Denying scientific truth isn't welcome on this blog

I've loved science since I was a child.

Way back when (late 1950s) I crammed a card table into my bedroom closet, hung a light over the clothes rod, and happily conducted science experiments via chemistry sets and science kits delivered every month, thanks to my mother, who also deeply admired science.

(I wrote about this in a 2007 post, "Thanks for the chlorine gas, Mom (cough, cough).")

Since, I've retained my love of science, even though I ended up getting a B.A. in Psychology and a Master's degree in Social Work. But then I completed the course requirements for a doctorate in Systems Science before becoming a Ph.D. dropout.

So it pains me when I see commenters on this blog denying scientific truth. Well, it more than pains me. it also irritates me. That's what led to me adding a note to a new Open Thread post this morning, addressing it to the commenter who has been doing the most frequent denying.

I put it in red for emphasis.

Here's a new Open Thread.

Remember, off-topic comments should go in an Open Thread. Also, anti-science comments. [Note to Spence Tepper, a noted anti-science commenter on this blog: your comments denying scientific reality about consciousness or any other subject should go in an Open Thread from now on or they'll be deleted. I can't tolerate your comment spam any more than I'd tolerate someone arguing that global warming isn't human caused or that the Holocaust never happened.]

Look, I realize that scientific truths are constantly changing. Old truths are modified, improved upon, sometimes discarded entirely.

However, at any given moment, there are certain core truths in science. We know that the Earth is round, not flat. We know that gravity is the result of curved space, in accord with relativity theory. And we know that consciousness arises due to goings-on in the human brain, even though how this happens is largely unknown.

So when Tepper left comments saying that neuroscience isn't certain that consciousness arises in the brain, that is so flat-out wrong, I was amazed that someone as obviously intelligent and well-read as Tepper could say such a thing.

The only reason I could find is that because Tepper believes in supernatural stuff, he is purposely making false statements about science in order to "preach" his religiosity in a backdoor manner, rather than expressing it directly.

I prefer honest proselytizing rather than sneaky proselytizing. Well, actually I prefer no proselytizing at all, since I'm not a fan of religious dogmatism in any form. But I don't mind people stating their beliefs in a simple "I" form. As in, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and redeems sinners."

OK, I don't share that belief, but thanks for letting me know what you believe. Now, maybe, we can have a conversation about our differing world views.

However, when someone like Tepper tries to overlay their subjective religious/supernatural beliefs over objective scientific truth in an attempt to make science into something other than it is, that's when I get irritated at a sneaky approach to proselytizing.

If you're a religious believer, fine. Most humans are, billions of them.

I'm also fine with you leaving comments on this blog. All I ask is that you try to stay within the bounds of the topic of a post I've written, or if you want to go outside those bounds, share your thoughts in an Open Thread post, otherwise known as free speech for comments. 

But if you're a denier of scientific truths, keep your falsehoods to yourself, or share them in an Open Thread. The United States, along with much of the rest of the world, is experiencing a surge of anti-science. 

I don't want this blog to be a part of that. It's highly destructive to the health of societies. Science is a wonderful way, maybe the only way, to bring people together via commonly held truths. If this blog can help attain that common understanding of reality in some small ways, I'll be really happy.

Comments

[Ron E.]

@ Brian: “The United States, along with much of the rest of the world, is experiencing a surge of anti-science.”

What concerns me most about the anti-science trend is that people are ignoring or down-playing the resulting current disasters of climate change and the fact that worse is expected. It’s bad enough where it affects people around the world though I believe the more serious issue is the affect it has on many ecosystems and the life that depends on them – including us.

I read an article recently on: - “Why Conservatives Have Turned Against Science.” It points out that data does not support the conclusion of a crisis of public trust in science. The crisis is of conservative trust in science. The findings are that conservative hostility strongly emerged during the Reagan administration where fears that scientific evidence on environmental crises and public health science would have an adverse effect on the market place! No surprise there.

With ostrich type behaviour many in America and other conservative countries end up following Trump-like characters and administrations where, putting big business and profits foremost, are conning people through the process of fact (science) distortion, disinformation and generally defaming science.

[Sant64]

Imagine getting this worked up over someone's opinion about consciousness. "He's a science denier!" Good Lord.

[Brian Hines]

Sant64, "opinions" that deny scientific facts cause lots of needless suffering in the world. For example, about 200,000 Americans died needlessly of Covid because they had "opinions" that vaccines didn't work, weren't necessary, and might even be harmful. So they took their last breaths in hospital ICU rooms, some wishing that they'd paid attention to scientific and truth and some denying to the end.

And as Ron E. pointed out in a comment above, denialism about the scientific truth that humans are causing global warming through vastly increased greenhouse gas emissions poses a real threat to the survival of human civilization as we know it.

So, yeah, I get worked up about people on this blog denying scientific facts, whether it be about consciousness or anything else.

By the way, Spence Tepper has continued on with his denialism. I just had to unpublish a comment he left where, once again, he got the facts about neuroscience all wrong. The guy just glories in spreading falsehoods. Hopefully he'll shift back to merely spreading falsehoods about supernatural stuff once he realizes that he won't be able to keep using my blog as a forum for scientific denialism. But he seems to think that his Divine Mission is to preach his brand of science-denying religiosity on this blog. May he wake up from this delusion.

