Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atla]

No wonder it's useless attempting a conversation with you.

You got that right. You didn't even understand that I'm the actual nominalist between us. Your explanations of consciousness are totally based on real abstracts.

[psyreporter]

If Neutrino's are the origin of consciousness. . .

No coherent or serious theory of consciousness that anyone has ever proposed would even remotely suggest such a thing.

It appears that there is a serious theory emerging since 1994.

(2015) Paradigm shift for biology and consciousness theories

For the last twenty years, a wide range of philosophers, scientists etc. have made a concerted effort to come up with a fundamental theory to explain consciousness. It was in the words of Chalmers (1995) a ‘hard problem’ looking for a solution. Over those twenty years progress has been slow.

About the time the drive to come up with a theory of consciousness began, a paper was published (Goodman 1994) that argued for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell.

Surprisingly, weak force decoherence times over cellular distances are of the relevant dynamical timescale needed, suggesting that if any force is associated with the global properties in and between neurons (such as consciousness) it is the weak force. This finding concurs with a twenty year old theory that argues for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell[/b]. That theory also predicted the mass of the electron neutrino that is soon to be verified. The consequences for biology and future consciousness theories, of this radical change of paradigm, are considered.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f8f7/9 ... b60cae.pdf

The argument by Faustus5 that the only data available is subjective experience is thereby explained.

That is not my argument.

Your exact argument:

But when you are trying to compose a scientifically and philosophically sound THEORY of consciousness, descriptions from subjects and measurements of what goes on in their bodies is literally all you have for data. And all you need to do (as if that was ever easy, ha!) is trace the causal chains between what is happening in their bodies and what leads then to make motor responses about their subjective experiences.

That is all a scientific theory of consciousness needs to do. There is nothing else it could ever do.

I left out the empirical source of data as it was ruled out by the provided logic to be a potential candidate for an explanation. Subjective experience would be the only remaining candidate to provide an answer, which by the provided logic, cannot provide an explanation either.

[Steve3007]

I retract my "the neutrino topic is next door" flippant remark. Just goes to show the fundamental interconnectedness of all philosophy forum topics. There are no doors here.

[Faustus5]

It appears that there is a serious theory emerging since 1994.

That is not in any way a theory about consciousness. It is a theory about low level biochemical cellular dynamics that would equally apply to the workings of digestion and the muscles as it would to the workings of the brain. If a theory does not specifically refer to how something impacts cognition, perception, or memory, it is not in any way a theory of consciousness.

It's as if you are trying to tell me that the introduction of a new sprocket in a car line's engine is important to city planning and traffic control.

Your exact argument. . .

Which you have misinterpreted.

[Terrapin Station]

No wonder it's useless attempting a conversation with you.

You got that right. You didn't even understand that I'm the actual nominalist between us. Your explanations of consciousness are totally based on real abstracts.

haha--real abstracts such as?

[Terrapin Station]

Since these are not a philosophy books or papers

Wouldn't it be nice if we could communicate with each other with that sort of quality, though?

[Sy Borg]

Since these are not a philosophy books or papers

Wouldn't it be nice if we could communicate with each other with that sort of quality, though?

It takes two to tango.

[Terrapin Station]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could communicate with each other with that sort of quality, though?

It takes two to tango.

Sure. So we need more than one person who isn't on the fence about everything, who doesn't defer to others about everything, who isn't going "Gee I don't know" as if they're just discovering various ideas about an issue for the first time and they haven't had time to think about them yet.

[Sy Borg]

It takes two to tango.

Sure. So we need more than one person who isn't on the fence about everything, who doesn't defer to others about everything, who isn't going "Gee I don't know" as if they're just discovering various ideas about an issue for the first time and they haven't had time to think about them yet.

It appears that you are saying we need someone to put everyone on the right path. Perhaps someone like you, to lead us to the rightness of nominalist materialism?

The beauty of science is that, if done properly, it includes many "Gee, I don't knows". It admits uncertainty rather than being bullish about future findings like the root of experience.

