What other types of activity? — SteveKlinko
Sorry, but that sounds like a long winded way of saying that we gain knowledge about emergence by assuming there is emergence.The way we gain knowledge about emergence, in our context, is by learning how small groups of neurons form certain networks. And then we learn how these small networks form progressively larger networks. And the process continues until we can reliably detect and demonstrate how the global properties of conscious experience emergence from these mesoscopic (and higher) degrees of freedom.
Links to the research on this supposed fifth force would be useful please. Entropy in physics, as I understand it anyway, isn't a thing itself that can generate anything, it is just a measure of how much thermal energy in a given system is not available for conversion into work.This force has traditionally been called the life force. I prefer call it the entropic force, since it is a force that is generated by entropy.
Not my definition, but in any case, I'm not sure life contradicts entropy. It doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics (at least not obviously) since we are not usually dealing with isolated systems when we are dealing with living creatures and their physiology. — MetaphysicsNow
You can be certain that life contradicts entropy.
Entropy -> Chaos
Life -> Order — Marcus de Brun
Explain to us what we have to do with our Thoughts and Beliefs to solve the Problem (I'm assuming the Hard Problem).Consciousness is a chimera, residue stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be human - as opposed to just being an animal. It is not an opposite situation. It is a comparitive one. The only difference is complexity of thought and belief.
Get thought and belief right, and the 'problem' between conscious experience and physiological sensory perception(brain) is solved(dissolved) as an unintended consequence — creativesoul
What, do you want a thesis? Not going to happen.
I'm just nudging you in the right direction.
It's not a matter of monism vs. dualism. It's a matter of neither being adequate. It's a matter of how it's been talked about. Change the path and you'll end up in a different place.
Start by geting thought and belief right... ontologically, I mean. All thought and belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the creature itself(it's state of 'mind'; mental state).
"Consciousness" is nothing more than a namesake given to various forms of complex thought and belief and/or it's effects/affects. — creativesoul
What, do you want a thesis? Not going to happen.
I'm just nudging you in the right direction.
It's not a matter of monism vs. dualism. It's a matter of neither being adequate. It's a matter of how it's been talked about. Change the path and you'll end up in a different place.
Start by geting thought and belief right... ontologically, I mean. All thought and belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the creature itself(it's state of 'mind'; mental state).
"Consciousness" is nothing more than a namesake given to various forms of complex thought and belief and/or it's effects/affects.
— creativesoul
When you say this you imply that you have some deep insight into Consciousness. You very well might be right. But you have to provide us with better explanations than that we have to get our Thinking Right. A Thesis is not necessary but a Paragraph would be helpful. — SteveKlinko
I think most people recognize that animals probably have some kind of Conscious existence and experience similar to what humans have. So how would you explain the Conscious Red experience using your Correlations drawn between 'Objects' of physiological sensory perception ... proposition?There is no such thing as some deep insight into consciousness. It's nothing more than a bunch of different notions throughout human history based upon the idea that humans, and thus human minds were somehow different than animal minds in some special kind of way. There's nothing special about it. It's a matter of complexity, and that's it.
All thought. All belief. All statements. All meaning. All of these things consist entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the agent(creature) itself. The only difference is in the complexity of the correlations. — creativesoul
I think most people recognize that animals probably have some kind of Conscious existence and experience similar to what humans have. — SteveKlinko
...So how would you explain the Conscious Red experience using your Correlations drawn between 'Objects' of physiological sensory perception ... proposition — SteveKlinko
We don't even need to consider Correlations. I'm talking about the Red experience itself. How does the Red experience happen in the Conscious Mind? What is it? What experiences it?If you would like, you can explain to me what you mean by "Conscious Red experience", and perhaps I could translate into my framework afterwards. As it stands, I'm sure that whatever you say will consist of the aforementioned correlations. — creativesoul
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.