How Can Molecules Think?

[partinobodycular]

As for "peer reviewed" it is certainly overrated. An analysis of peer review showed many errors are allowed through in systematic testing. There is pseudoscientific hogwash that passes peer review. Not least It depends on the beliefs of the peers.
The references in this illustrate the problem.

This is the second thing that you always do. You ridicule the work of anyone who disagrees with your position, no matter what their academic standing is.

This too lessens your credibility.

 

[Bradskii]

If the stuff in your head is solely the means of your consciousness interacting with the universe, then the rest of the universe will PERCEIVE you unconscious if that stuff is removed, whether or not you are.

There's a couple of problems there. The 'universe' isn't conscious and so won't know what my state is. With the rider that I am part of the universe and I will know. As might other parts of the universe who are examining my headless torso and determining that yes, Bradskii has lost consciousness.

And if 'that stuff' is removed, then unconsiousness will result. Do you really need me to link to examples? Do you want to suggest any tests that we can do to determine that someone who has had her head removed is actually unconscious? I'll be keen to hear them.

 

[Mountainmike]

It isn't?

For a 'scientist' your bar for acceptable evidence is set extremely low. But that's up to you. I do note that none of your posts link to any evidence. It's all hearsay.

And that is NOT a prompt for you to bombard me with examples of Joe Blow watching his appendix being removed whilst listening to the surgeon discuss the recent Lakers game. Trust me, I've had these type of discussions many times over many years and have seen and heard all the arguments. So please don't waste your time. Or, more importantly, mine.

But when you have an example of a complete loss of brain mass whilst maintaining consciousness...then I'm your man. There are only two dots to join in that experiment. I'll let you join them yourself.

My bar for evidence is the same.
Is there a credible explanation of random chance coincidence , or fraud, or mistaken observation? Otherwise the evidence can be assumed to be good.

I am not a pseudoscientist that goes with Carl Sagans folly "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" , which is ritually abused to declare anything he did not like as "extraordinary". But Much of science is extraordinary. Like the idea a single thing can be in two places at once. Yes really.


I shall simply comment yours science is not good enough, if you think your experiment proves the case. Because if you postulate the consciousness and body may be separate entities, normally entwined, in which the body is the means to interact, then all losing brain mass has done is lose the ability of a consciousness to communicate cosnciousness to you. So your experiment was invalid - you failed. Try again.

 

[Mountainmike]

This is the second thing that you always do. You ridicule the work of anyone who disagrees with your position, no matter what their academic standing is.

This too lessens your credibility.

I look at the scientific evidence on how good peer review is. Did you read it?
That paper and others are fairly scathing.

It is not what it is cracked up to be.
And i have proven beyond doubt it in some contexts on this forum.
Pseudoscientific nonsense has gained a peer review.

The universe is the only thing that is natural.

But we do not know it directly , we experience how it interacts with senses through consciousness. But the observations are the best we have, even though they are far from perfect.

The model of those observations (aka science) is one step further removed from reality. If the model and observations disagree. The model is wrong not the observations (obviously). The model is just a model.

So USING the model to override observations (the falasy of scientific realism) is a philosophical nonsense unless you can determine why observations were false.

 

[Bradskii]

Absolutely true. But in the case of the AI that "brain" is only an illusion, the actual source of their consciousness is the underlying program and the device on which it's running. There's no material brain at all.

But you just said it's 'the underlying program and the device on which it's running'. Our device is the brain and the underlying programe is (for example) RAM and conditional statements stored in the neurons. Same with the AI. It's part of the entity itself. Maybe we build it with sensors and limbs. But they won't work if we remove whatever the equivalent is of its brain however it works, whatever it is comprised of and wherever it is situated.

Remove the part of the AI entity that does the thinking and it will no longer be conscious. And if you remove the same thing from us then you'll get the same result.

 

[Bradskii]

My bar for evidence is the same....

...then all losing brain mass has done is lose the ability of a consciousness to communicate cosnciousness to you. So you failed. Try again.

Your bar for evidence is the same as what?

And losing all brain mass loses consciousness. There's never been an example when that hasn't happened. I'm waiting for you to suggest an experiment we can do that disproves that (and please don't suggest anything connected with your security system or wifi set up again).

