I genuinely don't think that there is any possibility of explaining phenomenal consciousness through the lense of a biologist or anyone else. Because I don't think phenomenality can be explained by anyone, I have no motivation to look at things from any different perspective that were to be radically different from modern neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology. — Apustimelogist
The dualistic [approaches] usually appear with two substances, a material one, which is attributed to the body, and an immaterial one, which is assigned to the mind. — Wolfgang
Inevitably, one enters religious, esoteric or mystical ground, because an immaterial spirit lacks any real justification. A distinction must be made between those who speak of immaterial things in relation to thoughts, since they cannot be touched. The immaterial here is therefore not of a substantive nature, but of a linguistic nature. Body and mind sometimes work partly independently of each other, sometimes in parallel, sometimes the mind supervenes over the body, sometimes it influences it. None of these attempts, however, can solve the mind-body problem, and it remains an unsatisfactory dualism. And this contradicts the fact that every organism consists of nothing more than flesh and blood, thus of matter. — Wolfgang
I don't think we can say that, other than as a 'position' to take, rather than that it is the case. Isn't that what half of the questions in this arena relate to? The fact we don't know that that is the case? — AmadeusD
So how does the physical brain generate consciousness or awareness? — Corvus
I was just asking the most compelling question I used to have on mind problem, but had no answers.If you want to consider the question seriously it will involve studying a lot of science. However, I suspect you just wanted to do philosophical performance art, by asking a non-serious question. Am I right? — wonderer1
I thought that a pretty cool response, but then, it was also telling me what I wanted to hear (although, how did it know that :chin: ) — Wayfarer
I appreciate the answer and I like your forthrightness. But I don't think Chalmer's point in 'facing up to the problem of consciousness' really is a call for an explanation. It's not pointing out a flaw in the naturalist account, by saying the nature of consciousness is a problem for naturalism as currently understood. Or that scientific accounts of the mind leave something important out. — Wayfarer
Philosophy itself is very much concerned with the meaning of being. I — Wayfarer
For me, meaning is functional. If our behavior is functionally explained by brains entirely then meaning is as well. — Apustimelogist
Ultimately, I think as metaphysical frameworks, naturalism and phyaicalism are pretty thin....For me, meaning is functional. — Apustimelogist
It seems to me that the identification of meaning and function per-se doesn't distinguish function realism from function anti-realism and idealism. (Kripkean skepticism comes to mind again) — sime
Not sure what you're saying here but definitely a fan of Kripkenstein. — Apustimelogist
Works for me. :up:[P]hilosophy is tasked with finding the questions that need to be answered, and in putting some constraints on the possible answers, and that science is tasked with finding the answers that can be empirically justified. — Malcolm Lett
In science, this quality is a feature not a bug and therefore piques my philosophical interest. :cool:Taking a scientific viewpoint, I have a strong theory that explains consciousness in purely reductionist mechanistic principles, and I can argue that it explains phenomenal consciousness. But any arguments I present will not be accepted because the explanations are too far from our intuitions.
:up:I've been trying to read Chalmer's The Conscious Mind, and, while Chalmer's was the one who got me interested in consciousness in the first place and I have tremendous respect for him, I am frustrated by the oblique assumptions that riddle his arguments -- assumptions that I don't agree with.
A lot of their studies get discredited. Twins study for example. — Mark Nyquist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.