Related to a debate going on elsewhere around here- some people (including some scientists and medics) are arguing that we now may be at the point which shows we need a new science of consciousness.
The argument goes that the current scientific model views consciousness as a brain-based phenomenon - that is; the mind is what the brain does. However, according to some, this may be incorrect and there may be aspects of consciosuness that cannot be couched in brain-based models.
Who is making this argument? Well, its being made by Fenwick and Parnia - two NDE researchers. The evidence? Well, there is none - it currently seems to be little more than a philosophical position - and one which actually violates a central tenet of logic.
Fenwick and Parnia basically say that there may be 'something in the middle' between the brain and mind. We are not told what this 'something' is, how it operates, what it does, or how we can look for it. Nor are we provided with any direct existing evidence for it now. They argue that although a damaged brain can impact on mental functioning - this does not mean that mental functioning is dependent on that brain region. Although it is difficult to really grasp the argument they are trying to make, one possibility is as follows:
It could mean that a more 'intermediate mind' is damaged - rather than higher-consciousness. according to some, Intermediate mind is what we use day-to-day - but when the brain is dead - we transend
The problem for me is, it assumes something to be true and then claims immediately that this 'something' cannot be tested (higher-consciousness) - which makes it non-falsifiable. Secondly, there is no evidence to support this position - and as such, there can be no reason to assume it to be true. Thirdly, it violates the principle of Occam's razor - by adding additional assumptions unecessarily. Fourthly, it tries to use the gaps in our knowledge as evidence for its position - a fallacy known as the argument to ignorance (gaps do not support either position). Based on these (and other) observations - I would say there is no need to argue for a new science of consciousness - as the current view seems capable and appropriate (though incomplete).
What do others here think?
Last edited by Dr B; 25th May 2007 at 07:51 PM.
We need a science of conciousness in the same way we need a science of ghosts and bigfoot. Unfortunately, complete lack of evidence has never stopped people pretending to work in new areas before.
I take it you mean a new science of consciosuness (i.e. a supernatural one)...
Actually we do need a scientific explanation for ghostly experiences and OBEs and NDEs - but these explanations have nothing to do with what Parnia and Fenwick would have you believe.
There is more from the stable of woo
The survivalist argument is claiming that the relationship between brain states and mental (mind) states is purely correlational. As such, it is not causal. From this, they claim that the direction of causality cannot be inferred and a viable alternative view can be suggested.
This alternative is that the brain states may reflect mind states (rather than the other way around). The crude metaphor is that the brain is a receiver and not a transmitter. The implication seems to be that 'mind' is proximal to brain - but not confined within it.
By this account, the reason brain damage impairs mental states is not because those brain regions are causally responsible, but because an intact mind cannot recruit the necessary brain regions to perform.
It is of course, totally nonsense for a host of reasons. I am writing an article on this as we speak, and I dont want to discuss all my ideas here - but there are some thoughts to consider: For example, neural events precede mental states - so there is a chain of direction - it is not the other way around. A causal account would need to show an association and correlation between factors involved in it - so correlations are support for, and not against causal accounts (though they are not themselves causal accounts). There is no positive evidence for the brain 'receiving' mind - and the whole idea tries to hide-out in what we do not yet know (absence of evidence).
If the mind can 'sense' the world without brain, why do we need a brain? How does the mind do this? Where is mind? What is doing the transmission and how would we measure this?
I am also confused as to why many illusions - based on the architecture of the visual brain - work in the mind. If the mind has its own apparatus for sensing the world - and that is the primary apparatus (the brain is secondary) why does mental experience (i.e., imagery etc) not induce as strong a response in the brain as real visual stimulation? In other words, if the brain is nothing more than a correlate of mind (as opposed to the other way around) why do patterns and levels of activity show the opposite relationship to what this predicts?
Of course, I can think of more woowoo to slip through these ideas here...but all of them involve untested and unecessary assumptions.
Are you really wanting “discussion” – or is this just a vent hole?
I'm quite lost trying to understand your information - way above my head! So I'm glad it's in good hands!
I don’t think we need a new science of consciousness – aren’t we doing well enough with the one there is? New facts about the mind are being discovered with such speed that there are books/papers published that are already out-of-date before the pages have dried. So the science of consciousness is changing at astonishing speed. So lets just keep the old one - its a better challenge!
Science doesn't explain things that really DO need explaining – but it will. I just hope it’ll be before I snuff it – otherwise I’m going to have to re-incarnate out of curiosity!
