The organism is nothing but its adaptive interactions.
— Joshs
Not quite. It is a structure able to interact in what was an adaptive way in its native environment. Whether its species will survive depends on the rate at which its progeny can adapt to environmental change. — Dfpolis
The difference is that biological desire need not involve awareness, while will proper does. This is a move from the physical to the intentional theater of operation — Dfpolis
Will in the proper sense is a conscious commitment, and as such transcends the merely biological.
You can see this from the fact that willed commitments can be extremely unadaptive and harmful -- both to the individual and to the species. E — Dfpolis
Now, how about an argument that shows that one conscious being cannot commit to the good of another, even if it is unadaptive for the one committing — Dfpolis
All causation is reciprocal
— Joshs
Really? So an artist creating a work is acted upon by the work that does not yet exist? My learning a song causes the song? Perhaps you can explain what you mean. — Dfpolis
My argument is based on the premises laid down -- none of which are theological. — Dfpolis
Evolution’s necessity derives from the laws of nature, which are intentional realities, the vehicle of divine providence.
Biological species, as secondary substances, are beings of reason founded in the natures of their instances. They are traceable to God’s creative intent ...
Logical principles essential to science require these laws to be maintained by a self-conserving reality identifiable as God. — Fooloso4
This confirms that many atheists are not open to rational discourse -- even when the subject is not theological. — Dfpolis
I do not think this is an either or question. There are different ways of conceptualizing the world. In one, the bird is circumscribed and interacts with other circumscribed entities. In another, the bird is conceived in, and is an inseparable part of, its ecological context. Neither mode of conceptualization is wrong, because both are adequate to a set of human needs (and it is humans who are conceiving them).Is a bird simply what is contained within an outlined drawing? Or is it also the niche that sustains the animal and in which it is embedded? — Joshs
All distinctions are "artificial" in the sense that we do not find dividing lines in nature. Rather our mind must abstract two or more aspects of a single reality. That does not mean that the distinctions are not both well-founded and useful.It is a system of processes in which the dividing line between niche and animal can only be drawn artificially. — Joshs
There is no such split. All knowing is a subject-object relation. Without a knowing subject and a known object, there is no knowledge. In other words, subjectivity never occurs absent objectivity -- the essence of each is to be a relatum in the relation of knowing.You mean the dualist split between matter and subjectivity? — Joshs
I do not know. Do you? I do know that humans are aware.Where does awareness begin in the animal kingdom? — Joshs
There is no evidence to support this. We are ignorant of the possible experience of other species.Certainly not with humans. — Joshs
How do you know it is a function of complexity? We only have one data point. Human brains are complex and humans are conscious. Maybe that is a coincidence, or maybe it is not.Does it emerge suddenly or gradually as a function of neural complexity? — Joshs
"Maybe" is a poor basis for conclusions.If will and awareness is a gradual evolutionary development, then, as been suggested by biologists and neuroscientists, then in some sense one may see it in incipient form already in single-called organisms that have sensory capacities and show learning and adaptive goal-oriented behavior. — Joshs
That would be nice if true, but many willed commitments make neither individual nor social sense, as I am sure you know. Some are destructive both to the individual and to society. Even if they did make sense, they are unlike the adaptive biological responses you originally called "will" because they involve conscious reflection.Willed commitments are organized on the basis not strictly of the survival of my organism, but as I have been arguing, are designed to maintain adaptive sense-making, which is as much a social as an individual process. — Joshs
This is a very strange turn of phrase. Emotions are psycho-physical responses. As such, they have no "moral" value. Anger, for example, can be morally righteous or immorally vindictive. Sexual attraction can be destructive to both parties or the basis of a committed and supportive relationship. In any event, willed commitments are not emotions, although they may be responses to emotions. We can see that they are not emotions because they persist through emotional changes.moral emotions — Joshs
Of course. What we do not know is if these responses in other species are conscious or not -- and that is what is at stake in the discussion of will vs. instinct.Sacrificing oneself for the protection of others is seen in other animals. — Joshs
