God and other associated things

[Calilasseia]

And the drivel continues …

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

@Calilasseia

Oh, and since the so-called “immaterial” has only ever been asserted to exist, and has never been accompanied by genuine evidence

The problem with many “learned” people

Wrong, the problem is with people who think made up shit dictates how reality operates, regardless of how much reality pisses on this delusion from a great height. Fanboys of ridiculous Bronze Age mythologies being particularly egregious offenders in this regard.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

is that they construct a perfect model of reality, then they close themselves off to it.

Projection much? Only you just described yourself and your fellow mythology fanboys, not scientists.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

It is so perfect that they can’t escape, not because it lacks flaws or errors, but because the individual is unable to break free from the prison they have created for themselves. This applies to everyone, to a greater or lesser extent.

Again, projection much?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Qualia is undeniably real; I think we all agree on this.

No one here disputes that subjective experience exists, what those of us who paid attention in class are disputing, is your ex recto apologetic fabrications on tje subject. Do learn the basics of discourse.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Therefore, the subject has not been asserted to exist—it simply exists.

Except that there is a huge amount of hot air and nebulous waffle associated with “qualia”, and you’ve added to the requisite discoursive dungheap.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

And qualia, based on our current knowledge, is considered immaterial because neither you nor anyone else can measure it by studying physical reality (e.g., the plant example).

Bullshit. Actual scientists, as opposed to woo merchants and pedlars of apologetic fabrications, regard testable natural processes as providing the underpinnings thereof. Oh wait, there’s a wealth of testable natural processes implicated in vision, for example.

As for your “example”, no one is obliged to dignify made up shit by equating it to properly conceived ideas.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Notice the difference between observing something that produces qualia (like brain activity) and qualia itself, which I believe you have failed to distinguish.

You have failed to demonstrate that there’s anything to distinguish.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

@Calilasseia

mythology fanboy

The worst form of mythology is the kind based on “evidence,” because, in reality, it is based on an interpretation of that evidence.

Oh look, it’s that favourite mythology fanboy bullshit, the “interpretations” canard. Here’s a clue for you, Looby Loo - science isn’t a branch of apologetics, no matter how much mythology fanboys like you wish ot to be, or dishonestly treat it as such.

The only “interpretation” that counts, is the one that reality agrees with. Heard of experimental test and verification of postulates, have you?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

You believe you are following reality, when in fact, you are following your interpretation of reality.

Do stop lying. See above with respect to experimental test and verification of postulates.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

There are so many fallacies here that it is impossible to address them all. You are victims of your own intellect, not its masters.

Poppycock. This is just your mythology fanboy intellectual penis envy manifesting itself.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

understand there are many questions to answer, and I could easily respond to them. However, the real issue lies elsewhere. You cannot wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.

Boom goes another irony meter. The only one who is asleep here is you.

Oh wait, do point to one example where mythological assertions performed better than empirical science, without resorting to the usual duplicitous [i]ex recto[i] apologetic fabrications.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Calilasseia

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Notice the difference between observing something that produces qualia (like brain activity) and qualia itself, which I believe you have failed to distinguish.

You have failed to demonstrate that there’s anything to distinguish.

Yes, I have demonstrated that you can’t determine if a plant has any qualia simply by observing its physical body. Otherwise, can you tell us if plants have qualia?

@Calilasseia

Oh wait, do point to one example where mythological assertions performed better than empirical science, without resorting to the usual duplicitous [i]ex recto[i] apologetic fabrications.

I won’t open another can of worms…

[Calilasseia]

You’ve demonstrated nothing. You’ve asserted much, but that’s all your ilk ever does.

[Cognostic]

Don’t we have a rule against preaching?

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

I have demonstrated that you can’t determine if a plant has any qualia simply by observing its physical body. Otherwise, can you tell us if plants have qualia?

Surely this is a question that someone who believes they do, should be asking themselves. If the idea is unfalsifiable then I must withhold belief, as I explained already, you now seem to be suggesting it is unfalsifiable.

