, and press on. Keeping the whole question in perspective - that being we're just learning here, nothing more - seems to be a prudent move.

I am am categorized as a materialist, so as I understand it, yet I don't think anyone should categorically exclude any possibility - no matter how unlikely. I suppose that probably mitigates my categorization some what. I believe possibilities exist even if I can't buy into them right this moment...

Good discussion

It depends upon whether how biological is defined. But if consciousness is non-material in the sense that it cannot be measured by current instrumentation, and instead is very subtle vibrations at the quantum level (or deeper), then many new avenues are opened for investigation, without the stigma of being accused of being a quack.

Rich

"subtle vibrations at the quantum level"

I have to ask now which material you've read about QM

String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

String theory is a developing branch of theoretical physics that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity.[1] The strings of string theory are one-dimensional oscillating lines, but they are no longer considered fundamental to the theory, which can be formulated in points or surfaces too.

that's not what I asked rich

also string theory is still very tentative

As if your notions aren't?

Scientists are so .... human.

Rich

1. you still haven't answered my original question: "which material about QM have you read?"
   
2. you are using a tu quoque (i.e., NO U) argument. this is a logical fallacy
   
3. string theory is borne out by like one actual experiment so far. so, while it might turn out to be the next big thing in physics, it might also turn out to be mathematical flapdoodle
   
4. evolution and neuroscientific theories of mind, which you rail against here, are actually borne out by heaps of evidence, experimentation, and have substantial predictive power and practical applications
   

this is what I mean when I say you just glom on to whatever makes you feel good without even necessarily understanding it. you'll defend string theory like it's already widely accepted then turn around and attack theories that are actually well-tested and pretty much accepted by all experts. you're ruining any pretension you might have had to being open-minded and critical. it's just gotten ridiculous now

... I think that if you dig deep enough, we're all quacks to one degree or another ... here's a bit of my own pet quackery: http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/epistemology/3158-intelligence-form-self-organization-6.html#post88573 ... if I were to trot this pet hypothesis out in this thread as being equal in coherence and consistency to the mind-brain identity theory, I'd be labeled a quack, too, because I haven't done the legwork to see if it holds water better than the mind-brain identity theory ... Oden wouldn't hesitate for a second before calling me out with a cry of "Where's the beef?!" ... so until that legwork is done (that's a big if, considering I don't have the time nor the tools to pull it off), I have to agree that of the established metaphysical positions enumerated in the OP the mind-brain identity theory is the most coherent and consistent with the available scientific evidence ...

I read it and it didn't look like quackery, whatever can you mean

I feel the same way. String theory isn't a holy grail of anything except for mathematical rhetoric -- that is unless it is experimentally predictive of all observed phenomena. Otherwise, it's like Plato's little syllogism in which he logically proves that your dog is your father. Amazing how things can make perfect sense and still not be true.