Why reductive explanations of consciousness must fail

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Fliption
It seems to me that if you have no emperical evidence either way, then philosophical implications would certainly influence the focus of experiments and scientific theories. It seems absurd to ignore logical contradictions as if you can actually prove in a lab that 2+2 equals 5.

I've asked the question before, how does science ever conclude when something can no longer be reduced? How long does it try before it concludes that something is fundamental to nature? Does it just assume that existence is infinitely reducable?

You can ask yourself if reducing 'events' to mathematical points isn't oversimplifying and brings wrong conclusions. Just think about non-commutative math; (a sock over a shoe is not the same a shoe over the sock).
In a specific spacetime geometric approach it can be proven that adding 1 to 2 is not the same as adding 2 to 1, you get another result.

 

[metacristi]

Canute

You have a very strange idea of the relationship between deduction and induction. These 'philosophical objections' are no more or less than logical objections. You can't just ignore them. The hypothesis that consciousness can be reduced to matter is a philosophical conjecture. It's got nothing to do with observations. There has never been a single scientific observation that suggests it is true.

If you have not yet understood that science does not make final claims there is nothing to add.I refrain to add more...I don't have the time (or patience) to teach you some basic notions of pure philosophy or philosophy of science.No one claim that philosophy is not involved in science,on the contrary,the roots of science lie deep in philosophy.But not all philosophical ideas are science or,even more important,automatically true.

Sometimes mental experiments are useful to show that a certain assumption implies a contradiction with the already accepted knowledge.But this coherentist approach is not always relevant,for example some quantum mechanics ideas are not coherent with the classical approach (the existence of quantas of energy and so on).

Anyway I do not think we have to use the above argument in this case,simply the philosophical arguments against the emergent computational conjecture do not involve such final contradictions.On the contrary there are very good physicalist philosophical answers at the objections put forward by the 'qualia' sustainers.I'm afraid only the experiment can settle things in a sound way.

Till then we have a conjecture,the best we could achieve so far,that works well in the case of all evidence we have though,in my opinion,is far away from giving us sufficient reasons to consider it (approximatively) correct.I even doubt that neurology alone is enough.But I cannot deny that the actual approach is the best possible approach of the moment,derived from all experimental evidence we have now.

Science tries to find the causes,necessary and/or sufficient,that produce the conscious experience.Based on them an explanation is proposed,a tentative theory which make also new predictions apart from accomodating the already observed facts.From all empirical evidence we have so far it was proposed such a conjecture,an attempt to explain consciousness,successful for the moment,but which we must test further.A fallible conjecture,we do not even have a holistic hypothesis to test further (as I said we do not know all relevant necessary or sufficient causes that produce conscious experience,based on which to propose a detailed hypothesis).Representing the best we could do as of know,in the light of all evidence we have.No final claims are involved here.

The fact that some physicalists pretend,from observed facts,that science can surely explain consciousness is no better than your positive assertion for we are far away from having a holistic hypothesis extensively tested practically (or at least an android I talked about previously).Such considerations can count at most as philosophical assumptions.It is possible to be so indeed but for the moment we do not have sufficient reasons,derived from evidence,to think it will really be so.All unbiased scientists will recognize there is still a lot of work to do.

It is true now that science has as an axiom the assumption that nature can be understood but the introduction of this axiom was absolutely necessary for the internal coherence of the scientific method.We do not have sufficient reasons to believe it is true in absolute (axioms do not automatically entail belief in them).Indeed the existence of sufficient experimental arguments against would lead inevitably to its demise.But certainly neither have we the right to make the positive claim that consciousness,for example,cannot be understood by science,from all knowledge we have so far.

 

[Fliption]

Metacrista, I could be wrong but I don't believe that anyone has made the claim that science cannot understand nature. I don't think anyone is disputing this assumption. I think the philosophical position being discussed here is whether consciousness can be reductively explained or is it a fundamental aspect of reality. So I'll ask my question again...

"When does science consider something as fundamental?" "How long does it attempt to reduce before it concedes?" I'm sure there is an answer to this but no one has answered it yet.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by metacristi
Canute

If you have not yet understood that science does not make final claims there is nothing to add.I refrain to add more...I don't have the time (or patience) to teach you some basic notions of pure philosophy or philosophy of science.

No you're right, I don't think that there's much chance of you doing that. You miss the point that it doesn't whether science makes final claims or not. It's completely irrelevant.

No one claim that philosophy is not involved in science,on the contrary,the roots of science lie deep in philosophy.

Well then we're all agreed.

Anyway I do not think we have to use the above argument in this case,simply the philosophical arguments against the emergent computational conjecture do not involve such final contradictions.

Unfortunately some of them do.

On the contrary there are very good physicalist philosophical answers at the objections put forward by the 'qualia' sustainers.

Please name one then we can discuss it.

I'm afraid only the experiment can settle things in a sound way.

Nobody has yet managed to think of one that might settle the matter. I suppose that could be just coincidence.

Till then we have a conjecture,the best we could achieve so far,that works well in the case of all evidence we have though,in my opinion,is far away from giving us sufficient reasons to consider it (approximatively) correct.I even doubt that neurology alone is enough.But I cannot deny that the actual approach is the best possible approach of the moment, derived from all experimental evidence we have now.

Well I deny it, and so do many others, on logical grounds.

All unbiased scientists will recognize there is still a lot of work to do.

Unbiased scientists are something of a rarity. They tend to take the axioms of science as their starting point.

It is true now that science has as an axiom the assumption that nature can be understood but the introduction of this axiom was absolutely necessary for the internal coherence of the scientific method.

Very true, and a good point. Unfortunately it may be internally consistent but wrong.

But certainly neither have we the right to make the positive claim that consciousness,for example,cannot be understood by science,from all knowledge we have so far.

How so? What's the difference between a final claim, which you say science cannot make, and a positive claim?

Anyway, let's leave this. How would you answer Fliptions question.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The definition of elemental changes with the development of science. For example obviously the chemical "elements" were once thought to be elemental; they were made of "atoms" from the Greek for indivisible. Later isotopes were discovered which showed the chemical elements weren't truly elemental, and the subatomic particles were discovered which showed the atoms weren't truly indivisible.

About all that modern science treats as philosophically elemental is constants of nature, and if you follow the posts up in physics, you'll see discussions of them varying (speed of light, fine structure constant, etc.).

You have to distinguish from a conscious decision not to question a given thing for the present, from an out and out statement that it is elemental. For example we have "elementary" particles in quantum physics, but according to string physics they are made of something else. Strings currently occupy the role where they are not inquired into, but that doesn't mean they are truly regarded as elemental in a way a philosopher would understand the word.

