[Zero]

Taking Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness into account, don't you view the causal relationship between the brain activity and the consciousness as an assumption? They are correlated of course, but which is the influencer and which is the influenced? We assume that the brain activity is what generates the flow of consciousness, but we could assume that a part of the subjective experience is rather connected to something else.

[frankinstien]

Taking Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness into account, don't you view the causal relationship between the brain activity and the consciousness as an assumption? They are correlated of course, but which is the influencer and which is the influenced? We assume that the brain activity is what generates the flow of consciousness, but we could assume that a part of the subjective experience is rather connected to something else.

No the relationship between consciousness and brain activity is not an assumption. We know this because neural signaling can be blocked either deliberately or by damage to cortical areas of the brain. But there is other evidence such as dream states where conscious awareness of a dream requires the hippocampus to be active, if it's not active we do not experience a dream as episodic events. Considering that the dying and after death brain activity includes the hippocampus then we know that the individual is experiencing something as episodic events.

[Zero]

But these are not proofs, scientifically speaking. Strong hints, yes, but not proofs.

[frankinstien]

But these are not proofs, scientifically speaking. Strong hints, yes, but not proofs.

No, those absolutely qualify as proof, there is no need to conjure up some fairy tale ether that is the cause of consciousness when what you can prove causes behavior or an experience. In other words, you can measure a neuron firing, you can measure the inputs to a neuron, you can test if a subject can do or experience some stimuli and if the neuron's involvement is what makes it happen, then that is proof. You see, you can ask me what causes my sense of touch, I can point to nerve endings and the Primary somatosensory cortex as the cause. If you ask me how is that I can see I can point to the eye's lens, retina, optical cord, optic chiasm, optic tracts, lateral geniculate bodies, optic radiations, and visual cortex. If I interfere with any of those segments of your brain I will affect how you see. If you ask me how is it that you can feel emotions I can point to the Limbic system that has innervations to all memories! I don't need to go any further for proof of what causes consciousness because every aspect of how you think I can point to its source as a form of neurology.

[Zero]

you can test if a subject can do or experience some stimuli

No you can't. How do you know the subject does experience something? Maybe she's lying. Also, even if we could prove that a subject experiences something (for example if you are both the subject and the scientist), noticing that experience and neuron firing happen at the same time would not prove a causal relationship.

To be valid, the hypothesis we're talking about should be falsifiable but it's not, which is precisely the reason why the hard problem of consciousness is said to be "hard".

That said, I obviously make the same assumption: I believe subjective experience is a product of brain activity. But I don't ignore that it is no more than an educated guess. This is part of why AI is fascinating.

[frankinstien]

No you can't. How do you know the subject does experience something? Maybe she's lying. Also, even if we could prove that a subject experiences something, noticing that experience and neuron firing happen at the same time wouldn't prove a causal relationship.

No, we can prove if the person is experiencing something. This is why I stated we can measure neurons' inputs and outputs, currently, we do it with fMRI, but that measurement is a low-resolution measurement since it measures the metabolism of a neuron. Now, we look for trends, if interference with the segments of brain tissue give consistent responses then that is a falsification.  Now let's take your perspective of skepticism, we could locate what parts of the brain are used to formulate a lie, again looking for trends or consistency from other samples of human brains we prove when a person is lying. So, in the end, because neurons can be measured we can prove their effects not just in a direct response but in more subtle ways that provide stimuli that the subject has to cope with in order to reach some objective, but the subject doesn't know what piece of information is being manipulated, and therefore from lack of reactions to the tests we'd know that those parts of the brain indeed are the cause.

[Zero]

No, measuring neurons' activity doesn't prove that a subject is experiencing something.

[frankinstien]

No, measuring neurons' activity doesn't prove that a subject is experiencing something.

Oh yes, it can. E.g. When the dentist gives you a shot of novocaine it blocks the nerve endings from signaling which prevents you from feeling pain.  We know that novocaine blocks the signaling of nerve endings because those types of neurons have been measured when under the influence of the drug.

[Zero]

No it doesn't prove that the subjective experience is exclusively a product of the brain function.

[Zero]

This is a time waster, not a debate.

You're right, novocaine blocks pain, therefore we are networks of neurons. Good luck.
 

[frankinstien]

No it doesn't prove that the subjective experience is exclusively a product of the brain function.

"As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not necessarily imply that the resulting conclusion is false. Statistical methods have been proposed that use correlation as the basis for hypothesis tests for causality, including the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping."

But yes it can...

[Zero]

No.

[MagnusWootton]

you can probe a computers I/O but it probably isnt alive.

Same goes for robots,   but animals and people and insects, they might actually be alive, hence all the "hell'"p involved.

[frankinstien]

No.

The quote I posted is from your link...