if your brain was injured or hurt in some physical way, then you would lose the mental abilities — Corvus
Yes, that was my point against .Nobody would contradict this and the close connection between brain and consciousness. — Pez
This still sounds like a materialistic methodology.Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality". — Pez
I thought Kant doesn't make explicit comment on the mind, self or physical brain in CPR. He was only interested in propounding on how metaphysics is possible as a science explaining transcendental idealism.And that is exactly the crux of Kant's argument, that materialism alone does not suffice to explain our experience. — Pez
Yes, that was my point against — Corvus
"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague. What do you mean by the brain is connected to consciousness? What is it connected with? Is it connected with a piece of string or golden chain or rubber band? It sounds more obscure.Saying "the brain is connected to consciousness", which probably nearly everyone agrees with, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying "consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" or whatever, which is what you said everyone knows. — flannel jesus
"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague. — Corvus
Nobody would contradict this and the close connection between brain and consciousness.
— Pez
Yes, that was my point against ↪flannel jesus. — Corvus
"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague.
— Corvus
Then... why did you agree with it and say it was your point when Pez said it? — flannel jesus
no, it's even more unclear than before. I didn't write that they're connected, someone else wrote it, and then you agreed with it. Everythings entirely unclear now.
Why are you agreeing with some guy saying they're connected, and then complaining that connected is vague? — flannel jesus
I can see the problem very clearly. There is no complications here. You seem to try to conclude that everything unclear for some reason, when it is not. As I said, it is not the central point of the OP. We can just accept the situation and move on, and try to discuss the OP - can computers and AI think? — Corvus
What is your evidence for the claim?But not everyone knows, or agrees, that consciousness emerges from the brain, and not everyone agrees that it's possible for AI to be conscious. — flannel jesus
No I don't accept it. I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain.Do you accept that not everyone knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain? — flannel jesus
Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality".
— Pez
I.e. we would need to find a homunculus? — wonderer1
What is your evidence for the claim? — Corvus
But isn't the mind the panpsychists talking about totally different type from the human mind?Some people are panpsychists who believe consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism — flannel jesus
I can't quite follow or agree with their ideas then. The prime sign of possessing consciousness and mind for a being is demonstrations of its linguistic, rational reasoning capability, and showing the signs of emotional interactions.no, I think they're talking about all consciousness, including human.
People who believe in souls are of course another great example of people who don't think minds emerge from brains. They think minds are in souls. — flannel jesus
Well, it is certainly true that the only kinds of beings that are conscious in our universe are humans and animals. Humans are our paradigm of a conscious being. Consciousness in animals is more complicated, partly because different animals are have different levels of consciousness and partly because there are different opinions about how conscious they are. Whether it is possible that there are conscious beings apart from these is another question. There's no doubt that it is possible to imagine that there are and the future no doubt holds many things that we do not yet know. So I think your claim is over-confident.I cannot see how anything else in the universe can be conscious apart from humans, and some of the mammals (having lesser consciousness due to their lack of language uses). — Corvus
It used to be common sense that the earth is flat and that there is no land between Europe and China.I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain. — Corvus
No I don't accept it. I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain. — Corvus
There is considerable debate over whether plants are conscious and this, indeed, is an important question. Here I look at developments in neuroscience, physics and mathematics that may impact on this question. Two major concomitants of consciousness in animals are microtubule function and electrical gamma wave synchrony. Both these factors may also play a role in plant consciousness. I show that plants possess aperiodic quasicrystal structures composed of ribosomes that may enable quantum computing, which has been suggested to lie at the core of animal consciousness. Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants." — RogueAI
Careful. That way lies crank magnetism or even worse, fractal wrongness. — wonderer1
There are also a lot of computationalists out there, and they would object to Corvus's statement that I quoted. — RogueAI
it doesn't matter if you agree with them or think their ideas make sense, the point is *not everyone believes the thing you said everyone believes*.
an hour ago — flannel jesus
Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants." — RogueAI
You shouldn't be too naive to presume that "everyone" strictly means the whole population in the universe anyway. "Everyone" is a pronoun with the universal quantifier "every", which implies "everyone" that I know, "everyone" who are sensible, "everyone" with common sense, "everyone" who are logical ... etc.
You shouldn't be too judgemental or restrictive in understanding and interpreting "everyone" in unreasonably narrow way insisting it must be "everyone" in the whole world or universe. — Corvus
But I'll take your reply as a sly way of admitting you were incorrect. Perhaps you're just one of those people who can't say the words "I was incorrect." — flannel jesus
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.