What an amazing presentation. Forget the usual ideas that everybody repeat blindly. Even astrophysicist, with their concept of dark matter and dark energy get kicked in their tooth ; they don't know what they talk about is the sad truth revealed by John Seale. Science is mature in some fields, but a work in progress in others. Consciousness is actually the exchange of information from one part of the brain to another. Each time a human/animal decide to think about something, pay attention to a sound, visual cue or internally generated idea, the brain is making a redundant of the information retrieved in long term memory. The new copy get a timestamp and an emotion attached to the objective data. The reason we think a special event in childhood is so fresh in memory that it feel like if it happened last week, the reality is that this feeling is right. Because we regularly remember some event, a new copy appear. We try to remember the year that it happened, but the copy is really recent, so it come easily. However, since our memory is like a writable CD/DVD, that is we can add new data but can never erase old data, the entire life long accumulation of information just keep accumulating. Our brain can learn that something has changed : my friend address or phone number is now this one. But the old address and phone number will never be erased from memory. Anytime I see that phone number in old note or while talking, we recognize it : isn't it the old phone number he/she had 20 years ago? Consciousness need a functioning short term memory to work. Think about how some person who can't remember any new information would ask the same question every day, or even a few minutes later. Without short term memory, it is impossible to follow a "train of though". The mind can only jump randomly to different subjects. Properly working conscious thinking also requires feedback loop. A jelly fish, an example of early animal to get the neuron cell from previous ancestors, strictly react to direct stimuli... presumably, unless we find that following a gradient of chemical when swimming toward food or escaping a gradient of dangerous chemical would require some feedback to work as efficiently as these animals do. The feedback loops are particularly elaborated on the human variant of mammals. The idea is to start thinking about something, lets say the image of a ripe raspberry. Then, as the memory of the fruit remind us the smell/flavor of the fruit, our brain repeat a new cycle of research in memory to see where/when that flavor was tasted. Next item in the stream of though could be thinking about how grandma or the local restaurant was serving pie with that fruit. Now, we may see in our visual system a typical raspberry pie. Not that when thinking about a visual image, the image is sent to the same location in the brain as if it was coming from the retina. Same when thinking about a song, the auditive area of the brain get activated exactly like if our ears were hearing that song. This exchange of information from the part of the brain that associate a flavor to the visual system may not be considered as a direct feedback loop. The proper definition would be when the visual system itself associate an image with another one, and send that new image back for processing,. Starting a new research cycle using the last image we though about or using what we see right now in front of us require the same processing. Note that my example only describe the classical major sense input. But the brain is subdivided in independent units (there is approximately 4 millions such units), each one of these able to exchange information with other neighbor unit as allowed by the 3D structure of the network of neuron. Another important fact to remember is that the language processing part of the brain represent a small fraction of brain area or small percentage of neuron activity. Most of our though are non verbal. This is counter-intuitive because, when I am thinking, I know that I am using words in English (or French or Chinese), effectively talking to myself in a similar way to what I would say if I was trying to convert my idea in a language understood by people around me. But, in both case (talking to a human or talking silently to myself), I just use the brain area specialized in language to translate my tough to a spoken language. The though itself occurred in other part of the brain.
@carlsagan2371
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your worthless input.
@colliemon
Жыл бұрын
consciousness may include the exchange of info in brain regions, but it has to function at a “higher” level than that simultaneously, otherwise we would have to deny our first person subjective experience. I think this materialistic take is on track but seems to ignore the experience, which is not in opposition to the neuroscience, but rather in unison.
@tanongsakangsakul3857
11 жыл бұрын
What I admire most about John Searle is that he's the model of an honest thinker. He has no use for speculative enterprises, and disdains paradoxical assertions which are dogmatically stated. This comes out in every one of his books. If you want to understand intentionality, there's no better place to start than with Searle.
@Exceltrainingvideos
11 жыл бұрын
Very interesting and thought provoking.
@konzsimo
11 жыл бұрын
You questions are apt and beyond my learning, I am glad that we live in a time where serious effort is apportioned towards answering them. I would say though that we don't know the fundamental issue regarding both digestion or life which is "what make some atoms alive and others dead". So to reduce consciousness to such a process is the compromise we have to make at this stage due to incomplete data much similar to almost every field of human understanding.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
you're right. I will stay with "brain is "on", it is conscious". Says it all. Love it.
@shyamasingh9020
3 жыл бұрын
Great inspired talk to take on solving the hard science problems surfacing the domains of electromagnetic consciousness energy channeling information processing quantum fields theory grounding cognitive computing technology spectrums.
