here's a pretty straightforward description of what happens - — Questioner

None of them tells what consciousness is.

Where are memories stored in the brain? — Questioner

Where Imagination Lives in Your Brain — Questioner

Do they mean that if you had your friend's brain, you will have his/her memories and imagination?

Damasio just lists ones physical thing or event after another, and eventually says now there is consciousness. — Patterner

I’ll say it again, even though you tricked me into getting back into the discussion before. I have nothing more to offer here.

life may be just an illusion or epiphenomenon,

This is one way of looking at things, but if we do see it that way, then all of reality is just illusions and epiphenomena.

even though you tricked me into getting back into the discussion — T Clark

I am diabolical. :grin:

life may be just an illusion or epiphenomenon,"

This is one way of looking at things, but if we do see it that way, then all of reality is just illusions and epiphenomena. — T Clark

I don't see the many characteristics of life as illusions or epiphenomena. They are real things, and so are you and I. I just don't see a property that we would call life.


I assume you mean the book Life Itself. (Also the title of a George Harrison song.) It sounds great. Sadly, not available as an e-book, but not much can be done about that.

If you ever heard of The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology, by Hans Jonas? That also looks interesting.

The ability to conjure up possible futures or alternative realities is the flip side of memory. Both faculties cohabit in the brain region called the hippocampus — Questioner

Can you extract the conjured up possible future from the hippocampus, and view it? If it is physical, then it should be possible for you to do so.

I just don't see a property that we would call life. — Patterner

Does that mean you don’t see the distinction between things that are living and things that are not as an important one?

None of them tells what consciousness is. — Corvus

You keep moving the goal posts. At first, you claimed that all brains are identical, and I answered that they are not. Then you claimed that consciousness is something separate from its contents, and I answered that it is not. Now, you claim, we don't know what consciousness is. Upthread, I already mentioned - we all know what it is, since we all have it.

Do they mean that if you had your friend's brain, you will have his/her memories and imagination? — Corvus

This is somewhat of an absurd hypothetical. If you are asking whether memories and imagination are specific to one particular brain, then the answer is yes.

Can you extract the conjured up possible future from the hippocampus, and view it? If it is physical, then it should be possible for you to do so. — Corvus

Consciousness is not physical. It is the function of the physical. It is a function of the structure operating in highly complex electrochemistry.

Can you hold knowledge in your hand? Same idea

You keep moving the goal posts. At first, you claimed that all brains are identical, and I answered that they are not. Then you claimed that consciousness is something separate from its contents, and I answered that it is not. Now, you claim, we don't know what consciousness is. Upthread, I already mentioned - we all know what it is, since we all have it. — Questioner

I just asked if that is the case. I didn't claim they are identical. You are not reading the posts accurately.
My aim is not claiming or concluding. My aim is to explore and investigate asking questions arsing from the posts and replies, and learn about the topic hoping we will come to agreed conclusion on the topic.

This is somewhat of an absurd hypothetical. If you are asking whether memories and imagination are specific to one particular brain, then the answer is yes. — Questioner

You got it back to front. Because you already said the answer is yes, I asked the question. If answer is yes, then logically it implies you will have your friends imagination, memories and self identity and all the mental content of his/hers. I was asking if you would say yes to the inferred case from your resolute answer "yes". It followed from your answer "yes", hence it was not an absurd hypothesis. If you still insist it is absurd hypothesis, then your answer "yes" must have been false and absurd.

Consciousness is not physical. It is the function of the physical. It is a function of the structure operating in highly complex electrochemistry. — Questioner

Many folks here so far agreed to that - consciousness is not physical. Then what is it? That is what we are still trying to figure out.

Can you hold knowledge in your hand? Same idea — Questioner

Depends on how you define knowledge.

Now, you claim, we don't know what consciousness is. Upthread, I already mentioned - we all know what it is, since we all have it — Questioner

Tell us then.

Tell us then. — AmadeusD

A coordinated set of mental capacities that include awareness, emotions, rationalization, analysis, synthesis and responsiveness

Right-o.