[um]

@ Brian

The problem is that those that have no academical education or personal spritual experience , do not have the possibility to evaluate for themselves what is offered to them in the media ..science for them is a matter of BELIEVE .... as they believed in the past the clergy of any religion.

Only this week we were presented with a documentary about an research project payed by the government, conducted by the agricultural university and a agricultural association.
The idea was to find out if biological grown food had effect. The set up an double blind experiment with chickens, with the idea in mind after the chickens stepping up to other animals etc. So The chickens were divided into 2 groups and one was fed with food labeled A and the other B. The only difference was that one of the food rations was from biological grown food and the other not. It was strictly seen to it that they , the chickens, were treated all in the same way and that the food offered to them was exactly the same in terms off composition of seeds and the amount thereof. They did not find much difference. Both groups developed according to the same curve. The next step was to introduce an artificial pathogene in order to find how both groups reacted. In contrast to the first step, they did find a difference.

Until that point in time everything was done in a collegiale atmosphere among top scientists and according to the rules of the scientific game. They all agreed there was a difference ...ONLY .. they did not yet knew which group did better. As soon as that was made public the problems grew into a war of interests.

The manager of the researched was FORCED to say in public that, the differences were minute and there was no further research necessary ... why? ... because the representative of the university refused that his name was used in ANY publication that used the word Bio-dynamic

Sorry for this length story

Facts, also scientific facts are what they are
seldom what they look like
let alone how they are presented and made seen by interested parties

Were the innocent people in the past controlled by telling them religious stories, they could not control, now they are informed by the media in the same way about scientific facts.

Al ready in the 70ties it was understood that "value free science" does not exist because science is done by humans.

Scientists do fight among one another to the greater glory of themselves and others use the so called outcomes of science, for their own motives ... knowing, or able to know that the reader or listener is not able to control what is said or written

As with arms ... the guns do not shoot but the shooting is done by humans

[um]

@ Spence

>> Honor the views of these authorities. You can leave my view and name out of it please.<<

Hahahaha ... why ... why would anybody believe authorities

Daily they see on TV what that means .... that an ever smaller group of people use all resources and knowledge to THEIR advantage at the cost of the rest.

There is no reason that ANY authority at any level in in any field has the welfare at heart of those the have authority over.

Have a lok at the slums in your cities, the crumbling infrastructure and the impossibility for the average man in the USA to have payable access to the basic necessities of life.

It is simple in the past the authorities lived in castles, cathedrals etc etc and that same is going on to day .. the ignorant are used to provide for the the elite to live in wealth.

Just think of these universities ... all the money that is invested, money they did not create., money that is lost for the welfare of the public. Scholars walking around as peacocks like the princes of the church, the lord cardinals

They cannot any longer scare the hell out of people and the masses have enough of them ... the arrogant profiteers

[Brian Hines]

Spence Tepper, all you have to do to have your comments about the nature of consciousness remain on this blog is to clearly admit and do this:

(1) Admit in a comment that the current firm conclusion of neuroscience is that consciousness arises from goings-on in the physical brain, and not from any supernatural source.

(2) Following that written admission, commit to never again leave a comment saying or suggesting that neuroscience hasn't made the firm conclusion that consciousness arises from goings-on in the physical brain, and not from any supernatural source.

In other words, admit that you were wrong to say otherwise, and your comments about consciousness can be shared on regular blog posts. If you want to claim that consciousness has a supernatural origin, you'll have to do so in an Open Thread.

That's the deal. All you have to do is accept a scientific truth. If you aren't willing to do this, this proves that you are a religious dogmatist who is interested in preaching on this blog, not in learning the truth about reality.

I enjoy discussions about how the brain may produce consciousness, and how the physical brain works. Stick to those subjects, and we might be able to have some productive comment conversations about consciousness. But as I said in this post, I am firmly committed to scientific truth on this blog and can't tolerate "science spam" because this is so dangerous to human flourishing.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine that somehow you're able to get before the microphone at a large conference of neuroscientists. Spence Tepper says, "I think we all can agree that neuroscience isn't sure about whether consciousness arises in the brain, since it could come from a supernatural source." You'd be laughed at and the microphone would be taken away.

Now imagine that you're at a large conference of New Age enthusiasts, and you say the same thing. You'd get applause.

Comments on this blog that say something about the current state of neuroscience should adhere to the truth about the current state of neuroscience.

If you want to take a New Age approach to neuroscience, you need to say stuff like, "I believe that consciousness has a supernatural source." OK, that makes no sense because there is no evidence for it, but it's your belief. Most of us believe in stuff that isn't true. However, that doesn't give us the right to share those beliefs as if they were accepted by science.

[um]

As ...I do not know I have to ask the modern oracle of Delphi ..AI ..about the rise of consciousness.

This is the answer of the oracle:

The question of how consciousness arises is a complex and ongoing topic of scientific investigation. While our understanding of consciousness has advanced significantly, there is still much we don't fully comprehend. Neuroscientists generally agree that consciousness is closely associated with brain activity, and there is a considerable body of evidence supporting this relationship. However, it's important to note that the nature of consciousness and its precise origins are still matters of active scientific debate.