@brunopinheiro9048
11 жыл бұрын
One of the diferences (there are, or at least may be, more) is that if you watch something consciously, you can think about that, you can make judgements about that, you can "incorporate" that in a story that is your story as a being, a 1st person story, that you "write".
@brunopinheiro9048
11 жыл бұрын
Consciousness is something that gives you inumerous advantages. Imagine that you are seeing something: if you weren't conscious, you would act based on instincts. But, once you conscious, you can think about things and act in different ways and with different motivations that not the pure and simple instinct.
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
the point is that it requires explaining. .. it is the central point of the Mysterian. Dualism fails because it's inconsistent, materialism fails because it's methodologically incomplete. It's a simple question: "What kind of methodology can explain how matter can become aware or be of other matter?"
@QualicSelf
11 жыл бұрын
Best line "The epistemic objectivity of science does not prevent us from having an epistemically objective science of a domain that's ontologically subjective"
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
The Problem of Consciousness is not about what some matter is made of, rather it's about how matter can be conscious of. Further, I believe the greatest challenge is seeing the real problem here,
@waltdill927
Жыл бұрын
The causal explanation is incomplete. There are colors, for example, that do not have an "object field" basis, one way or the other. What we label as "magenta", regardless of intentionality conditions and causal transparency, does not exist anywhere on the visible spectrum; this is more than saying that "color is an illusion" -- we know that color terms do not pick out real states or properties that inhere in either the object or according with any idea of ambient light, etc. Magenta, then, simply has no wavelength; it is an illusion which the brain manufactures out of a metaphor linking its complement (green) as happening to occupy the "gap" between red and purple. A situation which, at the least, posits a second order non-occurring color sensation between the poles of a complementary first order set of colors, thus in want of an "imaginary" color. We do not deal here with pathology, but with an imagined conscious perception. Any explanation goes begging for the obvious question: What sense sense? Which is to say, according with a causal description, simple or complex, at the base of any hierarchy (or higher up). The laboratory measurement does not enter into the assertion, but is instead a circular argument e.g. the illusion of an original illusion is true, if the illusion is true. "The illusion of magenta is true because the illusion of color is true". Which is not a question of conscious experience, but a conflation to causal efficacy. Any fallacy is logical. A "correlation", a phenomenal event, consonant with terms is something else altogether. Phenomena, and not causal explications, are temporal entities: they take place "in time" and are complementary to the analytical frame, the Einsteinian relativity, of phenomenal nature; causal explanation represents discrete elements of time, since we do not know where the "true" cause, or effect, really occurs in the synthetic chain of satisfactory causal explanations. Causality expresses spatiality, not temporal synthesis. A causal object "behaves", is significant, in a spatial context; a correlative object "behaves", is significant, in a temporal context. This is why the perception of a distant star that has disappeared long ago is irrelevant to a valid conscious experience; but the case for an "illusory illusion" is something else; if the color term "magenta" is referenced to a valid object in the simplest version of an asserted visual field, this is due to the fact that it is correlated with the spatial, hence phenomenal, aspect of the color term's illusory origin, not because the causal claim to rational explanation "makes sense", at which point it conveniently disappears into the labyrinth of a technically more satisfying explanation. It matters whether the color exists or not, but this condition does not strip the perception of an imagined object from the conscious context, any more than the causal case changes with respect to an imagined awareness i.e. the distant star, or an unconscious perceiving. Correlation is the relation of the intentional object to a phenomenal explication, across the room or across the universe, but even when illusory, it is not in the nature of being a "dislocated" perception, since the temporal aspect, unlike a spatial one given in causality, is by definition a "taken" or prefigured perception given, present, in the phenomenal as such; assertions of unconscious phenomena are meaningless. Whatever conscious perception is, it is this "selection" for such causal relation, in the processes of neurobiological complexity, that is imperfectly understood, not the source of such data as is to be had, or recognized. But the general idea presented here does not support the "phenomenal" aspect of what is only "causal" -- all the way from any conceivable chain of sensory inputs, to whatever perception references the known "object" e.g. "property p causally linked to object q". More is needed in the account.
@ROForeverMan
11 жыл бұрын
Searle is the best philosopher of mind. He understand exactly what's the matter with consciousness.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
What does make sense is to say "I didn't remember seeing that tree, but now I do" or " I did see that tree, I remember" or simply "I saw that tree".
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
Hi, I think I agree with you to a degree. I am defending Chalmers' View (& McGinn's at least as expressed in Mysterious Flame Book). It is a very complicated topic for sure. I agree with you in that we should give a better explanation for what an explanation of consciousness would look like. How do we scientifically explain or reduce the intentionality of consciousness? Finding neural correlates isn't enough... & that's where the Searle video ends
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
There is a definite place in your mind for tiredness - in your memory. Your mind recognises numerous physical indicators, such as yawning, slowing down, less energy,irritability etc and is able to associate these with a memory of tiredness. Your parents, no doubt, told you quite often when you were tired. Young children can show these signs and not be aware that they are tired. They learn to associate the symptomatic feelings with the thought.
@hansvetter8653
Жыл бұрын
I hoped for a reflection on David Hume's insight, that there is no such thing as "causality". I see it that way: it's up to science pulling all causal relationships into one (hopefully) consistent theory making up causality.
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
I respectfully disagree with this; I believe they are disanalogous. There is nothing it is like to be running, there is only something it is like to be a conscious creature in the state of running. We can in principle understand all there is to know about running, but it remains an open question as to whether we can in principle understand the aboutness/intentionality of consciousness. How can matter be about other forms of matter? How could a causal explanation ever explain this?
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
I get your point - although I see mind as still within the realm of matter/energy as things like thoughts, the usual mind or mental activity, has a strong relationship with matter. Thoughts may not be visible, touchable, or any physical thing, but functioning of the body can influence thoughts and vice versa, whereas awareness just seems to be going along for the ride. It may require these to see itself (and to see the other stuff), but it is constant - only its content changes.
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
it is merely a matter of how many cells a given cell can interact with. .. we need to be told what kind of complexity is involved. “ McGinn, Mysterious Flame
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
he's giving you his entire life's work condensed into a 40min speech, so be patient; it may sound like opinions to you because you don't have all the background information you need to understand his conclusions...if you want the arguments and the proofs, read his work, or listen to his lectures on itunesU.
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
No apology necessary. For me, it is not my 'consciousness' that "gets" emotional, it is my mind/body - but this is because of, as you point out, our lack of distinct and shared words. To me there is a need to differentiate between just awareness and the mind's activity (that may be perception and reaction to that awareness). I am able to make that differentiation because I have experienced it, and do so daily, but not always. Maybe this is what is meant by 'expansion' of consciousness.
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
The important diff is there is something it is like to be conscious, there is not something it is like to be water or digestion. This is the central point that is missed in such objections. It is the intentionality, privacy , and subjectivity of consciousness that are mysterious.... how can neurons create "aboutness"... it doesn't make sense in principle using current scientific methodology.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
When I forget someone's name, the dimmer is just not working properly? Or a little dusty and I have to do some work on it? Or the bulb just burnt out? Was it intentional?
@MinorityMans
8 жыл бұрын
Great presentation. I see a problem with the analogy using economics of epistemic objective statements of subjective ontology. Economics is based on inter-subjective ontology, and the value of a thing is intersubjectively determined. While there is no independent reference point for conscious objects. But this might mean that the distinction on another level here is between subjectivity and inter subjectivity, taking ontological claims out of the picture.
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
There is an extremely important difference here. You can see the tree, you may be (in one sense) conscious of the tree and yet you may be unaware that you are seeing the tree. Your attention may just be on the tree, or some part of it. Alternatively, you may be aware that you are seeing the tree. Your awareness is able to, in a matter of speaking, step back and be aware that the act of seeing a tree is taking place.
@brunopinheiro9048
11 жыл бұрын
No, because if you say "I can see" you're talking about the present moment, and if you say that you have to be conscious of it (unless, of course, we think you are programmed to say that, but that's another question). But if you say "Yes, I saw that tree, but not consciously, and now I'm seeing it consciously", that's possible. And why? Because you can see something but do not realize that you are seeing it, and when you realize what you are seeing it, you become conscious of that.
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
the difference is that computers can't think metaphorically, yet somehow we can. that distinction seems to me to be a key towards understanding human consciousness.
@taooftheinfinitemind4823
4 жыл бұрын
Another Bad ass materialism lecture
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
There are a myriad of other very important words that have more or less similar meanings, but not exactly the same and/or quite different. We can talk about awarenes, perception, knowledge, attention, focus, understanding, and kinds of interactions between them. The issue here is consciousness and the question is very simple: Is there a difference between "I am seeing that tree" and "I am conscious that I am seeing that tree" . No games.
