It's new science, methods such as perhaps spectroscopy etc. have not yet been adapted for it. — Enrique
What do you think would happen to your consciousness if your brain was gradually replaced while you were awake? — RogueAI
The human brain is a fascinating contraption, even so. — Mww
Problem is, the collective parallel ion pulse currents in the brain don't constitute information referring to something else like in digital computers. The connection strengths between neurons can be changed due to synaps widening. — EugeneW
The game artifacts and avatars are not distinguishable from within. So by analogy, that there is not necessarily any detectable 'soul input', does not entail that it is all quarks and probability waves. — unenlightened
The emergent properties of consciousness... — Garrett Travers
Firstly, Blah-blah-blah neural networks. — unenlightened
So by analogy, that there is not necessarily any detectable 'soul input', does not entail that it is all quarks and probability waves. — unenlightened
Do you distinguish between consciousness and its contents? — unenlightened
not poor ol’ Rene. — Mww
Machine ghosts being one more in a long list of conceptualizations the brain foists on the unsuspecting and unprepared human? — Mww
I'm inclined to with modern views on consciousness pervading the topic, but when I think about it, when I say something like "my song" when referring to a piece that I have composed, I am talking about the same emergent consciousness as I would be if I said "my thoughts." See where I'm going? It is more likely that consciousness is itself emergent in whatever capacity it is so emergent. — Garrett Travers
Whether consciousness emerges or intrudes is rather the question of the thread, and your claim that neuroscience has answered the question whilst still unclear as to what it means to be conscious has not found much favour. — unenlightened
But My inclination would be to say that to be conscious is not merely to see, but to be aware of the seeing, and not merely to think but to be aware of thinking, not merely to act but to be aware of acting — unenlightened
And further, to be aware equally of not seeing and not thinking and not acting. This marks a clear distinction between consciousness and content of consciousness, which might be useful to the investigator, and answer some of those awkward questions about dreams and so on. — unenlightened
Yes, I think that conclusion is useful. I would only want to play devil's advocate a little, and offer that this respect for evidence has a tendency (or so I perceive) to (sometimes) produce unimaginative and robotic thinking that has so much regard for rational thought that it excessively de-emphasizes the day to day human, more intuitive experience. — SatmBopd
I think that our emotions and irrational tenancies can sneak their way into even the most diligent and professional scientific and rational pursuits, so an inability to reflexively question rational thought and hold it as sacred is also dangerous in my opinion. — SatmBopd
That you say that something that is not in accord with science is anti-philosophical, for example, is a little bit extreme, in my view. — SatmBopd
It assumes that to be philosophical is inherently good, which is a claim that I do not take for granted. Once empirical data reveal something, as human beings we automatically interpret, and therefore project ourselves onto it, even if its on a very sophisticated level. — SatmBopd
I do not think it is likely that we are capable of disinterestedly absorbing empirical evidence and using it with pure epistemologicaly defensible accuracy. — SatmBopd
I still think it is important to take empirical investigation seriously. Just that we should still be humble in doing so. — SatmBopd
The thing about the Matrix (and computer consciousness) is that, essentially, who I am (and my subjective experiences) would be reducible to CPU(s). Which is to say that who I am (and my subjective experiences) is essentially a series of switching operations- switching operations abc is the pain of stubbing my toe, switching operations xyz is the experience of seeing a beautiful sunrise, cde is the taste of a peach, etc. That, to me, is an absurdity. — RogueAI
That you say that something that is not in accord with science is anti-philosophical, for example, is a little bit extreme, in my view.
