How Can Molecules Think?

[Bradskii]

But you're conflating thinking with consciousness. If I put you in a completely darkened room you're not blind simply because you can't see anything. You're capacity to see is still there. For all intents and purposes you're blind, but in actuality you're not. Likewise if I cut your consciousness off from all available stimuli your consciousness will appear to have vanished, but that too may be just an illusion.

I said nothing about thinking. I was talking about consciousness. Gradually remove the matter inside your head and you'll lose consciousness. Seems like there's a link there somewhere...

 

[Bradskii]

What does that prove?

It shows there's some sort of link, doncha think? Do you have any examples of brains being removed and consciousness remaining? No, me neither.

 

[Mountainmike]

It shows there's some sort of link, doncha think? Do you have any examples of brains being removed and consciousness remaining? No, me neither.

Read my post. It is entirely possible consciousness is separable from body. Plenty of anecdotal evidence ( which incidentally is the description of conscious experience, and at the heart of all observation)

 

[Bradskii]

Read my post. It is entirely possible consciousness is separable from body. Plenty of anecdotal evidence ( which incidentally is the description of conscious experience, and at the heart of all observation)

If you want to believe that people float about making mental notes about the local environment when they are anaethetised then good for you. I'm sure you'll find a fellow traveller in these parts. But be sure to tell me when you have evidence of people remaining conscious when all that wet meat is removed from between their ears. OK?

 

[partinobodycular]

Gradually remove the matter inside your head and you'll lose consciousness. Seems like there's a link there somewhere...

Wait a minute, you're the same person who believes that AI's will one day be conscious. Which means that you can't even be certain that you have a brain. You might be nothing more than an app on some kid's iphone. So how can you be so certain that your brain gives rise to your consciousness when you can't even be certain that you have a brain?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Specifically I'm an epistemological solipsist, not a metaphysical solipsist. These are almost two diametrically opposite positions. But I understand how you could confuse the two, most people do. Ultimately epistemological solipsism is simply agnosticism pushed to its logical conclusion.

And like all philosophy I am not interested. This is why I hang out in the science section not the philosophy section.

 

[partinobodycular]

And like all philosophy I am not interested. This is why I hang out in the science section not the philosophy section.

That and the fact that there is no active philosophy section.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That and the fact that there is no active philosophy section.

I still wouldn't hang out there. Apparently the Owners didn't like that (despite the rules) most of the threads degenerated into general apologetics. It would be nice to have it back as a honeypot for such conversations when they start elsewhere.

 

[Kylie]

Specifically I'm an epistemological solipsist, not a metaphysical solipsist. These are almost two diametrically opposite positions.

Not sure how you get that. From my understanding, metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which asserts that nothing exists externally to one's mind, and epistemological solipsism is the claim that one can only be sure of the existence of one's mind. I don't see how they are opposite positions.

 

[Bradskii]

Wait a minute, you're the same person who believes that AI's will one day be conscious. Which means that you can't even be certain that you have a brain. You might be nothing more than an app on some kid's iphone. So how can you be so certain that your brain gives rise to your consciousness when you can't even be certain that you have a brain?

I agree. I may be part of a computer programe that some alien kid is playing. There's no way to tell. But if I'm an evolved and indiviual biological entity OR some designed avatar, in both realities if we start to remove the material from inside either my head or the avatar's head...I'll become unconscious.

In whatever reality in which we might exist, that's a fact. It's demonstrable, repeateable and undeniable. Our brain and our consciousness are such that if we remove the former we lose the latter.

It will be the same with AI. Whatever we build/grow/programme into an AI unit to give it consciousness, if we then remove it, it will cease to be conscious.

How could it be any different?

 

[Mountainmike]

If you want to believe that people float about making mental notes about the local environment when they are anaethetised then good for you. I'm sure you'll find a fellow traveller in these parts. But be sure to tell me when you have evidence of people remaining conscious when all that wet meat is removed from between their ears. OK?

It’s not “ what I want to believe” it is documented case histories, by preeminent medics operating in that area such as greyson , that demonstrate consciousness can be elsewhere than the body when the cortex is non functioning.

