5 ms·

I have a beginner level interest in philosophy of mind. I can attempt to add some information on how "...and today we're seeing philosophy of mind turn to neuro

I have a beginner level interest in philosophy of mind. I can attempt to add some information on how "...and today we're seeing philosophy of mind turn to neuroscience." is very wrong. Neuroscience studies various structures and mechanisms of nervous system and brain. Even when they seemingly discuss 'consciousness', they tend to simply mean 'awareness'. I think most are generally familiar with other aspects of neuroscience. In phil. of mind there are categories of consciousness or lack thereof, though Phenomenal Consciousness is more popular area of study (experiential side of consciousness). One of the key subject in Philosophy of mind try to show whether mind can possibly be physical (ex readable article: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf), can mind be described computationally? (ex paper: http://consc.net/papers/rock.html http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) Phi. of mind also studies accesses of consciousness, study methods on how to go about studying contents of consciousness etc. I've talked to neuroscientist who despise philosophers talking about conciseness and claim their ideas are silly or can be ignored. There has also been cases where big name neuroscientist proposed silly ideas about mind that philosophers wouldn't begin to consider. In short they study different things.

naasking 10y ago
> Neuroscience studies various structures and mechanisms of nervous system and brain. Even when they seemingly discuss 'consciousness', they tend to simply mean 'awareness'. You should give neuroscientists more credit! Some of them are aware of the philosophical problems surrounding subjectivity, and have tried to tackle them [1]. That's one of my favoured scientific theories on the source of subjectivity. I can also sympathize with the disdain with whic some neuroscientists view some philosophers of mind. They've debated some completely ridiculous theories of mind in order to rationalize human importance. These consciousness debates are following the arc of vitalism, which the science of biology eventually simply replaced, and I expect these neuroscientists see it as a waste of time for similar reasons. [1] http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00...
- md224 10y ago
  That attention schema theory is interesting but it still doesn't solve the Hard Problem: why information about colors looks like colors, why information about surfaces feels like a surface... how a biological system could experience joy or sadness, orgasm or terror, etc. They seem to be solving the very narrow problem of self-awareness, but not awareness in general. And I'm pretty self-awareness isn't a prerequisite for general awareness. (Just ask experienced drug users.) To be fair, no existing theory can explain subjective experience, so it's not a knock on that theory specifically. There seem to be a subset of human beings who have convinced themselves they aren't conscious, even though it's not clear who they think they've convinced or who did the convincing. If you're one of them, that's okay... it's just not a conclusion I would personally endorse ("I" being whatever force is selecting the words that you're currently reading). P.S. If something concludes that it's aware, then is it aware it has reached that conclusion? And if so, would that lead to an infinite regress? Perhaps that's what consciousness is... an infinite regress of awareness. :)
  - saalweachter 10y ago
    I don't know that I'd say infinite. I mean, sit back and really focus on being aware that you're aware that you're aware... how many layers can you manage? 3? 12? 100?
  - ecrukjfxdiuu 10y ago
    Maybe, but also may not be so: it would then cause infinite consciousness/"I" to arise in ~me(?)~, which seems odd. These are very confusing topic that very much interests me. My understanding is that there are a lot of developed theories in philosophy that tries to explain "ego/I/me" aspect of consciousness. A lot of it is highly technical material. I've been trying to fully understand the content of the book "The Transcendence of the Ego" by Satre for a while, where he claims: "We should like to show here that the ego is neither formally nor materially in consciousness: it is outside, in the world. It is being of the world, like the ego of another." -- ie, gets rid of insider "I". Phenomenologically "I" being only a formal thing, not actual. (maybe-helpful discussion if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNFWyYa7ef4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNFWyYa7ef4) Phenomenology, the subject, itself is very interesting. It's the most fundamental of sciences (previously thought it was physics).

naasking 10y ago

> Neuroscience studies various structures and mechanisms of nervous system and brain. Even when they seemingly discuss 'consciousness', they tend to simply mean 'awareness'. You should give neuroscientists more credit! Some of them are aware of the philosophical problems surrounding subjectivity, and have tried to tackle them [1]. That's one of my favoured scientific theories on the source of subjectivity. I can also sympathize with the disdain with whic some neuroscientists view some philosophers of mind. They've debated some completely ridiculous theories of mind in order to rationalize human importance. These consciousness debates are following the arc of vitalism, which the science of biology eventually simply replaced, and I expect these neuroscientists see it as a waste of time for similar reasons. [1] http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00...

md224 10y ago
That attention schema theory is interesting but it still doesn't solve the Hard Problem: why information about colors looks like colors, why information about surfaces feels like a surface... how a biological system could experience joy or sadness, orgasm or terror, etc. They seem to be solving the very narrow problem of self-awareness, but not awareness in general. And I'm pretty self-awareness isn't a prerequisite for general awareness. (Just ask experienced drug users.) To be fair, no existing theory can explain subjective experience, so it's not a knock on that theory specifically. There seem to be a subset of human beings who have convinced themselves they aren't conscious, even though it's not clear who they think they've convinced or who did the convincing. If you're one of them, that's okay... it's just not a conclusion I would personally endorse ("I" being whatever force is selecting the words that you're currently reading). P.S. If something concludes that it's aware, then is it aware it has reached that conclusion? And if so, would that lead to an infinite regress? Perhaps that's what consciousness is... an infinite regress of awareness. :)
- saalweachter 10y ago
  I don't know that I'd say infinite. I mean, sit back and really focus on being aware that you're aware that you're aware... how many layers can you manage? 3? 12? 100?
- ecrukjfxdiuu 10y ago
  Maybe, but also may not be so: it would then cause infinite consciousness/"I" to arise in ~me(?)~, which seems odd. These are very confusing topic that very much interests me. My understanding is that there are a lot of developed theories in philosophy that tries to explain "ego/I/me" aspect of consciousness. A lot of it is highly technical material. I've been trying to fully understand the content of the book "The Transcendence of the Ego" by Satre for a while, where he claims: "We should like to show here that the ego is neither formally nor materially in consciousness: it is outside, in the world. It is being of the world, like the ego of another." -- ie, gets rid of insider "I". Phenomenologically "I" being only a formal thing, not actual. (maybe-helpful discussion if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNFWyYa7ef4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNFWyYa7ef4) Phenomenology, the subject, itself is very interesting. It's the most fundamental of sciences (previously thought it was physics).