And, in science such common presuppositions can be called working hypotheses that need not be believed by any scientist involved. The argument is made, research is carried out, and everyone gets paid. The relevance of the research in terms of broader theories comes later by the way of review and assessment. — magritte
I don't think neuroscience is going to solve the hard problem. The idea that you can mix non-conscious stuff around in a certain way and add some electricity to it and get consciousness from it is magical thinking. Since we know consciousness exists, we should doubt the non-conscious stuff exists. We have no evidence that it does anyway. Why assume it exists? — RogueAI
I could point to blind-sight patients as evidence that phenomenal experience is necessary. Blind-sight patients don't behave, or think like normal humans. They don't have the level of detail about their environment that normal people do. Their different behavior is the result of their phenomenal experience, or the lack of one, compared to those that have it. — Harry Hindu
Are you not just saying that the mental/experiential are not perceptible material objects? — Janus
Life itself is not a perceptible material object; would it follow that life is not physical? — Janus
Yes, but doesn't it "occur concurrently" only by virtue of having originally emerged or evolved, both in the individual's and the species' cases? I mean you were a zygote before you were conscious, no? — Janus
Perhaps they have been dissolved to the satisfaction of some.Whether or not someone thinks they have been dissolved seems to be a function of the person's presuppositions — Janus
My position is that this sort of discussion only serves to further demonstrate the philosophical bankruptcy of qualia. — Banno
Did your fingers write that? — magritte
The brain is the medium that carries information that it does not understand. Think of printed symbols in a book. Do the book and the ink produce anything? — magritte
But then you betray your cause.No I use my nose. — Janus
But then you betray your cause.
You 'used' your fingers means you do not believe that your fingers independently act of their own accord but are commanded by your mind. Or do you really believe your bodily organ brain commands you and your fingers? It's the other way around, you are the one and only unique 'I' that uses your body parts to carry out your intentions. — magritte
The brain is the "command centre" of the body without which there can be no function at all. We know this because we know what happens when we take psychoactive drugs or receive a bullet to the brain. You cannot control your brain function; you are not even aware of it. — Janus
Proponents will insist that consciousness is not a thing, and that it thus cannot be subjected to empirical investigation; but this attitude assumes its conclusion. — Janus
None of this explains why have a different experience of my raw sensory input with memory, motivation, etc. than you have of my raw sensory input with memory, motivation. — Harry Hindu
This assumes that consciousness only exists in one part of the brain. — Harry Hindu
You say that "we" are not conscious of our decision, then how can we associate the decision with "we"? — Harry Hindu
How about why you have experiences at all?Sorry for the late reply. I've seen this argument a few times and never got the sense of it. We don't need any knowledge of the workings of the brain to understand why I don't experience your sensory input. It is not a neurological question. It's not even a sensible question imo. — Kenosha Kid
Actually it doesn't, which is why it is broken down into functional systems not specific parts of the brain. Either system could be, and likely is, distributed. But certainly parts of the brain are dominant in certain functions. — Kenosha Kid
What the heck does this even mean? What is the difference between unconscious and conscious phenomena, or systems? If the systems are distributed, then how is it that they aren't aware of what is going on in the other parts? How is the brain itself not aware of what it's different systems are doing? Can an unconscious system be aware of what the unconscious and conscious systems are doing?The answer to that is precisely why we labour under the illusion that we make those decisions consciously. Recall that we are not conscious of the unconscious causes of conscious phenomena. Decisions from System 1 are presented to System 2 apparently uncaused (i.e. without System 2 being aware of the process). So from System 2's point of view, decisions originate in System 2. There are lots of published tests for this. — Kenosha Kid
How about why you have experiences at all? — Harry Hindu
What is the difference between unconscious and conscious phenomena, or systems? — Harry Hindu
How is the brain itself not aware of what it's different systems are doing? — Harry Hindu
You used the term, "experiences", so I'm asking you how you were using the term.I'm not sure what specifically you're asking. We have brains that react to external stimuli and convert that reaction into what we consciously experience via various transformations and augmentations. What bit of that are you questioning: How things can react to external stimuli (physics)?; Why we have brains that can do this (evolution)?; How brains do this (neurology)?; Or are you just asking about the first-/third-person distinction, e.g. why a stimulated nucleus accumbens feels like pleasure? — Kenosha Kid
What does it mean to be "conscious" of something?My bad, I used the term 'phenomena' in an inconsistent way. What I meant was that there are _processes_ in the brain that we are not conscious of (e.g. outline detection, pattern-matching, etc.) and processes that we are conscious of (e.g. rational decision-making). — Kenosha Kid
It depends on what you mean by, "conscious" and "conscious efforts". How does one come to consciously know that they are unconscious of many processes occurring in the brain? :brow: It sounds like a meaningless contradiction to me.A child can just ask 'why?' to every answer; that's not interesting conversation. Do you believe that you are conscious of every thing your brain does, including the cited examples of inverting the retinal image, white-shifting colours, outline detection? Do you claim you make a conscious effort to do these things? Do you consciously regulate your breathing at every moment? Consciously produce dopamine when you spot something surprising that you consciously decide is good?
If not, then you already know that you are unconscious of many (indeed) of the processes occurring in the brain, and your incredulity is less than credible. — Kenosha Kid
How does one come to consciously know that they are unconscious of many processes occurring in the brain? :brow: It sounds like a meaningless contradiction to me. — Harry Hindu
Asking questions stems from trying to understand others' bizarre statements. Why don't you just answer the questions? — Harry Hindu
Your example is to basic and leaves too many questions left unanswered. How does consciously observing scribbles on a page provide knowledge of unconscious processes?If you've ever read a nonfiction book, you have gained knowledge of things you never had conscious experience of. You do not experience Agincourt when you read about it, but you still acquire knowledge about it. Same goes for science. You can learn about things the brain does that we are not conscious of by study, research, education, reading out of interest, etc. I don't really get why this is where the conversation is going. It seems a tad basic. — Kenosha Kid
I don't accept the brain produces consciousness. The existence of some non-conscious stuff is simply asserted to be the case without a shred of evidence to back it up. — RogueAI
How does consciously observing scribbles on a page provide knowledge of unconscious processes? — Harry Hindu
How does consciously observing scribbles on a page provide knowledge of unconscious processes? — Harry Hindu
No. Its an effort to get you to back up your own statements. You can't even answer my question about the observable distinction between conscious an unconscious processes. So again, you continue to make statements using terms that you can't even explain or define in any coherent way.Again, this is nothing but an infinite regress of childish 'Why? — Kenosha Kid
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.