On 3 June 2018 at 23:01, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 6/3/2018 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 1 June 2018 at 22:37, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> 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. > > > That's your consciousness which you detect directly (although some dispute > even that).
I know, I was kind of being a smartass. > But the object of scientific inquiry is consciousness as it can > be described, explained, caused, designed in ways that we can > intersubjectively agree on. I agree. >> >> 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. > > > The "indirectly" is simply false. As any emergency medical technician can > attest. When you and me talk about quarks, we are both pointing to an object that we cannot see, but that is a model that makes sense of observations that we can both confirm. We are on equal footing. When we are talking about consciousness, we are talking about the very thing that we "observe with". Everything. I argue that you don't fully appreciate the qualitative difference between these two things, and the profound implications of these differences when it comes to attempting to make sense of reality. The emergency medical technician can detect things that are correlated with behavior, and which are connected to causal mechanisms of behavior that are more or less understood. I insist: we appear to have no way of knowing the boundaries of the consciousness phenomenon. Panpshyschists hold that everything is conscious. Dennett argues that nothing is. Emergentists believe that brains are conscious, but do not know at what level of complexity they become conscious. This is the problem: what you allude to is useful for medicine, but not terribly valuable for our discussion. >> 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. > > > What fundamental question do you refer to? How to detect consciousness? > How to produce consciousness? How to prove (in the empirical sense) that > consciousness is linked to brain activity? That's my concern, that one just > throws up things that are syntactically questions but with no thought as to > what might constitute an answer. I understand your concern. I will just tell you what my main curiosities are: - Why does consciousness even exist? Darwinism does not seem to require it. - What is the relationship between consciousness and matter? - Is there a reality that is external to conscious perception? > My view is scientifically speaking we never know anything "fundamental" and > the search for it is like the hunting of the snark. We seek theories with > more scope and more accuracy, but being "more fundamental" doesn't entail > that something is most fundamental. Mystics like Bruno postulate something > and then build structures on it which, by some (often small) agreement with > experience, PROVE their postulates. But as Feynman used to point out, this > is Greek mathematics. Science is like Persian mathematics in which the > mathematician seeks to identify all the possible axiom sets that entail the > observations. I tend to agree that scientifically we never know anything fundamental. I do believe that it is possible to use reason to acquire knowledge by means that are not the scientific method. I am certain that I possess knowledge that was not acquired by scientific means, for example I know how it feels to be me. Even if my metaphysical obsessions are a fool's errand, I do think it is valuable to know where the boundaries of scientific knowledge are, and be humble enough to recognize them. I feel that a lot of resistance to this stuff comes from a fear that one is trying to slide religion or the supernatural through the back door, so to speak. I trust that you believe that I am not trying to sell anything like that. I only proclaim my ignorance, and the ignorance of everyone else. Telmo. > Brent > > > > >> >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
