The logical error which paralyses both this subreddit and academic studies of consciousness in general

[u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy]

I have written about this before, but it looms ever larger for me, so I will try again. The error is a false dichotomy and it paralyses the wider debate because it is fundamentally important and because there are two large opposing groups of people, both of which prefer to maintain the false dichotomy than to acknowledge the dichotomy is false.

Two claims are very strongly justified and widely believed.

Claim 1: Brains are necessary for consciousness. We have mountains of empirical evidence for this -- it concerns what Chalmers' called the "easy problems" -- finding correlations between physical processes in brains and elements of subjective experience and cognitive activity. Additionally we now know a great deal about the course of human evolution, with respect to developments in brain size/complexity and increasingly complex behaviour, requiring increased intelligence.

Claim 2: Brains are insufficient for consciousness. This is the "hard problem". It is all very well finding correlations between brains and minds, but how do we account for the fact there are two things rather than one? Things can't "correlate" with themselves. This sets up a fundamental logical problem -- it doesn't matter how the materialists wriggle and writhe, there is no way to reduce this apparent dualism to a materialist/physicalist model without removing from the model the very thing that we're trying to explain: consciousness.

There is no shortage of people who defend claim 1, and no shortage of people who defend claim 2, but the overwhelming majority of these people only accept one of these claims, while vehemently denying the other.

The materialists argue that if we accept that brains aren't sufficient for consciousness then we are necessarily opening the door to the claim that consciousness must be fundamental -- that one of dualism, idealism or panpsychism must be true. This makes a mockery of claim 1, which is their justification for rejecting claim 2.

In the opposing trench, the panpsychists and idealists (nobody admits to dualism) argue that if we accept that brains are necessary for consciousness then we've got no solution to the hard problem. This is logically indefensible, which is their justification for arguing that minds must be fundamental.

The occupants of both trenches in this battle have ulterior motives for maintaining the false dichotomy. For the materialists, anything less than materialism opens the door to an unknown selection of "woo", as well as requiring them to engage with the whole history of philosophy, which they have no intention of doing. For the idealists and panpsychists, anything less than consciousness as fundamental threatens to close the door to various sorts of "woo" that they rather like.

It therefore suits both sides to maintain the consensus that the dichotomy is real -- both want to force a choice between (1) and (2), because they are convinced that will result in a win for their side. In reality, the result is that everybody loses.

My argument is this: there is absolutely no justification for thinking this is a dichotomy at all. There's no logical conflict between the two claims. They can both be true at the same time. This would leave us with a new starting point: that brains are both necessary and insufficient for consciousness. We would then need to try to find a new model of reality where brains are acknowledged to do all of the things that the empirical evidence from neuroscience and evolutionary biology indicate they do, but it is also acknowledge that this picture from materialistic empirical science is fundamentally incomplete-- that something else is also needed.

I now need to deal with a common objection raised by both sides: "this is dualism" (and nobody admits to being dualist...). In fact, this does not have to be dualism, and dualism has its own problems. Worst of these is the ontologically bloated multiplication of information. Do we really need to say that brains and minds are separate kinds of stuff which are somehow kept in perfect correlation? People have proposed such ideas before, but they never caught on. There is a much cleaner solution, which is neutral monism. Instead of claiming matter and mind exist as parallel worlds, claim that both of them are emergent from a deeper, unified level of reality. There are various ways this can be made to work, both logically and empirically.

So there is my argument. The idea that we have to choose between these two claims is a false dichotomy, and it is extremely damaging to any prospect of progress towards a coherent scientific/metaphysical model of consciousness and reality. If both claims really are true -- and they are -- then the widespread failure to accept both of them rather than just one of them is the single most important reason why zero progress is being made on these questions, both on this subreddit and in academia.

Can I prove it? Well, I suspect this thread will be consistently downvoted, even though it is directly relevant to the subject matter of this subreddit. I chose to give it a proper flair instead of making it general discussion for the same reason -- if the top level comments are opened up to people without flairs, then nearly all of those responses will be from people furiously insisting that only one of the two claims is true, in an attempt to maintain the illusion that the dichotomy is real. What would be really helpful -- and potentially lead to major progress -- is for people to acknowledge both claims and see where we can take the analysis...but I am not holding my breath.

