Elon Musk's Neuralink Demonstration and Consciousness

I've not gone that far Sci, but I suppose it's true that they're just sensationalising this and claiming it can 'potentially' do pretty much anything, not to mention the lead-up to this, as well as this update, gives me the impression they're rushing things. I've seen some people say they were unimpressed with the pig tests as it's just stuff you'd expect from most neurological technology, but I'm no expert.

Look at the varied business issues Musk has had and you can easily see why he put out this pig and pony show.

Like I said, when Musk is confident enough to stick the device in his own brain is the starting point for taking this seriously.

And you should face the fact that nothing you can read/watch online is going to convince you that you will survive death. So you could try to investigate more directly - visit mediums, see if you have any Psi ability - or just accept that you will cease to exist at the point of your bodily death and come to terms with that - for you -reality.

Like I mentioned, that Daily Mail article on Musk makes me suspicious. I've heard some of his investments in other countries also have questionable ethics too, idk. As for seeking direct evidence in person, I'll stick to waiting till this lockdown is over before I visit that Spiritualist centre again. They don't do Zoom calls.

Like I mentioned, that Daily Mail article on Musk makes me suspicious. I've heard some of his investments in other countries also have questionable ethics too, idk. As for seeking direct evidence in person, I'll stick to waiting till this lockdown is over before I visit that Spiritualist centre again. They don't do Zoom calls.

An excellent time to see if you can produce Psi via dreaming.

[Laird]

Hi Omni,

I've now watched the demonstration, and I have something to add to your comments on the possibility of this device "explaining" consciousness.

The first question we have to ask in response is: "What does it mean to 'explain' consciousness?" This puts the onus onto the proposer of the original question. If consciousness is fundamental, then we do not have
or even need a way to "explain" it, any more than we need to explain any other fundamental entity, such as the fundamental particles of physics. It is only if consciousness is not considered to be fundamental that an "explanation" (as to how it came/comes to be) even makes sense.

So, let's first recognise the bias in the original question: it assumes that consciousness is not fundamental but instead is "produced" in some sort of way. There is a basic incoherence in this idea, in that consciousness would have to be "produced" out of that which is not conscious(ness), which makes about as much sense as saying that a meal can be produced out of Lego blocks (as I wrote to you privately).

In any case, let's move on to the first quote you provided. Here's a relevant portion: "you're looking at mapping from X to Y, where X is the neuronal correlates, the thing that's happening physically, and Y is the phenomenal state".

It's interesting to note what's missing from this mapping. Yes, there are Ys as "phenomenal" states, but there are also Ys as "wilful" expressions. In other words, we are not just passive experiencers, but also active participants. It is one thing to suggest that "brain state X" causes "experience Y"; it is another to suggest "brain state X" causes "wilful outcome Y". But this, essentially, is what the commentator seems to be suggesting. In any case, let us assume that Neuralink consistently demonstrates that X<->Y. OK, so, let's go over some of the possibilities that could lie behind this correlation just for comprehensiveness:

1. Brain state X causes phenomenal/wilful experience Y (including, as described above, the bizarre situation in which a brain state "causes" a seemingly freely-willed choice).
   
2. Phenomenal/wilful experience Y causes brain state X.
   
3. Some third, underlying phenomenon causes both brain state X as well as phenomenal/wilful experience Y.
   
4. Sometimes, brain state X is caused by phenomenal/wilful experience Y, and sometimes the reverse; sometimes, even, it is a mix of the two.
   

My money's on #4, simply because it makes the most sense given psychical research: in other words, some sort of interactionist dualism.

To accept #1, as most physicalists seem to want to do, seems to me to reduce to incoherence, as outlined in various different places on this forum as well as in the philosophical literature (as well as in my little "Lego" analogy above). Yet it seems, implicitly, that that is the causal relation that most academics and scholars wish to assert or identify with most these days.

To sum up: even if Neuralink confirms to a high degree of accuracy that X<->Y (given the above definitions of X and Y), it would not (could not) confirm physicalism, and there would remain good reasons to reject physicalism.