[Calilasseia]

I thought it would be apposite to bring here, the scientific papers I mentioned that cover the reconstruction of observed still images and movies from fMRI scanning data, and so, I shall now do this, primarily to demonstrate how much we actually know about brain phenomena, as opposed to what is merely asserted by the usual suspects.

I shall start with this scientific paper:

Visual Image Reconstruction From Human Brain Activity Using A Combination Of Multiscale Local Image Decoders by Yoichi Miyawaki, Hajime Uchida, Okito Yamashita, Masa-aki Sato, Yusuke Morito, Hiroki C. Tanabe, Norihiro Sadato & Yukiyasu Kamitani, Neuron, 60: 915-929 (11th December 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

@Miyawaki et al (2008)

SUMMARY

Perceptual experience consists of an enormous number of possible states. Previous fMRI studies have predicted a perceptual state by classifying brain activity into prespecified categories. Constraint-free visual image reconstruction is more challenging, as it is impractical to specify brain activity for all possible images. In this study, we reconstructed visual images by combining local image bases of multiple scales, whose contrasts were independently decoded from fMRI activity by automatically selecting relevant voxels and exploiting their correlated patterns. Binary contrast, 10 × 10-patch images (2¹⁰⁰ possible states) were accurately reconstructed without any image prior on a single trial or volume basis by measuring brain activity only for several hundred random images. Reconstruction was also used to identify the presented image among millions of candidates. The results suggest that our approach provides an effective means to read out complex perceptual states from brain activity while discovering information representation in multivoxel patterns.

Here we have a research paper covering an experiment aimed at determining what image a human being has seen, and picking out the correct image seen from a large possible data set, by decoding read brain signals.

Let’s look at this in more detail, shall we?

@Miyawaki et al (2008)

INTRODUCTION

Objective assessment of perceptual experience in terms of brain activity represents a major challenge in neuroscience. Previous fMRI studies have shown that visual features, such as orientation and motion direction (Kamitani and Tong, 2005, 2006), and visual object categories (Cox and Savoy, 2003; Haxby et al., 2001) can be decoded from fMRI activity patterns by a statistical ‘‘decoder,’’ which learns the mapping between a brain activity pattern and a stimulus category from a training data set. Furthermore, a primitive form of ‘‘mind-reading’’ has been demonstrated by predicting a subjective state under the presentation of an ambiguous stimulus using a decoder trained with unambiguous stimuli (Kamitani and Tong 2005, 2006; Haynes and Rees, 2005). However, such a simple classification approach is insufficient to capture the complexity of perceptual experience, since our perception consists of numerous possible states, and it is impractical to measure brain activity for all the states. A recent study (Kay et al., 2008) has demonstrated that a presented image can be identified among a large number of candidate images using a receptive field model that predicts fMRI activity for visual images (see also Mitchell et al., 2008, for a related approach). But the image identification was still constrained by the candidate image set. Even more challenging is visual image reconstruction, which decodes visual perception into an image, free from the constraint of categories (see Stanley et al., 1999, for reconstruction using LGN spikes).

A possible approach is to utilize the retinotopy in the early visual cortex. The retinotopy associates the specific visual field location to the active cortical location, or voxel, providing a mapping from the visual field to the cortical voxels (Engel et al., 1994; Sereno et al., 1995). Thus, one may predict local contrast information by monitoring the fMRI signals corresponding to the retinotopy map of the target visual field location. The retinotopy can be further elaborated using a voxel receptive-field model. By inverting the receptive-field model, a presented image can be inferred given the brain activity consistent with the retinotopy (Thirion et al., 2006).

Now, early work determining the existence of retinotopy was first undertaken, by noting the correlation of spatially specific visual cortex lesions to specific areas of visual field loss, in, for example, cases of brain damage arising from battlefield injury. However, the above paper seeks to use this interesting fact as a means of determining the nature of a perceived image, by reading the activity within the retinotopic neurons, and correlating that activity to different areas of visual contrast. Indeed, there exists scientific literature noting that there is a correlation between retinotopy mapping and the nature of the folding of the visual cortex, but I digress.

Basically, what the scientists set out to do in this paper, was to determine if it was possible to use the differential activity arising in different parts of the neuronal retinotopy map, to elucidate the nature of an image seen by a human being, without prior knowledge on the part of the experimenters of the actual image perceived.

