Consciousness

[cladking]

This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda,

You sure do try to get a lot mileage out of these words.

 

[cladking]

You actually have not expressed any knowledge of science the whole time you have posted.

The only reason you don't see science is that you mistake theory for reality and the current paradigm for truth.

 

[cladking]

Here we disagree. We may feel consciousness and intelligence is personal,but that is an egocentric view of what are natural evolved attributes of complex evolved nervous systems.

OMG!

And here I had believed things like "species" were taxonomies or abstractions and now days some believe they have physical palpable existence.

My statement stands: "You cannot just 'think about' consciousness and come up with a competent consistent explanation."

All theory that ever existed in every species including homo omniscience was just "thought up" by an individual. There are no possible exceptions at this time. This is not only patently obvious but in a sense underlies my theory. Reality exists! It is highly complex and attempts to understand reality through reductionistic science will never be wholly successful. We can only understand reality one experiment at a time and no experiment has ever been done on "consciousness" and none are possible until a definition exists.

We do not directly observe reality. It must be reduced through experiment which is the result of individual thought as well.

 

[RestlessSoul]

David Chalmers was a philosopher and not a neuroscientists. The way philosophers and scientist think is different.

Ah! Here comes the rub. That is not scientific.

Chalmers, for the record, is a professor of philosophy and neuroscience.

 

[shunyadragon]

You sure do try to get a lot mileage out of these words.

This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda,

 

[shunyadragon]

OMG!

And here I had believed things like "species" were taxonomies or abstractions and now days some believe they have physical palpable existence.



All theory that ever existed in every species including homo omniscience was just "thought up" by an individual. There are no possible exceptions at this time. This is not only patently obvious but in a sense underlies my theory. Reality exists! It is highly complex and attempts to understand reality through reductionistic science will never be wholly successful. We can only understand reality one experiment at a time and no experiment has ever been done on "consciousness" and none are possible until a definition exists.

We do not directly observe reality. It must be reduced through experiment which is the result of individual thought as well.

This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda without science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The only reason you don't see science is that you mistake theory for reality and the current paradigm for truth.

This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda without science,

 

[shunyadragon]

This - what I had highlighted in bold - sounds something more wishy-washy that I come to expect from one of those woo-woo philosophies or religions.

The “woo-woo” I was referring to, are those who believe that consciousness are more mythological, supernatural or paranormal or of the occult. Such consciousness doesn’t exist in reality, except in the imagination of the creative mind, or at worse, in delusions.

with sciences, at least, you can weed out the crazy woo-woo.

But there are (at least) two main aspects to science, in regards to consciousness:

1. The “physical processes” that you had referred to, is biology and biology-related field, eg neuroscience. Biology falls under the Natural Sciences.
2. The 2nd aspect is the psychological field, but this only focused on human consciousness with regards to human psyche or emotion (behaviour), which falls under the umbrella of “Social Sciences”.

Psychology, like most sciences in Social Sciences (eg sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc) are often referred to as “soft science”, because it doesn’t require to follow the standard of Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is required for physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy and biology, for any hypothesis to be considered as science or “scientific theory”.

Now, you can be dismissive of the physical processes of consciousness, but you are ignoring the facts that humans are not the only living organisms. Plus, there are observable & testable evidence for organisms with consciousness that don't exist with philosophical or religious assumptions/claims.

And I agreed with @shunyadragon that animals do require complex central nervous system (eg brain, spinal cord), to have consciousness. Only vertebrates (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds & mammals) and some invertebrates, such as arthropods (eg spiders, insects, marine arthropods) and cephalopods (eg octopuses, squids, etc).

But the rest of invertebrates, may have some nerves, but no brain, but instead of nerve tissues these animals have nerve net, eg corals, sea anemones, jelly fishes, hydra, etc.

Then there are some invertebrates that have no nerve whatsoever, eg sponges.

whether these invertebrates without brains, have consciousness, would seem highly doubtful.

One correction. Cephalopods like the octopus do not have a central nervous system with a spinal cord like other animals. They evolved a complex nervous system separate from the evolution of animals with a brain and spinal cord central nervous system.

The completely separate evolution of cephalopods such as the octopus from other animals is among the best evidence for the natural evolution of consciousness and intelligence.

 

[gnostic]

One correction. Cephalopods like the octopus do not have a central nervous system with a spinal cord like other animals. They evolved a complex nervous system separate from the evolution of animals with a brain and spinal cord central nervous system.

The completely separate evolution of cephalopods such as the octopus from other animals is among the best evidence for the natural evolution of consciousness and intelligence.

