It would be marvelous to have such technology the only problem is we don’t have it. That’s why there is such an enormous debate around abortion. No person wants to kill babies. These are not evil people on either sides of the fence but nobody has a clue that the thing in the womb is conscious. Is it twelve days, it is as the Muslim say a hundred and twenty days? As it as the Roman Catholic see at conception? Who has got a clue imperially we don’t have any objective means of detective the presence or absence or conscious of anything mineral, plants, human etc.
That makes it tough to have a science of consciousness. What’s are the neuron <> of consciousness what are the neuron <>, what’s invariably happening when you’re conscious? They’re called the NCC the Neuron <> consciousness haven’t been identified yet let alone consciousness. We don’t even know what the neuron <> of consciousness are.
What are the necessary and sufficient causes of consciousness? We don’t have to speak of it in the abstract. Let’s say visual perception. We know act about the visual cortex. It’s the area of the brain that is pretty well mapped out. We know that in human beings the visual cortex s necessary for us to see color, for visual perception to take place.
we know that visual cortex, the octave nerve ,, the retina are necessary for the generation of visual perception in human beings but do you need a visual cortex if you’re developing some artificial intelligence and you want it to be copious but you’re not going to give it a guys brain you want to wick it our with silicone chips.
Is a visual cortex necessary in an instrument of artificial intelligence? We don’t know. We don’t know what the defiant causes are. Whether it’s sufficient just to have a visual cortex and futons coming in. we don’t know what the necessary or sufficient causes are for visual perception let alone any other consciousness. Any assumptions about heat holes to consciousness at death are just assumptions. To speak with confidence and knowledge consciousness terminates at death, you would have had to identify the necessary sufficient cause athletes the sufficient causes are there but we don’t know whether they are so we don’t know what happens to consciousness at death.
We finally come to a data <> a philosophy mind called the hard problem and this is the chemical and electricity inside the skull they’re really ordinary… they’re just want chemist have been studying for decades. They’re no mystical neuron or chemical or electrons in there. It’s really ordinary stuff.
How is it that neuron generate subjective experience? What is it about those chemicals and electricity that enables them to generate subjective experience, nominal states or even influence mental states? All we know from <> effects we go to a doctor and we receive a tablet and we believe it night work, the <> effect is going to kick in big tome. Just your belief, your expectation, your desire and truss will have amours impact on your body, your brain, you immune system. the pharmaceutical industry knows this very well.
How is that possible that you can go from an idea, a faith, a belief and then it actually influences physical health? so when we add up all of that ignorance it comes hard to say that we actually have a science on consciousness it falls in the retina blind spot but never the less we cover over that retain blind so it with assumptions or what if would call illusions of knowledge and John <>, a very distinguished philosopher of mind expresses his illusion of knowl3edge although he’s expressing it as knowledge when he writes ” there’s a simple solution to the mind body problem”. Isn’t that good relief, it’s a simple problem.
The news gets better. This solution has been available to any educated person since work has begun on the brain nearly a century ago and in a sense we all know w it to be true. Here it is mental phenomena are caused by meant neuron psychological process in the brain. I f you knock out your virtual cortex you won’t see any longer, if f you knock out your hippy <> other things don’t happen, frontal cortex tether tings happen but there’s a catch. Mental phenomena are themselves features if the brain. Mental phenomena themselves are geophysical. When did ewe learn that? Where is the empirical evidence that showed equivalence between mental phenomena and Nero events rather than nurse that’s taking on the role of casual generating and resultant mental phenomena? Who demonstrated equivalence? The answer is nobody but he’s saying everybody knows it. How does everybody know something that nobody why knows and for which there is not empirical <> at all.
Happily one of the foremost people on the front lines of scientific and research of consciousness Christ off <. outstanding Nero scientist, he’s the one leading the charge of trying to find the neuron <> of consciousness. he unmasks this illusion when he states ” the character of brain states and the phenomenal states” by that he mean mental phenomena, designers , emotions and so forth , the character of brain states and mental states appeared too different to be completely reducible to each other.
