The Limits of Objectivity: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Existence

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@LRT

@Mercer

Then why haven’t you cited a single study here?

And you already shared your selection criterion, which does not bode well for your claim of “both sides.”

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) suggests…

Nothing in that response has any relationship to what I wrote.

@LRT

…With IIT, we are far from the early chemical explanations of consciousness.

The question was why you haven’t cited a single study here.

@LRT

So why should the studies, articles, and books I have read not be considered evidence-based,

Because you’ve provided zero evidence that you’ve read any primary scientific literature. Simple!

@LRT

…claims that ultimately suggest our understanding of life and consciousness may require new approaches if we are to move closer to a satisfying explanation?

Saying that claims suggest anything, much less ultimately suggest anything, makes no sense.

@LRT

@Mercer

How do you verify?

Most article summaries include a link to the original study for further reference.

Yes, but you clearly don’t look at the original studies.

@LRT

Panpsychism has gained increasing prominence in the field of neuroscience

An evidence-free claim.

@LRT

@Mercer

Assuming that you are referring to the ACQUIRED immune system, it’s very, very clear that exposure to antigens is exactly and empirically sufficient to drive it.

I’d argue that your view of the immune system is overly simplistic and outdated.

I assure you, it is far more complex than your woo-centric one.

@LRT

What about the emerging research on the brain-immune connection?

All matter-based. What of it?

@LRT

The immune system isn’t just passively reacting to antigens—

Nice straw man, inserting the false adverb “passively” in there!

@LRT

it seems that the brain has a role in modulating immune responses.

Yes, I’m aware of that. Still nothing to suggest metaphysics.

@LRT

With new evidence showing that the brain and immune system communicate through pathways like the vagus nerve and cytokine signaling, it raises the question: why would these two systems be so intricately intertwined if the immune system only required exposure to antigens to activate its response?

Because it’s modulation, not activation. And it’s still entirely physical. What’s your point?

@LRT

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physrev.00039.2016

Not primary literature. Have you ever engaged with any primary literature?

@LRT

@John_Harshman

And back to the buzz-phrases. I especially like “at play”. But “intricate dance for survival” is nice too.

Lane uses ‘buzz-phrases’ to illustrate his point of view, so why can’t I do the same?

You or AI? Lane’s a superb writer. Do you think that you are in the same league?

@LRT

@Mercer

In what way are electromagnetism and quantum mechanics not matter-based?

Not matter based in the sense of not being matter per say.

That makes zero sense. Are you really unfamiliar with the Latin per se?

[Faizal_Ali]

@LRT

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) suggests that consciousness comes from how information is processed in a complex and connected way. It argues that the more a system can integrate information, the more conscious it is. This idea is linked to panpsychism, which proposes that consciousness is a basic property of all things, even things we wouldn’t normally think of as conscious, like atoms or plants.

This is quite misleading. IIT is a thoroughly physicalist model of conciousness, entailing nothing beyond chemical processes in the brain. (Which is not to say that IIT precludes the possibility that things other than brains can also produce consciousness.)

In fact, David Chalmers, arguably today’s most prominent proponent of panpsychism, famously won a 25 year wager that neuroscientific research would not produce findings favouring either IIT or its chief rival, global workspace theory.

What a Bet Between Christof Koch and David Chalmers Can Reveal About Consciousness

[Faizal_Ali]

@LRT

In the context of the preceding discussion and the argument I was trying to make, it’s clear that I was referring to established forces, like electromagnetism, which already exist in nature. These forces could help facilitate a connection to other, yet unidentified forces that might play a role in life and consciousness.

How do they suggest that?

@LRT

I’m not questioning the success of quantum mechanics in any way. I’m simply pointing out that some scholars, like Penrose and Chalmers, are exploring QM and its properties to better understand consciousness.

You miss my point, which is that QM only entails physical entities and processes and, therefore, does not in any way suggest the involvement of non-p[hysical entities and processes.

@LRT

Chemicals consist of molecules, which are forms of matter. Electromagnetism, however, is an interaction or fundamental force, not a type of matter itself. Quantum mechanics (QM) provides a framework for describing the behavior of matter and energy, rather than explaining the nature of matter itself.

You are making a fundamental error here, which is to equate the terms “material” and “physical.” The former is only a subset within the latter. That is why, if you have noticed, I try to use the terms “physicalism” rather than “materialism”, even though the latter is probably the more commonly used one. I wish to avoid the very confusion you seem to be suffering here.

[LRT]

@John_Harshman

Why? What connection can you make between electromagnetism and other unknown, unevidenced forces? You might equally well claim that the existence of the electromagnetic force supports the phlogiston theory or phrenology.

There is no established connection between electromagnetism and any unknown forces. What I have stated is that if no forces existed at all, it would be much harder to argue that any kind of force—electromagnetic or otherwise—could exist. It seems that you’re interpreting my words with a focus on finding faults rather than understanding the intended meaning.

@John_Harshman

Heliotropism has nothing to do with the immune system. What are you talking about?

Replace heliotropism with autonomic

@John_Harshman

What exactly do you mean by this? What connection? What does “no real purpose” mean here? I’m afraid I can’t keep up with imaginative leaps. I may be forced to cite Sidney Harris at you.

Take, for example, the brain-immune connection through the vagus nerve and the blood-brain barrier. If the immune system were purely reflexive, why would such a connection exist? Why would there be a link to the brain, which is commonly considered the seat of consciousness, if the immune response is merely a reflexive event? Feel free to cite Sidney Harris if you’d like.

@John_Harshman

It that wasn’t your point, you shouldn’t have said it. Please be more careful about what you say. Say what you mean to say, not its second cousin.

My statement clearly indicated that the point being made was this: “A description of reality that ignores qualia or personal experience is incomplete.” Instead of engaging on this, you focussed on a side issue to the discussion.

@John_Harshman

You are mistaken. A “theory of everything” is not intended to explain literally everything. The eightfold path is not the same as the Buddhist concept of the same name. A quark is not for Muster Mark. Basilosaurus is not a lizard. And so on.

As Ernst Mach apply stated: “Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.” Or ask some string theorists if their framework would be the final theory of reality?