Thanks.

 

[Yerda]

The best evidence is the difference in consciousness and intelligence as nervous systems become more complex with the attributes of consciousness and intelligence evolves. Differences con be dramatic such as those animals that have secondary consciousness, languages and greater intelligence and those that do not, or they may be subtle as between homosapians and our nacestors Neanderthals and others. Our tribal self-awareness and intelligence was greater in more diverse and cooperative hunting, forming larger tribal units.

Sure, but this doesn't give us any insight into what it is about the nervous system that allows it to do this.

Nervous sysyems can do something that results in us having experiences. Agreed?

You are unfortunately asking an open ended philosophical question 'why? for a scientific outcome of cause and effect relationships in the neurological function of the human and other higher animals nervous system. The best answer is as with the progressive evolution of the nervous system including the brain there is survival value in the neurological attributes of consciousness and intelligence.

Maybe. Anyway, interesting thread.

 

[Copernicus]

David Chalmers was a philosopher and not a neuroscientists. The way philosophers and scientist think is different.

Chalmers, for the record, is a professor of philosophy and neuroscience.

Scientists actually do engage in philosophical interpretations of their work, and they sometimes come up with bad metaphors to describe good science. I am thinking particularly of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a metaphorical interpretation imposed on observations of quantum indeterminacy by brilliant physicists such as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and several others. It used to be the consensus interpretation of physicists, but there are now serious contenders for alternative interpretations. Philosophers tend to be pretty good critics of philosophical interpretations of science, so I think it is a mistake to dismiss what philosophers have to say about science and vice versa. Rather, it is worth reading cross-disciplinary discussions on the subject.

Regarding consciousness, there continues to be a lot of disagreement in this thread over precisely how to define it, and that's because common usage defines word means, but most English speakers don't have any special expertise on how nervous systems or biology works. So it is to be expected that those of us who don't have any special expertise or training in the cognitive sciences will find it easy to agree on just how to understand the nature of consciousness. As someone who has worked in the cross-disciplinary field know as cognitive science, I am not surprised to see people getting frustrated with each other over the subject matter. Consciousness cannot be reduced to a study of just the brain or brain functions, but neuroscience and psychology have a lot to contribute to the nature of all those different aspects of cognition that we refer to under the vague umbrella term "consciousness". I think of it as an emergent systemic effect of ongoing brain activity, and I would seek to define it physically in terms of types of interactions between autonomous human/animal bodies navigating in their physical environment. In that sense, I subscribe to the much maligned metaphorical description of human beings as "fleshy robots". And there is no reason I can think of why such intelligent robots need to actually be made out of flesh.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Chalmers, for the record, is a professor of philosophy and neuroscience.

His Ph.D. is in Philosophy and not in Neuroscience. NYU should have been clear about constitution of the department. IMHO, they err.
They have burdened Philosophy with Neuroscience and Neuroscience with Philosophy.

Consciousness cannot be reduced to a study of just the brain or brain functions, but neuroscience and psychology have a lot to contribute to the nature of all those different aspects of cognition that we refer to under the vague umbrella term "consciousness".

Psychology is a science. It is empirical and can be interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

Psychological research - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RestlessSoul]

His Ph.D. is in Philosophy and not in Neuroscience. NYU should have been clear about constitution of the department. IMHO, they err.
They have burdened Philosophy with Neuroscience and Neuroscience with Philosophy.

Psychology is a science. It is empirical and can be interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

Psychological research - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chalmers Phd is in Philosophy and Cognitive science.

 

[Copernicus]

Psychology is a science. It is empirical and can be interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

Yes, Aup, and I have never said it wasn't. Not sure why you would be telling me this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Scientists actually do engage in philosophical interpretations of their work, and they sometimes come up with bad metaphors to describe good science. I am thinking particularly of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a metaphorical interpretation imposed on observations of quantum indeterminacy by brilliant physicists such as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and several others. It used to be the consensus interpretation of physicists, but there are now serious contenders for alternative interpretations. Philosophers tend to be pretty good critics of philosophical interpretations of science, so I think it is a mistake to dismiss what philosophers have to say about science and vice versa. Rather, it is worth reading cross-disciplinary discussions on the subject.

Regarding consciousness, there continues to be a lot of disagreement in this thread over precisely how to define it, and that's because common usage defines word means, but most English speakers don't have any special expertise on how nervous systems or biology works. So it is to be expected that those of us who don't have any special expertise or training in the cognitive sciences will find it easy to agree on just how to understand the nature of consciousness. As someone who has worked in the cross-disciplinary field know as cognitive science, I am not surprised to see people getting frustrated with each other over the subject matter. Consciousness cannot be reduced to a study of just the brain or brain functions, but neuroscience and psychology have a lot to contribute to the nature of all those different aspects of cognition that we refer to under the vague umbrella term "consciousness". I think of it as an emergent systemic effect of ongoing brain activity, and I would seek to define it physically in terms of types of interactions between autonomous human/animal bodies navigating in their physical environment. In that sense, I subscribe to the much maligned metaphorical description of human beings as "fleshy robots". And there is no reason I can think of why such intelligent robots need to actually be made out of flesh.

We agree. To me the problem is in effect that we can't elimitate subjectivity in effect and some try to make the universe objective and physical. And that includes processes in a brain for which in effect some are subjective, yet physical.
In other words it is metaphysics and ontology that is the problem in the end.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Scientists actually do engage in philosophical interpretations of their work, and they sometimes come up with bad metaphors to describe good science. I am thinking particularly of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a metaphorical interpretation imposed on observations of quantum indeterminacy by brilliant physicists such as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and several others. It used to be the consensus interpretation of physicists, but there are now serious contenders for alternative interpretations. Philosophers tend to be pretty good critics of philosophical interpretations of science, so I think it is a mistake to dismiss what philosophers have to say about science and vice versa. Rather, it is worth reading cross-disciplinary discussions on the subject.

Regarding consciousness, there continues to be a lot of disagreement in this thread over precisely how to define it, and that's because common usage defines word means, but most English speakers don't have any special expertise on how nervous systems or biology works. So it is to be expected that those of us who don't have any special expertise or training in the cognitive sciences will find it easy to agree on just how to understand the nature of consciousness. As someone who has worked in the cross-disciplinary field know as cognitive science, I am not surprised to see people getting frustrated with each other over the subject matter. Consciousness cannot be reduced to a study of just the brain or brain functions, but neuroscience and psychology have a lot to contribute to the nature of all those different aspects of cognition that we refer to under the vague umbrella term "consciousness". I think of it as an emergent systemic effect of ongoing brain activity, and I would seek to define it physically in terms of types of interactions between autonomous human/animal bodies navigating in their physical environment. In that sense, I subscribe to the much maligned metaphorical description of human beings as "fleshy robots". And there is no reason I can think of why such intelligent robots need to actually be made out of flesh.

Bohr and Copenhagenists attempted to sidestep philosophical considerations, by refusing to offer an ontology for QM. Just taking this utilitarian approach however, necessarily meant adopting a philosophical position, one closely related to the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle.

In any case, the Copenhagenist approach did not survive the subsequent generations of quantum physicists who refused the admonition to “shut up and calculate.” Arguing over the ontological implications of QM has occupied physicists and philosophers ever since. Often, they are the same people; Abner Shimony was just finishing his PhD in philosophy at Yale, when he read Max Born’s Natural Philosophy of Cause and Effect and decided he had to take a second doctorate in theoretical physics.

The discipline we now call physics was, in Newton’s day, referred to as natural philosophy, so it should be no surprise that there continues to be considerable overlap between the two fields of enquiry.

 

[shunyadragon]

We agree. To me the problem is in effect that we can't eliminate subjectivity in effect and some try to make the universe objective and physical. And that includes processes in a brain for which in effect some are subjective, yet physical.
In other words it is metaphysics and ontology that is the problem in the end.

I am not sure you understood entirely with his post. I do not think he agrees with your extreme view of subjectivity in science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not sure you understood entirely with his post. I do not think he agrees with your extreme view of subjectivity in science.

Yeah, I know. And I don't care for your belief system of what science is. Your beliefs are objectively worthless.
My beliefs are nihilism and yours are worthless. And that is objectively true in both cases.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Aup, and I have never said it wasn't. Not sure why you would be telling me this.

Some people think Psychology is woo.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, I know. And I don't care for your belief system of what science is. Your beliefs are objectively worthless.
My beliefs are nihilism and yours are worthless. And that is objectively true in both cases.

We agree. To me the problem is in effect that we can't eliminate subjectivity in effect and some try to make the universe objective and physical. And that includes processes in a brain for which in effect some are subjective, yet physical.
In other words it is metaphysics and ontology that is the problem in the end.

All subjectivity is erased when we accept non-duality of Brahman, i.e., 'what exists'. If it was 'nihilism, we would not have been discussing this here. (That is where I differ from Buddha)
Not sure about it, but perhaps Brahman has a non-existant phase.