Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
/mod
-
Features
There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.
- Thread starter Subsymbolic
- Start date
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 6,322
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
I disagree with a lot of what you've been saying, but I really do need to call this out specifically. Sleeping is absolutely normal brain function. It seems absurd to suggest otherwise.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 6,322
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
Anyone in this thread.I get how it's supposed to relate... but I'm having a tough time granting reasonable authority in this area to a physicist who doesn't actually have any background in neurology or even cognitive development or anything really related to the brain. I could certainly be wrong, but I'm inclined to dismiss his opinion as not being relevant enough to merit much attention. If you feel otherwise, of course you should feel free to educate me!
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 6,322
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
[edited to comply with moderator request]
Yes - a brain is a NECESSARY component for the existence of a mind. But if you acknowledge that things outside of the brain are also required for the existence of a mind... then the appropriate terminology is to say that the brain is not a SUFFICIENT component.
I've been assuming that these concepts are ones you know and are familiar with. If that assumption was in error, I apologize and I'll happily expand on what the terms 'necessary' and 'sufficient' imply.
untermensche
Contributor
I mean the brain is not functioning as it normally functions when awake.
Consciousness arises because of some specific unknown activity of the brain.
If that activity is altered so is consciousness.
But none of this proves in any way that consciousness, whatever it is, cannot also act on the brain.
The use of the mind to lower blood pressure is a good example.
And the claim that brain has to first trick the mind into thinking the mind can lower the blood pressure before the brain does it is too absurd to take seriously.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
His arguments about downward causation apply to nature as a whole. Unless you think the mind is somehow not entirely natural you can only take his arguments to apply ipso facto to the mind irrespective of whether he is qualified to deal with neurological processes.
EB
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
As a practical matter emergent systems are only possible in closed systems. If all is included then no system is emergent as all is explained by interactions among the parts.
untermensche
Contributor
You have no idea even what system you are talking about.
Nothing can be said objectively about consciousness until we first know what it is.
It may be a system unlike any system we have ever encountered.
And it looks to be that way.
Thus the complete lack of any understanding of what it is objectively.
Nothing can be said objectively about consciousness until we first know what it is.
It may be a system unlike any system we have ever encountered.
And it looks to be that way.
Thus the complete lack of any understanding of what it is objectively.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Me, I really don't understand what you're saying.
I don't want to push your nature, but you may want to be a little bit more didactic here. Could you explain?
EB