Why is the notion of a fundamental theory of consciousness so difficult to consider?
Posted: 25 October 2011 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2009-07-31

Does String Theory explain how strings emerge? No. It explains how other phenomena emerge from strings. Strings are fundamental to the theory. Likewise, when someone says consciousness, I prefer to say experience, must be fundamental to a theory of consciousness they are saying no theory of consciousness is going to explain how consciousness emerges. They mean it will explain how other phenomena emerge from what would be the tenents of the theory where consciousness is a primitive.

A fundamental theory of consciousness might explain why we are conscious of some brain processes, but not others. It might explain how memories that were always stored in your brain come to the forefront of your consciousness when you remember them. But you would never expect it to explain why consciousness exists or emerges.

Is this defeatism? No. No more than string theory is defeatism. Why do so many claim it is defeatism? Because the emergence crowd is utterly blind to the possibility that consciousness may not be a complex phenomena crying out for an explanation, but a basic fundamental phenomena from which you explain other things.

[ Edited: 25 October 2011 09:48 AM by Dreadlocks]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2011 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-21

If I understood you correctly, that a theory of consciousness should foremost have experiences at its core, and it doesn’t need to explain everything, and that emergence is silly, then I completely agree with you. Defeatism would have been to say that it and/or any other add-ons or the theory itself would be in principle impossible (without supplying proper proofs, logic or evidence).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2011 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2009-07-31
Daniel OMalley - 25 October 2011 02:20 PM

If I understood you correctly, that a theory of consciousness should foremost have experiences at its core, and it doesn’t need to explain everything, and that emergence is silly, then I completely agree with you. Defeatism would have been to say that it and/or any other add-ons or the theory itself would be in principle impossible (without supplying proper proofs, logic or evidence).

I believe we are in agreement. Every theory must have primitives. It is possible that experience must be a primitive to any theory of consciousness and a all that we know about consciousness(in this case consciousness means experiences rich in content) can be derived from such a theory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2011 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-18

“I believe we are in agreement.”

Me Also! YOU HAVE MY HAMMER. lol

Todays so called “leading scientific theories” are hilarious when you really break it down. Ultimately physicalism/materialism is a theory designed to explain WHY we have consciousness, it’s purpose is to account for WHY we have experience. Yet it has failed to do so, not only can it not explain why we have experience.


IT cannot even explain itself!

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed
newrelic.loglevel = "verbosedebug" newrelic.daemon.loglevel = "verbosedebug"