Ok, tell me if anyone with what I am about to say. One major mistake of eliminative materialism is the assumption that just because something like consciousness has neurophysiological mechanisms which correlate with it, that means it is entirely physical. This is very similar to the "God of the gaps" where it is assumed that God can only exist in areas where we lack knowledge.
@Omnicron777 Imagine that Universe A has consciousness, and Universe B does not. What is the essential difference? According to you, it is that A is DOING something that B is not. According to me, it is that a new DIMENSION has opened up in A. In Chalmers' terms, consciousness is an "emergent," a synergy that cannot be predicted by the substrate. If consciousness were merely activity, then a description of brain activity would describe what being conscious is like. And it doesn't. QED.
@Omnicron777 Your surly because you don't understand my questions. (Nor did you answer them.) The purpose of any supposed activity of consciousness would be to make the condition of being apparent. Thinking is a process IN consciousness, not OF consciousness. (Machines asrguably think; that doesn't make them conscious.)
@Omnicron777 Okay, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. If Consciousness is a verb (and I'm practically puking just to write that), then what is the achievement of that activity? What does that activity achieve? What is its effect? Is it not to make the condition of being apparent?
Personality Test: Are you more like a "thing that perceives space," or a "space that perceives things"?
@Omnicron777 You seem unaware of the difference between doing and being. I repeat: "Last time I checked, consciousness meant awareness of the condition of being." And, if you check, you'll notice that "you" aren't doing anything more to BE conscious than you are doing to simply BE at all. Consciousness is a CONDITION, not a verb. You're hooked on slotting consciousness as a verb. Please get over it before you reduce away the entire world.
@Omnicron777 Last time I checked, consciousness meant awareness of the condition of being. That awareness may require neural activity--if that's what you mean by "activity"--but that doesn't mean that consciousness is itself neural activity. That's confusing cause and effect and would be exactly the kind of reductionism you're complaining about in your posts.
Interesting...the last thing Paul says is "power that can...make us see more deeply into each other souls is knowledge we should seek." But his philosophy says that we don't have souls. I think he realizes (if only subconsciously) that there must be something immaterial about our cognitions and our ability to think about our own thoughts. I'm an expert in neither neuroscience nor philosophy...I'm just commenting on how I feel Paul's closing remarks shed light on the issue and his thoughts.
@drn02009 Lots of materialists use the word "soul" as a metaphor, like Dennett, who says, "Yes, we have a soul, but it's made of a bunch of tiny robots!"
and all the religious will take from this is your destroying my god your removing the gaps were i can say god did it, if you explain conciousness, you remove the mistery of creation bla bla bla, they hate man gaining new knowledge.
"If a human male is geneticaly more related to a male chimpanzee than to a human woman->
than there is something wrong with genetic"
Really it just depends on your standard of measurement. In raw number of genes, Paul has only one copy of about 1900 genes that Patricia has two of.... and the difference between chimp Y chromosomes from human Y chromosomes is not that significant... so from a very bean counter POV Pat is right.
The argument "we have _only_ 300 more genes than mice" is such a crock, given that we have no idea how all of these genes interact. Such a statement presumes complexity in quantity rather than quality. Reductionists always seem to think in those terms.
"The argument "we have _only_ 300 more genes than mice" is such a crock..."
Once again, it is a problem of only looking at the statement like a bean counter. The raw number may very well be accurate, but the fact that genes can alter the expression of other genes means that instruction complexity could (though likely doesn't) grow at an exponential rate... so a difference of 300 genes could easily mean an instruction set that is two orders of magnitude more complex.
Im not studying it yet fully, but Im reading many books involving cognition. Im heading there tho, probably going to UIUC, because its the only university I know in Illinois that has a cognitive science dept.
Ok, tell me if anyone with what I am about to say. One major mistake of eliminative materialism is the assumption that just because something like consciousness has neurophysiological mechanisms which correlate with it, that means it is entirely physical. This is very similar to the "God of the gaps" where it is assumed that God can only exist in areas where we lack knowledge.
metaldude82 4 months ago
I can't believe I heard an eliminative materialist use the words God and Soul.
gkodekrakca 9 months ago
@Omnicron777 Check your own words: "Consciousness is a state... which ALLOWS FOR volitive action." I rest my case.
crookedfinger13 9 months ago
@Omnicron777 Imagine that Universe A has consciousness, and Universe B does not. What is the essential difference? According to you, it is that A is DOING something that B is not. According to me, it is that a new DIMENSION has opened up in A. In Chalmers' terms, consciousness is an "emergent," a synergy that cannot be predicted by the substrate. If consciousness were merely activity, then a description of brain activity would describe what being conscious is like. And it doesn't. QED.
crookedfinger13 9 months ago
@Omnicron777 Your surly because you don't understand my questions. (Nor did you answer them.) The purpose of any supposed activity of consciousness would be to make the condition of being apparent. Thinking is a process IN consciousness, not OF consciousness. (Machines asrguably think; that doesn't make them conscious.)
crookedfinger13 9 months ago
@Omnicron777 Okay, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. If Consciousness is a verb (and I'm practically puking just to write that), then what is the achievement of that activity? What does that activity achieve? What is its effect? Is it not to make the condition of being apparent?