What about beta females who may add poisonous herbs or fungi to a stew? Unconfirmed hypotheses have little cogency. And, here is "moral emotions" again.Anthropologists hypothesize that conscience evolved in order to protect tribes from the violence of alpha males. Even behaviors which on the surface appear unadaptive, such as suicide or homicide, are driven by a combination of such moral emotions. — Joshs
This is true of socialized individuals, but untrue of those not properly socialized. So, it seems more a matter of nurturing than of immutable (biological) nature.Rather, it is social systems ( friendship, marriage, family, clan) that sustain us and that we are primed to defend. — Joshs
You realize that these "tentative symbolizations" need not be the work created, but part of the agent and her agency -- her thought process? So, this need not be the work acting causally on its creator. My thoughts, creative or otherwise, are my acts of awareness. I have heard a number of film actors say that they do not look at the "rushes," "dailies," or their finished films.what we symbolize in thought ... the way these tentative symbolizations talk back to us — Joshs
These are not the basis of the arguments made in my article. You will find no theology there.Have you forgotten your own claims? — Fooloso4
I understand and expect that my sound arguments may change few minds. Once people commit to a position, reason is a poor tool. My hope is to inform fresh, open minds.This may be difficult for you to understand because you are convinced of the truth of your own arguments, but not everyone is persuaded. Being open to rational discourse does not mean accepting the agency of a God. — Fooloso4
You mean the dualist split between matter and subjectivity?
— Joshs
There is no such split. All knowing is a subject-object relation. Without a knowing subject and a known object, there is no knowledge. In other words, subjectivity never occurs absent objectivity -- the essence of each is to be a relatum in the relation of knowing — Dfpolis
Where does awareness begin in the animal kingdom?
— Joshs
I do not know. Do you? I do know that humans are aware.
Certainly not with humans.
— Joshs
There is no evidence to support this. We are ignorant of the possible experience of other species… What we do not know is if these responses in other species are conscious or not. — Dfpolis
what we symbolize in thought ... the way these tentative symbolizations talk back to us
— Joshs
You realize that these "tentative symbolizations" need not be the work created, but part of the agent and her agency -- her thought process? So, this need not be the work acting causally on its creator. My thoughts, creative or otherwise, are my acts of awareness — Dfpolis
First of the content of a metaphysical belief(accuracy) about the nature of the world does not really play any role in our survival.Are they highly accurate? After all, for much of human history, we've had some kooky beliefs about what, exactly, the world is and is made of. — RogueAI
The fact that we're going back and forth on what consciousness is after I've read your paper should reveal to you that you didn't make a clear case of what it meant to you to your reader.
— Philosophim
No, it only illustrates the difficulty humans have in letting go of preconceptions. — Dfpolis
Can drugs alter our consciousness, yes, or no? If yes, then we can reduce consciousness to a physical basis.
— Philosophim
Non sequitur. It only shows that there is a dependence (which I affirm), not that the particular dependence explains all the known operations. — Dfpolis
A very simple definition of what consciousness means to you could help here.
— Philosophim
Asked and answered. — Dfpolis
Again, "consciousness" is an analogous term. — Dfpolis
The only organisms we know to experience awareness of intelligibility are humans. — Dfpolis
If anything, that would be odd to limit consciousness to only the human physical form while simultaneously denying it is linked to neurons, or any other physical basis.
— Philosophim
You persist in misrepresenting my position. That is not a sign of good faith. I have said repeatedly that conscious thought depends on neural representation and processing. — Dfpolis
How is my experiencing the color red a particular way not my subjective awareness?
— Philosophim
I did not say it was not an instance of subjective awareness. Still, experiencing qualia is just one kind of such awareness. Knowing that pi is an irrational number is another, and it does not have a quale. — Dfpolis
If you want me to address other aspects of your work, you'll need to address the points I feel unclear or problamatic first.
— Philosophim
I have. I am growing impatient with going over the same ground with you, as it wastes my time. — Dfpolis
You may have wanted to devote more time to it then. At least to the point where you would have understood my reference was not claiming to be a fact or evidence, and a perfectly reasonable thing to mention.
