Education and Indoctrination

It has been said that indoctrination and education are polar opposites and absolutely incompatible.

In an ideal world, but certainly not in practice. To a large measure, education indoctrinates us into believing that our modern "scientific" picture of the world has more or less given us a correct picture of what reality is with only the details needing to be filled in. Thus, there is no God, no afterlife, no magic, no ghosts, no psi, no objective morality, no "free will", no ultimate given purpose to our lives, no colours, sounds or smells in the external world.

I surmise my "education" has been very poor since I believe in all of these things (possibly not magic, I lack sufficient information to reach a conclusion here).

The commonsensical conception of personal identity

We have this commonsensical conception of ourselves that we are enduring entities. That I'm still the same I from childhood to now, and certainly I'm still the same person throughout mood changes etc. But it seems hard ... nay, impossible? to reconcile this commonsensical conception of the self with the idea that brains produce the "self" and consciousness.

In 2061

I wonder what the world will be like in 40 years time in 2061. Be interesting to travel forwards in time to that date, although not so good if I can't get back.

Will anyone have set foot on Mars? I doubt it. Will we have conscious computers? No.. Will autonomous cars dominate the roads? Ugh . . difficult one, level 4 yes that can drive in prescribed areas, but not level 5 cars that can drive anywhere. Will we have a theory of everything (TOE)? No. Will we be able to upload our minds? No. Will virtual reality have become a big thing by then? Yes.

The Futility of Exchanges on the Net

Here's an example of the futility of many exchanges on the net.  This following exchange can be found in the comments section under the article:   Is online advertising about to crash, just like the property market did in 2008.

ndl4321: 

"It woukld(sic) be interesting to see if there has been any analysis on te(sic) demographics of who uses adblockers. If it is the "better off" mostly using blockers then the effectiveness of ads being turned to hard cash becomes less likely.

Further when most adverts seem to be for things just purchased it's no surprise that if the ads are largely ignored even if seen".

To which someone going under the name "fastgameplayer" responds:

"Why would only the better off use an ad-block? Mine is free and works just fine".

ndl4321 replies:

"Please reread my comment Where did I say that only the better off use adblockers?

I questioned if analysis of the demographic had been done and, given the type and effectiveness of online advertising, how much of the ads turned in to hard cash."

To which fastgameplayer then quotes and responds again to ndl4321:

If it is the "better off" mostly using blockers then the effectiveness of ads being turned to hard cash becomes less likely.

"You offer an(sic) hypothesis. I questioned the basis of the hypothesis."

That's the end of the conversation.  Wise of ndl4321!

So ndl4321's initial comment is fine.  Perhaps the better off are more prone to using ad-blockers, perhaps they're not. But, short as and uncomplicated as his comment was, fastgameplayer failed to comprehend it.  His mistake is pointed out by ndl4321.

So, at that point you would expect fastgameplayer to apologise in some manner; say something like "oops, yes, never read carefully enough".  Instead he says "You offer an hypothesis" (of course, it was a hypothetical, not a hypothesis, but that's not important).

What is important is that this is the Internet writ large. People will not acknowledge any mistakes on their part, nor that their opponent has made a very good point.  Instead, they will employ various techniques (eg sophistry, rhetoric, utilize long words and convoluted "sentences" etc) so that it seems to the causal observer they haven't lost the argument.  And the whole conversation goes off at a tangent, essentially goes down the plughole.  Wasted time that one will never get back.

When I complain about this 

OK, this is exasperating enough.  But what makes it infinitely worse is when you point this out to other people.  Here's a post I put onto facebook (in blue).  

A woman said to me that often men feel the need to get up on their hind legs and argue.  They have a need to be right and are more interested in this than in communicating.  Hence what they say cannot be trusted.

I absolutely 100% agree with this.  They employ sophistry and rhetoric.  They have a propensity to utilize long words, use convoluted "sentences".  But essentially they often say nothing of any substance.  They are merely showing off, trying to appear be "right" to the audience, trying to boost their egos.  They are bamboozling, deceiving people, into thinking they know what they're talking about, that they are intelligent.  But they are pretentious buffoons.  Ultimately, they are doing philosophy and reason a disservice.

That same person also labelled me as combative and condescending.  But my motivation for this is poles apart from the people I have just described.  It is precisely *because*, these people say nothing of any substance that stirs my ire.  They are the enemies of reason and truth, and this is why I find it a challenge being polite to them.