It’s also of note that even this early in the paper, the authors cite a number of prior papers covering work devoted to elucidating basic information about the thoughts present within the brains of human experimental subjects, using appropriate signal detection and processing means.

There is, of course, a complication in the use of this information, as the authors outline below, but, note, they also present a potential solution.

[quote=“Miwayaki et al, 2008”;p=“1136813”]
However, it may not be optimal to use the retinotopy or the inverse of the receptive field model to predict local contrast in an image. These methods are based on the model of individual voxel responses given a visual stimulus, and multivoxel patterns are not taken into account for the prediction of the visual stimulus. Recent studies have demonstrated the importance of the activity pattern, in particular the correlation among neurons or cortical locations in the decoding of a stimulus (Averbeck et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2006). Since even a localized small visual stimulus elicits spatially spread activity over multiple cortical voxels (Engel et al., 1997; Shmuel et al., 2007), multivoxel patterns may contain information useful for predicting the presented stimulus.
[/quote]

A little later on in the paper, the authors continue with:

@Miyawaki et al (2008)

Here, we present an approach to visual image reconstruction using multivoxel patterns of fMRI signals and multiscale visual representation (Figure 1A). We assume that an image is represented by a linear combination of local image elements of multiple scales (colored rectangles). The stimulus state at each local element (C_i, C_j, .) is predicted by a decoder using multivoxel patterns (weight set for each decoder, w_i, w_j, .), and then the outputs of all the local decoders are combined in a statistically optimal way (combination coefficient, l_i, l_j, .) to reconstruct the presented image. As each local element has fewer possible states than the entire image, the training of local decoders requires only a small number of training samples. Hence, each local decoder serves as a ‘‘module’’ for a simple image component, and the combination of the modular decoders allows us to represent numerous variations of complex images. The decoder uses all the voxels from the early visual areas as the input, while automatically pruning irrelevant voxels. Thus, the decoder is not explicitly informed about the retinotopy mapping.

So, basically, the technique that was used, consisted of reading signals from a range of retinotopy neurons, treating them as voxels in a state space, and determining a means of combining the signal data in such a manner, as to reproduce in a reliable and repeatable manner, the image perceived by the human subject.

I’ll let everyone here read the rest of the paper themselves, as it’s a fascinating read.

An even more illuminating paper is this one:

Reconstructing Visual Experiences From Brain Activity Evoked By Natural Movies by Shinji Nishimoto, An T. Vu, Thomas Naselaris, Yuval Benjamini, Bin Yu, and Jack L. Gallant, current Biology, 21: 1641-1646 (11th October 2011) [Full paper downloadable from here]

@Nishimoto et al (2011)

Summary

Quantitative modeling of human brain activity can provide crucial insights about cortical representations [1, 2] and can form the basis for brain decoding devices [3–5]. Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have modeled brain activity elicited by static visual patterns and have reconstructed these patterns from brain activity [6–8]. However, blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals measured via fMRI are very slow [9], so it has been difficult to model brain activity elicited by dynamic stimuli such as natural movies. Here we present a new motion-energy [10, 11] encoding model that largely overcomes this limitation. The model describes fast visual information and slow hemodynamics by separate components. We recorded BOLD signals in occipitotemporal visual cortex of human subjects who watched natural movies and fit the model separately to individual voxels. Visualization of the fit models reveals how early visual areas represent the information in movies. To demonstrate the power of our approach, we also constructed a Bayesian decoder [8] by combining estimated encoding models with a sampled natural movie prior. The decoder provides remarkable reconstructions of the viewed movies. These results demonstrate that dynamic brain activity measured under naturalistic conditions can be decoded using current fMRI technology.

