5 ms·

The fact that consciousness runs on neurons is hardly breaking news.

xyzzyz 14y ago
Actually, it would be a breaking news for people who subscribe to mind-matter dualism. There are quite a lot of them, for instance followers of many Christian religions.
- ithkuil 14y ago
  I doubt that many of them will accept any scientific proof which disproves mind-matter dualism, and thus this one woudn't be breaking news for them neither.
  - NickM 14y ago
    I don't happen to believe in mind-matter dualism, but at the same time, I also don't believe it's possible to scientifically prove it one way or the other. Can science truly explain where consciousness comes from? I would argue it cannot, because consciousness is a subjective experience, and is not objectively measurable.
    - ma2rten 14y ago
      Actually, can science truly prove anything about the world with certainty? I think claiming that would be ignorant of the way science works: You make assumptions, based on those assumptions you build a model and then (optionally) you show that your model correctly predicts some effect. If the assumptions you made do not hold, your proof does not hold either. Related to that question: Is consciousness really subjective? Is it not the only thing I as a person can experience objectively? EDIT: I don't understand why I am beeing down voted? I am just trying to explain my point of view. I don't think religion can prove anything with certainty, either. Nobody can. You can just make more or less strong assumptions.
      - spindritf 14y ago
        > the way science works: You make assumptions, based on those assumptions you build a model and then (optionally) you show that your model correctly predicts some effect Theories with predictive power are the essence of science and models are optional, not the other way round. Science is not materialistic, it would be valid even if the world we perceive was "fake", a virtual simulation for example. As long as it's consistent enough for us to make predictions, it's all good.
        ma2rten 14y ago
        Theories with predictive power are the essence of science and models are optional, not the other way round. I was thinking about Math or some subfields of Computer Science where you don't need any predictions (I'd think other disciplines have these purely theoretical subfields as well, but I dunno). I am not sure what the formal definition of a model is, but I think you'd agree you need some kind of non-trivial logic argument, otherwise it becomes, well... trivial ("X happens because we assume X happens"). Maybe I should have left that optional-remark or explained it further, it might be the reason I was downvoted in the beginning. First I also had a (semi-)joke in there about gaining citations being the ultimate goal of science, people might have though I was one of those fundamental Christians mocking science. It's very easy to get misunderstood if all people know about you is what they read in a comment of a few lines.
    - Florin_Andrei 14y ago
      I agree with the difficulty of providing proof. But I'm in perpetual discomfort with the way contemporary science is shunning anything "subjective" like it's the plague. Yes, we get it, you ("you, Science") despise uncertainty, and the subjective domain is deeply fuzzy and non-rigorous. But it leads to this robotic, industrial approach to things that should be more human - see the way hospitals work, for example. I don't have any solutions, either. I'm just saying there's something rotten in this particular Denmark.
  - xyzzyz 14y ago
    They may not accept scientific proof, but they are likely to accept an empiric proof -- people may not believe in atoms or Newton's/Einstein's laws of motion, but they sure as hell believe that electricity is real, fire burns and planes fly.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - ithkuil 14y ago
      Empiric proof of consciousness is difficult, as NickM suggested, the problem is in the subjective nature of our perception of self. The question behind the perception of consciousness a key one behind the issue of mind/matter dualism: imagine an empiric proof, somebody builds a powerful computer which simulates a human brain to perfection yet mind/matter dualiasts won't feel that this "being" which talks, expresses emotions etc is anything more than a simulacra, a [soul|mind|...]less machine. I think that usually when two persons disagree, either at least one of them is wrong, or they are not talking about the same thing. Yet, it's difficult for two persons to align to the definition of what they are talking about, when one them won't accept that definition as something which is hits what's being discussed: imagine that I argue with a matter/mind dualist and tell "hey, my experiment proves that the neurological processes behave in exactly the same way", he will answer "so what, there is more in it than mere neurological processes". Where is the "subjective" part in all this? The fact that you cannot even prove that I have a [soul|mind|...], the only "proof" you have is that I look like you, I'm (as far as you can tell) made of the same flash, was given birth in a similar way as you... so you just assume I behave internally as you do, so you can transpose your subjective experience to others. Both point of view generally assume that our consciousness is general, not only mine or yours; the difference is whether the consciousness is a pure emergent phenomena of matter alone or "something else". So the subjectiveness of the perception is only used as a tool against the provability, against the acceptance of any empiric proof; which is understandable, as the empiric proof in itself, when done in terms of matter, works in the framework of mind materialism, and as such becomes invalid as soon as you undermine the very material nature of mind. In simple words: mind/matter dualiasts won't accept any proof based on matter. That's why they are usually deemed as anti-scientific: because scientific thought strives to search for explanations of the natural phenomena which kind be defined in such a way that it can be falsified by observation. Any explanation that by definition is not suitable for any kind of proof because disconnected from the rest of the physical phenomena is by definition non-scientific. So IMHO, this is the heart of the discussion, not the "subjectivity" of the mind, that's only an excuse. PS: Interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minds_I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minds_I