What people should be doing is to try and explain the issues as simply as possible, to lead them by the hand, so to speak.  To get them to think of the issues.  This is what I attempt to do in my blog, and to a more limited extent on facebook.  I might fail, but I am not trying to impress people, I'm trying to educate people, I'm trying to get people to think for themselves.

As usual with my facebook posts, it didn't look like I would get any responses.  But then someone -- let's call him "John" -- replied:

That is probably what they are thinking too.

So, if we are to take this seriously, he's saying that the ndl4321's and "fastgameplayer"'s of the world are on an equal footing. Of course, this is a preposterous statement.  I confess I labelled it juvenile.  But then John goes on to say:

I speak the Truth having been [to] so many Facebook groups. Everyone thinks they are right. That is the way it is. It is not a juvenile remark, it is wisdom.

This just simply fails to understand human psychology.  Of course, inevitably, people will claim they are right, that their opponent doesn't understand their point etc.  They do not want to appear diminished to any casual perusers of the conversation.   Or indeed, they might genuinely think they are correct, but have failed to grasp what the other person is saying.  The point is this; not everyone is on an equal footing.  ndl4321 and fastgameplayer certainly are not.  To say they are is just a silly platitude uttered by people who have given no thought to the issue whatsoever.  So, in short, contrary to John, it's irrelevant what people state, or perhaps even think.  

Here's another example.  Often people say that if someone hasn't understood you then you need to think about expressing yourself more clearly.  I have received this advice often myself.  This, of course, assumes that if people extract the incorrect meaning of some statement, that the fault lies with the one making the statement.  And indeed it often does. In fact, people often appear to make their arguments as opaque and impressive sounding as possible -- sometimes when they are on the losing end of an argument and are trying to conceal this fact! 

Clearly, as the ndl4321/fastgameplayer example shows, this is not always the case.  I myself am in the habit of sending lots of emails off to various companies about some issue or other. As always, I try and be as clear as I possibly can.  But often the response (specific to my email, not just a standard response) bears no relationship to my query whatsoever!  Is this because of my wretched inability to communicate?  Or might it be that they have given the email the most cursory of glances? 

Very relevant to the above is my Arguing with people.

 

Why are only the extreme positions permissible?

Why are only the extreme positions permissible?
Hence, if I complain about the top 10% in the USA having 77% of total wealth, people always assume the only alternative is that everyone must be absolutely equal in wealth. Why? Clearly in between such extremes is possible e.g. the top 10% only have around 46% of the wealth in the UK (which is a vast difference to the USA). 

Or, if I complain about people owning vast tracks of land so that one cannot walk anywhere in non-urban areas without walking over private land, then I must also believe that people shouldn't have their own gardens. Why?

Or, if one decides modern life is unfulfilling, and hence decides to and live a simpler lifestyle somewhere remote, one must make no use of any technology whatsoever (not even a manufactured knife) otherwise one is being a hypocrite. How so?

Or, if one rejects the idea that we human beings are not just biological machines who will soon cease to exist forevermore, then I must believe in orthodox Christianity and believe that we spend an eternal afterlife in Heaven or Hell. Why? Why can't I believe that there is no punishment in an afterlife, that there is a beforelife as well as an afterlife, that reincarnation exists etc? Why are the choices restricted to the extremes of either materialism or fundamental Christianity?

Does the key to consciousness lie within our brains?

I've just read the following article:

Does the key to consciousness lie within our brains?

Under the main title the article says:

Much recent research supports the view that science can describe consciousness.

Then the recent research is necessarily flawed. Science describes the material world, by which I mean the quantifiable/measurable aspects of reality.  Our thoughts, emotions, perceptions, although having quantifiable aspects, are not exhausted by their quantifiable aspects e.g. the patch of green I see may be of a certain size and shape and shade and reflect a certain wavelength of light, but the greenness itself resides outside the ambit of science.   This blog post by me is of relevance. 

Article says:

The study of consciousness remained solidly in the philosophical realm up to recent times as science had no way to measure it. That changed in the early 2000s with the arrival of brain scanning machines such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The Brain scanning machines scan the brain, not consciousness.

Article says:

It is a common belief that humans are exceptional and superior to other animals, because we are conscious and self-aware.

It is only a few scientists and other mavericks that would deny that all non-human animals lack consciousness.  Self-awareness?  I always have regarded this as meaning to be aware that one is a self i.e a distinct entity that endures through time.  In which case, I would imagine most non-human animals lack it, but certainly not all.

Article says: 

Scientists remain unsure why consciousness first evolved, or what survival advantage it gave us and other animals.