@makhseem
11 жыл бұрын
Young man, you are correct in saying that there is no consciousness in your brain. it's plain clear to all who read your comment.
@MonisticIdealism
8 жыл бұрын
Mental causation is thoroughly commonplace and ubiquitous; it is also the key to proving Monistic Idealism. The Exclusion Problem can be shown to entail that physical causation is nothing over-and-above mental causation. Mentalistic lawful agency is the ontological grounding of all causation in our universe including the laws of physics.
@nickolasgaspar9660
5 жыл бұрын
Don't go there.... We are talking about Methodological Naturalism (science). Projecting Agencies in nature is Unnecessary and Insufficient presumption and it can not be compared to the predictive, explanatory power of our scientific understanding of the phenomenon and the unquestionable ability to use those principles in the production of technical applications.
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
Cool. I agree dualism is incoherent, and now we see there are also serious problems with materialism. This is partly why it's mysterious. I also agree with you that we should try to solve it using the tools we have... because they are the only tools we have. However, I don't think most people appreciate the depth of this problem of consciousness. Science begins with observation, how can we ever observe aboutness? Or reduce it to a process like we can life, digestion, etc?
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
Some people like to harp on the complexity of the brain, as if this gave a clue to its mental productivity. But sheer complexity is irrelevant: merely adding more neurons with more synaptic connections doesn't explain our problem a bit. The problem is how any collection of cells, no matter how large and intricately related, could generate consciousness. The trouble is that neural complexity is the wrong kind of thing to explain consciousness;
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
none of these statements changes your existence. these statements only convey mildly different intentions to a listener who you are attempting to communicate with. the word 'conscious' imparts a reflection that you are aware of your own seeing; it imparts you have the ability to reflect upon your own biological process of seeing.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
I suffer from multiple conciousnesses disease. Kind of fun actually. One of my consciousness would be really interested in knowing what you think of the Tractus, if I understood correctly that you intend to read it. By the way, my conciousnesses have assistants, counselers, mediators. The decisions are actually never consensual. Some times they make decisions on their own. My role is not very clear actually. They see things diferently too. It is a mess in there. Most often unpredictable.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
What you see (visually capture) in running is not the process of running (which is infinitely more complex), it is its result. Equally so, you don't see the process of consciousness, you "see" its results.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
That is exactly my point, maybe miscommunicated. There is only me. Not me AND my conscioussness. In other words, what is the difference between saying: "I am seeing that tree", or "I can see that tree", and: "I am conscious of seeing that tree"? What does the word "conscious" add to, or how does it modify the former assertion?
@jamestaylor9606
9 жыл бұрын
The only question that he is asking is this: What physiological processes are in play within the brain during a waking state of self awareness? The question can and will be answered. However, the question then will be: Why is consciousness? There must be a particular configuration of neurons and the necessary neurotransmitters present to complete the paradigm of consciousness. But why do they do so? Can this question be answered to our satisfaction?
@GnomiMoody
9 жыл бұрын
James Taylor Study evolution and how the regions of the brain evolved and their function. It's answered to my satisfaction.
@sinamotevallibashi2114
9 жыл бұрын
James Taylor I think consciousness is intrinsically mysterious and that question will never be answered to our satisfaction.
@jamestaylor9606
9 жыл бұрын
JE Moody How would the study of biology answer the question of why consciousness is.
@GnomiMoody
9 жыл бұрын
You learn how the brain evolved, as new species gained intelligence as their brain grew bigger / more regions, and what that allowed these species to do differently than their ancestors.
@joeruf6526
8 жыл бұрын
+James Taylor Yes. That is why in the end the tone of the obvious is spurious. Further, if it is to be given the authority of science, one will also have to be able to point to a period in the evolutionary past when it could have been predicted. Is it a utility? If our consciousness causes us to blow up the world is evolution false? does anyone really care?
@eric123abacus
12 жыл бұрын
we need more optimism like his in the cognitive sciences!
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Does it make sense one saying "I see that tree but I I am not conscious of it" and sometime later "Now I am conscious of it"? Yes or No.
@bhar11190
6 жыл бұрын
These are some awesome comments!