If the only means of communicating consciousness or interacting with the universe is via the body, then yours is a self defeating experiment, and a stupid one at that , if aimed at demonstrating the nature of consciousness.

My only means of turning stuff on and off at the villa is if the router / computing is intact. My consciousness has not died with the router. But it has stopped me communicating with those who press the doorbell.

There are other classes of evidence that imply that not all life forms have a body. Don’t think it’s the place to dwell on that here.

Science is limited in scope and has problems with analysing or modelling things that don’t repeat and can’t be repeated - and that is particularly true of consciousness and conscious experience of beings, rather than inanimate objects which are far more repeatable.

A biological twin that remote senses the death of another is not an experiment you can do for obvious reasons , so evidence is inevitably anecdotal. But all conscious experience IS anecdotal , and is the basis of all observation, which is the start point of science, so it is not a lower form of evidence.

If ever consciousness outside the body is accepted , then the entire narrative on consciousness ( or even abiogenesis) as solely a chemical process is severely damaged.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In some sense this is a question that I can't answer. But I can give you an opinion.

I think that the brain, along with everything else is most likely an illusion. .

You must leave them rolling on the floor laughing everywhere you go, huh?

"What is your name?"

"This is a question that I can't answer. I think I, along with everything else, am most likely an illusion."

"What is your address"

"This is a question that I can't answer. I think my town, along with everything else, is most likely an illusion."

"What is your phone number"

"This is a question that I can't answer. I think my phone, along with everything else, is most likely an illusion."

Get serious, please. Now answer the question: "Do you agree that it is the neurons of the brain that think?"

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree. I may be part of a computer programe that some alien kid is playing. There's no way to tell. But if I'm an evolved and indiviual biological entity OR some designed avatar, in both realities if we start to remove the material from inside either my head or the avatar's head...I'll become unconscious.

In whatever reality in which we might exist, that's a fact. It's demonstrable, repeateable and undeniable. Our brain and our consciousness are such that if we remove the former we lose the latter.

It will be the same with AI. Whatever we build/grow/programme into an AI unit to give it consciousness, if we then remove it, it will cease to be conscious.

How could it be any different?

A clear error of critical thinking.

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.

As I related elsewhere there is substantial evidence of consciousness elsewhere in OOB experience with a non functioning cortex. If you damage "the stuff in someones head" only the ability of consciousness to return to the body is prevented, and thereby the means to document the conscious experience elsewhere.

So your experiment demonstrates only ability to interact, not the fact of consciousness.

I related my remote villa in another country. When the router blew up, my ability to turn on heating, watering, aircon, lighting etc stopped in addition to my ability to talk to visitors who pressed the doorbell. The lights literally went out! . As a quirk of fate, I could still sense visitors since one of the cameras had its own link. I was conscious of them. They were no longer conscious of me because I could no longer interact with them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It’s not “ what I want to believe” it is documented case histories, by preeminent medics operating in that area such as greyson , that demonstrate consciousness elsewhere than the body when the cortex is non functioning.

I'll call your bluff. Please point me to a peer-reviewed article that documents consciousness "elsewhere than the body when the cortex is not functioning."

My only means of turning stuff on and off at the villa is if the router / computing is intact. My consciousness has not died with the router. But it has stopped me communicating with those who press the doorbell.

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.

By contrast, if you are on a zoom call and lose the connection, your mind is still there. It probably even raises to a level of consciousness above the level it had in the boring meeting. You are still conscious, but you lost that connection with the world.

But being under anesthesia is nothing like being on a zoom call with a broken connection. It is more like falling asleep and snoring in the middle of a zoom call with your boss.

There are other classes of evidence that imply that not all life forms have a body. Don’t think it’s the place to dwell on that here.

How can a lifeform have memories without something physical to store those memories? The only conceivable way to store a memory is if the state of something is different if one has memory X, compared with the state if one does not have memory X.

Science is limited in scope and has problems with analysing or modelling things that don’t repeat and can’t be repeated - and that is particularly true of consciousness and conscious experience of beings, rather than inanimate objects which are far more repeatable.

Ever hear of psychology and sociology? They are not as exact as chemistry or physics, but they successfully study people.

