Michael Larkin
Member
I once said already, and repeat again, that Raymond Tallis would be a wonderful Skeptiko guest.
Thanks for the link. I've got some thoughts on his presentation. But before I get into that I'm just curious, what makes Prof. Raymond Tallis an atheist?
I honestly don't know. Maybe he's an agnostic who rejects the Abrahamic God. But then so am I; guess he wouldn't agree with me that some other kind of ultimate being is a possibility. That's fine by me: if all atheists were like this, dialogue would be possible.Thanks for the link. I've got some thoughts on his presentation. But before I get into that I'm just curious, what makes Prof. Raymond Tallis an atheist?
I honestly don't know. Maybe he's an agnostic who rejects the Abrahamic God. But then so am I; guess he wouldn't agree with me that some other kind of ultimate being is a possibility. That's fine by me: if all atheists were like this, dialogue would be possible.
Neuromania is based on the assumption that human consciousness is identical with neural activity in the brain.
Well, I didn't use the word "stupid". I implied that many atheists aren't as thoughtful as he is.OK. I'm not sure myself. I'm also not sure if your thread title implies you believe atheists are inherently stupid just for being atheists, or that Tallis is different because mainstream "popular" atheists have a bad reputation and he's bucking that trend
Does he frame neuroscience as exclusively an exploration of correlation? Does he say that nothing useful comes from exploration of that correlation?Now I understand perfectly what he's saying here, and he gives a followup example of an overzealous article about the brain and love. But the statement is so over simplistic it's somewhat self defeating. I don't think any competent neuroscientist actually believes that consciousness is identical to neural activity, but rather that the correlation between neural activity and consciousness is the key. This is undeniable, whether consciousness is separate from the brain or not. So if neuroscience is framed as an exploration of correlation, a big part of his argument is undermined because there is valuable knowledge to be gained there. I don't know why anyone would disagree with that.
I'm not really sure what your beef is. Tallis appears to me to be a thoughtful atheist, and you haven't disabused me of that opinion. I'd still like to third my own second and suggest Alex have him on the show if that's at all possible.Is he suggesting that we could go too far under a false set of assumptions, and that neuroscience could move in the wrong direction? He seems to be, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. Does he make a good case that this is what is actually, currently happening? I am not so certain.
Well, I didn't use the word "stupid". I implied that many atheists aren't as thoughtful as he is.
Does he frame neuroscience as exclusively an exploration of correlation? Does he say that nothing useful comes from exploration of that correlation?
I'm not really sure what your beef is. Tallis appears to me to be a thoughtful atheist, and you haven't disabused me of that opinion. I'd still like to third my own second and suggest Alex have him on the show if that's at all possible.
Not sure what you mean. He seems to think that neuroscience operates under the assumption that consciousness is identical to neural correlates, and I don't think that's correct. That seems to be his entire starting point for "neuromania", and he fans out from there.
I was only pointing out that you seemed to be saying those were his main, perhaps only points. I think he's a lot more nuanced than that.
Well, what are your thoughts on that perspective? Do you think that neuroscientists believe that neural activity is identical to the conscious experience itself?
He may be making the common mistake of attributing philosophical opinions to scientists who mainly stick with science. On the other hand, if a scientist believes mind = brain processes, then consciousness is identical to neural activity.Now I understand perfectly what he's saying here, and he gives a followup example of an overzealous article about the brain and love. But the statement is so over simplistic it's somewhat self defeating. I don't think any competent neuroscientist actually believes that consciousness is identical to neural activity, but rather that the correlation between neural activity and consciousness is the key. This is undeniable, whether consciousness is separate from the brain or not. So if neuroscience is framed as an exploration of correlation, a big part of his argument is undermined because there is valuable knowledge to be gained there. I don't know why anyone would disagree with that.
Can you explain the subtle differences? Without some kind of magical strong emergence, I don't see how neural activity can "generate" consciousness without being identical to it.I believe that most of them think the correlation signifies that neural activity generates consciousness in some as-yet unexplained materialistic way, whether or not we eventually uncover the mechanism. That's not quite the same as their being identical, I'd agree.
He may be making the common mistake of attributing philosophical opinions to scientists who mainly stick with science.
On the other hand, if a scientist believes mind = brain processes, then consciousness is identical to neural activity.
But light is a thing, whereas the mind (or consciousness) is not really a thing. At least we can't identify it as an independent thing so far. So it's more like this:I don't see how they could be identical in any case. It's kind of like saying light itself is identical to the burning filament in a bulb. Of course the two are inextricably linked.
But light is a thing, whereas the mind (or consciousness) is not really a thing. At least we can't identify it as an independent thing so far.
So it's more like this:
producing light is identical to burning a filament
I agree this is a tricky business. Here is the SEP entry on mind/brain identity theory:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/
Can you explain the subtle differences? Without some kind of magical strong emergence, I don't see how neural activity can "generate" consciousness without being identical to it.
~~ Paul
I said it is identical to brain processes. Consciousness is brain processes.Right. So how can it be identical to something that we do know is a thing?
Oh, I agree we have far to go.That makes sense. But then "producing consciousness is identical to neural activity" doesn't get us much farther along.
I certainly don't claim to have it down, either. The difference between "consciousness is brain processes" and "brain processes generate consciousness" is diabolical.Thanks, this is good reading. I really don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to any of this, so overviews of this kind are helpful to me.
Again, neural processes are identical to consciousness. Bees and honey are both things, not processes.Bees generate honey without being identical to honey. Maybe they think the activity of neurons is analogous, albeit that the product is less tangible. Maybe they think the pattern of relationships between neurons is what generates consciousness. They'd probably all agree that neurons are involved in some way, but that's different from saying they're identical to consciousness, any more than gravity is identical to mass.
But I'm no expert in this wordplay.