Philosophy Discussion Forums

The observer can correlate brain activity with certain patterns of behavior that are generally associated with human consciousness, but this still skirts the issue of what consciousness is and whether it is actually present. Defining consciousness in terms of behaviors is "cheating", and does not fix the normal human use of the word to describe subjectivity per se.

The one question that Darwinian theory does not answer is why evolution should occur at all, why life should be progressive. The pressure of natural selection in no way accounts for this odd anomaly, it runs counter to Nature's entropic inclinations. There is apparently some sort of hidden will in life that prods it onward despite all material resistance. You may propose that life is an accident, but even so, why would an accident start repeating itself?

Chili wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:37 pmThe observer can correlate brain activity with certain patterns of behavior that are generally associated with human consciousness, but this still skirts the issue of what consciousness is and whether it is actually present.

The presence of the neural correlates of consciousness entails the presence of consciousness.

Chili wrote: ↑July 1st, 2019, 11:37 pmDefining consciousness in terms of behaviors is "cheating", and does not fix the normal human use of the word to describe subjectivity per se.

Who equates consciousness with behavior?

Felix wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 1:56 am The one question that Darwinian theory does not answer is why evolution should occur at all, why life should be progressive. The pressure of natural selection in no way accounts for this odd anomaly, it runs counter to Nature's entropic inclinations. There is apparently some sort of hidden will in life that prods it onward despite all material resistance. You may propose that life is an accident, but even so, why would an accident start repeating itself?

No, there is no "sort of hidden will in life that prods it onward despite all material resistance," and it is not the case that evolution "runs counter to Nature's entropic inclinations." These anti-evolutionist myths have been refuted completely!

See:
* Does evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics?

* Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Effectively Communicating to Non-technicians

I wasn't suggesting that evolution is contrary to the laws of physics, obviously it is not. My point is that we cannot explain why it should occur at all - the origin of the will to live, etc. Evolutionary theory can provide no credible answer to this question.

Consul wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 2:11 am The presence of the neural correlates of consciousness entails the presence of consciousness.
...
Who equates consciousness with behavior?

How am I to use science to determine whether my neighbor is actually conscious (having a subjective experience) vs just behaving (doing things in accord with genetic programming ) ?

Consciousness is not a mind in a bottle. Consciousness is a feature of the evolving material universe as we know it. The schism between materialism and rationalism only appears acute from the abstract-individual perspective. If you consider the big picture (species evolving in an environment, mind evolving in a socio-historic context) then matter and mind coexist quite comfortably. Possibly the personal ego is transient, when compared to macroscopic physical structures. But the universe seems to be an endless dance of mind and matter, noesis and noema.

If you really want to dig into the driving forces behind evolution I'd suggest the book "Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology".

Pantagruel wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 6:12 pm If you really want to dig into the driving forces behind evolution I'd suggest the book "Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology".

One can go on and on, write books, recommend books, ad infinitum, but there is no scientific experiment to detect consciousness, only behaviors.

Chili wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 7:16 pmOne can go on and on, write books, recommend books, ad infinitum, but there is no scientific experiment to detect consciousness, only behaviors.

Neuroscientists can directly detect the neural correlates of consciousness and thereby indirectly detect consciousness; since if the former are present, the latter is present too.

Consul wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 7:38 pm

Chili wrote: ↑July 2nd, 2019, 7:16 pmOne can go on and on, write books, recommend books, ad infinitum, but there is no scientific experiment to detect consciousness, only behaviors.

Neuroscientists can directly detect the neural correlates of consciousness and thereby indirectly detect consciousness; since if the former are present, the latter is present too.

Of course Consul you are right. However what Chili is saying is that the nature of consciousness itself is not detected only its effects.

Consciousness is both constructed in our neurology and rooted in the consciousness of the galactic civilizations that preceded the BB.

Presumably this discussion is a product of being-knowing-doing consciousnesses. Brentano describes the fundamental nature of consciousness as intentional. That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable that I can have at least as much certainty about my own mental states (privileged access) as I can about scientific facts (consciousness of facts). Why should a hypothesis about the nature of consciousness be innately more dubious than a hypothesis about any physical state of affairs?

BigBango wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2019, 3:52 am Consciousness is both constructed in our neurology and rooted in the consciousness of the galactic civilizations that preceded the BB.

As I understand the Big Bang (and I'm not sure that I or anyone else completely does understand it), the statement that something 'preceded' it is somewhat nonesensical. So this is akin to saying something like 'those nations whose territories lie south of the South Pole'?

No science can verify that an individual is conscious - only that they behave in a way which *seems* conscious to observers (see the Turing test). Thus
if consciousness cannot be detected, it cannot be correlated with anything, thus there is no "science of consciousness."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

Chili wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2019, 11:37 am No science can verify that an individual is conscious - only that they behave in a way which *seems* conscious to observers (see the Turing test). Thus
if consciousness cannot be detected, it cannot be correlated with anything, thus there is no "science of consciousness."

Consciousness can be directly detected by inner perception/observation (introspection), and it can be indirectly detected by outer perception/observation (extrospection). And the introspective, first-person data can be correlated with the extrospective, third-person data.

As far as extreme states such as the persistent vegetative state or the locked-in syndrome are concerned, the patients' inability to make introspective reports doesn't exclude their being conscious.

Consul wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2019, 1:37 pmConsciousness can be directly detected by inner perception/observation (introspection), and it can be indirectly detected by outer perception/observation (extrospection). And the introspective, first-person data can be correlated with the extrospective, third-person data.

If reductive physicalism about consciousness is true, then consciousness can be directly detected from the third-person perspective too!
For according to it, the relationship between the neural mechanisms of consciousness (NMC) and consciousness (C) isn't causal but constitutional, such that NMC = C. All subjective experiences are constituted by or composed of neural processes, and are thus identical to externally detectable and observable complexes of neural processes.