• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

Myriad said:
Some behaviors can (under some conditions) result from either conscious or non-conscious thought. But I've never seen any evidence that behaviors such as building a shelter or learning a dance or a mutually wary meeting of strangers can occur without consciousness.
Click to expand...

But if the same behavior arises from both conscious and non-conscious thought, what would the evidence be?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
But if the same behavior arises from both conscious and non-conscious thought, what would the evidence be?
Click to expand...

One could say that, if the behaviour is the exact same for conscious and non-conscious entities, the concept of consciousness is superfluous (see p-zombies). But the behaviour isn't the same.
 
Belz... said:
I read it. It doesn't contradict what I said: psychology doesn't look at the workings of the brain, but at the behaviour of the person.
Click to expand...
...snip...
Here's the entirety of the sentence from that article: "Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought."

...snip...

So, Psychology is the primary field where these issues are discussed. Even the fields that overlap between neurology and neuroscience (neuropsychology, cognitive science) generally reside within the Psychology umbrella.

And it's not clear that we're going to need a full understanding of neurons, brain chemistry, or any other fully reductionist approach to brain structure to understand consciousness. If those us who think it's a side effect/emergent property of information processing are correct then consciousness likely won't depend on the substrate.

Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ian, you are correct in that we are all amateurs here, all doing what we can to convey concepts and ideas - and that we need to first come to a consensus on which words to use, and what those words mean.
I began with a basic model of experience as 'aware of x' - and so, let's begin with 'aware of' or 'awareness'.
I proposed a definition of 'awareness' as 'being present, being aware', based on a brief inspection of experience anyone can do. As examples, I am aware of a clock on the wall, I am aware of the solidity of my desk, etc. It also includes experiences such as I am happy, I am sad, etc. While we experience a diverse array of content and emotional states, 'being present, being aware' is our most intimate experience, and who we directly know ourselves to be.
Furthermore, awareness as 'being present, being aware' is not a concept, is not an idea we entertain, nor is it an object (of experience). Specifically, while I can assert "I am aware that I am aware", which appears circular or having multiple layers of awareness, yet the claim "I am aware that I am aware" is merely a semantic trick . . . our basic fundamental experience and who we know ourselves to be is 'being present, being aware'.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Here's the entirety of the sentence from that article: "Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought."
Click to expand...

Again, this fits right in with what I said. I'm not discounting any of that. I'm saying that the study of what qualia are should be in the domain of neurology, unless we're saying that qualia are philosophical constructs with no physical reality. Otherwise, please tell me how shrinks study qualia.

So, Psychology is the primary field where these issues are discussed.
Click to expand...

No argument there. It's still dumb.

And it's not clear that we're going to need a full understanding of neurons, brain chemistry, or any other fully reductionist approach to brain structure to understand consciousness.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. Consciousness originates in the physical brain. It's kind of required.
 
Belz... said:
I'm saying that the study of what qualia are should be in the domain of neurology, unless we're saying that qualia are philosophical constructs with no physical reality. Otherwise, please tell me how shrinks study qualia.
Click to expand...
So you read that sentence I quoted and come to the conclusion that psychologists only study things that aren't physically real? Like thought? ...snip...

You can read how "shrinks" study qualia. There are plenty of links about it now.

Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RecoveringYuppy said:
So you read that sentence I quoted and come to the conclusion that psychologists only study things that aren't physically real? Like thought?
Click to expand...

No.

You can read how "shrinks" study qualia. There are plenty of links about it now.
Click to expand...

I'm asking you to support the claim. How do they detect qualia? With what sort of equipment were they detected? Are there several types? What are they made of?
 
LarryS said:
Ian, you are correct in that we are all amateurs here, all doing what we can to convey concepts and ideas - and that we need to first come to a consensus on which words to use, and what those words mean.
I began with a basic model of experience as 'aware of x' - and so, let's begin with 'aware of' or 'awareness'.
I proposed a definition of 'awareness' as 'being present, being aware', based on a brief inspection of experience anyone can do. As examples, I am aware of a clock on the wall, I am aware of the solidity of my desk, etc. It also includes experiences such as I am happy, I am sad, etc. While we experience a diverse array of content and emotional states, 'being present, being aware' is our most intimate experience, and who we directly know ourselves to be.
Furthermore, awareness as 'being present, being aware' is not a concept, is not an idea we entertain, nor is it an object (of experience). Specifically, while I can assert "I am aware that I am aware", which appears circular or having multiple layers of awareness, yet the claim "I am aware that I am aware" is merely a semantic trick . . . our basic fundamental experience and who we know ourselves to be is 'being present, being aware'.
Click to expand...