- onemoreact 14y ago
  The overwhelming majority of people accept that drugs can temporarily alter someones personality and brain trauma can interfere with memory and or function. The fact that many of these same people also believe in a soul setups an odd sort of cognitive dissonance. Anyway, for most neuroscientists results like this are far closer to conformation using an interesting technique than truly groundbreaking research.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "The fact that many of these same people also believe in a soul setups an odd sort of cognitive dissonance." There's no cognitive dissonance if you believe that the brain influences consciousness but aren't committed to the idea that the brain is the source of consciousness. E.g. you could believe that the brain is a reducing valve, a la Huxley, and there is no cognitive dissonance there at all.
  - robododo 14y ago
    When one's core beliefs have no basis in logic or objective reality, it's simple to maintain consistency. All that's needed is the invention of some new concept to explain the discrepancy. The world created in days -> but a "day" could be a million years. Evolutionary theory -> but <creator> is driving the evolution etc...
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      "When one's core beliefs have no basis in logic or objective reality, it's simple to maintain consistency. All that's needed is the invention of some new concept to explain the discrepancy." Like empiricism.
  - ma2rten 14y ago
    I am not religious, but I feel something is not adding up in this purely scientific view of the world. I never tried to explain this thought to anyone else, because it's damn hard to explain. I will give it a try: As far as science goes (or I understand it) the brain is just a neural network, which gets activated based on inputs and produces some outputs, like a computer does. Neurons can also self-activate, but that is not really the point. The point is consciousness would not be required for that. When look around me I see things. If my brain would just do input/output, there would be no need for me to see anything. I would just act without seeing/hearing/feeling consciously. I don't claim I have any idea about anything, but I feel like something is not adding up here on a fundamental level. I don't even know if other people experience the same thing or if they do indeed just act on inputs and have no idea what I am talking about. I wonder if what I said made any sense to anyone and if any philosophers were considering the same thing.
- joshuacc 14y ago
  While this is indeed a problem for cartesian dualism, it isn't a problem for something like hylemorphic dualism, which is the approach of St. Thomas Aquinas, among other mainstream Christian theologians.
naveensundar 14y ago
Logically speaking consciousness being "produced" from neurons doesn't any sense whatsoever. It sounds magical. What is it that is being produced? Why is not produced in other dynamic systems, e.g. a car engine? Is it complexity which produces consciousness? Or is it some substrate? Is it a function being computed which is necessary for this production? Can a sophisticated car engine be conscious? Can a Ferris wheel be conscious? I can definitely map various bits of computation to a car engine and a Ferris wheel. If you need organic matter to have consciousness, can an extremely complex car engine made of organic matter be conscious? One can brush aside all these rigorous questions, like almost all neuroscientists, and adopt a fideistic attitude that basically stipulates a materialistic view. Please read more about the hard problem of consciousness [1]. There will be lots of people who will disagree, but the materialistic view of the mind has lots of cracks in it [2]. One needn't even look at [2], as so far no one has given a non-gibberish answer to [1] which doesn't appeal to one or other common fallacy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
- _dps 14y ago
  I once did some reading about this so I'm curious for more information (since you seem to know what you're talking about). This is probably a stupid question (my favorite kind): Are there good arguments for why a car engine isn't conscious? Isn't it just the "other minds" problem in a different form?
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    The main argument against it would be the theory that consciousness is something we tap into. Completely unproven, but it has a certain elegance to it. There is actually some precedent for this as an argument. Back in ancient Greece the third of the three arguments in favor of the earth being spherical was that it would be the perfect shape for it to be. As it stands, it's completely unknown why subatomic particles have precisely the mass and charges they need in order for matter to exist, even though the chances of that are supposedly trillions and trillions against one. Perhaps because matter is designed to tap into consciousness, and the more evolved the matter the more complex the slice of consciousness it can capture. That would be my working theory at least.

