What an excellent article, and so many great references to investigate.
Thanks for finding this and sharing it with us!

It was an interesting read till the author revealed himself as just as biased as the people he's excoriating, and unwilling to share any evidence, which immediately invalidates the piece.

If you refuse to provide evidence for an assertion, you should not assert it as fact.

This article provides a more grounded explanation of how we might actually solve the hard problem and ancillary issues surrounding the problem of consciousness and subjective experience: http://journal.frontiers...89/fnint.2012.00093/full

The author cited several books which dive deeper and his article has 140 footnotes/references. I’d hardly call that unwilling to share any evidence.

As I said in my previous post, the references are worthy of further investigation.

Yes, books with little scientific basis. The quality of a source is crucial to the validity of information claimed to be supported by it. For example, Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century relies heavily on "god of the gaps" and uses quantum mechanical terminology to conceal the logical faults of many of the book's arguments. This review explains some of the problems with that book: http://www.academia.edu/...et_al._Irreducible_Mind_



And to be honest, it's not valid to cite an entire book as evidence of your assertion. You must actually provide quotations or specific citations from within the text that specifically support your theory. Just saying "You should read this book, it will prove me right," does not a citation make. That entire paragraph from which I took my original quote is one big False Attribution, although the author is absolutely correct in pointing out the cognitive sciences' reliance on Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The entire piece relies heavily on Appeal to Authority by invoking the musings and philosophical quotations of various esteemed scientists in the fields of neurology and cognitive behavioral sciences as if they were peer reviewed publications.

Psybin - that is an incredible cursory and brusque dismissal of an 800+ paged mammoth of a book written by numerous academic researchers at the University of Virginia which compiles a substantial wealth of evidence pertaining to consciousness-related phenomena. "Irreducible Mind" is regarded as being a highly significant text in modern psychology. It is an archetypal display of pseudo-skepticism to merely content oneself with posting quotes from a highly biased review, published in an agenda-ridden openly "Skeptic/debunker" magazine, without bothering to read or delve into a massive body of scientific literature of detailing several avenues of evidence that are simply incompatible with materialism. That review is pure "rhetoric over substance" simply misrepresenting the careful detailed arguments and analyses conducted by the authors of "Irreducible Mind", and failing to grapple with the bulk of the evidence amassed therein. It absolutely does not rely on a "god of the gaps argument" - I cannot state this emphatically enough - and this would be pellucidly clear to any one invests any intellectual effort into reading the book. On the contrary, it relies on empirical data compiled from the clinical case and experimental literature and published in numerous peer-review journals. It also spends but a mere portion of the final, theoretical chapter devoted to Berkley physicist Henry Stapp's theory of a potential quantum basis for consciousness. As stated at the outset of "Irreducible Mind", the book is about evaluating the empirical evidence for the titular irreducibility of mind and consciousness - the task of constructive theory building was relegated to a subsequent novel.

Anyone who makes such sweeping statements about this topic is far better served by actually following these sources first hand, rather than relying uncritically on another individual's point of view. I should also note that by and large that particular individual's review was the only high profile negative review of the book issued - "Irreducible Mind" received widespread acclaim from a myriad of contemporary scientists and philosophers - this is clearly displayed on its Amazon page. So, you've succeeded in cherry picking one highly negative review that fails to represent the way in which the novel was overall positively received and the discourse it stimulated. I can also probably gather that you did not read the authors' rejoinder response to the negative review you posted. Again, it seems you are content to hear a single side of the whole picture.

So, you simply couldn't have erred more severely in asserting that such sources have "little scientific evidence". Science must receptive to ALL the evidence, and NOT merely the evidence that accords with one's a priori beliefs in materialism. It does not suffice to push all of the evidence that does not agree with one's dogma off to one side. It also does not suffice in scientific discourse to parrot another individual's words without proper investigation into the material that you are denigrating.

I will post here, for posterity, the overwhelming positive response that "Irreducible Mind" received, so anyone viewing this thread may be able to come to a more balanced opinion of this work :

Cont'd:

I'm not going to post the whole thing here due to space limitations, but I would recommend reading this detailed counter response to Sebastian Dieguez's "Skeptic Magazine (Skeptic.com)" review of Irreducible Mind" (i.e., the review excerpted above from Psybin). It's a lengthy critical examination of Dieguez's piece, and it goes a significant way to exposing the faults of that review:

http://www.criticandokar...reducible_skepticism.htm


One of the authors of "Irreducible Mind" also wrote a response of their own to the Dieguez review, published here:

Kelly, E. F. (2010). Yes, Irreducible. American Journal of Psychology, Fall 2010.

