I’m all for neuroscience, but any thing that can be described as conscious are invariably more than brains and nervous systems. One can point to a conscious man’s toe and still be pointing to the source of “consciousness”, which is the conscious being itself. — NOS4A2
Cheers. I may well have misunderstood you to be claiming more than you were. — Janus
Is there any evidence that other organs contribute to the totality of consciousness, like the heart for instance? This seems to be an accepted idea in certain eastern schools of thought. — Watchmaker
This is not a definition. The word "distinguish" is used as an attribute/characteristic of something or for comparison purposes. But even if I accept this as the official definition of neuroscience about consciousness --I doubt it is-- it is extremely limited. Actually it's not at all what is commonly believed that consciousness is. Just check the terms "wakefulness", "attention" and you will see how ridiculous this is as a definition!Consciousness is distinguished by wakefulness and attention. That's specifically how they define it in neuroscience — Garrett Travers
Right. And I am afraid that the neuroscientists refers to (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full) totally ignore this fact and are moving in a totally wrong direction. (It cannot be a considence that they have chosen the ttile "Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Networks" as their title.)The brain is no digital computer. It reflects or recreates analogous. Like a planetarium representing the solar system. — EugeneW
As far as I am concerned, I'm sorry for not being able to support you in this topic, Garrett ... :sad:I just need some more support from you guys, that's all. — Garrett Travers
However, in recent times, many different opinions have been proposed. For example, some researchers believe that consciousness is aroused in the frontal region of the brain, including the prefrontal and central anterior cortex. Others believe that consciousness is created in areas of the hindbrain, including the occipital/parietal and central posterior regions of the brain (Koch et al., 2016; Seth, 2018). Questions that should be asked include: where is the material basis of consciousness? The physical basis of consciousness is the most important internal factor of consciousness.
Important Component of Consciousness: Wakefulness
The physical basis of consciousness is the most important internal factor of consciousness.
What I have found missing from your account and from the papers you've linked is any coherent and convincing account of how to make a principled ontological distinction between an inexorably unfolding neural process and any other causal process. — Janus
So, the toe, and not the brain, produces consciousness?
They are wrong even in that limited --if not wrong-- view of consciousness: even when we are asleep, a part of our consciousness still works! How can simple things like that be missed? Well, they can, if one is biased --"blind" to the general picture-- and tries stubbornly to prove the improvable!Important Component of Consciousness: Wakefulness — EugeneW
Right. Neuroscience --and Science in general-- tries to describe consciousness as if Otology were trying to describe music (art) in terms of sounds (vibrations). Of course, music depends on sound, but (the sense of) harmony, melody and rhythm, the main --but not the only-- ingredients of music, are not of a physical nature. Painting has to do with paint and colors (physical) , but the art of painting cannot be defined or studied based on them. The elements that mainly define and constitute the art of painting are not physical in nature."The important internal factor" and (as?) "the physical basis". That's exactly what it isn't. — EugeneW
Painting has to do with paint and colors (physical) , but the art of painting cannot be defined or studied based on them. The elements that mainly define and constitute the art of painting are not physical in nature. — Alkis Piskas
Your unconditional faith in an infallible entity (science + sophistry = sciphistry) is touching. But it turns a philosophical forum into a mudslinging contest. Not surprisingly, your churlish clods memetically miss their mark. (that's a philosophical speculation, not a scientific fact)Philosophy that dismisses science is not philosophy, it is casuistry. — Garrett Travers
Brains are not conscious, are not in a state of being conscious, and therefore do not produce consciousness. — NOS4A2
Neuroscience --and Science in general-- tries to describe consciousness as if Otology were trying to describe music (art) in terms of sounds (vibrations). — Alkis Piskas
I do agree with your point that brains don't operate in isolation, but the brain is particularly significant where consciousness is concerned. Do you think, for the present discussion, it matters whether we talk about the brain producing consciousness (leaving out the mention of the rest of the body, the appropriate living environment, etc.)?
Certainly not. I have stressed that point earlier in this thread.Which isn't to say neuroscience is completely useless. — EugeneW
I would agree with "let them be happy", only that Science pervades today the world --at least the Western one-- and scientists --esp. hardcore ones-- are spreading a totally materialistic view of life and Man, at the expense of the spiritual part of the human beings, with disastrous effects for the human mind and soul, something I think we are all witnessing today. One has only to look at the growing statistics of violence, crime, suicide, etc.Well if they're happy with that.... — EugeneW
I would agree with "let them be happy", only that Science pervades today the world --at least the Western one-- and is spreading a totally materialistic view of life and Man, at the expense of the spiritual part of the human beings, with disastrous effects for the human mind and soul, something I think we are all witnessing today. One has only to look at the growing statistics of violence, crime, suicide, etc. — Alkis Piskas
This is a totally different thing, and I generally agree with it. But it's not what the paper I referred to was talking about ("Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Network", https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full), in which these guys try to handle consciousness as a whole. They even consider it as a subject matter of --or belonging to-- Neuroscience! And it's not only them: the whole scientific community (except a few cases) shares the same view.I see neuroscience as attempting to describe the biological mechanisms that produce and govern aspects of consciousness. — Daemon
Oh them, for sure! :smile:I think you should be targeting philosophical materialists, cognitive scientists and computationalists. — Daemon
I would agree with "let them be happy", only that Science pervades today the world --at least the Western one-- and scientists --esp. hardcore ones-- are spreading a totally materialistic view of life and Man, at the expense of the spiritual part of the human beings, with disastrous effects for the human mind and soul, something I think we are all witnessing today. One has only to look at the growing statistics of violence, crime, suicide, etc — Alkis Piskas
Pronouncing that you have certitude that consciousness has been solved because you read the proof on the Internet is only you telling everyone that your reading skills are infallible and your judgment of evidence is infallible. — Joe Mello
Your unconditional faith in an infallible entity (science + sophistry = sciphistry) is touching. But it turns a philosophical forum into a mudslinging contest. Not surprisingly, your churlish clods memetically miss their mark. (that's a philosophical speculation, not a scientific fact)
You've made your point though : Sciphistry can lick Philosophy in a childish power struggle. So, if there's any dominance-dissing in this thread, its the subordination of Philosophy under the jackboot heel of Sciphistry (allegations without evidence). This thread is a silly cyberspace analogue to the Ukraine invasion. (again, a top-of-the-head conjecture, not a validated truth-claim)
It's been fun trading insults with you, But I prefer to waste my time actually engaging in intellectual philosophical dialogue, instead of below-the-belt who-hit-who harangues. Have a nice day — Gnomon
hen in the second part of the paper they talk about GWT, IIT and quantum theories of consciousness, in a completely unscientific way (there isn't any evidence to support those theories). — Daemon
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.