Actually, it would be a breaking news for people who subscribe to mind-matter dualism. There are quite a lot of them, for instance followers of many Christian religions.

ithkuil 14y ago
I doubt that many of them will accept any scientific proof which disproves mind-matter dualism, and thus this one woudn't be breaking news for them neither.
- NickM 14y ago
  I don't happen to believe in mind-matter dualism, but at the same time, I also don't believe it's possible to scientifically prove it one way or the other. Can science truly explain where consciousness comes from? I would argue it cannot, because consciousness is a subjective experience, and is not objectively measurable.
  - ma2rten 14y ago
    Actually, can science truly prove anything about the world with certainty? I think claiming that would be ignorant of the way science works: You make assumptions, based on those assumptions you build a model and then (optionally) you show that your model correctly predicts some effect. If the assumptions you made do not hold, your proof does not hold either. Related to that question: Is consciousness really subjective? Is it not the only thing I as a person can experience objectively? EDIT: I don't understand why I am beeing down voted? I am just trying to explain my point of view. I don't think religion can prove anything with certainty, either. Nobody can. You can just make more or less strong assumptions.
    - spindritf 14y ago
      > the way science works: You make assumptions, based on those assumptions you build a model and then (optionally) you show that your model correctly predicts some effect Theories with predictive power are the essence of science and models are optional, not the other way round. Science is not materialistic, it would be valid even if the world we perceive was "fake", a virtual simulation for example. As long as it's consistent enough for us to make predictions, it's all good.
      - ma2rten 14y ago
        Theories with predictive power are the essence of science and models are optional, not the other way round. I was thinking about Math or some subfields of Computer Science where you don't need any predictions (I'd think other disciplines have these purely theoretical subfields as well, but I dunno). I am not sure what the formal definition of a model is, but I think you'd agree you need some kind of non-trivial logic argument, otherwise it becomes, well... trivial ("X happens because we assume X happens"). Maybe I should have left that optional-remark or explained it further, it might be the reason I was downvoted in the beginning. First I also had a (semi-)joke in there about gaining citations being the ultimate goal of science, people might have though I was one of those fundamental Christians mocking science. It's very easy to get misunderstood if all people know about you is what they read in a comment of a few lines.
  - Florin_Andrei 14y ago
    I agree with the difficulty of providing proof. But I'm in perpetual discomfort with the way contemporary science is shunning anything "subjective" like it's the plague. Yes, we get it, you ("you, Science") despise uncertainty, and the subjective domain is deeply fuzzy and non-rigorous. But it leads to this robotic, industrial approach to things that should be more human - see the way hospitals work, for example. I don't have any solutions, either. I'm just saying there's something rotten in this particular Denmark.
- xyzzyz 14y ago
  They may not accept scientific proof, but they are likely to accept an empiric proof -- people may not believe in atoms or Newton's/Einstein's laws of motion, but they sure as hell believe that electricity is real, fire burns and planes fly.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - ithkuil 14y ago
    Empiric proof of consciousness is difficult, as NickM suggested, the problem is in the subjective nature of our perception of self. The question behind the perception of consciousness a key one behind the issue of mind/matter dualism: imagine an empiric proof, somebody builds a powerful computer which simulates a human brain to perfection yet mind/matter dualiasts won't feel that this "being" which talks, expresses emotions etc is anything more than a simulacra, a [soul|mind|...]less machine. I think that usually when two persons disagree, either at least one of them is wrong, or they are not talking about the same thing. Yet, it's difficult for two persons to align to the definition of what they are talking about, when one them won't accept that definition as something which is hits what's being discussed: imagine that I argue with a matter/mind dualist and tell "hey, my experiment proves that the neurological processes behave in exactly the same way", he will answer "so what, there is more in it than mere neurological processes". Where is the "subjective" part in all this? The fact that you cannot even prove that I have a [soul|mind|...], the only "proof" you have is that I look like you, I'm (as far as you can tell) made of the same flash, was given birth in a similar way as you... so you just assume I behave internally as you do, so you can transpose your subjective experience to others. Both point of view generally assume that our consciousness is general, not only mine or yours; the difference is whether the consciousness is a pure emergent phenomena of matter alone or "something else". So the subjectiveness of the perception is only used as a tool against the provability, against the acceptance of any empiric proof; which is understandable, as the empiric proof in itself, when done in terms of matter, works in the framework of mind materialism, and as such becomes invalid as soon as you undermine the very material nature of mind. In simple words: mind/matter dualiasts won't accept any proof based on matter. That's why they are usually deemed as anti-scientific: because scientific thought strives to search for explanations of the natural phenomena which kind be defined in such a way that it can be falsified by observation. Any explanation that by definition is not suitable for any kind of proof because disconnected from the rest of the physical phenomena is by definition non-scientific. So IMHO, this is the heart of the discussion, not the "subjectivity" of the mind, that's only an excuse. PS: Interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minds_I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minds_I
onemoreact 14y ago
The overwhelming majority of people accept that drugs can temporarily alter someones personality and brain trauma can interfere with memory and or function. The fact that many of these same people also believe in a soul setups an odd sort of cognitive dissonance. Anyway, for most neuroscientists results like this are far closer to conformation using an interesting technique than truly groundbreaking research.
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "The fact that many of these same people also believe in a soul setups an odd sort of cognitive dissonance." There's no cognitive dissonance if you believe that the brain influences consciousness but aren't committed to the idea that the brain is the source of consciousness. E.g. you could believe that the brain is a reducing valve, a la Huxley, and there is no cognitive dissonance there at all.
- robododo 14y ago
  When one's core beliefs have no basis in logic or objective reality, it's simple to maintain consistency. All that's needed is the invention of some new concept to explain the discrepancy. The world created in days -> but a "day" could be a million years. Evolutionary theory -> but <creator> is driving the evolution etc...
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "When one's core beliefs have no basis in logic or objective reality, it's simple to maintain consistency. All that's needed is the invention of some new concept to explain the discrepancy." Like empiricism.
- ma2rten 14y ago
  I am not religious, but I feel something is not adding up in this purely scientific view of the world. I never tried to explain this thought to anyone else, because it's damn hard to explain. I will give it a try: As far as science goes (or I understand it) the brain is just a neural network, which gets activated based on inputs and produces some outputs, like a computer does. Neurons can also self-activate, but that is not really the point. The point is consciousness would not be required for that. When look around me I see things. If my brain would just do input/output, there would be no need for me to see anything. I would just act without seeing/hearing/feeling consciously. I don't claim I have any idea about anything, but I feel like something is not adding up here on a fundamental level. I don't even know if other people experience the same thing or if they do indeed just act on inputs and have no idea what I am talking about. I wonder if what I said made any sense to anyone and if any philosophers were considering the same thing.
joshuacc 14y ago
While this is indeed a problem for cartesian dualism, it isn't a problem for something like hylemorphic dualism, which is the approach of St. Thomas Aquinas, among other mainstream Christian theologians.