Without going one-by-one through each of your statements, because apart from anything else I think they are all repeats of the same explanation using different words each time (that's fine, you are trying to explain in a variety of different words, what you mean when you say things), let's just take those first two highighred parts (because that's all we need) -

1. when you say "I proposed a definition of 'awareness' as 'being present, being aware" ... you cannot define "awareness by saying it is "being aware". And it does not help at all to add the word "present" ... however, you do not even have to do anything so precise as "defining it" (I don't think I have ever asked anyone on this site to define anything) ... I was just asking you for the far simpler explanation of merely describing whatever was manifest in your thoughts such that you would describe that manifestation as being "aware" of something, i.e. being "conscious" of anything.

2. to take the second highlight where you say "I am aware of a clock on the wall" ... how do you know that you are aware of any clock on any wall? ... what sensation or effect occurs in your mind to make you say "I am now aware of that clock"? ... for example, does it seem in your mind that you see a visual image of a clock on an wall?
 
Belz... said:
I read it. It doesn't contradict what I said: psychology doesn't look at the workings of the brain, but at the behaviour of the person. If you want to study brain chemistry, structure or the action of neurons, you don't need a shrink.
Click to expand...

RecoveringYuppy said:
...snip...

Here's the entirety of the sentence from that article: "Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought."

...snip...

So, Psychology is the primary field where these issues are discussed. Even the fields that overlap between neurology and neuroscience (neuropsychology, cognitive science) generally reside within the Psychology umbrella.

And it's not clear that we're going to need a full understanding of neurons, brain chemistry, or any other fully reductionist approach to brain structure to understand consciousness. If those us who think it's a side effect/emergent property of information processing are correct then consciousness likely won't depend on the substrate.
Click to expand...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Moderated content redacted.


I do not see any reference to the physical brain in your links. I agree that psychology is an area where the linked items are discussed. Discussion alone will not provide answers to how the brain works to produce consciousness. What some people think provided no evidence at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LarryS said:
I began with a basic model of experience as 'aware of x' - and so, let's begin with 'aware of' or 'awareness'.
I proposed a definition of 'awareness' as 'being present, being aware', based on a brief inspection of experience anyone can do. As examples, I am aware of a clock on the wall, I am aware of the solidity of my desk, etc.
Click to expand...

But you have repeatedly claimed you don't believe in clocks, or desks, or the property of being solid. You say they're all part of your/our/everyone's imagination.
 
Belz... said:
That's great, but it doesn't tell me how these qualia are detected by science.
Click to expand...
...snip...

Just for the record: One of the fundamental points from "my side" of this argument is that qualia aren't easy to study. Some aspects might even be fundamentally impossible. That's one of the major themes in this thread. Even mentioned just this morning a few posts back.

Belz... said:
There's nothing in any of those wiki articles on the evidence for qualia. In fact, wikipedia is quite clear that qualia are hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Then your reading comprehension is still failing you. And you don't even have to read beyond this thread to find evidence for qualia. The blind sight phenomena is as good as it gets.

Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RecoveringYuppy said:
Just for the record: One of the fundamental points from "my side" of this argument is that qualia aren't easy to study.
Click to expand...

I'll say, given that they haven't been shown to exist yet. I'll take this as an admission that they are, in fact, undetected and entirely hypothetical, as I already knew.

And you don't even have to read beyond this thread to find evidence for qualia. The blind sight phenomena is as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

You don't need qualia for that. Electrical signals are quite sufficient. The concept is simply redundant, neurologically speaking.
 
Belz... said:
Well that proves it!

This is just as convincing as the creation museum using people in lab coats to lend them credibility.

How are qualia detected?
Click to expand...
Another reading comprehension fail. Read the post I'm replying to. It isn't about qualia at all.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
But you have repeatedly claimed you don't believe in clocks, or desks, or the property of being solid. You say they're all part of your/our/everyone's imagination.
Click to expand...

I have never claimed that clocks and etc. aren't real, nor have I claimed they are a product of your/our/everyone's imagination. There is a strong bias in this thread, and which is reinforced by the semantics of our language (as in an expression such as I see the tree)- - - that if anyone claims there is no evidence of a physical reality, and that experience occurs in awareness; then that means that the reality which is being proposed is somehow less real, or a product of imagination. This is a bias people bring to the conversation, not a claim I am making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom