tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post4884440377153018179..comments2024-01-03T15:34:49.620+00:00Comments on Ian Wardell: Philosophical Thoughts: Neither Modern Materialism nor Science as currently conceived can explain ConsciousnessIan Wardellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-55416938663125778472017-05-10T16:08:48.031+01:002017-05-10T16:08:48.031+01:00The entire materialist project falls apart because...The entire materialist project falls apart because it cannot explain order. No order, no materialism.<br /><br />It's as simple as that.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13741454531338054082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-72422759980071639992016-08-23T17:06:14.232+01:002016-08-23T17:06:14.232+01:00First of all I'd like these comments to focus ...First of all I'd like these comments to focus on what I've said in the essay above, not go off onto an irrelevant tangent. But I'll just note the following.<br /><br />Without such a self or soul, then on splitting the 2 hemispheres apart it would surely be surprising then we still experience an integrated experiential world. Not only that, but split brain people feel *just as they did* before the operation separating their 2 hemispheres. This is inconsistent with the notion that they are only half the person they were. They would surely notice *some* differences. <br /><br />No, if there are now 2 streams of consciousness "inhabiting" their bodies, then so too must it be the case for all of us. And besides, other apparent streams of consciousness are evident too as in post-hypnotic suggestion (eg to open the window or whatever), automatic writing, dissociative identity disorder etc.<br /><br />But I doubt these are actually different selves. Rather the mind is split up into the conscious mind and the subliminal mind. The subliminal mind might be responsible for when we act on "autopilot" etc. Anyway, this is a deep and complex subject. It might even support materialism, but if it does then it would take some arguing. I might do a blog entry on it eventually if I feel I know enough about the subject at some point in the future. Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-52837751180446265712016-08-23T16:10:50.815+01:002016-08-23T16:10:50.815+01:00Before the hemisphere-separating surgery (full cor...Before the hemisphere-separating surgery (full corpus callosotomy), the patients had a single mind. After the surgery, each of the 2 single-hemisphere minds can get surprised by purposeful behavior of the half of the body controlled by the other hemisphere, and there can be conflicts - including one half of the body fighting the other (as visible in the vid I posted at 9:45). And those conflicts can get much more extreme. This wouldn't be the case if our decisions were driven by a single matter-independent soul - which obviously couldn't be split by cutting the brain tissue. + Our memories - which (to a great extent) make us who we are - are known to be represented by matter. Not only that we can detect that, but MIT researchers even figured how to implant false memories. No valid reason for the body-independent mind/soul assumption. It sells well (books, movies, helps to show online ads, + it's compatible with popular religions) so we see related info a lot, but - in reality - it's irrational nonsense which is why it isn't accepted by contemporary neuroscience.Jiri Jelinekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05280188662848085641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-6150118530605137362016-08-23T13:31:31.233+01:002016-08-23T13:31:31.233+01:00The 2 minds would always be there. Or much more p...The 2 minds would always be there. Or much more plausibly, what we consider to be the mind has a great deal more to it than we might naively think.Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-37446212352421815852016-08-23T08:42:41.522+01:002016-08-23T08:42:41.522+01:00We will keep merging with our technology, and our ...We will keep merging with our technology, and our body parts (including brain) will be getting more and more standardized. Eventually, we will get to the point where the same input will result in the same qualia [in the same type of brain module]. With such direct relationship between our qualia and the data describing the brain input/state, we will be able to meaningfully measure our qualia by measuring the data. "Is a self necessary?" Self is just one of the concepts in our mental model of our reality. It's important for certain types of tasks, but not necessary in order to live and feel. "Might the self survive?" If you destroy the medium which holds it then it will not survive. Everything suggests that the medium is the brain, including the fact that various shortcomings of our mind reflect the shortcomings of neural nets, and that split-brain patients ended up with 2 minds.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lmfxQ-HK7YJiri Jelinekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05280188662848085641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-76795847152747056752016-08-20T12:11:54.371+01:002016-08-20T12:11:54.371+01:00First of all I should say that "anonymous&quo...First of all I should say that "anonymous" here seems to be referring mainly to another of my blog entries here:<br /><br />http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/keith-augustine-in-myth-of-afterlife.html<br /><br />1) If we consider something like green, then obviously scientists would indeed say it can be measured, it is simply a specific wavelength of light. This is the tactic they employ, namely conflate qualia with that which can be measured.<br /><br />The experience greenness *itself* can't be measured though. If it could be then what greenness is like would be something that could be conveyed by information even though one had never experienced green before.<br /><br />2) See the above essay where I explain this.<br /><br />3) Instead of introducing the soul, think about a self. Is a self necessary? I think it is. See my essay here: http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/does-self-as-opposed-to-mere-sense-of.html<br /><br />Might the self survive? As I have argued in various places in my blog, I see no reason why not.<br /><br />I was talking about consciousness when I mentioned phenomena that has been universally reported. We cannot be mistaken about the existence of our own consciousness. It's also worth mentioning that just because something could be misunderstood, be an illusion etc, doesn't entail that it is. Otherwise we would effectively be blind.<br /><br />Could I just say I don't want to use the comment section to simply repeat what I've already put in the main body of my essays. I'd like some fresh perspectives, something which I haven't already addressed or thought of.Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-19907668458605345542016-08-20T05:45:03.554+01:002016-08-20T05:45:03.554+01:00Invalid assumptions:
1) Consciousness is ultimatel...Invalid assumptions:<br />1) Consciousness is ultimately beyond the reach of science because qualia [currently] cannot be measured.<br />2) "we have no idea .. how the brain all by itself could explain consciousness, perceive, think, feel, and deliberate"<br />3) Soul being a reasonable concept to introduce considering the currently available data.<br /><br />+ As for the "If we have a phenomenon that has been universally reported, we cannot assert it doesn't exist because it doesn't fit in with some pre-defined laws." Note that many things which are widely reported are based on misunderstandings, misinterpretation, wishful thinking, and/or delusions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-69744126583584004932016-06-26T18:44:53.410+01:002016-06-26T18:44:53.410+01:00Consciousness is not computable and never will
ht...Consciousness is not computable and never will<br /><br />https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1617v1.pdfAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06718890094419764648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-58255652217843844702016-06-17T18:42:55.136+01:002016-06-17T18:42:55.136+01:00I think the whole "hard problem of consciousn...I think the whole "hard problem of consciousness" rests on the idea that qualia are purely qualitative phenomena. Starting from that assumption it becomes obvious that materialism cannot explain qualia, as you show in the argument.<br />But, to me it's easy to see qualia as just brain phenomena. Complex patterns of neuron firing produce the feeling of being inside our head and having experiences. So, to me, there is no "purely qualitative phenomena" to be explained, and materialism/science works fine. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-86088047135170579322016-04-17T07:06:30.598+01:002016-04-17T07:06:30.598+01:00You say that the vast majority of professional phi...You say that the vast majority of professional philosophers do not agree with you. But what about the mahayana buddhists? Nagarjuna ftw.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com