Materialist Richard Carrier on Consciousness

[Spiritual Progressive]

Hi Bernardo and everyone, I have been following the work of materialist Richard Carrier for years. I think he is doing a lot of good work in standing up against the bigoted religious right and defending science but he can be extremely critical towards anything that challenges materialism.
 His pal Keith Augustine has a book coming out this year where they attempt to show why it's impossible for consciousness to survive death.
I found this blog post by Richard Carrier, I think he needs some severe debunking, what do you guy's think about it, especially the part about Consciousness: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1365/

How do we account for self-awareness?

This is another question only scientists can answer. Many theories are being explored. Theists, by contrast, have no viable theory at all–as in, a theory that predicts the peculiar features of conscious information processing, such as its dependence on an array of separate physical brain centers, its dependence on chemical balances, the presence of universal cognitive biases and illusions, the ladder of brain complexity development corresponding to level of consciousness and intelligence in animals, and so on. Cognitive scientists can predict all of these features from a common meta-theory: the brain generates self-awareness through chemical information-processing (e.g. mirror neurons, intentionality centers, and narrative memory construction, storage and retrieval, etc.). Theism has no comparable theory. And as for details not yet worked out, science is making steady and impressive progress. Theology has made none.

See my section on this point in Sense and Goodness without God III.6, pp. 135-208, and VI.2, pp. 353-60. The most notable point to reiterate here, is what I noted in the Carrier-Wanchick Debate (and reiterate again, with a more extensive bibliography and broader application, in The End of Christianity, pp. 298-302):

The scientific evidence confirming the necessity of a functioning human brain for human consciousness to exist is vast and secure. We have identified where in a brain different kinds of memories are stored, where emotions and reason operate, where each kind of sensory experience is processed, and so on. We have observed that if we physically remove or deactivate any one of these parts, the memories or abilities it contains then cease. It follows that if we take away all the parts, everything that we are will cease. [Atheism] predicts this must be the case, since on [atheism] there is no other way to have consciousness except as the product of a large, delicate and complex physical system (lying at the end of an extremely long, meandering, faulty process of trial and error over billions of years). But this is not what we’d expect if [theism] were true, since [theism] entails that consciousness can exist and function without a brain, and there is no known reason [any plausible] God would imbue us with any other kind of mind, and good reason to expect he wouldn’t. [Atheism] thus predicts exactly what we observe, while [theism] predicts the opposite: that we would instead be made “in God’s image,” which is not what we observe.

For example:

God could have provided every human being with a brainless mind that (a) always operates correctly without need of food or oxygen, (b) is incapable of being damaged by any wounds or disease, (c) always perceives and reasons correctly, [and] (d) doesn’t pose a physical threat to a mother’s life or health during delivery (as human brains do, in contrast with all other mammalian brains [due to disproportionate size, to accommodate their immense required complexity])…

Whereas, we can predict from the premise of atheism that our minds would lack all four of those things, that in fact the only way we could exist as conscious beings if there is no god nor anything supernatural is with a dangerously large, complex brain, which is highly vulnerable to injury, disorder and disease, massively dependent on consuming a huge chunk of our resources (in food and oxygen, e.g. our brains consume around 20% of our blood, sugar, and oxygen, a huge waste in resources relative to a soul, which requires no blood, food, or oxygen), with many innate gaps and flaws in its information processing capabilities.

That we have brains, and brains like these, therefore proves atheism is more probably true than any credible theism.

How is free will possible in a material universe?

Once again, a fallacy of loaded question. It has not been established that free will even exists. And whether it does depends on how it is defined.

If we revise the question to ask “How is libertarian free will possible in a material universe?,” then the answer is it isn’t, because such a thing doesn’t exist (and has certainly never been shown to exist). In fact it’s logically impossible. See my discussion of this point in Sense and Goodness without God III.4, pp. 97-118. If we revise the question to ask instead “How is compatibilist free will possible in a material universe?,” then the question answers itself (compatibilist free will is by definition compatible with a material universe).

 How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?

I assume this is meant to ask how we know there “isn’t” such an existence, since it is directed at atheists who don’t believe there is. Thus revised, the answer is that all evidence points to what I already noted for question 10 above: the brain is clearly necessary to generate consciousness–and store memories, personality traits, skills and reasoning abilities, process sensory information, etc., in other words everything that constitutes “you”–so dissolution of the brain entails dissolution of all these attributes. That puts the burden of evidence on anyone who would deny this.

By analogy, all evidence points to my wealth being a function of the money I can spend and the property I can use or sell. Take away my money and property and I will lose my wealth. If someone wants to insist that invisible houses and dollars and limbs remain in my possession, in some sort of magical parallel dimension, and therefore I still have all that wealth even after it is destroyed, the burden is on them to prove this preposterous claim.

[Bernardo]

Hi Spiritual,

This is a rehash of the old argument that correlations between brain states and conscious states implies a causation from brain to consciousness. I've argued against this ad nauseum in my work, and many others did it too. Correlation does not imply causation, and the instances of conscious states arising without correlated brain states in fact proves that there is no such causation. My recent paper at Paranthropology magazine expands on this in fine detail (http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/07/rational-evidence-based-non-materialist.html).