Personality Test: Are you more like a "thing that perceives space," or a "space that perceives things"?
crookedfinger13 9 months ago
@Omnicron777 You seem unaware of the difference between doing and being. I repeat: "Last time I checked, consciousness meant awareness of the condition of being." And, if you check, you'll notice that "you" aren't doing anything more to BE conscious than you are doing to simply BE at all. Consciousness is a CONDITION, not a verb. You're hooked on slotting consciousness as a verb. Please get over it before you reduce away the entire world.
crookedfinger13 9 months ago
@Omnicron777 Last time I checked, consciousness meant awareness of the condition of being. That awareness may require neural activity--if that's what you mean by "activity"--but that doesn't mean that consciousness is itself neural activity. That's confusing cause and effect and would be exactly the kind of reductionism you're complaining about in your posts.
crookedfinger13 9 months ago
@Omnicron777 "Without the body, there cannot be consciousness." Pray tell, how do you know that?
crookedfinger13 9 months ago
Great. I'll be doing a cognitive neuroscience PhD starting this fall at UT Dallas.
ArcadianGenesis 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Body language and philosophy in strife…
RobertHaraldsen 10 months ago
Comment removed
RobertHaraldsen 10 months ago
Interesting...the last thing Paul says is "power that can...make us see more deeply into each other souls is knowledge we should seek." But his philosophy says that we don't have souls. I think he realizes (if only subconsciously) that there must be something immaterial about our cognitions and our ability to think about our own thoughts. I'm an expert in neither neuroscience nor philosophy...I'm just commenting on how I feel Paul's closing remarks shed light on the issue and his thoughts.
drn02009 1 year ago
@drn02009 Lots of materialists use the word "soul" as a metaphor, like Dennett, who says, "Yes, we have a soul, but it's made of a bunch of tiny robots!"
theocean1973 1 year ago
Comment removed
drn02009 1 year ago
Poor reductionists.
FeelOfFriction 1 year ago
@FeelOfFriction Huh? Reductionism is the basis of modern science.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago 6
Thanks for Sharing ! This is incredible.
Anarch0tec 1 year ago
Very interesting...Thanks for adding it!
2bsirius 2 years ago
and all the religious will take from this is your destroying my god your removing the gaps were i can say god did it, if you explain conciousness, you remove the mistery of creation bla bla bla, they hate man gaining new knowledge.
tersse 2 years ago
If a human male is geneticaly more related to a male chimpanzee than to a human woman->
than there is something wrong with genetic ;-)
Thank you for posting !
ScienceArtSpirit 2 years ago
"If a human male is geneticaly more related to a male chimpanzee than to a human woman->
than there is something wrong with genetic"
Really it just depends on your standard of measurement. In raw number of genes, Paul has only one copy of about 1900 genes that Patricia has two of.... and the difference between chimp Y chromosomes from human Y chromosomes is not that significant... so from a very bean counter POV Pat is right.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
The argument "we have _only_ 300 more genes than mice" is such a crock, given that we have no idea how all of these genes interact. Such a statement presumes complexity in quantity rather than quality. Reductionists always seem to think in those terms.
renumeratedfrog 2 years ago
"The argument "we have _only_ 300 more genes than mice" is such a crock..."
Once again, it is a problem of only looking at the statement like a bean counter. The raw number may very well be accurate, but the fact that genes can alter the expression of other genes means that instruction complexity could (though likely doesn't) grow at an exponential rate... so a difference of 300 genes could easily mean an instruction set that is two orders of magnitude more complex.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
Hi LennyBound,
Thank you for sharing these vids on Patricia Churchland. I feel a great sense of awe of the research that is being conducted by her and her companion.
Best wishes,
demetri b.
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
And Paul. I believe this is the first I've seen him in a video on Youtube.
polymath7 2 years ago
Man, I can't wait to do research in cognitive science
Nades129 2 years ago 15
Oh? Where are you studying?
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
Im not studying it yet fully, but Im reading many books involving cognition. Im heading there tho, probably going to UIUC, because its the only university I know in Illinois that has a cognitive science dept.
Nades129 2 years ago