The human being is the subject who makes judgements, conducts scientific experiments, devises hypotheses and so on. But at the same time, the subject is never within the frame, so to speak, on the obvious grounds of not being among the objects of analysis. — Wayfarer
Let's ask: — Wayfarer
What would it be like if human beings shewed no outward signs of pain (did not groan, grimace, etc.)? — green flag
Assuming a tribe could survive without eyesight (maybe they live in a system of caves), I don't see why they should have a problem learning about the color concepts in the English language. — green flag
They could understand that a man got a ticket for running a red light. — green flag
We don't know that consciousness is limited to brains. We don't know what causes it. Often when this is mentioned, the response is that we know that you can be made unconscious by various actions. Actually all we know is that we don't remember things from that period. Neuroscience says a lot about cognitive functions and their connection to neurons and glial cells and...so on. But that there is awareness/experiencing. — Bylaw
You asked for evidence, not theories. — Michael
Historical reasons are behind ideas pointing to "magical sources" of consciousness.I think there are historical reasons that lead us to conclude that consciousness is a property of matter. But it also depends on what you think matter (or more broadly "the physical) encompasses. — Manuel
Definition: "Consciousness as used here, refers to the private, subjective experience of being aware of our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, actions, memories (psychological contents) including the intimate experience of a unified self with the capacity to generate and control actions and psychological contents. "*I agree. We do not know if experience is limited to brains. It could be the case that panpsychism is true, or a variant of the idea that some kind of proto-life is found in all the universe. — Manuel
-Actually we do know enough about the phenomenon to be pretty sure (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the conscious awareness of experience is limited to biological brains.It could be. But it could be wrong. We don't know enough to be sure about this. — Manuel
That’s because consciousness is a property of organisms, which are a great deal more than brains and nervous systems. Sapiens, for example, have digestive, endocrine, skeletal, respiratory and other systems. Each of these are required for human consciousness.
Neuroscience has a great deal to say about consciousness, but it is not the full story. — NOS4A2
I have done it many times....Can you state in you own words how the brain generates consciousness? — bert1
You have a blind spot in respect of the issue at hand. 'Facing up to the hard problem of consciousness' is not trivial or redundant, but a statement about the inherent limitations of objective, third-person science with respect to the nature of first-person experience. — Wayfarer
No it doesn't. Chalmer's asks Why questions. ITs like asking "why the intense wobbling of molecules is perceived as heat by our brains"....the answer will always be "BECAUSE"....... and Marc Solms through his new Theory on Consciousness will add "because it has evolutionary advantages to feel uncomfortable when your biology is exposed to a situation that has the potential to undermine your well being and your "being".So, contrary to all of the journal articles that you continue to cite, the subjective unity of perception, which is a major aspect of the 'hard problem', remains unexplained, and indeed inexplicable, according to this paper, which essentially provides scientific validation for the argument made in Chalmer's original article. — Wayfarer
Well neuroscience can only describe the brain mechanisms responsible for creating the subjective experience of being — Nickolasgaspar
What [neuroscience] cannot do is replace the wide range of ordinary psychological explanations of human activities in terms of reasons, intentions, purposes, goals, values, rules and conventions by neurological explanations . . . . And it cannot explain how an animal perceives or thinks by reference to the brain's, or some parts of the brain's, perceiving or thinking. For it makes no sense to ascribe such psychological attributes to anything less than the animal as a whole. It is the animal that perceives, not parts of its brain, and it is human beings who think and reason, not their brains. The brain and its activities make it possible for us—not for it—to perceive and think, to feel emotions, and to form and pursue projects. (p. 3) — Review of Bennett and Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience
First of all,made up pseudo philosophical ''why" problems are not "hard problems". — Nickolasgaspar
We have being doing it for decades, this is why we have Medications on psychopathology, this is why we have Brain Surgery protocols for different pathologies and this is why we can make Diagnosis (predictions) based on the physical condition of the organ (brain imagine). — Nickolasgaspar
Makes no difference to the facts presented.Jerome Feldman isn't a Neuro or Cognitive scientist — Nickolasgaspar
It depends from the definition. If weOK, science geeks, how do we determine whether an AI is conscious? What do we do? What tests do we give it? — RogueAI
Jerome Feldman isn't a Neuro or Cognitive scientist — Nickolasgaspar
What we do know is that there is no place in the brain where there could be a direct neural encoding of the illusory detailed scene (Kaas and Collins 2003). That is, enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience. So, this version of the NBP really is a scientific mystery at this time.
Did you on purpose left the rest of my statement out? I hope it wasn't a dishonest practice but a decision of "economy of word".It can’t. — Wayfarer
What [neuroscience] cannot do is replace the wide range of ordinary psychological explanations of human activities in terms of reasons, intentions, purposes, goals, values, rules and conventions by neurological explanations . . . . — Review of Bennett and Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience
If you want to criticize something, you first have to demonstrate that you understand it. — Wayfarer
I have had near and dear relatives saved by neuroscience, for which I am eternally grateful, but that doesn't have any particular relevance to philosophy of mind. — Wayfarer
Jerome Feldman isn't a Neuro or Cognitive scientist
— Nickolasgaspar
Makes no difference to the facts presented — Wayfarer
The dude who wrote the above doesn't understand the role of cognitive science and neuroscience. — Nickolasgaspar
the philosophy of mind you are referring to has nothing to do with the actual science — Nickolasgaspar
It depends from the definition. If we
AI "consciousness" is based on the algorithmic process of data feeding prioritizing those which are beneficial or detrimental for the predefined goals of the program. — Nickolasgaspar
And Marc Solms through his new Theory on Consciousness will add "because it has evolutionary advantages to feel uncomfortable when your biology is exposed to a situation that has the potential to undermine your well being and your "being". — Nickolasgaspar
The debate is over.....and philosophers didn't get the memo
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121175 — Nickolasgaspar
IS it really? You do understand that conscious states shuffle stimuli giving the illusion of unification through the property of memory?As stated in that article, there is no scientific account for the subjective unity of experience. — Wayfarer
Australian(something is wrong with the water down there). Well he needs to do a better job. He needs to stop Strawmaning and understand the role of Neuroscience in our interdisciplinary study of the brain. Better he needs to keep his pseudo philosophical views outside his lab and stop making up excuses out of ignorance to bring them in. (If and only if you reproduce his statements correctly).Maxwell Richard Bennett is an Australian neuroscientist specializing in the function of synapses. He has published a large number of text books and journal articles on neuroscience. — Wayfarer
No for the type you are practicing. My philosophy is ALWAYS based on the latest scientific epistemology and on the actual goals of science....not on made up "problems".You don't demonstrate any understanding of philosophy. — Wayfarer
Actually we do know enough about the phenomenon to be pretty sure (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the conscious awareness of experience is limited to biological brains. — Nickolasgaspar
My philosophy is ALWAYS based on the latest scientific epistemology and on the actual goals of science — Nickolasgaspar
"Why do we have consciousness?" - ...
... what's the kind of answer that goes there? — Isaac
think there are historical reasons that lead us to conclude that consciousness is a property of matter. But it also depends on what you think matter (or more broadly "the physical) encompasses. — Manuel
Evolution doesn't "produce" our conscious awareness of our experiences. Evolution describes the conditions and facts under which specific biological traits provide survival advantages to biological organisms and thus make it to the next generation.(through changes in allele frequencies).That's a just-so story. How did evolution produce conscious experiences? — Marchesk
You make my point for 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.