@nickolasgaspar9660
5 жыл бұрын
and scientific illiterate and pseudo philosophical
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
I agree that a mirror is necessary to see yourself. If you are just awareness (or rather, being aware), you would need such a mirror (as there is no 'thing' to be aware of). So what better than the creation of a mind/body/universe to act as such a mirror? (It is not the mirror that does the seeing. It is the apparent material thing in this metaphor, that acts as a reflector. )
@ianalanneilgrant4626
4 жыл бұрын
11:58 it is surprising how much of basic high-school physics does _not_ admit of different levels of description, especially in thermodynamics. To see this, ask a selection of highschool students to explain Archimedes' principle (the up-thrust being equal to the weight of the displaced fluid) and how it is produced by the action of molecules in a gas or liquid in thermodynamic motion.
@litwriter100
11 жыл бұрын
Basically, he is saying that while matter per se is non sentient, when combined with itself in sophisticated patterns becomes sentient and self-conscious. He could have said this in ten seconds, especially since he doesn’t explain how this proposition is possible. Bricks combined into a certain pattern forms a house, but the constituent bricks remain just that. (Continued)
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
When I say "I am tired". How do I know it? My consciousness tells me so? Or should I look into my mind to find some kind of indication of it? Is there a place for tiredness in my mind, with some indicators of how tired I am? Or do I focus on parts of my body to check if that is the case. And on the basis of the above, finally declare :I am tired! Or do I just "feel" tired and say so?
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
...and one of the biggest limitations we humans have in 'understanding' is the concept of time. All our 'knowledge' of this 'matter' is based on this concept, on the testing of theory. Yet all our consciousness ever gets to witness is the present moment. So, possibly THE biggest limitation we have is believing that we have to understand everything - rather than enjoy being (part of it?). And, as evidenced here, this limitation accompanies me.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
@ 5piles - can you give an example to make things a little more grounded?
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
The apparent mystery comes from the misuse of the words "conscious" and "consciousness". What is the difference between saying "I see that tree" and saying "I am conscious that I see that tree", or saying "The tree I see is in my consciousness" What do the words "conscious" and "consciousness" add to the first statement? Why are they needed? The mystery is an invention.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Vision or the "process" of seeing involves the eyes and all of its components, retina , and auxiliary nerves for directioning and focusing, etc...all outside the brain. The lack or malfunction of any of them impairs vision. Why this fixation on the brain, part of it as much as all the others? What does it mean to say that vision occurs "in" the brain, or mind. There are images floating there like in a (3D) movie projection? Who/what is watching them? Consciousness? What would its function be?
@MrMacmanjones
11 жыл бұрын
Digestion is a biological process involving elements both inside and outside the digestive tract. Consciousness thought is a biological process involving external stimuli internal neurobiology. They are both processes and they both exist, maybe not independently, but that doesn't make them any less existent.
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
Searle never said consciousness does not drive these actions. I think you're misunderstanding his use of the word 'intentionality'. The 'unconscious' can never take over, it is not a positive force in the world, it is merely the absence of consciousness. Many 'intentional' acts are performed by your brain everyday that you are completely unaware of (reflexes, muscle memory, bodily functions,etc). Whether or not we actively will them into action, all of these actions have an 'intent'.
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
I have a similar belief. What is more, I consider consciousness, that primal essence, is a singularity which has nothing to be conscious OF, without the creation of matter and can not know itself without the evolution of mind.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Equally so, we think a "place" or "medium" for it. What difference would this place have in relation to the brain itself? A thinking matter or substance? What for?
@TomasMikaX
11 жыл бұрын
How can you say that something doesn't exist and then in the very next sentence describe existing properties of said thing?
@konzsimo
11 жыл бұрын
I agree with your point. I was simply giving reason for the statement "consciousness does not exist" being false. I still think the water analogy ( stolen from Searle) is of use , if only for helping us throw off the hangover of the Cartesian duality.Whilst I am well aware that current technology does not give us the answers to consciousness, namely the "aboutness" I do think that regarding consciousness a physical phenomena is the only road in which to one day solve the mystery , if it can be.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Can we say "yes, i can see that tree, but not consciously" and moments later "now I can see it consciously". ?
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Good Lord! Save me from ists and isms...I can deal with Searle.
@teachphilosophy
11 жыл бұрын
This a good objection to drive debate deeper, but I think it fails. I believe this is disanalogous because there is something it is like to be conscious but there isn't something it is like to be digestion. Running is a process of the physical body and we can capture all there is to running with a movie camera; but consciousness we cannot capture. I cannot see your conscious experience of say green when I film your brain in action...only neural correlates.
@davidcuarzo1986
4 ай бұрын
Continuando la tradición de Oxford, Jhon Rogers Searle asume la distinción de su maestro Austin entre una dimensión constatativa y otra dimensión realizativa del lenguaje, como también el desplazamiento y puesta del énfasis analítico en esta última, el cual intensifica respecto de Austin. Lo hace, sin embargo, introduciendo una crítica dirigida al concepto de «regla» de su predecesor y la supuesta generalización que hace de los actos de habla al proponer siempre ejemplos de actos «institucionalmente ligados», como si estos agotasen la totalidad de los actos de habla o reduciendo los actos de habla a los institucionales (como los propios de juicios, bodas etc). Searle señala que los actos de habla en contextos institucionales no son, de hecho, los únicos, pues tales actos también se dan en contextos comunicativos informales y conversacionales. Para ello introduce una nueva distinción entre: 1) «reglas regulativas», las cuales están dirigidas a permitir, prohibir u obligar conductas humanas (las cuales habría priorizado desproporcionadamente Austin) y 2) «reglas constitutivas», que no se encargan de regular sino que constituyen en sí mismas nuevas formas de conducta, porque han sido abstraídas de las condiciones tanto necesarias como suficientes de los casos particulares en los que se cumple el acto del habla, como por ejemplo el de una promesa. Este tipo de reglas son las que verdaderamente rigen tanto en contextos institucionales como informales, en contra de Austin. Este problema continúa el de la fundación de la normatividad del lenguaje, que ya vimos en Wittgenstein.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Totally agree with the "social construction" part of it.
@tbayley6
11 жыл бұрын
There are different levels of consciousness. Searle even mentions two visual centres here: one conscious, one unconscious. It is possible to see without 'taking note', but later remember seeing. But of course you have to take note to say 'I am seeing'! And there are other levels, e.g. you can semi-consciously take note while being distracted (by thoughts, conditioning, boredom etc), or you can be so conscious you are conscious of being conscious. This last is necessary for true objectivity.
@waltdill927
Жыл бұрын
Strictly speaking, introspection is not a distinct level of conscious life. Seems to me, it is more like a dialog with the artifice of a "thinking self". The epistemological "object" of such a science is referenced by a psychology of cognition.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
The word "consciousness is an "invention" of men for practical communication purposes. We all know what it means. There are scientific questions on "how" we become conscious, the whole process. But what are the philosophical issues?
@ddextera
11 жыл бұрын
Dear John, What about when you are not engaged in the four F's? -A moments stillness, a pause in the steam of perceptions? -Not even for an MRI? Why so convinced that the brain creates Consciousness and not the other way around? What about Jill Bolte Taylor's Stroke of Insight and Anita Moorjani? The "problem" of Consciousness will never be an intellectual achievement. The intellect is but one small aspect of Consciousness and will not unfurl her secrets, any more than my toe nail will.
@slimpockets
12 жыл бұрын
Awesome.
@Jester123ish
11 жыл бұрын
Just as the eyes see what is outside the body, consciousness senses what is outside the brain, yet both occur inside your being.
@litwriter100
11 жыл бұрын
(Continued) Such a paradigm might well explain volition (and maybe renders advanced AI theoretically possible), but not brute sensations like pain and pleasure. The position of matter within a body/brain causes feelings, yes, but what exactly does the feeling?
@davidcuarzo1986
4 ай бұрын
Así, su formulación del concepto de regla constitutiva recibe una notable influencia de Jhon Rawls y su concepto de «reglas de la práctica» (rules of practice), de un artículo de Rawls que data de 1955, donde el autor de Teoría de la Justicia afirma que las reglas «son lógicamente anteriores a los casos particulares en el sentido de que, si no existieran, los términos referentes a las acciones especificadas por ellas carecerían de sentido». La normatividad y el pragmatismo, por influencia creciente del nuevo imperio hegemónico norteamericano, vuelve a introducirse en el eximperio inglés, como vimos que lo hacía en Wittgenstein por vía del economista Plumpton Ramsey, quien le introducía en Pierce. Searle constituye en este sentido una síntesis de las tesis de Austin y Rawls. La profundización e intensificación teóricas en la dimensión pragmática del análisis alcanza nuevas cotas tanto en Searle como luego en Strawson, los cuales llegan a identificar actos locutivos e ilocutivos (que en Austin aparecían más bien distintos), pero en una absorción en los actos ilocutivos de los locutivos.
@konzsimo
11 жыл бұрын
Consciousness does exist but as a feature of a system, namely your brain and central nervous system. In the same way as if you were to study a glass of water on an atomic scale you could not find a singular atom that has liquidity yet one of the features of the glass of water as a whole is liquidity. So concepts such as consciousness and digestion do “exist” but as features of systems not as something you can point to and say “this specific physical thing is consciousness”.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
I really like the analogy with indigestion (truly, more later). Suggestively, this guy gives me a "brain indigestion, felt consciously as nausea".
