It might also be worth mentioning that within the neurosciences (like within every field of interest) there are group of people with vastly differing views and approaches on the subject.

All that is exactly like saying physics tells us nothing about the universe even though it clearly does help us to distinguish and delineate between phenomenon we observe and can verify.

Dumb post. Cognitive Neuroscience has A LOT to offer various questions about consciousness and if you ate particularly interested in consciousness (from a philosophical perspective) it is about time you read up about this. Vice versa, for clarities sake, there are clearly some particular uses from more philosophical areas here … ie. Phenomenology (an area I actually got into through reading university level textbooks on the Cognitive Sciences (put together by Gazzaniga - I mention because older editions have free pdf online).

That which has … how should I say? … ‘True Existence’ is that which we cannot be aware of - it effectively does not exist for us. This is like the Kantian Noumenon that has ‘negative existence’ (if you are familiar with Kant).

Hunting for some ‘Truth’/‘Absolute’ is contrary. This does not mean there is merely subjectivism and opinion. The possess the item we call ‘knowledge’ due to common themes/pattern but this ‘knowledge’ is not absolute. I believe it is best to think of knowledge as that which can be brought into question and/or investigated. That which cannot is not an item for our limited human scope. Also, limitation itself allows knowledge. You can take an everyday example of this with something like speech or walking. We do not ‘walk’ or ‘speak’ in a state of perpetual knowledge of how our legs function or how words are uttered as well as their particular meanings and possible contexts … the action of ‘speech’ and ‘walking’ inhabit us and it is only when we focus in on them that they become attended to that they can become ‘knowledge’.

I do not see how that is true of philosophy.

In general philosophical areas stem from the basic question of ‘What we should do?’. People then attach ideas, opinions and speculation to this fundamental question.

One thing I hear repeatedly (and believe to be true) is that philosophy is mostly about Questions rather than Solutions.

The basic question of ‘What should we do?’ then became more about societal means of education to make people’s lives ‘better’ and/or how to ‘rule’ people and generally improve life for yourself and others.

Not interested. I said one thing and that is all. Penrose states that the process in non-computational. He proposed that there is a QM mechanism in the brain and also stated that he saw no means of QM happening in the brain. The End (really).

He was not suggesting any mechanism only that something is happening that is not computational. He says nothing about biological processes because that isn’t his field. His field is very much about mathematics, logic and theoretical physics.

Anyway, bored now. This is going nowhere fast.

I think you may have misrepresented what Emotivism is about.

It is generally regarded (as far as I know?) as about personal expression; rather than ‘true statements’ it is ‘true expressions’. So if you express that your mother being killed is worse than someone else being killed that is your ‘true expression’ rather than some kind of ‘one size fits all’ statement.

Emotivism is not a ‘belief’ it is a metaethical category which can be use to explore the moral landscape. By saying something we often express opinions about what we believe to be morally right or wrong, but that this is not identical to some underlying/absolute ‘right’/‘wrong’ dichotomy.

Most, if not all, areas of meta ethics serve to question how emotional/ethical/moral terms are played out in academic parse and day-to-day ramblings, as well as the kind of functions and possible miscommunications that can occur alongside these points (including how you or others interpret certain topics of meta ethics.

The general field of meta ethics is - I strongly believe - a hard shift away from parcelling up black and white views we hold dear in order to clear the field of thought for a more generalised understanding of ourselves, others and how differing views and opinions collide.

Using QM to describe biological phenomena is not wise or sufficient. We've already identified mechanisms that allow the brain to be aware and able to introduce content in a conscious state. Sure, a Quantum mechanism can have a role in the process (like in Photosynthesis or Navigation of Birds) but it would be ignorant and irrational to assume that quantum elements can be carriers of High Level features in an emergent biological phenomenon. All "spooky" actions in QM act on the Kinetic characteristics of particles....so I don't know how one can justify that leap. — Nickolasgaspar

For the sake of it. There you go. Neither myself nor Penrose makes any such claim. His point was - to repeat again - that what the brain does is more than mere computations (authority Godel).