— Philosophim
I suggest you read the section of my paper addressing information in computers. — Dfpolis
I really don’t accept that. You’re talking about him as if he lived in Medieval Europe. He had a career spanning 50 years, which wasn’t even 100 years ago. — Wayfarer
However on second reading, you’re differentiating life from chemistry, by saying that ‘life seeks to sustain and extend….’ So you’ve introduced the element of intentionality which I agree is necessary and which I don’t believe has any analogy in materialism. — Wayfarer
I mean, at its basic Wayfarer, why is your consciousness stuck in your head?
— Philosophim
Don’t accept that it is. Conscious thought is an activity of the brain, but consciousness does indeed extend throughout your body and permeates all living things to one degree or another. — Wayfarer
So, I affirm what you quoted. I only deny their logical relevance to the arguments in my article. — Dfpolis
this alone is deathless and everlasting — De Anima Book 3, Chapter 5
Like electron-electron repulsion, consciousness emerges in a specific kind of interaction: that
between a rational subject and present intelligibility.
... in Metaphysics, Book XII, ch.7-10. Aristotle again distinguishes between the active and passive intellects, but this time he equates the active intellect with the "unmoved mover" and God. — Wikipedia, Active Intellect
If there were no laws operative in nature, anything could happen. In other words, there would be no difference between what was metaphysically possible (involving no contradiction) and what is physically possible (consistent with the laws of nature). It is metaphysically possible for a rock to become a humming bird, as there is no contradiction in being a at one time and b at another. — Dfpolis
First of the content of a metaphysical belief(accuracy) about the nature of the world does not really play any role in our survival.
Accuracy is needed when we experiencing the world around us (not its underlying ontology), for spatial navigation and temporal navigation, to avoid obstacles or predators, identify patterns, find resources or mates,decode social cues and behavior and in general to avoid suffering and increase our percentage of survival.
We are the decedents of those organisms who were able to experience the world in the best possible way. — Nickolasgaspar
I am neither Kant, nor a Kantian. I think his approach is fundamentally wrong.Kant attributed apriori categorical content to the subject. — Joshs
Yes, I am well aware of this a priori assumption. That is why I asked you to comment on my discussion of the genesis of representation and consciousness on p. 99.By contrast , contemporary naturalist-evolutionary accounts of subject-object relations conceive the genesis and content of the subject pole in the same naturalist terms as the object pole. — Joshs
I have no problem with this; however, it does not explain how we become aware of the relevant contents.Essentially the subject pole contributes recall of previous states to the interpretation of objective sense. — Joshs
I have not suggested that humans have a "transcendental ego." Again, I am not a Kantian. As for "self-identical," whatever is, is identically itself. So, this is a nonsensical claim. As for an ego simpliciter, you have implicitly admitted that humans can be subjects in the act of knowing, and egos are simply the capacity to be a knowing subject, and this capacity, which is not a Cartesian res, is the 'I' required to be a subject. We could hardly know absent an underlying ability to know. Thus, I am unclear what is being objected to.Furthermore, there is no transcendent or self-identical self, ego, ‘I’ underlying subjectivity. — Joshs
Again, this is confused because of your physicalist bias. Self-identity over time, whether of a river or of an organism, does not mean material identity. It means dynamic continuity. My present self has few, if any, atoms in common with the baby that came from my mother's womb or with the zygote that preceded it; however, I am dynamically continuous with both.The ‘I’ that wills in each willing is never the same self, because its nature and identity is subtly reorganized as a result of each encounter with a world. — Joshs
There is no need to. It has long been known that we cannot experience the first person experience of others. This is the so-called "problem of other minds." Also, the behaviorists roundly criticized the method of analogous introspection, by which some early psychologists claimed to study non-human minds.You should impart this important bit of news to the burgeoning field of consciousness studies in comparative psychology. — Joshs
I have no doubt that medical consciousness is a purely biological phenomena.Given the intimate proximity between cognition, emotion and awareness, now that multiple sources of evidence point to the presence of the first two capabilities in other animals, it is not a leap to hypothesize consciousness also. — Joshs