@Nishimoto et al (2011)

Summary

Quantitative modeling of human brain activity can provide crucial insights about cortical representations [1, 2] and can form the basis for brain decoding devices [3–5]. Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have modeled brain activity elicited by static visual patterns and have reconstructed these patterns from brain activity [6–8]. However, blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals measured via fMRI are very slow [9], so it has been difficult to model brain activity elicited by dynamic stimuli such as natural movies. Here we present a new motion-energy [10, 11] encoding model that largely overcomes this limitation. The model describes fast visual information and slow hemodynamics by separate components. We recorded BOLD signals in occipitotemporal visual cortex of human subjects who watched natural movies and fit the model separately to individual voxels. Visualization of the fit models reveals how early visual areas represent the information in movies. To demonstrate the power of our approach, we also constructed a Bayesian decoder [8] by combining estimated encoding models with a sampled natural movie prior. The decoder provides remarkable reconstructions of the viewed movies. These results demonstrate that dynamic brain activity measured under naturalistic conditions can be decoded using current fMRI technology.

Heh, not only are scientists reconstructing still images, they’re now reconstructing movies played in the brain. The web page for the Gallant Laboratory, which conducted the research, is here, and as an aside, the scientists at that laboratory cite as prior art informing their work the Miwayaki et al paper from 2008 I presented prior to the Nishimoto et al paper.

Let’s take a further look at the Nishimoto et al paper …

@Nishimoto et al (2011)

Results

Many of our visual experiences are dynamic: perception, visual imagery, dreaming, and hallucinations all change continuously over time, and these changes are often the most compelling and important aspects of these experiences. Obtaining a quantitative understanding of brain activity underlying these dynamic processes would advance our understanding of visual function. Quantitative models of dynamic mental events could also have important applications as tools for psychiatric diagnosis and as the foundation of brain machine interface devices [3–5].

Modeling dynamic brain activity is a difficult technical problem. The best tool available currently for noninvasive measurement of brain activity is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which has relatively high spatial resolution [12, 13]. However, blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals measured using fMRI are relatively slow [9], especially when compared to the speed of natural vision and many other mental processes. It has therefore been assumed that fMRI data would not be useful for modeling brain activity evoked during natural vision or by other dynamic mental processes.

Here we present a new motion-energy [10, 11] encoding model that largely overcomes this limitation. The model separately describes the neural mechanisms mediating visual motion information and their coupling to much slower hemodynamic mechanisms. In this report, we first validate this encoding model by showing that it describes how spatial and temporal information are represented in voxels throughout visual cortex. We then use a Bayesian approach [8] to combine estimated encoding models with a sampled natural movie prior, in order to produce reconstructions of natural movies from BOLD signals.

We recorded BOLD signals from three human subjects while they viewed a series of color natural movies (20° × 20° at 15 Hz). A fixation task was used to control eye position. Two separate data sets were obtained from each subject. The training data set consisted of BOLD signals evoked by 7,200 s of color natural movies, where each movie was presented just once. These data were used to fit a separate encoding model for each voxel located in posterior and ventral occipitotemporal visual cortex. The test data set consisted of BOLD signals evoked by 540 s of color natural movies, where each movie was repeated ten times. These data were used to assess the accuracy of the encoding model and as the targets for movie reconstruction. Because the movies used to train and test models were different, this approach provides a fair and objective evaluation of the accuracy of the encoding and decoding models [2, 14].

BOLD signals recorded from each voxel were fit separately using a two-stage process. Natural movie stimuli were first filtered by a bank of neurally inspired nonlinear units sensitive to local motion-energy [10, 11]. L1-regularized linear regression [15, 16] was then used to fit a separate hemodynamic coupling term to each nonlinear filter (Figure 1; see also Supplemental Experimental Procedures available online). The regularized regression approach used here was optimized to obtain good estimates even for computational models containing thousands of regressors. In this respect, our approach differs from the regression procedures used in many other fMRI studies [17, 18].