I literally have nothing more to say and have said nothing more than this (three times now I think?).

I honestly do not see this going anywhere so I will decline. Bye

You are arguing against ghosts. I read first part of your response and stopped dead because you are (clearly unintentionally) making out either myself or Penrose has made such a claim.

Try reading/listening to his recent thought on this matter. To repeat, his position is (via Godel) that the brain does not merely ‘compute’ and that reason therefore dictates that something else is going on. When someone says they do not have an answer it does not mean they believe in fairies.

methodical and systematic findings of Science and the rules of Logic. — Nickolasgaspar

Then why are you disregarding both on your reply to me about Penrose? His thought is based PURELY on logic and known physical mechanisms.

You are also avoiding the main point he makes. Which is that conscious thought is non-computational. The problem is then about figuring out what could possibly be an answer to this - hence his original thought in Emperor’s Mind suggesting Quantum Mechanics.

If you do not like this idea that is your choice. Not liking something should not really be a singular guiding principle when tackling any complex problem.

I guess you just want to scream and shout and accuse others of X and Y when they do not even say that.

As for evidence … you want ‘evidence’ of what sort from a theoretical physicist exactly? Logical proofs? Exactly why do you think Penrose is some kind of woo woo wizard or something. Are you trying to embarrass yourself or just flying off the handle for no reason.

Either way, if that is your cool calm and collected response (that had a good deal of charity in it) then go bother everyone else but me with weird rants.

This is why I barely look on this site anymore … too many reactionary comments and responses.

Bye bye

But now we know that life is evolved complex chemistry. So consciousness is just the ability of certain organisms and that's completely a matter of definition and how we define the term and what we entail it to mean — Metamorphosis

Before you speak investigate how certain terms are used within given fields. ‘Consciousness’ is not regarded as you define above by anyone with some reasonable scientific background. You maybe mistyped? You mean ‘self-conscious’ above with is not ‘consciousness’.

Conscious states vary. In neuroscience ‘consciousness’ can mean slightly different things depending on what is being discussed. Generally ‘consciousness’ is some form ‘brain state’ of that encapsulates ‘dreaming’ whereas ‘being put under’ may sometimes be referred to as a non-conscious state.

Penrose simply states that the physical ‘mechanisms’ of the brain - as understood superficially - are more than mere computations. The problem then remains how is this can be . Penrose’s view on this is along the lines that Quantum Mechanics is (at its base) wrong.

The Emporer’s New Mind is a very, very old book. It is certainly not the best reference point to understand his current opinions on consciousness now.

He reveals his thinking process and ideas quite well in his exchange with Jordan Peterson. That might help some to understand what he is about.

Who are you talking to and how it is relevant?

I am guessing it is moe a case of you believing you see with your eyes … some basic attempt to study brain function may remove that idea.

I see things when I am asleep. Some people have defects where they cannot. Are you one of them?

That which we can question in some regard. That which cannot be questioned cannot be comprehended.

Sounds a lot like asking ‘What makes the light shine?’

People who’ve bee here a long time may get bored of the same old questions. Who doesn’t?

And soon you will be accused of navel gazing ;)

I just thought it was - as you put it - a ramble.

You basically end up asking a question that is more phenomenological in tone to my eyes. Take from that what you will. Semantics are tools of … just like consciousness is of … NOT some disembodied item, so to speak!

Real things are real. Things that are not real are real in the sense that they ate not real.

It is basically a semantic problem.

Everything that exists for me is due to consciousness of … I think what you may not have considered what he said was from a phenomenological stance rather than as a ontological or teleological one.

You will never know if you do not try.

Try thinking. It might help.

Destinations are a relatively modern human concept. Over the past couple of centuriess too this appears to be a rather weird concern of many … the ‘goal’ or ‘target’.

If someone is in need do what you can to help them if you feel inclined to do so.

Do the Welsh ask for reparations from the Italians? Do they demand that the profits from Parma ham be redistributed to Welsh ham makers.

As for colonialism I think it is a little bit silly to act like it was all brutal and oppressive with no benefits gained by colonised regions.

A good person with ‘bad money’ does good. A bad person with ‘good money’ does bad. Money does not care who handles it.

His good character remains intact. — Amity

:D Yes, many would disagree!

This guy and Streetlight are literally the two people who have been on this forum I had almost completely given up on.

You should perhaps check how they engage with others rather than assume because they agree with you and are reasonable to you that they are the same to others they have different opinions too.

Do not get me wrong lots of people act up sometimes (including myself). Generally though 90% of people can simply step away, rethink their approach or just avoid ‘derailing’ threads … lately this forum has seemed pretty poor on the quality front … maybe that frustrates some so much they just start taking it out on others? I have lost patience here for the most part lately due to people being plain lazy and simply voicing blind opinions as if they count for something.

Anyway, rant over :) Have fun here if you can.

He was full of empty opinions and probably just trolling. People like that should be banned. I have my own personal system for engaging with people here. He was on his last life with me and I am sure many others felt the same too.

Permanent bans do not stop people returning in another guise. If they return and change the way they engage with people then the ‘ban’ worked.

Bye bye. You literally have nothing to offer other than blind opinions.

What scandal? :D Seriously? :D

It is worth educating people. The reason I mentioned this was in response to something off topic that was also nonsense.

As for Bolsanaro … I doubt the ‘mob’ needed much riling given the amount of corruption in Brasil. The amount of money the government took as bribes not so long ago was astronomical and it does not surprise me that a good proportion of them do not believe Lula had no clue and are unhappy about him being elected.

It is up to Lula to steady the ship but I do not think the stain will go until he goes … even then it will take time. Scandals like that do not fade too quickly in people’s memories.

Like I said, I mentioned it because not many people know about with the primary focus being on US and British slave trade.

During this dark period of human history more slaves died in Brasil than everywhere else combined - so the estimations say - Considerably more. It is also believed around 40% of the slaves bound for the americas arrived in Brasil. Mostly men who were, if memory served me, typically castrated and/or worked to death - literally - then simply replaced by more men from Africa.

So if I was an african on a slave ship heading for the US I would have been far more likely to survive than those heading for Brasil.

Why? Many people do not realise how many died in Brasil. Or did you just think it was a ridiculous point?

Anything that destroys the lie of ‘patriotism’ suits me fine. The utter stupidity of ‘loving your country’ is plain silly. We are Earth peoples not peoples defined by imaginary borders with made up rules/laws to live by.

Should be haggis, whiskey and deep-fried heroin for that to work mate ;)

They are useful as a psychological tool. I have used them a few times.

Pretty sure you know this by the hints in the OP. The cards cab be interpreted in many, many ways and this allows the ‘reader’ to find out what they really think is best rather than merely they want to be true.

When I did a reading for one person the answer they saw was completely different to what I saw. I do think the technique works best for those emotionally invested because they really want to know what do regarding their question and so the unconscious mind presents itself.

If used seriously it works very well. If used for fun, or just causally, the results read are pretty random.

No. They are just perspectives not doctrines. No one has one simple view they adhere to in all circumstances and philosophical inquiries are about posing questions rather than seeking a path to follow.

The structures that govern teaching and nursing roles, their decision-making and rates of pay, however, are still determined according to demonstrations of control. — Possibility

I have no idea why you think that?

It is generally more simplistic. If you invest in ‘training’/‘educating’ then the pay off comes literally decade/s down the line. It is understandable why - in an economy based on profit - many people prefer to invest in what pays off next year/month/week rather than what pays off in 20 years or so … people have to eat and sustain themselves so the majority of what they have will be invested in tomorrow, next month/year rather than further down the line.

Of course the wealthy are more able to determine a better path for their children but overall the majority of people have to play in a system where they cannot pay their way out (in terms of better/best education possible).

Education is a tricky subject. Everyone has different ideas and governments tend to ignore what works in favour of what is already in place. Finland is the only country who did the sensible thing.