 

[partinobodycular]

But you just said it's 'the underlying program and the device on which it's running'. Our device is the brain and the underlying programe is (for example) RAM and conditional statements stored in the neurons. Same with the AI. It's part of the entity itself. Maybe we build it with sensors and limbs. But they won't work if we remove whatever the equivalent is of its brain however it works, whatever it is comprised of and wherever it is situated.

Remove the part of the AI entity that does the thinking and it will no longer be conscious. And if you remove the same thing from us then you'll get the same result.

So how do you know whether you're an actual flesh and blood human, or a software/device generated AI?

Is it the wetware between your ears that's actually producing your consciousness or is it whatever's creating those underlying fields?

 

[Mountainmike]

Do you want to suggest any tests that we can do to determine that someone who has had her head removed is actually unconscious? I'll be keen to hear them.

The limits of the ability of science to test are a problem.
As is the limit of the ability of the model of science to model all observation.
Science is indeed limited in what it can say for certain.

When you have a hypothesis that explains greysons observations then I would be keen to hear it.
Just one example.

A patient of his, on recovering from a state of inactive cortex, described a conversation he held with a friend of hers in another part of the building. But she also described his clothing (which was different the day of her entering ED and also the day of her regaining consciousness ) and she even described marks from food that he had carelessy dropped on his clothes before , and had no chance to clean before the meeting. The "friend" had no chance to interact with the patient before the meeting was described by the patient.

The patient was clearly conscious of that meeting. Her cortex inactive at the time.
That is the incident that got Greyson interested and convinced him that there was no explanation.
In researching such phenomena he discovered many more.

Stop repeating a false experiment. It cannot decide whether a consciousness can exist outside a body. It clearly does prevent the communication of that consciousness to you. So you would observe the same result either way. A very Badly designed experiment.

 

[Bradskii]

So how do you know whether you're an actual flesh and blood human, or a software/device generated AI?

Is it the wetware between your ears that's actually producing your consciousness or is it whatever's creating those underlying fields?

I don't have any information that any fields are causing any effects on my wet meat. If they are then maybe it's like plugging your computer into the mains. But dismantle the computer and...there's nothing there. If there were some 'fields' causing consciousness in the brain then that's the only thing it seems to work on. Remove the brain and these 'fields' don't seem to want to animate a headless corpse.

So the question is moot.

 

[Bradskii]

The limits of the ability of science to test are a problem.

To test for consciousness on a headless body? Really? I didn't study medicine but I thought it would be relatively easy. Maybe someone who is medically qualified will chip in...

 

[Kylie]

They're opposite positions in that as to the question of whether anything can be known to exist outside of one's own mind the epistemological solipsist says no, and the metaphysical solipsist says yes. The epistemological solipsist is the epitome of an agnostic who questions the very essence of what can be known. The metaphysical solipsist on the other hand is perfectly content with holding to absolutes, that there are things beyond the existence of one's own mind that can be known with certainty.

I think you are making the error of assuming that since they are opposites in one respect, then they are complete opposites. That's like saying a window is the opposite of a plate because one is round and the other is square.

 

[Mountainmike]

To test for consciousness on a headless body? Really? I didn't study medicine but I thought it would be relatively easy. Maybe someone who is medically qualified will chip in...

What test do you propose for the conscious knowledge or presence of greysons patient?

Science accepts weakly and non interacting entities.
Why don’t you?

Indeed back in the philosophy of science:

ONLY the parts of the universe that DO interact create observations and so are modelled by science . A blind cave fish has a different science and model to ours. The universe stayed the same.

It would be unscientific arrogance to presume we detect all that is there - not least because evolution theory presumes senses only improve to detect things that improve survival.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think you are making the error of assuming that since they are opposites in one respect, then they are complete opposites. That's like saying a window is the opposite of a plate because one is round and the other is square.

Please note that I originally stated that they are "almost" opposite positions, so I recognized the limitations of the comparison. But hopefully now you understand what I was talking about, one position...metaphysical solipsism, allows for accepting as fact things that cannot be known to be true. Something which goes against the very core of an epistemological solipsist's position.

