11–20 of 216 posts
Is there any proof of this? The while article seems to hinge on this assumption and then go on from there. We can't see or measure consciousness (brain activity yes, consciousness no). We only experience it. The article makes far to many naive assumptions without any proof.
i'm struggling to identify the point of the article. mystery and matter have never been mutually exclusive. depending on it's configuration, matter can lead to some mysterious things. "it's matter" is a bad answer to pretty much every question.
The point I got is this: Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness doesn't mean there isn't one. Furthermore, it is the physical part that is the big mystery, rather than the consciousness part.
> Those who make the Very Large Mistake (of thinking they know enough about the nature of the physical to know that consciousness can’t be physical) tend to split into two groups. Members of the first group remain unshaken in their belief that consciousness exists, and conclude that there must be some sort of nonphysical stuff: They tend to become “dualists.” Members of the second group, passionately committed to the…
> What's problematic about the "say no to consciousness" case? It denies the most fundamental fact of human experience, the existence of that experience itself.
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?l...
> Those who make the Very Large Mistake (of thinking they know enough about the nature of the physical to know that consciousness can’t be physical) tend to split into two groups. Members of the first group remain unshaken in their belief that consciousness exists, and conclude that there must be some sort of nonphysical stuff: They tend to become “dualists.” Members of the second group, passionately committed to the…
Because the description of brain activity does not capture the experience of being an active brain. The scientific picture of the world is odorless, tasteless, colorless, soundless, etc. It's an abstract, mathematical description. But we don't experience the world that way. There is a massive discrepancy between the two. That's consciousness.
I'll settle for that.
It's analogous to: What is Artificial Intelligence? AS is what computers can't do yet.
Edit red to add: to put it another way, consciousness is that part of brain activity the text books don't have a chapter on.
We can only point to what consciousness is not.
> Those who make the Very Large Mistake (of thinking they know enough about the nature of the physical to know that consciousness can’t be physical) tend to split into two groups. Members of the first group remain unshaken in their belief that consciousness exists, and conclude that there must be some sort of nonphysical stuff: They tend to become “dualists.” Members of the second group, passionately committed to the…
> What's problematic about the "say no to consciousness" case? It denies the most fundamental fact of human experience, the existence of that experience itself.
How does "saying no to consciousness" deny "the existence of the human experience"? If you were talking about brain denial, then I would have to agree. It seems fully possible for the brain to continue to do interesting things even if "consciousness" turns out to be false. Thankfully it's nonfalsifiable apparently....
i'm struggling to identify the point of the article. mystery and matter have never been mutually exclusive. depending on it's configuration, matter can lead to some mysterious things. "it's matter" is a bad answer to pretty much every question.
The point I got is this: Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness doesn't mean there isn't one. Furthermore, it is the physical part that is the big mystery, rather than the consciousness part.
didn't Descartes try to explain this hundreds of years ago?
> it is the physical part that is the big mystery, rather than the consciousness part.
you say tomato, i say tomato. seems like the author is trying to mince words or use people's connotations of these words to start an argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point I got is this: Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness doesn't mean there isn't one. Furthermore, it is the physical part that is the big mystery, rather than the consciousness part.
Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness it seems quite unwise to assume that it is without any evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point I got is this: Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness doesn't mean there isn't one. Furthermore, it is the physical part that is the big mystery, rather than the consciousness part.
> Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness doesn't mean there isn't one. didn't Descartes try to explain this hundreds of years ago? > it is the physical part that is the big mystery, rather than the consciousness part. you say tomato, i say tomato. seems like the author is trying to mince words or use people's connotations of these words to start an argument.
Basically, our conceptual understanding is lacking. But dualists or idealists might say the same thing, so ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's problematic about the "say no to consciousness" case? It denies the most fundamental fact of human experience, the existence of that experience itself.
> It denies the most fundamental fact of human experience, the existence of that experience itself. How does "saying no to consciousness" deny "the existence of the human experience"? If you were talking about brain denial, then I would have to agree. It seems fully possible for the brain to continue to do interesting things even if "consciousness" turns out to be false. Thankfully it's nonfalsifiable apparently....
Some people try to define "consciousness" as something other than "subjective experience" but doing so is really just evading the "hard question".