Friday, February 1, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

PZ Myers, Minnesota Atheists

Thanks to Steve Zara for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.mnatheists.org/
PZ's Blog is at:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Atheists Talk cable program by Minnesota Atheists.

"There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain - PZ Myers" recorded 7/22/2007

Part 1 - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8809660521227813170

Pt 1: Download Quicktime Version (118.6 MB)

Part 2 - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1800447793352878072

Pt 2: Download Quicktime Version (127.1 MB)

"There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain: Materialist Explanations for the Mind and Religious Belief"

P.Z. Myers, biologist at the University of Minnesota Morris, host of the website Pharyngula( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ ), and indefatigable defender of evolution, shares his expertise and insights on brain function, explaining how research into the brain reveals the evolutionary causes of religious belief.

In P.Z. Myers's own words:

"We've made great strides in the past century towards understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms that drive brain function, and I will briefly present an overview of some of the major conclusions of that work. In short, though, what we have are sophisticated molecular regulators and sensors and effectors and modulators that generate patterned impulses in pathways throughout the brain, and the mind is ultimately reducible to highly organized chemistry—there's no room for ghosts, souls, or spirits, and no need for them, either.

"Recently, researchers have made progress in identifying the neural substrates of higher level patterns of thought. This work is much more tentative, and we have to be aware of the limitations of our interpretations, which is a consequence of the complexity of the data. I will discuss one narrow aspect of this research, the neural basis of religious belief, and explanations for its evolution. Religious belief is an emergent consequence of much broader genetically determined properties of the brain; I will make the argument that there is no "god gene", no specific hard-coding of religion into human brains, and that religion itself is a kind of conceptual parasite that takes advantage of other desirable and even "virtuous" intrinsic qualities of the brain."

Minnesota Atheists practices positive, inclusive, active, friendly neighborhood atheism in order to:

- Provide a community for atheists - Educate the public about atheism - Promote separation of state and church

http://www.mnatheists.org/

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, February 1, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 86 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #120356 by Spinoza on February 1, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Gilbert Ryle's seminal "The Concept of Mind" (1949) debunked this view [Ghost in the Machine] 59 years ago :)

(and technically, Spinoza debunked it 350 years ago... but no one listened to him).

Good stuff PZ!!!

Other Comments by Spinoza

2. Comment #120362 by Steve Zara on February 1, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Thanks Josh ... well worth showing to all.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

3. Comment #120379 by ianmkz on February 1, 2008 at 2:39 pm

I'm only ten minutes in, but this is brilliant!

Other Comments by ianmkz

4. Comment #120431 by SPS on February 1, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Looks fascinating! So the brain isn't a series of gears attached to a hamster wheel???

Other Comments by SPS

5. Comment #120462 by Brungardt on February 1, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Hehe, I thought it was 2 accountants SPS, that made the brain work. You know the scene in the Simpsons:

"Bob, you ever wonder what's outside these walls?"
"hey, that's dangerous thinking there Johny, why don't you go back to work?"
*laughing* "You're right Bob."

Other Comments by Brungardt

6. Comment #120477 by SomeDanGuy on February 1, 2008 at 6:47 pm

^ Family Guy

Other Comments by SomeDanGuy

7. Comment #120478 by SPS on February 1, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Accountants? All the finest thinking points to gears, hamster wheel. The formula is G plus H=Brain. To think we used to believe it was accountants! How naive!

Other Comments by SPS

8. Comment #120480 by Rational_G on February 1, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Neuroscience research will show that the brain and consciousness are natural processes, requiring no supernatural explanation.

Other Comments by Rational_G

9. Comment #120485 by Acitta on February 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Spinoza said "Gilbert Ryle's seminal "The Concept of Mind" (1949) debunked this view [Ghost in the Machine] 59 years ago :)

(and technically, Spinoza debunked it 350 years ago... but no one listened to him)."

Actually, the Buddha Shakyamuni did it 2500 years ago (doctrine of Anatta).

Other Comments by Acitta

10. Comment #120490 by Friend Giskard on February 1, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Hey, Josh. Any chance of hosting these vids at richarddawkins.net? Google servers don't support pause and resume, so those of us with slow connections are buggered.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

11. Comment #120512 by sarah95 on February 1, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Great talk!

Although, I do think that RD did a much better job of explaining the "religion as a by-product" hypothesis in TGD than PZ did here. But still, an engaging and interesting presentation.

