You can't say 'oh, there it is, what is that, I will go and look at it.' It's not an object of cognition, but the subject of experience. — Wayfarer
When you have a thought, an experience, a sensation, this doesn't occur to you as an object, obviously. If a rock hits you, then the rock is an object, but the pain it causes you is not an object. Isn't that obvious? — Wayfarer
And you can't say 'well, that pain I feel is actually not pain, it's really the firing of c-fibres.' — Wayfarer
Let someone fasten a paperclip to your earlobe and have you say that. — Wayfarer
Pain is irredemiably first-person. You can't see pain, or weigh it or measure it, only feel it, and only you know how bad that pain is. — Wayfarer
A scientist who doesn't trust the human mind's capacity to understand the universe would drop science altogether — Olivier5
A scientist does not have to trust all thoughts in order to trust any thoughts. They do not have to assume all the universe is understandable in order to assume some of it is. — Isaac
Let someone fasten a paperclip to your earlobe and have you say that.
— Wayfarer
I don't see why that would cause me any difficulty. — Isaac
'the experience of pain and the knowledge of the physiology of pain are different'. If you say they're not different, how could any argument prevail? How could it ever be proven that 'an idea of pain' and 'a pain' are different things, to one prepared to deny it? — Wayfarer
Therefore, all scientists actually trust the human mind quite a lot, even those who are not consciously aware that they do. — Olivier5
Yes, minds exist. No, they're not immaterial. That's the position. — khaled
If minds matter, then mental events are important and potentially effective. They are not necessarily illusions or mere noise. — Olivier5
The role of neuroscience is therefore to use mental events as a way to investigate how come mental events are so useful and powerful, and how we can make them even more so. The role of neuroscience is not and can never be to replace minds with another "realer" reality — Olivier5
Or, will you get home and find it's already this time next year...?
I'm still waiting for Derren to come on the radio and demonstrate that the whole of the last few years has been a massive trick. "Did you all really believe that Donald Trump could become president of the US and then preside over a viral pandemic that's straight out the plot of at least six post apocalypse films?... Even I thought I'd gone too far on this one..." — Isaac
What would be the case if part of the information each step received was the fact that it's neighbour had been studied by the step to it's left and will be studied by the step to it's right. That doesn't defy any self-study because this still all counts as information about the previous step. If also it were to learn that the previous step learnt this about the step before that... Then let's say one of the algorithms in a step was to make a Bayesian inference about where its data came from and went to... Would it not derive the exact system you described despite being a part of that system? — Isaac
I have a subjective feeling my consciousness is really special, consistent and impenetrable to investigation. Scientists tell me it's actually just neurons firing. All hell breaks loose.
That's the matter I find interesting. — Isaac
I don’t want data contributed exactly because it isn’t part of the process.
— Mww
Why would it matter? — Isaac
We've just established the investigation is post hoc, so externally derived data about it isn't going to disrupt the process we're investigating, that's already happened and we're simply gathering data about it. — Isaac
In fact cognitive science has the slight edge here in that third parties can contribute some data here without their examination forming a part of the process — Isaac
Something's not being a science doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on whether science can investigate it. — Isaac
Sports aren't themselves a science either, but science investigates them. — Isaac
you will find I don’t use the term “mind”. As far as I’m concerned, in the context of this discussion, all I need to talk about is the human cognitive system and its constituency.....
— Mww
I read this the requisite three times...still nothing I'm afraid. Any chance of a re-phrasing? — Isaac
I am aware of the external world simply from being affected by it.
— Mww
It doesn't follow that you are aware of all that you are affected by. If I knocked you unconscious and then shaved your eyebrows off you would have been affected by the outside world but not aware of it. — Isaac
I don’t need mind to tell me there is something in my visual field.
— Mww
You absolutely do. Absent of a mind all you have is a chaos of staccato signals, which tell you nothing, not even if there's something. — Isaac
What is "Honey-Do time"? — Isaac
Question: Is mind also nonphysical? If I see triangular objects (nonphysical things) popping out of a machine (the brain), there must be something triangular in that machine (the mind must be nonphysical). — TheMadFool
That's either very depressed and self deprecating or you meant symmetric? — fdrake
I used to go by Functionalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/), and then Epiphenomenalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/). — Corvus
The only difference then between this metaphysics and cognitive science seems to be that that we make the assumption all this happens in a brain (a good assumption, I think). — Isaac
They lead a double life! — Protagoras
Subsystem 1 is in state |1>
Subsystem 2 is in state |measured |1>>
Subsystem 3 is in state |measured |2>> = |measured |measured 1>> — Kenosha Kid
It's not that you disagree with me, it's that what you're saying is not amenable to reason. — Wayfarer
How could it ever be proven that 'an idea of pain' and 'a pain' are different things, to one prepared to deny it? — Wayfarer
No, it wouldn't cause you difficulty, it would cause you pain. But apparently that can also be denied — Wayfarer
Even when you deny the reality of your own thoughts — Olivier5
The role of neuroscience is not and can never be to replace minds with another "realer" reality. — Olivier5
It could be that our two brains work as mirrors to one another, thus creating a mise en abyme called consciousness. — Olivier5
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.