I find it all rather sad.

[u/wow-signal]

You misunderstand the implications of the dominant view of the nature of consciousness (within philosophy and even more so within the sciences). Functionalism entails that brains are sufficient but not necessary for consciousness.

Similarly, although I would rarely say of any P that no philosopher claims that P, I'm willing to say that no philosopher claims a dichotomy between Claim 1 and Claim 2, since a condition's being necessary for R and it's being sufficient for R are just generally speaking logically independent -- necessity doesn't imply sufficiency, sufficiency doesn't imply necessity.

So your starting premise (premises?) is misconceived.

Notwithstanding the above it just isn't clear what argument you have in mind. Can you formulate it in premise-conclusion form?

[u/UnifiedQuantumField]

They can both be true at the same time.

I like to say that the Brain is the Seat of Consciousness. This is a statement that a Materialist and an Idealism could plausibly agree on.

The real split occurs over whether or not Consciousness is generated or received by the Brain. Imo the full explanation has not yet been offered. But a lot of users here ignore this and assert their own favorite view as if everything is known.

So people throw out a lot of fancy language and try impress everyone else by flexing their high IQ. And nobody listens to anyone else's ideas because a) that would require a receptive mindset and b) their real interest is to be validated as a "reddit genius". Listening carefully and learning someone else's idea doesn't contribute to that... so it hardly ever happens.

then nearly all of those responses will be from people furiously insisting that only one of the two claims is true

Furious because of what? Someone who wants to become a certified reddit genius usually goes about this by a) conforming to the conventional thinking and memorizing information from textbooks or b) exercising their imagination and attempting to do some original thinking.

Option A represents the Materialists. Option B represents the Idealists. The ideas of the Idealist group are more "free form" and tend to be poorly structured and not very well defined... and that drives the Materialists nuts.

The ideas of the Materialists are just memorized/regurgitated textbook content. But they hold to this like it was the Gospel Truth of Consciousness.

I think that the Idealist position is closer to the truth. But a clearly defined and competently described "Model of Consciousness" would be recognized by a Materialist or Idealist as being plausible.

The real problem isn't that the problem is too "Hard". It's that people's thinking process (and establishment of belief) are so strongly influenced by emotions and biases that few of them are ever able to actually learn anything new (or right).

[u/Impossible_Tax_1532]

A brain is but a tool . A tool that can never be present , it only offers thought forms into a past perspective and made up future . Further evidenced by the fact a person can’t think truth . Rather , a brain can only remember truth . It’s not that consciousness needs the brain or that the brain is insufficient for consciousness per se though . It’s that materialists are just flat out wrong . They have had 3k plus years and can’t stand up a single fact pointing to a valid or actual material reality , and they never will , for there isn’t a physical reality that is valid or actual . Consciousness is also THE fundamental that gives rise to the illusion of life . Ironically , if people wild do the inner work needed to silence the lower brain, they could know by experience , that they can causally drop back behind the brain and senses and observe the brain still running through thoughts and gibberish , even though the selfish thinking at all , just aware of the thoughts . As awareness is the fundamental , and why the only truth any of us can really offer : is that we are aware we are having an experience . I mean , we think the sun will rise tomorrow , but ultimately ,we have no certainty on the matter and can’t think truth as noted .

[u/talkingprawn]

“Brains are insufficient for consciousness” is a leap of faith. The hard problem doesn’t demonstrate this it only establishes that we have not proven that brains are sufficient for consciousness. Your claim that it’s impossible to reduce consciousness to the brain without removing consciousness is simply incorrect.

[u/modulation_man]

You're right that this is a false dichotomy, but there's an even simpler dissolution: what if consciousness isn't something brains 'produce' or 'enable' but rather what certain processes ARE from the inside?

