Why does any of this constitute or necessitate subjective awareness. or consciousness, or the capacity to experience?" — bert1
If we had a much more sophisticated and intelligent cognitive system, we could discover how it is that brains produce experience. But we don't, so we are going to remain puzzled about how this phenomenon could ever arise from such an organ. — Manuel
What would an answer look like? Give me an example answer. It's doesn't have to be the right answer, just an example of what sort of thing would satisfy you. — Isaac
So what's the sort of thing you'd be satisfied with? If I went into my lab tomorrow, had a really good look at some brains, and came back to and said "Brain activity requires consciousness because..." What would you accept? — Isaac
I won't attempt to give a scientific answer to what is essentially a metaphysical question. But I do think the form of an answer will necessarily have something to do with Function. The purpose of a thing is not inherent in the thing, but is assigned to it by a user or observer. For example the function of an automobile is relative to the driver. The driver wants to move from here to there, and makes use of a mechanism, horse powered or ICE powered, to serve his need for conveyance. For the driver, the source of motive power -- and the details of its internal mechanism, organic or inorganic -- is irrelevant to the transportation function. The horse may be conscious, but its own needs are subordinate to the driver's.So, why can't brains do all their stuff without consciousness?
And why isn't a running internal combustion engine conscious? — bert1
This is a great question, and I'm sorry to say I can't even give you an example bare-bones answer. Absolutely no idea. — bert1
-you don't say.....Not that I'm remotely well educated on this stuff, — bert1
Are you familiar with the the role Ascending Reticular Activating System and Central Lateral Thalamus?There is some truth to this post, no doubt. Especially when one considers the sheer amount of books on the neurophysiology of consciousness — Manuel
-Do you really thing that's the main issue? How about the complexity of organ and its functions?If we had a much more sophisticated and intelligent cognitive system, we could discover how it is that brains produce experience. — Manuel
Why questions again. — Nickolasgaspar
If you take a less functional perspective, you might need there to be a ( 6 ):
( 6 ) What it feels like to be in a state of reflexive, ongoing, intentional, historicising, projective, story telling and unitary affective states. What is it like. — fdrake
It's much simpler than that: we don't understand how matter can think. We simply lack an intuition of how the stuff we see in the world, could, in certain combination, lead to experience. — Manuel
"How does brain function necessitate consciousness? What is it about brain function that means it can't happen without consciousness also happening?" — bert1
Actually we understand how matter can think....through specific structures of matter with specific functions.It's much simpler than that: we don't understand how matter can think. We simply lack an intuition of how the stuff we see in the world, could, in certain combination, lead to experience. — Manuel
As I see it, there's a weird logical blind spot in the hard problem of consciousness singular — green flag
Well its turns out that being conscious offers survival advantages, — Nickolasgaspar
The blind spot is a great subject of study. It is grounded in the Upaniṣadic philosophy, 'the eye cannot see itself.' Google The Blind Spot, Michel Bitbol. — Wayfarer
What we need is to study and gather more knowledge and construct more detailed models. — Nickolasgaspar
You will be surprised by the actual number of humans who do just that and don't ask questions. But I agree our Symbolic language does allow us to form complex concepts and questions and even ask things that have no meaningful answers. "However, human beings are past the point of doing what every other creature does - the four F's of feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing — Wayfarer
- you clearly don't understand Evolution or Science so I will not even try to comment or correct the misconceptions in that paragraph...Because of the cultural role of science, Darwinism has tended to fill the vacuum caused by the collapse of religion in secular culture. But evolutionary theory may not be up to the task, simply because it was never intended as a philosophy as such, or the basis for an epistemology and metaphysic. And if you try to adapt it to that purpose, it's very hard to avoid something like social darwinism or scientism. — Wayfarer
Sure studies do go wrong....and this is why meta analyses are far more important.By the way, in return for all the neuroscience articles, I will offer only one, a NY Times review prompted by the replication crisis with a particular eye on fMRI scans, Do You Believe in God, or is That a Software Glitch? — Wayfarer
We don't fully understand many things in nature i.e. organization,electricity, gravity, light, life, quantum behavior etc etc but that doesn't mean we haven't identify the responsible mechanisms for them and use this knowledge to come up with predictions and applications.