As I explained in my article, and at the beginning of this post, this is not the Aristotelian view. Rather than knowledge being solipsistic isolation, it is shared existence.only if we make the thought process into a solipsistic internal activity — Joshs
If you read my article, you will see that I did so.That's not a non sequitur at all. If consciousness depends on a physical basis, then it is up to you to demonstrate aspects of consciousness that do not depend on a physical basis. — Philosophim
"Analogous" is a logical classification of meaning. It means that a term is predicated in a way that is partly the same and partly different.Analogous to what? — Philosophim
I have done so. It is also my job to recognize when further explanation is a waste of time.Its your job when someone misunderstands your work to clearly and politely point out where they've misunderstood the position. — Philosophim
I spent weeks writing my article, and you have yet to address its arguments. So, you are wasting my time.When a person has spent days writing and no one responds, be it positive or negative, that is a waste of your time. — Philosophim
I made no such claim. You continue to waste my time.I am noting your position was that it was logically impossible to link consciousness to a physical basis — Philosophim
Analogous to what?
— Philosophim
"Analogous" is a logical classification of meaning. It means that a term is predicated in a way that is partly the same and partly different. — Dfpolis
I am noting your position was that it was logically impossible to link consciousness to a physical basis
— Philosophim
I made no such claim. You continue to waste my time. — Dfpolis
You may not be aware of how much information and discovery computers have opened up, but neuroscience back then really is the stone age comparatively. — Philosophim
However on second reading, you’re differentiating life from chemistry, by saying that ‘life seeks to sustain and extend….’ So you’ve introduced the element of intentionality which I agree is necessary and which I don’t believe has any analogy in materialism.
— Wayfarer
Sure, if you want to use intentionality to describe chemical reactions that attempt to keep the chemical reactions going, that's fine by me. I just think that's an aspect of the physical world, and not anything else. — Philosophim
Can you extend your consciousness outside of your physical body? No. — Philosophim
You may not be aware of how much information and discovery computers have opened up, but neuroscience back then really is the stone age comparatively.
— Philosophim
Find me a citation that shows that Wilder Penfield's experimental verification that subjects were aware that their own volitional actions were separate from those caused by the surgeon has been overturned. — Wayfarer
You can't have it both ways. First you acknowledge that life seeks to extend the scope of 'ordinary' chemical reactions, and then as soon as that is pointed out, you say 'well, actually it doesn't, regular chemical reactions are doing that. — Wayfarer
Can you extend your consciousness outside of your physical body? No.
— Philosophim
You don't know that, it's simply an assumption because in the normal state of being we naturally associate with the body. — Wayfarer
I am not writing a commentary on De Anima. I am discussing the Hard Problem.Yet nowhere in your paper do you mention this important point. — Fooloso4
In one sense (its genesis) it does not emerge in interaction. In another sense (its actual operation) it does -- just like electron repulsion.But if consciousness (active intellect) is deathless and everlasting then it does not emerge in an interaction, it is employed. — Fooloso4
I said it was controversial and offered my argument to resolve the controversy.You say the active intellect is a "personal capacity", as if the ongoing controversies have been settled. — Fooloso4
You make my case. If we abstract away physical reality, anything can happen, so the reason many things cannot happen is an aspect of physical reality.Your appeal is to a notion of logic that abstracts from physical reality, as if it is perfectly logical to think that rocks can become hummingbirds. — Fooloso4
I am never using Aristotle as an authority. I am crediting him as a source.Of course you are free to use Aristotle when doing so supports your argument and abandoning him when he doesn't — Fooloso4
By definition, an abstraction focuses on some aspects of experience while prescinding from others. As it is based on experience, it is necessarily a posteriori.Your a priori metaphysical abstraction — Fooloso4
As I said, it is the different senses of "consciousness" that are analogous.Yes, we all know what analogous means. You described consciousness as analogous. That means it is partly the same and partly different to what? — Philosophim
That does not mean that there is no physical aspect. If you read the whole article, my position would be clear. For example, "Descartes drew the wrong line in the wrong place. It is the wrong line because discursive thought requires neural representations." (p. 109)."I shall argue that it is logically impossible to reduce consciousness, and the intentional realities flowing out of it, to a physical basis." — Philosophim
So, you see life as teleological? Seeking the goal of being self-sustaining.I'm saying that life = group of chemical reactions that seek to self-sustain. — Philosophim
By definition, chemistry seeking non-chemical outcomes transcends the physical.You seem to put some attribute beyond the physical to it. I don't. — Philosophim
No I have not, I haven't suggested any problems. I am just addressing one of the pseudo philosophical "why" questions of Chalmers's supposedly "hard problem.[/quote]You have conflated easier problems with the Hard Problem. — schopenhauer1
No they are not Neuroscience deals with far more difficult problems than Chalmers teleological fallacious questions.[/quote]Easier problems deal with mechanisms for brain function. — schopenhauer1
-Please watch Anil Seth lectures on the subject. You will learn about our difficulties.This can be tested and is amenable to empirical verification. — schopenhauer1
Its like asking "why previously exited electrons produce a particle out of thin air"....the answer to all this type of questions is "because they do".The Hard Problem is how it is that there is a point of view. — schopenhauer1
-The question is fallacious(teleology) since the answer can only be whatever the questioner desires.The problem is that people who try to handwave the question by purporting the easier problems as the solution, aren't getting it. — schopenhauer1
If you study the scientific material of the interdisciplinary fields you will see that we are tackling far more meaningful and logical questions. As I wrote before,this why question can be answered by Evolutionary biology. Experiencing your Environment provides a Survival advantage to Organisms(animals) that aren't plants and need to move around and compete for resources. The fact that we have 2.5 milion of species (animals and insects) with different qualities of experiences verifies the evolutionary character of the property.They are ALREADY assuming the consequent without explaining it. — schopenhauer1
You are confusing the ability to be conscious with the quality of a conscious experience. That is a common error idealists do based on Bad Language Mode. You also confuse a secondary Mind Property with Consciousness which is the top 3 (According to Neuroscience).It is the Homunculus Fallacy. Simply listing off physical processes doesn't get at things like subjective qualia or imagination. — schopenhauer1
-That is a mental state. Your Central Later Thalamus has the ability to connect different areas of your brain, specialized in Memory/past experience, logic, Abstract thinking, Symbolic language, Critical thinking, Imagination etc and introduce content in that specific mental state....and all this is enabled by your Ascending Reticular Activating System.What IS that thing that mind-thing that I am doing when I am imagining a blue cube being rotated in my mind? What is THAT. — schopenhauer1
-Of course it answers a huge part of that answer and not only that!!!! We can use this knowledge either to force a brain to recreate that specific state, we can read brain scans and based on the brain patter we can accurately (up to 85%) decode the conscious thought of the subject, we have designed Surgery and Medical protocols that can reestablish or improve specific mental states in patients and we can make Accurate diagnoses by looking at the physiology and function of brains and by analyzing the symptoms of a patient's mental states. We can predict mental malfunctions by studying the pathology of brains...and the list goes on.You can say it is "such-and-such neural networks" and that it developed because of "such-and-such evolutionary reasons", but that is not answering the question. — schopenhauer1
-brains are connected to a complex sensory system and they can store images. People who haven't observed such images are unable to reproduce them. The evolution in Arts , Music, Architecture, design etc verifies the importance of experiencing existing patterns in order to be able to modify and improve on them.How is it that there is this rotating of the blue cube that is happening with the firing of the neurons. — schopenhauer1
-Why gravity has the quality it has...why it pulls but never pushes. Why conductivity manifest solely in metals. Why electricity passing through silicon ICs can produce images on a TFT or LED panel.It is superimposed, and forced into the picture but without explanation, only correlation with various obvious empirical stuff that isn't getting any closer to the answer to the question. — schopenhauer1
I am not writing a commentary on De Anima. I am discussing the Hard Problem. — Dfpolis
I said it was controversial and offered my argument to resolve the controversy. — Dfpolis
If we abstract away physical reality, anything can happen — Dfpolis
I am never using Aristotle as an authority. I am crediting him as a source. — Dfpolis
I am an Aristotelian. — Dfpolis
this is not the Aristotelian view. — Dfpolis
By definition, an abstraction focuses on some aspects of experience while prescinding from others. As it is based on experience, it is necessarily a posteriori. — Dfpolis
Its like asking "why previously exited electrons produce a particle out of thin air"....the answer to all this type of questions is "because they do". — Nickolasgaspar
You are confusing the ability to be conscious with the quality of a conscious experience. — Nickolasgaspar
-That is a mental state. Your Central Later Thalamus has the ability to connect different areas of your brain, specialized in Memory/past experience, logic, Abstract thinking, Symbolic language, Critical thinking, Imagination etc and introduce content in that specific mental state....and all this is enabled by your Ascending Reticular Activating System. — Nickolasgaspar
-Of course it answers a huge part of that answer and not only that!!!! We can use this knowledge either to force a brain to recreate that specific state, we can read brain scans and based on the brain patter we can accurately (up to 85%) decode the conscious thought of the subject, we have designed Surgery and Medical protocols that can reestablish or improve specific mental states in patients and we can make Accurate diagnoses by looking at the physiology and function of brains and by analyzing the symptoms of a patient's mental states. We can predict mental malfunctions by studying the pathology of brains...and the list goes on. — Nickolasgaspar
-Why gravity has the quality it has...why it pulls but never pushes. Why conductivity manifest solely in metals. Why electricity passing through silicon ICs can produce images on a TFT or LED panel.
Why molecules act differently in different temperatures.
The answer is always "because they do". — Nickolasgaspar
Well the end of Philosophy came with that "why" question. There is nowhere to go from there. If we embrace the right "how/what" question there is plenty of philosophy to be done on available scientific data.Cool. End of philosophy — schopenhauer1
Again a disguised "why" question that doesn't really ask anything meaningful. Why Weak and Strong forces exist?......they just do. Why electricity exists....etc.Rather, how is it that experience is at all, along with biochemical processes. — schopenhauer1
Even if that was true...How can you ever make claim that? BUt it isn't . For 35 years we have managed to get closer and closer to a descriptive framework about the Necessary and Sufficient role of a biological mechanism in our ability to experience ourself and surroundings.Just the piling on of more biochemical (or any physical) processes is not going to get you closer to that answer. — schopenhauer1
-Again, a "why question" that doesn't have an answer is not harder....its irrelevant and without meaning.It simply answers the easier problems of what events we can observe correlating with subjectivity/experientialness. — schopenhauer1
No I am not, I am pointing to the descriptive framework of a mechanism proven to be Necessary and Sufficient for that specific property to manifest in reality.Yeah now you are just making categorical errors all over the place. — schopenhauer1
-No I pointed to Strong Correlations that render specific physical processes Necessary and Sufficient for a mental state to emerge. Strong Correlations in Science are the closest we can get to a proof(philosophy of Science-Paul Hoyningen). Of course Science is not a tool of Logic/mathematics(the other way around) so we can not prove 100% anything. What we can do is to try and falsify our working Hypothesis. For 35-40 years we are constantly failing to falsify and render thes biological mechanisms Unnecessary and Insufficient.You went from "mental state" (the thing in question), to its physical correlates, — schopenhauer1
-For that question you will need to visit Neurosciencenews.org , put the search key phrase "How the brain does" and you will learn the "hows" and "whats" for many mental functions.but no closer to how the correlates ARE the mental state (ontologically). — schopenhauer1
-Again the "hard problem" is a made problem without an answer. We don't have a way to judge the truth value of an answer in favor of a teleological question. In addition to that, Intention and Purpose need to be demonstrated before they are asserted.Homunculus here and there and everywhere. You do not seem to be getting the hard problem or are obstinately ignoring it. — schopenhauer1
-No I'm just pointing out that "why" questions (like why there is something rather than nothing) are pseudo philosophical questions. Just because we can not answer them it doesn't mean they are hard. They are nonsensical, fallacious and they are far from the real hard questions of the field.So now it really does show you do not know the difference between easy and hard problem and are repeating this error over and over. — schopenhauer1
-Please do, but I think the problem here is that you ignore the latest science what fallacies are.I can try to explain it better if you want, but I feel that I have in my last post so not sure what else to say but you are not getting it. — schopenhauer1
Of course it is. In science we are honest enough to say we don't know what gravity is, it behaves the way it does, but we won't make claims about a supernatural source for its properties. We just identity the necessary and sufficient mechanism for the emergence of the phenomenon, do our measurements and math and describe/ predict the phenomenon.That's not scientific at all. The very thing that is most well known to us (our own subjective experience) you are just saying "It is". N — schopenhauer1
-Science is based on the Principles of Methodological Naturalism.That means our methods and description can only be within the realm we can observe and investigate and we are forced to keep supernatural explanations outside our frameworks until we are able to verify/falsify them.Not very scientific. — schopenhauer1
-You shouldn't go to that debate. Idealism is a pseudo philosophical worldview that hasn't assisted our Epistemology or Philosophy. Philosophy's first stem is the evaluation of our Epistemology(what we know and how we know it). Unfortunately for idealists, we don't have any knowledge based on Idealistic principles.The other stuff you mentioned, ironically can go straight into the realist versus idealist debate for if those phenomena (scientific or otherwise) are anything beyond our empirical observation of it. — schopenhauer1
Well the end of Philosophy came with that "why" question. There is nowhere to go from there. If we embrace the right "how/what" question there is plenty of philosophy to be done on available scientific data.
Philosophy's goal is to produce wise claims on available facts and expand our understanding of the world. Fallacious questions don't really serve that purpose. — Nickolasgaspar
Even if that was true...How can you ever make claim that? BUt it isn't . For 35 years we have managed to get closer and closer to a descriptive framework about the Necessary and Sufficient role of a biological mechanism in our ability to experience ourself and surroundings.
Denying it is just scientifically wrong. The data are overwhelming.
As Laplace replied to Napoleon's question "where God fits in your model" we can say with certainty " We have no need for that hypothesis, the model works without it".(not only Describes accurate, it Predicts and it offer us Technical Applications)
Necessity and Sufficiency are met...and Chalmer's "why" questions aren't enough to justify any unnecessary entity/process/substance/force (unparsimonious). — Nickolasgaspar
-For that question you will need to visit Neurosciencenews.org , put the search key phrase "How the brain does" and you will learn the "hows" and "whats" for many mental functions. — Nickolasgaspar
-Please do, but I think the problem here is that you ignore the latest science what fallacies are. — Nickolasgaspar
Lectures - talks
Alok Jha: Consciousness, the hard problem? - Presentations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=313yn0RY9QI
Anil Seth on the Neuroscience of Consciousness, Free Will, The Self, and Perception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hUEqXhDbVs — Nickolasgaspar
-Yes that is his point and I am not saying he is not making that point. I am only saying that his objections are hugely misinformed! All Emergent properties BY DEFINITION do NOT share the same characteristics with mechanisms responsible for their "existence".You are missing his point. Rotating a cube in your mind is a phenomenon. Physiological/biological processes are a phenomenon. They are correlated. Yet that correlation, while no one is doubting its correlation through observation, has it such that a completely new kind of phenomena takes place that is different from all the other physical phenomena — schopenhauer1
You are using way to many abstract concepts for your statement to make any meaning. I will try to break it down in known processes. "Yes the ability of the brain to receive internal or external stimuli through the workings of a complex sensory system and to reflect upon them through the unique biological setup of an organism and a large list of mental properties(memory, reasoning, imagination, symbolic language, pattern recognition etc) renders its role fundamental for our ability to experience the qualities of the worlds subjectively.That is, it is the fundamental phenomena of qualitative-ness/ experiential-ness. — schopenhauer1
