Anything that appears suddenly and erratically is in itself a problem. But between the non-conscious and the conscious there seems to be an infinite gap. — spirit-salamander
That is, must consciousness always only occur, or exist, in a first person, present tense mode? — charles ferraro
Just that persons are the only conscious things we know of?What is it about consciousness that it must always be personified, or require personhood? — charles ferraro
Abstracting consciousness out of the limitation of personal perspective might be the essence of the concept of God.Is there a Consciousness in General? — charles ferraro
Damage the brain, damage the mind. Destroy the brain, destroy the mind. Alter the brain, with alcohol or LSD for instance, alter the mind..I just think there's no evidence that minds are material things - and thus no evidence that consciousness is a property of something material - and stacks and stacks that they're immaterial things. — Bartricks
it is motivated by the need to avoid having to suppose that matter which is not conscious can, in some combinations, somehow give rise to consciousness — Bartricks
I agree information is not a substance, it is something distinct from material substance. But calling information a property is inapt, it belies the independence of information from matter. "The wizard of Oz" is the same movie, whether it is stored on a film reel, a dvd, a magnetic tape, a hard drive, or an eidetic brain's memory: all completely different physical media. Certainly when we watch and later evaluate the movie, we consider it as its own thing, not as the property of a specific object.nformation is not a substance, but a property of a thing. So, I have some information, but I am not the information. — Bartricks
Various countries have different estimates:What value do you put on a human life? — Wayfarer
Reasonable people argue against anthropocentrism. Moreover the point of my post is that both answers to the question seem untenableWho maintains the 'equality of humans and animals' - well, apart from fanatical animal liberationists? — Wayfarer
So then human rights rests on the philosophically very shaky foundation of free will? Becuase otherwise animals seem to move about as freely as we do.I think that rights are only meaningful to beings that are capable of exercising free choice. — Wayfarer
RightSo is the thought that the crucial auditory simulations that this neurological development facilitated were simulations of the organism's own vocalisations? — Welkin Rogue
If you think about it, many modern words which can stand alone as a sentence could have served as primitive vocalizations: hmm. wow! huh. huh? awwww. yes! no!Prior to language, these vocalisations would have been, I guess, various emotive vocalisations. — Welkin Rogue
Right. Before this neuroevolutionary event, there was only public "language". After it, there is public and private "language", each informing and contributing to the other, in a cycle. Individual innovations could e transmitted to the group, who would transmit their collective innovations to other groups, and to the next generation. I believe the expressive limit of prelinguistic vocalizations would be quickly reached.The development of this increasingly complex subvocalisation must be informed by social and cooperative processes, as everyone is going through the same developmental process. — Welkin Rogue
I think the key immediate benefit is improved general cognition, without spending too much neurally. Something like what we do with the visual feedback loop. At least for me, the visual loop is not nearly as developed as the auditory. It is non-linguistic. And yet, it is indispensable for thinking, if it were to disappear (as it does sometimes when I am under a lot of stress) I would be mentally crippled.but we all like an explanation in terms of adaptation. — Welkin Rogue
It's hard to imagine what thoughts sound like before language, insofar as those thoughts are not already auditory content — Welkin Rogue
I vote for a preemptive ban here. He's going to be looking for a new home to post, and I want to be proactive. — Hanover
So I'm experiencing my brain? Here I thought I was experiencing the world the whole time. Is your post in my brain or in the world that my brain accesses? — Harry Hindu
But only the dualism of perspective presupposed by everyone: the world out there vs the world in the head.Sounds like dualism is presupposed to me. — Harry Hindu
The first person experience is a manifestation of the way in which sensory information is presented. — Harry Hindu
I don't know about that. I was glued to the screen during the impeachment trial, and I think they did as well as they could — Wayfarer
Kleptocracy is also apt, but I will stick with oligarchy. They are not all crooks, only by virtue of the fact that the bribery they receive is (bizarrely) legal. But they are all rich, their friends are rich, their connections are rich, their donors are rich. The ruling class is all rich. This is an oligarchy, and it is it in none of their interests to destroy the most oligarchic party, even though they could have easily chosen to do so, against the most ludicrous world leader we have seen.And I don't buy the 'they're all crooks' narrative, that is a corrosive form of cynicism — Wayfarer
A question that has been fairly asked countless times this century, starting with W's outright theft of the election. (Just imagine if the roles had been reversed there!)And, where's the outrage? — Wayfarer
You can say, tautologically, that the world as it is is non-perceptual, simply because as soon as you perceive it, it is a perception, and therefore not the world as it is. .Since we cannot discern the goings on in this world as it is in itself, we cannot make statements about it, let alone true statements. On this view, there is precious little that we can say that is true. — Banno
Strange then that we can read what you’ve written. (Which is not to say it was worth the trouble ;-) ) — Wayfarer
how is the brain/mind informed as to which perception is in play, if the symbol has no connection with the signal? — Mww
It's one thing to doubt a claim but another to come up with an even more improbable alternative. — TheMadFool