Emotions (reasoned in to feelings)are the basis of our conscious state (Mark Solmes- Theory of consciousness). A stimulus caused by a particle (odorants) triggers our brain to interpret the meaning and implications of that external cue (our brains have evolved as predictions machines elevating our chances of survival /Anil Seth).OK, the words 'result,' 'enabled by,' 'formation,' suggest something other than an identity with function. Could you clarify? Is the feeling we get when we smell a rose the result of a neural function? Or is it the same thing as a neural function? — bert1
I don't know what you mean by the statement "Is the feeling we get when we smell a rose the result of a neural function? Or is it the same thing as a neural function?" — Nickolasgaspar
I see, so you have observed the emergence of consciousness. Is that right? Consciousness is nothing other than certain functions of the brain, and if you observe these functions working, you observe consciousness. Do I understand you? — bert1
I don't really understand your question so I think an Academic Mooc on consciousness is the best way to find your answer.I'm trying to get clear in my head what you think the relationship is between the experience of smelling a rose and what happens in the brain. Is the experience the same thing as events in the brain, which we simply call smelling a rose? Or is it a product of events in the brain? Or something else? — bert1
-Actually the study of a biological phenomenon is by definition a job for science. After all Science (Natural Philosophy) is nothing more than Philosophy with a empirical methodology on naturalistic principles.(Methodological Naturalism)they deflect the topic into the scientific realm — Eugen
-Strawman. Science is, currently the most credible way we have to produce and to verify the quality of our knowledge.science is all-powerful — Eugen
-Shifting the burden and poisoning the well fallacy...plus its the statement is contradictive.c. science hasn't proven yet that consciousness is fundamental, therefore we shouldn't believe that — Eugen
-Therefore Methodological Naturalism...meaning that you accept a claim AFTER it has been verified to be true without making up invisible realms and agents.therefore, materialism must be true — Eugen
-So you are suggesting something that resembles magic ...but you have issues with the label used ?Like Nickolasgaspar keeps mentioning magic as if I've been pushing it when I've never actually mentioned it. — bert1
↪bert1
I don't think they've got agendas. I think their brains simply look for alternatives, it's natural. Maybe they're right and we're wrong. Maybe we're biased, who knows? — Eugen
So you are suggesting something that resembles magic ...but you have issues with the label used ? — Nickolasgaspar
You literally stated that particles molecules and chemicals are conscious...that isn't magical for you? Can you explain the Ontology of Consciousness? — Nickolasgaspar
No more magical than saying particles have mass or charge. It's just another property of matter. — bert1
ol why they are magical when those properties are quantifiable. — Nickolasgaspar
Can you offer us a method by which you can demonstrate and quantify the conscious states of a rock similar to the methods we use to quantify the mass and charge of a particle? — Nickolasgaspar
ok thats good to know. So your point was that consciousness is a property of particles. How can you demonstrate that?I don't think they are magical. — bert1
Well in science we have ways to quantify our conscious states. Anil Seth explains the metrics of the quantification processs.No, consciousness is not quantifiable. It does not admit of degree. X is either conscious or not, there is no middle. — bert1
Zygote, to newborn, to baby, to toddler , to kid, to adult to senior... We can see consciousness develop and change over a lifetime — Metamorphosis
We can also see it fade in and out during sleep, deep sleep, anesthesia, drugs... — Metamorphosis
How can you demonstrate that? — Nickolasgaspar
Well in science we have ways to quantify our conscious states. — Nickolasgaspar
The minimum requirement for a conscious state is the arousal of the Ascending Reticular Activating System. — Nickolasgaspar
Don't you get a much simpler and better explanation by just understanding it as matter evolving in complexity... — Metamorphosis
-You are talking about a claim saying that particles posses a specific High level feature. That needs to be demonstrated independently from the aesthetics of other claims. You need to demonstrate it by explaining how a world would look where particles do not posses that ability and then point to a methodology capable to falsify your claim. Can you really do that?By showing the alternatives are worse. — bert1
Yes they are conscious states with different qualities (intensities) We can quantify them by measuring specific metrics in brain function. By doing that we can introduce our theories in the real world, produce Meaningful Predictions, Accurate Predictions and Technical Applications resulting to the improvement of different conditions.The examples you give are of differing content of consciousness, from unfocused and fuzzy, to sharp, or something like that. They are all conscious states. — bert1
I study Neuroscience....OK, how do you know that? — bert1
I am a Methodological Naturalists. — Nickolasgaspar
From a scientific perspective the concept of proto-consciousness is also closed not because we don't understand it but because Logic (Parsimony, Null Hypothesis, Burden of Proof, Demarcation etc) and current data render the idea..."not even wrong"(Wolfgang Pauli).From my perspective, this OP is closed.
I don't have a clear view on what Penrose and Hameroff mean when they mention proto-consciousness.
Thank you for sharing your opinions! — Eugen
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.