Why Science Hasn’t Solved Consciousness

gmark77 said:
I was just pointing out that it is irrational to make the claim that science will never understand this and that it is beyond the ability of science to understand it which is what @Cypress seems to be saying.

I've read a little in this area and there is a lot of really interesting science going on. MRI's provide a really neat view into what is happening where and more importantly when.

There was an interesting set of studies run I want to say at one of the UC's in Cali where they routed information into either the right or left hemisphere and were able to in certain patients with a "split brain" (a surgery to deal with seizure disorders involved cutting the corpus collossum and segregating the hemispheres of the brain). It turns out the Left hemisphere has the language and the ability to create "stories" to explain what the right hemisphere is doing but the right hemisphere doesn't, so they found that if they prompted the right hemisphere with something the left was not aware of that the left made up a "post hoc" story to explain why the person took the action predicated on the right hemisphere stimulus (and it was often just purely made up stories.)

It pointed out not only the possibility that we lack a real "free will" (in that the Right hemisphere was doing stuff that the consciousness was unaware of and ultimately the consciousness made up a "just so story" to explain) but it also pointed out a possible "control module" type arrangement. Not in a "control" sense but rather in a monitoring sense and a module that made sense of the inputs to our brains.
Click to expand...
I disagree that scientific research will fail to yield results. At best we can say "unlikely" be it proving there's an afterlife or building a time machine.

Robert Ornstein's book "The Psychology of Consciousness " was relatively new when I was studying psychology in college.

Again, I disagree that we don't have free will but concede we are also products of our genes and experiences. Comparative psychology is useful in comparing the human mind with other animals, especially mammals. Animals are all genes and experiences. They react to both of those. Lesser-thinking human beings or those with brain damage are closer to animals than higher-thinking human beings. Does a retard or severely brain-damaged person have free will? I'm guessing not.
 
gmark77 said:
I envy your assurety. Given that the history of science is littered with this kind of prediction and it has so far been found to be about 100% wrong when made.

Especially, again, in light of the fact that it is being studied by scientists now.
Click to expand...
Studying brain wave patterns explains nothing about your individual subjective phenomenological mental experience.

Some people believe scientific experiments is the source of all truth and knowledge. They are mistaken.

There is no equation or scientific experiment that explains why D minor sounds so aesthetically different from G major.

"I've always found D minor to be the saddest of all keys. I don't know why, but it makes people weep instantly." - Nigel Tufnel​

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NgViOqGJEvM
 

Cypress said:
There is no equation or scientific experiment that explains why D minor sounds so aesthetically different from G major.
Click to expand...

Bet there is. Bet it relates to dopamine and/or serotonin

In fact I bet if you went onto Scholar.Google and did a search on why some music is pleasing you'd get something like 1.15million hits.
 
gmark77 said:
Bet there is. Bet it relates to dopamine and/or serotonin

In fact I bet if you went onto Scholar.Google and did a search on why some music is pleasing you'd get something like 1.15million hits.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing neuroscience with the phenomenology of conciousness.

Mapping the structures and electrical patterns of the brain explains nothing about our phenomenological experiences of friendship, music, art, color, sound, etc.

Some people think trying to use physics and chemistry to answer phenomenological experience is just asking the wrong question.
 
Cypress said:
I think you're confusing neuroscience with the phenomenology of conciousness.
Click to expand...

I am simply unaware of any emotional experience or even mental experience that happens in the absence of a physical brain. If 100% of every single thought/feeling/emotion I have ever had required that I also have a physical brain I'm going to assume that it is a material process.

Cypress said:
Mapping the structures and electrical patterns of the brain explains nothing about our phenomenological experiences of friendship, music, art, color, sound, etc.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Cypress said:
Some people think trying to use physics and chemistry to answer phenomenological experience is just asking the wrong question.
Click to expand...

What is the right question? So far all I've seen is that you are claiming science cannot be used to study these things. No reason for it other than your disbelief in it.
 
by the by: Dmin << Gmaj.

Which is kind of a hint that there is no "objective" experience of "beauty". But that's probably for a completely other conversation.
 
Cypress said:
I think you're confusing neuroscience with the phenomenology of conciousness.

Mapping the structures and electrical patterns of the brain explains nothing about our phenomenological experiences of friendship, music, art, color, sound, etc.

Some people think trying to use physics and chemistry to answer phenomenological experience is just asking the wrong question.
Click to expand...
Part of it is the tools. A radio without a transmitter within range will seem useless.

Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum" is philosophical but also points out that there's a lot more going on inside people's heads than can be read by an MRI or other censors. There is no such thing as a mindreading device at this time....and both the CIA and KGB have tried. LOL

Human beings are still learning about the human mind.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Part of it is the tools. A radio without a transmitter within range will seem useless.
Click to expand...

But by the same token it doesn't mean the radio waves which make the "magic" happen are somehow beyond scientific analysis.

That's kind of what it feels like in this discussion. We all see the physical "radio" but the radio only has value when it is "animated" by the radio waves.

I see the brain and thoughts and emotions and feelings the same way.

The really cool thing we can prove easily is that it is possible to dramatically alter our experience of emotions and thoughts and even beliefs by the mere application of a chemical or two.

The fact of the matter is: our "conscious experience" of the world and all our mental states (emotions, thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.) can and often are changeable with the right chemistry.

How does that not point to a purely physical thing?

Dutch Uncle said:
Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum" is philosophical but also points out that there's a lot more going on inside people's heads than can be read by an MRI or other censors.
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to go that far. Especially given that recently scientists were able to take brain imaging data and re-create what the person was imagining in their brains:


If that isn't a complete mind-fuck I don't know what is. But it also indicates that people like me who think there is a physical correlate to the mental states definitely have more evidence for that position than the opposite.

Dutch Uncle said:
There is no such thing as a mindreading device at this time....and both the CIA and KGB have tried. LOL
Click to expand...

Gettin' scary close though. (Shudder)

Dutch Uncle said:
Human beings are still learning about the human mind.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, definitely. I think we are so far down the learning curve that it isn't even funny but I think there's still a LOT more to learn and I bet we can and will (assuming we don't just destroy ourselves in a few years)
 
gmark77 said:
But by the same token it doesn't mean the radio waves which make the "magic" happen are somehow beyond scientific analysis.

That's kind of what it feels like in this discussion. We all see the physical "radio" but the radio only has value when it is "animated" by the radio waves.

I see the brain and thoughts and emotions and feelings the same way.

The really cool thing we can prove easily is that it is possible to dramatically alter our experience of emotions and thoughts and even beliefs by the mere application of a chemical or two.

The fact of the matter is: our "conscious experience" of the world and all our mental states (emotions, thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.) can and often are changeable with the right chemistry.

How does that not point to a purely physical thing?



I'm not willing to go that far. Especially given that recently scientists were able to take brain imaging data and re-create what the person was imagining in their brains:


If that isn't a complete mind-fuck I don't know what is. But it also indicates that people like me who think there is a physical correlate to the mental states definitely have more evidence for that position than the opposite.



Gettin' scary close though. (Shudder)



Oh yeah, definitely. I think we are so far down the learning curve that it isn't even funny but I think there's still a LOT more to learn and I bet we can and will (assuming we don't just destroy ourselves in a few years)
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point; without scientific analysis, we'd never know if radio waves existed, thought waves or anything else. Remember when discovering fire was a big deal? LOL

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of unknowns out there and inside our own heads. Jumping to conclusions about anything without evidence is not scientific.

Claiming human beings are nothing more than ambulatory meat computers and of no more value than the sum of their chemical components strikes me as naive as claiming, if we are good enough, we can go to Heaven and sing hosannas at the feet of a god sitting upon a golden throne.
 
gmark77 said:
Sorry not interested in the stupid word games that animate lesser minds.
Click to expand...
LMFAO just like a weak minded leftist. Words have meaning dipshit. Its how we communicate. Words dont mean whatever the fuck you want them to mean at the time. This is all just circle jerk bullshit with retards. You couldnt be fucking bothered to think
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Part of it is the tools. A radio without a transmitter within range will seem useless.

Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum" is philosophical but also points out that there's a lot more going on inside people's heads than can be read by an MRI or other censors. There is no such thing as a mindreading device at this time....and both the CIA and KGB have tried. LOL

Human beings are still learning about the human mind.
Click to expand...
That sounds right.

At this time, and for the foreseeable future, questions like what came before the Big Bang?, where does the mathematical laws of physics come from?, and why does phenomenological consciousness emerge from inanimate matter? are largely philosophical questions.
 
Cypress said:
That sounds right.

At this time, and for the foreseeable future, questions like what came before the Big Bang?, where does the mathematical laws of physics come from?, and why does phenomenological consciousness emerge from inanimate matter? are largely philosophical questions.
Click to expand...
All big questions that science may be able to answer but, agreed, are largely philosophical for now.
 
Cypress said:
That sounds right.

At this time, and for the foreseeable future, questions like what came before the Big Bang?, where does the mathematical laws of physics come from?, and why does phenomenological consciousness emerge from inanimate matter? are largely philosophical questions.
Click to expand...
And pointless to waste time on, and pointless to base a nihilistic philosophy upon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top