Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?

[Magical Realist]

Seriously Sarkus? You return my devastating critique of your theory with a 12 scroller tap dance around the meaning of the word "illusion"? As if an involuntary illusion is suddenly somehow less of an illusion? Give me a break. Look, this isn't MY intepretation of anything. You were the one that claimed consciousness is an illusion and I simply took that to its logical consequences. If consciousness is an illusion then that means nothing we are conscious of is real. If I see a bowl of oranges on a table it means I'm not really seeing a bowl of oranges on a table but a mirage created by my own brain. It doesn't matter if you can help seeing the bowl of oranges or not. It's still an illusion and so is a false representation of what's really there. Wiggling out of this by saying well on a higher level it really IS consciousness is dishonest semantic sleight of hand. Surely I deserve better than this..;-)


In any case, this brings up an even deeper issue we should now address. Even if consciousness IS an illusion, you have yet to explain why there is the phenomenal experience of the illusion as such. Why are there these distinctive qualities of orangeness and roundness and smoothness in our consciousness of a bowl of oranges and how do physical chains of events in the brain even BEGIN to account for them? I refer here to Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness--why is there something it is like to be conscious? Physical brain processes can in no way account for the first hand phenomenal feel of consciousness we all experience all the time. There is in short an explanatory gap between physical brain processes and the subjective qualia of conscious experience that shows no signs of being bridged any time soon.

Finally, re: my taking minds and consciousness as basic irreducibles that are given in my experience, we do the same thing with many other properties. Mass, charge, space, time--all are basic phenomena we take as fundamental irreducibles and indeed must accept as given when building scientific theories. Noone seems to have any problem not explaining how these things come to be. Space and time I might add are NON-MATERIAL entities. Why do you have such a problem accepting consciousness as a non-material given entity then? It certainly seems to have to be assumed in every theory we advance and so shows all the signs of being an a priori fact of experience. Even your own theory assumes you have a correct conscious grasp of the real situation--that all consciousness is just an after-effect of synaptic processes. How is that an illusory consciousness can yet know reality thru scientific theory?

 

[Syne]

All moral, spiritual, and ethical values are false. Your moral outrage is a conditioned response to stimuli on the part of a physical organism.

Who said anything about moral outrage? According to you there is really no such thing to accuse anyone of, so your comment is completely vacuous. This also seems at odds with your earlier statement:

Of course there is still personal responsibility, that's a necessary social value.​

So do you think there is personal responsibility, or is it "false"?

Seems you either mean that personal responsibility is only the punitive enforcement of culpability upon the individual by society or that it is as illusory as you claim the sense of self. Either way, there is no real personal responsibility. Both place cause external to the individual, which then cannot truly be vested with any real sense of culpability. Any guilt could only be accrued to coincidence, not cause.

I´m not sure, but you seem to think any personal responsibility is due to fact society can (and does sometimes) punish those who violate its norms. I think it has other origins, when most effective (as if chance of being punished was all there is to it, many would think they are too clever and careful to get caught, and threat of punishment would not be very effective at making “personal responsibility.”)

You are right to say you are not sure, as that post was a direct response to determine what spidergoat's position was. IOW, I was only guessing at which he meant. I was not implying that these were the only options, only the ones seeming to align to his view.

This would tend to imply no personal responsibility could be installed by “God” unless you also believe some of the Bible´s quaint stories, like Lot´s wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she violated God´s instructions to not look back towards their old home, etc. Bad things do happen to both the “just” and the “evil” with no evident bias indicating God is handing out punishment to the evil (like Hitler) or rewarding the just (like making Beethoven deaf).

"Installed by god"? No, I do not think any such thing is necessary, as morality is largely only a matter of empathetic identification between humans, hence why anything that can be considered "alien" being so much easier to justify abusing. Nor do I have any cognitive dissonance over the problem of evil, as I do not find any logical inconsistency between evil and free will.

 

[Syne]

You continually fail, throughout your responses, to understand the implications - or lack thereof - of the difference in the understanding we have as to the nature of free-will. You fail to realise that, from a practical point of view, there is zero difference.
If consciousness / free-will et al are illusions, as I consider them to be, then they are illusions that are so pervasive, so perfect, that we can not escape from them.
You don't seem to understand the implications of things being illusory: that just because we understand them to be other than they consciously appear, we don't necessarily treat them, react to them, differently.

If for all intent and purpose a thing is not illusory then it is only equivocating to demand it be treated as such.

 

[Sarkus]

Seriously Sarkus? You return my devastating critique of your theory with a 12 scroller tap dance around the meaning of the word "illusion"? As if an involuntary illusion is suddenly somehow less of an illusion? Give me a break.

The fact that you considered it a "devastating critique" speaks volumes, I fear. And as for the term "illusion"... if someone says they consider something to be X and explain what they mean by X and why they think it to be X, and then you go off down a path of arguing a different usage of the term X, then you are committing a fallacy - creating a straw man, an argument that was never there.
If you can't accept the use of the term "illusion" and the meaning which I have explained in this context, then the issue is not with the argument but with you.

Look, this isn't MY intepretation of anything. You were the one that claimed consciousness is an illusion and I simply took that to its logical consequences.
If consciousness is an illusion then that means nothing we are conscious of is real. If I see a bowl of oranges on a table it means I'm not really seeing a bowl of oranges on a table but a mirage created by my own brain. It doesn't matter if you can help seeing the bowl of oranges or not. It's still an illusion and so is a false representation of what's really there.

You have failed to take it to its logical consequence, simply because you fail to realise that a change in understanding consciousness also requires changes in what we deem descriptors such as "real" to be. Things remain "real" to our consciousness regardless of what we deem consciousness to be... but yes, our understanding of what it means to be "real" might also change. But the relationship between the terms (consciousness and real) remain in tact.

Wiggling out of this by saying well on a higher level it really IS consciousness is dishonest semantic sleight of hand. Surely I deserve better than this..;-)

There is no "wiggling" out of anything - merely an effort to try and get you to understand where your arguments are flawed.

In any case, this brings up an even deeper issue we should now address. Even if consciousness IS an illusion, you have yet to explain why there is the phenomenal experience of the illusion as such. Why are there these distinctive qualities of orangeness and roundness and smoothness in our consciousness of a bowl of oranges and how do physical chains of events in the brain even BEGIN to account for them?

I don't know. But I won't jump on the necessity for a non-material overlay until I have explored more rational explanations.

I refer here to Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness--why is there something it is like to be conscious? Physical brain processes can in no way account for the first hand phenomenal feel of consciousness we all experience all the time. There is in short an explanatory gap between physical brain processes and the subjective qualia of conscious experience that shows no signs of being bridged any time soon.

The part I have bolded is an argument from personal incredulity. It can only be shown correct by first having a perfect understanding of all the brain processes, at all levels of complexity.
It is true that our understanding of physical brain processes can not yet explain such things - and yes, there is an explanatory gap at present - one we may never bridge.
But that does not mean we should roll out an additional requirement to cover the gap, and one that could well get smaller and smaller in scope as the gap is narrowed.

Finally, re: my taking minds and consciousness as basic irreducibles that are given in my experience, we do the same thing with many other properties. Mass, charge, space, time--all are basic phenomena we take as fundamental irreducibles and indeed must accept as given when building scientific theories. Noone seems to have any problem not explaining how these things come to be.

You are fallaciously equating basic properties that all matter can be measured against (mass, space etc) with properties that even you would agree only certain complex arrangements of mass has (e.g. consciousness). Or are you now saying that all matter is conscious??
That is why we treat them differently - because there is a categorical difference.
And you are confusing this further with issues of irreducibility.
And you don't think people have had problems explaining how mass, charge and space come to be???

Space and time I might add are NON-MATERIAL entities. Why do you have such a problem accepting consciousness as a non-material given entity then? It certainly seems to have to be assumed in every theory we advance and so shows all the signs of being an a priori fact of experience. Even your own theory assumes you have a correct conscious grasp of the real situation--that all consciousness is just an after-effect of synaptic processes.

You consider space and time to be non-material entities??? Now who's playing semantic game of shift-the-goal-posts.
I consider space and time to be dimensions, not entities. As such adjectives such as "material" and "non-material" are meaningless when applied - like talking about a kilogram of brown.
And no, it is not assumed in every theory we advance that consciousness is a non-material entity. A given (that we have it) yes, but not its nature... which is generally considered irrelevant to all except those discussing and investigating it.

