Atoms which make up strawberries don't taste like strawberries either. Biology emerges from chemistry, Smith, not "sorcery".

Atoms which make up strawberries don't taste like strawberries either. Biology emerges from chemistry, Smith, not "sorcery". — 180 Proof

That's a good point, but the flavor of strawberries is reducible to strawberry molecular structure. However the same can't be done for comprehension vis-à-vis neurons and brains. Nice try! :up:

:roll:

No, really. Flavor is determined by molecular structure - a certain configuration of molecules fits a given receptor, much like a jigsaw. In other words, flavor is explicable chemically.

How do we explain comprehension with molecules and their structures? There's no chemical/physical principle we can use to do that. This is what I would call the real hard problem of consciousness because the reason why the mind is beyond science is stronger than Chalmers'. :smile:

How do we explain comprehension with molecules and their structures? — Agent Smith

I guess you didn't run down all these rabbit holes...

↪Agent Smith
From a Metzingerian perspectiive, "self" is a (persistently embodied) phenomenal illusion re:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/626347 — 180 Proof

:lol:

:up:

Search for Searle's Chinese Room Argument ... — Agent Smith

I did. I also read the beginning of the homonymous article at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/.

The operation was successful, but the patient died! Meaning that the experiment and the analogy were successful, but they failed to answer the question about how understanding is achieved or at least explain how the brain can actually achieve understanding. (Which of course it can't. And that can be explained.)

It could be a good example though as an answer to people who believe that computers and AI can achieve human undestanding and consciousness, allthough there's a much simpler and faster way to do that: by explaining them what computers and artificial intelligence are and can do. Similarly, about the brain.

(Note: I would have commented about all that to @debd, but his topic is 2 years old. So, I did it to you, who regurgitated it. So, you asked for it! :smile:)

It doesn't matter (to me).

I have presented the mind-body problem as a pseudo-problem using an equation that makes no sense. This equation represents exactly the mind-body problem.
However, one can learn from this pseudo-problem, namely that one must categorize this problem correctly, and that in a uniform monistic language. Physics, which deals with inanimate nature, is not an option for this, but biology. One must then understand consciousness as a biological category in order to establish a unity between nature and spirit.

If I rubbed two sticks together and consciousness emerged that would be an emergent property but it would also be magic and inexplicable like neurons firing creating consciousness. — Andrew4Handel

:100:

Ok, I was almost there but needed to check. Another question that follows is if the biology is strictly biology only... or...biology with the emergent abilities to contain non-physicals such as idea, thoughts, mental images and so on. The need for this will become apparent when one consciousness communicates with another but no biological material is transfered.

Flavor is determined by molecular structure - a certain configuration of molecules fits a given receptor, much like a jigsaw. In other words, flavor is explicable chemically. — Agent Smith

Then why do some folk claim, in contrast to the rest of us, that the exact same herb - coriander - tastes soapy?

Taste is not entierly down to chemistry.

Flavor is determined by molecular structure - a certain configuration of molecules fits a given receptor, much like a jigsaw. In other words, flavor is explicable chemically.
— Agent Smith

Then why do some folk claim, in contrast to the rest of us, that the exact same herb - coriander - tastes soapy?

Taste is not entierly down to chemistry. — Banno

The mechanism of taste can be reduced to chemistry i.e. there's a theory (agonist-receptor) which can be used, albeit with imperfections as you pointed out, to explain taste. None exist for consciousness.

The mechanism of taste can be reduced to chemistry i.e. there's a theory (agonist-receptor) which can be used — Agent Smith

No there isn't. Taste cannot be reduced to chemistry. It requires a complicated and imperfectly understood neural network, a complex and evolving language, and a culture in which to embed both those things. Take either away and there'd be no such thing as taste.

Petty much exactly the same is true of consciousness.

All I'm saying is there's at least some kinda theory/hypothesis to, at a minimum, attempt an explanation. None exist for consciousness.

All I'm saying is there's at least some kinda theory/hypothesis to, at a minimum, attempt an explanation. None exist for consciousness. — Agent Smith

Have you tried reading?

None exist for consciousness. — Agent Smith

Explain.

Have you tried reading? — Isaac

I have not! Give me some pointers (not on reading, on explanatory frameworks for consciousness).

I have not! Give me some pointers (not on reading, on explanatory frameworks for consciousness). — Agent Smith

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=theories%20of%20consciousness

Explain — 180 Proof

Point me to an theory/hypothesis we could employ to explain consciosuness.

:smirk: I don't need to google what I know is a fact - the absence of a scientific paradigm for consciousness. I hope you're not referring to Roger Penrose's microtubules idea. :roll:

Google any of the bolded names in the first paragraph or the video lecture at the bottom.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/582454

Aye skipper!

If by non-physical things you mean psychology, we have a different sign system than biology. Biology creates the ontology, thus answering the question of what life is and what exactly does consciousness mean there. When we have that, we can try to apply these created categories to other (human) sciences. Only then do things like meanings, thoughts, etc. come into play.

I'm not arguing that non-physicals exists. Non-physical means physically non existent. But the real state of things is that non-physicals (mental content, our thoughts, ideas, our psychology) can only exist in a biologically supported state.

Can you or anyone suggest an equation or process or notation that fits with physical matter as we know it. I wrote some on a Y(o) notation representing large numbers of neurons supporting mental content and this seem consistent with what we observe.

Yes, neurons generate mental content. But that is nothing more than everyday understanding. If you want to argue with scientific precision, you have to separate the neuronal, i.e. physiological, level from the philosophical or psychological. As I said, we must not say that apples make pears. If you want to explain something mental, you have to derive it ontologically and only then translate it into the language of psychology.
The whole mind-body problem arose from this hasty category mistake. In the case of the ancient Greeks, this is still understandable, because there was no division into different sciences with their respective conceptual apparatus.
Today, however, it is obvious, but continues to be mixed up, unfortunately also in academia.

Alright, we agree neurons generate mental content. But I see a problem with any attempt to separate brain and mental content because mental content cannot exist in a separated form.
I guess it could if you designate it as an abstraction and not a physical state but the abstraction still exists as [brain (abstraction)] and if you want to stay 'scientific' you must limit it to the form that can physically exist.

Really there is no established science if you have a mix of physical/non-physicals as science is physical only as far as the scientific method. The solution is to apply the best mental process you can to the problem.

I wouldn't consider academic psychology a science. How would any scientific precision be claimed for psychology when it can be just about anything from person to person. You would just be applying statistics to abstract ideas.
.

I think people conflate emergence with dispositions.

I have the the disposition to be angry but not all the time and only under certain circumstances.

In order to be angry I have to have that disposition available.

Something cannot emerge without a preexisting disposition in nature.

The only way consciousness could come to exist is if reality had it as a disposition. The only way anything could emerge would be through preexisting dispositions or possibilities.

how did you get the idea that I wanted to separate the brain and the mental? Exactly the opposite is the case. I've said it umpteen times here, there are different perspectives with different categories from different sciences. Who mixes that, has the mind-bodyl problem. It's that simple. I'll say goodbye at this point, thank you very much.

Sorry you are leaving. It isn't a bad post and we wouldn't leave comments if we weren't interested. Looks like you are new here so don't let the negativity upset you. If you are here for excitement then pick a fight with Banno or some of the math and science guys or formal logic guys when they are around.