I admire his patience with the audience's questions throughout instead of just at the end. It's hard to present something when you're being interrupted.

Other Comments by sarah95

12. Comment #120513 by LorienRyan on February 1, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Great stuff! Thanks PZ for sharing.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

13. Comment #120515 by Backslidden on February 1, 2008 at 9:45 pm

This was an enjoyable and informative talk. It's sad to me to think that humans will probably continue to hold on to non-reality based conclusions for many generations to come. I'm hoping as the science and information comes in, it will be easier and easier to dislodge ignorance in the masses and replace superstition with natural processes which actually do work and do explain things beautifully.

I wish I were born in the time when religion is almost always laughed off.

Other Comments by Backslidden

14. Comment #120522 by Russell's Teapot on February 1, 2008 at 10:20 pm

"But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren't there?" -Douglas Adams

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

15. Comment #120547 by admin on February 1, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Friend Giskard,
Quicktimes are up!
Josh

Other Comments by admin

16. Comment #120704 by Adam Morrison on February 2, 2008 at 11:01 am

This lecture is fantastic. I didn't know synapse activity could be used to trigger changes in gene transcription O_o!!! This is awesome!

I loved how PZ came right out and said 'We don't know' at the start. That's the difference between a scientist and a ID/Poofist. They never say 'We don't know', it's 'God caused it'.

Silly poofists, tricks are for kids.

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

17. Comment #120729 by c4chaos on February 2, 2008 at 11:55 am

i like PZ Myers. but in this case, i think he's misreading the mind :)

i've posted my take on my blog. allow me to share the link here.

http://coolmel.typepad.com/iblog/2008/02/there-are-no-gh.html

be sure to check out this article too, by Jonah Lehrer.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-lehrer20jan20,0,1188074.story

~C

Other Comments by c4chaos

18. Comment #120762 by Rational_G on February 2, 2008 at 12:57 pm

c4chaos:

Sorry to differ but I think Jonah Lehrer's arguments are weak. Consider these reviews:

http://www.slate.com/id/2178584/

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/11/20/proust_neuroscientist/

I'm all for integrating art and science but I smell cultural relativism in Lehrer's case.

I think the techniques of electrical engineering and systems engineering when applied to the brain and consciousness are quite successful and not strictly reductionist. Neural networks and maps do not concern themselves with the behavior of a single neuron, but rather a system of neurons, acting in concert -one might say emergent behavior. One can tackle emotion and feeling as a scientific problem without sacrificing beauty, awe, wonder. etc.

See Antonio Damasio's book "Looking for Spinoza" for example.

Cheers.

Other Comments by Rational_G

19. Comment #120779 by c4chaos on February 2, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Rational_G,

thanks for the links. will check out those book reviews.

in the meantime, i just want to clarify that my point is that the study of mind/consciousness is not reducible to highly organized chemistry, as suggested by PZ Myers. the chemical components of consciousness are exterior correlates of consciousness but it doesn't address the subjectivity realm (as studied by philosophers, psychologists, and even mystics). neuroscience is just one piece of the big puzzle that is consciousness.

here's one case in point: check out this 10-year old essay from the Journal of Consciousness studies.

"An Integral Theory of Consciousness"
http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm

thanks! will read up on that book reviews now ;)

~C

Other Comments by c4chaos

20. Comment #120789 by Rational_G on February 2, 2008 at 2:31 pm

c4chaos:

Thanks also to you for your link. As you can probably tell, I'm leery of the metaphysical.

Cheers.

Other Comments by Rational_G

21. Comment #120902 by madame_zora on February 2, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Fantastic lecture! I only wish he had included in his categories of how religious ideas are conveyed the necessity of repetition. Without constant reinforcement, the improbable exposes itself as such. The thing that makes anthropomorphised phenomena seem to real is that this concept is repeated so stringently throughout a culture giving it apparent credibility. The desire inherent in beings to assign authority to leaders is a coping mechanism that has proven useful in survival. It's going to be a tough sell to convince the majority to question authority because doing this threatens the safety nets we've constructed while growing up with such frameworks in place.

He's right- what we're going to have to do is to construct a system by which the "average person" can feel okay about accepting personal responsibility for his own morality and behavior without making him feel too exposed or vulnerable. Until such time, only the exceptional will be able to accomplish it, and that will never be good enough.

Other Comments by madame_zora

22. Comment #120918 by geneflow on February 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Sweet, I can now carry the video of a god on my ipod. Ha. This is going straight on my ipod.

Other Comments by geneflow

23. Comment #120931 by fernaoorphao on February 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm

c4chaos is correct.

There's not such a thing as reducing an explanatory understanding of behavior and human activity exclusively to the nitty-gritty of action potentials and neurotransmitter release.

"mind" in modern science means no more than a functional, information-processing description of what the brain does, such as extracting a 3D representation out of a 2D retinal image or extracting a pitch sensation from an acoustic signal. This is unavoidable. All experiments (invasive or not) are made in the context of carefully designed tasks or information-processing activities performed by experimental subjects, and must be understood from this perspective.

The tricky and fascinating issue is how to relate our computational theories of what the brain is doing to physiological descriptions of how the "wetware" behaves under such and such conditions.

This is so obvious that it hardly merits discussion. I haven't watched the vids in full, but if PZ Myers really falls in this nominalistic trap of old-school, hard-nosed and outdated behaviorists I'm deeply sorry for him since I tend to admire his opinions and his work.

Other Comments by fernaoorphao

24. Comment #121047 by bwatland on February 2, 2008 at 10:18 pm

You can find audio of this recording, and others from Minnesota Atheists here: http://mnatheists.org/content/view/34/37/

Other Comments by bwatland

25. Comment #121063 by dragonfirematrix on February 2, 2008 at 11:16 pm

I enjoyed this video, though I must say I am not sure how functionally adaptive I might be.

I had to listen very hard with both sides of my brain to keep my head above mommyâ€™s milk, but I adapted and enjoyed the video :)

I like the part about housework. I am a guy. I do not like housework, but I do it because I do not like living in a dump. I guess this makes me functionally illiterate adaptive, or something like that.

I do not drink milk anymore. I replaced it with beer. I wonder where this places me in the gene pool. Not only this, but I am an IT guy, so I guess my genome architecture means my network wiring is probably a mess :)

As for religion, I reject gods. â€œGod(s) is(are) imaginary.â€ I am a Secular Humanist. I believe all religions (brain by products) are cults created by imperfections in the brain, which (for example) result in the killing of disobedient sons and kill decent people who work on the (fill in your religion) Sabbath.

Scientists will learn (as long as they are not persecuted or killed by the religious) all things.

I enjoyed the video. Send more.

Thanks,

Wayne, Forest, VA

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

26. Comment #121398 by Sturmunddrang on February 3, 2008 at 11:03 am

I appreciate the approach of Dr. Meyers in that he fully admits "WE DON'T KNOW" regarding lots of aspects of the physiology brain. However, he also states that this does not automatically mean that there is some magical supernatural force guiding things along. It simply indicates that the brain is damn complex and we have a long way to go in trying to understand it. He rightly points out that scientists are making remarkable progress. When I took classes on behavioral neuroscience, psychopharmacology and evolutionary psychology, I was astonished with the amount that we DO know. If you study what we actually know about the brain at this time, then I think you would have to be religious to not stop and think "I have confidence that we will eventually figure this out!" Only the religious are looking for gaps in our knowledge to say, "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!!! IT'S A SOUL!!! IT'S GOD!!!" We need to open our minds to the idea that the brain is VERY complex, but it doesn't mean that we cannot gain a scientific understanding of it. It's like Richard Dawkins once mentioned regarding groundbreaking research of a scientist mapping the neural impulses of a certain species of snail (I might be remembering it wrong, so forgive me if I am). Dr. Dawkins mentioned that if we thought like some of these religious people do about the brain, then that scientist studying that snail's neuron may have just said "DAMNIT!!!! IT'S JUST TOO COMPLEX! i GIVE UP!! IT'S GOD OR A SNAIL SOUL!" Did he do that? No. We should be glad that he didn't do that, too. We need to stop being post-modernist or religionist regarding the brain (it seems many atheists are tempted to these perspectives toward the brain). Our fears seem to be that free will might not exist or that consciousness will lose its preciousness if science explains it. If these are your concerns, then maybe you could try reading a book like Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett. He might help to dispel your fears as he describes how to reconcile free will, determinism and naturalism. Anyway, good video. We need more talks like this.