How is that an illusory consciousness can yet know reality thru scientific theory?

Do you consider it to be impossible?
We can know our conscious interpretation of reality. We generally term that "reality". But we have long since known that our practical reality is merely an interpretation of our experience of any underlying reality. And science seeks to minimise subjectivity of interpretation to narrow down to as objective as we can.

 

[Sarkus]

If for all intent and purpose a thing is not illusory then it is only equivocating to demand it be treated as such.

Not at all - as doing so maintains the distinction between the conscious experience (that it is not illusory) and the underlying nature (that it is illusory).
If one is merely concerned with conscious experience and the interpretation by the consciousness of its own nature - then I might agree.
But the issue is one of the underlying nature, outside of the conscious experience of itself.

 

[Billy T]

... Magical Realists’ fundamental problem is confusing his interpretation of facts with the actual evidence. I.e. as evidence that they prove the existence of what he assumes is their cause. ... being conscious or having free will (neither of which seem to be possible even for a very complex set of interconnected “switches" (like transistors or neurons). This "That ain´t possible for set of switches feeling" is not necessarily a valid basis to postulate (and certainly does not prove) the reality of some "non-material" agent acting. ...

I.e. Sarkus & I prefer to say: "I don´t know how a complex set of switches (neurons) can give rise to qualia, being conscious, or feeling like we have free will and make decision with it," INSTEAD of taking our ignorance of how this happens to be proof of the existence of some non-material thing called a "soul" really does exist.

Ignorance alone is proof of nothing. To prove some non-material agent exists, is essentially impossible without some violation of known physics as only material things and their fields can influence the brain (or any other material object).

I am inclined to say free will is an illusion as there are now many experimental demonstrations showing that parts of the brain, not accessible to consciousness have made decisions, found solutions to problems, etc. that some seconds later one becomes conscious of and automatically assumes that they have made the decision, which in fact was made earlier.

Also supporting this POV are the many split brain experiences that show sincere and immediate fabrication of the "reason why" some action was done. For example the non-verbal half of the brain was shown a snow scene and the verbal half a barn with chickens around it. The hand controlled by the verbal half of brain was restrained and when person was told to pick up the toy tool that would be useful, the other hand immediately took the snow shovel. When then asked why he had selected the snow shovel, the immediate verbal reply with full confidence was: "Well chickens make quite a mess. I´ll need the shovel to clean out the barn."

We all often do not know why we do certain things but rarely are unable to tell some fabricated reason for our actions. Psychiatrist may (or may not) discover a deep reason in our childhood history, but there is no way to know if their reason is more correct that the one we believe (have fabricated) except in these split brain experiments. In the case just described, the hand that chose the snow shovel was controlled by the side of the brain that had seen the snow storm and accumulated snow.
SUMMARY: Just because we strongly and sincerely believe something is true, even about our own actions, that not evidence it is true. We all believe we have free will, make choices consciously with it, etc. but To quote Porgy: “It ain´t necessarily so.” Free will could be only a universal illusion. Consciousness, OTH, is the most real thing that any one person knows to be true by direct experience. All else could just be illusion as Bishop Berkeley suggested more than 300 years ago.

 

[wellwisher]

We tend to focus our attention on brain hardware when we look for consciousness. We tend to avoid looking at brain software and firmware. The latter two are the real locations where consciousness will be found.

As an analogy, say we have a computer that is doing a simulation. If you look for a hardware explanation for this simulation, you might be able to find all the aspects of the hardware that participate in the simulation. But that will never be enough, because something will always be missing, since this is a software generated simulation.

I could put another disk into the same computer and get the same hardware profile; different software company. The difference is the software not the hardware profile.

To investigate brain software, subroutines and firmware, you need to approach the problem like any software person would do. You need to look at the code, which will not be obvious if you only look at hardware. We can have different people but same hardware. It is possible to look at the software and code, but it can only done from the inside.

Our consciousness allows an interface to the brain's software, firmware and hardware. If I have a day dream, this cannot be seen completely at the level of hardware. It can only be seen by my consciousness interface to the brain. Like a computer, if you know how to generate or print out of code or can use terminal services, you can also go deep into the software, firmware and operating system.

It amazes me that with modern computer analogy, modern science lacks common sense. This lack of common sense is why there is no consensus theory of consciousness. It is not explained by hardware alone.

