it's just a gap in knowledge — Garrett Travers
And as Cobb observes, Global Workspace Theory does not explain why flexible circulation of information causes consciousness to pop up. — Daemon
What gap? There is no gap. Well, a gap being crossed easier. Between neurons, enhancing their connectivity. — EugeneW
The brain doesn't process information, nor compute on it. The only thing that happens is resonating with incoming structures. Or vibrating on its own. I can see a real ball and I can imagine one. — EugeneW
I suggest you give a small, supported argument to back up your assertion, because the metaphysics taking place on your thread are in no way contradictory to anything stated here that has been supported with research. Perhaps the opposite. — Garrett Travers
You keep asking for scientific evidence. There isn't any. There can't be any. — T Clark
The "metaphysics taking place on [my] thread" does contradict your position. — T Clark
The only thing happening in the brain is ion currents running parallel on the network, from birth to dead (the brain can't be turned off). Connection strengths involved in learning and memory (which are actually the same) direct the patterns. The 10exp(10exp20) possible pathways are actualized by these strengths. They are already there at birth, as a result of, for example retina induced stimulations of the network (concentric circle patterns moving over the retina structure, stimulating the embryonic network, so the newly born sees and recognizes round shapes). — EugeneW
So neurologists are not conscious of the brains they are testing? When neurologists provide explanations of brains and how they function, are they talking about their conscious experience of brains, or how brains function independent of their conscious experience (observation, empirical evidence)?So, it would have to be brains that produce consciousness, as there are no structures of consciousness that can be tested for brain production, but the opposite is tested daily, as I have demonstrated with the research I have posted. — Garrett Travers
I don't see how complex networks of neurons can produce experiences of things that are not neurons. If brains emit consciousness, where is consciousness - once emitted, relative to the brain?"How?" is still a mystery, but the leading theory is that all structures of the brain operate in a complex network of unparralleled sophistiction. By produce, I mean emit, generate, or otherwise enable. Much like eyesight is produced by the brain, so too is consciousness. — Garrett Travers
So neurologists are not conscious of the brains they are testing? When neurologists provide explanations of brains and how they function, are they talking about their conscious experience of brains, or how brains function independent of their conscious experience (observation, empirical evidence)? — Harry Hindu
I don't see how complex networks of neurons can produce experiences of things that are not neurons. If brains emit consciousness, where is consciousness - once emitted, relative to the brain? — Harry Hindu
You can yell my name and I won't respond. Deceiving you is a successful act of acting like you are unconscious.One can tell if someone is unconscious if they are unresponsive. The man acting unconscious is still conscious. He wouldn’t be able to act if he was unconscious, though he may deceive us. — NOS4A2
What I am gathering from what you are saying is that conscious is a descriptive term of other's behaviors. But that isn't what I'm talking about when I use the term. I'm talking about the form my awareness of other people's behaviors takes.I don’t think the fact of being conscious is silly, but the notion of “consciousness” is. By adding the suffix “ness” to the adjective “conscious” we fashion a thing out of a descriptive term, which in my mind is an error in philosophical discussions. This is true of terms such as “awareness”, “happiness”, “whiteness”. Descriptive terms serve to describe things, but they aren’t themselves things, substances, or forces, and they shouldn’t be treated as such in any careful language.
When speaking about and analyzing things that exist, the human organism exists. This human organism is what we study and analyze to better understand his activity. “Consciousness”, however, doesn’t exist, and we should abandon the term. — NOS4A2
Then consciousness isn't emitted by the brain, but is the brain operating in certain ways. You aren't being consistent.Consciousness is the brain operating to allow for wakefulness and awareness. There is no "where." It's a made up idea. There is just the brain and its functions. Consciousness is itself a made-up term used to describe something people had no clue about before the past few decades. — Garrett Travers
Well? Are neurologists conscious of brains or not? If so, then what form does them being conscious of brains take? How would they know they are conscious of brains? What form does empirical evidence of brain functions take, and in talking about empirical evidence, are you talking about your conscious visual experience of brains, or how brains are independent of your visual experience of them?So neurologists are not conscious of the brains they are testing? When neurologists provide explanations of brains and how they function, are they talking about their conscious experience of brains, or how brains function independent of their conscious experience (observation, empirical evidence)?
— Harry Hindu
...? — Garrett Travers
Then consciousness isn't emitted by the brain, but is the brain operating in certain ways. You aren't being consistent. — Harry Hindu
Well? Are neurologists conscious or not? — Harry Hindu
The only thing happening in the brain is ion currents running parallel on the network, from birth to dead (the brain can't be turned off). — EugeneW
"How?" is still a mystery, but the leading theory is that all structures of the brain operate in a complex network of unparralleled sophistiction. — Garrett Travers
The brain is not a digital computer — Daemon
How this unification is achieved is the issue. My thought is that fields are extended throughout the brain, and indeed everything, and consciousness is perhaps best understood as a fundamental field-property. — bert1
The connections between neurons" doesn't explain how we have unified subjective experience — Daemon
I could learn to see the "illusion" behind my naive phenomenology ... and start to worry about mind~body dualism when I went off to philosophy class.
So sure. Phenomenology is fine if it begins a process of reverse engineering the causes.
And sure, it is neither objective or subjective in the traditional sense. I'm always saying that it is not that, but instead, semiotic. And semiotic on both the biological and sociological levels. — apokrisis
My ‘naive’ perception of a mysterious figure in the distance center that turns out on closer inspection to be nothing but a shadow is no different than the ‘naive’ perception of mach bands. — Joshs
One is an easy mistake to make - a high level act of interpretation. The other is found to be constitutive of interpretations themselves.
You can unsee the mysterious figure. But you can't unsee the Mach bands. And having noted this interesting difference in your qualitative experience, you would then look to its separate causes.
What answer does Husserlian intentionality give us here? — apokrisis
Why is the binding problem a problem? — EugeneW
I'm still waiting on an argument against my OP. — 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.