Because the purpose of this discussion is to assess the evidence either for or against the neuroscientist's claim that consciousness can be exhaustively explained by brain activity, — Michael
ITs more reasonable to reject all metaphysical worldviews and proceed with what we can actually investigate and verify.It is perfectly correct not to beg the question and assume either materialism or dualism from the start. — Michael
Secondly nothing in your "if" statement takes our current scientific evidence in to consideration! — Nickolasgaspar
In science and in Natural Philosophy, supernatural realms are not used as excuses for our failures to figure things out. — Nickolasgaspar
That is not the point, you are avoiding to consider the evidence in favor of its physical nature by using a bad excuse (science can not experience our personal experience) — Nickolasgaspar
Well the argument is unsound. You have a huge error in your third premise.1) all physical phenomena is susceptible to scientific analysis
2) we have first-person experience
3) some aspect of first-person experience is not susceptible to scientific analysis
4) therefore, some aspect of first-person experience is not a physical phenomenon — Michael
The phenomenon is mental but it is physically induced. — Nickolasgaspar
The other problem with your claim is that a personal experience....is a personal experience! So accusing science for not being able to experience "your experience" is like accusing a tuna sandwich for being slow in a 100m race. — Nickolasgaspar
Historically speaking there is a pattern with philosophers and early scientists where when they reached the limits of their contemporary knowledge, they "blamed" the supernatural for keeping secrets from them. (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, the early fathers of QM.etc).In science and in Natural Philosophy, supernatural realms are not used as excuses for our failures to figure things out. — Nickolasgaspar
Well it depends form the meaning of the word. This is why I always use the term "natural".If the phenomenon is mental, and if the mental is non-physical, then the phenomenon is non-physical. — Michael
IT is physical since the mechanisms are physical, the emergent property is Natural (mental property).That it has a physical cause isn't that it, itself, is physical. — Michael
This is what you demand from scientists and any third person to do....to experience your experience.I don't know what you mean by science experiencing something. — Michael
Of course it is, just look at the huge bibliography on the phenomenon...Scientific books and papers can not be written without analyzing the actual phenomenon.Either my first-person experience is susceptible to scientific analysis or it isn't. So which is it? — Michael
Well it depends form the meaning of the word. This is why I always use the term "natural". — Nickolasgaspar
IT is physical since the mechanisms are physical, the emergent property is Natural (mental property). — Nickolasgaspar
Of course it is, just look at the huge bibliography on the phenomenon...Scientific books and papers can not be written without analyzing the actual phenomenon. — Nickolasgaspar
They are the same. The word "Natural" can be used as an umbrella term when we want to make a distinction between mental and physical properties of matter.What's the difference between "natural" and "physical"? — Michael
No,its an observer relative term. We classify them base on their differences. Its not an ontological questions. Both emerge from physical structures.So are you arguing for property dualism? — Michael
There are many papers that explains how personal experiences arise from brain function, how pathology, physical injury and intoxication/physical condition can affect their quality and how we are able to diagnose and repair problematic states of consciousness.There are lots of scientific papers on brain activity and behavioural responses. These are not prima facie evidence that they address first-person experience. — Michael
That's one out of many tools available to us.Much of the science on first-person experience depends on taking for granted what people self-report, — Michael
Of course there is evidence, through establishing strong correlations between the claim and the phenomenon in question, by analyzing brain scans, blood profile (elevated hormones), behavior and interview. Sure we can not experience their experience of pain in real time but this is not an issue. Forensic methods are present in all disciplines of science.But, of course, someone saying "I am in pain" is not the same thing as the first-person experience of pain, and so that there is scientific evidence of the former isn't that there is scientific evidence of the latter. — Michael
The word "Natural" can be used as an umbrella term when we want to make a distinction between mental and physical properties of matter. — Nickolasgaspar
That's one theory. I wouldn't take it as a given. — Michael
... 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
I can think things and yet not tell you or anyone else what I am thinking. There's more to consciousness than just public behaviour. — Michael
That consciousness drives behaviour isn't that consciousness is behaviour. — Michael
2) we have first-person experience — Michael
First, you will need to make some acknowledgements to the points made before answering your question. I don't want to address the same claims again and again. — Nickolasgaspar
Without merely assuming some strange and elusive entity that is essentially the same in all of us ? — green flag
But it doesn't follow from that that consciousness is behaviour. — Michael
One of the characteristics of a mental processes is that they are behaviors or at least that they manifest themselves to us as behaviors. — T Clark
As you even say yourself "much of our behavior, I would say most, is not driven by consciousness" and so clearly they are two different things. — Michael
The skeptic who questions the existence of other minds might argue that such an assumption is unreasonable. — Michael
I'd say that your interior monologue is still bodily. Technology is being developed that can read your thoughts by little motions in the throat, etc. — green flag
So it could be that the technology you reference is reading that pre-conscious decision-making, not consciousness itself. — Michael
No and no. There isn't any ontological distinction. Its like attributing a different ontology for the property of color and the property of hardness displayed by a rock.If there's a distinction between mental and physical properties then you accept that a) the mental is non-physical and that b) mental things exist. — Michael
Mental is just a label we place on properties produced by specific physical processes in the brain. — Nickolasgaspar
I imagine much of the dispute regarding whether neuroscience and its philosophical analysis suffices for an explanation concerns whether ( 6 ) should be included in the list. — fdrake
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.