A coordinated set of mental capacities that include awareness, emotions, rationalization, analysis, synthesis and responsiveness — Questioner

They are not consciousness. They are just mental states and activities. You can do all those without knowing you are doing them. Consciousness means you are aware of what you are ware of. So it is the perception higher than normal perception. So, it appears that you did not know what consciousness is, but thought you did.

They are not consciousness. They are just mental states and activities. You can do all those without knowing you are doing them. Consciousness means you are aware of what you are ware of. So it is the perception higher than normal perception. So, it appears that you did not know what consciousness is, but thought you did. — Corvus

Okay, let's add to the list self-reflection

Okay, let's add to the list self-reflection — Questioner

That's close.

That's close. — Corvus

I gave the feeling that some want to separate consciousness from the person who is experiencing it, and for me that is an impossibility, a non-starter

I gave the feeling that some want to separate consciousness from the person who is experiencing it, and for me that is an impossibility, a non-starter — Questioner

Read on Apperception in Kant's terminology, and you might change your views.

Read on Apperception in Kant's terminology, and you might change your views. — Corvus

Kant made some important contributions to the understanding of cognitive science –

1. The mind is a complex set of abilities (functions)
2. The functions crucial for mental, knowledge-generating activity are spatio-temporal processing of, and application of concepts to, sensory inputs.
3. These functions are forms of synthesis. Synthesis (and the unity in consciousness required for synthesis) are central to cognition.

Where I disagree with Kant is in this -

He held that some features of the mind and its knowledge had a priori origins, i.e., must be in the mind prior to experience (because using them is necessary to have experience). That mind and knowledge have these features are a priori truths, i.e., necessary and universal. And we can come to know these truths, or that they are a priori at any rate, only by using a priori methods, i.e., we cannot learn these things from experience.

It might seem a reasonable explanation to an 18th century philosopher, but a modern understanding of evolution and neuroscience undercut the notions that consciousness exists not only separately from, but before, the organism experiencing it.

I reject Kant’s statement that - “I have found it necessary to deny knowledge, … in order to make room for faith.”

So, instead of reading more of Kant, I have just downloaded the following book. Read it, and you might change your views.

The New Science of Consciousness: Exploring the Complexity of Brain, Mind, and Self

https://www.amazon.ca/New-Science-Consciousness-Exploring-Complexity-ebook/dp/B01C1LBNQA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0

Where I disagree with Kant is in this - — Questioner

You need to read the original work of Kant, which is CPR, not some commentaries. There are thousands of commentaries by different folks on the Kant topics, and some are totally opposite views from the others. It would be a mistake to reject Kant's ideas on mind without reading the original work of Kant.

Modern science and neurology cannot explain what consciousness is by whatever methodologies they employ and endeavor to do so. And it is called the hard problem of consciousness. Hence reading all the neurology books wouldn't tell us what consciousness is. It could tell you how mind and different perceptions work, and how brain processes input sense data, and turn to knowledge and information.

And it is called the hard problem of consciousness. Hence reading all the neurology books wouldn't tell us what consciousness is. — Corvus

Why should I accept a theory of consciousness produced by that very same human consciousness?

Why should I accept — Questioner

You don't need to accept if you don't want or disagree. But if you are interested in the topic, you would have a read, and think about it at least. To me, it seems the most reasonable theory on consciousness so far.

From my understanding, Appeception is the perception on normal perceptions. It has nothing to do with a priori concept or experience. It is above all those. It proves the article is wrong.

Appeception — Corvus

How about you just explain to me what it is?

How about you just explain to me what it is? — Questioner

I will try do so when I have more time. Recently got quite busy here, only was popping in briefly for short comments.

Thanks. Looking forward to it.

I assume you mean the book Life Itself. (Also the title of a George Harrison song.) It sounds great. Sadly, not available as an e-book, but not much can be done about that.

If you ever heard of The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology, by Hans Jonas? That also looks interesting. — Patterner

Life Itself is a pretty heavy slog through "causally closed systems" and what not. The last chapter was pretty fascinating. I haven't read the Jonas book. It does look interesting.