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Now I am confused. He pours the water in the glass holding the bottle with his right hand and keeps holding the glass with his left hand. From the beggining my consciousness was wispering to me that it was having a circus like feeling about the whole thing. At that point, my consciousness opened my mind. I, my conciousness, and my mind are very good pals. Sometimes we may have disagreements. So far, a consultation with John was not necessary. THANK GOD!
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
What is the difference between "I am watching Searle's video" and "I am watching Searle's video consciously"?
@daveklebt7732
3 жыл бұрын
no you are not conscious of your consciousness of your consciousness of watching the vid. however you are present.
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
if you were to tell me "I am conscious of seeing", your intentions might be otherwise, but i might fairly assume that you were trying to tell me that you are 'aware of your capability to be aware'. aware of one's awareness, self-reflection; as opposed to a simpler mode of existing where a hypothetical creature might simply stumble through the world on sense-data alone.
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
So, I do not see consciousness, or being aware, as 'real' in terms of being a seperable 'thing' in the physical world. However, the 'real world', the 'reality' of the separable, physical things we perceive, is only apparent. When you look into a mirror, what do you see? Do you see the mirror, or a reflection of 'self'???
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
The analogy with indigestion applies to a certain extent. Indigestion is indeed not "something". It is nonsense then to talk about its "creation". It is also erroneous to see the stomach as the "creator", the "originator", the "place of occurrence", whatever. of indigestion. The stomach is only one element in a complex "organism wide" process that we call indigestion.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
I think that we are close indeed. One difference is that I like to think that the brain itself, with its matter ,chemistry, electricity, magnetism, what else(?), functions "itself", autonomously, and is not a basis for the functioning of some "mind". Important! I am not saying that the mind IS the mind. I am saying that the mind is also nothing at all. The noun "mind" is only a gramatical convenience. Like "sky". Skyis not "something. A la Russell, "mental functions", not "mind functions".
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
you are letting language usage confuse your ideas. brains create consciousness, this is no different than saying stomachs create digestion. consciousness is simply the function that the brain performs. we experience that state and call it 'consciousness'
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
my consciousness has not made me aware of it, so far. It hasn't been working very well lately. it shows me a yellow, but everybody says it is green. maybe mine is right and everybody else's is wrong.don't know how to resolve this one. maybe i will interpret as green whenever my consciousness shows a yellow. that would be the easiest pragmatic way to keep going. at least until things get sorted out.
@QualicSelf
11 жыл бұрын
What would you say to the argument of string theory physicists that the universe is holographic? And to the New Age people who say that the universe is all conciousness, it only exists to a perceiver. Would an all pervading conciousness be able to channel itself into the brain if the brain works holographically? (see holonomic brain theory)
@matthiaswalker38
11 жыл бұрын
So how many neurons does it take to make consciousness?
@spatesel
12 жыл бұрын
God is good
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
If you are talking to me, yes, digestion does not exist. Digestion is a word that refers to a process involving elements that do exist. Analogy: Do winds exist? Or is wind just a word to refer to the movement of air, and air is what does exist. I am surprised that you see your conciousness. I wonder how it looks like. I have never seen anything that I woud call consciousness. How do you see your own conciousness? Through another conciousness? Or your conciousness has the ability to see itself
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
I know nothing about ' isms'. I know that to raise one's arm and say this is consciousness in action is philosophy for 1st graders. Or simply a circus. Let me ask a question? Have you ever caught yourself driving on a very usual route withought even being conscious of it? You move your legs and arms unconsciously, as you do most of the time while driving anyway. Does that mean that consciousness includes also uncoscioussness? Or besides conscioussness, we have also an uncosciousness?
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Good exchange, rare around here, showing some overlaps of opinions (also of rare kind), and some radical changes as well, with my view that may be more than rare. Namely that 'something' that goes by the name of 'mind' is not elusive. It is an illusion. Not that word would be meaningless, just would not 'name' 'something'. Well, i think that you got me.
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
memory recollection may contribute to consciousness, but it is not consciousness. you can be in varying degrees of consciousness and still forget something. your attempt to remember the person's name was intentional, but the fact you cannot recall it is not intentional. calling it dusty, carries the metaphor beyond useful correlation. (burnt out would be dead in that metaphor).