naveensundar 14y ago

Logically speaking consciousness being "produced" from neurons doesn't any sense whatsoever. It sounds magical. What is it that is being produced? Why is not produced in other dynamic systems, e.g. a car engine? Is it complexity which produces consciousness? Or is it some substrate? Is it a function being computed which is necessary for this production? Can a sophisticated car engine be conscious? Can a Ferris wheel be conscious? I can definitely map various bits of computation to a car engine and a Ferris wheel. If you need organic matter to have consciousness, can an extremely complex car engine made of organic matter be conscious? One can brush aside all these rigorous questions, like almost all neuroscientists, and adopt a fideistic attitude that basically stipulates a materialistic view. Please read more about the hard problem of consciousness [1]. There will be lots of people who will disagree, but the materialistic view of the mind has lots of cracks in it [2]. One needn't even look at [2], as so far no one has given a non-gibberish answer to [1] which doesn't appeal to one or other common fallacy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

_dps 14y ago
I once did some reading about this so I'm curious for more information (since you seem to know what you're talking about). This is probably a stupid question (my favorite kind): Are there good arguments for why a car engine isn't conscious? Isn't it just the "other minds" problem in a different form?
- Alex3917 14y ago
  The main argument against it would be the theory that consciousness is something we tap into. Completely unproven, but it has a certain elegance to it. There is actually some precedent for this as an argument. Back in ancient Greece the third of the three arguments in favor of the earth being spherical was that it would be the perfect shape for it to be. As it stands, it's completely unknown why subatomic particles have precisely the mass and charges they need in order for matter to exist, even though the chances of that are supposedly trillions and trillions against one. Perhaps because matter is designed to tap into consciousness, and the more evolved the matter the more complex the slice of consciousness it can capture. That would be my working theory at least.