 

[metacristi]

Fliption

I do not think I understand.Science itself does not make any assumptions about the ultimate nature of consciousness.Not yet.We have a conjecture that works for all our practical purposes,now at least.Some people,scientists or not,are over optimistic.Based on the current state of affairs and especially due to some philosophical arguments they inferred that physicalism is enough.For example many use Daniel Dennett's arguments pro physicalism (brilliant otherwise,strictly philosophically speaking)...to claim the end of dualism.Due to some contradictions with some accepted knowledge now.Or it is clear that Dennet's arguments,though strong against the Cartesian type of dualism,fail to account for all types of dualism.It is a possibility and nothing more.

Science's primary goal is to find all relevant necessary and sufficient causes of physical phenomena that can be possible inferred from known facts.There might be more but since we cannot put all of them in evidence we must content with what we have,based only on observed facts.But we will never postulate the existence of theoretical constructs that are superfluous to explain all observed facts.Especially at this stage of research when there is no need to postulate that 'qualia' is something fundamental since the actual approach is theoretically and empirically evolving (if you understand what I mean).Basically there is no good reason for that,experimentally derived.To be accepted the qualia approach should also make some new,testable predictions,in order to qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

Finally,to address your question we can only establish degrees of confidence in the truth of some scientific assumptions.There is indeed a problem with induction so that,technically speaking,science cannot give us certitudes in many cases (though obviously it give us even certitudes).However when we have relevant test samples,we are entitled to have a high degree of confidence in the (approximative) truth of a certain statement,to believe that it is very close to the actual truth.

For example if we will build androids whose behaviour is indistinguishable from that of a human being,in the absence of any serious scientific alternative approach,there are sufficient reasons to believe that the computational emergentist approach is (approximatively) true.Practically we are still open to new data but in its absence there is no good reason,empirically based,to think that subjective experiences imply something extra.

It would be more or less the same if we could first extensively test successfully a holistic theory of consciousness.We would be entitled to use 'qualia' as a further scientific construct only if it made further predictions which we could test empirically.In their absence there is no good reason to think that the best existing approach is not able to explain the remaining puzzles later.The possible existence of final limitations cannot change things.

A problem would be if,in the absence of any evident limitations or serious scientific alternatives,the actual conjecture will become theoretically and empirically stagant for a long time.As I said this could be a hint that the best existing approach fail to take in account something more fundamental.This might be exactly the case with the computational approach.But as I've already said it would always exist the possibility to postulate that this 'something more fundamental' is a final physical limitiation we are not aware yet (for example that some interactions in the complex neural network of the brain are chaotic) or that quantum mechanics is involved in a way not understood yet.Or,much more simply,to invoke the emergent phenomena argument,they are more than the simple sum of the constituents.Basically such a failure of the computational approach does not constitute a sufficient reason to think qualia is fundamental.

Finally we can see Chalmers' pan protopsychism as a form of physicalism too since it involves the interaction between brain and some fundamental features of reality.So eventually physicalism might still be right though,possible,due to some final limitations (for example HUP),we will never have sufficient reasons to believe that.

 

[metacristi]

Canute

Unfortunately some of them do.

If you had read more carefully the literature on Mary's chamber argument you would have known that there is no edge for the qualia argument,practically it fails to prove the internal inconsistence of the actual approach,being not sound.Basically we can talk of the same things using different terminologies.For example take the sentences 'Cicero was an orator' and 'Tully was an orator'.They seem two different concepts having the same referent but Cicero is in fact Tully.Likewise there is no good reason to think that the scientific approach cannot explain subjective experience.Not yet at least.

As for some other arguments (zombies or Chinese Room) they can qualify only as mere possibilities.Even Chalmers for example admits that he talks of the logical possibility of zombies (which does not mean automatically physical possibility).He uses the argument to suggest 'that there is no logical entailment from physical facts to facts about consciousness, whereas there is such an entailment in most other domains.'
Unfortunately,though philosophically acceptable,it is not scientifically acceptable for we must have first sufficient reasons to think they can exist practically.
I'm afraid,we never have the right to argue that one logical possibility is (automatically) empirically possible before testing it practically.I've already explained to you that not even predictions about natural facts (logical deductions from the premises) of a very successful scientific theory otherwise (many other predictions confirmed practically) are not considered true before soundly confirming them practically first.Not even in the extreme case that all premises are empirically derived (additionally having a high degree of confidence in their truth) and the prediction is unique and inevitable logically.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by metacristi
Fliption

I do not think I understand.Science itself does not make any assumptions about the ultimate nature of consciousness.

Well, maybe not officially. I haven't seen a theory yet that doesn't involve consciousness being an effect of the brain. I'd say that all this research is based on the assumption that consciousness comes from brains. I realize that science is defined in such a way that this assumption should be denounced once it is found to be incorrect. My question is asking "at what point does this happen?" What would have to happen for this assumption to be dropped?

Especially at this stage of research when there is no need to postulate that 'qualia' is something fundamental since the actual approach is theoretically and empirically evolving (if you understand what I mean).Basically there is no good reason for that,experimentally derived.To be accepted the qualia approach should also make some new,testable predictions,in order to qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

Are you suggesting that current theories actually make testable predictions on subjective experience? I'd like to hear more about this.

And I wouldn't know if such a theory of "qualia" would be useful or not because I haven't seen one. Has there ever been a theory that stepped outside of the assumption mentioned above to see what a different approach would warrant? If you know of such work that entertains consciousness being fundamental then let us know what it is and where information can be found.

Practically we are still open to new data but in its absence there is no good reason,empirically based,to think that subjective experiences imply something extra.

Doesn't the idea that you cannot ever know for certain imply that there is a piece that you don't understand? That there may be something extra? How can you reductively have no uncertainty when it comes to how an airplane burns fuel and flies but yet you cannot know for certain whether that airplane is having subjective experience unless subjective experience is somehow different?

A problem would be if,in the absence of any evident limitations or serious scientific alternatives,the actual conjecture will become theoretically and empirically stagant for a long time.As I said this could be a hint that the best existing approach fail to take in account something more fundamental.This might be exactly the case with the computational approach.But as I've already said it would always exist the possibility to postulate that this 'something more fundamental' is a final physical limitiation we are not aware yet

This seems like the scientists answer to the "god of the gaps" phenomenon. Many people here accuse others of trying to insert god wherever there are knowledge gaps. This is simply the reverse. "If we do not know it, it is because we haven't learned it yet."