[Atla]

You got that right. You didn't even understand that I'm the actual nominalist between us. Your explanations of consciousness are totally based on real abstracts.

haha--real abstracts such as?

Like all the "properties" you worship?

[psyreporter]

It appears that there is a serious theory emerging since 1994.

That is not in any way a theory about consciousness. It is a theory about low level biochemical cellular dynamics that would equally apply to the workings of digestion and the muscles as it would to the workings of the brain. If a theory does not specifically refer to how something impacts cognition, perception, or memory, it is not in any way a theory of consciousness.

It's as if you are trying to tell me that the introduction of a new sprocket in a car line's engine is important to city planning and traffic control.

When one looks at the origin of consciousness, one looks at the origin of a manifestation. The mentioned properties such as cognition, perception and memory are manifestations. At question would be: why do those manifestations exist? What is the cause or origin?

It may be possible to state that the mentioned properties can only become manifested on the basis of information obtained by the senses, i.e. the mentioned properties of consciousness follow the origin of the senses. The scope of the quest can therefore be reduced to explaining the origin of the senses.

By logic it can be stated that valuing must have preceded the senses. On that basis it can be stated that the origin of the senses is valuing which means that the scope of the quest can be reduced to explaining the origin of valuing.

It can be stated that what has preceded the senses has preceded the human. Therefore one is required to look outside the scope of the individual for the origin of valuing.

The reason that the origin of valuing cannot originate in the individual is that by the nature of valuing, there is a factor involved that cannot be valued itself due to the simple logical truth that something cannot be the cause of itself. Valuing requires a distinguish-ability which it appropriates from what can be indicated as "good" and by the mentioned logical truth, "good" cannot be valued. Therefore, "good" - the origin of valuing - cannot originate in the individual.

In the mentioned theory, Neutrino's interact on biological cell level and provide the origin of valuing and thereby the origin of the senses and of consciousness as manifestation.

(2018) The role of Quantum Mechanics in Nature
The brain could use quantum mechanical neutrino interactions between existing atomic nuclei (Goodman 2015) to create the mind where a ‘global’ communication and mental experience (consciousness) could take place.
https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewconte ... cschphyart

[Steve3007]

Like all the "properties" you worship?

There's a real fashion for people telling other people that they worship things. From Einstein to Atheism, it seems that the pithiest "ya-boo" anyone can fling at anyone else is "You worship X". A while ago, the person to whom you directed this particular one told me that I worship Richard Feynman!

All good knock-about stuff, I suppose.

[Sculptor1]

Like all the "properties" you worship?

There's a real fashion for people telling other people that they worship things. From Einstein to Atheism, it seems that the pithiest "ya-boo" anyone can fling at anyone else is "You worship X". A while ago, the person to whom you directed this particular one told me that I worship Richard Feynman!

All good knock-about stuff, I suppose.

Theists seems to be the worst at this. They want to tar atheists with the same set of problems they themselves carry around, like Worship, Faith and unreason. It's almost as if they know that their thinking is so faulty they want to project it on others.
It reminds me of chimpanzees throwing their SH1T.

[Sculptor1]

No wonder it's useless attempting a conversation with you.

You got that right. You didn't even understand that I'm the actual nominalist between us. Your explanations of consciousness are totally based on real abstracts.

REAL ABSTRACTS?
Is that like black light?
LOL

[Steve3007]

Sure. So we need more than one person who isn't on the fence about everything, who doesn't defer to others about everything, who isn't going "Gee I don't know" as if they're just discovering various ideas about an issue for the first time and they haven't had time to think about them yet.

Do you have lots of different people in mind when describing this character? Is the person that you most have in mind the one that you talk to the most? The one that says he doesn't believe anything, that other people need to ask him clarifying questions, that everybody always assumes that he means something different from what he actually means, that words have no unambiguous meanings, that nobody needs money, that world peace is easy to achieve, that thee[sic] truth is simple and easy to those with a childlike mind, etc, etc? Do you still have hope that the nature of those conversations will change (improve?) in some way? I guess so, or you wouldn't still be having them.