Last time I checked, American Journal of Psychology wasn't a "skeptic/debunker magazine", which was where the review was published (academia.edu is simply a site for sharing publications). I've read various excerpts and a few chapters of The Irreducible Mind at different points in time and chose to share that review since it mirrored some of my own criticisms of what I'd read, but I've now started reading the full book (I bought the e-book just now) in case I'm completely mistaken.

I was not aware of the Sebastian Dieguez's review being published in that journal. I read the review years ago, and at the time it was published in the Skeptic Magazine/Skeptic.com (at least initially):

"The Soul of the Gaps. Sebastian Dieguez. Skeptic; 2009; 15, 1; ProQuest Education Journals."

I do know that Edward F. Kelly's (one of the authors of "Irreducible Mind" ) rejoinder to Dieguez review was published in the American Journal of Psychology a year later, in 2010 - I'm guessing the journal probably allowed both pieces to appear in an issue together side by side.

That is not the review I linked to and quoted, perhaps that is the misunderstanding?

EDIT: I just read Dieguez's review. That is certainly not the piece I was referencing.

EDIT2: I realize after rereading this thread that I mistakenly typed "soul in the gaps" instead of "god of the gaps" which is coincidentally the title of the review by Dieguez you were talking about and probably the source of confusion. I intended to refer to the "god of the gaps" fallacy rather than that particular piece of writing. I can also see where this typo would not be obvious at all, since "god of the gaps" typically refers to arguments for the existence of God, whereas I was trying to apply the same logic to the way the authors were arguing for the existence of what many would consider the "soul".

I'm glad it interested you so!

I'd become annoyed with the seemingly overwhelming materialist stance on the philosophy forum on Reddit, so I started looking for well-written articles arguing against the materialist worldview on the nature of consciousness.

This article happened to be one of best I had found.

Ahh, that's what it was - yes, that was my confusion. I thought the "soul/god in the gaps phrase" was a reference to the other article. You linked actually linked to the Sturm article, which is a bit similar to the Skeptic Magazine piece (it's been a long time since I read either of them - since probably 2010 in fact, when it was published). I think I lumped both of their criticisms together in my head, and I read part of the excerpt you posted thinking that it was the other article. Whoops. I apologize for the mistake, and for coming off a harsh before - like I said, I incorrectly presumed you were referring to the Dieguez review published in the Skeptic-Magazine, which was really a textbook example of pseudo-skepticism and blatant misrepresentation. I still think, though, that a good deal of what I said above does still apply. I think it's unfortunate that someone could read a single negative review and come to a very strong opinion about this work, without having read the book itself or considered any of the other reviews it received from the academic community, which were overwhelmingly positive. You also put forth sweeping criticisms of the novel, as well as the the information Valmar linked to in his opening comment, without demonstrating any command of the relevant research/evidence. If this was a contrary scenario, and you posted an extensive list or resource containing scientific studies which showed evidence for biological evolution, and some creationist swiftly dismissed all of it with the wave of a hand and accompanying quotes from the bible or some Christian apologist, with no indication that he had actually read any of the studies or knew their implications...well, it simply would not be tolerated among the intelligentsia. ALL the evidence - as long as it was attained through rigorous scientific methodology and was subject to peer-review - must be put on the table and carefully considered if we are ever going to get a grip on mind and its place in nature. And a great deal of such evidence, a lot of which has unfortunately been swept under the rug in most popular discussions, is the subject of "Irreducible Mind."

I would really have to re-read the Sturm review to tease apart his specific criticisms - but I'd urge anyone interested to also read Edward Kelly's reply this review (if I can find it I'll post it later), because as I recall it does defend and offer clarifications on his book [Kelly, E. F. (2010). Yes, Irreducible. American Journal of Psychology, Fall 2010]. I actually have to say that I recall finding myself agreeing with a few of points that Sturm piece. I remember it being far reasonable than the other review I was referring to, which was frankly a hatchet-job. I think Sturm raised some important points about the philosophical or theoretical side of "Irreducible Mind (IM)", some things that weren't covered in great detail in the book. I do think that some of Sturm's requesting of more explicit theoretical bases for the phenomena discussed in "IM" have been addressed in much more detain in the UVA Division of Perceptual Studies' second novel, which was intended to tackle the philosophy and theory-construction side of things - but obviously one can't fault Sturm for that, as the sequel didn't come out until 5+ years after the review.

