Challenge to debunkers: Can you prove hallucinations are generated inside brain :-)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Rudism

I hear this metaphor a lot, but it doesn't really work. The TV has a mechanism for receiving and decoding the external information which, when removed or disabled, renders the rest of the components completely useless. You could experimentally verify this with a simple test--unplugging the cable, or blocking the signals with some kind of shielding. This is not analogous to the brain--there is no evidence of any kind of external signal, but there is tons of evidence supporting a more materialistic view.

For example, if memories are stored outside of the brain, why does damage to the hippocampus affect our ability to form memories? Why are scientists able to develop drugs that can target and remove specific individual memories (see here for an example)? If the self and consciousness are external to the brain, then why does damage to the prefrontal cortex so drastically change people's personality and awarenesses?

The configuration of the brain is obviously extremely important in how we perceive the world, how we perceive ourselves, and how we behave--so where's the evidence that there's outside information involved in any of this?

I would like to see a TV that, when you damage a certain circuit, starts showing more violent programming. Or a TV where removing a component results in actors showing up in the wrong shows, or causing the plots to become noticeably more disjointed and confused.

If this happened this would be evidence that the TV set is the origin of the content it shows -- so this is why it doesn't happen. And to conclude that the brain generates consciousness we would have to have analogous similar effects. But such analogous similar effects are not a change in personality, or the inability to recall memories. Rather it should be a literal change in the self, or the creation of a whole range of memories ex nihilo.

So for example, if we take a case such as Phineas Gage it is not sufficient for him merely to undergo a personality change in order to conclude the brain generates consciousness. He would need to literally become a different self. The former would be analogous to the picture distorting on a TV set when you tinker with the innards of the set, the latter would be analogous to the TV set displaying more violent content when you tinker with the innards of the set.

Did Phineas Gage literally become a different self? Well as far as I know he never claimed he did. Indeed we would suppose that the personality changes he underwent is simply a more extreme version of the personality changes we undergo after consuming a fair quantity of alcohol. We may feel more extrovert, more cantankerous etc, but we would vehemently deny we have literally become different selves.

The mistake you make and all other materialists make is to equate the self with ones personality. But in order to attack my position you should not impose your own interpretation of the self. Ones personality, intelligence, memories, thoughts, emotions etc, are merely the properties of the self. They do not constitute the self.

Here is what I wrote before on this issue:

Imagine if you will 2 very intelligent people from the early 18th century who, by some means or other, are miraculously transported to our present day. Imagine further they encounter a television set showing a film. After being suitably astounded, and after tinkering around with its internal components and finding that tinkering with particular components effects the picture quality in particular characteristic ways, you can imagine one of them claiming that not just the picture, but the storyline of the film must be wholly generated by these internal components since tinkering with them affects the picture. He might claim there is overwhelming evidence that this must be so. The other person, however, will rightly point out that although he grants that the picture itself is generated by these internal components, it cannot be the case that the actual contents of the movie, the actual storyline with its depiction of various emotions and so on, can be generated by just these internal components. This is because there is nothing about the physical processes within the TV set which could conceivably lead to the generation ex nihilo of such a storyline.

So with a television set the state of its internal components will affect the quality of the picture, but this does not entail that the storyline depicted by the picture is affected too. Indeed no matter how poor the picture quality might get e.g. a snowy picture, ghosting etc, a given film will continue to show the same events.

I want to suggest that some useful insights into trying to understand a possible relationship of the self to its brain might be gained from consideration of this television set metaphor. A loose analogy might be drawn between the television set and the brain, the storyline of a TV programme and the self, and finally the picture quality of programme displayed and the mind states undergone by the self. Thus, just as tinkering with the internal components of a television set will have consequences for the quality of the picture displayed, but will not change the storyline of the programme, so too might alteration of the brain's processes affect states of the mind without bringing about any change in the actual self.

Thus the suggestion here is that just as the storyline of a film does not have its origin in the television set's internal components, neither might the self have its source or origin in the brain. Rather it conceivably could be the case that the self's existence is ontologically self-subsistent and is 'filtered' by the brain. What I mean by 'filtered'� is that although the self does not change as the state of our brains change so as to become a literally different self, the self's mind states do change. That is to say differing particular mind states change according to the particular physical configuration of the brain. Thus the various mental states we experience during our lives are a result of both the self - accounting for the feeling of a persistent self and the more general dispositions of selfhood - and also the particular physical configuration of the brain the self is 'filtered'� by. The feeling of a persistent enduring self remains intact, but, due to the change in mind states, our moods, interests and intelligence will vary. This then will account for the correlation between brain states and mind states.

I think this corresponds very nicely with our intuitive notions we have regarding the self. After all, the self is the essential you. To elucidate: although our apparent personality, and intelligence, and interests may change radically throughout our lives, nevertheless we feel very strongly that there is a real sense in which we are one and the very same person throughout our lives. Thus despite, for example, our 5 year old self, our sober adult self, or our drunk adult self exhibiting quite radically different personality traits, and having differing intelligence and differing interests, we are still generally very firmly convinced that we are literally the same self throughout our lives and therefore throughout these various differing mind states. Thus I (that is the self) might, for example, be in a good mood or a bad mood. But my self is not to be equated by such given mind states. Rather I experience being in a good mood, or a bad mood, or indeed any other mental state. The I or the self is that which endures, but which can experience various mental states such as differing moods.

Note that this notion of a literal same self is difficult to maintain if we suppose that the self is actually generated by the brain. For example, if we happen to be materialists - by far the most common group to hold self is generated by the brain - we must maintain that any 'self' must simply be equated with the brain, or more precisely with the processes taking place within it. Given that brain states are in a constant state of change, it would certainly seem that, in a literal sense, the self must also be in a constant state of change. Be clear as to what this means. It means that there can be no unchanging enduring self, i.e. substantial self, under materialism. Our selves are quite literally equated with our mind states. Within this scenario it might be difficult to avoid concluding our sense of self is effectively an illusion. Indeed this is precisely what many philosophical materialists maintain.

[mszlazak]

If the brain is analogous to a TV receiver then one (of many) things I'd like to know is where the TV broadcasts, besides the ones from the environment through basic senses, are being made? Another, is how can I intercept these particular broadcast signals to someone else's receiver or how can I block them.

The more you think about this analogy the more you see there is no analogy because nothing like a TV station exists in this situation/hallucination.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

If the brain is analogous to a TV receiver then one (of many) things I'd like to know is where the TV broadcasts, besides the ones from the environment through basic senses, are being made? Another, is how can I intercept these particular broadcast signals to someone else's receiver or how can I block them.

The more you think about this analogy the more you see there is no analogy because nothing like a TV station exists in this situation/hallucination.

Well, I don't agree with you here. First of all why do there have to be signals? Couldn't this Self that Ian is talking about be omnipresent? As increasing evidence for non-locality shows up, this doesn't seem too crazy anymore.

Having read the work of Henry Stapp, I don't see why this concept should be viewed as unscientific anymore. He doesn't mention the Self in the same way we are discussing here, but his description is not far away from the old notion of an omnipresent Self.
And I'm one of those that think he probably is the only one that has managed to provide a plausible first step in describing what is really going on at the basic level of reality. Most other interpretations of QM sidestep the real problem of observation.

How can you block these "signals"? Well signal or no signal (I don't believe there are signals), this is can be done by using anesthetics. At least it seems to have this effect.

How can you intercept the "signals"?
Well... as I said I don't think they are signals, but we need to have a unique code to log on to our own mini-self.
DNA could do the trick. This is almost pure speculation from my side of course, apart from what I've read about cases of organ transplant patients that start to change personality (and even claim to pick up memories, emotions etc) in the direction towards the donor. I guess these cases are far from bulletproof, but I think they open up an intriguing possibility.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Tor

Well, I don't agree with you here. First of all why do there have to be signals? Couldn't this Self that Ian is talking about be omnipresent? As increasing evidence for non-locality shows up, this doesn't seem too crazy anymore.

Having read the work of Henry Stapp, I don't see why this concept should be viewed as unscientific anymore. He doesn't mention the Self in the same way we are discussing here, but his description is not far away from the old notion of an omnipresent Self.
And I'm one of those that think he probably is the only one that has managed to provide a plausible first step in describing what is really going on at the basic level of reality. Most other interpretations of QM sidestep the real problem of observation.

How can you block these "signals"? Well signal or no signal (I don't believe there are signals), this is can be done by using anesthetics. At least it seems to have this effect.

How can you intercept the "signals"?
Well... as I said I don't think they are signals, but we need to have a unique code to log on to our own mini-self.
DNA could do the trick. This is almost pure speculation from my side of course, apart from what I've read about cases of organ transplant patients that start to change personality (and even claim to pick up memories, emotions etc) in the direction towards the donor. I guess these cases are far from bulletproof, but I think they open up an intriguing possibility.

You're making MY case that the TV reciever analogy doesn't work because TV recievers do recieve signals and they are NOT in contact with a non-natural or supernatural entity which probably isn't even real.

Stapp provides no evidence for a "Self" and his work is not scientific in this regard. It's mostly philosophical speculation and circular arguments.

-------------------------------

[Tor]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

You're making MY case that the TV reciever analogy doesn't work because TV recievers do recieve signals and they are NOT in contact with a non-natural or supernatural entity which probably isn't even real.

Stapp provides no evidence for a "Self" and his work is not scientific in this regard. It's mostly philosophical speculation and circular arguments.

-------------------------------

I think the TV analogy do work and signaling can be an ok metaphor.

How does this work if not by signaling?

I do think that Stapp presents a reasonable mechanism via the quantum Zenon effect and his process1 and 0. Since his process 1 is non-local,
I don't see it as signaling in the traditional sense. The effect of process 1 is everywhere. No antenna needed.

You may call this speculation, and to some degree it is (all new science start out as good speculations to be tested against experiment), but I do
think that the empirical evidence for psi and the work of Stevenson and his peers should make us consider this as a real possibility, not some fairyland fantasy.

I'm not talking about a non-natural or supernatural entity when I'm talking about the Self.
Stapps different processes together with the Zenon effect can provide a mechanism by which the self can control a body/brain.
Everything is part of a natural psychophysical universe.
The whole distinction between natural/supernatural is an artificial one.
This border is highly fluid. It changes as we expand our view of the universe.

Of course, you can choose to interpret quantum mechanics in another way.
I personally think Stapp is in the forefront, but you may want to endorse something like the many-worlds interpretation instead

As to the whole notion of consciousness, to me it's fundamental.
It is the one thing I can not doubt.

If I try to convince myself that it's an illusion, I must ask; An illusion to whom? And the whole argument collapses on itself.

I don't feel the need to get lost in philosophical arguments regarding this.
I really don't think there's a need to. It should be plain obvious that consciousness is real. But I do respect your right to disagree

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

If the brain is analogous to a TV receiver then one (of many) things I'd like to know is where the TV broadcasts, besides the ones from the environment through basic senses, are being made?

TV broadcasts = selves

I do not believe that selves are made since I would hypothesise they are eternal.

Another, is how can I intercept these particular broadcast signals to someone else's receiver or how can I block them.

By killing that person.

The interesting question here is why my self operates through this particular body rather than an other body. And is it possible that people could swap bodies? I just wonder what it would be like to operate through someone else's body (I'm afraid I cannot recollect any of my previous incarnations ). Are there any cases where people have actually swapped bodies?

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Are there any cases where people have actually swapped bodies?

Hi Ian,

It is asserted in certain yogic texts that an extremely advanced yogi can vacate his own body and animate the recently deceased body of another if that body is in good condition. The Sanskrit term for this practice is Parakaya Pravesha.

A comtemporary yogi, Swami Rama, who founded the Himalayan Institute and died sometime in the 1990s, reported two cases of Parakaya Pravesha that he claimed to have witnessed personally. In his book, Living With the Himalayan Masters, he says that he knew an elderly but advanced yogi who, when the opportunity presented itself, abandoned his aged body and entered into and animated the body of a young man who had just died. Rama wrote that the new body manifested the personality, memories, and even the strange way of walking that the elderly yogi had. Also, in the book Swami, by Doug Boyd, Boyd reports that Swami Rama told him that Rama had also witnessed Rama's own yoga master perform the same feat, although in that case Rama said that his master only briefly animated a youthful dead body and then returned to his own body.

While there has certainly been interest in modern times in studying scientifically the abilities of yogis, I have not read of any yogi who has come forward and offered to demonstrate this alleged ability under controlled conditions. This claim seems so far removed from the experience of most of us that I feel I have no choice at present to regard these accounts as not anything more than anecdotal, and, as far as I know, there are not even that many anecdotal accounts of it. Surely if we located people who proved that they could do this, it would force a revision of a purely materialist theory of consciousness and mind. So, any yogis who can demonstrate Parakaya Pravesha out there -- if you are getting tired of living in your present body, please call in scientific researchers before you switch to a new one!

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Tor

I think the TV analogy do work and signaling can be an ok metaphor.

How does this work if not by signaling?

I do think that Stapp presents a reasonable mechanism via the quantum Zenon effect and his process1 and 0. Since his process 1 is non-local,
I don't see it as signaling in the traditional sense. The effect of process 1 is everywhere. No antenna needed.

You may call this speculation, and to some degree it is (all new science start out as good speculations to be tested against experiment), but I do
think that the empirical evidence for psi and the work of Stevenson and his peers should make us consider this as a real possibility, not some fairyland fantasy.

I'm not talking about a non-natural or supernatural entity when I'm talking about the Self.
Stapps different processes together with the Zenon effect can provide a mechanism by which the self can control a body/brain.
Everything is part of a natural psychophysical universe.
The whole distinction between natural/supernatural is an artificial one.
This border is highly fluid. It changes as we expand our view of the universe.

Of course, you can choose to interpret quantum mechanics in another way.
I personally think Stapp is in the forefront, but you may want to endorse something like the many-worlds interpretation instead

As to the whole notion of consciousness, to me it's fundamental.
It is the one thing I can not doubt.

If I try to convince myself that it's an illusion, I must ask; An illusion to whom? And the whole argument collapses on itself.

I don't feel the need to get lost in philosophical arguments regarding this.
I really don't think there's a need to. It should be plain obvious that consciousness is real. But I do respect your right to disagree

Everything Stapp adds to the quantum formalism to deal with the measurement problem is pure speculation on his part. Furthermore, note that he is taking the least favored interpretation of quantum theory, which is not derived from quantum theory, and embedding it within a speculative philosophical framework, Whiteheads process philosophy. One problem this helps him avoid with his initial interpretation of quantum theory is its anthropocentric nature, but this then leads to back again to a situation where he looses the conscious self which the initial interpretation started with. Around in a circle we go!

By the way, process 3 is the the non-locality process, process 2 is the wave function, process 1 is the orthonormal basis which is the effect of something else. Process 0 is that something else. Also, this breaking things up into these process from the usual two (process 2, 1 and 3 together) is something that is also interpretation dependent.


Lastly, I see no reason to think that consciousness is fundamental. This is most likely false.

-------------

[Tor]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Everything Stapp adds to the quantum formalism to deal with the measurement problem is pure speculation on his part.

Pure speculation? He uses the orthodox von Neumann quantum framework as his foundation. The speculation part must be the introduction of the process 0 (that has to do with our free will), which I think is a necessary step.

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Furthermore, note that he is taking the least favored interpretation of quantum theory, which is not derived from quantum theory, and embedding it within a speculative philosophical framework, Whiteheads process philosophy. One problem this helps him avoid with his initial interpretation of quantum theory is its anthropocentric nature, but this then leads to back again to a situation where he looses the conscious self which the initial interpretation started with. Around in a circle we go!

No interpretation is derived from quantum theory. The interpretations exists because we don't understand what the heck is going on when we look at the mathematical theory by itself and compare it with experiments. Everything is fine for all practical purposes, but beyond that we're lost. As I said before, I think Stapp's view of things is a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by mszlazak

By the way, process 3 is the the non-locality process, process 2 is the wave function, process 1 is the orthonormal basis which is the effect of something else. Process 0 is that something else. Also, this breaking things up into these process from the usual two (process 2, 1 and 3 together) is something that is also interpretation dependent.

No. Process 1 is the probing action that acts upon process 2 to select the basis vectors. Or to put it another way, it partitions process 2 into a countable set of discrete (and orthogonal) components.
Process 3 is nature's statistically specified choice of the outcome of the action selected by the prior process 1 probing (nature's response to our probing).
Process 0 is what Stapp thinks decides when a Process 1 action occurs. It is what he thinks is closely connected to our free choices.
Process 1 is the one that Stapp describes as non-local.

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Lastly, I see no reason to think that consciousness is fundamental. This is most likely false.

-------------

Here we just disagree (or maybe not?). I believe consciousness is more fundamental than what is the mainstream thought today. I don't know what lies at the bottom of the universe. But I wouldn't be surprised if most of the phenomena we know of are emergent properties of this bottom/medium or whatever we should call it. Maybe something that has mind like and matter like properties embedded in it, maybe something that can't be compared to such categories at all.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure matter isn't the fundamental "substance".

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Everything Stapp adds to the quantum formalism to deal with the measurement problem is pure speculation on his part.
-------------

Mszlazak,

How on earth do you think science progresses - Kekule's structure for benzene was 'pure speculation' - plucked out of a dream at the fire side(!!), the concept of atoms was 'pure speculation' at one stage!

David