But all conscious experience IS anecdotal , and is the basis of all observation, which is the start point of science, so it is not a lower form of evidence.

No, my friend, anecdotal evidence does not have the same validity as rigid science.

If ever consciousness outside the body is accepted , then the entire narrative on consciousness ( or even abiogenesis) as solely a chemical process is severely damaged.

Dualism had been accepted for centuries. But the science of the mind expanded greatly when we moved on and recognized what the brain does.

Move on, please.

We know it is the brain that thinks.

 

[partinobodycular]

Not sure how you get that. From my understanding, metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which asserts that nothing exists externally to one's mind, and epistemological solipsism is the claim that one can only be sure of the existence of one's mind. I don't see how they are opposite positions.

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.

 

[partinobodycular]

I agree. I may be part of a computer programe that some alien kid is playing. There's no way to tell. But if I'm an evolved and indiviual biological entity OR some designed avatar, in both realities if we start to remove the material from inside either my head or the avatar's head...I'll become unconscious.

In whatever reality in which we might exist, that's a fact. It's demonstrable, repeateable and undeniable. Our brain and our consciousness are such that if we remove the former we lose the latter.

It will be the same with AI. Whatever we build/grow/programme into an AI unit to give it consciousness, if we then remove it, it will cease to be conscious.

How could it be any different?

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. Which is what I've been asserting all along, that consciousness may be caused by those underlying fields, and for all we know those underlying fields are due to the fact that we're not actual physical entities at all, we're AI's.

Question: can you be certain that you actually have a real physical brain and not just a simulated one?

 

[Mountainmike]

I'll call your bluff. Please point me to a peer-reviewed article that documents consciousness "elsewhere than the body when the cortex is not functioning."

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.

By contrast, if you are on a zoom call and lose the connection, your mind is still there. It probably even raises to a level of consciousness above the level it had in the boring meeting. You are still conscious, but you lost that connection with the world.

But being under anesthesia is nothing like being on a zoom call with a broken connection. It is more like falling asleep and snoring in the middle of a zoom call with your boss.


How can a lifeform have memories without something physical to store those memories? The only conceivable way to store a memory is if the state of something is different if one has memory X, compared with the state if one does not have memory X.


Ever hear of psychology and sociology? They are not as exact as chemistry or physics, but they successfully study people.


No, my friend, anecdotal evidence does not have the same validity as rigid science.


Dualism had been accepted for centuries. But the science of the mind expanded greatly when we moved on and recognized what the brain does.

Move on, please.

We know it is the brain that thinks.

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 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.

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".

Much of sociology is wishfu thinking and MUSH precisely because the animate is hard to experiment on. It has free will. Mixed emotional responses. it can decide to show up. Or not. It can act to frustrate or confirm an experiment deliberately.
For sure PATTERNS of behaviour can be measured. Persuasion and copywrighting split testing show that people are predicatble suckers! or "patzies" to use the phrase of cialdini who wrote the definitieve book. It has earned me a fair amount of money knowing just which phrases to use!. But that does not explain individual experience. One offs. Science cannot make progress with them.

Science struggles with conscious experiences, despite the fact they are at the base of all observations, which is the bedrock of science: the modelling of observation. Read such as the "science before science" Rizzi, to reacquaint with what science IS and what it can really tell you.

 

[partinobodycular]

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"

This is where you always overreach. Everybody who agrees with your position automatically becomes a consummate expert in their field.

The fact that you constantly do this makes your arguments less credible.

 

[Mountainmike]

This is where you always overreach. Everybody who agrees with your position automatically becomes a consummate expert in their field.

The fact that you constantly do this makes your arguments less credible.

Greyson IS the accepted medical expert in the field.
He developed the procedures for handling such cases which is why the accepted psychoanalytical test is called the "greyson" test.

You would respect the view of feynmann on physics? Yes?

I also respect - in other contexts - the consensus views of those who courts accept as experts. ie Forensic pathologists. As the courts rightly conclude - it makes arguments more credible, not less. Try it. Read the whole of Serafini, not just the irrelevant sideissues "you like"

 

[Bradskii]

It’s not “ what I want to believe”....

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.