— SatmBopd
No, it's basic logic. It's called a disregard for known science fallacy, it's part of basic intro philosophy training in academia. — Garrett Travers
when people aren't informed by what the empirical observations have to reveal on the subject. — Garrett Travers
the science that is present needs to be assessed by philosophers. — Garrett Travers
Philosophical/ inquisitive thinking created logic and science, as well as morality, monotheism, and untold numbers of other ideas and frameworks of understanding. — SatmBopd
To then say that disregarding science is anti-philosophical, as I understand it, is to assert that of the creations of philosophical/ inquisitive thinking, science and logic are not only the most important, but that the others just aren't important at all, at least unless they consult logic and science first. — SatmBopd
I just think that this is a very substantial claim. — SatmBopd
I don't really know what it would have been like to live before then, but I cannot just take it for granted that the human condition was just categorically more disconnected from "knowledge" or whatever else important is to be gained from science, at least not without a rigorous historical investigation, and even then I can't be 100% sure without having lived there. — SatmBopd
Do decide on a victor, or champion among the children of philosophical investigation is to end it in my opinion. I think it would be best for humanity to keep our minds open to new possibilities, better than science, better than knowledge and truth. Science basically gives us inventions, and new trivia, which wile solving some problems also opens up untold new questions. I just think we should stay on our toes, and not get overly comfortable or reliant upon a specific framework of understanding, even if it is as useful as logic or science. — SatmBopd
You know how that would go, even if they were informed of such reveals: they would still want to know what the observations alone can’t tell them. Which is.....how exactly does that work? I see this stimulus, then I see this display corresponding to it. What happened in between? — Mww
Wonder what the scientists think about that. Is the philosopher qualified to assess the reveals of empirical science, or merely the credibility of the logic presupposed by them? — Mww
Thank you for granting us this right! :grin:all of you are absolutely entitled to your own personal opinions — Garrett Travers
Well, this sounds a little too stern ...what I cannot permit to pass, intellectually, is the wholesale disregard of the entire corpus of neuroscientific research that has provided us ... — Garrett Travers
1) Re "The definition of consciousness remains a difficult issue that requires urgent understanding and resolution. Currently, consciousness research is an intensely focused area of neuroscience.": How can there be a research on something that it is so difficult that one cannot even present any definition? In other words, how can a whole research be based on something that cannot be defined?"Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 2019 meta-analysis" — Garrett Travers
The human brain is a fascinating contraption, even so.
— Mww
It's only the coolest thing since Cartesian machine ghosts. — Garrett Travers
I think that our emotions and irrational tenancies can sneak their way into even the most diligent and professional scientific and rational pursuits, so an inability to reflexively question rational thought and hold it as sacred is also dangerous in my opinion.
— SatmBopd
100%, but this is overwhelmingly supported across hundreds of experiments. — Garrett Travers
Thank you for granting us this right! :grin: — Alkis Piskas
Well, this sounds a little too stern ...
But ... whom are you referring to? Who is disregarding neuroscience "wholesale"? That would be quite absurd. — Alkis Piskas
How can there be a research on something that it is so difficult that one cannot even present any definition? In other words, how can a whole research be based on something that cannot be defined? — Alkis Piskas
How can one talk about "levels" of something that they cannot even define? — Alkis Piskas
What? Network? Do they talk about Neural Networks in the field of Artificial Intelligence? And this, again, about something that they cannot even define? — Alkis Piskas
But as you can see from the above, these guys are not even able to present a decent paper, i.e., one that is coherent and makes sense. Concepts! Science dealing with concepts, and particularly, with things that it cannot define? This is quite absurd. — Alkis Piskas
That is why I say that Science should only deal with things that it knows and handles well: physical things. It should not enter and get involved in fields that are of a non-physical nature. It is out of its jurisdiction. The tools and methods it uses do not apply there. Simple as that. The above case is a good example. — Alkis Piskas
Garret, I suggest that you leave the subject of "consciousness" to philosophy. Which, anyway, is what TPF is all about! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
In the past you have characterized emotions as though they were the opposite of rationality. I’m wondering whether you would agree with the predictive coding model of emotion, considered by many psychologists to be the among the most promising neuroscientific theories of emotion. — Joshs
You all need to catch up, — Garrett Travers
I don't. I actually know how the brain functions. And let me tell you, it's more than matter in motion. — EugeneW
You must shed the blinkers and prejudices though. If you value empricism and evidence you would see material is an emergent property. Your prejudicial blinkers prevent you though from seeing the evidence. — EugeneW
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.