I would even go so far as to declare, saying that philosophy, and he who merely poses as a philosopher, rejects empirically grounded cognitive science with respect to brain operation and demonstrable functionality, is a case of pathological stupidity. — Mww
.....speculatively projected metaphysical or ontological implications of empirically grounded cognitive science are another matter altogether..... — Janus
As a partial answer to one of my questions, you admitted that no thoughts occur until "picked up" by the brain. So doesn't that make consciousness a product of brain? — Real Gone Cat
Ahhhh....I see. What you meant by grounding presupposition? I was going there myself, with “the philosophical admissions of the cognitive scientist himself”.
Call it....close enough? — Mww
Still, it's not a valid alternative and easily dismissed. No antenna, no reason for evolution to produce receiver-brains — Real Gone Cat
By the way, do you have a position to claim? Or are you just a skeptic? — Real Gone Cat
Then you have overlooked me. — EugeneW
The use of vulgar four-letter words is considered gauche on this genteel forum. Besides, it sounds like the exasperation of defeat. But a philosophical forum is a zero-sum game, not a win-lose conflict. We are just trying to get closer to the whole truth, not motivated to score points for "our side". We're all on the same team here. No us-vs-them arguments, just all-of-us-truth-seekers dialogues.Fuck off. Come back when you want to produce an argument. — Garrett Travers
My point was only that a scientist could start either from the presupposition that the brain produces consciousness, or that it receives consciousness, and perform exactly all the same experiments as are being done in neuroscience. — Janus
Yeah, but how do you explain the difference between someone being knocked out and someone being awake? Where is the difference? You might point the person's behavior, but I can act like I'm knocked out so how do you tell the difference between someone acting like they are knocked out and someone who is actually knocked out? And how would the person that goes from being awake, to knocked out to awake again describe the difference, and would there be a discrepancy between the two descriptions (yours and theirs), and if so why? If we can act, or lie with our actions, then there must be some difference between our behaviors and what we are presently aware (conscious) of.I’ve seen people knocked out, but never a brain knocked out. People are far more than brains. — NOS4A2
I agree with everything except the notion that consciousness is a silly concept. How do you explain dreams, or the fact that I can act in some way that is contrary to my present knowledge?“Consciousness” is a silly concept, anyways. Nothing called “consciousness” moves from one area to another, so saying that it “comes from” the brain is nonsensical. Neither is it “produced” by the brain, as if the brain was a qualia factory. — NOS4A2
As I see it, phenomenology brackets the external world for methodological reasons and science brackets the internal world for methodological reasons. Neither are justified in making ontological claims that are beyond the ambit of their methodologies. — Janus
It's fascinating how so many of you want to escape from the world. I suggested to GT in an earlier post that it is probably due to egotism. One thinks, "My mind is so special, so important. How can it be limited to a hunk of meat?" — Real Gone Cat
Unequivocally? I cant't even think about how ethics get involved here ...
Do you want to give justice to Neuroscience in general? — Alkis Piskas
So is it brains that produce consciousness or consciousness that produce brains? And that is only part of the question. The other part of the question is how does one "produce" the other? What exactly is meant by "produce" in this context? — Harry Hindu
Does it actually 'reject' them as false, or is it the case that the phenomenological project explores other avenues? — Tom Storm
Even if I'm totally certain that my brain cells have absolutely nothing to do with ethics, I can see your point. — Alkis Piskas
The discussion in the Reductionism and the Hierarchy of Scale thread makes it clear why the premise of this thread and reductionism in general is baloney. — T Clark
No, it hsn't so far. Again, you're going to have to contend with the scientific research before you get to make that kind of claim, which you haven't done. — 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.