Scientists hold the view that consciousness per se has no causal efficacy.  If they are correct, then it could not evolve, nor convey any survival advantage. 

Article says:

Higher consciousness took millions of years to evolve, so scientists believe it gave our human ancestors a big survival advantage.

Then they are being inconsistent.  If consciousness gives humans a big survival advantage then necessarily it must be causally efficacious.

Article says: 

There are others, such as Daniel Dennett, professor of philosophy at Tufts University who counter that since consciousness is the by-product of a working brain, that it is well within the grasp of science and scientists to study, describe and understand it. 

Let's leave aside how Dennett and others know that consciousness is a by-product of the brain.  Even assuming this, how does it follow that science is able to study it?  As I said at the beginning, it can't.  Even if consciousness is somehow produced by the brain it nevertheless resides outside the ambit of science.

Article says:

There has been much research over the past few decades that supports the view that science can describe consciousness. For example, neuroscientists know that looking at certain colours, such as red, influences brain activity, which can be read in a scanner. 

That's not science describing consciousness unless one identifies the experience of seeing red with characteristic brain activity.  So, here this is much more than the claim that brain activity somehow elicits consciousness, rather it would have to be the very same thing as consciousness.  But, it's not, and it's not for the simple reason that brain activity is exhausted by all possible measurements we can make of it.  In other words, its reality is cashed out in terms of all its physical properties.  Consciousness, on the other hand, such as the experience of redness, has no physical or measurable properties.

Guardian Article on Near Death Experiences (NDE's)

I read the following Guardian article:

What do near-death experiences mean, and why do they fascinate us?

Of the afterlife, [Kevin] Nelson [a neurologist] told me: “This claim is the most extraordinary in science, and there is no ordinary, let alone extraordinary, scientific evidence to support it.” (He added: “These are matters of faith.”)

A few comments:

What constitutes an extraordinary claim? A claim is deemed to be extraordinary if it is not consonant with our background beliefs about the nature of the world.  Those background beliefs are the assumption that materialism is correct, more precisely that the discoveries of science exhausts reality.  However, if we assume materialism, then there cannot be an afterlife, at least not in the form of a soul dwelling in some afterlife realm.  That doesn't just make an afterlife extraordinary, it makes it impossible.

So, since a proponent of an afterlife would scarcely embrace modern materialism, Kevin Nelson is transparently begging the question.  He would need to justify that modern materialism is very likely to be correct.  But I have argued that modern materialism is simply not compatible with the existence of consciousness, and here we're simply talking about our everyday embodied consciousness.  See my: Why the existence of consciousness rules modern materialism out.  In short, it seems to me that this assertion that an afterlife is an "extraordinary claim" cannot be substantiated.


Also, Nelson appears to be construing "scientific evidence" in the sense that we cannot derive a continued consciousness after death from everything we know about the material world and its structure.  That's true, but it conveniently leaves out the fact that we cannot derive normal everyday embodied consciousness from the  material world and its structure either!  Consciousness needs to be causally efficacious before we have evidence of it, and the causal efficacy of consciousness is denied by most scholars (we're talking here about consciousness per se rather than its neural correlates). 

Again, this can be circumvented by saying consciousness is identical (not merely caused, elicited etc) to neural activity. So yes, we can then have embodied consciousness, but not any unembodied consciousness.  But that again is to transparently assume modern materialism (NB I am specifically talking about materialism here, not just any position that holds the brain produces consciousness).  

And what is meant by saying an afterlife is a "faith"? Why is the hypothesis that our consciousness continues after the death of our bodies labelled a faith, but not the extinction (annihilation) hypothesis? By labelling the survival hypothesis a "faith" he appears to be implying that the "no afterlife" thesis should be the default, more reasonable, one. But why is it? I deny that it is. See my Brains affecting Minds do not rule out an Afterlife.

The article also says:

Daniel Kondziella, a neurologist affiliated with the department of neurology at Copenhagen University Hospital, told me that if “people are able to describe and report their experiences, even many years later”, then surely “they have been processed by the brain and stored in its memory centres.”

To say that memories are stored appears to me to deny that memories are a property of a [non-material] self.  I discuss such a self here.   So arguments are required as to why my conception of the self is unsatisfactory.  Apart from that, it seems that Kondziella is also begging the question since if the brain stores memories, then surely the brain produces the rest of our consciousness?  Besides, which, it seems this whole notion that memories can be stored is fatally problematic as I explain here.  Memories just exist and the fact that brains can impede access to them has no more significance then the fact eyeglasses can impede vision if the lenses are cracked.