The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 309008 times)

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1050 on: 02/12/2013 13:43:37 »
Feynman said science involves:
1. Making a guess (hypothesis) about the explanation for some real world observation.
2. Calculating the implications of that guess.
3. Testing to see whether those implications are borne out in the real world.

Clearly the guess must have calculable implications that can be tested.

Don has made a guess about consciousness. Unfortunately, by invoking the absence of material causation and the unknown, there are no known implications, and nothing testable.

By framing it in terms of what it is not (i.e. consciousness is not of material origin) one might assume that it could be falsified by demonstrating the converse (i.e. that it is of material origin). However, the lack of positive definition of 'immaterial'  means that no matter how much detailed evidence we collect that points to consciousness having a material origin, no matter how detailed the neural correlates of conscious behaviour, he can claim some non-material controlling influence, whether at the sub-atomic level, the biochemical level, the neural level, or the whole brain level, without fear of disproof. By reductio-ad-absurdum, it becomes clear that, in general, the immaterial hypothesis is no explanation at all, it is valueless as it adds nothing to our existing understanding and predicts nothing. It is the argument from ignorance combined with the argument from incredulity and follows the same logical progression as the god-of-the-gaps argument.

It's reminiscent of a shaman who claims that a motor car is motivated by spirits; when told it is the internal combustion engine, he says that spirits make that work; when the mechanism is explained, he says spirits make the spark and ignite the fuel; when electricity and fuel combustion are explained, he says they're controlled by spirits; and so-on. Ultimately, a fully detailed explanation of the car is made, down to the quantum mechanical level, which the shaman insists is the work of spirits. What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?

Consciousness, of course, is a subtler problem, because no matter how detailed our elucidation and understanding of the neural construction of consciousness, we still have the existential problem of subjective experience, the sense of self, the experience of qualia, and it would seem that no amount of objective explanation can explain the subjective.

Looking at creatures like the octopus, which despite having a completely different nervous system from any vertebrate, shows strong evidence of a limited consciousness and self-awareness, my hunch is that we'll find that subjective experience is a feature of sufficiently complex flexible and adaptive goal-driven learning systems; i.e. if you are one, you will have some level of awareness and subjective experience.

I may be wrong, there may be a different explanation, or the explanation may remain unknown, but what seems clear for now, is that the negatively defined 'immaterial' hypothesis asserted here by Don (without supporting argument or evidence), explains nothing and can explain nothing. It is a redundant distraction.
Excellent summation dlorde..............
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 16:43:04 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1051 on: 02/12/2013 16:37:19 »
Feynman said science involves:
1. Making a guess (hypothesis) about the explanation for some real world observation.
2. Calculating the implications of that guess.
3. Testing to see whether those implications are borne out in the real world.

Clearly the guess must have calculable implications that can be tested.

Don has made a guess about consciousness. Unfortunately, by invoking the absence of material causation and the unknown, there are no known implications, and nothing testable.

By framing it in terms of what it is not (i.e. consciousness is not of material origin) one might assume that it could be falsified by demonstrating the converse (i.e. that it is of material origin). However, the lack of positive definition of 'immaterial'  means that no matter how much detailed evidence we collect that points to consciousness having a material origin, no matter how detailed the neural correlates of conscious behaviour, he can claim some non-material controlling influence, whether at the sub-atomic level, the biochemical level, the neural level, or the whole brain level, without fear of disproof. By reductio-ad-absurdum, it becomes clear that, in general, the immaterial hypothesis is no explanation at all, it is valueless as it adds nothing to our existing understanding and predicts nothing. It is the argument from ignorance combined with the argument from incredulity and follows the same logical progression as the god-of-the-gaps argument.

It's reminiscent of a shaman who claims that a motor car is motivated by spirits; when told it is the internal combustion engine, he says that spirits make that work; when the mechanism is explained, he says spirits make the spark and ignite the fuel; when electricity and fuel combustion are explained, he says they're controlled by spirits; and so-on. Ultimately, a fully detailed explanation of the car is made, down to the quantum mechanical level, which the shaman insists is the work of spirits. What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?

Consciousness, of course, is a subtler problem, because no matter how detailed our elucidation and understanding of the neural construction of consciousness, we still have the existential problem of subjective experience, the sense of self, the experience of qualia, and it would seem that no amount of objective explanation can explain the subjective.

Looking at creatures like the octopus, which despite having a completely different nervous system from any vertebrate, shows strong evidence of a limited consciousness and self-awareness, my hunch is that we'll find that subjective experience is a feature of sufficiently complex flexible and adaptive goal-driven learning systems; i.e. if you are one, you will have some level of awareness and subjective experience.

I may be wrong, there may be a different explanation, or the explanation may remain unknown, but what seems clear for now, is that the negatively defined 'immaterial' hypothesis asserted here by Don (without supporting argument or evidence), explains nothing and can explain nothing. It is a redundant distraction.




I argue that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism.
 But this is just part of the scientific process.
Certain sorts of explanation turn out not to work, so we need to embrace other sorts of explanation instead.
 Everything I say here is compatible with the results of contemporary science; our picture of the natural world is broadened, not overturned.
 And this broadening allows the possibility of a naturalistic theory of consciousness that might have been impossible without it.
It seems to me that to ignore the problems of consciousness would be antiscientific; it is in the scientific spirit to face up to them directly.
To those who
suspect that science requires materialism, I ask that you wait and see
.

I should note that the conclusions of this work are conclusions, in the strongest sense.

Temperamentally, I am
strongly inclined toward materialist reductive explanation, and I have no strong spiritual or religious inclinations.
For a number of years, I hoped for a materialist theory; when I gave up on this hope, it was quite reluctantly.
 It eventually seemed plain to me that these conclusions were forced on anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.
 Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.


Source : "The conscious mind " by David J.Chalmers , Introduction .
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 16:45:28 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1052 on: 02/12/2013 16:40:08 »
dlorde:

But Feynman wasn't a philosopher, so what he said is considered to be a statement of the obvious (which is indeed the basis of physics) rather than a profound insight, which is the term assigned to Popper's garbled restatement.  How, I wonder, does one become a philosopher? Seems to be the ultimate profession, with massive respect and no liability. 

Quote
What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?

It can inculcate fear and hatred among the stupid, and thus keep the shaman in business and support the killing industry.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 16:47:05 by alancalverd »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1053 on: 02/12/2013 16:43:50 »
Quote
anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.

I'd love to. But first, tell me what it is. I don't buy goods without a meaningful description.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1054 on: 02/12/2013 16:48:15 »
Why have you still not answered my question?

That was not a question , just a quiz

And that makes it impossible to answer?

You don't know the difference between a serious question and a ...quiz ?
The fact that you keep twisting words to dodge the question is rather revealing. If quizzes are impossible to answer, then you'd better go correct the school system about their wrong ways. My options were "all", "some" and "none". That covers all the bases. What fourth option could exist?

We're not playing quiz -like games here , be serious, please .
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1055 on: 02/12/2013 16:51:44 »
If you answered any of the questions put to you, Don, you might be taken seriously. As of now, your postings are merely a waste of space between those involved in a serious discussion.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1056 on: 02/12/2013 16:52:43 »
Quote
anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.

I'd love to. But first, tell me what it is. I don't buy goods without a meaningful description.

So, according to you, we should just ignore such a highly   vital and  important process such as consciousness , simply because there is no clear definition of it ?
Consciousness, is , per definition, so elusive deceptive and mysterious that it still does escape any unanymous clear definition ,but that does not prevent scientists , philosophers ...from trying to approach it ,their own ways .

 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1057 on: 02/12/2013 16:58:23 »
But Feynman wasn't a philosopher, so what he said is considered to be a statement of the obvious (which is indeed the basis of physics) rather than a profound insight, which is the term assigned to Popper's garbled restatement.  How, I wonder, does one become a philosopher? Seems to be the ultimate profession, with massive respect and no liability.
How true; but on the other hand, what constructive contribution has philosophy made to our lives?

Quote
Quote
What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?
It can inculcate fear and hatred among the stupid, and thus keep the shaman in business and support the killing industry.
'Nuff said...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1058 on: 02/12/2013 17:02:45 »
dlorde :

http://www.amazon.com/The-Theory-Everything-Stephen-Hawking/dp/8179925919

I have read , yesterday , some parts of Stephen Hawking's "The theory of everything " , and it did confirm my earlier statement that physicists do try to come up with that elusive "inductive " ( Forgeting that Hume had logically rejected induction )  unified theory of everything ,by trying to unify Einstein's theory of relativity with quantum mechanics , in vain .

