Do you believe that the hard problem does exist, and that it isn't being addressed properly? — Bird-Up
Consciousness came about through evolution. That doesn't explain why consciousness is the same thing as neural/biological activities. — schopenhauer1
Why do we need to separate consciousness from neural/biological activities? What characteristic prevents us from grouping them together in the same category? — Bird-Up
Why does an organism with a brain have consciousness and not a single cell or a plant or a blade of grass. The kind of substance and the form of material doesn’t get at it. — schopenhauer1
Don't you think brain-size matters? Do you think it's physically possible for an animal to have a large brain, yet avoid experiencing any level of consciousness? — Bird-Up
These are easy questions of consciousness. Not the hard question. So you are not asking the right question(s). You can point all day to brain sizes, neural activity, and information processing, and you will still not get at it. How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate. — schopenhauer1
How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate. — schopenhauer1
Why can't the experience that we feel correlate to the substrate? — Bird-Up
I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that simply correlating X neural activity with Y subjective experience isn't the hard problem anymore. That is part of the easy problems. Rather, how is it that neural activity is one and the same as subjective experience is what is to be explained. — schopenhauer1
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.