There are hundreds of neuroscience studies about the nature, scope, behavioral effects, and experience of consciousness. These have gotten more specific and detailed with the development of cognitive science techniques - PET scans, MRIs. Specific brain activity can be associated with specific mind activity - memory, emotion, thought, perception. This information has been used to try to understand the functional processes that go to make up consciousness. The one source I can steer you toward is "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio. I don't like the book much and I'm not sure if I buy his conclusions, but I found it a very plausible example of what a neuroscience description of consciousness might look like. — T Clark
Morality is a matter of human value and preference. No amount of study will come up with a definitive statement. — T Clark
There is no explanation of how anything in the brain gives rise to or could give rise to mental phenomena without leaving a large explanatory gap. — Andrew4Handel
There is no explanation of how anything in the brain gives rise to or could give rise to mental phenomena without leaving a large explanatory gap. — Andrew4Handel
I have a different question for you mate, what would be an absolute proof that God does not exist?
Because for me absolute proof of God's existence would a simple hello. — Filipe
There is no explanation of how anything in the brain gives rise to or could give rise to mental phenomena without leaving a large explanatory gap.
— Andrew4Handel
And yet it does — PoeticUniverse
Do you doubt that deer or chimpanzees have most of those same experiences? — T Clark
↪Andrew4Handel All the things you say are true. My point is that none of these things is unknown in the sense that the nature of dark energy or the existence of extra-terrestrial life is unknown. — T Clark
The nature of consciousness is a scientific question - a matter of fact. People are working on it and have had success. Consciousness is no great mystery.
Morality is a matter of human value and preference. No amount of study will come up with a definitive statement.
As for God, I think that's a funny mixture of both fact and metaphysics.
I guess ditto for the afterlife. — T Clark
I'm trying to interpret this in a way which is not grossly misspoken.
I understand that there have been efforts to de-emphasize the nature of consciousness (qualia), suggesting that it is illusory. I am not a researcher in the field but have an abiding interest in the topic and looking to my personal library have books I own and read (pop science all) from Dennett, Ramachandran, Pinker, Churchland, Tononi, LeDoux and Penrose. Now, as a layman, I find it very hard to swallow that all of these words (and so many more) have been written regarding a topic which is 'no great mystery'.
Is there a means to interpret your glib reflection on the topic that would jibe with my experience that it is one of, if not the, central mysteries of human existence? — JosephS
Science is full of subjects that are under study but which are not fully understood. Consciousness is one of those. It's not a "mystery," it's a subject that requires further study. I think an understanding of consciousness seems to be much more important than it really is because it is so close to home for all of us. It is right at the heart of how we see ourselves. Things that are about us seem more significant. We want to believe our innermost, intimate experiences are mysterious. — T Clark
And it is a mystery because, as opposed to -- gravity, economics, sociology or psychology -- our self awareness resists an explanatory reduction. — JosephS
Have you met S? I think you might agree with him, but he is not as agreeable as you.
I tend to value @Andrew4Handeland @JosephS’s insights. That’s my persuasion. However, @S would say that I am a wishful thinker.
By the way, go fuck yourself, S. Piece of shit. — Noah Te Stroete
I just think their romantic views distract from a serious understanding of what is going on. — T Clark
Also - I am perfectly capable of being disagreeable. — T Clark
I disagree. Again, it's nothing mysterious. It's only not fully understood. — T Clark
However I think that when it comes to the nature of consciousness, the afterlife,morality and gods these are important unknowns. — Andrew4Handel
I call myself a general agnostic because there are things I can't know and so I live without factoring in certainty in these issues. — Andrew4Handel
Also I can't pretend as if I know. Some people try and argue with you such as saying gods are really implausible or there is no afterlife etc. I don't think you can entirely prove something by argument but only evidence resolves things. (I think this is why philosophy struggles because arguments don't trump evidence or aren't as compelling). — Andrew4Handel
(I think this is why philosophy struggles because arguments don't trump evidence or aren't as compelling) — Andrew4Handel
However, S would say that I am a wishful thinker. — Noah Te Stroete
So am I, obviously. Something about his personality strikes me as defective, though. This from someone who knows personal defects. He’s absolutely pathological. I hope he seeks professional help. — Noah Te Stroete
And it's impossible to prove consciousness/mind even requires energy as we know it. Seeing the mind as though it were an open system the same as the body (open to energy) fails to understand the mind or conscious awareness is in need of organization and information in an entirely different manner than food intake. Extensive knowledge without processing or thought about what is known amounts to a very low level of intelligence.We don't have a measure of consciousness so that we can prove anyone any organism is consciousness. — Andrew4Handel
The mechanism is not understood at all. — Coben
We do not know what creatures have and which do not. — Coben
There is a growing number of scientists that think plants have it or may have it. ....We don't know which matter has it, though we can track reactions like memory and response to some degree, but again these are functions of the conscious matter not consciousness itself. ... Now, sure, it could be an emergent property. But we don't know where it emerges, though we can look at effects on response and behavior in life forms like us, but whether this means there is no consciousness below that in simpler matter, we have no way of knowing. ....is this my ego connecting to a consciousness that persists but which I do not usually remember? Mysterious is a word that includes the already placed paradigm of the person using it or experiencing it or not. So it depends on that. I think it should be mysterious to physicalists, so far. Maybe it won't be in a few years or in a hundred years, maybe not. — Coben
We can't measure it, though we can measure behavior and reactions and things, — Coben
I can live with unknown as the adjective.We have an idea of various animals that might have it. Again, it's unknown, not mysterious. — T Clark
We have an idea of various animals that might have it. Again, it's unknown, not mysterious.
— T Clark
I can live with unknown as the adjective. — Coben
Indeed. Any further argument devolves into dictionaries and word play -- boring.
Imbued within the word 'mystery' is some sense of wonder which I accept as personal.
If someone can live without mysteries, more power to them. I choose not to. — JosephS
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.