@FortyStartledGalahs
11 жыл бұрын
Well, to me the brain is just the physical components, the mind is the functioning, the perception of sensorial data, memory and thoughts, and the consciousness is nothing - just the being aware of what is in the mind. So we get back to words and shared meaning again. I agree with Peter Russell here that a noun is a dangerous label for it - better to use a verb because it only happens in the present; he uses the word 'awareing'.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Is it like: my consciousness sees the tree and I see the tree in my consciousness? Why would I need a consciousness in the middle of the process, if in the end I have to see the tree no matter what? Consciousness would transform what I see without seeing into something that I see seeing? A fish sees objects in the ocean. It does not need a consciousness to do it. Why would we? Consciousness turns it into something conscious? And something conscious is what is in the consciousness?
@matthiaswalker38
11 жыл бұрын
That can be said for all things. Everything is a sum of its parts. Though experience doesn't form consciousness.
@marcobiagini1878
3 жыл бұрын
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
@nickolasgaspar9660
5 жыл бұрын
Its unfortunate that more philosophers and everyday people do not use language like Searle does. It would affect our politics and our social organization systems and the behavior of those who govern them...
@normtheclone
11 жыл бұрын
How is consciousness a result of senses? This would mean that machines with sensory perception of their environment are conscious. So would that make robots that can "see" their environment conscious? What about animals with extra senses? Could sharks be said to be more conscious than other animals because they possess a "sixth sense"? What about animals that are blind, are they somehow less conscious than other animals?
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
you can have science and still have morality and ethics. morality and ethics can be derived from various sources. they are a social construction that changes across cultures.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
When you see your notes, are you seeing the past or just some signs on a piece of paper? Even if you are reading those signs, are you "seeing" the past as you do it? Or are your notes only activating certain visual images of the past? What is the f..... big deal?
@pronghornllc2200
7 жыл бұрын
The exploration of consciousness requires that we suspend conventional notions of reality, namely, that of firm ontological division between the mind and the external. If you have nothing outlandish to say, then you have nothing to contribute. This talk is Phil 101 like wtf
@nickolasgaspar9660
5 жыл бұрын
No it doesn't requires to get fuzzy with our understanding of the world and our approach. Outlandish claims in favor of Phlogiston, Orgone Energy, Panacea, Miasma, elan vital , Caloric, Alkahest, Alicorn, Aether, Elixir of life, Coronium, Erototoxins, Nebulium, Polywater, Red Mercury etc etc did avoid ending up in a long list of discredited "substances". A Far more simple explanation like Chemical processes came to be FAR more descriptive, explanatory, predictive with instrumental valuable!. This is the fate of "magical consciousness". ...people need to realize that.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Exactly. Features, concepts, ...not "something". Disagree with the example of water. Water IS "something". Liquidity is feature, volume is concept,...
@brettwolfe116
11 жыл бұрын
it was my understanding that the brain operating basic unconscious functions is still a form of intentionality.
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
What is the basis to assert as an unassailable fact that consciousness exists and is real? Unassailably, a very elusive existence! We are conscious, we feel, we see, etc...Why would we need "something" to do it for us , a consciousness . Would "it" then communicate to us what "it" feels, sees, etc...and then we would be conscious of it. Do we look at "it", the consciousness, in order to see ourselves what "it" sees, for us? If so, how do we see in our conciousness what it sees for us?-continues
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Got what you missed. My reference to mind on the second part is exactly to show the absurdity of such a "thing". Apparently, you saw such absurdity as something very plausible. It may help to think of how we can say that ghosts don't exist. Can't use the word to express your disbelief in such "thing"?
@tshkrel
12 жыл бұрын
I hugged my mother today because I love her . . . Ontologically subjective I didn't realize though, according to Searle, that this is epistemically objective That is, this action of mine was/is measurable or quantifiable by neurobiology So . . . What is LOVE? . . . Neurotransmitters acting in a specific way? "Consciousness is neurologically derived" throws out ALL of ethics and morality. That is, How can we say that atoms and electrons and neurotransmitters arranged in a certain way are "BAD"?
@justbede
11 жыл бұрын
Beliefs are for religion. Philosophy is about thinking. The word consciousness itself is used in many different ways: as some kind of something that may have an "existence", and we may "have" . It may be an adverb"I did that with consciousness of the consequences. It may be an adjective " His consciousness of all factors allowed him to take a good decision. Philosophers make a "pastichio" of it all (job security). My question is simple.
Пікірлер: 314