Numerous studies have demonstrated correlations between brain activity and conscious experiences. For example, when people undergo certain brain injuries or receive anesthesia, their level of consciousness can be significantly altered or temporarily suspended. Additionally, neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), have revealed specific patterns of brain activity that are associated with conscious perception and various mental processes.

Another line of evidence comes from experiments involving electrical stimulation of the brain. By stimulating certain regions, researchers have been able to induce specific conscious experiences or alter a person's subjective awareness.

Furthermore, studies exploring the effects of psychoactive substances on consciousness also provide insights into the relationship between brain activity and subjective experience. These substances can profoundly impact consciousness by interacting with neurotransmitter systems and altering neural activity in the brain.

While these findings strongly suggest that consciousness is rooted in brain function, they do not provide a definitive answer as to how or why consciousness arises. The "hard problem" of consciousness, which asks why and how subjective experiences arise from physical processes in the brain, remains a philosophical and scientific challenge.

In summary, while there is substantial evidence supporting the link between consciousness and brain activity, the precise mechanisms and underlying principles of consciousness are still being actively investigated in the field of neuroscience.

[Unknowing]

I read these comments and am awed by how much all of you know!
May I ask, do trees possess consciousness? If so, where does it originate or reside in a tree? I do understand that they communicate and share nutrients via a lattice network of fungal rhysosomes in the soil.

Also, I agree with Um that science may not be as pure as it was in its infancy. Monetary yields are high. Now it is becoming a political too as well.
Yet, without science, where do we turn to?

[Sant64]

You're being ridiculous Brian.

Read what Um posted, it's factually correct.

I'll post the result I received from ChatGPT:

do all neuroscientists believe that consciousness arises in the brain

"The origin of consciousness is a complex and debated topic in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and other fields. While many neuroscientists believe that consciousness arises from the workings of the brain, there isn't a unanimous consensus on this matter. Some scientists and philosophers propose that consciousness might not solely emerge from the brain, suggesting other potential factors or aspects that contribute to our conscious experience. For instance, some argue for a role of quantum phenomena, others propose a combination of brain processes and external factors, and some suggest consciousness might be more fundamental to the universe. The debate on the origin of consciousness remains open, and various theories exist, reflecting the diverse perspectives and interpretations within the scientific community. Neuroscience has made significant strides in understanding how the brain correlates with certain aspects of consciousness, but the fundamental nature of consciousness itself remains an area of ongoing research and exploration."

It's the same story as with your enthusiasm with hard determinism. How consciousness arises is not settled science, no matter much you want it to be. And the proof of that in both cases is that these are still matters of debate in the scientific community.

I recall how in his discussion groups, Professor Lane, to his credit, would thoughtfully debate people on a variety of issues.

I don't think I've ever seen you debate anyone. You write essays where you frame your views as incontrovertible scientific facts, ignore all feedback in the comments section, and then write similar essays espousing the same point of view. That's fine if that's what you want to do, it's your blog.

But this red ink "I speak for science, all must agree with me or be banned" policy is embarrassingly authoritarian in tone.

[Brian Hines]

Sant 64, if you get your knowledge about neuroscience from ChatGPT, your understanding is going to be limited. Of course there's debate about whether consciousness is produced by the brain, just as there's debate about whether humans are causing global warming. But the overwhelming consensus of neuroscientists is that consciousness is produced by the brain, just as the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that humans are causing global warming.

And that was my issue with what Spence Tepper falsely claimed: that neuroscience hadn't determined that consciousness arises from goings-on in the brain. He was wrong about that. I was right. Not because I possess some special knowledge. It's just obvious to anyone who keeps up on the state of modern science, which I do through Scientific American, New Scientist, and many books that I've read about consciousness and neuroscience.

Again, this is virtually the same as someone saying that climate science hasn't determined that humans are causing global warming. Sure, there is more to learn about global warming, and there's much to learn about how the brain causes consciousness. It's just plain wrong, though, to claim, as Tepper did, that the broad consensus of neuroscientists isn't that brain activities produce consciousness.

Facts matter, on this blog and everywhere. There's no point in engaging in a debate with someone about the cause of either global warming or consciousness. Science has much to learn about both areas. However, what irked me about Tepper's science denialism is that he ignored how much neuroscience knows about consciousness and instead focused on a few fringe theories, such as that the brain somehow filters consciousness that exists in some mysterious realm outside of the brain. That isn't completely crazy. It's just 99.9% crazy. Me, I like my reality to be more than 0.1% possible.

[um]

@ Unknowing

>> .... that science may not be as pure as it was in its infancy. Monetary yields are high. Now it is becoming a political too as well. Yet, without science, where do we turn to? <<

Where do we turn to?

For bread we turn to the baker
For scientific questions and answers we turn to the scientists.

Science is not pure, it was never, it is not and it will never be ... it is impossible.
The historical development tells this tale.

Why?

Because science is not a divine but an human affaire., loaded with motivation, [self] interests and what more.

Science is a tool .. a tool used for all sorts of things both good and bad.

Just spend some days in reading about the ins and outs of the mondial pharmaceutical Industries, the affairs of the tabacco industrie etc and the role scientists played in it

It is simple in my mind .. I suppose that no president accepts office to sign orders for the secret service to kill so called ennemies of the state but once in office he cannot escape it.