Personally, I don't feel the need to 'go to war' against people pushing this kind of relatively narrow view; particularly those that do it out of some kind of quasi-religious impulse to preach and educate. There will always be many points of view in the culture; drive for total consensus is unnecessary and perhaps even unhelpful. Eliminative materialists will be out there expressing their opinions. To me, that's OK. But I won't keep on seeking them out; nor will their discourse in any way make me feel insecure about my own position, unless and until they bring some new argument or evidence to the table, which hasn't happened yet.

It will always be up to each one of us to arrive at our own conclusions and inner certainties about the nature of reality and consciousness. One shouldn't need general consensus in order to hold an inner certainty; certainty comes from within. As a matter of fact, history shows us that the outer consensus is almost always wrong. Read this with your heart: I don't think it helpful to keep on looking for material from activist materialists, because they produce nothing new; they only preach the old. And hoping for each one of their rehashed discourses to be individually debunked before allowing yourself to feel confident about your own views is unnecessary. The chorus of loud and hysterical preaching (materialist or otherwise) on the streets is just that; noise with a very few occasional elements of value.

Cheers, B.

[Stewart Lynch]

I totally agree Bernardo. I also can’t be bothered with this sort of argument anymore, as you say, there doesn’t ever seem to be anything new. You’ve summed it all up so nicely so I can’t really add much, but a few things came to mind…

 

I think this argument is slightly different to the causation argument. If one discounts all psi phenomenon, and discounts our own subjective feeling of free will, then I think their argument stands up quite nicely, there would be no reason to assume anything more than a biological machine (I appreciate these are huge If’s!). The reason they have come to their conclusion is simply because they are not looking at all of the evidence (or purposely ignoring it). Their explanation fits the limited evidence they are explaining quite nicely. Not sure why it sounds like I’m defending them, I’m not…

 

…what I’m trying to say is, that if it weren’t for the things that can’t be explained by current science maybe these sorts of explanations would be enough, or do you think it goes deeper than that? Hmm, still think I’m not quite getting this across… basically I think it brings up the question for the motivation for alternative theories such as yours, is it just to explain more of the phenomenon, or is there something more?

 

I do believe that some psi phenomenon are real, and it certainly does feel like I am a conscious being with free will. My subjective world is the only thing I can really be sure of, if someone wants to tell me that my consciousness doesn’t exist they need some pretty compelling evidence! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say J

 

What always gets me is that they don’t think saying that free will doesn’t exist is an extraordinary claim. I’d say almost everyone in the world would disagree with this without much thought. I imagine it takes quite a lot of effort to convince oneself that oneself doesn’t really exist, if that is even possible. It almost seems like some sort of mental illness.

 

Stewart.

[Bernardo]

Yes, I think you put it quite nicely. I assume you consider non-ordinary states of consciousness to be psi phenomena. If you do, then yes, the materialist hypothesis only holds if they ignore the evidence they cannot explain, including non-ordinary states. Another criticism I have of their position is that it is entirely promissory. You see, if mind is brain activity, then we should be able to find a physiological process in the brain whose measurable parameters map one-to-one onto the qualities of experience. That is, there should be measurable parameters that correspond to the color red, the emotion of fear, the feeling with a smooth texture, etc. For each quality of experience, there should be a consistent mapping to a measurable parameter in the brain. The materialist hypothesis requires this to be true. But nobody ever found anything remotely similar to this! The latest studies indicate the opposite: there is no consistent mapping between experience and measurable parameters of brain activity; only a rough, high-level correlation. So, in fact, there is surprisingly little substantiation for the materialist position. The reason it remains mainstream is simply a lack of imagination: people can't think of something else! This is what I have been trying to help change. Gr, B.

[Stewart Lynch]

> I assume you consider non-ordinary states of consciousness to be psi phenomena

yes, you assume correctly. I'm not sure about the measurable parameters, I wouldn't be surprised if they can one day measure these things, even if they turn out to be different in everyone. However, even if they could measure these things, it still wouldn't be enough to convince me that consciousness only arises from the brain. I see the brain more as a receiver, so I would expect most things would have a measurable physical effect. But I agree, it is a big hole in the materialistic argument at present.

Stewart.

[Bernardo]

The filter hypothesis doesn't require as tight a mapping between measurable brain process parameters and subjective experience as the idea that mind is a brain process... ;-)

[Stewart Lynch]

true :-) I think the same could be said of the receiver model. Would you say there is a qualitative difference between seeing the brain as a receiver and the brain as a filter? ...although I suppose a receiver assumes duality, and a filter assumes idealism, think I've probably just answered my own question :-)

[Bernardo]

You did! :-)))

[Spiritual Progressive]

Hi Bernardo and Stewart,many thanks for your insights and comments. Bernardo I really enjoyed your paper on non-material consciousness.