Poor old Parnia and Fenwick aren’t the only ones doing research and trying to explain what is currently thought of as supernatural rubbish. There are many other pseudo scientists examining all sorts of mind stuff with (hopefully) proper scientific method. Maybe something will come out of it and they will be brought into the fold. Occams Razor isn't always the best tool for critical thinking in science – there are several examples of how it doesn’t work. It would be ridiculous to use it if it circumsized knowledge rather than clarified it!!
I suppose these ideas have been “updated” by now but this is an interesting interview with Susan Greenfield
After reading it I realised that I already feel the internet is an extension of my brain.... !
M
(Thanks!)
Last edited by Allo Allo; 17th May 2007 at 03:20 PM.
Like what?Originally Posted by Allo Allo
Isn't the brain just a biological computer, and the mind an abstract way of describing some of it's functions?
or something....
I am fostering a discussion - I do not apologise if your beliefs are challenged. That is the purpose of this arena. I am not venting anything, a serious claim has been made (that current science is wrong) and I am challenging the basis of that claim. This is perfectly legitimate - its called science!
Then read up a little more. I dont think I have used technical language at any point. I agree it can be confusing - but that has more to do with the survivalists ot being clear on what their version of consciousness is rather than my discussion.I'm quite lost trying to understand your information - way above my head! So I'm glad it's in good hands!
I agree and yes. There are of course - explanatory gaps - but these do not warrant abandoning science.I don’t think we need a new science of consciousness – aren’t we doing well enough with the one there is?
There are better reasons for keeping the current view - but I share your conclusion.New facts about the mind are being discovered with such speed that there are books/papers published that are already out-of-date before the pages have dried. So the science of consciousness is changing at astonishing speed. So lets just keep the old one - its a better challenge!
Not true - it does - but you may not be aware of these explanations. There is a mass of information out there that requires shifting through (lots of it is tosh) - but this process will be rewarding.Science doesn't explain things that really DO need explaining – but it will. I just hope it’ll be before I snuff it – otherwise I’m going to have to re-incarnate out of curiosity!
Why are they poor? No - they are not the ones doing 'research'. They are the ones promoting unfounded claims. As such, they generate the very confusion you are trying to avoid.Poor old Parnia and Fenwick aren’t the only ones doing research and trying to explain what is currently thought of as supernatural rubbish.
Nop - pseudoscience can be legitimately ignored for what it is - nonsense. There is no reason to assume anything will come from it.There are many other pseudo scientists examining all sorts of mind stuff with (hopefully) proper scientific method. Maybe something will come out of it and they will be brought into the fold.
Occams razor is a very good tool - and it is one the woos fall foul of all the time. Give examples of its shortcomings if you like. Actually, if you take the time to go back and read you will see that far many more reasons than occam's razor were given - so even if you were right on that point (which clearly you are not) you have all the other reasons to tackle as well.Occams Razor isn't always the best tool for critical thinking in science – there are several examples of how it doesn’t work. It would be ridiculous to use it if it circumsized knowledge rather than clarified it!!
Remember - nonsense is not knolwedge - it facilitates no understanding.
I find Greenfield out of her depth on matters of cognition - though thansk for the link.I suppose these ideas have been “updated” by now but this is an interesting interview with Susan Greenfield
The computer metaphor is just that - a metaphor. It guides some thinking - but is, ultimately, incorrect.
My beliefs aren't challenged - its the brain that is.I have read OP again.
Well I have been trying to find them - and have found many. I am not a scientist so I have to "believe" at a certain point.
Only in the way you'd say "poor old thing" - sympathy for someone getting a battering
Don't you feel their area of "study" is a very difficult one? How do you experiment with death? Scientifically, how do you "replicate" any kind of experiment? It just seems impossible to me - impossible to provide "proof" occams razor making it unnecessary.You did say that they were no threat to science as it understands consciousness.
My error - I shouldn't have called legitimate scientists pseudoscientists - wrong term - sorry.
I went back and read again - a few questions came to me but I don't think I'm qualified to think them.
I read her again too - wasn't so impressed the second time - punctuation and gramatical errors annoyed me - but I did enjoy some ideas at the end of it.
What definition of consciousness do you work from - where does it lie? What is it's "matter"? Your ideas on that would be interesting. But simplified!
One last question - you have said a flatline EEG doesn't indicate death - what does then? I don't want my organs removed if I'm not DEAD! :-\
M
To be fair - they are not getting a battering. Their claim is huge and, if true, profound. The problem is the quality of the evidence and reasoning is not there - and as such - cannot support the conclusion. The world would be a better place if so-called scientific people did not go around generating confusions from their own poor understandings of science and the brain. This is why i feel their arguments need addressing. Trust me - you will see more of this nonsense over the coming years - but its all seriously flawed. They take a philosophical position (and not a good one) and not a scientific one.Only in the way you'd say "poor old thing" - sympathy for someone getting a battering
I work on cognition, awareness and consciousness everyday - no need to claim a special status for it here. It requires careful honest thought and a sound methodology.Don't you feel their area of "study" is a very difficult one?
There is an argument that NDEs have nothing to do with death and that these people are far from death (in reality) - so there may be no need to experiment with it at all. However, G-LOC experiments for air force pilots, mountain climbers and military experiments on psychology under extreme ciurcumstances all provide valuable insights. As do drug studies, pathology, illness, disease, stimulation studies, sensory deprivation studies, carbon-monoxide therapy studies (from the 1950s) asphyxiation studies (using infaltable neck collars - yes these do existHow do you experiment with death? Scientifically, how do you "replicate" any kind of experiment?
See above comments. Occams razor basically posits that there is no need to add assumptions unecessarily. In other words, if you cannot justify making an assumption (with evidence and reason) - then dont make it. The problem with Fenwick's idea is it starts out with a flawed premise (that experiences have occurred during flat EEG - this has never been shown to be the case), and then reasons fallaciously from that premise (unecessary assumptions / circular reasoning / absence of evidence)It just seems impossible to me - impossible to provide "proof" occams razor making it unnecessary.You did say that they were no threat to science as it understands consciousness.
The problem with many of her comments and her programmes is that, like many other pop-scientists, they pass off other peoples ideas and findings as their own (maybe this is unintentional - but that's a judgement call). Or they propose the current accepted wisdom as being their suggestion. This makes them look more insightful than infact they are.I read her again too - wasn't so impressed the second time - punctuation and gramatical errors annoyed me - but I did enjoy some ideas at the end of it.
That the mind is, what the brain does.What definition of consciousness do you work from
A flat EEG does not indicate brain death at all. You just need to look at some instances of coma and syncope to see that. Medics are still undecided on the definition of death - but I would not want to be on the operating table with Fenwick and Parnia in the room or you may find yourself being the worlds most premature organ donorOne last question - you have said a flatline EEG doesn't indicate death - what does then? I don't want my organs removed if I'm not DEAD! :-\
Dont get me wrong, a flat EEG is not good - but it is far from near or complete brain death.
Yes - I have been reading all this! Very fascinating. But not about - was that "inflatable" neck collars?There is an argument that NDEs have nothing to do with death and that these people are far from death (in reality) - so there may be no need to experiment with it at all. However, G-LOC experiments for air force pilots, mountain climbers and military experiments on psychology under extreme ciurcumstances all provide valuable insights. As do drug studies, pathology, illness, disease, stimulation studies, sensory deprivation studies, carbon-monoxide therapy studies (from the 1950s) asphyxiation studies (using infaltable neck collars - yes these do exist
Mind and "consiousness" is the same thing?
:-\A flat EEG does not indicate brain death at all. You just need to look at some instances of coma and syncope to see that. Medics are still undecided on the definition of death - but I would not want to be on the operating table with Fenwick and Parnia in the room or you may find yourself being the worlds most premature organ donor
Any way of testing complete brain death?
M
I've lost "granny" again - so this will have to do....
No - you are not conscious of everything the mind is doing.
Not directly. It's a judgement call (within reason).Any way of testing complete brain death?
If we remove the afterlife hypothesis from the equation, is there any other scientific evidence or justifiable reason to postulate that the mind and the brain are two separate things?
To me, arguments for duality seem to serve no purpose other than to support the idea of an afterlife - and such arguments seem to be presented back to front: the afterlife is assumed and its existence is supported by our gaps of knowledge (Argument to Ignorance).
Remove the afterlife hypothesis and I can't see any reason to postulate that the mind is anything other than an emergent property of the brain.
Quite right.
There is one issue relating to some form of 'difference' - but this does not necessitate the need for dualism.
It is unlikely that cognitive architectures are identical at higher levels to neural architectures with a one-on-one correspondence mapping. In other words some theorists argue that at the highest level, the stucture of the brain might not reveal insights for the stucture and function of the mind. This might well be true - but it is not a dualistic claim - it is one which ackowledges that the relationship between structure and function is highly complex.
Fodor uses this argument against connectionist approaches where he states that computational approaches fall down when trying to model high-level function (but work well for low-level function).
However, none of this has anything to do with dualism
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks