On 25 Apr 2012, at 20:41, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
A link from the Consciousness group on Facebook
We're closing in on consciousness in the brain
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428605.900-were-closing-in-on-consciousness-in-the-brain.html
"Brain "observatories" may solve the puzzle of how material brains
create an intangible world of love, colour, taste and fantasy, says
Christof Koch"
So, the people who correlate are already going to close the problem.
This would contradict UDA. They might find interesting correlations,
but they do not address the hard problem. Indeed they are not even
aware that comp, which they use implicitly, introduced an hard matter
problem which needs to be solved before the hard problem of
consciousness.
Bruno
This is the original Facebook link
http://www.facebook.com/groups/rks.consciousness/10150829992540115/
Evgenii
On 24.04.2012 22:03 David Nyman said the following:
On 24 April 2012 20:07, Craig Weinberg<whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
I still don't see how calling it a mirage or illusion gets around
the hard
problem at all. A mirage to whom? Why or how is it there at all? For
me the issue was never the veracity of the content of consciousness
compared to external measurements, it is that there can be any
content
in the first place.
Yes, but her position is that empirical science has no purchase on
the
latter question (that's why it's Hard), but may be able to make
progress on correlating brain activity with conscious states, and in
the process perhaps re-describe either or both sides of the coin in
helpful ways. I recently read an interesting interview with Patricia
Churchland - pretty much universally regarded as the High Priestess
of
Denialism with respect to consciousness - and she vigorously rejected
the idea that she had ever sought to do any such thing. In fact, she
and Paul now regret ever adopting the sobriquet "eliminative
materialism", which she attributes to Richard Rorty (a bloody
philosopher!). Again, the Churchlands' project, like Blakemore's, is
correlation and categorisation, not metaphysics. Trouble is, as you
say, if you've got Deepak Chopra in the other chair, the conversation
is apt to get somewhat polarised. But, political posturing aside,
away from the public gaze there is often lot more doubt than the
slogans would suggest.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