Other Comments by Sturmunddrang

27. Comment #121431 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 11:47 am

Actually, as regards snail souls, even medieval christendom and the medieval islamic world were perfectly fine with the souls of animals, and even the lower "animal" and "vegetative parts of the human soul being purely physical, corporeal things generated by the biological processes of the body. Generally speaking only the "rational" soul (i.e. the bit of the human soul that animals do not have) was supposed to be incorporeal and "ghostly" - a doctrine they derived not from scripture but from Aristotle. Of course, the catholic church only really espoused this explanation because it shored up their immortal soul doctrines and let them explain the afterlife in something approaching scientific terms.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

28. Comment #121448 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 12:18 pm

fernaoorphaoo:

I must differ with both you and c4chaos: The neuroscience of feeling and emotion IS viable and is being determined, slowly but surely. It is being determined by experiment and observation, just like any other scientific endeavor. Neuroscience is not exclusively behaviorist - it measures what the brain is actually doing - directly. Mapping physical parts of the brain to feeling and emotion. Constructing neural maps and models not just of sight and sound but of feeling, emotion, and the sense of self. It has gone beyond image and auditory models - you are short changing neuroscience today if you are reducing it to that. It's beyond psychology if that's what you object to. It's empirical - evidence based - data based and a bit more far reaching than the stimulus/response exercise you seem to want to reduce it to.

And if the mind is more than just physical processes, then what is it? Soul? ghost? Energy? life force? wetware? spirits?

These "subjective realms" which science cannot answer - what are they?

This sounds rather metaphysical to me. I prefer the physical. The natural - not the supernatural. The natural world is spectacular enough without having to invent other realms. I believe some people just insist there must be more to it than that. Why? What? I think you guys should take a fresh look at the frontiers of neuroscience before you write it off. You might be surprised. Again I would point you to the work of Antonio Damasio who has modeled a neurobiological account of the self. Based on hard data from the lab. No quadrants, no "alternate" sources of truth. No wild speculation. Just hard work.

To quote the physicist Murray Gell-Man: "You don't need something more to get something more."

The separation of mind and body is a mistake. That's my humble opinion anyway.

Cheers.

Other Comments by Rational_G

29. Comment #121455 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 12:33 pm

First, a confession. I am a vague dualist. But that does not mean I am not a believer in naturalism.

And if the mind is more than just physical processes, then what is it? Soul? ghost? Energy? life force? wetware? spirits?

Something emergent? Perhaps it is rather like entropy or temperature.

These "subjective realms" which science cannot answer - what are they?

It is about the fact that we know what it is like to "be".

I believe there is something odd going on in terms of the fact that we have sensations. The strangest thing for me is that in expressing that we have sensations, whatever it is that is experiencing them (and it must be an odd thing - why should an arrangement of particles experience "redness"?) is interacting with the physical brain so that we can express this.

I just don't feel we can dismiss qualia. I have sympathy with the "panexperientialist" view - that consciousness (albeit of a very low level in most cases) is a property of all physical objects.

Sounds whacky, I know.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #121462 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Hi Steve -

Really impressed by all your posts.

As much as consciousness is still a mystery, my rationalist training makes me feel guilty about dualist thoughts. ;-) I am a bit of a hyper-rationalist.

I rather like emergence, so I'm cool with that.

Of course, I really don't know how far neuroscience can explain consciousness but I am very excited about the gains made there and of course in evolutionary biology and microbiology as well.

Cheers.

Other Comments by Rational_G

31. Comment #121465 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 12:57 pm

"I believe there is something odd going on in terms of the fact that we have sensations. The strangest thing for me is that in expressing that we have sensations, whatever it is that is experiencing them (and it must be an odd thing - why should an arrangement of particles experience "redness"?) is interacting with the physical brain so that we can express this."

Im not sure I agree/understand you steve.

You think something odd is going on? By that you mean something a materialistic interpretation could not explain?

Other Comments by righton

32. Comment #121469 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Im not sure I agree/understand you steve.

Well, to me it is a mystery that an arrangement of particles can "have an experience". I believe that what "mind" is correlates perfectly to arrangements of particles in the brain, but it is perhaps something additional. A bit like temperature is entirely related to states of particles, but is something more.

You think something odd is going on? By that you mean something a materialistic interpretation could not explain?

I am sure there is a materialistic explanation.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #121472 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 1:08 pm

I don't know about ALL natural objects, but it has been argued that every living organism's (including a single cell's) "desire" to maintain homeostasis is the beginning of the biology of consciousness.

Other Comments by Rational_G

34. Comment #121476 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:12 pm

I havent read much about conciousness research.

The brain is of course extremely complex. Ive always thought that consciousness is the manifestation of all the the connections of neurons.