I see no assurance from your response that there really is an answer to my question. Which I fear means that this debate will continue to go on and on, regardless of how obvious the answer really is.

 

[metacristi]

New testable predictions? What if it makes the same predictions and also illiminates the philosophical problems? Though I do think if it were an accurate theory, new predictions would likely result.
But how do you know that this avenue would not be fruitful? Has it been tried?

I wouldn't know if such a theory would be useful or not because I haven't seen one. Has there ever been a theory that stepped outside of the assumption mentioned above to see what a different approach would warrant? If you know of such work that entertains consciousness being fundamental then let us know what it is and where information can be found

It must not only 'resolve the philosophical problems' (anyway the fundamental qualia would be a tautology in this case) and accommodate all reliable experiments made so far.It must also make new testable predictions where the fundamental qualia to be an absolutely necessary theoretical construct.Otherwise it is of no scientific use,there is absolutely no reason to think that the usual approach is not enough to explain subjective experience.

Anyway even it makes new predictions is not enough to think that qualia is indeed fundamental (as I argue below we must prove this practically).No,I do not know of any such theory apart from philosophy.Which for the moment is of no use for science.There is even a joke on this made by scientists about the utility of philosophy in cognitive sciences: 'Science tries to find a black cat in a dark chamber whilst philosophy tries to find a black cat in a dark chamber where there is no black cat'...

Well, maybe not officially. I haven't seen a theory yet that doesn't involve consciousness being an effect of the brain. I'd say that all this research is based on the assumption that consciousness comes from brains. I realize that science is defined in such a way that this assumption should be denounced once it is found to be incorrect. My question is asking "at what point does this happen?" What would have to happen for this assumption to be dropped?

Science is based on observed facts only.And all we observe form empirical evidence so far is that mind is a product of the brain.This is not assumed true,this is the only conclusion which can be drawn from facts,a fallible truth.We cannot postulate the existence of new theoretical constructs if they do not have power of explanation and do not make new predictions, testable predictions.Besides there is no reason to believe that qualia is fundamental even if such a theory would be successful.Scientists have reasons to believe only in confirmed facts (even if only indirectly).So we still have to prove empirically that qualia is fundamental.

Doesn't the idea that you cannot ever know for certain imply that there is a piece that you don't understand? That there may be something extra? How can you reductively have no uncertainty when it comes to how an airplane works but yet you cannot know for certain whether something is having subjective experience?

Sometimes might be important.Sometimes not,since they involve very small effects that could not be detectable practically.But these situations are not linked,we have different degree of confidence in their truth upon their merits,experimentally certified.That's why we have a high degree of confidence that a plane built using the best scientific approach will fly but a much lower one for the assumption that the computational approach is approximatively correct (we do not even have a holistic hypothesis).Still this does not imply science cannot attain certitudes or quasi certitudes on some domain of definitions (for example water will always remain H2O even if superstrings are at the base of our universe or that the inverse square law of gravitation is approximatively correct at the macro level).Especially when talking about facts that do not imply generalizations.But since science never permit the assignation of a high degree of confidence in a statement about the natural world without extended research in all relevant situations there is no danger.Besides even in those cases we are always open to new data.

This seems like the scientists answer to the "god of the gaps" phenomenon. Many people here accuse others of trying to insert god wherever there are knowledge gaps. This is simply the reverse. "If we do not know it, it is because we haven't learned it yet."

Actually it has nothing to do with that argument,I haven't used the appropriate words,mea culpa.That means simply 'we do not know for the moment,but there is no good reason to believe that qualia is fundamental,there are plenty of other acceptable possibilities we are aware of'.On the contrary positing that qualia is fundamental would be not only unscientific but illogical.

I see no assurance from your response that there really is an answer to my question. Which I fear means that this debate will continue to go on and on, regardless of how obvious the answer really is.

Neither do I,or science,try to offer certitudes.All that science tries to find are sufficient reasons which explain the observed facts.And very often it succeeds.Still this does not imply that 'flat earthers' have disappeared...

But we do not have yet such sufficient reasons in the case of consciousness.So that you are fully entitled to be skeptical.Or me.But if you make the positive claim that the actual hypothesis is wrong you must back this with sufficient arguments,experimentally verifiable.Or,if you do not accept the empiricism of the scientific method,you must provide another method,proved superior,on empirical grounds.

 

[Canute]

Metacristi

Fliption has seen your argument off but one more point. You say that science deals only in observations. This isn't quite the case. Science deals in third-person observations.

Experiences are not third-person observable. It therefore follows that if experiences exist then science cannot explain them. However if you argue, as you do, that experiences don't exist then you are still not right to assert that science can explain them, since in this case there is nothing to explain. Science cannot explain something that doesn't exist. The fact is that science is defined in such a way that it cannot explain experiences.

Whether experiences do or do not exist is also not a matter for science, it is a matter for personal judgement. However obviously they do, otherwise there would be no consciousness debate.

 

[metacristi]

Canute

Experiences are not third-person observable. It therefore follows that if experiences exist then science cannot explain them.

You made a totally unsupported assumption.No,the actual approach argues that consciousness does exist.The whole point is that there is no reason now to think that science cannot explain 'qualia' as being an emergent phenomena of the brain.I offered you an example of why Mary's chamber or other arguments fails to prove soundly that science cannot explain subjective feelings.The fact that we do not have now a detailed view,if possible certitudes,as you and fliption seem to request,is irrelevant.Of course you must also have some basic knowledge in the philosophy of science otherwise if you'll continue to accuse that science make final claims we arrive nowhere of course.

 

[Canute]

I notice that you completely ignore the issue I raised in my last post. We're not going to get very far with this discussion if you don't even acknowledge the arguments against your view and just assert that there aren't any.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by metacristi
It must not only 'resolve the philosophical problems' (anyway the fundamental qualia would be a tautology in this case) and accommodate all reliable experiments made so far.It must also make new testable predictions where the fundamental qualia to be an absolutely necessary theoretical construct.Otherwise it is of no scientific use,there is absolutely no reason to think that the usual approach is not enough to explain subjective experience.

Ever heard of String theory? It makes no testable predictions yet I'm sure it gets more time then your arguing it should deserve.

Anyway even it makes new predictions is not enough to think that qualia is indeed fundamental (as I argue below we must prove this practically).

This is my question. Same question, different words. How exactly is it possible to prove that something is fundamental? At what point does science lean in the direction that something is fundamental? You're insisting that it be proven but yet when I ask the question of how such things are determined, there is no objective answer. So it seems it cannot be proven. Surely, we aren't going to make certain theories impossible when we still have so much to learn are we?

