What would you choose as your label for this phenomena, and all it's demonstrable variations? — universeness
I am not trying to straw-man you, only to understand your claim. — Nickolasgaspar
I have already analyzed the issues in that huge leap. Science use forensic reasoning and methods. Not having direct access to the end product of a process doesn't mean that we can not objectively study the phenomenon and verify its causal mechanisms.
Aspirin and dosage recommendations exist because we have ways to understand and study the subjective aspect of a conscious state.
It seems like (maybe I am wrong) that Philosophy is using the same practices with those used by religion and spiritual ideologies in an attempt protect their claims from science. — Nickolasgaspar
So no brain activity involved? — universeness
It's very straightforward logic...and its susceptible to the GIGO effect. When we feed garbage dataa we receive garbage results.If A is inaccessible and B is accessible then A isn't B. It's very straightforward logic. — Michael
i.e. A(consciousness) is not an entity and it isn't inaccessible.Only a specific aspect of it isn't accessible in real time. We have the tools to investigate the impact of an experience, compare it to other people's experience and understand it the causal relations to the responsible mechanisms.If subjective experience is inaccessible and brain activity is accessible then subjective experience isn't brain activity. — Michael
It seems like (maybe I am wrong) that Philosophy is using the same practices with those used by religion and spiritual ideologies in an attempt protect their claims from science. — Nickolasgaspar
Only a specific aspect of it isn't accessible in real time. — Nickolasgaspar
So, if you agree the brain is 'involved' then what do you find objectionable, when I claim that it's therefore valid and appropriate to use the label 'human consciousness,' to label the phenomena you exemplified?The brain is part of the body, so it's involved. — Michael
But you just agreed that in your exemplar, the brain was involved. Was that a subjective opinion?the subjective aspect of consciousness isn't brain activity — Michael
So, if you agree the brain is 'involved' then what do you find objectionable, when I claim that it's therefore valid and appropriate to use the label 'human consciousness,' to label the phenomena you exemplified? — universeness
But you just agreed that in your exemplar, the brain was involved. Was that a subjective opinion?
Your above quote, seems to be invoking a high personal credence level that you hold towards the above quote, but you have not provided much evidence to support it.
Do you think that's wise? — universeness
And so that specific aspect of it isn't identical with brain activity, which is accessible in real time. — Michael
First of all I don't know what you mean by the term "identical". Brain activity enables conscious experience and previous experiences with different biological setup enable the subjective quality of them.
Arguments from ignorance isn't the best way to understand something. We only know that the we can not share our mental experience on real time. That doesn't imply that brain activity is not responsible for it when we have already demonstrated its Necessary and Sufficient role — Nickolasgaspar
I don't understand your question. That the brain is involved isn't that only the brain is involved. — Michael
Ok, that's fine, so we now need very strong evidence, that more than the brain is involved. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What is the current proposal, that you personally, assign your highest credence level as 'vital,' to what we observe as the effects and affects of human consciousness. Do you for example, assign a high credence level to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance and morphic fields? — universeness
I'm only argued that if something else is involved then we can't have scientific evidence of it. — Michael
Sure, but "ifs" need to be demonstrated not assumed.I'm not saying that brain activity isn't responsible for it. I'm only saying that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there can be no physical evidence of this non-physical aspect. — Michael
In what way are you suggesting his evidence is not scientific? — universeness
-Only if that "something else" is ''designed" to leave no traces for our scientific methods to find. In that case that untraceable "something else" is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist! So why even talking about it?I'm not arguing that something else involved. I'm only argued that if something else is involved then we can't have scientific evidence of it. — Michael
Sure, but "ifs" need to be demonstrated not assumed. — Nickolasgaspar
In that case that untraceable "something else" is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist! — Nickolasgaspar
Sure, but I don't see the Philosophical usefulness in that statement, meaning that you introduce an additional bigger mystery(non physical-whatever that is) in an attempt provide an answer to a "begging the question fallacy" (if there is a non physical aspect).I'm not assuming anything. My argument is only that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there cannot be any physical evidence that this non-physical aspect doesn't exist. — Michael
If you are not willing to offer useful answers, to my main questions then there is nowhere to take this exchange between us. — universeness
What makes you talk about that if? — Nickolasgaspar
And what indications you have for non physical aspects existing in our cosmos. — Nickolasgaspar
-Ok, it took me some time but I think get what your goal is.It doesn't then follow that it doesn't exist.
If it does exist then any explanation of consciousness that does not include this thing doesn't (exhaustively) explain consciousness at all. — Michael
You accused of something I didn't do. I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect from me. — Michael
If you are not willing to comment on 'theories,' that may evidence aspects of consciousness that exist outside of the physical borderlines of the human being/other lifeforms, then you come across as 'reluctant' to defend your own side of the debate. You come across as if you only want to throw stuff at my side of the debate, ineffectually, from a 'safe distance. That very quickly, becomes quite boring.I'm not suggesting anything about him or his theory. — Michael
-Ok, it took me some time but I think get what your goal is.
You are not looking for statements that will allow you to understand the phenomenon. What you are doing is entertaining 'ifs' and you justify their "possibility" by pointing to things we currently don't know or lacking the means to observer directly?
Am I right? — Nickolasgaspar
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.