The discussion centers on the nature of human thought, exploring whether it is merely the result of neuronal activity or if it exists in a more complex or higher realm. Participants engage with concepts related to consciousness, the relationship between the brain and mind, and the implications of memory and information storage.
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the nature of thought, consciousness, or the relationship between the brain and mind. Disagreements persist regarding the implications of scientific understanding and the subjective experience of consciousness.
Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature of consciousness, the definition of thought, and the physiological processes underlying memory. The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives without definitive conclusions.
Originally posted by olde drunk
them eltro-chemical firings are the way our physical brain processes an idea from our mind.
our mind exists at or in an enviornment that we haven't scientifically proven exists.
peace,
Not to be nitpicky, but if it hasn't been shown to exist, how do you know it is there in the first place?Originally posted by olde drunk
them eltro-chemical firings are the way our physical brain processes an idea from our mind.
our mind exists at or in an enviornment that we haven't scientifically proven exists.
peace,
Originally posted by Zero
Not to be nitpicky, but if it hasn't been shown to exist, how do you know it is there in the first place?
I wasn't referring to consciousness, I was addressing the idea that consiousness "exists at or in an enviornment that we haven't scientifically proven exists".Originally posted by hypnagogue
Consciousness cannot be shown to exist purely from the 3rd person perspective, but its existence is obvious from the 1st person perspective (in fact, "1st person perspective" and "consciousness" are synonymous).
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Consciousness cannot be shown to exist purely from the 3rd person perspective, but its existence is obvious from the 1st person perspective (in fact, "1st person perspective" and "consciousness" are synonymous).
Originally posted by Mentat
Unless the 1st person perspective of the brain is biased by an evolutionary innovation that causes similar information to be integrated into seemingly coherent thought, while there is nothing there but that which is observable in the 3rd person perspective: computation.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Hello, there is obviously something there that is not observable from the 3rd person perspective. You cannot observe my experience of redness. Perhaps you will say that you can view my experience of redness from a different perspective by observing my brain functions; but the point is that in order to do that you need to assume a different perspective. I occupy a certain perspective that you have no access to, and that in itself refutes your notion. If there were nothing but the 3rd person perspective, as you seem to suggest, then you would have complete access to everything that I have access to.
Originally posted by Rader
If thought was a result of brain functions, that were explained only on its funtioning parts, then replacement of memory molecules would leave us without thought.
Originally posted by Deeviant
Would it? You said replacement, if the replacement molecules were functioning, then you'd simply have different thoughts..
But memories are very much part of what makes thought possible.
Originally posted by Rader
What about the old memory thoughts. How does a molecule know how to pass on information. Molecules are made from atoms and atoms seem to be have a irreducible complexity. So how is information stored and passed on?
Molecules are made from atoms and atoms seem to be have a irreducible complexity.
Originally posted by Deeviant
A couple things. First we already have a very clear example of how molecule(s) can store information. You are using a device that applies this technology as we speak.
The fact that something works gives no explanation how it works.
Science does not have to pretend to know the answer, it is okay and infact encouraged to admit what we do not know. The exact physiological process of memory is poorly understood, yet there is a great deal of research currently being conducted on this process. There are also some very informed scientific hypotheses as to the process of human memory. All these hypotheses involve a purely physical process.
And none of them explain how, maybe its because they try to explain it from a purely physical process.
Atoms seem to be irreducibly complex to who? You? Are you saying anything made from atoms is also irreducible. If I were to write this on paper, these words would be nothing but light reflecting off atoms, would that make these words also irreducible?
What i am saying is, tring to explain thought on the atomic scale, as if atoms were objective reality, makes no sence. We divide the brain into smaller and smaller pieces, to reach a correct conlcusion to explain, thought, emotions, consciousness, with no result. We divide matter, molecules, atoms to particles and end up with wave patterns. Is it because everyting seems to be reducible to irreducible wave paterns?
I think you have more than a few flaws in your line of thought.