I think that this is something that you seem not to be willing or able to accept (you "worry" over it): that there are good, philosophical reasons to reject physicalism no matter which experiments are performed. My sense is that even if the best experiments provided the best evidence for physicalism, this would in fact be better evidence for idealism. There really isn't any value or enduring truth (possible) in the physicalist perspective.

But I understand that you are conflicted, and I understand why. I could easily have been in your shoes given a different set of circumstances. So I don't begrudge you your worries.

[Laird]

To sum up my more general thoughts on this product: it troubles me. I think that, if there is one, the aim of our embodiment in this reality is to strive for identification with a higher, spiritual reality, and that the alternative is to become further enmeshed in physicality. This device, it seems to me, enmeshes us deeper in physicality rather than raising us up. I understand that it might very well prove revolutionary to people such as quadriplegics, for whom it may well facilitate movement that is not possible without it. To those people I say: fair play to you; make the best use of this device that you can. Otherwise, I think we are best off developing our innate talents rather than relying on external devices to supply those talents to us.

I think that this is something that you seem not to be willing or able to accept (you "worry" over it): that there are good, philosophical reasons to reject physicalism no matter which experiments are performed. My sense is that even if the best experiments provided the best evidence for physicalism, this would in fact be better evidence for idealism. There really isn't any value or enduring truth (possible) in the physicalist perspective.

Isn't Omni's claimed problem the fear of death?

In which [case] it's not clear how physicalism being false would matter. A lot people who think physicalism is false also don't think the personal self survives death.

Depending on how one defines the "physical", and whether this includes conservation of information, it might be the case that physicalism and immortality of the self would be compatible.

[Laird]

it's not clear how physicalism being false would matter.

Oh. It's clear to me. You have to work really hard to present a physicalist case for the survival of consciousness after biological death (even setting aside that, in my view, physicalism is just flat-out incoherent in the first place). The case for the survival of consciousness after biological death is far easier on a non-physicalist outlook.

Oh. It's clear to me. You have to work really hard to present a physicalist case for the survival of consciousness after biological death (even setting aside that, in my view, physicalism is just flat-out incoherent in the first place). The case for the survival of consciousness after biological death is far easier on a non-physicalist outlook.

I agree it's likely easier in terms of how we usually conceive of things but this seems to depend on the avenues of thought usually taken?

Certain Idealist and Panpsychic versions of reality certainly don't include Survival, whereas depending on the nature of Time/Energy/Matter/Causation/Information in a Physicalist universe you can have Survival of the Self. After all Consciousness has to be strongly emergent, and that means all bets are off on assuming death of the body means death of the mind...

But I also agree it's something of a moot point since Physicalism is just incoherent, but someone who wants to confirm Survival is not going to get there just by recognizing that incoherence. It's not even necessary, and definitely not sufficient.

[Laird]

Yep, fair enough, Sci. I guess all I can suggest is that physicalism-with-survival is even less coherent than physicalism as such - but we both already agree that physicalism is incoherent, so I'm not sure how far that gets us.

Oh. It's clear to me. You have to work really hard to present a physicalist case for the survival of consciousness after biological death (even setting aside that, in my view, physicalism is just flat-out incoherent in the first place). The case for the survival of consciousness after biological death is far easier on a non-physicalist outlook.

Personally, I found (in my past journeying through this stuff), that the case for survival came first. It pretty much thrust itself into my attention. Survival more or less demonstrated itself to me. That was established as a foundation. After that, the case for physicalism didn't seem relevant, since the physical was not what survived. A pile of atoms in one location is not related to evident continuation in a separate, unconnected location.

Whatever it is we're looking for, the physical is mere background, a stage upon which some of the action takes place. It was also evident to me that the physical was simply insufficient, it did not represent the entirety. That is especially true no matter what one thinks of survival. We can set that aside for a while. Just considering our ordinary everyday consciousness in the present moment. It is of a separate kind. Consciousness is the bigger unknown. Yet it is also the only known. The only thing we do know, any of us, is that we have consciousness, we ARE consciousness. This is so basic that it gets ignored. We trivialise and neglect our own existence in all the looking outward.