Of course I'd overall have to disagree with the overall gist of either review. The strength of "Irreducible Mind" is in it's highly detailed cataloguing of various and diverse lines of published empirical evidence, and the extensive arguments/analyses of that evidence - which did not suggest a complete overhauling of modern psychology and cognitive neuroscience, but rather that the ontology of the discipline needed to be expanded (the authors of "IM" are themselves distinguished researchers with various degrees in the social/behavioral and neurosciences). "Irreducible Mind" is not some kind of anti-scientific piece; on the contrary it is steeped in the scientific literature, and draws copiously from a formidable body of empirical research. Neither the Sturm article nor the Dieguez review really offered specific rebuttals of the evidence presented in "IM" - both reviews were meta-critiques of certain broad themes that appeared in the book. Calling for more specificity in the theory-building of "IM", such as in regards to a filter theory of the mind brain relationship favored by the book's authors, is certainly reasonable. But it's important to note that the authors stated at the outset that "IM" would be primarily about the empirical data and only offer preliminary theoretical directions. That latter task would be taken up in detail in a following book (which it was). I find it ironic that criticisms of the first book, "IM", focused mainly on it's lack of theory, while some criticisms of the second book (i.e., on Amazon) focused on its lack of discussion of supporting evidence - the fact is each book was intended to pertain to a different meta-issue, and thus both work in tandem.

Another issue Sturm had with "IM" was that it did not explicitly discuss the evidence for so-called "psi phenomena" or parapsychology, which "IM" referenced occasionally in support of its thesis. While it's true that this is regrettable, "psi" is an even more controversial area of research, and the scientific literature conducted on the topic of "psi" is vast - it would likely require several additional volumes to discuss adequately (yes, there does exist a hefty body university-based research on this topic too, I'm not even gonna try get into that now. I discussed that evidence briefly in a similar thread here https://www.dmt-nexus.me...osts&t=72970&p=2 ) Still, "IM" relegated numerous citations and resources on the topic of "psi" to it's appendices. I think it's actually a strength of the book - not a weakness - that the authors made the case for their thesis without relying on the evidence from "psi". Indeed, due to it's controversial nature, the inclusion of a discussion of "psi" research would have likely raised further, separate criticisms from people like Sturm and Dieguez. Sturm's brief criticism of "psi" itself is quite weak - he brings up very common skeptical criticisms that are simply not implied in any way by the data, nor are the majority of researchers in "psi" guilty of the charges Sturm attributes to them. I.e., it's a bit of a straw man-ing of both "Irreducible Mind" and "psi" research. He also confuses laboratory parapsychology with "spirit bunting".

Sturm's review also raises some age-old questions/difficulties for dualist interactionist views of mind. Two things: There are very real concerns that need to be sorted out for dualism (as is the case for just about all philosophical positions) - but again, detailed theory building was not really the main task of "IM", that task was taken up in the authors' following book. He is also mistaken in thinking that the "filter theory" propounded in "IM" is cast in solely dualistic terms. Certainly, a dualistic view is advocated; however, the authors are equally sympathetic to forms of "neutral" or "dual aspect" monisms. These latter monisms are in fact the theoretical emphasis of their aforementioned second companion book. (For my own part, I happen to be much more sympathetic to neutral/dual aspect monism than dualism - so I do agree with some of Sturm's criticsms about dualism.)

Neither of us will get very far posting a alternatively positive review here, a negative review there. I can't add any more for the time being, but I think that the evidence in the book really needs to be read and appreciated by ones self. I'm not saying there won't be any criticisms left after doing so - but then specific legitimate concerns can be discussed.

I also wanted to say a piece about quantum mechanics and quantum "quantum consciousness". Above, Psybin stated that the book "Irreducible Mind" relied on quantum mechanics to cover up their logical flaws.

I myself have been skeptical of quantum theories of the mind-brain relationship, and I never "held a candle" for such a theory. I am very wary of the way in which quantum physics is being thrown around lately and in inappropriate ways - it's usually a combination of bad physics and bad mysticism. One can reject materialism and formulate an alternative framework of consciousness without relying upon quantum physics. This is one reason why I was happy to see that "Irreducible Mind" actually did not heavily rely on quantum physics for its thesis. On the contrary, (as I said previously) quantum physics was rarely mentioned, and when it was it was mainly in regards the theories of Berkley physicist Henry Stapp, which were discussed over a handful of pages in the final chapter, as one particular theoretical option that could account for the evidence presented in the book.

However, I will say that I have slowly come to realize that perhaps I need to reappraise my skepticism of "quantum mind" theorists. This has become increasingly apparent as evidence of quantum phenomena in biological systems has shattered the idea that biology is too warm and wet to sustain quantum effects. Most importantly, there now exists empirical evidence for quantum states in the brain's microtubules, recently published in a series of articles by Anirban Bandyopadhyay's team at the National Institute for Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (I can provide specific citations for any of this on request). So, I fail to see how "Irreducible Mind's" brief inclusion of a potential theory of quantum effects in the mind or brain is such a negative attribute. It certainly wasn't the only option discussed.