:) 

[Stewart]

Hi Richard, you got me thinking about duality again...I'm starting to think that the duality/non-duality is a false dichotomy. My current understanding is that everything arises out of consciousness, which I assume would make my an idealist? But then my physical body is made up of many physical processes, the cells of my body have some form of consciousness, the bacteria in my gut are not me, but I couldn't live without them, they must arise out of consciousness too. But do they arise out of my consciousness? I personally don't think they do, although there is definitely some interaction between their and my consciousness. I don't think I dream up the reality of all the complex physical interactions that make my physical body work. I accept that physical reality may be like a shared dream, but who is to say that there are not other more highly evolved consciousness' who have more say in the dream than I do, that I am playing by their rules. And we are now led back to an almost materialist view of reality, there is me and there is physical reality, or put another way, there is my consciousness and all the other consciousness'. Saying that everything arises out of consciousness raises more questions than it answers, which is fine, but on the other hand it doesn't necessarily change our view of this reality as much as we think it might. I think we need to move past the duality/non-duality thinking. Sorry for the long rambling post, I hope someone can get something from it.

Stewart.



On Friday, January 11, 2013 8:25:33 PM UTC, Richard wrote:

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 6:25:02 AM UTC-4, Stewart wrote:

true :-) I think the same could be said of the receiver model.

The brain as a receiver works very well. Senses must be received to be felt and the receiver translates the bio-electric impulses so that it can be recorded as a memory of an interpretation.
The mind, on the other end, could be considered to be a communication network interfacing with the brain, connecting the various energy planes beyond pure material matter to interact throught what we call an ego.
Looked at it this way, there is no need for duality. The impression of a duality would be rather the consequence of self identification to a form, an image of self, a material structure, a thought, an apparent state of mind totally conditioned by the denser fabric of the material terminal. It is also the consequence of a very immediate sense of powerlessness coupled with a strong intuition of a much greater potential.

By the way Bernardo, I just listened to your interview on Skeptico and enjoyed your well articulated views.

[Richard]

It does not change our view or reality because this view is strongly anchored in the perception afforded by the physical senses we use.
And, duality is forced upon the individual by means of reflection.
When we reflect upon something, we simply test the limits of our memory. We shoot off an inquisitive ray that instead of travelling to the origin of consciousness and back hits the psychological bubble that contains the human experience, a memory, and is returned to the individual in the form of a thought or as a vibration. But this process simply allows the individual to test the limits of what he believes he can know.

If the inquisitive ray could travel to and back from the origin, there would not be such sentiment of duality. There would only be wholeness.
Forms, words, thoughts, the memory of the race, all are factors that totally condition the individual in his understanding. Understanding already being a the children of ignorance since it appears as a learning factor and becomes the foundation of knowledge as opposed to the source of knowing. They are all forms hypercharged with baggage of acquired pre-digested meanings.

Take the word soul for instance. It carries centuries, no, millenniums of spiritual interpretations.

These words participate to the maintenance of a psychic status quo while giving an impression of understanding. They then are factors that separate further the individual from his reality, creating a duality within him that is perceived as being a personal consciousness, although this consciousness is totally the result of a conditioning, collective psychological structuring process, a process that has been at the base of human civilization.

How then can we really define consciousness? Likewise, how can we define life since we are forced to recognize it as a material organization and animation phenomena?

[Bernardo]

Thanks Richard.

If I may ask, how do you reconcile what you describe below with a non-dualist metaphysics? To me, what you say seems to imply dualism...?

Cheers, Bernardo.

On Friday, January 11, 2013 9:25:33 PM UTC+1, Richard wrote:

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 6:25:02 AM UTC-4, Stewart wrote:

true :-) I think the same could be said of the receiver model.

[Bernardo]

Stewart, these are perfectly legitimate questions to ask of any idealist. I will give you a horrible answer: I tackle all this in my upcoming book in detail. It's hard to make a compelling case in a short space. But, for instance, on the question of the consciousnesses of your body's cells, one can imagine nested psychic structures in the medium of mind, of which your ego would be a meta-structure on top of other, simpler psychic structures. The partial image of the latter from the point of view of the ego would be bodily cells. Not satisfactory when summarized like this, I know. The book will do a better job. Cheers, Bernardo.

[Bernardo]

On the last questions you raise at the end of your post...

I see consciousness as the medium of all reality, insofar as only experience is real (here I include the 'unconscious' as well, which is a kind of dampened down experience).

I personally do not agree that we are forced to recognize life as a material organization phenomenon (that would imply dualism or materialism). I see a living body as the image of a mental process, just like lightning is the image of the process of atmospheric electric discharge. When a segment of the medium of mind partakes in the collective dream we call consensus reality, that process of partaking has an image: a body. To expect a psychic entity to partake in the collective dream without a body, in my view, is like expecting atmospheric electric discharge without lightning; or combustion without fire; or blood coagulation with clots.

Cheers, Bernardo.

[Stewart Lynch]

Thanks for the reply (I’ve been away). Looking forward to the next book!

--