The Hard Problem of Consciousness

look it up.

you think you are using the generally accepted definitions of things?!?! ha! you don't even know the "generally accpepted" definitions. YOU are using your own definitions Hytholoday and the only difference between you and me is you don't know or admit it.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• natural
• philosophy
• relativistic
• skepticism
• will
• power
• utilitarianism
• politics
• social

[StardustSpaceMonkey]

Iv tried to implement this idea that you cannot explain yourself away by understanding physics but some people just dont get it. I dont mean by the means of learning or processing thought patterns etc. I think neurology has pretty good idea what happens in our brains. But lets assume that our subjective consciousness is an illusion.. then to who it is an illusion? You will always bump up with the self evident thing that modern science doesnt like, the you. How can you be an illusion to yourself?

[pyrrho314]

@StardustSpaceMonkey : yes.

[StardustSpaceMonkey]

We dont seemingly have free will. We only get a feeling of "decicion making" and it of course must feel like the I made it or we would be contradicting with the idea and would indicate that our consciousness has its own will and intelligence apart from brains, like they had a dialogue. But we cant really say according to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle what future holds so in that way we have free will. Its anyway only a random factor in the will not suggesting that we are actually in charge.

[pyrrho314]

@Christopholaes : I like it because it's following falsibiable predictions. Hello, that's how we find truth. If you follow research, this is a common state of affairs and can last years, decades or centuries. I also mentioned the alternate school, which I don't like as much.

Funny I mentioned that one I don't like. Funny you've mentioned nothing but to read random text books. So yeah, seems to me you are the one that doesn't understand there is need for research.

[pyrrho314]

@Christopholaes : just lazy. I happen to know these questions are subject to research and debate. A standard text, chosen at random will not inform me at all about these debates.

You think there is nothing mysterious about the brain, it's all understood? I know you are ill informed then.  Sorry.

Whatever,

[Christopholaes]

@pyrrho314 I really don't care, and wonder why you care, if you 'like' an idea. Would not the fact that it's truthful or not be more important. I think you betray your resistance to more research in this field right here..

Mentioning both, and being open biased to one are two different things my friend.

Yet again, would it kill you to pick up a neurology textbook?

I know it's going to crush some of your illusions, but that should not stop you!?

Well at least your being a little less defensive...

[Christopholaes]

@pyrrho314 Well actually, I suggested reading neuroscience/psychology 'texts' by which I was inferring go find a first years textbook and read through a little...

It still appears to me this will help clean up some of your misconceptions about what is or isn't possible within the brain, whilst also giving you some more realistic perspective on the concept of 'will' and QM and how it all fits into the function of the brain. Do you want me to find a text for you, is that it?

That's just lazy mate.

[pyrrho314]

@C : no, that's not true. To the contrary I said there were remarkably few people even with theories. I do happen to think Orch OR is onto something, which came from his ideas as well as Hameroff's research, and now many sources. I do think there is something to it, but you implied I was merely uninformed. Perhaps you were uninformed. It's a theory, it's better than nothing, I like it. The neurocomputational people also have a theory I don't like. I mention both.

[pyrrho314]

@Christopholaes : um actually I said there were very few scientists even approaching questions of consciousness. I also said HIS STUFF WAS SPECULATION and have told you the research I'm talking about, and the theory Orch OR. I like reading recomendations, I do not appreciate recommendations to just go read, period, because that's stupid. I never said he was mainstream. I said he's one of the two active, and that Hameroff is the more active working on the theory.

[Christopholaes]

@pyrrho314 But you more than heavily inferred that he had something, Also you seemed to drop his name like he was a central player in this field. When actually he's a little on the fringe, because of his wacky spiritual conclusions...

I originally said get read the neuroscience texts, you said you had researched this, then you cite a physicist and an anesthesiologist. Only two sources, and no neuroscientists or psychologist, or anyone who actually deals with the mechanics of minds?

Research HA!