I agree, I think it's quite fascinating regarding tubulin potentially forming qubits in biological systems. I'm actually enjoying Irreducible Mind so far, even if I don't subscribe to some of its premises. It is actually a pretty good read

What a fantastic article. And YES, i agree with everything he says, including his SOURCES.

This guy is basically saying materialism can't explain consciousness because it has no proof while at the same time going on a tirade against mechanistic materialists. What's new? I can't see how he is any less dogmatic than the dogma he is bashing. And i think that giving no evidence apart from listing 140 references is a bit lame.



This quote worries me. There is something a bit creepy, old fashioned and puritanical about not exonarating someone if they are mentally ill.



Who is to say that the laws of nature have no meaning? Maybe we are the products of something bigger that is itself material in make up. I am no physicist and i find quantum mechanics baffling but if there is some relation between quantum fields and consciousness isn't it true that all quantum fields have a related particle? The higgs field has a particle, the electro-magnetic field has the photon. Wouldn't this therefore point to consciousness being material in nature?



We do not know what time is and there is a possibility that time does not really exist as we know it. It is just a way that we have developed the idea of linear time in order to navigate the eternal now-ness. No one can really say for sure what consciousness is. Are dogs conscious? Are plants consciousness? And we all move the goalposts in our descriptions of what consciousness is depending on our point of view. Central nervous system, self awareness, awareness blah blah blah... The only thing anyone can be sure of is that they are conscious. They don't really know what it is, but they are sure of it. The same that they are sure today is today, yesterday was in the past and tomorrow is always in the future. There is a possibility that consciousness( along with time, existential meaning and freewill) is a made up and heavily ingrained abstract concept that we have incorporated as our intellect has developed in order to guide us through our subjective existence.
I do see the irony that the abstraction that we call consciousness gave rise to the idea that we are conscious.



This would make sense to me if we translate consciousness as nothing more than information and the exchange thereof. Voila! There's no hard question of consciousness. It's fairly simple. It's either a made up concept or information (which would give rise to the primacy of consciousness). But humans like to make things so complicated, thinking that they're so goddamned special.

Again, it's ironic and understandable that the idea of consciousness, something that is supposed to transcend our ego, was made up by such an egomaniacal species.

Well I am glad to hear that - I should note that I also don't subscribe to a few of its premises nor every single argument/piece of evidence it advances. But that's pretty much the nature of things for everything I read. I don't want to give the impression of proselytizing for this or any book, without appropriate skepticism and discernment. It's has such high information content that there's no way you (or I) are going to buy everything in it - and that's fine. I think the point is that, while some criticisms may indeed be valid, it's really quite the opposite of a non- or anti- scientific text, and does not constantly and awkwardly try to marry quantum physics with everything in the psychological world (at least in any egregiously pseudo-scientific way). I learned a lot from reading this book (probably a good deal more than I did in most classes at university...)

I find it hilarious that science needs to try so hard and is such a hard concept to prove that there is "something more" to life or something that transcends the purely material view, when really for a lot of people nothing could be more obvious than the fact that we are all connected, have souls etc. the only thing we can be sure of is we are conscious? That is almost laughable because what good does that do us when that is totally obvious and gets us nowhere really.

Best imo to go out on a limb and believe something instead of materialism which correct me if I'm wrong but kind of states that there is no conscious flow to things and no interconnection to them other than physical processes. We randomly happened to be here through random probability and conciousness is a bland mechanical process created by our brains. For me it's an utterly depressing view, and hilarious because of its absurdity

For instance if you told a spiritualist who works with the unknown and mystical that we are all connected by a force greater than ourselves and live in a world where there is more than meets the eye and things and processes have tangible spirits that can be worked with, they would not be impressed cause everyone already knows this. It would be stating the obvious

Yes but wouldnt it be cool if we had souls, were all connected and all that other sort of stuff and we could mechanically explain how it all came about? If we cannot expain the unexplainable it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not mechanistic or material in nature. Why can't materialism have transcendant meaning? If consciousness is mechanical i would hardly call it bland and if we ended up here randomly, yes it is absurd and pretty damned amazing.

As far as i know, no scientist has ever claimed that materialism could EXPLAIN counsciousness. Just that there is a correlation between physical phenomena and counsciousness. And i don't see what's wrong with that.

Just as blindly believing that a certain materialist worldview can explain everything there is, and that materialism is the only valid way to look at the world can make a person numb and cold, rejecting the material world, wich is the ultimate consequence of the total rejection of materialism, is not such a good idea.

Religious zealots for instance, who commit suicide attacks, or torture people to get them to confess that they are witches, aren't very good role models in my book.