Look at brain states, they don’t have any mental qualities at all. Observe mental states, phenomena process. They don’t have any physical properties at all bring out all your instruments of technology, they don’t detect a single mental of events. Why are on earth are we equating these when they don’t even have any overlapping qualities. Neural eve vents ebbing c aural takes a hundred millisecond to generate the salts and metal state. They don’t even exist in the same point in time.
He’s calling a spade to spade here, they’re so different. It now seems unlikely that they can be reusable to each other namely that mental phenomena are nothing other than brain states. He said if suspect that the relationship is more complex that traditionally envision. Traditionally envision are that mental phenomena is just physical. For now it’s best to keep an open mind on third s matter. If love it when scientist say that.
Let’s just acknowledge that we’re ignorant w. we don’t know the nature of mental events, we don’t know that they’re physical. Let’s keep an open mind nut practically speaking what should we do know and lets concentrate in identifying the <> of consciousness in the brain. its back to business as usual .it’s not picking up the gauntlet that William James threw down its going back to the safe, observing the quantifiable , the physical , the objective as if you’re rally going to fathom the nature of consciousness by singly studying the neuron <> that contributes to the vernation of consciousness.
He’s a really good Nero scientist so we can’t blame him for saying let’s focus on the brain but that doesn’t mean all of us should. William James aid ” ukase when are you going to listen to me?” Daniel <> a very distinctive historian wrote and excellent book called the Discoverers, the history of makings discovery for the last 5,000 years, in the preface of this book he makes a very imporant point. He said throughout human history the illusion of knowledge. Thinking knowing something that we don’t know at all but absolutely being convinced by it,
Illusion of knowledge and not ignorance have or oven to be the principle obstacles to discovering ignorance he <> know can find out, an illusion of knowledge if already know and we don’t need to ask mental phenomena as physical. That’s an illusion as Kristoff <> made clear.
What I’m reposing her is that if try to envision the first revolution in the mind science. X starting in `79 where was the revolution? At one point nothing was the same because Ou understand off the mind has radically shifted with Darwin with respect to life, Galileo with respect to its place in the universe.
What’s in suggestion here is that we need a renaissance of empiricism. The imperial examination of physical phenomena. If we look back to the time of Galileo the imperil examination of physical phenomena dispels the illusions of knowledge of <> with respect to our regrind physical phenomena. They thought in the 15th century that knowledge was complete. They had the bible which was s god’s own rowed, they hide Aristotle the philosopher. Thomas <> fuse these into one perfect system. Except that it was riddled with illusion of knowledge and Galileo started tipping over that cart and is never been operated science. It was Galileo then it ea. newton, one after another and they kept on showing that which you thought was incomplete is not only incomplete but is radically flawed because you’re mistaking illusions of knowledge for actual knowledge.
I’m suggesting here that the imperial observation of natural phenomena not just the behavior or neuron <> but the phenomena themselves. Picking up the challenge of William James may dispel the illusions of knowledge of modern physicalize regarding mental phenomena.
Physicalize assumes, it onsite emphatically that there is nothing in the universes apart from physical <> and their emerging properties. Who said why the whole of reality should fit into a human conceptual construct. after all we are the one that define physical, nature didn’t define it for us and the very nature of the physical have shifted from the time of Dick Hart through Newtown , Though Maxwell, Through Max Plank , through Einstein , Through Steven Hockings it’s a moving target . Everything is reduce able onto physics. Which physics? The physics of yesterday or a hundred years from now? Where fades the moving target spot? At ha pint can a physicist say “we’ve got it under wraps now” we know that the physical and mental phenomena have to fit into that box.
They day your state says that you should stop doing physics and you’ve become a medical scholastic. We now know what s physical and nature happily fit into out conceptual construct. Nature, the whole of nature fit into outer box and we call it physical. That’s not scientific that’s dogmatic.