The ultimate nature of matter is irrelevant to the field of Neuroscience. — Nickolasgaspar
At an elegant dinner party, Lady Astor once leaned across the table to remark, “If you were my husband, Winston, I’d poison your coffee.”
“And if you were my wife, I’d beat the shit out of you,” came Churchill’s unhesitating retort. — Michael O'Donaghue - The Churchill Wit
His reply was actually 'Madam, you are ugly, and in the morning, I shall be sober." — universeness
Consciousness (the process), seems more like a post hoc storytelling of self-identity, it's a way of bringing together otherwise disparate and often contradictory mental processes into a coherent whole by re-telling what just happened seconds ago with this single character as the protagonist. — Isaac
I'm something of a (slightly reformed) behaviourist, so I'm also in agreement with you in that it is our behaviours which reveal to us mental processes. Later on in my career, however, I was lucky enough to work with some excellent neuroscientists on issues around visual perception and they changed a lot of the way I think about cognitive processes. Now I consider it to be a bit more OK to talk about a mere cognitive state (sans behaviour) as being a real state of affairs, but I'm still not as comfortable with it as I am with behaviour. — Isaac
He did not respond with the infantile phrases Mr O'Donaghue suggests on the website you cited. — universeness
If the ultimate nature of matter is mental, doesn't that blow neuroscience out of the water? Isn't the whole point of neuroscience based on the assumption that mind and consciousness are produced by a physical brain? — RogueAI
I will grant you that there is a prima facia case that a simulated or mechanical brain should be conscious.. — RogueAI
I find this question really good and challenging!!!!My question is: how would we scientifically go from there? How would science "nail down" the question of whether X is conscious or not? What tests could we perform, that would give us conclusive proof of consciousness (or lack thereof) — RogueAI
You need to educate your self on what we know, how we know it and how our Technical applications verify our current knowledge.And this is something that is still poorly understood and subject to substantial revision. — Fooloso4
I disagree on what I am confusing. — Benj96
That's an other topic. Intelligence is a property of the brain,but our ability to be consciously aware of our experiences isn't affected when our intelligence is impaired The same is true for memory, symbolic language, reason, pattern/face recognition, heuristics in general etc.For me there is no confusion; the brain is basically the product of evolutionarily compounded/refined intelligence.. — Benj96
first definition I found: "Intelligence is the ability to learn from experience and to adapt to, shape, and select environments."Consciousness involves this ability to be intelligent but in the context that it refers to how it is applied to the beholder/self. — Benj96
You understand something limited and specific by that term.In simple terms then consciousness is intelligences awareness of self - it's specific appearance, definition and this it's limitations. Ie humanness. Human consciousness is the awareness of what it feels like to be Human (limited in ability but unlimited in imagination/creativity). — Benj96
apokrisis suggested a switcheroo, which was quite interesting, basically saying that the burden of proof not on the neuroscientist to say why some or their function of the brain is consciousness, but on the neuro-skeptic to say why it isn't. — bert1
Trying to introduce the supernatural in a discussion about a property of mind is a pseudo philosophical practice. — Nickolasgaspar
And this is something that is still poorly understood and subject to substantial revision.
— Fooloso4
You need to educate your self on what we know, how we know it and how our Technical applications verify our current knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar
LinkDespite a revival in the scientific study of consciousness over recent decades, the only real consensus so far is that there is still no consensus.
I can easily detect vague bovine manure when I read it. (i.e."(And this is something that is still poorly understood and subject to substantial revision)". — Nickolasgaspar
Different properties of Mind have distinct causal mechanisms in our brain. — Nickolasgaspar
You are confusing different properties of mind with Consciousness. Consciousness, according to Neuroscience is the third basic mental property./quote]
my response was general. But let's look at what Mark Solms says in this video:
— Nickolasgaspar
293.5
I’m going to argue that this something else, this third defining property of a mind, is intentionality, intending towards something, aiming toward an object. This is possible to do without being aware that you’re doing it. There is such a thing as having unconscious intentions, unconscious aims, unconscious volitions.
For me its' dishonest to pretend that we have no clue how subjective conscious states feel like especially when the free market is making big money through this knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar
The famous beetles and boxes passage suggests why. 'Consciousness' refers to a box that could contain anything or nothing. Or it says what it should not be able to say. — green flag
I know my "box' contains something, and I assume that you know yours does, even though I cannot know that for sure. So, there is private experience, and we all know that, because we can entertain thoughts and feelings that others cannot know about. — Janus
Now ,we can rule out panpsychism or consciousness in structures without similar biological gear, because such structures lack sensory systems(no input) or a central processing units capable to process drives and urges (which are non existent),emotions, capability to store info (memory), to recognize pattern, to use symbolic language, to reason, etc etc. — Nickolasgaspar
In the ordinary way of speaking, I basically agree. That's what makes this issue so tough to discuss. Our mentalistic language of private experience evolved because it was and is useful. So on that usual and undeniably useful level, I agree. — green flag
I don't like default position chess when the grounds of a substantive disagreement isn't established. I think it's a responsibility of everyone with a position not to treat it as correct by default in this context. — fdrake
Well you identified the problem in that "if". We have no way to carry any type or research without the ability to connect memory, reasoning, judgment, intelligence, heuristics etca which all come together during a conscious state.Perhaps we all know how subjective conscious states feel because we all have them. If you had no subjective conscious states you would not know how they feel no matter how much brain research you undertook (assuming that you would be able to carry out brain research without having subjective conscious states yourself). — Janus
I cannot make sense of a complaint that a question has not been answered for which the complainant cannot provide any clue as to what the answer would look like. It seems to me to be an essential ground for knowing the question hasn't been answered. Otherwise, maybe it has, who knows? — Isaac
Sentences (1)–(10) instantiate different kinds of modality. (1–3) are most naturally interpreted to be about metaphysical modality; (4) about logical modality, (5) about conceptual modality, (6) about epistemic modality, (7) about physical modality, (8) about technological modality, and (9–10) about practical modality. — SEP
I find this question really good and challenging!!!!
The steps are the following
1. identify a sensory system that feeds data of which the system can be conscious of.
2.Test the ability of the system to produce an array of important mind properties
3. Verify a mechanism that brings online sensory input and relevant mind properties.(conscious state)
4. evaluate the outcome (in behavior and actions) — Nickolasgaspar
. They are not facts, they are ways of thinking about something. As I see it, they are not useful ways of thinking, but that is certainly opinion, not fact. — T Clark
I would vote: "watch less SciFI" lol. — Nickolasgaspar
I don't know and I don't think consciousness is the main criterion on who deserves rights or not. — Nickolasgaspar
Maybe your example would be more useful by questioning the ability of that character to be conscious . And by conscious we are asking whether he can experience the world through mental states that include finding meaning in biological feelings and concepts.
Do you agree? if yes my answer would be no. — Nickolasgaspar
But a machine can be biobased. How much do you know about biological computing?We can introduce an algorithm in a machine to care for his existence but I am not sure an algorithm can produce similar feelings to those produced by stress hormone or endorphins. — Nickolasgaspar
Yep, I agree, a great episode. Perhaps your last sentence above is all that will really matter in the end, especially if the majority of sentient stakeholders at the time, agree with you. I would vote the same way as you! This would mean however that I would have to vote the same for Data's nasty 'brother,' Lor.I love that episode. It's stayed with me all my life. I would give Data human rights. — RogueAI
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.