Why do some people talk / write about "consciousness" like it's an actual thing that needs to be explained by science instead of an abstract fiction that only exists as a convenience of language? Of course finding something that doesn't exist would be a very hard problem.
Why do some people talk / write about "consciousness" like it's an actual thing that needs to be explained by science...
Bentley Turner
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Aiden Rivera
Ah, but since you have invoked it, it is now a something. The thing that which exists as not a something is still something :^)
Colton Green
It's as real of a concept as a liver is. The nervous system is divided by conscious and unconscious systems from muscles to reflexes and this can extend to cognitive processes in the brain as well. I fail to see you point whatsoever.
Caleb Wood
>The nervous system is divided by conscious and unconscious systems
No, wrong sense of "consciousness." This is the topic:
Hudson James
"Qualia" might've been a better term to use to disambiguate the meaning.
Jack Martin
cogito ergo sum
Josiah Kelly
Are you more certain of your own state of consciousness, as in being a conscious entity of one form or another, or are you more certain of the existence of the physical structure that is your brain? If the latter was your answer, how can you be absolutely certain that your brain exists as you think it does?
If we go full sci-fi and imagine the world we experience might be simulated, your brain would actually have a physical existence relating to the substrate of whatever produces the simulation, and not the neurons we all know and love. Yet your consciousness would be no less immutable than it is if your brain's physical existence does match our current experience of reality.
This is why idealists give primacy to consciousness, and therefore don't accept its emergence from the activity of physical systems as a convincing answer. In any case, I think it's quite self-evident that consciousness is not a fiction. Not even a philosophical zombie could make that argument to itself.
Jason Edwards
You need to stop posting anime pictures right now.
Joseph Reyes
>Are you more certain of your own state of consciousness, as in being a conscious entity of one form or another, or are you more certain of the existence of the physical structure that is your brain?
Are you more certain of the Sun rising in the morning with the Earth staying still, or are you more certain of the Earth revolving around the Sun?
>I think it's quite self-evident that consciousness is not a fiction.
That's the problem. People are so used to speaking in terms of the abstraction that it seems obviously real to them as though it were an actual / physical thing and they don't question it. Seeming real on a personal basis is a terrible criterion for trying to determine if something actually is real.
Parker Rogers
Here's the problem you seriously don't seem to understand.
You're experiencing something.
Bam. Your entire argument is gone.
Now, you'd still be perfectly valid in claiming that sense of self is an abstraction and doesn't actually exist. I'll agree with you on that. But you can't claim that nobody experiences anything, but only instead act as though they experience something. Your very experience of experiencing it disproves that.
It's not everybody else being stupid and not getting the concept. It's that you can't demonstrate a lack of consciousness to yourself. It's a paradox.
also:
You completely missed the point. The point was that the only knowledge you have is through your experiences/consciousness. So anything and everything you know or think you know - like that the earth revolves around the sun, or that your brain is a physical system built of neurons - is dependent on how reliable your consciousness is and what data its being fed.