If a person, in one way or another has laid his hands on great sums of money, he sooner or later has to make illegal decisions out of fear losing his money.

Humans are self serving creatures by NATURE ...scientists too

[um]

FACTS

Facts are not the problem as the are by themselves devoid of meaning and value.

After the facts are gathered, meaning and value is attributed to them, meaning and value that have by themselves NOTHING to do with the facts but solely with the human that does so.

Facts are what they are facts
often not what they look like
let alone how they are seen or presented by interested parties.

There is a motivation needed to attribute value and meaning as action needs focus and direction ... that is how it is in nature ... we strech our arms to pluck an apple. ... we lift a cup to drink coffee ... we drink coffee for ...xxxx

We are pro or against something ... for personal reasons, reasons that have nothing to do with what we stand for.

Not all scientist present themselves as atheists, skeptics, it is just a [smal]] sub population and they take that stand for reasons not at all related to science, reasons that are not even scientific. ... they USE science as a stick to beat others.

In that sense the act similar to snake oil sellers and paranormal practitioners that like to give status to their claims by referring to science.

And ...most "real" scientists have little time and interest to spend in order to argue with the public....to them only what can be researched is of interest ..

Why would an scientist want to prove that the origins of everything is to be found in the material, the phenomenal. What are the consequences for THEM if it can be proved, or the opposite can be proved to be true ... THAT reveals the motivation behind the debate.

Again most scientists are NOT interested in that debate.

[um]

Is it ....
is it because ...
is it because of .....

the subconscious fear for the divine?
The losing of the ego?
Losing of the controll?

I am the doer?

Survival fear?

[Sant64]

@ BRIAN HINES

Contrary to what you say, there is NO consensus among neuroscientists on how consciousness arises.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612/full#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20consensus%20about,the%20action%20of%20the%20brain.

The following is from the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Journal:

"Studies of how consciousness is generated, and why it has the characteristics it does, is nevertheless a focus of considerable interest and effort. There is no consensus about how it is generated, or how best to approach the question, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain."

I note that you provide NO SOURCE for your claim that neuroscientists largely agree with your views on the arising of consciousness and on hard determinism. That's because there are no sources you can cite.

In short Brian, YOU ARE WRONG.

Please excuse the all caps, but this is like the 10th time I and others have told you that your views do not represent the consensus of science.

If you want to debate this issue, great. But your move to declare your views as backed by science (when they most definitely aren't), and ESPECIALLY, to ban others from disagreeing with you, is very poor form.

[um]

Maybe I am more ignorant than I am aware of but it is my understanding that science has restricted its search for knowledge to be gained by instruments.

Whatever cannot be accessed directly or indirectly to the senses and what cannot be measured and calculated, is by definition not scientific re-searchable.

Consciousness like all other states of mind for that reason will for ever be outside the scientific world.. It has no time space characteristics,

And maybe we should rejoice in it as humans can never bring these things to the market

There is so much left ..there are so many things we cannot explain but use for our welfare ...or is it a curse in disguise ...it doesn't seem that overtime humanity has become much happier. and solve the main causes of suffering, poverty, illness etc.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian:

You wrote:
"(1) Admit in a comment that the current firm conclusion of neuroscience is that consciousness arises from goings-on in the physical brain, and not from any supernatural source."

First, let me say that I see the compassion in all you write, so I don't mind the ad hominem attacks.
But let me suggest that there is an area of misunderstanding, and perhaps it reflects upon a way of thinking that is different between you and I and about how we each view and use science.

I believe that you have made two statements in your note above.
1. Neuroscience has proven that consciousness is entirely a product of brain chemistry.
2. Neuroscience has proven that consciousness is not in any way related to, caused by, or influenced by supernatural sources.

Now, as to supernatural forces, let me say that the common interpretation of that term includes all sorts of religious, superstitious and even politically-motivated beliefs. Those aren't scientific in any way.

But you have left out the third element, and this is a pattern with you...

The unknown.

As pointed out earlier, David Chalmers and Christof Koch settled their decades long bet in June of this year both agreeing that Neuroscience has not yet established where consciousness arises or how it does so. But in agreeing to this they acknowledged that we now know so very much more, thanks to the hard work of scientists. We know enough to know what we don't know.

Science not only provides products to the consumer, which is scientific results. It also provides a product to other scientists, and that is a better understanding of what we don't know that needs a deeper look.

So, when 100 Neuroscientists sign a public letter, also earlier this year, to help restore Neuroscience's credibility by decrying Information Integration Theory as psuedoscience, (a theory, btw, you have posted writings of and great praise of right here) that is incredible progress for the field and enhances the credibility of current work in the field.

But it isn't surprising to me that you do not see these things as progress. Because, as a consumer of scientific fact you only want solid facts. You see that as science's major contribution. What isn't solid is abhorrent to your materialist view. You basically comingle the mystery with superstition. But they aren't anywhere near the same.

Superstition is the product of fear mixed with dogma.

The unknown is seen only through some courage.

As an individual trained in scientific research, who uses scientific investigation every day in my work, facts are just a downstream by-product of the practice of science. What actually fuels that practice is acknowledging the unknown.

For example, just yesterday a colleague reached out to me for help. They have a WSPE: Wrong Surgical Procedure Event, just last week.

How to deal with it? The Surgical Manager wishes to do a fault mode analysis...this is a study used to engineer problems out of a system.

But that is the wrong approach. The correct approach is to use Root Cause Analysis...to find the actual cause of the problem. And that is going to be a lot more painful. Because it means acknowledging that they don't really know what took place. That is the start of discoveryo.

And that means taking a hard look at all systems and practices to see what is missing, like the Time Out that is supposed to happen, WITH THE PATIENT, prior to any surgical OR diagnostic procedure.

But maybe that wasn't where the fault lay? Maybe it was scheduling, or the provider or nurses' vigilance on the day of surgery....or the pre-op testing nurse's documentation? Or an error in the scheduling AND medical record software? (Highly unlikely, but it will still need to be investigated). Or poor communication between patient, nurse, and OR supervisor, AND surgeon, AND anesthesiologist?

It will most certainly be several of those things.

But no one will get there until they acknowledge that....THEY DON"T KNOW.

So say it with me...

"I Don't Know"

And the result of acknowledging this? Of opening up to the unknown? Discovery, and a safer hospital.

Or, just forget what I wrote and give your own view of the what Chalmers and Koch presented this summer...it's current Neuroscience news...and the same for the letter by 100 Neuroscientists calling IIT pseudoscience. Are you even aware of this news? And how do you digest it?

Now as to your request....

I can only agree to acknowledge as fact what science has proven as fact...and your claim isn't scientific fact as Chalmers and Koch, and others, have publicly acknowledged.

As to supernatural, those are all 100% subjective beliefs. They are mostly beautiful, at least they start out that way, and give wisdom, meaning and guidance to everyday life. They reflect inner truths, though they are all metaphor and poetry. They aren't scientific facts. But when I voice my own beliefs, and I do have them, I have stated time and again these are subjective beliefs.

But as to the unknown, the thing you seem to hate, it is a gaping maw into which every scientist gleefully jumps...
And the deeper in we go, the larger we discover it truly is..

Join us.

[Brian Hines]

Sant64, thanks SO MUCH for sharing the link that EXACTLY supports what I've been arguing with Spence Tepper about. (I like capital letters also at times, just like you.)

Contrary to what you falsely claimed, my assertion in regard to Tepper is that there's a consensus among neuroscientists that consciousness arises from goings-on in the brain, not from some supernatural source. I've never said that neuroscience understands HOW this happens, just that brain stuff causes it to happen.

The quote you included in your comment says exactly what I've been claiming.
-------------------------
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612/full#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20consensus%20about,the%20action%20of%20the%20brain.

The following is from the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Journal:

"Studies of how consciousness is generated, and why it has the characteristics it does, is nevertheless a focus of considerable interest and effort. There is no consensus about how it is generated, or how best to approach the question, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain."
--------------------------
I love that clear statement. I'll repeat it because I love it so much: "All investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain."

That's just what I've been asking Tepper to admit is true. And now you've provided clear documentation that I'm correct in saying that it indeed is true that consciousness arises from goings-on in the brain. It's still a few days from Thanksgiving, but I'm really thankful to you for finding this quote. Hopefully Tepper will take it to heart.

Spence Tepper, thanks for your comment also. Naturally I was aware of the bet between Koch and Chalmers. It gets talked about quite a bit in stories and books about the nature of consciousness. My reaction to what you said is pretty much the same as what I just said to Sant64 above: I agree, and always have, that neuroscience hasn't learned how consciousness arises in the brain.

Where you and I disagree, and where I view myself as being right and you being wrong, is about whether the consensus of neuroscientists is that goings-on in the brain, so far unspecified, lead to the creation of conscious experience. (There's debate about whether consciousness is a thing or a process; I tend to prefer process, but it could be a thing.)

Do you agree with the quote Sant64 shared above? "All investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain." A simple YES or NO would be appreciated, no dissembling.

If you say yes, great, we're in agreement. If no, please supply evidence that serious peer-reviewed investigations of consciousness are taking place that DON'T have the premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain.

The situation is similar, in my opinion, to how physics is examining the unsolved question of how gravity works. Einstein's general theory of relativity says that gravity is the result of curved spacetime in the presence of mass. Quantum mechanics hasn't arrived at a theory of gravity yet, though several leading theories exist, in the same way neuroscientists are exploring theories of how consciousness arises.

But here's the thing: I've never heard of a physics theory that says gravity is the result of some supernatural force. Sure, maybe there is some unknown material/natural force involved, but not supernatural. Likewise, I've never heard of a respected (as opposed to crackpot) neuroscience theory that says consciousness is the result of some supernatural force.

Again, if you agree that consciousness, like gravity, is the result of natural/physical/material goings-on, then we see this area of science similarly. There's a lot to learn, but what will be learned will, with virtual near certainty, involve material laws of nature, not supernatural.

