That wo\uld be just great. But you see, you said it yourself: the material basis of consciousness. I mentioned that in connection with physical perception and the anesthesiologist. This is a very limited view of consciousness. Anyway, it would be great to create a workable scientific model of even that ...we're getting to the point where the material basis of consciousness is a robustly empirical issue, even merely in terms of electromagnetism. — Enrique
Hold on, hold on! I said that I'm no good in Physics! :grin:The microtubule theory as originally proposed is flawed simply because atoms ... — Enrique
BTW, why do you use the first plural? Are you participating in the project? — Alkis Piskas
The Great Courses' Mind-Body Philosophy is great. They got Patrick Grim to do it. His "Mind and Consciousness: Five Questions," which has work from Chalmers, Dennett, Putnam, L.R. Baker, Hofstadter, and others could be a nice supplement.
The courses are significantly cheaper through Amazon/Audible than on the Great Courses site BTW. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But we know how muscles contract and extend. We can explain the movement of bodies. We don't know why we experience things. Saying that it comes from brains, but isn't associated with anything else implies we know what leads to consciousness and so we can rule out that, for example, plants experience. But we can't, because we don't know what leads to consciousness. We know one place where it is, but until we know why it is there, we can't rule out other places.They don’t have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. From a scientific point of view, there is nothing to explain, everything is already explained the moment you say that consciousness is a product of the brain. All the rest is scientific details that have nothing to do with philosophy. It is like explaining how it is possible that our body moves — Angelo Cannata
a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist. — Angelo Cannata
What do you mean? Why make such sweeping generalisations that convince no one of anything?It is a complete nonsense that science is doing all over the world, — Angelo Cannata
because when they say "consciousness" they don't know what they are talking about. — Angelo Cannata
a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist.
— Angelo Cannata
Why do you feel qualified to make such a statement, — universeness
I will continue to value the work being done by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Steve Pinker, Demis Hassabis — universeness
I could never be that defeatist — universeness
Science is not made by respect or value. It doesn't matter how famous or respectable these people are. Science is made by experimental evidence, clarity, strict definitions. — Angelo Cannata
As I said, we are talking about science. In science there is not defeatist or non defeatist, optimism or non optimism. Science is made by scientific procedures, hypotheses that must be clear, experiments, repeatability.
What is clear in research on consciousness? — Angelo Cannata
I refer to their expertise in the area. If you have equivalent expertise or some other reason others should value your opinions highly then do tell us why? — universeness
Thanks again. I didn't think of that. It is was rather a reaction that my views and positions on mind and consciousness are shared by really very few in here.... does not mean I don't value your opinions. — universeness
I fully agree. I have told myself a similar thing a few times in here and elsewhere.if I did not pay attention to viewpoints that differed from mine then I would rarely progress in my own learning — universeness
"Ossified in something" ... I got linguistically richer by one expression todαy. Thanks! :grin:You have not given any indication that you are ossified in your viewpoints like many do indicate imo. — universeness
Indeed. Mainly the mind, and by extension consciousness.I know you have a lot of interest in the area of consciousness so I very much value your input. — universeness
I have no problem with you airing your viewpoints. My problem is when you handwave away expertise in favour of your own musings using sweeping generalisation. Provide your own empirical evidence before you just keep complaining about the lack of it from those actively involved in researching the area.What’s the point of making discussions here if experts have to be just honoured because of their expertise, and we have to ignore purposedly our perplexity? Isn’t this just the situation of the Emperor’s New Clothes story? — Angelo Cannata
Yet, I got almost nothing from there, except that he too rejects Penrose's "quantum" brain, since, as he said, there has not been any evidence about anything of a quantum nature in the brain. — Alkis Piskas
BTW, my preferred term is "awareness". — Alkis Piskas
You confirmed what I said: if those who talk are expert people, you are not interested in considering their flaws: it is like you think “They are experts! They must be right! We don’t need evidence!“, and, on the other side, “Angelo Cannata is not an expert, so, it is good to ask for empirical evidence!”. — Angelo Cannata
So, those who say that the Emperor is naked are to be considered “armchair philosophy”, by principle, whithout any need to check, and viceversa. — Angelo Cannata
But thanks again for bringing up this subject. — Alkis Piskas
The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware", — Alkis Piskas
It does not exist in any other form of life. — Alkis Piskas
I see the mind and body as separate things (re: dualism), yes I do. — Alkis Piskas
They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything. — Alkis Piskas
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.