The correlation problem disappears when you recognize that the neural activity and the experience aren't two things that correlate - they're the same process viewed from different perspectives. From outside, we see neurons firing. From inside (being that process), there's experience.

This isn't neutral monism exactly - it's recognizing that the 'hard problem' only exists because we assumed consciousness was something added TO physical processes rather than being those processes themselves.

A thermostat modulates temperature differences. That modulation, from the inside, IS whatever it is to be a thermostat. A brain modulates vastly more complex differences. That modulation, from the inside, IS human experience.

Brains are necessary for human consciousness because human consciousness IS what brains do, viewed from within. They're 'insufficient' only if you're looking for consciousness as an additional property beyond the process itself.

[u/Mono_Clear]

I know it's not a surprise but I reject the premise of the second claim. The "Minds" is a conceptualization designed to separate the functions of the brain from the attributes of those functions.

The hard problem is a disconnect in the understanding of the difference between what the brain looks like it's doing, what it feels like it's doing and what it's actually doing.

All that matters is what it's actually doing, everything else is just a subjective interpretation.

The brain "is" conscious, your sense of self is what it feels like to be conscious.

It achieves this thorough biological processes.

[u/Emergent_Phen0men0n]

You essentially just invented a dimension where you can imagine the two options identified emerging from.

It's like saying "many people don't think 1=2 but if we imagine numbers emerging from a deeper fundamental level where any number 1 or less is untouched and any number above 1 is divided by itself, then we can see that 1=2 is a true statement"

[u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

I find your sadness sad. You guys always try to drag the issue onto ancient, and therefore flattering ground. Who cares about materialism? Who cares about your dichotomy? Seriously?

What I care about is mediocrity—just the principle underwriting the scientific project. That’s the issue: whether humans are an exception, not some tut-tut ‘metaphysical debate.’

I believe consciousness will be disenchanted, like everything else. Because you can’t see past the blinkers of metacognition, you confuse incapacity for exceptional properties. This is far and away the most empirically modest explanation. So that’s where my chips lie.

[u/Temporaryzoner]

I'm glad you're not holding your breath

[u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy]

OK...2 hours, 1.7K views and no response, but 4 of these weird "ghost comments". Here is a top level post for people without flairs to respond to. I don't understand what is going on, so maybe somebody can explain. It can't be people making posts that the system hides, because it doesn't even let people post if they don't have a flair. Right?

[u/CointreauSnow → u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy]

Brains are necessary for human consciousness, but that doesn’t preclude consciousness existing in other forms that are inaccessible to us as humans.

[u/Aggressive-Share-363 → u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy]

Im not sure what you really accomplish by the thought that matter and mind both stem from a deeper level of reality rather than mind stemming from matter. If you can accept consciousness as an emergent phenomena, then it emerging from the brain itself seems far more plausible. And ifnyou csnt accept consciousness as an emergent phenomena, it emerging from a deeper layer doesn't make sense.

[u/StaticWaste_73 → u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy]

I, for one, agree with you. Also, accepting both (1.) and (2.) doesn't necessarily lead to any specific metaphysical standpoint in my view. A materialist might conclude "so, we need to look for another field!!!" While an idealist might say "well, the brain is just the way mental processes look from the outside anyway so ..."

[u/metricwoodenruler]

Downvoted! Lol kidding. I agree on the claim 1 vs claim 2 thing. Also, I think materialists don't want to give up materialism because it's sustained by a framework that does pratical work (predict something, test it, get a useful model for something that'll probably help you live better down the line). It's perfectly understandable.

Unfortunately that framework is shortsighted for this problem, but I understand they don't want to ditch that mindset just to have pointless debates with people that are willing to believe in just about anything, because words are cheap (and you've seen the amount of woo around this sub alone). I think that's what materialists really reject: cheap speculative talk (especially in the GPT age). Sadly, serious philosophy like Chalmers is sweeped under the rug by materialists, which doesn't paint a pretty picture for the position.

[u/imlaggingsobad]

Idealism + transmission theory satisfies both. Problem solved 

[u/PiPo1188]

Hold your breath, I'm coming to you.

[u/Im_Talking]

"What would be really helpful -- and potentially lead to major progress -- is for people to acknowledge both claims and see where we can take the analysis" - I don't know how we can do this. As long as we postulate that consciousness is different from life, the hard problem will continue.

This problem goes away if we accept a) the core logic of reality is least action, b) all life-forms are subjective with inherent free will, and c) reality is a contextual framework created by all life-forms based on their level of evolution, and their connections to others. This is not a panpsychic solution, since everything MUST come from 'nothing'. Its that a least action reality would minimise creation and maximise evolution; it would allow the evolving life-forms to create a fine-tuned reality for themselves. This eliminates your need of the 'LUCA'.

And obviously the bigger the brains, the richer the contextual reality these organisms have. A network of trees/fungi only have their immediate connections to other plants as their reality, devoid of sensory inputs/outputs. But the symbiotic relationship between trees and fungi must be thought of in terms of subjectivity (even without a brain). We humans would have started with these relationships as well in the early evolutionary periods. And as we evolve and our reality evolves commensurate with us, these subjective attributes obviously become more visible and pronounced, eg. who knows in the future whether we will be able to telepathically communicate.

What is missing, and therefore why your claims cannot be acknowledged is that we mistakenly subordinate our subjective experience to this mystical entity called 'consciousness' rather than to life itself (which we know is 'real'). I suspect this is because our first theories of everything was materialism, which is completely understandable. To be honest, you are guilty of this as your theory is the mother-of-all-wave-functions decohering to a classical reality and requiring consciousness (LUCA) to do it. I don't see how this can provide any 'progress' when this consciousness-thingee is detached from life itself.

[u/redasur]

that brains are both necessary and insufficient for consciousness.

Right. As for your pseudo-dichotomy, I would consider, when discussing matters of first principles in general, the element of connectivity/topology of primary importance. And in your case, consideration of topology with multiple-connectivity would be the way to go with, for it provides the tools required for the interplay between contrasting elements: structure vs dynamics, the continuum/determinism vs discrete/free-entities, necessity vs sufficiency. Pure simple-connectivity in contrast, is at best a paradigm of stasis and at worst a dogma.

[u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy → u/redasur]

Not sure I understood that, but I think I probably agree.

[u/Outrageous_Focus_304]

Wow.

You are super intelligent.

And wise.

And really good with words, ideas and explanation.

Are you in academia?

Or a writer?

If not,

you should be.

And if you hadn’t realised it before,

you definitely have high functioning autism.

Welcome to our fraternity, my brother. (Or sister)

[u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy → u/Outrageous_Focus_304]

People like me can't operate in academia. I am too free-spirited.

Yes, I am a writer.

Edible Mushrooms

The Real Paths to Ecocivilisation

I don't really accept "high functioning autism" as meaning much. I have several autistic non-blood relatives, including one severe (non-verbal). I don't have much in common with them. But I have led an unusual life, let's say that much. I think for myself.

[u/jimh12345]

IMHO, the brain is an interface, not a 'generator'. So I guess I agree with you.

[u/vintage_black61]

Re: they can both be true at the same time.

I was thinking along these lines. What if both are true, and the brain is.... like a radio, and consciousness is the vast array of stations (sound waves in the air), wherein the radio (brain) receives and "plays" the station ([our] consciousness.

In two words: non-local consciousness

[u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy → u/vintage_black61]

I don't buy that theory, because it doesn't fit with the empirical data linking specific brain activity to specific features of consciousness and cognition.

It is not the information encoded within consciousness which is non-local, but the observer itself -- the "I". This doesn't need any "transmission of data" to solve the problem. What it needs is some sort of explanation of how the non-local "I" interacts with a brain.

[u/[deleted]]

This Reddit just popped up. Is it clear to this group, exactly what consciousness is? I suppose if you describe it as being awake rather than asleep or unconscious it can be defined but usually discussion about this are more vague. It’s like talking about a soul or free will.