Because their names are so similar, or rarely differentiated at all, people rightly assume that they're essentially the same. I'm just trying to point out that they're actually quite different.

 

[Bradskii]

What test do you propose for the conscious knowledge or presence of greysons patient?

Now didn't someone say that they weren't interested in discussing/regurgitating/arguing about/wasting their time on floating patients? Ah yes, it was me. Please look for someone else who might be interested.

My only interest at the moment in this thread is a slight divergence from the op in which a claim has been made (by me) that consciousness will dissapear as we remove the brain. A consequent of which I believe is that it's the brain is where consciousness resides.

Could you perhaps concentrate on that? Maybe you could consider one of your astral travellers and consider what would happen to her if the surgeon taking out her appendix suddenly decided to remove her brain instead?

Would she be conscious? Do we have examples of such an occurence? Is it known to medical science? Do you think it could be tested? How would you avoid errors in testing? Could it be repeated?

Over to you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Bruce Greyson is a well published professor of neurobehavioural sciences.
He set the accepted standards for analysing such experiences.
He has long list of publications. Or read his book "after"

Some of the incidents he publicises from a life time of analysing are way beyond random chance. There really was conscious experience of other places and situations the patient cannot have known otherwise, not least because in some the cortex was inactive at the time.

It is what got Greyson - who worked in ED at the time - interested in the problem.

There is a body of evidence science cannot explain but cannot discount. Science is STUCK because it can only analyse the repeatable, or that which can be made to repeat, or that which can be modelled.

I have asked you several times about the effects of anesthesia. Once again:

And yet this is clearly not what happens under anesthesia. Instead, consciousness totally (or almost totally) disappears until the effect wears off. When the person awakens, he has no memory of what he was thinking about during the operation.​

I see you quote it back and just ignore this. I will assume this means you have no answer to this point, and I will mark it down as being unrefuted.

I am not talking about near death experiences. I am talking about anesthesia for scheduled procedures. If consciousness continued throughout the procedure, then a person could start counting as the anesthesia begins, and consciously count to a thousand while waiting for the effect to wear off. This does not happen. You have no explanation for this, do you? I will make note that all you can do is ignore this argument.

You go on about near death experiences. What does that have to do with anything? People near death can be fading in and out of a state with some awareness of what is going on. They will commonly experience things like a fading of peripheral awareness, which can feel like going through a tunnel. But they always have a functioning brain. This is the problem for your argument. There is abundant evidence that it is the brain that thinks. And the brain is still there. You have ignored it all, and then come back and say that people with brains have vague memories of things that happened while their brains were in a near-death state. What does that have to do with this discussion?

I illustrated the problem. Identical Twins have remote sensed the death of the other. There is no experiment you can do to verify it. The inability of some evidence to fit in the scientific model, and that because it cannot be reporduced on demand is a problem with the limited scope of the scientific process and model. Its a problem with limitations of science, Not the evidence.

So move on. There is more to the universe than orthodoxy.

This kind of "awareness" is easy for a person to visualize later, when it is all pieced together and the twin "remembers" feelings at the time of his twin's death. But of course, he may have had many similar experiences at other times, but never remember those, for they aren't important. So one must show that such experiences happen associated with a twin's death more than than what would happen by chance.

And even if a twin had the ability to sense a twin's death, how does that prove it is not the brain that thinks? All that would prove is that there is another sense that enables twins to sense things at a distance. That doesn't prove that something besides the brain is doing the thinking.

As for "peer reviewed" it is certainly overrated. An analysis of peer review showed many errors are allowed through in systematic testing. There is pseudoscientific hogwash that passes peer review. Not least It depends on the beliefs of the peers.
The references in this illustrate the problem.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Too much peer review is based on protecting "orthodoxy".

Uh, what would you put in the place of peer review?

It is easy for people to write something that sounds scientific that can fool many people. Since many people buy the argument, does that prove it is sound? No. The argument might be full of holes that those people do not understand.

Experts in the field can analyze the arguments and point out the flaws. That is what peer-review is all about. That is a vital part of science. But you remove that step, yes? If you remove that step, how do you know the science you are listening to is not full of holes that could be easily refuted by informed scientists?