No,I do not know of any such theory apart from philosophy.Which for the moment is of no use for science.There is even a joke on this made by scientists about the utility of philosophy in cognitive sciences: 'Science tries to find a black cat in a dark chamber whilst philosophy tries to find a black cat in a dark chamber where there is no black cat'...

LOL, there were also many philosophers in college that made jokes about the shallowness of physicists. I couldn't say either way, you understand? But I do remember them doing it. I've learned that everyone is a bit biased and I need to think for myself.

Science is based on observed facts only.And all we observe form empirical evidence so far is that mind is a product of the brain.

How? What is an example of something that you could witness that would tell you that mind comes from brain?

Besides there is no reason to believe that qualia is fundamental even if such a theory would be successful.Scientists have reasons to believe only in confirmed facts (even if only indirectly).So we still have to prove empirically that qualia is fundamental.

Why is it that you must prove that qualia is fundamental in order to entertain a theory and you don't have to prove anything with regard to the "mind from brain" theory? With this theory, stating fallible truths seems to be enough.

It seems as if you are saying one requires more evidence than the other because of some sort of evidence we have today that makes one case stronger than the other. I'm not clear on what this evidence is. If you can answer my question above asking for examples that would be good.

Actually it has nothing to do with that argument,I haven't used the appropriate words,mea culpa.That means simply 'we do not know for the moment,but there is no good reason to believe that qualia is fundamental,there are plenty of other acceptable possibilities we are aware of'.On the contrary positing that qualia is fundamental would be not only unscientific but illogical.

It's saying the same thing from my point of view. The result is that there is no clear line. Someone can always claim that we just need to learn more. As I feared, this is a purely subjective determination. The irony is that this requires someone at some point to exercise a philosophical thought.

Also, you are claiming that qualia as fundamental is not only unscientific but illogical. Now THIS is what we're discussing in this thread. Surely you don't need a laboratory to show why it's illogical so explain here why this is so. No one else has been able to do it. Perhaps you can.

So that you are fully entitled to be skeptical.Or me.But if you make the positive claim that the actual hypothesis is wrong you must back this with sufficient arguments,experimentally verifiable.Or,if you do not accept the empiricism of the scientific method,you must provide another method,proved superior,on empirical grounds.

Unfortunately, the scientific method apparently cannot say when it has reached it's limit. Even if it has. We have left that up to a subjective call. A subjective call that it doesn't seem you want to acknowledge. If you don't acknowledge it then we must have a more objective and clear answer to my original question.

To sum it all up, I find it interesting that we're willing to accept uncertainties in our pet theories so that we don't have to deal with the philosophical questions. But other theories must be proven before they are even accepted as a theory. I don't even think this is what a theory is but I'll stop now .

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by metacristi
You made a totally unsupported assumption.No,the actual approach argues that consciousness does exist.The whole point is that there is no reason now to think that science cannot explain 'qualia' as being an emergent phenomena of the brain.I offered you an example of why Mary's chamber or other arguments fails to prove soundly that science cannot explain subjective feelings.The fact that we do not have now a detailed view,if possible certitudes,as you and fliption seem to request,is irrelevant.Of course you must also have some basic knowledge in the philosophy of science otherwise if you'll continue to accuse that science make final claims we arrive nowhere of course.

I hope I haven't mis-understood but I will clarify just in case. I'm not claiming that lack of a detailed view means that the theory is wrong. Any reasonable person understands that it takes time to learn and gain knowledge. I simply asked for some guidelines on when a major assumption change becomes warranted. The answer we have so far is that there are no such guidelines.

Also, perhaps this hasn't been communicated well but I don't think anyone else sees any more merit to the current scientific theories over the one being suggested here. You seem to think that it is on higher ground but I don't think anyone else sees it that way. If you answer some of the questions in previous posts you may be able to communicate how current theories actually explain things and make predictions. That would clear a lot of things up.

 

[metacristi]

Canute

I notice that you completely ignore the issue I raised in my last post. We're not going to get very far with this discussion if you don't even acknowledge the arguments against your view and just assert that there aren't any.

What arguments Canute?Your proclamation that,by definition,science cannot explain consciousness because subjective experiences are totally private?Let's be rational.In this case we would not even have sufficient reasons to think that other persons outside ourselves are conscious.You see we must reside in the majority of cases,here included,on some sufficient experimental reasons to think that something is approximatively correct.Science only need sufficient arguments.Certitudes are very rare.How do we decide that other persons are conscious?Simply by using the analogy argument,given also the existence of extended research that other people's brains have approximatively the same structure,and by observing their behaviour or asking them what they feel.We do not have to measure subjective feelings to decide that other people are conscious instead of being zombies.That's why the construction of an android of the type mentioned in my previous posts is a sufficient reason that they are not zombies,the analogy argument+strong experimental evidence [offer us sufficient reasons],coherent also with all previous accepted knowledge.Those who claim they are zombies must prove that experimentally.

I think we must review the state of affairs before going further.It's clear that now we have only a simple conjecture,we are far away from having any sufficient reason to believe it is approximatively correct (anyway no final claims are made).However the actual conjecture is theoretically and empirically evolving and there is no good reason now,logical or experimental,to consider it wrong or that an improved version,including all actual knowledge derived from experiments, cannot explain consciousness eventually.You and others object that subjective experiences cannot be 'measured' by science therefore science cannot explain consciousness no matter how detailed a scientific successful theory can we obtain.This is a pseudo problem for it is no reason to think that there are not physical states behind,approximatively the same,which create approximatively similar mental states in different persons.Anyway as I've argued before in case we will have detailed theory or an android whose behaviour is indistinguishable from that of a human being there are sufficient empirical and logical grounds to consider it approximatively correct.

Imagine that we will obtain sometime a detailed computational emergentist hypothesis (it is totally possible there are not good reasons to think otherwise) which makes also clear predictions of how conscious experience arise from brain working (how 'qualia' arise from brain's working included,though not confirmed for the moment).If it is capable to explain how brain works at the neural network level,with many confirmed predictions,being not falsified yet,in the absence of any credible scientific alternative there are sufficient grounds to have a high degree of confidence in it.Additionally the discoveries in AI could strengthen the conclusions.Maybe we will never be able to confirm the predictions about subjective experiences directly (but who can be sure of that?).Even so there would still exist sufficient empirical and logical reasons (not to say overwhelming evidence) backing the existing hypothesis and practically no empirical or sound logical evidence against.There would be more than sufficient empirical and logical reasons to think it is approximatively correct.

Simply postulating that 'you cannot confirm the predictions about how subjective feeling arise therefore science cannot explain conscious experience' cannot count as an argument against.Bascally there are no good reasons to think it is correct.First science is still open to new data,we accept our knowledge is still fallible though assigning a high degree of confidence in its approximative truth (we have sufficient reasons for that),secondly how can you back rationally that we will not be able to do that?By definition?Maybe consciousness can be simulated (many supporters of 'weak' AI hypothesis believe that it can) or who knows maybe we will be able to put in evidence thoughts if they are physically based,that is interact with usual matter.Basically it is conceivable that we can test those predictions.And it would be far from being a miracle to confirm the predictions made by our hypothesis of how subjective experiences arise...

Even assuming that we decide not to have a high degree of confidence in such a detailed hypothesis of consciousness (in this case we are entitled to doubt in the majority of cases,we base our knowledge mainly on sufficient reasons derived from all observed facts) the hard fact remain: it would still remain the best we managed,basically with no alternative,if no competing scientific approach (at least respecting the requirements of the scientific method,though inferior for the moment) does not exist.With scientists entitled to prefer the best empirically based hypothesis to all other explanations,for all our practical purposes.This does not imply also a high degree of confidence in its approximative truth.But it would be hard enough to explain it's remarkable empirical success at least at the levels we can measure directly,especially if we could build,based on it,an android whose behaviour is indistinguishable from that of a human being.

In all cases we would have no experimental grounds to claim that science cannot explain consciousness and surely no reason to believe that qualia is fundamental.Simply putting again and again the old cliche 'you cannot account for the subjective experiences' neither falsify the best existing scientific hypothesis (maybe true in absolute though possible we will never know that) nor strengthen the credibility of 'fundamental qualia' (un)scientific (at that moment at least) hypothesis.

 

[Dark Wing]

Hey Hypnogouge, this is a little reply to the 1st post you put up... I have read the other 2 pages, but I want to bypass most of those arguments and explain Chalmers problem (and Dennett’s) in a new way...

A Defense of Materialism:

The real problem with all of this explaining consciousness through a reductive style is the explanation paradigm they use. The call it "reduction", claiming to "reduce" consciousness to a physical process of the brain.

But this is very misleading. It is in fact backwards. In presuming a mind, a consciousness, a subjective experience to exist, you are running into trouble. By trying to understand and explain this mind, consciousness or experience and then attempt to put it into little categories that will entirely explain it in order for it to be reducible, you are also running into problems. How in all hell are you meant to categories a subjective experience accurately and wholly? all kinds of problems, such as the problems of other minds, and presuming they do exist, if the they exist in the same manner of yours comes up. there is no way to do a top down reduction of mind. It leads to dualism, confusion, and ultimately the functionalist fallacy. (for, if mind is something reducible, if it is even possible to talk of it outside physical boundaries and talk and categories it as a cognitive [not neurobiological] process, then we must be able to write a program that imitates it and call a computer a mind, no?)

THE SOLUTION

We are looking at this backwards. Instead of trying to reduce the un-catergorisable into a physical state, we should start at the bottom and work up. Start with brain activity. in fact, start with a single neuron, doing its thing. It receives information, it fires or does not fire depending on previous experience, conditioning and action potential. What results from this single neuron? a result. a new chemical state, and subsequently a change in experience.

Now, if you get every lobe and section of your brain simply doing what it does: receiving information and then passing on the new information: we experience our world. why? cause our brain is taking in physical stimulus from the physical world and physically processing it. "the mind" is simply the result of this process. in fact, the mind does not even need to have a physical effect on the body at all in order for us to think that it has. We justify our minds to ourselves as it seems to us that we have control over our thoughts, and it seems that what we are doing is a result of personal want feelings and motivations. take a bottom up approach, and all you are doing is reacting on a higher level to a causation pattern that was determined by the moving of an atom in the realm of physics below biology.

Does a cell in the arm know that it is a cell in the arm? no. I just receive its information, does what it does to it, and then send out new signals to those cells around them. yet we have a unified feeling of body. I would argue the mind is the same. we have a unified experience of mind, but what it really is billions of neurons doing its things and passing the information on to the next one. the bi product is consciousness. and it has no causation at all.

This is an eliminative materialist approach supported by the likes of the churchlands. do not be deceived by the top down approach. the mind as we think of it does not exist and is not reducible simply because it is not there like that. a bottom up process takes care of the gap and takes care of dualism. I can try to explain this a little better if you are interested in hearing more about it. I am in a bit of a hurry, I might have rushed through the explanation a bit. :) sorry.

 

[Another God]

I think it explains things perfectly, but I am eager to hear a reasonable atttempt to find fault with it. It is so easy to accept a theory as unchallengable when no one challenges it...

Bring on the criticisms!

 

[Fliption]

That's interesting because I don't think it explains anything heh. But perhaps I didn't fully understand it.

How do we explain the "sense of body and mind" that you spoke of?

If there is nothing to reductively explain, then how do we explain that we have a sense of something needing an explanation?

It's seems similar to Dennett in that it doesn't solve the problem. It merely defines it away by claiming it doesn't exists. But if it doesn't exist then we have at the very least an illusion with no reductive explanation.

 

[olde drunk]

I MUST BE DENSE!

honestly, how can we get so caught up in this minutia?

take a recently deceased brain, bombard it with chemicals and particles and prayers. what happens? nada!

take a plant, stimulate it with a charge and you can measure a reaction to the stimulant. break off a piece, apply another charge. what happens? nada!

the missing ingredient? life force! who da hell knows EXACTLY what it is? but, it is there! for easy of communication, i like to call it, consciousness.

lets not waste time on debating its existence, let's invest time and energy trying to understand it and its properties.

i withdraw from discussing this further.

peace,

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by metacristi
Canute

What arguments Canute?

Ok I give up. You need to read the literature. The whole of the current issue of the international 'Journal of Consciousness Studies' is given over to the debate on whether first-person data can be considered scientific. There is a reason for this. It's not as simple an issue as you think.

 

[Canute]

Dark Wing

Start with brain activity. in fact, start with a single neuron, doing its thing. It receives information, it fires or does not fire depending on previous experience, conditioning and action potential. What results from this single neuron? a result. a new chemical state, and subsequently a change in experience.

I think that this is where your argument goes wrong. You assume here that the existence of states of experience is strictly dependent on brain states before you actually present your argument for the idea.

Also by saying this you are suggesting that conscious experience is something different to matter, and this seems to be dualism of some sort, which is a tricky position to take.

It isn't unreasonable to say that that states of experience are affected by brain states, the anecdotal (non-observed) evidence is overwhelming. But there is no evidence that consciousness is ontologically dependent on brain. (Although the day to day human experience of it clearly is for the most part).

It's a topic full of traps.

Canute

 

[metacristi]

Canute

Make first the difference between a purely philosophical argument and the truth about natural facts first and only after accuse me of being ignorant.By the way it's very useful,in situations like this,to read from time to time what have to say the alternative views.Otherwise there is a great danger to end in dogmatism.

 

[metacristi]

Bring on the criticisms!

1.There are a lot of unexplained phenomena at the neural network level.No matter the type of physicalism,this or Dennett's type of physicalist functionalism.Nothing to do with qualia.We have only observed that some brain states in the neural network correlate with some mental states but it's clear we are far apart from having sufficient reasons to think that all mental states are correlated with brain states.There is still an afwul lot of work to do.

2.We are far away from having a holistic,successful,theory of consciousness.There is no good reason now to think that the findings in neurology represent more than some necessary conditions for the appearance of conscious experience not sufficient ones.

3.The emergentist approach does not make any predictions about the level of complexity when the emergent phenomenon of consciousness appears.Anyway what good reasons are to believe that a degree of complexity close to those of human beings will really produce conscious experience in androids or at least a behaviour indistinguishable from that of a human being?

4.Mental states seem to be more than the firing of some neurons in the neural network of the brain (OK a strictly philosophical objection but valuable).

5.All physicalist models proposed so far are only inferences from the (too) incomplete scientific conjecture of today.Neither deduced nor absolutely necessary to account for the known facts.There is no good reason to believe now that the layer model of Dennett or his neural darwinism theory are something more than mere philosophy.

As a conclusion the actual reductionist view (at the neuronal level) and all related doctrines are simple conjectures for which we cannot assign a high degree of confidence now.Though they are theoretically and empirically evolving all unbiased scientists will recognize that we are rather at the beginnig of the road.There is basically no constraint for a would be rational person to believe in its actual (approximative truth).At most it is the best we could achieve so far so that,on pragmatic grounds entirely,all rational persons will prefer it to other existing (non scientific) hypotheses for all their practical purposes.Nothing more.I meant data inferred from empirical facts not the philosophical doctrines themselves,of course.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by metacristi
Canute

Make first the difference between a purely philosophical argument and the truth about natural facts first and only after accuse me of being ignorant.

Why?

Though they are theoretically and empirically evolving all unbiased scientists will recognize that we are rather at the beginnig of the road.There is basically no constraint for a would be rational person to believe in its actual (approximative truth).At most it is the best we could achieve so far so that,on pragmatic grounds entirely,all rational persons will prefer it to other existing (non scientific) hypotheses for all their practical purposes.Nothing more.I meant data inferred from empirical facts not the philosophical doctrines themselves,of course.

Oh c'mon, you're not being honest in your thinking. You haven't addressed one single objection to your view yet. I'll leave you to your strange notion of science and philosophy which, if you ever bother to check, you'll find no scientist or philosopher shares.

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by metacristi
1.There are a lot of unexplained phenomena at the neural network level.No matter the type of physicalism,this or Dennett's type of physicalist functionalism.Nothing to do with qualia.We have only observed that some brain states in the neural network correlate with some mental states but it's clear we are far apart from having sufficient reasons to think that all mental states are correlated with brain states.There is still an afwul lot of work to do.

You jump from "there is a lot of unexplained phenomena at the neuron level" to "there is no qualia". but there are some very distinct correlations. depression is a great example here. Yes, there is a great deal of work to do, but that means nothing. Its not an argument against the idea, and I was wanting to talk of this idea as a poosible way of the contingent world, not as an idea that is already proved.

If we have found very strong links to some, then its worth searching for more. Many reaserchers of perception will argue for the exsistance of the "grandmother cell", where there is a very specific cell in the brain designed only to respond to your grandmothers image. Infact, a lot of the cortex is set out like that: one cell only responding to very very specific information. If that be the case, then is it not at least plausable that one CAN develop a one to one "reduction" to the brain? but in saying they are correlated, then you are still assuming that these states exsist in their own right, and IMO they do not.

2.We are far away from having a holistic,successful,theory of consciousness.There is no good reason now to think that the findings in neurology represent more than some necessary[i/] conditions for the appearance of conscious experience not sufficient[i/] ones.[b/][quote/]

You can't pull the neccesary card here. Mainly because youcannot prove that somthing is neccacary, you can only prove that it is contingent, as this is a contingent universe. Kant tried his whole life to prove somthing to be a neccesary truth, and built a lovley glass cathedral, sure. But just because it is not neccasary does not mean that's the only way it can be done within our own know universe.

Even if they are "sufficiant" and not the only way it can be done within our universe, so what? you want to talk about what "consousness" is... why not start with an explanation of what it could be inside us, and then start to expand the field to include anything you want it to be, including AI if you think immitation is good enough to attribute the real thing to. it all depends on how strictly you moniter your explanation, and what you hope to achieve from such a definition.

3.The emergentist approach does not make any predictions about the level of complexity when the emergent phenomenon of consciousness appears.Anyway what good reasons are to believe that a degree of complexity close to those of human beings will really produce conscious experience in androids or at least a behaviour indistinguishable from that of a human being?[b/][quote/]

the android approach ignores the biological causation of human consiousness. they can never be consious in the way humans are, simply because if they are consious then they are so by diffrent means. there is no emergant phenomena. we are tricked into thinking there is, as we have a wholistic experience of our world. there is only brain activity, and we think we have a mind. eliminative materialism.

4.Mental states seem to be more than the firing of some neurons in the neural network of the brain (OK a strictly philosophical objection but valuable).[b/][quote/]

seems... but how easily tricked is our experience? how much as we convinced that we are of one mind, and this mind is a thing?

To explain this I will introduce the split brain patient. (if you don't know much about this sort of thing, then read up on it, I know there have been a few threads on this around the place latley so i won't go into extensive detail) They beleiev that they have a unified mind, a unified sense of mind. until they are put in a test situation where only certian information (say the word "pen") is given to the RH,while nothing is given to the LH. the experimentor will then ask the subject to pick up the object described by the word. while stating "what word?" they will reach out and grab the pen of a tray of objects. Lesson? this so called "emergant phenomena" obviously cannot pass through severed neural passages. thus is closly tied to neural activity. even though the patient seems to believe that he is of one mind, of "unified spirit" it is clear that this is an illusion. why? there is no place in the mind where things come together like that. there is no place where a unified mind that takes all the information received and melds it into an experience. infact, such a mind does not exsist. only neurol activity does, and that is incredibly complex.

