Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher

Right, because you have no interest in actually learning or we considering anything, you just deflect and downplay and deny to maintain your current beliefs. That's fine. You have no control over that aspect of yourself.
You are criticizing the idea of a self and I do not dispute it.
 
Right, because you have no interest in actually learning or reconsidering anything, you just deflect and downplay and deny to maintain your current beliefs. That's fine. You have no control over that aspect of yourself.
Hume made an argument against the self over 200 years ago. And I agree with him.
Almost 300 years ago.
 
My whole person. Without it, I'd be dead and nonexistent.
I'm sure you'd agree that your arms and legs aren't generating desire or thoughts. Neither are your bones, skin or blood.

So, which part of you is generating desire or thoughts, so which part is the "you" that is performing these functions?
 
It will be true until the Vogon's show up to demolish the Earth for a hyperspace bypass, then we'll have to expand our viewpoint. :D

Interesting point about Galileo and the Protestant reformation. I always saw it as the beginning of science conflicting with Catholic European dominance.
Or perhaps the Klingons. (y)

Galileo was on good terms with the Pope, and had the Pope's permission to write a book about heliocentrism. But with the instruction that he could only present it as a hypothesis, not the confirmed truth (the evidence Galileo had for heliocentrism was either circumstantial, or completely wrong, and was contradicted by the existing physics and astronomy of the day).

Galileo ended up ignoring the Pope's instructions, and wrote to make the church's position on geocentrism look foolish. Given the politics surrounding the Protestant Reformation, the Pope felt he could allow any more direct challenges to church authority lest the Protestants gain the upper hand, and he ordered Galileo placed on trial
 
A thought only exists such that you are aware of it.
That may not be wholly true.

fMRI studies show that intention often precedes actual conscious awareness of the intention.

This is what is causing some neuroscientists to question the reality of "free will".
 
Never saw a neuroscientist make that argument.

"Recently, we demonstrated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that the outcome of free decisions can be decoded from brain activity several seconds before reaching conscious awareness."

(emphasis added)

 
The real question that should be debated is whether or not concsciousness was/is a good idea.

I assume all animals and all life essentially is on a spectrum of conscious awareness. From the completely unconscious bacteria up to mammals we seem to show a range of mental capabilities, so I assume the same is true of consciousness.

I think the most interesting stuff comes when you ask what the mental capabilities are of other high level mammals like dolphins and whales. We know a lot about other primates and we can see something they can and can't do.
 
"Recently, we demonstrated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that the outcome of free decisions can be decoded from brain activity several seconds before reaching conscious awareness."

(emphasis added)

so?
 
That may not be wholly true.

fMRI studies show that intention often precedes actual conscious awareness of the intention.

This is what is causing some neuroscientists to question the reality of "free will".
No scientist believes in free will. They do not even understand the concept.
 
Back
Top