[umami]

Spence,

You wrote:

"Now, as to supernatural forces, let me say that the common interpretation of that term includes all sorts of religious, superstitious and even politically-motivated beliefs. Those aren't scientific in any way.
But you have left out the third element, and this is a pattern with you...
The unknown.
As pointed out earlier, David Chalmers and Christof Koch settled their decades long bet in June of this year both agreeing that Neuroscience has not yet established where consciousness arises or how it does so. But in agreeing to this they acknowledged that we now know so very much more, thanks to the hard work of scientists. We know enough to know what we don't know.
Science not only provides products to the consumer, which is scientific results. It also provides a product to other scientists, and that is a better understanding of what we don't know that needs a deeper look.
So, when 100 Neuroscientists sign a public letter, also earlier this year, to help restore Neuroscience's credibility by decrying Information Integration Theory as psuedoscience, (a theory, btw, you have posted writings of and great praise of right here) that is incredible progress for the field and enhances the credibility of current work in the field.
But it isn't surprising to me that you do not see these things as progress. Because, as a consumer of scientific fact you only want solid facts. You see that as science's major contribution. What isn't solid is abhorrent to your materialist view. You basically comingle the mystery with superstition. But they aren't anywhere near the same.
Superstition is the product of fear mixed with dogma.
The unknown is seen only through some courage.
As an individual trained in scientific research, who uses scientific investigation every day in my work, facts are just a downstream by-product of the practice of science. What actually fuels that practice is acknowledging the unknown.
For example, just yesterday a colleague reached out to me for help. They have a WSPE: Wrong Surgical Procedure Event, just last week.
How to deal with it? The Surgical Manager wishes to do a fault mode analysis...this is a study used to engineer problems out of a system.
But that is the wrong approach. The correct approach is to use Root Cause Analysis...to find the actual cause of the problem. And that is going to be a lot more painful. Because it means acknowledging that they don't really know what took place. That is the start of discoveryo.
And that means taking a hard look at all systems and practices to see what is missing, like the Time Out that is supposed to happen, WITH THE PATIENT, prior to any surgical OR diagnostic procedure.
But maybe that wasn't where the fault lay? Maybe it was scheduling, or the provider or nurses' vigilance on the day of surgery....or the pre-op testing nurse's documentation? Or an error in the scheduling AND medical record software? (Highly unlikely, but it will still need to be investigated). Or poor communication between patient, nurse, and OR supervisor, AND surgeon, AND anesthesiologist?
It will most certainly be several of those things.
But no one will get there until they acknowledge that....THEY DON"T KNOW."

My response:

You sank your own argument, because discovering why the wrong surgery took place tells us nothing about the supernatural or about God. It only tells us that someone somewhere along the line made an error. The solution is neither prayer nor Bible study nor meditation. It is to identify the error and enhance procedure.

In fact, you set aside supernaturalism on the assumption that somewhere in the chain of events was a cause that could be known.

That's what Science does. It sets aside supernatural explanations on the assumption that phenomena in the natural world can be accounted for by identifiable processes and properties which can be modeled and subjected to analysis.

Your choice of Root Cause Analysis over Fault Mode Analysis says nothing about God or the supernatural either. An atheist could've done the same.

Are you a scientist? Great! Are you a mystic? Great! Ride both waves. Who knows, in the final analysis they could be the same, and for now, familiarity with one could enhance the other.

However, I think it's a stretch to insist that any discussion of science is trash unless it recognizes theology.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian:

You quoted the following:
""Studies of how consciousness is generated, and why it has the characteristics it does, is nevertheless a focus of considerable interest and effort. There is no consensus about how it is generated, or how best to approach the question, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain.""
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612/full#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20consensus%20about,the%20action%20of%20the%20brain.

You see, here is where a more careful reading will help reveal what actually these authors wrote and their intention. You might not like it.

Look again.. "There is no consensus about how it is generated, or how best to approach the question"

There is no consensus about how consciousness is generated. If that is so, then how can there be consensus about where it truly starts orwhere it eventually ends? Or even what it actually is?

There is no such consensus. What you have are operational definitions created to help develop specific scientific studies. That's the best you are going to get, Brian. Not a statement supporting Atheism, nor religion of any kind.

If there is no consensus about how this happens, then there can be no measurable evidence of its source. None. We can only measure to what degree it exists. At best, as the authors write, it is an agreed assumption. But they also write that this assumption is not actually accepted by most neuroscientists...it just isn't necessary, because their purpose isn't to make religious statements, including the religion of Atheism.

They write:

"The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how consciousness is generated, it is probably fair to say, is to ignore it. Although there are active research programs looking at correlates of consciousness, and explorations of informational properties of what might be relevant neural ensembles, the tacitly implied mechanism of consciousness in these approaches is that it somehow just happens. "

These authors are telling you directly that most Neuroscientists do not have any assumption about the cause of consciousness and how that works. The fact that it exists and can be measured is all they are concerned with...They are looking at how it works, not where it comes from. And in each study the definition of what consciousness is can be refined a bit to work with the logistics of instrumentation and measurement.

The authors complain about this lack of clarity as much as you have, on the grounds that it is quite a gap. But they acknowledge that this is the condition of most Neuroscientists.

They continue:

"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. "

They are telling you that most Neuroscientists carry an assumption they facetiously label "magical emergence" and they believe this does not address the huge gap in knowledge.

They continue onward to a conclusion I don't think you like:

"Neuroscience has furnished evidence that neurons are fundamental to consciousness; at the fine and gross scale, aspects of our conscious experience depend on specific patterns of neural activity – in some way, the connectivity of neurons computes the features of our experience. So how do we get from knowing that some specific configurations of cells produce consciousness to understanding why this would be the case? Behind the voltages and currents electrophysiologists measure is a staggeringly complex system of electromagnetic fields – these are the fundamental physics of neurons and glia in the brain. The brain is entirely made of electromagnetism (EM) phenomena from the level of the atoms up. The EM field literally manifests the computations, or signaling, or information processing/activities performed by connected cellular ensembles that generate a 1st-person perspective. An investigation into the EM field at the cellular scale provides the possibility of identifying the outward signs of a mechanism in fundamental terms (physics), as opposed to merely describing the correlates of our mental abstractions of it."
ibid

They are telling you that all that exists now are correlates and it is only at the EM field level of the cells that there may be hope in getting to the fundamental cause, the true causal elements of consciousness, which they are claiming here is entirely absent from current research.

You see, Brian, they are offering their own explanation. One you have decried in the past. They are proposing that the EMF field at the cellular level is one way to explain the otherwise unexplainable processing power and speed of the brain. I have made this point in earlier years right here. It can't be explained biochemically. So now the EMF field is being considered...reluctantly because it is the only avenue of a possible solution...

But what is that EMF field connected to? Could be anything.

Same issue with Gravity. What connects bodies in space millions of miles apart that causes them to respond to one another? Something that has not yet been detected.

You see there is no flaw in starting with a premise. But a premise is an agreement, not a proof.

And even these authors admit as much.

They do not claim that all neuroscientists have this belief. Actually they say their colleagues act with no belief...The authors think that is magical thinking. But it is really just thinking about what can be measured, not conjecturing about what cannot.

And to protect the integrity of Neuroscience, we should stick to what can be known and avoid presumptions that have any political or religious twists, even the twist of the religion of Atheism.

1. Do you acknowledge that these very authors have written that their peers do not actually consider the cause of what they are measuring?

2. Do you acknowledge that the authors offer an assumption, a presumption, a premise that is not actually evidence nor proof?

3. If you can acknowledge these facts of what the authors actually wrote, then you have a basis to rely upon science as a foundation for mutual understanding, and not a source of propaganda that, actually, denies science what it most depends upon to function, an acknowledgement of the unknown.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umami
You wrote:
"However, I think it's a stretch to insist that any discussion of science is trash unless it recognizes theology."

And the opposite, that any discussion of theology is trash unless it recognizes science.

I think science works with what can be measured. So Meditation research can demonstrate the power of prayer and meditation on reducing your blood pressure and enhancing your cognitive performance and objectivity.

Medical and population health research can demonstrate that those who actively practice their faith live 5-7 years longer than those who report they have no faith.

That's as far as theology and science can go together: where measurement can go.

As I've stated before..

But as to belief, that can be a very powerful force on a personal level. The entire subjective experience of life needs only one proof...the degree to which you yourself see it and find it, and in seeking personal truth, explore it. To what extent does personal belief in God help a person function? Different strokes..

They are not incompatible at all, but they are different. One deals with experience that has only a personal explanation. And the other deals with experience that can be measured and analyzed.

The problem is in trying to claim that all things, including the unknown, can be explained right now through science and proven to be so.

That isn't true. In fact science relies upon the unknown for discovery.

Subjective experience IS connected to objective truth. But it remains a mystery how.

So, is there soul, God and immortality?

Could be. We are all connected as forms of life to the entire creation.
But these are systems of personal experience and personal belief. There is no need to prove them to anyone else. In matters of faith, science is hopeless.

And in matters of science, faith has no place.

[Sai Taskin]

Spence Tepper, when/if science gets it’s hands on something that many believe to be “supernatural” it will then be “natural”.

[Sai Taskin]

And another thing, Spence.
Mystical/spiritual experiences and phenomena are all subjective and not supernatural, but natural because they’re all brain-based— just like consciousness.
Does it make those experiences any less wonderful and comforting? No.

You don’t need to resort to pseudoscience, wishful thinking or abandon any critical thinking to explore spiritual and subjective experiences. Just as long as you understand that they all arise from natural and neurological causes, not supernaturalism or external causes.

[um]

@ SAi

>> You don’t need to resort to pseudoscience, wishful thinking or abandon any critical thinking to explore spiritual and subjective experiences. Just as long as you understand that they all arise from natural and neurological causes, not supernaturalism or external causes.<<

WHY????

Why that addition ....Just as long as you understand.?

Why do YOU create that condition before another???

WHAT is there for YOU in doing that.

It seems that the content is not important at all,. .. all what matters to you seems to be that it has it scource in the brain?

WHY do you want to "prove" ..."scientifically" prove to yourself and others that THAT is the sole point of view to accept??

In my opinion it is a psychological issue an not a neuroscientific one

Personaly these things do not interest me but you people on both sites, like the snake oil sellers in the market , USE science to make people believe certain things..

To be frankly .. that is not what science should be used for.

[Sai Taskin]

I don’t understand your comment, Um.