 

[Magical Realist]

I.e. Sarkus & I prefer to say: "I don´t know how a complex set of switches (neurons) can give rise to qualia, being conscious, or feeling like we have free will and make decision with it," INSTEAD of taking our ignorance of how this happens to be proof of the existence of some non-material thing called a "soul" really does exist.

In fact you both admit the existence of a non-material thing, only you slyly hope we don't notice by calling it something else--an illusion or a simulation. Yet an illusion or simulation is just as immaterial as a soul or mind is, and while you pretend it is somehow easier to understand how a material brain can give rise to these than to a soul or mind, in fact it isn't at all. Illusions and simulations are afterall MENTAL phenomena. They exist totally within minds, not within matter or atoms or brains or anything physical at all. Even your model of a brain-generated simulation, which hinges more on computer simulations as metaphor that as anything else, pressupposes a conscious viewer of the simulation sitting inside the brain. Afterall, a simulation running inside an empty room is no simulation at all is it? Your metaphor of a simulation running for nobody in particular is as ridiculous as that of the cartesian theater which requires the positing of a tiny homonculus who is sitting inside the theater viewing it all.

In view of that, that we in fact our both stuck with non-material phenomena in our theories, at least I am honest enough to admit that mine--the mind--really does exist and cannot be hand-waved away as something with another name. Fess up then and admit you are no closer to explaining how non-material things like illusions and simulations can arise from mere matter than I am to explaining how mind can. IOW, you accept them as non-material irreducibles that just somehow happen to poof out of brain synapses. Welcome to dualism my friends..

 

[Sarkus]

In fact you both admit the existence of a non-material thing, only you slyly hope we don't notice by calling it something else--an illusion or a simulation. Yet an illusion or simulation is just as immaterial as a soul or mind is...

Then you admit that your "soul" or "mind" is material in nature... just as we hold the illusion/simulation to be so?

...and while you pretend it is somehow easier to understand how a material brain can give rise to these than to a soul or mind, in fact it isn't at all. Illusions and simulations are afterall MENTAL phenomena. They exist totally within minds, not within matter or atoms or brains or anything physical at all.

They only exist from the point of view of consciousness, that is true. But calling something a "mental" phenomena does not in any way answer what "mental" phenomena actually are.
You seem to think that it is sufficient to call something "mental" and by doing so prove that it is non-material. To me "mental" is merely a word for a process - but that process is material in nature.

In view of that, that we in fact our both stuck with non-material phenomena in our theories...

No - we are not both "stuck" with non-material phenomena.

...at least I am honest enough to admit that mine--the mind--really does exist and cannot be hand-waved away as something with another name.

I admit that the mind exists - but that it exists the same way a process exists. Does "running" exist? Or is it a process. You would probably argue that it is a non-material entity - a fundamental property that we can ascribe to matter along the lines of mass, space etc?

Fess up then and admit you are no closer to explaining how non-material things like illusions and simulations can arise from mere matter than I am to explaining how mind can.

The issue is not how close one is to explaining things, it is a matter of understanding in the first instance what the building blocks are. Are we closer to explaining how matter can give rise to consciousness than those who try to explain what a soul is? Yes, we are. There is evidence for matter. There is the self-evidence of this concept called consciousness. The gap is in the explanation. Yours is in actually evidencing the non-material. Do that and you will take a leap forward, but to date noone has managed it.

IOW, you accept them as non-material irreducibles that just somehow happen to poof out of brain synapses. Welcome to dualism my friends..

I think yours and our understanding of what it is to be "non-material" is vastly different.
Do you consider activity to be non-material?

 

[Syne]

Not at all - as doing so maintains the distinction between the conscious experience (that it is not illusory) and the underlying nature (that it is illusory).
If one is merely concerned with conscious experience and the interpretation by the consciousness of its own nature - then I might agree.
But the issue is one of the underlying nature, outside of the conscious experience of itself.

That is just it. There is no compelling evidence that it is fundamentally an illusion, so as long as it is not functionally distinguishable, there is simply no reason to doubt the conscious experience. We do not doubt evidence without counter-evidence.

