On 1 June 2018 at 22:37, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 6/1/2018 7:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> Physical theories of the brain, based on extensive empirical research, >>> have >>> linked the mind and consciousness to physical brain activity in >>> irrefutable >>> ways. >> >> The above statement is pseudoscience. Given that there is no >> scientific instrument that can detect consciousness, no empirical >> research on this question is possible at the moment. If you disagree, >> please provide references to publications that describe such an >> instrument. > > > The instrument used to detect consciousness is a body. You see if it acts > intelligently and reacts to the environment. You see if it responds to > stimuli. You may even look at fMRI or otherwise monitor brain activity. If > it was responsive earlier, you ask it if it remembers the period in which is > was unresponsive. You ask it if it feels as if time passed. > > Of course you will object that none of these directly detects consciousness > vs unconsciousness. But science doesn't directly detect quarks either.
My objection is deeper than the question of direct detection. To make your argument work you say that "science doesn't directly detect[...]". The problem with this claim is that science does not detect anything, science is a concept. Human being detect things, and they do it through the lens of their conscious experience. This places consciousness at a qualitatively different standing than quarks or any other object of scientific inquiry. What I claim is that there is no scientific instrument that can distinguish consciousness from non-consciousnes, because we don't even know what "non-cosnciousness" means. *All* scientific instruments detect consciousness, because consciousness must be present for *any sort of detection* to even occur. No scientific instrument detects consciousness on anyone but its user, directly OR indirectly. For this latter claim to be made, one must assume that consciousness and behavior are linked.There is overwhelming evidence that brain activity and memory formation are linked, and that brain activity and behavior are linked. For medical purposes, the consciousness-behavior assumption is very useful! I am very grateful for mother medicine, but we should not pretend that its operative assumptions solve the fundamental questions. Telmo. > We > work with reasonable hypothesis that are not contradicted by the evidence > and have predictive power. So the anesthesiologist will be able to predict > that you will be inert and unresponsive during the operation and you will > not remember any of it and will not even feel that time has passed. He will > also be able to predict that this can also be achieved by a strong blow to > the head... but not to the foot. > > Brent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