Do you have some recomendations for reading on this subject

Other Comments by righton

35. Comment #121482 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I think emergence has a lot going for it, both in physics and biology. Temperature is meaningless at the level of individual atoms and consciousness is meaningless at the level of individual neurons or even elementary brain functions as fernaoorphaoo and c4chaos have correctly pointed out.

If they were asserting something non physical -that's where I object. If not, then my misunderstanding. (Trying to be opinionated but fair.)

Other Comments by Rational_G

36. Comment #121483 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I think using the phrase, "an arrangement of particles" makes it hard to understand.

Why dont you say an arrangement of neurons. Or an arrangement of many millions of neurons.

Other Comments by righton

37. Comment #121484 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 1:22 pm

I don't know about ALL natural objects, but it has been argued that every living organism's (including a single cell's) "desire" to maintain homeostasis is the beginning of the biology of consciousness.

I think that tries to make life a special case, perhaps?

Do you have some recomendations for reading on this subject

The champion of the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness is David Chalmers:

http://consc.net/chalmers/

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #121486 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Righton:

I've already been name dropping Antonio Damasio ( I should get royalties!) He has three books out on the subject -

1, Descartes' Error

2. The Feeling of What Happens

3. Looking for Spinoza.

I've read #2 and am 25% through #3.

I find him easier to read than Dennet ("Consciousness Explained") another good book on the subject.

#2 deals with consciousness directly and #3 about feeling and emotion in the brain.

I'm sure I'm leaving out many other good sources.

Other Comments by Rational_G

39. Comment #121487 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:34 pm

I really feel I have to object here.

There can be no entirely materialistic explanation if consciousness and qualia are not either completely reducible to the arrangements and workings of matter or can be explained away. This is a necessary truth. If its not the arrangement and/or causal function of matter (yes, yes... matter/energy), it isn't within materialism. It's a sort of dualism or pluralism.

But really, panpsychism? There is no evidence for that hypothesis. It's not even testable. We have very good reasons to assume that consciousness is the functioning of the neural network. We have no good reason to assume that it's something metaphysical. Dualism is not a viable option, as it contradicts physics in being incompatible with the causal closure of spacetime.

Honestly, not to be rude or insulting, but this reminds me very much of the god hypothesis. It's untestable and there's no need for it, as we have ways of explaining consciousness within materialism. The explanations are incomplete as of yet, but huge steps forward are being made. Especially seeing as this is probably the youngest field of studies in modern science.

My money is on teleofunctionalism or eliminative materialism.

Chalmers is nice to read, but unconvincing. The Zombie hunch is just that, an unsubstantiated hunch, and qualia can either be explained away, or be reduced inter-theoretically, as Churchland has done with colour-qualia in "Chimerical colours".

As Dennett says: "There is no Hard Problem of consciousness"

But thankfully, Chalmers has a very broad collection of papers on consc.net, not only by him.

Other Comments by MPhil

40. Comment #121491 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 1:41 pm

There can be no entirely materialistic explanation if consciousness and qualia are not either completely reducible to the arrangements and workings of matter or can be explained away.

I am not claiming otherwise. It just depends on what you mean by "workings".

Honestly, not to be rude or insulting, but this reminds me very much of the god hypothesis.

That is a bit insulting. There are some respected atheist philosophers and scientists who believe that there is a problem in this area.

But really, panpsychism? There is no evidence for that hypothesis. It's not even testable.

Neither is the hypothesis that solipsism is false. But if a certain arrangement of atoms (my brain) can have "experiences", then it is reasonable to assume that other arrangements of atoms can do the same.

It's untestable and there's no need for it, as we have ways of explaining consciousness within materialism.

I have yet to hear any explanation of why we experience qualia. All I have heard is attempts to dismiss it as a non-problem.

But this could just be a result of my limited knowledge in this area.

Churchland has done with colour-qualia in "Chimerical colours".

That sounds fascinating - any chance of a quick summary? I am totally happy to be shown that I am wrong.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #121492 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:42 pm

"but this reminds me very much of the god hypothesis."

Thats what I was thinking.

Other Comments by righton

42. Comment #121493 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I apologize for being so picky... but if consciousness is not identical to matter of a certain arrangement (including energy) or its function, if a vague dualism is true... what would that second thing be? Another sort of substence (substance dualism)? Another sort of property (property dualism)? How is that second thing connected with the first? Can it influence the first? Then you give up causal closure of spacetime - you abandon thermodynamics and everything relying upon that. Can matter influence consciousness, but not vice versa (epiphenomenalism)? Again, how could material things influence non-material things? How would one test such a hypothesis? Is it even meaningful? Is it scientific? Is it necessary?