 

[Sarkus]

That is just it. There is no compelling evidence that it is fundamentally an illusion, so as long as it is not functionally distinguishable, there is simply no reason to doubt the conscious experience. We do not doubt evidence without counter-evidence.

Noone is doubting the experience. Noone has ever said that we should, or argued for doing so.
All that is being discussed is the underlying nature of the experience - i.e. what gives rise to it... with the two main camps being those who posit a non-material overlay to the material realm, and those who think it arises/emerges from mere matter and material interaction.

And noone is doubting the evidence - merely the interpretation of that evidence.
The evidence we do have does rationally (at least to me) lead to it being an illusion... we have evidence that matter exists... we have the self-evidenced existence of consciousness. To m the rational conclusion is that one gives rise to the other. The irrational conclusion is that it doesn't and that there must be some other "non-material" cause of consciousness, and we have no evidence for such non-materiality.

The idea that consciousness is an illusion stems from this - but this in and of itself does not nor can not alter our conscious experiences as these occur at the level of consciousness (i.e. they only have meaning at the conscious level). Once we agree that consciousness exists (and we all do) then anything that happens at the level of consciousness remains the same for all. All that can change is our understanding of the underlying nature - of the levels beneath consciousness.

 

[Magical Realist]

Then you admit that your "soul" or "mind" is material in nature... just as we hold the illusion/simulation to be so?

What? I said no such thing. I said illusions and simulations are NON-material phenomena just as the soul and mind are.

They only exist from the point of view of consciousness, that is true. But calling something a "mental" phenomena does not in any way answer what "mental" phenomena actually are.
You seem to think that it is sufficient to call something "mental" and by doing so prove that it is non-material. To me "mental" is merely a word for a process - but that process is material in nature.

Here we go again with the habitual redefining of words into non-existence. In point of fact mental has a very well-understood and clear definition, and it in no way suggests synonomy with words like "process" and "activity". If that were the case then we could describe heat , or photosynthesis, or the decay of radioactive elements, as mental phenomena. Mental in fact is well understood to be antinomious to physical and material. When I say illusion is a mental phenomenon, I am saying it is not physical or material. It is mental. It occurs entirely IN the mind, and not just from the pov of the mind. That's why we consistently and intelligibly say humans have illusions and not rocks and trees and tricycles. IOW, it is NOT a material process.

No - we are not both "stuck" with non-material phenomena.

Asserting the existence of mental phenomena like illusions is precisely acknowledging the existence of non-material phenomena. There is simply no way around this..

I admit that the mind exists - but that it exists the same way a process exists. Does "running" exist? Or is it a process. You would probably argue that it is a non-material entity - a fundamental property that we can ascribe to matter along the lines of mass, space etc?

I concede that the mind probably is a process, perhaps more a spatio-temporal structure than a material one. But the essential distinctive meaning of the word "mind" is not just as process. It is as defined entirely distinct from matter and has been understood that way for centuries. If you want to redefine it go ahead, but don't expect people to have any idea what you're talking about when you use the term.

The issue is not how close one is to explaining things, it is a matter of understanding in the first instance what the building blocks are. Are we closer to explaining how matter can give rise to consciousness than those who try to explain what a soul is? Yes, we are. There is evidence for matter. There is the self-evidence of this concept called consciousness.

By admitting the existence of consciousness, even if only as an illusion or hallucination, you have already acknowledged the existence of immaterial realities. Space, time, numbers, equations, the quantum vacuum, qualia, geometric forms, etc. Reality as given is teeming with instances of immaterial entities. Oh, and don't get paranoid. I use "entity" in its defined sense as any THING that exists.

The gap is in the explanation. Yours is in actually evidencing the non-material. Do that and you will take a leap forward, but to date noone has managed it.

Evidencing the presence of the non-material is as simple as evidencing the presence of the material. Just observe it. Both are given parallel irreducibles of our daily experience. Your little game of redefining words to support your agenda of materialist monism just won't work on me. I know what words mean and I know what I experience firsthand. We are no more justified to dismiss mind as illusory than we are to dismiss matter is illusory. They are both there from the start.

I think yours and our understanding of what it is to be "non-material" is vastly different.
Do you consider activity to be non-material?

Activity as in energy? Yes..it is non-material. Einstein showed that energy CAN be converted into matter and vice versa, but they are not the same thing. There is a real given difference between the two.

 

[Billy T]

In fact you both admit the existence of a non-material thing, only you slyly hope we don't notice by calling it something else--an illusion or a simulation.

Yes non-material things do exist, but only when one distinguishes between their information and the material form it is embodied in. For example one can speak of the computer program Excel as existing information, but it only really exist when installed, in one of many different computers or the logic in someone’s brain. If not logical ideas in some brain or other hard ware, Excel does not exist.

A simulation of a fire running in a computer exists, even if no one watches it just as the moon exist if no one is looking at it but like Excel, a simulation only exists if it is "embodied and running" in some physical network.

... Illusions and simulations are after all MENTAL phenomena. They exist totally within minds, not within matter or atoms or brains or anything physical at all.

No. as just explained both only exist when "embodied." It is an act of faith, with no supporting evidence to believe mind, soul or illusion exist without being embodied in some processor, not necessarily a human brain.

Even your model of a brain-generated simulation, which hinges more on computer simulations as metaphor that as anything else, presupposes a conscious viewer of the simulation sitting inside the brain.

Not what I have said or stated. I have said "I" am a component of the RTS, that when it is not running, say in deep sleep, "I" do not exist. You are very close to asserting that for someone to have a visual experience their must be in their brain a little observer - usually called the "homunculus." This POV is easily reduced to an absurd one by noting that this homunculus also needs a homunculus if it to see etc. for an infinite regress. My POV is I am not watching the simulation, but created as part of it - I.e. "I" am "embodied information" "I" am not directly material. Since I am not material, my having free will is no violation of any physical law as they apply only to material objects. This is no proof that free will is more than an illusion "I'" suffer from, but at least my POV about "me" being non-material but embodied information that could have free will is not in conflict with the physical laws.

... Fess up then and admit you are no closer to explaining how non-material things like illusions and simulations can arise from mere matter than I am to explaining how mind can.

Most illusions are well understood, how the brain´s processes create them. Perhaps I (and you also) should define an "Illusion" - For me an illusion is a real perception or experience presumed to be about something that exist in the external 3D world that does not conform to the external world´s object in one or more details.

For example seeing a green spot on a white wall of the same shape as the red spot you fixated on earlier for several minutes is an illusion, well understood in terms of neural fatigue by the minutes of fixation on the real red spot PLUS the neurological well established fact that there is in V4 a red/green neural axis where, crudely speaking, white light excites the red and green activity equally. Then after fixation the white light from the white wall can not fully excite the fatigued "red sensitive neurons" so the normal balance with the "green sensitive neurons" viewing white light makes is not produced leaving an temporary excess for green activity. - The well understood illusion of seeing a green spot on the white wall of same shape the real red spot had.

Unfortunately man´s progress in understanding some other illusions of the brain (like hearing voices, seeing ghosts, etc. are not yet as well understood.) How qualia or mind or free will arise is not yet well understood. MY RTS POV at least removes the conflict between what is known (neurons being physical follow the natural laws) and free will, but it does not prove free will is less of an illusion than the briefly seen green spot on a white wall is an illusion.

IOW, you accept them as non-material irreducibles that just somehow happen to poof out of brain synapses. Welcome to dualism my friends..

No not my POV at all. Just because I can not now explain something in terms of simple well know neural properties does not mean it is not reducible to more simple processes. Once sound and temperature were thought to be irreducible, but now we understand them in terms of molecular motions. I think I made in my long published paper a reduction to known neural properties how the Gestalt law of "good continuation" is achieved by neurons - a reduction of what was once an irreducible fact. here is brief outline of how for simple case:

... {post 250 in part} I, with in a day or two, also realized that I could explain the Gestalt law of "good continuation" entirely with known properties of neurons - not some higher level and waving arguments. The law of good continuation lets you perceive one cat on the other side of picket fence, (not a bunch of "cat slices") etc. Here is how:

Imagine that ---- is part of the cat´s contrast boundary with say even more distant grass that is visible thru the fence and that .... is part of the cat´s boundary that is INvisible, because direct vision of it is blocked by the vertical planks of the picket fence.

