On 3 June 2018 at 13:10, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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,
I meant "modern 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.