Other Comments by MPhil

43. Comment #121494 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Concerning chimerical colours.... I'll fetch the paper and will attempt a summary. Expect it in a few minutes (I'd say 15-25)

Other Comments by MPhil

44. Comment #121496 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 1:48 pm

I apologize for being so picky... but if consciousness is not identical to matter of a certain arrangement (including energy) or its function, if a vague dualism is true... what would that second thing be?

Ok, dualism was probably the wrong word. I don't believe in any kind of "thing" that is separate from the brain. I just think there is more going on than just atoms and particles moving about. This does not mean that I think some kind of "mind substance" affects the signalling in brain cells. It may just be that when certain kinds of information processing patterns happen, there is some effect called "sensation".

I am not a real dualist. I just believe there is more here than we yet know. Perhaps "Extra-ist" would be a better term.

Actually, I am not really sure what "kind" of problem qualia are. Sometimes I think it is the same problem as the question of "why is there anything at all?"

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #121500 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Concerning chimerical colours.... I'll fetch the paper and will attempt a summary. Expect it in a few minutes (I'd say 15-25)

That's great! I have also found an on-like talk by Churchland.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #121502 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I think I can agree with that description. I just think that such a sensation can then safely be identified with the complex chemical and electrical signaling. I can't find the paper right now, but I'll get back to you on that as soon as I have - but one thing I have almost memorized from the paper is Churchland's wonderful statement (paraphrased):

Many people think there is "something more" to consciousness, that there "has to be", for how else could all of what that person experiences come about. Well, surely there are physical processes we have not identified as of yet - the exact function of certain chemical or electrical processes.
But here we have [chimerical colours] something that is a genuine, workable theory: Color-qualia are the output vector-codings of colour opponent cells in the Hurvich-Jameson network. This theory is so strong that it provides testable predictions for color-qualia. The thing with intertheoretic recuctions is: If they are correct, it makes no sense to ask for a 'connection between the qualia and the vector-codings of colour opponent cells int he HJ-Network'. There can be no connection between one and the same thing. So the fact that this question seems to some people not to have been answered is not an argument, as the question makes no sense if the theory is correct."

Other Comments by MPhil

47. Comment #121505 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Color-qualia are the output vector-codings of colour opponent cells in the Hurvich-Jameson network. This theory is so strong that it provides testable predictions for color-qualia.

It does not answer the question, I feel. Why should the codings of the cells produce any sensation? Why should it feel like something to have those vector-codings?

The thing with intertheoretic recuctions is: If they are correct, it makes no sense to ask for a 'connection between the qualia and the vector-codings of colour opponent cells int he HJ-Network'. There can be no connection between one and the same thing.

If we can imagine the possibility that there could be a different connection between the vector-codings and the sensations, then I think this means that there is something to be explained.

I say "I think" because I am not sure.... I may well be asking a question with no meaning, like "why is a triangle not a circle".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #121509 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 2:16 pm

That's exactly what I meant. The mere logical possibility (stemming from the nature of the conception) does not mean that there is an actual, physical possibility. That would be like saying that because we can imagine lightning being something other than electrical discharge (see the myths of ancient times) that there is something to be explained. Once we identify what used to be thought of as two things as being one and the same thing - these questions make no sense anymore. And if that identification yields a complete functional, even predictive (scientific) explanation, there is furthermore no need for postulating something to be explained.

Damn, can't find the book with the paper right now... maybe it's still at my girlfriend's, in which case I shall do the same as with "neurosemantics".

Other Comments by MPhil

49. Comment #121512 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 2:22 pm

As for the question why a certain stimulus yields a certain color qualia - that's the interesting thing. If you take the Munsell color-space spindel as the space of color qualia, and you calculate the possible coordinates in the vector-space of the color-opponent cells... they fit perfectly. Of course you'd have to see that, and Churchland has wonderful colored pictures, even prediction-tables.

Hmm... maybe I'll just send you the handout for the talk I gave on that subject before I scan the article.

Other Comments by MPhil

50. Comment #121513 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Any reason to think the qualia problem won't be eventually solved by neurobiology?

Enjoying this thread! - and trying to keep up with the ideas !

Other Comments by Rational_G

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last