Now that neurologists know what consciousness is, where it is, and how it is, I guess it won’t be long before they go into into a lab and create one.
Let’s see: One part living tissue, two parts electricity, and a dash of physical elements. Heat it up for a couple billion years and let it cool to 98 degrees. Yup that should do it. — Joe Mello
Let’s see: One part living tissue, two parts electricity, and a dash of physical elements. Heat it up for a couple billion years and let it cool to 98 degrees. Yup that should do it — Joe Mello
There you go again, slandering your fellow "denizens". Is that your idea of a philosophical argument? — Gnomon
So, you place Scientists & Philosophers into the same professional category? Do you make no distinction? Do you hold philosophers to the same standards of evidence as scientists? Is Psychology a scientific endeavor, even though it produces no empirical results of its own? Do you think we are supposed to be doing Science on this forum? Do you have formal training as a Scientist or Philosopher? — Gnomon
As usual, you missed the point. Did Einstein "validate" his own "claims". How do you define the job of a philosopher? Are we doing science on this forum? Like Einstein, I am skeptical of those who make knowledge claims of Incontrovertible Truth. Unlike wise old Albert, I am not skeptical of Quantum Entanglement . . . are you? — Gnomon
You make such broad general allegations as-if Science is a canonical Bible, but you don't cite book, chapter & verse. Can you be more specific about a particular "unequivocal" Fact of Science that I've "disregarded". What evidence has been "Suppressed". Do you think the general consensus of science is Final canonical Truth. Where is it written . . . . . . ? — Gnomon
I think some in the neuroscience field use terms like data and computation because they mistakenly believe that's how the brain works. It's the same conceptual error as with the term "information".
Others are aware that the terms are being used metaphorically, heuristically. — Daemon
Gosh! I recently read a fascinating book, The Idea of the Brain, The Past and Future of Neuroscience, by Matthew Cobb. The modern scientists Cobb discusses seemed to be talking about many different aspects of consciousness, not just the wakefulness and attention you are focused on.
I'm afraid Cobb isn't too impressed by Global Workspace Theory or Integrated Information Theory though. He says neither is widely accepted! — Daemon
He quotes French neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene, who has followed on from the ideas of Bernard Baars in developing global neuronal workspace theory: "consciousness is nothing but the flexible circulation of information within a dense switchboard of cortical neurons."
As Cobb comments, '"nothing but" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, and the theory does not explain why flexible and dense circulation of information causes consciousness to pop up.' — Daemon
On ITT Cobb says "Again, the link between consciousness and the chosen focus of the theory - in this case integration of information - is unclear. — Daemon
I actually wouldn't find this to be suprising to found out is quite literally the case — Garrett Travers
I'm afraid Cobb isn't too impressed by Global Workspace Theory or Integrated Information Theory though. He says neither is widely accepted!
— Daemon
This is simply not the case. Did you read the paper I sent you? It's the leading theory. — Garrett Travers
If you know how the brain works you see that there is no computation at all in the brain. Even when you mentally perform a calculation. Computation and processing data is a human invention. Evidence on my side here. — EugeneW
No — Garrett Travers
And there is no explanation what it actually is. — EugeneW
Never. — EugeneW
But such a process is not an explanation for the smell, in the sense that it tells what a smell is. Only the smell experience can tell you that. And there is no explanation what it actually is. — EugeneW
Such a claim is necessarily unfalsifiable and hence is not a scientific claim at all (pace Popper). — Janus
What's between you and falsifiability? — EugeneW
However, that does not negate the falsifiable science that has been done, which has revealed the important elements of consciousness I have expounded upon here. — Garrett Travers
then we should be prepared to drop the notion of moral responsibility and deserved punishment, as opposed to necessary restraint, altogether. — Janus
This is still something that doesn't makes. Moral culpability comes from the fact that we can conceptualize the nature of our actions, inhibit or initiate behavior, refine behavior, and make choices. It does not matter if it is natural. All is not permitted if we are naturally created. — Garrett Travers
What I have found missing form your account and the papers you've linked any coherent and convincing account of how to make a principled distinction between an inexorably unfolding neural process and any other causal process. — Janus
Also, I have never encountered a coherent and convincing account of how our normal notion (the one our legal system and the common moral judgements of people are based upon) of moral responsibility could be compatible with the idea that we cannot in any sense really be causa sui moral agents.
Now maybe we cannot help thinking in terms of moral responsibility and deserved punishment because that is way the brain (mind) has co-evolved with culture, and the needs of communities, but if determinism is the case then it would seem to follow that thinking that way is a kind of necessary illusion.
Of course all is not permitted in any case just because societies cannot permit any and all behavior. — Janus
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.