Then a section of the cat boundary (slightly curved, but I can´t make that in this illustration) the ---- parts of which are directly stimulating V1 is:

----....----....----....----.... etc.
Let me call the four ---- s "A" the left most, "B", "C" & "D and the four cat boundary sections blocked by the picket fence, the .... s, "a" "b" "c" & "d"

The right most neural cells of seen cat boundary "A" and the left most neural cells of seen cat boundary "B" will not for first few ms be oscillation at same frequency but each will be trying to excite the blocked parts "a" (and b,c,d ....s like wise by BC, CD etc.) of UNseen cat boundary between "A" & "B" that is also horizontal in my "typed illustration" here. Thus with in a few cycles, the gap between "A"&"B" will have induced activity of these blocked same "a" orientation line detector neurons. I.e. in 20 or so ms both "A" horizontal line detector neurons AND "B" horizontal line detector neurons are locked together in one oscillation frequency (and of course "C" and "D" are also oscillating with that same frequency as is the entire closed boundary contour of the cat, directly seen or not).

All later stages of the brain know is which neurons are locked in mutual oscillation, at the same frequency. They don´t actually know if that common frequency of these neurons was the result of direct stimulation or of indirect, induced stimulation by directly stimulated neurons. That is the entire closed boundary of the cat in a few ms has locally mutually oriented H&W line detectors all oscillation at the same frequency - as if the picket fence were not there! This is how, I think neurons both parse the cat as one object (TAGGED BY A FREQUENCE DIFFERENT IN PHASE AND FREQUENCY) from other near or even adjoining objects that in the visual field are in contact with it and how the Gestalt law of good continuation is achieved BY KNOWN PROPERTIES OF NEURONS , not "hand-waving" words. (My 1994 paper deals with more complex than "behind a picket fence" cases, and several other important problems that had no purely neuronal level solutions.)

SUMMARY: YES, for 20+ years, I have believed the mutually self stimulating Hubel & Wiesel line detectors lock into a closed boundary neural oscillation loop of objects (even if part are not directly stimulated as blocked by some closer object). All objects oscillation at one unique frequency phase & and even the object´s distinct characteristic that deconstructed and separated into different neural tissue for further processing are "frequency tagged" together still. ...

 

[Syne]

That is just it. There is no compelling evidence that it is fundamentally an illusion, so as long as it is not functionally distinguishable, there is simply no reason to doubt the conscious experience. We do not doubt evidence without counter-evidence.

Noone is doubting the experience. Noone has ever said that we should, or argued for doing so.
All that is being discussed is the underlying nature of the experience - i.e. what gives rise to it... with the two main camps being those who posit a non-material overlay to the material realm, and those who think it arises/emerges from mere matter and material interaction.

Perhaps I should have said "no reason to doubt the factual face value of conscious experience", as I did not mean to imply that there was any doubt of the existence of the experience itself. That would be rather silly to doubt.

And noone is doubting the evidence - merely the interpretation of that evidence.
The evidence we do have does rationally (at least to me) lead to it being an illusion... we have evidence that matter exists... we have the self-evidenced existence of consciousness. To m the rational conclusion is that one gives rise to the other. The irrational conclusion is that it doesn't and that there must be some other "non-material" cause of consciousness, and we have no evidence for such non-materiality.

If there is any "non-material cause" then it is obvious that the methodology you rely on to form your conclusion is wholly inadequate to the question. Quite aside from the fact that correlation does not imply causation and the fact that we know of quantum phenomena that is indeterministic. Even with just material existence, we know that a single input can have an unpredictable output. This means there is more than enough reason to, at least, hold an agnostic position as to the fundamental cause of consciousness.

The statement that "we have no evidence for such non-materiality" is logically incoherent. That is like saying we have no evidence for the diameter of a square. Rational people do not expect logical impossibilities to carry their reasoning.

The idea that consciousness is an illusion stems from this - but this in and of itself does not nor can not alter our conscious experiences as these occur at the level of consciousness (i.e. they only have meaning at the conscious level). Once we agree that consciousness exists (and we all do) then anything that happens at the level of consciousness remains the same for all. All that can change is our understanding of the underlying nature - of the levels beneath consciousness.

