4 ms·

so tell me any theory that tries to validate the existence of non-material consciousness. Giving loads of names of scientists won't help in establishing what mo

by kr4 10y ago

so tell me any theory that tries to validate the existence of non-material consciousness. Giving loads of names of scientists won't help in establishing what modern science says about consciousness. The current stance is to try to define consciousness in physical terms (as a matterial substance) but with no success. As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain. It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, so hence the material hypothesis has never stood a chance. Non-material is where science hasn't taken a single step AFAIK yet.

devishard 10y ago
> so tell me any theory that tries to validate the existence of non-material consciousness. A great deal of the context around quantum mechanical study has been to validate the existence of free will; whether consciousness can be ascribed to deterministic processes or not. > Giving loads of names of scientists won't help in establishing what modern science says about consciousness. It would be a great starting point if you decided to bother to inform yourself on what these people have said about consciousness. > As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain. Some scientists take this few. Many don't. > It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, That's because the law of thermodynamics deal with heat and entropy. If you're expecting laws about heat and entropy to apply to consciousness I'm not sure where your thought process has gone so horribly wrong, so I can't really help you.
tpm 10y ago
Do read Stanislas Dehaene: Consciousness and the Brain
vixen99 10y ago
"It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, so hence the material hypothesis has never stood a chance." is a non sequitur as is "As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain". You cannot give an example of consciousness in the absence of matter. Perceptions are always demonstrably linked to material entities - ask a brain surgeon who can tweak your perceptions with an electrode. I think you make a categoric mistake in insisting on separating perception from the activities which are responsible for it. Might a software daemon one day in the far future report consciousness? I can see no reason why not; we have kinship with that hypothetical daemon! Searle's Chinese translation argument is related to your thoughts on this and has been (as far as I can see) comprehensively demolished though I guess there will always be a rear-guard protest. I think the problem arises from the fuzzy definitions and assumptions used.

by kr4 10y ago

devishard 10y ago

> so tell me any theory that tries to validate the existence of non-material consciousness. A great deal of the context around quantum mechanical study has been to validate the existence of free will; whether consciousness can be ascribed to deterministic processes or not. > Giving loads of names of scientists won't help in establishing what modern science says about consciousness. It would be a great starting point if you decided to bother to inform yourself on what these people have said about consciousness. > As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain. Some scientists take this few. Many don't. > It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, That's because the law of thermodynamics deal with heat and entropy. If you're expecting laws about heat and entropy to apply to consciousness I'm not sure where your thought process has gone so horribly wrong, so I can't really help you.

tpm 10y ago

Do read Stanislas Dehaene: Consciousness and the Brain

vixen99 10y ago

"It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, so hence the material hypothesis has never stood a chance." is a non sequitur as is "As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain". You cannot give an example of consciousness in the absence of matter. Perceptions are always demonstrably linked to material entities - ask a brain surgeon who can tweak your perceptions with an electrode. I think you make a categoric mistake in insisting on separating perception from the activities which are responsible for it. Might a software daemon one day in the far future report consciousness? I can see no reason why not; we have kinship with that hypothetical daemon! Searle's Chinese translation argument is related to your thoughts on this and has been (as far as I can see) comprehensively demolished though I guess there will always be a rear-guard protest. I think the problem arises from the fuzzy definitions and assumptions used.