To determine how much motion information is available in BOLD signals, we compared prediction accuracy for three different encoding models (Figures 2A–2C): a conventional static model that includes no motion information [8, 19], a nondirectional motion model that represents local motion energy but not direction, and a directional model that represents both local motion energy and direction. Each of these models was fit separately to every voxel recorded in each subject, and the test data were used to assess prediction accuracy for each model. Prediction accuracy was defined as the correlation between predicted and observed BOLD signals. The averaged accuracy across subjects and voxels in early visual areas (V1, V2, V3, V3A, and V3B) was 0.24, 0.39, and 0.40 for the static, nondirectional, and directional encoding models, respectively (Figures 2D and 2E; see Figure S1A for subject- and area-wise comparisons). This difference in prediction accuracy was significant (p < 0.0001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). An earlier study showed that the static model tested here recovered much more information from BOLD signals than had been obtained with any previous model [8, 19]. Nevertheless, both motion models developed here provide far more accurate predictions than are obtained with the static model. Note that the difference in prediction accuracy between the directional and nondirectional motion models, though significant, was small (Figure 2E; Figure S1A). This suggests that BOLD signals convey spatially localized but predominantly nondirectional motion information. These results show that the motion-energy encoding model predicts BOLD signals evoked by novel natural movies.

Once again, I’ll let everyone digest that paper in full themselves. Once more, compelling reading.

So already, despite neuroscience being a young discipline, researchers in the field are working upon empirical solutions to problems centred upon perception and the internal processing of sense data within the brain. I suspect that rigorous theoretical constructs will arise once a sufficiently large body of data is available. I’ll also pause to note how amusing it is, that the above findings were published without once needing to reference “qualia”. A clue for certain persons to take note of, perchance?

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Calilasseia

I’ll also pause to note how amusing it is, that the above findings were published without once needing to reference “qualia”

As amusing as it is to notice that you still have not understood the difference between the ‘easy problem of consciousness’ and the 'hard problem of consciousness.

The reply I provided in the other thread also applies here:

Some questions for the poster called jesus is with you

Yes, the idea of dark matter is really wild, yet there are people attempting to simulate the evolution of the universe. And you probably accept these simulations as a significant advancement for science, even though they include something we can’t measure or observe. Look, all I do is present what I find to be the most plausible explanation for qualia. Now, if you disagree, tell me what the alternative is. Maybe this? The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how co…

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Look, all I do is present what I find to be the most plausible explanation for qualia.

You keep making this claim, but t’s not true, as has been explained:

Evolution and evolved brains exist as an objective fact, we can test this as well. When a human brain dies the consciousness disappears, when it is damaged, consciousness is impaired. We can observe differing brains states in an MRI, when we subject the person to different emotional stimuli.

"Panpsychism is 1) untestable, 2) there’s no evidence for consciousness of inanimate matter, 3) there’s no explanation how the “rudimentary” consciousness of molecules and atoms can combine to produce to the complex consciousness of humans and (surely) other mammals, 4) and we have made no progress in understanding consciousness by considering or adhering to panpsychism. It seems to be a view that, ultimately, will not help us understand consciousness.”

[CyberLN]

@Some questions for the poster called jesus is with you

Look, all I do is present what I find to be the most plausible explanation for qualia.

Ok….you find your assertion to be the most plausible explanation. It appears no one else here does and folks have said why.

What, then, is your purpose in continuing to assert your explanation? How many more times are you going to say it? How many more combinations of the same words do you think are available? Do you think repetition will change folks’ minds?

[Kevin_Levites]

@Some questions for the poster called jesus is with you

And you probably accept these simulations as a significant advancement for science, even though they include something we can’t measure or observe.

I wish I could go into detail about all of the fallacies represented by this statement, but I other obligations . . . so I’ll cover a few highlights.

We can observe and measure things about the beginning of the Universe. The cosmic background radiation is one, and the fact that the galaxies are–generally–receeding away from each other, and the more distant the galaxy, the faster it is flying away from us.

You seem to have the impression that because something happened in the past . . . that it can’t be measured now.

If you believe this, then consider the obnoxious drunk who sits in the back of the bus while you sit near the front . . . and he suddenly vomits because he’s had too much to drink.

The speed of light is finite, so you actually see each part of this event after it happened in the past . . . yet you can still measure aspects about this event. You could probably estimate the volume of his vomit, and maybe make informed, intelligent conclusions about what he ate.

This is–in principle–not much different than what cosmologists and astrophysicists do when working on the physics of the Big Bang.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@CyberLN

What, then, is your purpose in continuing to assert your explanation?

I don’t understand why we ended up arguing about panpsychism again. Anyway, my original post was referring to a comment by rat_spit, where he argues that spiritual faculties are connected to the emotional aspects of the heart. Sheldon contends that emotions are merely brain functions and that the heart is just a muscle. I responded by explaining that rat_spit is talking about the qualia of these emotions, not the physical processes. I also pointed out that qualia is far from being explained by science, and I believe we all agree on this, as it has been shown in neuroscience papers to be a genuine problem.

Therefore, what rat_spit is saying about spiritual faculties refers to a reality that is not well understood by science: the qualia.

• Here are the quotes

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

@Sheldon

@rat_spit

“Spiritual Faculties” - the emotional areas of the heart which pertain to both positive and negative spiritual states.

Emotions are created by the brain, your heart is a pump made of muscle.

No, he is speaking about the qualia that accompany these physical phenomena. Qualia pose one of the hardest problems for the current materialist conception of reality, as we have already discussed. Your description only defines the “philosophical zombie”; we are talking about the real thing that makes us different from a philosophical zombie.

• Here is the reference to the paper

• Here are the quotes from this paper, demonstrating that this is a genuine problem.

This reliance on a “magical emergence” of consciousness does not address the “objectively unreasonable” proposition that elements that have no attributes or properties that can be said to relate to consciousness somehow aggregate to produce it.

[…]

If strong emergence is not considered to be a satisfactory explanation of how consciousness arises, then a reasonable alternative might be that, rather than it emerging at some point in a complex system, it was actually present all along – perhaps even as an exotic field or particle or similar component that comprises the fundamental fabric of the universe. Some ToC include a proposal that consciousness in some most elemental or fundamental form, is a currently unrecognized (in that it is missing from the standard model of particle physics) basic constituent of the universe. For example Benjamin Libet’s “conscious mental field (CMF)” that “would not be in any category of known physical fields, such as electromagnetic, gravitational, etc. ” (Libet, 1994). Such proposals recognize that in a more comprehensive appreciation of the nature of the universe’s most basic composition we would appreciate consciousness in the same way that we appreciate that the fundamental constituents of the universe we know about have properties such as mass and spin and charge. Variations of this idea either propose that everything is, to some degree, consciousness [panpsychism (Skrbina, 2007; Goff et al., 2018)] or that consciousness emerges in a recognizable form, or reaches a critical threshold, only under certain constructions. Clearly, brains would be one such construction (indeed currently the only such construction known to us), but even then, there needs to be an explanation of why some aspects of nervous system function have consciousness and why some have not.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

I don’t understand why we ended up arguing about panpsychism again.

Would bullet points help you understand?

1. You arrived asserting that panpsychism might be considered evidence for a deity.
2. This idea was thoroughly rinsed.
3. You have moved back to subjective experience, as if this is somehow a trump card, but of course it doesn’t evidence panpsychism at all, and panpsychism itself does not evidence any deity of course.
4. No one can demonstrate any objective evidence to support it, and it is of course unfalsifiable, and has no explanatory powers as to how human consciousness emerged.

If you need this simplified let me know, though it’s going to be hard to make it much simpler than this.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Sheldon contends that emotions are merely brain functions

No Sheldon did not say merely, please don’t lie by paraphrasing me. I pointed out the objective evidence that supports consciousness and human emotions being emergent properties of the brain. Of course he ignored it.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Sheldon contends that …the heart is just a muscle.

Another lie, read it again please.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

I responded by explaining that rat_spit is talking about the qualia of these emotions, not the physical processes.

Except ratty never mentioned qualia, and even had he it would not have made any difference, as there is no objective evidence that our consciousness and related properties like emotions and pain perception are perceived in the heart, but plenty that they are emergent properties of the brain. @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU of course has failed to address that fact or the evidence presented, as he has dishonestly done here again.

FYI he is and always has been peddling panpsychism, his claims for subjective experience are irrelevant without that intiital claim.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

I also pointed out that qualia is far from being explained by science, and I believe we all agree on this, as it has been shown in neuroscience papers to be a genuine problem.

