Psychologic, the current argument in philosophy is precisely about whether or not an empiricist, scientific mode of investigating the mind can ever solve the "hard" problems of consciousness (as opposed to the soft problems--how cognition in the brain works, how the brain assimilates language, how brain chemistry affects emotions, etc.). It is at best naive to decide at the outset that only a scientific account will do before examining whether such an account can in principle actually provide an answer.

If it cannot--and there are strong arguments that it can't--then one must find some other way of talking about consciousness. The dualist positions of philosophers like Donald Davidson and David Chalmers are one attempt at this. So are the non-reductive physicalist ideas of John Searle or Thomas Nagel. In a similar vein, one could perhaps revive the panexperientialist philosophy of A. N. Whitehead, as some have begun to do.

Finding a non-scientific way of talking about consciousness is not mere "speculation" as opposed to evidence-based reasoning. Those make the attempt formulate the strongest arguments they can based on the best premises they believe they have. In doing so, they open themselves up to substantial objections and counter-arguments which may indeed entirely defeat their positions.

In reply to this comment by 8727:
i've always doubted this idea that people think in words, i don't feel like i do


just thought id msg u as i was watching an old clip and noticed u comment
i reply with this ,

" "8727" the thinking in words thing is not important as language just refers to the thought process , comunicatoin wether that be internal comunicatoin within your own brain of concepts you are aware of . ore wether that be the comunicatoin of those conspets in sounds, ore images."


from wiki

Language is a term most commonly used to refer to so called "natural languages" — the forms of communication considered peculiar to humankind. In linguistics the term is extended to refer to the type of human thought process which creates and uses language. Essential to both meanings is the systematic creation and usage of systems of symbols —each referring to linguistic concepts with semantic or logical or otherwise expressive meanings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language


also as i understand it some people supposedly think in words and others in visuals. I'm undecided as to what i believe.

I did indeed.
I'll look into that, even though I've not been fond of Searle. I think Dennett destroys his argument in Consciousness Explained.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Your Dennett post on free will is tagged as brief - I think you meant long, since it's just over 10 minutes.

Also, check out the talks by John Searle on free will and consciousness.

Your Dennett post on free will is tagged as brief - I think you meant long, since it's just over 10 minutes.

Also, check out the talks by John Searle on free will and consciousness.

>> ^andybesy:
>> ^sjpike:
If I proved that determinism is true, would you choose to believe in it?

It was a good gag, I laughed out loud.


Some days my arm goes up and some days it doesn't go up.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'philosophy, consciousness, ai' to 'philosophy, consciousness, ai, john searle, philosopher, mind' - edited by mauz15

*1 the people that committed the act were part of an extremist muslim group, basically a cult. they would not have done this act if they weren't in this group and reasoned in that way. thus being motivated by it, yes.

*2 yes, "he is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience at UCLA, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research"

*3 an illogical belief like believing something supernatural which any intelligent person would easily see why such a thing should be dismissed (such as fairies at the end of my garden). nothing like eating a vegetarian pizza, i could just tell someone was peeved at a reasonable person because i suspect they have vested interests in the beliefs being dismissed.

check out this short talk by sam harris, the best thing by him i think :
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-lectures-on-the-dangers-of-both-religious-fundamentalism-and-religious-moderation

also, i'd add that john searle and alan watts are bad recommendations for views on such subjects. john searle is like a small child in comparison to derek parfit's knowledge of the brain and self. also i'd recommend susan greenfield instead of alan watts (he just talks half truths loosely based on buddhism).

wow - I don't think I've ever heard someone so superficially right and yet so fundamentally wrong. Harris doesn't understand the first thing about brains, mind, spirituality, or any other human experience except on the most superficial level.

Beyond his equating of faith and religion (which are as different as ethics and law), he says things like doctors are more likely to be religious because they have to "play this language game" with people facing their own imminent mortality. Language game? The ultimate human experience - and he equates it with Scrabble.

I wonder if he really believes that the 9/11 attack was religiously motivated (as he claims here). Has he forfeited all of his mighty powers of cognition at the outset and drunk the NeoCon koolaid? It was never about religion - it's about money. As all wars have been. Religion is a lever that those in power often use to motivate others into doing their bidding. Is he really naïve enough to think that skillful leaders would not find other levers to sway willing followers in the absence of religion? It demonstrates a complete lack of human understanding.

There are more poorly conceived notions in this interview than siftbot will even give me space to mention in one comment. But I'll be happy to enumerate them over many comments if anyone is taken in by this snake-oil salesman. If you want some good insight into human behavior, go listen to this guy, or this one, or maybe best this one.

(and btw - regardless of anyone's belief system, I don't see anything here that gives the viewer any insight into how minds or brains work - thus removed from brain channel.)

funneh. yuo moar typey.

it was my favorite line from it as well

In reply to this comment by sjpike:
If I proved that determinism is true, would you choose to believe in it?

>> ^sjpike:
If I proved that determinism is true, would you choose to believe in it?


It was a good gag, I laughed out loud.

>> ^sjpike:
If I proved that determinism is true, would you choose to believe in it?



I think it is the truth and it will be proven to be such at some point. However I think people underestimates how complex reality is. I think the amount of chaos is so out of control under so many levels that we do not have the mental power to compute what is going to happen next. Although some people are pretty good at it.

But if what I said is true it will be 100% possible to simulate a human with a computer. Although that could have been said in the other case as well. I have not religions belief and I am perfectly happy to think of my self as a biological robot just trying to find a bit of peace in this world.

I'll give these guys one thing, they sure do like to talk. I didn't watch all of the John Searle one, but hopefully enough to get some of the point. At first I thought he was arguing that neuro-science was a worthless pursuit, but that doesn't seem to be the case (which is good cause I don't think anything could be further from the truth). But he instead appears to be arguing we should be looking at both sides of the coin, which I agree with. Having an algorithm to explain a behavior means nothing if we can't explain it in a way that's comprehensible. And at this point in time we really aren't even close to such a feat. Trying to exploring multiple paths to understanding consciousness is more likely to bring us towards a more complete picture of exactly what it is. One of the problems I've noticed in academia is the professors become so entrenched in their own line of research its like they've put on a pair of blinders and can't see anything outside of what they've narrowed their sites on. I also think that's one of the reasons you see so little cross over between disciplines, even if they're looking at the same or similar things.

Thanks for the thorough review Crosswords, comments like yours are what I come to the Sift for .

I was left wanting more background after listening to Wallace, so I looked for sources to fill in the gaps in my understanding. This talk by John Searle helped a great deal:
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Searle-Beyond-dualism
His categorization of the qualities of consciousness rings true, and having listened to him I'll definitely look for some of his writing.

About the thesis of the talk, there really does seem to be a convergence happening in the mind sciences right now. It's an incredibly exciting field to follow.

Here's a Salon article on Wallace, called "Buddha on the brain".
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/11/27/wallace/