Actually, it has been found that the belief in free will definitely does have an impact on actual behavior, so the belief that it is an illusion definitely does alter our experience in a way quantifiable in our behavior (i.e. they have demonstrable meaning in the real world). http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/04/22/changing-belief-in-free-will-c/

 

[Syne]

Evidencing the presence of the non-material is as simple as evidencing the presence of the material. Just observe it. Both are given parallel irreducibles of our daily experience. Your little game of redefining words to support your agenda of materialist monism just won't work on me. I know what words mean and I know what I experience firsthand. We are no more justified to dismiss mind as illusory than we are to dismiss matter is illusory. They are both there from the start.

Good point. It is an equally valid conjecture that everything we perceive, including the matter, is illusory. And if that were the case then we could only assume the mind to be the fundamental reality. Once you start down the road of assuming things illusion, you quickly erode any basis for asserting anything otherwise than illusion. Especially when what you claim as illusion is the very thing we use to define anything otherwise.

 

[Magical Realist]

Uh no Billy. Simulations are not somehow magically conscious of themselves even when they aren't simulating to a conscious observer. Observation by an outside observer is part of the process, which is why simulations always have a video screen that can be observed.There is no simulation of anything going on without this. Being a simulation doesn't mean anything is being simulated either. A computerprogram IS the simulation. But we do not therefore suppose the program is experiencing the simulation. It is your overliteralized metaphor here that is necessitating the absurd conclusion of a homoculus because a simulation ALWAYS requires an observer. You have iow solved nothing. Consciousness now only resides one level deeper as the one to whom the simulation is happening.

 

[Magical Realist]

Good point. It is an equally valid conjecture that everything we perceive, including the matter, is illusory. And if that were the case then we could only assume the mind to be the fundamental reality. Once you start down the road of assuming things illusion, you quickly erode any basis for asserting anything otherwise than illusion. Especially when what you claim as illusion is the very thing we use to define anything otherwise.

It has occurred to me once before how materialism logically ends up in solipsism just a easily as idealism does. IOW, saying consciousness is an illusion entails that the physical world is just as much of an illusion. With the idealist otoh since the physical world is an illusion then consciousness isn't consciousness of anything anymore and becomes just as illusory. This is a strong argument for dualism imo. That we have to accept as given both mind AND matter and assume the irreducibility of one to the other.

 

[Syne]

It has occurred to me once before how materialism logically ends up in solipsism just a easily as idealism does. IOW, saying consciousness is an illusion entails that the physical world is just as much of an illusion. With the idealist otoh since the physical world is an illusion then consciousness isn't consciousness of anything anymore and becomes just as illusory. This is a strong argument for dualism imo. That we have to accept as given both mind AND matter and assume the irreducibility of one to the other.

I would tend to agree, and I did have solipsism, as a reductio ad absurdum, in mind as I wrote that. I do agree that dualism is the only viable option that does not lead to everything ultimately being illusory. Even if we assume everything an illusion, we are forced to assume some form of dualism, as there is a necessary division between that which perceives the illusion and that which generates the illusion, even if only a mental division akin to split personality or even just conscious/subconscious.

Anything that brings the source of consciousness into question necessarily brings the source of everything perceived by consciousness into question as well. That is logically unavoidable. In such a case, the objectivity enforced by the methodology of science is absolutely no guarantee that there is anything objectively real other than consistent rules that preside over such illusion that people can agree upon.

 

[Sarkus]

It has occurred to me once before how materialism logically ends up in solipsism just a easily as idealism does. IOW, saying consciousness is an illusion entails that the physical world is just as much of an illusion.

You are again appear to be confusing illusory with it being somehow "non-real", rather than merely leading to a different understanding of what "real" means.
Does an illusionist disappear from stage the moment you realise that he is performing illusions rather than the magic it appears?
Are your observations/evidence not the same whether you think it real magic or illusory? The only difference is in ones interpretation of those observations/evidence - and perhaps from a practical point of view it makes no difference to you.
Does your brain suddenly stop seeing optical illusions?
Do mirages not still appear even though you know them to be different than what they appear?

If you wish to argue this line of materialism logically ending up in solipsism you're going to have to do a good deal better than just saying so - and at least start with your logical analysis.

 

[Syne]

You are again appear to be confusing illusory with it being somehow "non-real", rather than merely leading to a different understanding of what "real" means.

If the illusion is other than the fundamental material reality you claim then it is necessary "non-real". If the perception reflects reality then the distinction is meaningless, as you are only arguing what you "call" it (semantics), not what it actually is.