You pointed out something no one had even commented on, or has denied or ever claimed otherwise? Genius, and all while evading the actual objective evidence I presented that supports consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, and points there is none for the unfalsifiable and untestable idea of panpsychism, which also fails to explain the emergence of human consciousness of course. Though he seem to want to pretend it solves this problem, when it does not.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Therefore, what rat_spit is saying about spiritual faculties refers to a reality that is not well understood by science: the qualia.

Leave it to an apologists to insist a written text doesn’t say what it literally says, but contains some hidden esoteric claim. FYI the woo woo of spiritualism is not at all understood by science, since it cannot be evidenced in any objective way, and is likely unfalsifiable and untestable, just like panpsychism.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

This reliance on a “magical emergence” of consciousness does not address the “objectively unreasonable” proposition that elements that have no attributes or properties that can be said to relate to consciousness somehow aggregate to produce it.

Yes you quoted this, but it still contains a false dichotomy fallacy, not knowing how consciousness emerged in evolved brains, does not mean one must then appeal to magic.

Paradoxically, and very ironically, claiming something exists (panpsychism) that is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced, and that has no explanatory powers whatsoever, is a claim to magic, by definition.

The rest has been thoroughly debunked multiple times, until he has the honesty to address a single of those refutations repetition is as pointless as his own here.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Sheldon

but it still contains a false dichotomy fallacy, not knowing how consciousness emerged in evolved brains, does not mean one must then appeal to magic.

No, that is not the problem. The problem is that consciousness exhibits a property that can’t be traced back to the properties of fundamental particles. You refuse to understand this, even though it has been explained countless times in every possible way. This has even been referenced in papers that you either fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge.

You keep repeating that studying the brain will solve the problem, even though you know very well that understanding all the physical properties of plants does not allow us to say anything about the qualia of plants. As of today, qualia cannot be directly observed in physical bodies, period.

I’m not denying that there are correlations between brain activity and qualia; I’m saying that these correlations align just as well with panpsychism, magical emergence, and many other theories.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

@Sheldon

but it still contains a false dichotomy fallacy, not knowing how consciousness emerged in evolved brains, does not mean one must then appeal to magic.

No, that is not the problem.

Well of course making endlessly irrational claims is not a problem for you, that is demonstrable, but for those who don’t accept irrational arguments that violate a basic principle of logic, it is a problem.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

The problem is that consciousness exhibits a property that can’t be traced back to the properties of fundamental particles. You refuse to understand this,

That’s a lie, why you think you repeating this is any more compelling than repeating the fallacious arguments you’ve been using is not clear though?

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

This has even been referenced in papers that you either fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge.

Another lie, scroll up, or view my responses in other threads, and in that post you just responded to.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

You keep repeating that studying the brain will solve the problem,

Sigh, another lie, I have literally never said any such thing.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

even though you know very well that understanding all the physical properties of plants does not allow us to say anything about the qualia of plants. As of today, qualia cannot be directly observed in physical bodies, period.

I have repeatedly told you this, even in the very post you’re responding to? One more time then since you’re bizarrely struggling to understand…panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced and has no explanatory powers. If you don’t understand those terms or the implications, I can only suggest you learn what they mean.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

I’m not denying that there are correlations between brain activity and qualia

Well you can’t since there is objective evidence to support it, but you have and are ignoring the significance of this fact.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

I’m saying that these correlations align just as well with panpsychism, magical emergence, and many other theories.

You’re wrong, and the irony of you now invoking magic is palpable. This is just becoming more and more bizarre.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Sheldon

panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced and has no explanatory powers.

And the idea of emergent properties is often referred to as ‘magical emergence’ (not my words).

We have red walls, right? (everyone) Yes!

Me: We should have red bricks.
You: That’s unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced, and offers no explanatory power.
Me: What’s your position?
You: The walls are red but made of green bricks.
Me: That doesn’t make sense.
You: It’s still better than your untestable explanation!
Me: Look…
And so on… there seems to be no end to this madness…

Sorry, this is like the Monty Python parrot sketch

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

@Sheldon

panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced and has no explanatory powers.

And the idea of emergent properties is often referred to as ‘magical emergence’ (not my words).

