3 ms·

The blurb that sparked the article: > We are not our brains. We are "conscious agents"... It's > very good news that you are not your brain, because when

by apl 14y ago

The blurb that sparked the article: > We are not our brains. We are "conscious agents"... It's > very good news that you are not your brain, because when > your mind finds its true power, the result is healing, > inspiration, insight, self-awareness, discovery, > curiosity, and quantum leaps in personal growth. The > brain is totally incapable of such things. After all, if > it is a hard-wired machine, there is no room for sudden > leaps and renewed inspiration... Not to slight the blog response under discussion, but the quoted paragraph betrays such deep ignorance of basic neurobiology that any reaction seems like a waste of time. It's quite literally a (neuro-)philosophical equivalent of "Lots of spinach, ergo sum".

zerostar07 14y ago
Well put. Not like his other arguments aren t equally self defeating: 1. Brain activity isn't the same as thinking, feeling, or seeing. 2. No one has remotely shown how molecules acquire the qualities of the mind.* 3. It is impossible to construct a theory of the mind based on material objects that somehow became conscious. 4. When the brain lights up, its activity is like a radio lighting up when music is played. It is an obvious fallacy to say that the radio composed the music. What is being viewed is only a physical correlation, not a cause.
kanzure 14y ago
I find it highly fascinating that the Wikipedia article on "consciousness" says it's basically, well, crap. See for yourself: "Consciousness - The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of equating consciousness with self-consciousness—to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it has evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it." "The most compelling argument for the existence of consciousness is that the vast majority of mankind have an overwhelming intuition that there truly is such a thing.[20] Skeptics argue that this intuition, in spite of its compelling quality, is false, either because the concept of consciousness is intrinsically incoherent, or because our intuitions about it are based in illusions. Gilbert Ryle, for example, argued that traditional understanding of consciousness depends on a Cartesian dualist outlook that improperly distinguishes between mind and body, or between mind and world. He proposed that we speak not of minds, bodies, and the world, but of individuals, or persons, acting in the world. Thus, by speaking of 'consciousness' we end up misleading ourselves by thinking that there is any sort of thing as consciousness separated from behavioral and linguistic understandings.[21] More generally, many philosophers and scientists have been unhappy about the difficulty of producing a definition that does not involve circularity or fuzziness.[17]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness So, I don't find the word very useful.

by apl 14y ago

zerostar07 14y ago

Well put. Not like his other arguments aren t equally self defeating: 1. Brain activity isn't the same as thinking, feeling, or seeing. 2. No one has remotely shown how molecules acquire the qualities of the mind.* 3. It is impossible to construct a theory of the mind based on material objects that somehow became conscious. 4. When the brain lights up, its activity is like a radio lighting up when music is played. It is an obvious fallacy to say that the radio composed the music. What is being viewed is only a physical correlation, not a cause.

kanzure 14y ago

I find it highly fascinating that the Wikipedia article on "consciousness" says it's basically, well, crap. See for yourself: "Consciousness - The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of equating consciousness with self-consciousness—to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it has evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it." "The most compelling argument for the existence of consciousness is that the vast majority of mankind have an overwhelming intuition that there truly is such a thing.[20] Skeptics argue that this intuition, in spite of its compelling quality, is false, either because the concept of consciousness is intrinsically incoherent, or because our intuitions about it are based in illusions. Gilbert Ryle, for example, argued that traditional understanding of consciousness depends on a Cartesian dualist outlook that improperly distinguishes between mind and body, or between mind and world. He proposed that we speak not of minds, bodies, and the world, but of individuals, or persons, acting in the world. Thus, by speaking of 'consciousness' we end up misleading ourselves by thinking that there is any sort of thing as consciousness separated from behavioral and linguistic understandings.[21] More generally, many philosophers and scientists have been unhappy about the difficulty of producing a definition that does not involve circularity or fuzziness.[17]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness So, I don't find the word very useful.