Scientific evaluation of arguments has always been a big part of science. When a scientist writes something, others will later write of points in the analysis that the first scientist missed.

Formal peer review allows much of this analysis to happen before it is even published. If there are flaws that peers can readily see, then it probably should not be presented as good science. If on the other hand, informed scientists have looked at it and seen no serious flaws, that paper could be something that is good to share with non-experts in the field. Is peer-review perfect as currently practiced? Of course not. But it is a good first step in analyzing the argument.

How do you keep from being bamboozled by flimflam that could have easily been refuted by informed scientists? One of the many tools I use is to check if the article was peer reviewed. How do you do it?

 

[Mountainmike]

People near death can be fading in and out of a state with some awareness of what is going on.

That Is completely irrelevant to the example I gave
As is the action of anaesthesia.

Science has a problem characterising Unusual events
which evidence suggests rare events of consciousness out of body.

science can only easily model the repeatable.

…could have easily been refuted by informed scientists

Greyson is an informed scientist.
Unlike you , He was actually there.
He didn’t refute it, nor could his peers. Nor could others of his peers who provided some of the case histories.

It’s only refuted by people such as you who wasn’t there , imposing your a priori beliefs on evidence that disputes those beliefs.

 

[sjastro]

To test for consciousness on a headless body? Really? I didn't study medicine but I thought it would be relatively easy. Maybe someone who is medically qualified will chip in...

Such tests were supposedly done on human subjects.
Antione Lavoisier "The Father of Modern Chemistry" was a scientist to the very end during the days of the French revolution had made arrangements with his executioner after his head was guillotined the executioner would count the number of times Lavoisier blinked.
According to legend the executioner counted up to 15 times indicating perhaps Lavoisier experienced consciousness up to the final blink.

As usually happens with urban legends the story changes over the centuries and one of the greatest mathematicians in history Joseph Louis Lagrange became involved in the experiment

Did Lavoisier Blink?

 

[Bradskii]

Such tests were supposedly done on human subjects.
Antione Lavoisier "The Father of Modern Chemistry" was a scientist to the very end during the days of the French revolution had made arrangements with his executioner after his head was guillotined the executioner would count the number of times Lavoisier blinked.
According to legend the executioner counted up to 15 times indicating perhaps Lavoisier experienced consciousness up to the final blink.

​

So consciousness perhaps remains with the brain? Until it dies? Kinda depressingly spooky. But...that sort of confirms my position rather than denies it.​

 

[sjastro]

So consciousness perhaps remains with the brain? Until it dies? Kinda depressingly spooky. But...that sort of confirms my position rather than denies it.​

This depends on how seriously one takes the blinking experiment if it ever occurred.
The guillotining of another French revolution victim Georges Danton ultimately inspired a neuroscientist to contemplate consciousness after death.
Death: how long are we conscious for and does life really flash before our eyes?

 

[doubtingmerle]

That Is completely irrelevant to the example I gave

LOL! You seem to be forgetting whose thread this is.

I have been discussing evidence that brains think, including the evidence of what happens under anesthesia. You simply have no answer for what I write, so you ignore it, then complain when I get back on my topic. LOL!

which evidence suggests rare events of consciousness out of body.

The ability to sense things far from the body is not evidence that the brain does not think.

For example, I can hear things that are far away. That does not prove that my soul was far away, or that the brain does not think. Bats can use radar to detect things far away. That does not prove that brains do not think.

Even if twins can somehow sense that a twin far away has died, how would that prove that souls exist and brains don't think? Wouldn't it only prove that there is a new sense of far off things that science has not yet discovered?

science can only easily model the repeatable.

I propose an experiment. You will give a meal to a twin. Someone else will be with the other twin far away and ask them what the other twin ate. My guess is that you will find there is nothing to this flimflam extrasensory perception you propose.

Greyson is an informed scientist.

So what? Even informed scientists need to have their papers peer reviewed.

He didn’t refute it, nor could his peers. Nor could others of his peers who provided some of the case histories.

From what I hear, his conclusion is only that people with this experience had a dramatic change in their life. Darn right! They almost died. That would make anybody have second thoughts about how he is living his life. That doesn't prove their NDE was a real experience outside their body.