Recalled Experience of Death (RED)

[Sriram]

By premise, do you mean 'hypothesis'? That's fine, put forward your hypothesis by all means, but to elevate a premise from mere guesswork to an hypothesis requires that it somehow be testable. You have to have not just a guess, but a mechanism (even a notional one) by which your hypothesis can be validated or refuted. So far as I can see you don't have that. You have no mechanism by which this non-corporeal element of consciousness can be shown to interact with the physical, no way of establishing that it exists beyond personal conviction of some people's subjective experiences during extreme trauma.

That's not a reliable mechanism for determining the validity of the claim - I could shamelessly steal someone else's idea and suggest that we're conscious because Leprechauns were throwing their intangible rainbow gold at us the evidentiary support for that claim would be absolutely the same. Instinctively I feel that's an even more outlandish suggestion (although not by much) but I have no factual basis to support that feeling, just as I have no factual basis for supporting either contention at all.

I do have a strong evidentiary basis for thinking that consciousness and the brain are intrinsically linked - which, so far as I can tell, you agree with - but I don't see any intrinsic problem with accepting the notion that we don't NEED anything else in the equation to make it work. Why do we need something more than brain activity to account for consciousness?

O.

The consciousness - brain connection is not as simple as all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

[Nearly Sane]

The consciousness - brain connection is not as simple as all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Even allowing for the hard problem being correct, snd not every agrees that it is as your link shows, none of that is at odds with Outrider's post.

ETA - nothing in the hard problem as it is formulated by Chalmers has any connection to 'REDs' as discussed here. I think you are misunderstanding it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The consciousness - brain connection is not as simple as all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

The hard problem of consciousness tells you nothing at all about your un-argued and un-evidenced claims of consciousness operating independent of minds. Nor by the way does it refute any of the numerous corrections you've been given about the multiple wrong arguments you've attempted here.   

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram,

The hard problem of consciousness tells you nothing at all about your un-argued and un-evidenced claims of consciousness operating independent of minds. Nor by the way does it refute any of the numerous corrections you've been given about the multiple wrong arguments you've attempted here.   

Arguably it undermines some of the NDE approach in that it means that arguing for commonality of experience in terms of tunnels of light etc is impossible.

[Outrider]

The consciousness - brain connection is not as simple as all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

The hard problem of consciousness is that we don't currently have a full explanation, it doesn't rule out the possibility of an explanation in any way. I've posited a number of questions, and you've erroneously cited something that itself, and in your incorrect usage, fails to address any of them.

You have no reliable evidence for a non-corporeal element to consciousness.

You have no reliable methodology by which you might demonstrate such an idea.

You have no counter to the corporeal model which necessitates a non-corporeal component.

I have an open mind to any explanations you think you have, but you don't offer any. You offer poor criticism of the current models, sometimes, and the rest of the time pleas to complexity (which is just an argument from personal incredulity masquerading as independent) and nudge-nudge-wink-wink spirituality in scepticism's clothing.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The hard problem of consciousness is that we don't currently have a full explanation, it doesn't rule out the possibility of an explanation in any way.

...

O.

I agree with most of the post but most formulations of the 'hard problem' is that it isn't explainable in the terms of the 'question'. Even so, none of that backs up the idea of consciousness not being biological.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The hard problem of consciousness is that we don't currently have a full explanation, it doesn't rule out the possibility of an explanation in any way. I've posited a number of questions, and you've erroneously cited something that itself, and in your incorrect usage, fails to address any of them.

You have no reliable evidence for a non-corporeal element to consciousness.

You have no reliable methodology by which you might demonstrate such an idea.

You have no counter to the corporeal model which necessitates a non-corporeal component.

I have an open mind to any explanations you think you have, but you don't offer any. You offer poor criticism of the current models, sometimes, and the rest of the time pleas to complexity (which is just an argument from personal incredulity masquerading as independent) and nudge-nudge-wink-wink spirituality in scepticism's clothing.

O.

promissory materialism.
How do we distinguish between a conscious entity and one without consciousness but great intelligence?

[Outrider]

promissory materialism.

Erudite pigeon?

I'm afraid, Mr Bond, I don't have a copy of today's code book, perhaps you could try speaking in whole sentences?

How do we distinguish between a conscious entity and one without consciousness but great intelligence?

Do we need to? Is there a difference? What consciousness is hasn't really been a part of the discussion - if you can show something that necessitates a differentiation between 'intelligence' (for any given definition of that) and 'consciousness' (for any given definition of that) it'd be of great use to Sriram who's trying to find something to support his contestation that consciousness has to have an external, non-corporeal source.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Erudite pigeon?

I'm afraid, Mr Bond, I don't have a copy of today's code book, perhaps you could try speaking in whole sentences?

....

O.

Promissory materialism was recently raised in yhe Mind and Consciousness thread, see link. It's used in the video and had been used by Vlad sometime previously, as is covered in the thread. I think it's originally a term of Popper's, and is the idea of 'we can't explain it now but we will'.

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21250.msg880710#msg880710

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Arguably it undermines some of the NDE approach in that it means that arguing for commonality of experience in terms of tunnels of light etc is impossible.

Yes, though that’s true too of all descriptions of objective, “out there” reality because they all rely on commonality of experience, which is axiomatic. Here's the Mary’s Room thought experiment: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument#:~:text=The%20experiment%20describes%20Mary%2C%20a,actually%20experienced%20it%20for%20herself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Erudite pigeon?

I'm afraid, Mr Bond, I don't have a copy of today's code book, perhaps you could try speaking in whole sentences?

By way of context, after countless attempts at straw manning his interlocutors with the charges of “scientism” and “physicalism” – ie, that all of reality must ultimately be explicable in material terms using the scientific method – Vlad has now retrenched instead to the less strident “promissory materialism” – ie, that materialism has the promise of ultimately explaining everything. That may or may not be true, but it’s not a claim that anyone here makes either so it’s another straw man but he seems to think it’s less egregiously wrong than his previous straw men so he's relocated to it.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, though that’s true too of all descriptions of objective, “out there” reality because they all rely on commonality of experience, which is axiomatic. Here's the Mary’s Room thought experiment: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument#:~:text=The%20experiment%20describes%20Mary%2C%20a,actually%20experienced%20it%20for%20herself.

  As a generic problem, yes, but the specific issue here is Sriram using the 'hard problem' of consciousness, which is related to Mary's Room, to back up a claim that it undermines.

[Alan Burns]

Why do we need something more than brain activity to account for consciousness?

O.

There is no feasible explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
Correlation does not define causation.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no feasible explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
Correlation does not define causation.

Using the word 'feasible' here means you are claiming omniscience. Are you omniscient?

And that's leaving aside begging the question of 'single entity'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

  As a generic problem, yes, but the specific issue here is Sriram using the 'hard problem' of consciousness, which is related to Mary's Room, to back up a claim that it undermines.

As I suggested, the hard problem of consciousness offers no support at all to Sriram notwithstanding that he seemed to think it does. As a “for or against” argument though it seems to me to be neutral in its effect too – we just have to assume as our axiom that we share experiences because if we don’t then all bets are off.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is no feasible explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
Correlation does not define causation.

You continue to manage to pack a lot of wrong into very few words.

1. How do you know that there is no feasible explanation, and what objective measure of "feasible" are you attempting here?

2. At one level my car is a single entity, but it’s also a large number of interacting parts. The same goes for brains, only with trillions more interacting parts. What makes you so sure that such a vast number of real time interactions couldn’t give rise to consciousness?

3. Regardless of your guessing about this, what “feasible explanation” do you have for a supposed “soul” doing the thinking instead? In other words, what makes you think that a jig-saw puzzle with some of the parts is less likely to indicate the final picture than a jig-saw puzzle with no parts at all? 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

As I suggested, the hard problem of consciousness offers no support at all to Sriram notwithstanding that he seemed to think it does. As a “for or against” argument though it seems to me to be neutral in its effect too – we just have to assume as our axiom that we share experiences because if we don’t then all bets are off.

Except the 'hard' problem is based around a rejection of the axiom.

[torridon]

There is no feasible explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.
Correlation does not define causation.

That we haven't figured out all the details does not require of us to deny that it happens somehow. Brains evolved the capacity to integrate multiple multi modal sensory input streams into a single experiential flow eons ago and they do it so effortlessly that some people mistake it for magic, or so it seems.

[Sriram]

The fact that Consciousness uses the brain as a platform but is essentially independent of it....is not magic. It is just reality.

[Sriram]

The only way the hard problem of consciousness can be explained is by realizing that consciousness is a basic property of the soul that exists independent of the body/brain.  The body and brain are only platforms....like a computer hardware being used by a human.

[torridon]

The fact that Consciousness uses the brain as a platform but is essentially independent of it....is not magic. It is just reality.

It's not a 'reality' as there is no evidence to support this assertion

[torridon]

The only way the hard problem of consciousness can be explained is by realizing that consciousness is a basic property of the soul that exists independent of the body/brain.  The body and brain are only platforms....like a computer hardware being used by a human.

Another baseless assertion.  We don't have any evidence for souls, so how can anything be a property of them ? 

You're away with the fairies it seems.

[Nearly Sane]

The only way the hard problem of consciousness can be explained is by realizing that consciousness is a basic property of the soul that exists independent of the body/brain.  The body and brain are only platforms....like a computer hardware being used by a human.

That's like saying the only way to make a car go faster is to imagine powerful unicorns pulling it.

[ekim]

That's like saying the only way to make a car go faster is to imagine powerful unicorns pulling it.

... or by increasing its phlogiston levels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. Brains evolved the capacity to integrate multiple multi modal sensory input streams into a single experiential flow eons ago...

Hahahahaha I absolutely love that.
Have you thought of working for Dolby Audio you'd be great.