As I understand your point, you are drawing a distinction between a scientific model and a philosophical representation. Modern Science is methodologically Physicalist, and studies material Quanta (neurons). But Philosophy is methodologically Mentalist, and examines immaterial Qualia (e.g. Ideas). As far as Science is concerned, Mind is merely the function of the Brain. No argument there.When I talk about mind, I talk about thoughts, emotions, knowledge, imagination, perception.... Just because I can pinpoint the locations in the brain that light up when I do those things, that doesn't mean they're the same thing. — T Clark
So, the Mind/Brain identity presumption may be appropriate for a Science forum, but not for a Philosophy forum. Hence, as far as Philosophy is concerned, they're not the same thing. Therefore, the fallacy here is to equate Mechanism with Meaning. — Gnomon
It says that an important component of consciousness is wakefulness. — EugeneW
Wind is not the function, nor the functioning matter. That leaves out that what's to be explained. Consciousness. — EugeneW
There is no understanding consciousness without the understanding what it is that is producing it, and how it operates — Garrett Travers
As I understand your point, you are drawing a distinction between a scientific model and a philosophical representation. — Gnomon
You can feel free to convey that information and we'll have a look. — Garrett Travers
There is no understanding consciousness without introspection either. — RogueAI
When we talk about the mind, we talk about thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. They're not the same thing whether we talk about them scientifically, philosophically, or just in an everyday manner. — T Clark
There is no evidence pointing to the brain, and the brain alone, producing consciousness. If you disagree, pray tell, what is consciousness? — theRiddler
I'm tired of this circular reasoning. All that is known for certain is that the brain seems to have a correlation to objective, physical states of the body. — theRiddler
There is no understanding consciousness without introspection either.
— RogueAI
Another function provided by the brain. — Garrett Travers
You guys can keep ignoring the research I've posted, but I'm going to keep walking away from this having to conclude you guys are not philosophically oriented, and are simply asserting things predicated upon your emotions. — Garrett Travers
, ALL the evidence that exists, that's every single bit of it, suggests that consciousness is the production of multiple complex regions of the brain working in sympohony. You guys can keep ignoring the research I've posted, but I'm going to keep walking away from this having to conclude you guys are not philosophically oriented, and are simply asserting things predicated upon your emotions.
You're gonna be dealing with it a while, at least until the in-depth analysis of how the brain produces awareness arrives.
There's no such thing. You're just wrong, and as you accuse others, speaking from emotion. It's an apparent inferiority complex. — theRiddler
I was getting ready to post "nonsense!" to your reply, which I was sure was going to say that introspection is useless.
Clever! — RogueAI
I'm not following this discussion closely but for my money what seems to happen is people have already made up their minds what is true about consciousness and will only engage with ideas or 'evidence' which can be utilized to prove their point. I agree that emotions and aesthetic choices inform this process. Some people 'feel' the world they live in is more attractive and relatable with a god or a Schopenhauerian Will at the heart of it. — Tom Storm
The function doesn't explain what is seen. If I dream about a bird flying, you can describe that by the shape of a bird flying around on my neural structure and the looking at it by pointing at structures surrounding that, but that still doesn't explain me seeing the bird. You might conclude I see a bird by seeing a correlated structure of a bird in my brain, but that still doesn't explain the visual experience of the bird I dream of, nor your visual experience of neurons you see firing collectively. — EugeneW
I get argued with in a manner devoid of any evidence — Garrett Travers
You accept only your own evidence. — EugeneW
Like consciousness is said to be epiphenomenal to the human brain, you can just as well say the material brain is the epiphenomenon and that the material brain needs an explanation on the basis of consciousness. — EugeneW
Well, it depends what your emphasize. Matter or soul. There is also something inside of matter. The evidence is that I feel pain. — EugeneW
You've made it clear that you interpret non-empirical philosophical interests as "anti-science". But some of us on this forum don't agree with that assessment. For me, Physics is the science of the Actual & even Probable, but Philosophy is the science the Possible. Scientists have been seeking an explanation of Consciousness for many years. But, due to the inherent limitations of their matter-based methods, they are no closer to understanding the transformation of matter into mind. Except that Claude Shannon's use of a mental term "information" --- to describe a new way to communicate ideas, beyond gestures, vocalizations, and writing --- opened-up a new direction in Science. Ironically, what is now labeled "Information Science" is based mostly on its material carriers, instead of its energetic power of transformation.Yes, and the problem here is, that's an anti-philosophical cop-out for disregarding the science that has been established, that people employ here almost every single time I bring this u on this website. — Garrett Travers
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.