5.All physicalist models proposed so far are only inferences from the (too) incomplete scientific conjecture of today.Neither deduced nor absolutely necessary to account for the known facts.There is no good reason to believe now that the layer model of Dennett or his neural darwinism theory are something more than mere philosophy.[b/][quote/]

its speculation that leads to fallacy as they all start from the worng end. I do not neccesarily agree with Dennett. Infact, i am more in favor with the Churchlands, as I said before. Dennett has a lot to answer for, especily with Cog now on the loose.

As a conclusion the actual reductionist view (at the neuronal level) and all related doctrines are simple conjectures for which we cannot assign a high degree of confidence now.Though they are theoretically and empirically evolving all unbiased scientists will recognize that we are rather at the beginnig of the road.There is basically no constraint for a would be rational person to believe in its actual (approximative truth).At most it is the best we could achieve so far so that,on pragmatic grounds entirely,all rational persons will prefer it to other existing (non scientific) hypotheses for all their practical purposes.Nothing more.I meant data inferred from empirical facts not the philosophical doctrines themselves,of course.

well, that's your opinion. To me, its taken from a neurobiological point of view, and I have been studing this for years, and am about to start my thesis. There is a lot of hope in the neuro biological world that this can be the case,and there have been major steps taken to show that its very plausable. all lesion studies, all studies on the visual cortex in particular (especily for a unified theory of mind reaserch) is very pointed towards the brain being the causer and the activator of every step of a consious state, and even the unconsious state. But I won't go down this line if there is no interest in it.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
That's interesting because I don't think it explains anything heh. But perhaps I didn't fully understand it.

How do we explain the "sense of body and mind" that you spoke of?

If there is nothing to reductively explain, then how do we explain that we have a sense of something needing an explanation?

We explain the sense of mind and body on account of it arises from the brain functions. The brain does its thing, as the whole body does, and the sense of mind and body is an emergent property of that process. I don't believe anyone has been able yet to explain why Hydrogen and Oxygen combine to create 'wetness' yet, it is just sort of accepted that due to the properties of the molecule, wetness is a consequence. And so, we have no idea how the parts of the brain come together to result in this felt experience of unified consciousness, but it most certainly does... The key to this explanation though, is that this emergent property is the least important thing. It is just a side effect...an after thought. Consciousness itself has no relevence at all. The brain is all that matters.

When u concentrate on the brain, then the experiences assosciated with certain stimuli will start to be explained in terms of "Oh, so that brainstate is what it is like to see red"


But I am half guessing, it is up to dark wing to come back and give you a real reply to this.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Another God
We explain the sense of mind and body on account of it arises from the brain functions. The brain does its thing, as the whole body does, and the sense of mind and body is an emergent property of that process. I don't believe anyone has been able yet to explain why Hydrogen and Oxygen combine to create 'wetness' yet, it is just sort of accepted that due to the properties of the molecule, wetness is a consequence.

First let's make very clear what we mean by 'wetness' of water. For your analogy to be successful, you must be talking about the physical consistency (ie fluidity) of water, NOT the subjective experience of wetness-- otherwise you are not talking about something analogous to the mystery of consciousness, but rather you are just talking about the mystery of consciousness itself in disguised form.

So, if our question is just how hydrogen and oxygen combine to form a fluid, we do indeed have a pretty straightforward physical explanation. The physical structure of H2O molecules and the function of their electrostatic attraction, in suitable conditions, creates a bonding structure in a substance that is dense but not rigid. H2O molecules are free to tumble over one another, so to speak, and the macroscopic expression of this is fluidity.

This is an example of reductive explanation at its best. It works because it tells us how structure and function on one level (macroscopic) is entailed by structure and function on another level (microscopic).

However, this approach breaks down with consciousness. Subjective experience is not a structure; it does not occupy space; it is not objectively observable; and so on. The problem is not a mystery of how emergent phenomena in general work-- the emergence of fluidity from bonding structure, for example, is fairly straightforward. The problem is one of ontology-- how can something with the nature that we ascribe to physical objects entail something with the nature that we ascribe to subjective experience? There is good reason for thinking that there is nothing in our currently accepted ontology that entails the existence of consciousness a priori. The simple response is that we need to expand our ontology.

And so, we have no idea how the parts of the brain come together to result in this felt experience of unified consciousness, but it most certainly does... The key to this explanation though, is that this emergent property is the least important thing. It is just a side effect...an after thought. Consciousness itself has no relevence at all. The brain is all that matters.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here.

When u concentrate on the brain, then the experiences assosciated with certain stimuli will start to be explained in terms of "Oh, so that brainstate is what it is like to see red"

That's still not an explanation, it's an identification. The question remains, why or how is it that this brain state entails the experience of the color red? What properties of this brainstate could possibly account for such a thing?

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Dark Wing
Hey Hypnogouge, this is a little reply to the 1st post you put up... I have read the other 2 pages, but I want to bypass most of those arguments and explain Chalmers problem (and Dennett’s) in a new way...

OK

THE SOLUTION

We are looking at this backwards. Instead of trying to reduce the un-catergorisable into a physical state, we should start at the bottom and work up. Start with brain activity. in fact, start with a single neuron, doing its thing. It receives information, it fires or does not fire depending on previous experience, conditioning and action potential. What results from this single neuron? a result. a new chemical state, and subsequently a change in experience.

What do you mean by experience here? There are many neurons whose activities don't activate some kind of experience (hence, the unconscious mind).

But more importantly, WHY a subsequent change in experience? Why any experience to begin with?

Now, if you get every lobe and section of your brain simply doing what it does: receiving information and then passing on the new information: we experience our world. why? cause our brain is taking in physical stimulus from the physical world and physically processing it. "the mind" is simply the result of this process.

OK, let me see if I have your argument straight.

Step 1. The physical brain processes information.
Step 2. Then a miracle occurs...
Step 3. "The mind" is simply the result of this process.

I think you need to be more explicit in step 2.

My argument is not that conscious experience is not causally linked in some way with the brain. My argument is that any explanation invoking only physical processes in the brain is insufficient to solve the problem before us, even though it is still necessary to refer to such brain activity for a theory of human consciousness.

To put it simply, while embracing your bottom-up approach: why should processes in the brain give rise to consciousness at all? Why do these processes not take place like nice materialistic experience-less machines? Why AREN'T we zombies?

I don't believe that the bottom-up approach can answer this question, even in principle, starting from a materialist ontology (see my posts in Faulty expectations of a theory of consciousness). I agree that bottom-up is really the most useful paradigm to take, precisely because I think it shows more forcefully that materialism can't explain consciousness. (ad hoc tack-ons don't count)

 

[Another God]

OK, yep, I'm back where I started on this matter. I do agree completely hypnagogue, and now that I have had a chance to think about this again, I remember why.

Having put some thought into this I came to the conclusion that when you say "Why should it?" you mean what I would prefer to say "How does it [give rise to consciousness]?". Because upon thinking about this problem earlier this year, I came up with a possibly 'why' answer. I considered the problem evolutionarily (as I feel compelled to do), and the answer that I came up with, was it was a better survival strategy to create a mind which believed it existed rather than a mind which went about computing its functions. Sure out mind still does that, but now that we believe that we exist, we REALLY don't want to die... we are even fearful of dying... etc. The survival game is much more real.

How it went about achieving that phenomenon...well, that is precisely what you are asking.

 

[metacristi]

Dark Wing

You can't pull the neccesary card here. Mainly because youcannot prove that somthing is neccacary, you can only prove that it is contingent, as this is a contingent universe. Kant tried his whole life to prove somthing to be a neccesary truth, and built a lovley glass cathedral, sure. But just because it is not neccasary does not mean that's the only way it can be done within our own know universe.
Even if they are "sufficiant" and not the only way it can be done within our universe, so what? you want to talk about what "consousness" is... why not start with an explanation of what it could be inside us, and then start to expand the field to include anything you want it to be, including AI if you think immitation is good enough to attribute the real thing to. it all depends on how strictly you moniter your explanation, and what you hope to achieve from such a definition.

Probably you speak of Hume's problems of induction and causality.Yes strictly speaking we cannot be sure that something is really necessary.But in science there is a well defined notion of determinism and causality.Otherwise there would not exist the notion of scientific knowledge.We can infer,based on all observed facts,in the limit of error of our measurement devices,a number of causes which produce a physical phenomenon using a mixture of the well known methods of agreement,difference,equal variations and rest.There is no need for certitudes,there might be more (whose effect cannot be put in evidence empirically),science is concerned only with necessary and sufficient conditions that can be inferred based on all we are able to observe and measure.For example if in the presence of certain initial conditions (indistinguishable experimentally between tests) we always obtain a certain effect (also indistinguishable experimentally) we can assume we found the necessary and sufficient causes which produce a certain effect and from here to propose a scientific explanation that must be tested further.If after these extensive tests the hypothesis is not falsified and we manage to obtain a relevant experimental sample (successful tests in all relevant sort of conditions on a certain domain of definition) then we can have a high degree of confidence in the (approximative) truth of our conjecture (on that domain of definition).

In the case of our problem we cannot say we have all relevant causes that can be inferred from experiments.And this is not because of some measurement limitations,simply the brain is a so complex phenomenon that we have not managed to find all relevant mechanisms which produce conscious experience.All unbiased scientists will recognize this.Hence we cannot propose for the moment a holistic theory of consciousness of the kind of the inverse square law of gravitation (or Coulomb's law) in physics for example.All we can propose is a certain conjecture,which is evolving theoretically and experimentally indeed for the moment (all newly discovered mechanisms fit with the conjecture),but which is far from the needed holistic view in order to have a high degree of confidence in its (approximative) truth,if sustained by a relevant experimental sample of course.

Nothing indicates for the moment that the computational emergentist approach is really (approximatively) true.There is no good reason to think now that neural network is enough to explain conscious experience.Quantum consciousness approaches,even some types of interactionist dualism (see Eccles',a neurologist,proposal-by the way he is a Nobel prize winner),are still feasible,compatible with all research done in the neurological field though for the moment at least we cannot label them scientific (but nothing impede the proposal of such a scientific hypothesis in the future).This does not mean the actual experimental data is not valid,on the contrary,only that it might just not be enough.Maybe QM is involved,maybe much more,the split between these proposals might be at a very subtle level impossible to be put in evidence today.Of course there is also the possibility that eventually we will have sufficinet reasons to have a high degree of confidence in the computationalist approach but now it's not the case.

the android approach ignores the biological causation of human consiousness. they can never be consious in the way humans are, simply because if they are consious then they are so by diffrent means. there is no emergant phenomena. we are tricked into thinking there is, as we have a wholistic experience of our world. there is only brain activity, and we think we have a mind. eliminative materialism.

In case that such an android,with the brain constructed based on microswitches (having a level of complexity similar to that of a human being) will not have a behaviour indistinguishable from a human being there will exist sufficient empirical reasons against the actual computational emergentist approach.In other words will be sufficient reasons to conclude that the actual hypothesis was disproved.Indeed one of its pillars is that human mind is an emergent phenomenon due to complex interactions of the neural network in the brain.We would expect from the actual conjecture (it is a prediction of it in fact) that an android,build using the same pattern as the human brain,based on microswitches,to produce conscious experience whose first external sign to be a behaviour indistinguishable from that of a human being.Otherwise there are no good reasons to think that a computational emergentist theory in general (not only the actual variant,disproved in case that will happen what I said above) could be really enough.Exactly this is the purpose of the 'zombies' philosophical argument,to show that such androids cannot be conscious as human beings are.The above scenario will be a relevant experimental confirmation of those objections,leading inevitably to the demise of the actual variant of the computational emergentist approach.And I hardly see what alterantive scientific computational emergentist hypothesis could be proposed instead...

well, that's your opinion. To me, its taken from a neurobiological point of view, and I have been studing this for years, and am about to start my thesis. There is a lot of hope in the neuro biological world that this can be the case,and there have been major steps taken to show that its very plausable. all lesion studies, all studies on the visual cortex in particular (especily for a unified theory of mind reaserch) is very pointed towards the brain being the causer and the activator of every step of a consious state, and even the unconsious state. But I won't go down this line if there is no interest in it.

I do not think it is a question of opinion here.It's about hard facts.We need a holistic hypothesis of consciousness which to make clear predictions about the way the whole mechanism works which to be tested extensivley further.We cannot make generalizations when we know we have only a theory which accounts for parts of a mechanism.I'm afraid hope alone cannot raise the degree of confidence and the probability that the actual conjecture is true.Of course eventually we might have sufficient empirical reasons to have a high degree of confidence in the actual conjecture.But till then we have an awful lot of work to do.Hasty generalizations now are at least non rational.At most some people,this is not obligatory for all would be rational persons,can base from all known empirical facts a rational belief that the actual conjecture is (approximatively) true.Of course belief does not mean we have sufficient empirical reasons now to make the positive claim that it is (approximatively) true...