All I’m saying is enjoyment of spiritual experiences does not require falling into the dualistic trap or Deepak Chopra type of woo.
Dualism has been disproved by neuroscience. My interests in subjective experiences and spirituality are what got me INTO this blog and neuroscience in general, not away from it. My views are similar to Susan Blackmore.

I’m with Brian Hines in consciousness being brain-based.

[Sai Taskin]

I’m just trying to get Spence here to admit that his arguments stem not from rationality or science, but from dualism, and/or his desire for there to be something “more than” naturalism A.K.A the supernatural.

[um]

@ Sai

Yes, yes Sai ...I have nothing to say about the interests of anu body as such,
If you do not like coffee, i do not care it is up to you what you drink.

What is here at stake is, that BEHIND a so called "scientific" discourse about science, personal interests are lurking in the dark, interest that motivate the direction of the debate, interests that have NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.

Why, ask yourself do YOU want another person, in this case Spence, admit that he is wrong.

I willl give a hind about the direction I am looking.

You might have noticed in your life that already at young age peers thry to push others to do things these persons would not do out of themselves ..things like smoking, using alcohol and later drugs.

I will not go into the details of HOW they do that but rather prefer to focus on WHY they try to persuade another person.

Long ago I found out that the persuaders do know that what they do is not general accepted in society and more often then not they have problems themselves with what they do, they do not fully stand behind it, they need something from the outside. So the more people they can persuade to do or think as they do, Lents a form of "normality" to it that it otherwise does not have..

A person that is self confident and stands mentaly on his own feet, does not stand in the need of help from outside .. in whatever form, books, experts, other central people doing the same etc ..and ... they do not have a mission either, in terms of spreading the word.

Behind whatever humans do, say, think, feel is a self interested and motivated individual to be found ...that is the place to focus on ... inside the human ..losing his identities ...I am this or that

Why would anybody identify himself as atheist if being a humkan is all there is?

[Sai Taskin]

@ Um

“Why, ask yourself do YOU want another person, in this case Spence, admit that he is wrong.“

Oh. I don’t know.
Maybe it’s because Brian, me and many others are tired of commenters showing up and spouting the same old tired and discredited arguments and latching onto harmful pseudoscience and magical thinking in favor of the “supernatural”.
It has happened again and again. Multiple times.

I don’t have a problem with others having different beliefs, it’s when people start twisting science to shoehorn their existing beliefs. And Spence seems to be doing just that.

When woo-meisters see something they don’t like, they shout “science won’t look beyond materialism” or “neuroscience hasn’t entirely figured out consciousness, so there must be something supernatural.” Woo-of-the-gaps.

[um]

@ Sai

>>I don’t have a problem with others having different beliefs<<

That is not a correct assessment about your mental state

You are emotional involved in what others write, and you hold others responsible for your frustrations, irritations and possible anger too.

Sooner or later, if at all, you will find out that YOU are the one that attachés value and meaning to things outside and that these things have no intrinsic value of themselves

Roosters just crow by nature in the morning, ...if you do not like the sound, do not wish to be disturbed by them, that is alright, as it is your problem. The rooster does not crow to provoke you, it ius its nature

[um]

@ Sai

>> When woo-meisters see something they don’t like, they shout “science won’t look beyond materialism” or “neuroscience hasn’t entirely figured out consciousness, so there must be something supernatural.” Woo-of-the-gaps.<<

YOU sai and many with you ...DO THE SAME ... as what you call the woo meisters.

People that go into the street to voice their opinion on any subject, both the pro and anti's are ...yes... they are the same type of human beings.

Beside them there are numberless people that have no meaning about the subject, are not interested, not involved and god knows what motivation they might have . They are all standing on their own mental legs and not in need of anybody and anything to make up their mind and make decisions in life.

You need Spence ... hahaha and you are doing himj a pleasure too ... hahaha

Humans are funny creatures.

[Sai Taskin]

@ Um

"You are emotional involved in what others write, and you hold others responsible for your frustrations, irritations and possible anger too.

Sooner or later, if at all, you will find out that YOU are the one that attachés value and meaning to things outside and that these things have no intrinsic value of themselves."

Nope. No emotional or anger involvement here. Just calling it like it is, in the same way this wonderful blog does.

Anyways, moving on to a different thread of this blog now. Have a nice day. :)

[um]

@ Sai

Thank you.

[um]

Again AI writes:

>> Neuroscientists generally approach the study of consciousness from a scientific and empirical perspective, focusing on understanding the underlying neural mechanisms and processes that give rise to conscious experience. The concept of the supernatural, on the other hand, typically refers to phenomena that are beyond the scope of natural laws and scientific understanding.

Given the scientific nature of neuroscience, most neuroscientists would not directly address the supernatural as it falls outside the realm of empirical investigation. The study of consciousness within neuroscience typically involves investigating brain activity, cognitive processes, and the relationship between the brain and subjective experience.

It is important to note that individual neuroscientists may hold personal beliefs or interests in topics related to the supernatural. However, when it comes to their scientific work, they generally adhere to methodological naturalism, which means that they focus on explaining phenomena in natural terms, relying on empirical evidence and testable theories.

In summary, neuroscience as a scientific discipline generally focuses on understanding consciousness through naturalistic and empirical means, and the concept of the supernatural is typically not within its purview.<<