Still a false dichotomy fallacy, which you seem keen not to address? While then ironically claim to be making repeating rational arguments?

One more time then, since you keep repeating this lie. One can acknowledge that we do not fully understand how consciousness can emerge from the objective fact of evolution, without any recourse to claims of magic. unlike panpsychism, ironically, which also can’t explain how our consciousness emerged of course.

Your analogy is utterly irrelevant, there is no need or point in addressing something so comically facile.

Stop making up lies about what I have said please, this is your last warning, I have let endless straw men go by, but this is too far even for you, desist or I will flag any future claims as trolling.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

You: The walls are red but made of green bricks.

A lie, I made no such claim, be careful.

It is demonstrably true that consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, which is testable, falsifiable, and supported by objective evidence and related objective facts, and that has some (albeit incomplete) explanatory powers, is more plausible than panpsychism, since it has none of those. No analogy will change this fact, let alone an embarrassingly facile analogy that entirely misses the point, and misrepresents the objections and refutations offered.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Sheldon

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

You: The walls are red but made of green bricks.

A lie, I made no such claim

I’m afraid of starting a new never-ending parrot sketch… but today I’m inspired to do crazy things.

Please clarify your position, because as far as I understand, you don’t presume there’s any missing property in fundamental particles needed to explain qualia, yet you acknowledge that qualia is still not explained. Is that correct?

Then you mix it with evolution, although there doesn’t seem to be a clear function for qualia. So, what exactly is your position?

Please try to be as clear and concise as possible.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

@Sheldon

A lie, I made no such claim

I’m afraid of starting a new never-ending parrot sketch… but today I’m inspired to do crazy things.

Just stop lying that I have made claims, that I clearly have not.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Please clarify your position,

On what? You’ll need to give some clue what you’re talking about.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

as far as I understand, you don’t presume there’s any missing property in fundamental particles needed to explain qualia,

I can only suggest you learn to read. As I have stated innumerable times, and from the very first, that we don’t currently understand how consciousness emerged as an emergent property of the brain.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Then you mix it with evolution, although there doesn’t seem to be a clear function for qualia. So, what exactly is your position?

On what? Evolution is an objective fact, the existence of consciousness is an objective fact, what you are doing is adding unevidenced, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption, that itself has no explanatory powers, thus violating Occam’s razor. I have made no unevidenced assumptions, but if you think I have, then use the quote function, don’t make up lies and assign them to me, as you did above.

Are you going to address the fallacies you used at all? Please be as clear and concise as possible. Are you going to acknowledge that panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced and has no explanatory powers. and that it cannot therefore be claimed to be more plausible than consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, which is falsifiable, testable, objectively evidenced, and has some explanatory powers? Please be as clear and concise as possible.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Sheldon

On what? Evolution is an objective fact, the existence of consciousness is an objective fact, what you are doing is adding unevidenced, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption, that itself has no explanatory powers, thus violating Occam’s razor. I have made no unevidenced assumptions, but if you think I have, then use the quote function, don’t make up lies and assign them to me, as you did above.

What exactly is your position on the question of qualia?

Do you think it is an emergent property that we still don’t understand how it emerges?
Do you believe it arises from some properties in fundamental particles?
Or do you simply not know?

I want to know your exact stance because mine is clear.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

What exactly is your position on the question of qualia?

Do you think it is an emergent property that we still don’t understand how it emerges?
Do you believe it arises from some properties in fundamental particles?
Or do you simply not know?

I’ve explained this exhaustively, read what I said.

Now are you going to answer any of my questions?

@Sheldon

Are you going to address the fallacies you used at all? Please be as clear and concise as possible. Are you going to acknowledge that panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced and has no explanatory powers. and that it cannot therefore be claimed to be more plausible than consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, which is falsifiable, testable, objectively evidenced, and has some explanatory powers? Please be as clear and concise as possible

I am not answering another of your questions, until I am happy that you have at least tried to honestly address those. Time for to train now…mull it over, and see if you can muster something beyond endless repetition of someone else’s claims and arguments. Something beyond facile false dichotomies, in short some evidence you are capable of critical and nuanced thinking.