All emergent phenomena are different from any other phenomenon. i.e. Cellular Self Organization is a unique feature! We just cherry pick the phenomenon experience to produce our narrative for our "special nature" or to justify our death denying ideologies.That such a unique thing exists that is so different than all the physical phenomena is the question. — schopenhauer1
-Again, "why" questions are not good questions when it comes to understand Natural phenomena.Why should neural networks be correlated with qualatitiveness? — schopenhauer1
-That is a false conclusion.First all we haven't verified any other realm so a physical description is the only thing we can evaluate. Such a description could NEVER be an ism (since it is a description)....It can only be Science.A purely physical description would simply be some sort of behaviorism. — schopenhauer1
That's a wrong example. AI works on algorithms. We on an other hand work on emotions reasoned in to feelings which in turn inform our Actions.. It would be like AI that has no qualitative experience but has inputs and outputs. But that's not the case, we have experience. — schopenhauer1
You are not listening , I am not saying "we don't need to explain that". I am only pointing out that "amazing properties" are what matter is capable off. The bigger the complexity of the structure and function is the more advanced these emerging properties get.You can play ignorant hobbit, and say we don't need to explain that, but then you are just pouting that it is such a hard question and then delegitimizing it because of its difficulty. — schopenhauer1
Again these questions are not hard, they are fallacious (poisoning the well).Well, poo poo, it is a quite difficult question, and thus will remain a thorn in the side of your sour grapes that it cannot be explained. — schopenhauer1
Please, don't project your personal motivation!.I am not the one who really needs to have an answer even if it means to invent a completely new substrate (its not wise to attempt to answer a mystery with a bigger mystery). My approach is cold, scientific and in total agreement with the basic rules and principles of science.But to make the problem go away by simple fiat that philosophical inquiry just sucks is not going to do anything other than show your feeling about it. — schopenhauer1
For that...you will need to talk to materialists. I am not a materialist but a Methodological Naturalist. I reject all metaphysical worldviews and I try to keep out from our epistemology and working hypotheses all metaphysical artifacts that can't be falsified.I don't know the answer to the hard question obviously. But what I do know is that there is a hidden dualism in materialist assumptions. — schopenhauer1
-This doesn't make sense. Pls read about Scientific Emergence and Complexity science. It will help you understand the differences between Pragmatic Necessity ( to accept a empirical regular phenomenon without making ontological questions) and Idealistic preferences (making up claims for an assumed underlying ontological mechanism).Emergence/integration/binding it doesn't matter your phrasing, it is all stand ins for "magical experience takes place". You are always thus jumping from category physical to category mental activity. — schopenhauer1
Mental Activity is contingent to physical structure and function. Without the latter you can not have the first.You are always thus jumping from category physical to category mental activity. — schopenhauer1
-You need to study Neuroscience before making those false claims. Again don't talk about "correlations" . Science systematicity doesn't deal with simple correlations.The assumption is simply just put there because we know indeed we experience. Nothing is explained otherwise as to the nature of this "experience" other than it is correlated with these physiological correlations. — schopenhauer1
We Shouldn't care for any assumed, untestable metaphysical ontology.We only care about the observable ontology that enables a phenomenon to manifest in our realm.No, again, that is not ontologically how they are one and the same, just that these physical processes correlate to these experiential ones. Those are indeed the easy problems Chalmers mentions. — schopenhauer1
-Be aware of your bad language mode since it derails and pollutes your train of thought. Experience is NOT an agent. Its a label we put on a biological process where sensory systems feed stimuli to the brain and the brain process them in to meaning through the consumption of metabolic molecules and by achieving connections to different brain areas specialized on different properties of mind..Experience the very thing which observes the other phenomena. How is it this is the biological/physical substrate, and if it "arises" from the physical substrates, "what" is this "arising"? — 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.