40 ms·

Yes. Do physical damage to the brain and the abstract thinking (along with other kinds) dissapears.

pegasus 11y ago
Sure. We've known this for a while. If this settles the argument, what's the point of further investigation? It's clear that the brain is intimately involved in the expression of consciousness. But whether it's the source is really a question outside science. For example, it's role could also be analogous to a radio. Damage the radio and there goes the beautiful music. But seeing the radio as the source would be kinda missing the whole point, wouldn't it?
- amelius 11y ago
  > It's clear that the brain is intimately involved in the expression of consciousness. But whether it's the source is really a question outside science. There is clearly an interaction between consciousness and physics; a simple proof is that we are now talking about consciousness (its existence somehow loops back into the physical world). Therefore, consciousness should be definitely part of science.
- mbrock 11y ago
  Well, everyone agrees that the brain acts as a kind of radio: its antennas are the senses and the music is the stream of qualia. Or something like that. Language is also a big part of consciousness, and that's not internal to the brain—it's social. So it's kind of unclear what it means to talk about the "source" of consciousness. Most often I see the radio metaphor invoked in a vaguely mystical way, where the signal of consciousness is supposed to emanate from some totally unknown background source that nobody has any idea at all what it might be, except some people choose to call it "God." All that stuff is totally non-scientific until someone comes up with a clear hypothesis.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Capt-RogerOver 11y ago
  > But whether it's the source is really a question outside science. For example, it's role could also be analogous to a radio. What happens when the science will eventually come up with technology to recreate (by all external empirical evidence) a human consciousness? Would you still say it's a "question outside science"? Then perhaps you can still claim that even the newely created mind inside a machine is also just a "radio" receiving the consciousness signals from the cosmos? Even so, of course noone can stop you from looking at things from that perspective, but then you can perhaps just look at the practical applications of understand exactly how such "radios" work and being able to have a technology which will in all external observable regards act as a human (even if you still perhaps won't believe it will have the same "real" type of consciousness as one). The peculiar thing about this question is that normally people who don't understand some advanced science (like automobiles or computing or radio, etc.) - don't actively express a will to keep others from studying and developing that science. There are billions who don't understand all the intricacies of a modern smartphone, but almost none of them (minus the religious fanatics) say things like "humans should not try to find this out", "that is not a question for science", "you will never be able to understand that", "herecy!", etc. And yet, when it comes to the science of consciousness, the mind, human cognition, artificial intelligence etc - we hear these voices all the time. "Stop studying the brain", "science can't help", "we'll never understand the mind", "it's above our abilities", etc. etc. Latest years have shown a tremendous progress in understanding and recreating parts of human intelligence. The task is huge and a lot is left to do, but every new understanding or technology clearly shows a pattern that we are getting close to it. And yet no matter how much "evidence" (in form of recreating) comes up, people still seem to feel unsettled that the science tries (and slowly succeeds) to understand the human mind. Having talked to many of these people it almost seems like they have a fear, a deep rooted fear of being a "machine" themselves. Somehow if they know that there is someone who understands how they work (and can recreate them), they feel like that diminishes their value, or perhaps removes their "soul" somehow? Well it doesn't. No amount of technical understanding and technological will abilities will diminish any subjective religious and other deep experiences. Because that's what they are: subjective. > But seeing the radio as the source would be kinda missing the whole point, wouldn't it? What point are these scientists missing? They are simply trying to create Strong AI. There is no "point" to this besides the technology itself. Sorry if anyone is upset, I'm just trying to understand the objection here. The scientists are clearly doing great and useful work, why would anyone think that they are wrong in doing that?

Sure. We've known this for a while. If this settles the argument, what's the point of further investigation? It's clear that the brain is intimately involved in the expression of consciousness. But whether it's the source is really a question outside science. For example, it's role could also be analogous to a radio. Damage the radio and there goes the beautiful music. But seeing the radio as the source would be kinda missing the whole point, wouldn't it?

amelius 11y ago
> It's clear that the brain is intimately involved in the expression of consciousness. But whether it's the source is really a question outside science. There is clearly an interaction between consciousness and physics; a simple proof is that we are now talking about consciousness (its existence somehow loops back into the physical world). Therefore, consciousness should be definitely part of science.
mbrock 11y ago
Well, everyone agrees that the brain acts as a kind of radio: its antennas are the senses and the music is the stream of qualia. Or something like that. Language is also a big part of consciousness, and that's not internal to the brain—it's social. So it's kind of unclear what it means to talk about the "source" of consciousness. Most often I see the radio metaphor invoked in a vaguely mystical way, where the signal of consciousness is supposed to emanate from some totally unknown background source that nobody has any idea at all what it might be, except some people choose to call it "God." All that stuff is totally non-scientific until someone comes up with a clear hypothesis.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Capt-RogerOver 11y ago
> But whether it's the source is really a question outside science. For example, it's role could also be analogous to a radio. What happens when the science will eventually come up with technology to recreate (by all external empirical evidence) a human consciousness? Would you still say it's a "question outside science"? Then perhaps you can still claim that even the newely created mind inside a machine is also just a "radio" receiving the consciousness signals from the cosmos? Even so, of course noone can stop you from looking at things from that perspective, but then you can perhaps just look at the practical applications of understand exactly how such "radios" work and being able to have a technology which will in all external observable regards act as a human (even if you still perhaps won't believe it will have the same "real" type of consciousness as one). The peculiar thing about this question is that normally people who don't understand some advanced science (like automobiles or computing or radio, etc.) - don't actively express a will to keep others from studying and developing that science. There are billions who don't understand all the intricacies of a modern smartphone, but almost none of them (minus the religious fanatics) say things like "humans should not try to find this out", "that is not a question for science", "you will never be able to understand that", "herecy!", etc. And yet, when it comes to the science of consciousness, the mind, human cognition, artificial intelligence etc - we hear these voices all the time. "Stop studying the brain", "science can't help", "we'll never understand the mind", "it's above our abilities", etc. etc. Latest years have shown a tremendous progress in understanding and recreating parts of human intelligence. The task is huge and a lot is left to do, but every new understanding or technology clearly shows a pattern that we are getting close to it. And yet no matter how much "evidence" (in form of recreating) comes up, people still seem to feel unsettled that the science tries (and slowly succeeds) to understand the human mind. Having talked to many of these people it almost seems like they have a fear, a deep rooted fear of being a "machine" themselves. Somehow if they know that there is someone who understands how they work (and can recreate them), they feel like that diminishes their value, or perhaps removes their "soul" somehow? Well it doesn't. No amount of technical understanding and technological will abilities will diminish any subjective religious and other deep experiences. Because that's what they are: subjective. > But seeing the radio as the source would be kinda missing the whole point, wouldn't it? What point are these scientists missing? They are simply trying to create Strong AI. There is no "point" to this besides the technology itself. Sorry if anyone is upset, I'm just trying to understand the objection here. The scientists are clearly doing great and useful work, why would anyone think that they are wrong in doing that?