I get what you mean but these type of statements look more like an excuse people give to avoid doing the hard work (studying the actual science of the field). They sound more like a "why "question (why matter can do that) highlighting our surprise for being possible. — Nickolasgaspar
- you clearly don't understand Evolution or Science — Nickolasgaspar
Its one thing to not understand the details of how conscious states emerge/are sustained and another to talk about other people/animals ability to be conscious.But since we don't understand it very well in our own case (human beings), and cannot prove other animals are conscious, to say that an AI has experience can be misleading — Manuel
The same should be true about Metabolism, constipation, mitosis, memory, photosynthesis, conductivity, liquidity, fluidity, replication, organization, emergence etc. As a scientists we should ignore the "why" questions and try to answer the how and what questions.The puzzle, for many people, and I assume even some scientists is the why question. And there should be space for surprise. There seems to be nothing in the "physical stuff" of nature which could lead one to conclude "consciousness comes from that". If there were, then, it wouldn't be surprising. — Manuel
Agreed.However, I don't see why this would entail people giving up on neuroscience at all. There is plenty of good research being done in the field with all sorts of practical applications. Some of it can have bearing on practical stuff concerning experience, such as the Libbett experiments, which have to do with will and when we become aware of us making a decision. — Manuel
I accept the cultural role of science. I rejected you paragraph for the nonsensical statement on evolution ("But evolutionary theory may not be up to the task, simply because it was never intended as a philosophy as such, or the basis for an epistemology and metaphysic. And if you try to adapt it to that purpose, it's very hard to avoid something like social darwinism or scientism.").So you don't accept that science has a cultural role? That evolutionary theory is often used as a guide to how we should think or what we are? Have you ever studied philosophy of science? Do the names Kuhn, Feyerabend, Polanyi mean anything to you? — Wayfarer
Evolution IS a theory so by definition its a philosophical narrative (natural philosophy)about observable facts. — Nickolasgaspar
A theory has a specific place in science....its not for boosting our petty agendas — Nickolasgaspar
The same should be true about Metabolism, constipation, mitosis, memory, photosynthesis, conductivity, liquidity, fluidity, replication, organization, emergence etc. As a scientists we should ignore the "why" questions and try to answer the how and what questions. — Nickolasgaspar
- Well evolutionary principles do provide answers to our hypotheses or questions. So by default the theory has the epistemic power to provide answers to our metaphysical questions (by metaphysical I mean beyond our current knowledge /classical definition) Since evolution deals with the diversity of life, ontology is the main focus of the theory.But it doesn't provide criteria for judgement of epistemelogical or existential or metaphysical questions, because that is not the problem it is addressing. — Wayfarer
That is the main characteristic of science. Its call learning.And it does so quite successfully, although it is continually being modified to deal with varoius evolutionary facts. — Wayfarer
Or better....changes in allele frequencies over time.But the bottom line of evolutionary biology has to do with survival, reproduction, mutation and evolution. — Wayfarer
No you are wrong. It reduces nothing, and reason was not the mind property in question here.When those criteria are applied to the use of reason, then it's reductionist, because it is reducing reason to an adaptation for the purposes of survival (when the vast bulk of evolved species have gotten along perfectly well without it.) — Wayfarer
You can not do science without philosophy and you can not have philosophy without science...well you can but it would be pseudo philosophy (Epistemically ignorant theoretical models).Indeed - but that's pretty well all you do here. You basically barge into every philosophical discussion with Look! Science! Can't you see, fools! That's exactly how you responded to me. — Wayfarer
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.