Brain / Consciousness debate and age (please answer poll for psychological research)

[1137]

Having seen the graph I suspect a pending result.
Younger people can't see beyond their bodies.
They are caught up in the 'spirit' of living.

Older people like myself are moving to that last breath.
and more than hoping, awareness is more than breath.

I think that's kind of right. Young people want to know about the world, understand it, find their place in it. The closer you get to your last breath then the more you seek peace of mind, emotional satisfaction, ecetera.

 

[idav]

Betweeen 31 and 40 and voted physical causes.

If non-physical was replaced with meta-physical there would hardly be a distinction. There may be a non-emperical side to nature but it can still be covered by physics.

 

[idav]

I think that's kind of right. Young people want to know about the world, understand it, find their place in it. The closer you get to your last breath then the more you seek peace of mind, emotional satisfaction, ecetera.

Would older people have changed their answers from younger days? Change in the amount of knowledge between generations scews it.

 

[1137]

Would older people have changed their answers from younger days? Change in the amount of knowledge between generations scews it.

That a good question. As I said it was just a random hypothesis that popped into my head. It certainly wasn't sound though just from putting more thought into it.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I find it difficult to answer the poll.

I think consciousness is the cause, rather than caused

 

[Twilight Hue]

Could someone explain what consciousness has to do with age?

 

[technomage]

Could someone explain what consciousness has to do with age?

TDoP is not looking at consciousness specifically. He is examining how attitudes towards consciousness change with age.

 

[Twilight Hue]

TDoP is not looking at consciousness specifically. He is examining how attitudes towards consciousness change with age.

Tx. :0)

 

[1137]

TDoP is not looking at consciousness specifically. He is examining how attitudes towards consciousness change with age.

Thanks!

 

[fantome profane]

TDoP is not looking at consciousness specifically. He is examining how attitudes towards consciousness change with age.

But does this data reflect a changing attitude in the individual as they age, or does it reflect a difference in attitude from one generation to the next? Or does it show neither?

Perhaps the question needs to be asked is "Are you more or less accepting of a natural cause for consciousness now then you were when you younger?"

 

[technomage]

But does this data reflect a changing attitude in the individual as they age, or does it reflect a difference in attitude from one generation to the next? Or does it show neither?

Several problems have already been noticed with the hypothesis, including the recent advances in knowledge of neuroscience, a non-0random sample, and most likely a sample too small to be statistically significant. TDoP has already noted these, but I would assume at that point, already knowing the test to be flawed, he didn't keep considering more flaws.

Once you know the stick is broken in at least three places, checking for a fourth is a bit unnecessary.

 

[1137]

But does this data reflect a changing attitude in the individual as they age, or does it reflect a difference in attitude from one generation to the next? Or does it show neither?

Perhaps the question needs to be asked is "Are you more or less accepting of a natural cause for consciousness now then you were when you younger?"

You are correct, I went about it poorly.

 

[1137]

Several problems have already been noticed with the hypothesis, including the recent advances in knowledge of neuroscience, a non-0random sample, and most likely a sample too small to be statistically significant. TDoP has already noted these, but I would assume at that point, already knowing the test to be flawed, he didn't keep considering more flaws.

Once you know the stick is broken in at least three places, checking for a fourth is a bit unnecessary.

It's the problem with forums - regular life takes priority and sometimes you just rush ideas out. With the feedback and such I may try to formulate a better survey on the topic, since my interest is peeked.

 

[technomage]

You are correct, I went about it poorly.

Spur-of-the-moment idea, quick-and-dirty hypothesis, off-the-cuff test. Heck, TDoP, at least you were actually doing SCIENCE, even if this example wasn't terribly rigorous.

Don't sweat it.

Or, if you're a fan of Dresden Codak:

 

[Quintessence]

You know, it occurs to me that if you're interested in this topic, you can poke around PEW Research and see if it's been done already. It wouldn't surprise me. Or you can contact them directly and propose the project, because they have the resources and expertise to do a proper study.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is the evidence in favor of it being non-physical?

 

[1137]

What is the evidence in favor of it being non-physical?

None

 

[technomage]

What is the evidence in favor of it being non-physical?

How do you define evidence?

Let us propose (just for the sake of the discussion, mind you) that there _was_ a non-naturalistic component to thought.

What tools would you use to learn about, or even to discern, that non-natural component?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How do you define evidence?

Let us propose (just for the sake of the discussion, mind you) that there _was_ a non-naturalistic component to thought.

What tools would you use to learn about, or even to discern, that non-natural component?

We wouldn't be able to with the tools we have now. People don't seem to realize that modern science isn't all that old. We've only had modern technological equipment for less than a century. We don't have a way to detect or explore other possible universes but that doesn't stop multiverse theory from being very popular. With technological instruments, anyway; some would say shamans have been exploring these different realms for thousands of years. The Human Genome Project only started in the late '80s/early '90s and of course there's still a lot that's unknown about that. The brain is still largely an unknown in various areas. We don't even have a concrete definition of what consciousness is. We have different theories about it and different definitions. There's also quite interesting theories such as holographic universe theory and digital physics which throw our entire view of "objective reality" into a tizzy. Of course, there's also the weirdness coming from quantum physics where physics breaks down at a certain level. So to act like this debate is settled is rather silly. Talk about jumping the gun. Who knows what technologies we will have in the future? Surely it will make what is available to us now seem like something out of the Stone Age.

 

[nazz]

How do you define evidence?

Let us propose (just for the sake of the discussion, mind you) that there _was_ a non-naturalistic component to thought.

What tools would you use to learn about, or even to discern, that non-natural component?

I need no tools. I experience it directly every conscious moment.