Was Hawking just kidding then haha by calling that the theory of everything , or by calling the big bang the big bang ?

Materialists scientists physicists can logically only try to come up with a "theory of everything = nothing ", since "all is matter , including the mind " .

Poor Popper might be spinning in his grave , like crazy , together with B.Russell .haha
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1059 on: 02/12/2013 17:06:32 »
Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .
He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm, within nature still  : to the naturalist non-reductionist one , as atheist T.Nagel had done ,for obvious metaphysical purposes thus .
Religious dualists can also not come up with a faslifiable theory of consciousness .
Maybe , just maybe , i don't know for sure of course , who does in fact ?, maybe , just maybe , consciousness will remain beyond ...science .
Any better suggestions, folks ?
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 17:10:16 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1060 on: 02/12/2013 17:19:59 »
Don, you're rambling again; get a grip.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1061 on: 02/12/2013 17:38:31 »
Don, you're rambling again; get a grip.

Meaning ?

Why don't you just try to address my above displayed posts to you , seriously ?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1062 on: 02/12/2013 19:18:42 »
Quote
anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.

I'd love to. But first, tell me what it is. I don't buy goods without a meaningful description.

simply because there is no clear definition of it ?
Consciousness, is , per definition, so elusive deceptive and mysterious that it still does escape any unanymous clear definition ,but that does not prevent scientists , philosophers ...from trying to approach it ,their own ways .
Taking that fact into account, maybe you should take this Philosophical question to a Philosophy forum? It does not meet the qualifications to be addressed as a New Theory. This is precisely the reason you're receiving so much grief here Don...... Evidently, the intelligence required to recognize that fact is sorely lacking.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1063 on: 02/12/2013 19:21:13 »
Folks :

Maybe the following might give you some sort of temporary illusory consolation, regarding consciousness :
Our minds creating our minds haha = tautology :
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/books/review/book-review-soul-dust-the-magic-of-consciousness-by-nicholas-humphrey.html?_r=0

Or any of these:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Consciousness-Books-List/lm/R3EGL76VZLSV0T
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 20:18:47 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1064 on: 02/12/2013 19:32:50 »
The definition of a theory:

A coherent group of TESTED general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of EXPLANATION and PREDICTIONS for a class of phenomena...........................PERIOD
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1065 on: 02/12/2013 19:39:20 »
Quote
anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.

I'd love to. But first, tell me what it is. I don't buy goods without a meaningful description.

simply because there is no clear definition of it ?
Consciousness, is , per definition, so elusive deceptive and mysterious that it still does escape any unanymous clear definition ,but that does not prevent scientists , philosophers ...from trying to approach it ,their own ways .
Taking that fact into account, maybe you should take this Philosophical question to a Philosophy forum? It does not meet the qualifications to be addressed as a New Theory. This is precisely the reason you're receiving so much grief here Don...... Evidently, the intelligence required to recognize that fact is sorely lacking.

Instead of continuing to play the silly frustrated fool with a grudge or a score to settle , think about the following :

Did it ever occur to you that the philosophy of science or epistemology ,does underly the epistemology of science or that of the scientific method itself, as the writings of Karl Popper and others have been showing ?

Did it ever occur to you that the current false materialist  "all is matter ,including the mind thus "  mainstream 'scientific world view " has therefore been assuming that the "mind is in the brain , or that the mind is just the product of the physical brain's activity " ? = the origin or nature of consciousness is a "scientific " issue thus,so it seems  .

Obviously , cognitive intelligence is not the highest form of intelligence,(cognitive intelligence  you do seem to be relatively lacking as well, since i have to repeat the same stuff to you , over and over again , while you have been failing in grasping just that . ), since the majority of scientists and other people , have been taking the false materialist conception of nature for granted as the 'scientific world view "  .

It takes only one successful falsification to declare any given theory or theory of nature as  false : materialism cannot account for consciousness thus , and hence materialism is false : what parts of the above you are not yet able to understand , if ever ,genius ?

Not to mention your lack of ...imagination as well,to say just that  .


P.S.: Other scientists or philosophers , like Chalmers , Nagel and others , do try to address the issue or hard problem of consciousness , via a non-reductionist naturalist approach .

Science must thus , at least , go through a revolutionary shift of meta-paradigm , not only through a paradigm shift , thanks to the hard problem of consciousness that has been proving the materialist dominating mainstream meta-paradigm in science ,  as ....false thus .

In short :

How come all people here have been failing in grasping the simple above ,for so long now , for months now in fact , during these  long  kilometers long 43 pages of this thread,from here to Japan  ?:

You ,guys , do seriously have to ask this question to yourselves .

What , on earth , is wrong with you , guys , or with your own consciousness, intelligence , imagination ...as not to be able to grasp the simple fact that materialism is false , and hence the current "scientific world view " is also false ,logically,thanks to the hard problem of ...consciousness  .
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 19:54:20 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1066 on: 02/12/2013 19:53:30 »
Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .
He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm

How are you not doing the same? How are you not simply moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm by invoking the immaterial?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1067 on: 02/12/2013 20:01:23 »
Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .
He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm

How are you not doing the same? How are you not simply moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm by invoking the immaterial?

Good question  indeed , for a change : i must give you credit for just that ,sweet Cheryl of ours : good thinking,no kidding,i am serious   :

Well,since the materialist "all is matter , including the mind " conception of nature is false ,mainly because materialism cannot account for consciousness ,  then , logically , not -all is matter ,including consciousness thus = consciousness is not material physical or biological = simple logic .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1068 on: 02/12/2013 20:38:43 »
Why don't you just try to address my above displayed posts to you , seriously ?
I might if I could find something coherent in them to address...

Why don't you answer any of the questions asked of you by anyone here, seriously?

For example: Which of these three statements best describes your stance?

    (1) All aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.
    (2) Some aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically, but others cannot.
    (3) No aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 20:41:39 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1069 on: 02/12/2013 20:50:39 »
Why don't you just try to address my above displayed posts to you , seriously ?
I might if I could find something coherent in them to address...


You gotta be kidding me : come on , be serious : RU blind ? Guess so .
I might be the only one here able to see , in this land of the blind-thread haha .
I will become blind myself , if i keep on "living on this land of the blind-thread " ,who knows ?
The worst kind of blindness is that of the ...heart , the latter as not the biological one .
Many seeing people are blind , and vice versa .
You seem to lack the most important sight of them all , the internal one .
I might be your only chance to see the light haha , kidding .
Congratulations .
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1070 on: 02/12/2013 21:09:42 »
Don Quixote: The chivalrous but UNREALISTIC hero from the novel by Cervantes. Very serious similarities here by name and personality Mr. Don.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1071 on: 02/12/2013 21:13:53 »
Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .
He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm

How are you not doing the same? How are you not simply moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm by invoking the immaterial?

Good question  indeed , for a change : i must give you credit for just that ,sweet Cheryl of ours : good thinking,no kidding,i am serious   :

Well,since the materialist "all is matter , including the mind " conception of nature is false ,mainly because materialism cannot account for consciousness ,  then , logically , not -all is matter ,including consciousness thus = consciousness is not material physical or biological = simple logic .

Nor does immaterialism account for consciousness. In addition, it has not explained any phenomena. Thus consciousness is not immaterial. Simple logic. 
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1072 on: 02/12/2013 21:26:04 »




I argue that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism.
 But this is just part of the scientific process.
Certain sorts of explanation turn out not to work, so we need to embrace other sorts of explanation instead.
 Everything I say here is compatible with the results of contemporary science; our picture of the natural world is broadened, not overturned.
 And this broadening allows the possibility of a naturalistic theory of consciousness that might have been impossible without it.
It seems to me that to ignore the problems of consciousness would be antiscientific; it is in the scientific spirit to face up to them directly.
To those who
suspect that science requires materialism, I ask that you wait and see
.

I should note that the conclusions of this work are conclusions, in the strongest sense.

Temperamentally, I am
strongly inclined toward materialist reductive explanation, and I have no strong spiritual or religious inclinations.
For a number of years, I hoped for a materialist theory; when I gave up on this hope, it was quite reluctantly.
 It eventually seemed plain to me that these conclusions were forced on anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.
 Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.


Source : "The conscious mind " by David J.Chalmers , Introduction .

Again, this is an introduction, which describes what he is about to discuss. Without the argument itself, I'm not sure what your point is in reposting it, other than to say "Hey, look! Someone who once thought materialist mechanisms explained consciousness now thinks otherwise." But your post doesn't include the reasoning behind this change of view, or the view that has replaced it. And no, I do not expect you to post the entire book, but I would expect some attempt on your part to understand his reasons if you are going to use them as evidence for your own position. (I am pleased that you have chosen someone who is not a total crackpot though.)



« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 21:30:55 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1073 on: 02/12/2013 22:37:49 »
Nor does immaterialism account for consciousness. In addition, it has not explained any phenomena. Thus consciousness is not immaterial. Simple logic. 
Indeed, the logic is impeccable, captain. The immaterial cannot be explanatory. Doctor McCoy, would you agree?

Damn it Spock, I'm a doctor, not a logician!
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1074 on: 03/12/2013 07:04:01 »
More fun quizzes! Which consciousness philosopher are you?

Substance dualism
Substance dualism is the view that there exist two kinds of substance: physical and non-physical (the mind), and subsequently also two kinds of properties which adhere in those respective substances.

Property dualism
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is constituted of just one kind of substance - the physical kind - there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains).

Emergent materialism
The antithesis of reductionism, emergentism is the idea that increasingly complex structures in the world give rise to the "emergence" of new properties that are something over and above (i.e. cannot be reduced to) their more basic constituents. The concept of emergence dates back to the late 19th century. John Stuart Mill notably argued for an emergentist conception of science in his 1843 System of Logic.Applied to the mind/body relation, emergent materialism is another way of describing the non-reductive physicalist conception of the mind that asserts that when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e., organized in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge.

Non-reductive Physicalism
Non-reductive physicalism is the predominant contemporary form of property dualism according to which mental properties are mapped to neurobiological properties, but are not reducible to them. Non-reductive physicalism asserts that mind is not ontologically reducible to matter, in that an ontological distinction lies in the differences between the properties of mind and matter. It asserts that while mental states are physical in that they are caused by physical states, they are not ontologically reducible to physical states. No mental state is the same one thing as some physical state, nor is any mental state composed merely from physical states and phenomena.

Anomalous MonismMost contemporary non-reductive physicalists subscribe to a position called anomalous monism (or something very similar to it). Unlike epiphenomenalism, which renders mental properties causally redundant, anomalous monists believe that mental properties make a causal difference to the world. The position was originally put forward by Donald Davidson in his 1970 paper Mental Events, which stakes an identity claim between mental and physical tokens based on the notion of supervenience.

Biological Naturalism
Another argument for Non-Reductive Physicalism has been expressed by John Searle, who is the advocate of a distinctive form of physicalism he calls biological naturalism. His view is that although mental states are not ontologically reducible to physical states, they are causally reducible (see causality). He believes the mental will ultimately be explained through neuroscience. This world view does not necessarily fall under property dualism, and therefore does not necessarily make him a "property dualist". He has acknowledged that "to many people" his views and those of property dualists look a lot alike. But he thinks the comparison is misleading.[1]

Epiphenomenalism
Epiphenomenalism is a doctrine about mental-physical causal relations, which holds that one or more mental states and their properties are the byproducts (or epiphenomena) of the states of a closed physical system, and are not causally reducible to physical states (do not have any influence on physical states). According to this view mental properties are as such real constituents of the world, but they are causally impotent; while physical causes give rise to mental properties like sensations, volition, ideas, etc., such mental phenomena themselves cause nothing further - they are causal dead ends.
The position is credited to English biologist Thomas Huxley (Huxley 1874), who analogised mental properties to the whistle on a steam locomotive. The position found favour amongst scientific behaviourists over the next few decades, until behaviourism itself fell to the cognitive revolution in the 1960s. Recently, epiphenomenalism has gained popularity with those struggling to reconcile non-reductive physicalism and mental causation.


Panpsychist property dualism
Panpsychism is the view that all matter has a mental aspect, or, alternatively, all objects have a unified center of experience or point of view. Superficially, it seems to be a form of property dualism, since it regards everything as having both mental and physical properties. However, some panpsychists say mechanical behaviour is derived from primitive mentality of atoms and molecules as are sophisticated mentality and organic behaviour, the difference being attributed to the presence or absence of complex structure in a compound object. So long as the reduction of non-mental properties to mental ones is in place, panpsychism is not strictly a form of property dualism; otherwise it is.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2013 07:05:49 by cheryl j »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #1074 on: 03/12/2013 07:04:01 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums