0
   

My own theory of consciousness

 
 
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 08:48 am
I am going to post my own theory of consciousness. Others can post theirs and they can argue against my theory if they want to. The hard problem of consciousness states that it is a mystery how the physical processes in the brain give rise to consciousness. So my theory would be that there are two ways of looking at the brain. One is from the perspective of the brain being an object while the other perspective is from the self.

If you were to look at the brain and say:

"The brain experiences joy, it experiences sadness, and it experiences taste," then that would be a nonsensical statement since that would be no different than saying: "The wall experiences joy, it experiences sadness, and it experiences taste."

But if you were to say the statement:

"I experience joy, I experience sadness, and I experience taste," then that statement makes perfect sense now. So by knowing how the brain produces the self (the 'I'), then the hard problem fades away. Without the self, then you would be looking at all the processes in the brain as nothing more than physical processes. The person would be nothing more than a biological machine without any consciousness.

But when the self is introduced, you are now looking at those physical processes from a different perspective. You are now looking at those processes from the perspective of conscious experience. So the person would no longer just be a biological machine. He/she would be a conscious being. I will also apply the same concept to knowing and understanding. If you were to say:

"The brain understands and the brain knows," then that statement implies nothing more than a brain with information and physical processes. But when you say the statement: "I understand and I know," then that statement implies a conscious experience. It implies the experience of knowing and understanding. So maybe the hard problem can never be figured out through science. Maybe it can only be figured out through just reasoning alone like I have just done since reasoning alone will give you an answer to the hard problem.

Science just looks at physical processes, but reasoning will give you the answer to something that seems to remain elusive to science (in this case, the hard problem). The answer to the hard problem could of been right there staring you in the face this whole entire time and all it took was a bit of reasoning to figure it out.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,902 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
centrox
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 09:18 am
@MozartLink,
MozartLink wrote:
could of been right there

Your English needs improvement.
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 09:21 am
@centrox,
That little flaw right there (if it is even a flaw) is so trivial that there is simply no reason to point it out. You have just wasted your time with trivial matters. What you've pointed out is absolutely no cause for concern and is completely irrelevant to this topic. How dare you mock and dismiss my theory by giving greater importance to these trivial matters over the theory I have presented to you and not even bothering to mention or talk about the theory itself!
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 09:31 am
@MozartLink,
MozartLink wrote:
if it is even a flaw

What would you call it?


MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 09:36 am
@centrox,
What I meant to say was that there might of been no error at all in my English.
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 10:17 am
@MozartLink,
MozartLink wrote:

What I meant to say was that there might of been no error at all in my English.

"Might of" is an illiterate error.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 11:35 am
@MozartLink,
Dogs are conscious, yet do not differentiate with language like humans. Consciousness is not dependent on language.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 12:48 pm
@centrox,
You're right. Where was he brung up?
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 12:51 pm
@izzythepush,
I see no difference between saying "Might of been" vs saying "Might have been." They are the same thing.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 12:52 pm
@MozartLink,
Moz I'm astounded how much gallant effort you expend at at one of--who knows how many such--a few complete strangers at a remote locations

However, for what it's worth I see the problem as one of dualism, while nothing is entirely everything while everything is partly something else. Feeling and consciousness begin with the first assembly of any sort of gadget, increasing with complexity. If its future mods end up with a robot of humanoid ability, you can be most certain it will express mood, pain, etc

It's obvious: Just because it's made of dry semiconductor parts, doesn't mean it's different in any other way than you and me

Removing parts of course would weaken but not completely destroy such; until finally it's reduced to, say, the hinge or wheelie with which we began; but at no point did it totally lose its foreboding

Thus a neutron feels; an electron.....


But why are we discussing grammar....
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 12:56 pm
@MozartLink,
No they're not. The correct way to spell what sounds like might of been is might've been, 've being a contraction of have. Most British kids have mastered that by the age of eleven.
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 01:10 pm
@izzythepush,
I guess I have forgotten that then. Thanks for reminding me. But that was just one error I made though with only one single word. How can you conclude from that one tiny little error that my English is bad and to question where I was born and raised? Anyway, I think this discussion is irrelevant since this is not an English class or topic.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 01:17 pm
@MozartLink,
You would, but basic spelling and grammar is a good indicator of the education of the person making the argument. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't master the basics. That's just the way things are.

Btw, I was just having a joke with Contrex. One which seems to have shot right over your head. (That's another indicator btw.)
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 03:50 pm
@MozartLink,
MozartLink wrote:

I am going to post my own theory of consciousness. Others can post theirs and they can argue against my theory if they want to. The hard problem of consciousness states that it is a mystery how the physical processes in the brain give rise to consciousness. So my theory would be that there are two ways of looking at the brain. One is from the perspective of the brain being an object while the other perspective is from the self.

If you were to look at the brain and say:

"The brain experiences joy, it experiences sadness, and it experiences taste," then that would be a nonsensical statement since that would be no different than saying: "The wall experiences joy, it experiences sadness, and it experiences taste."

But if you were to say the statement:

"I experience joy, I experience sadness, and I experience taste," then that statement makes perfect sense now. So by knowing how the brain produces the self (the 'I'), then the hard problem fades away. Without the self, then you would be looking at all the processes in the brain as nothing more than physical processes. The person would be nothing more than a biological machine without any consciousness.

But when the self is introduced, you are now looking at those physical processes from a different perspective. You are now looking at those processes from the perspective of conscious experience. So the person would no longer just be a biological machine. He/she would be a conscious being. I will also apply the same concept to knowing and understanding. If you were to say:

"The brain understands and the brain knows," then that statement implies nothing more than a brain with information and physical processes. But when you say the statement: "I understand and I know," then that statement implies a conscious experience. It implies the experience of knowing and understanding. So maybe the hard problem can never be figured out through science. Maybe it can only be figured out through just reasoning alone like I have just done since reasoning alone will give you an answer to the hard problem.

Science just looks at physical processes, but reasoning will give you the answer to something that seems to remain elusive to science (in this case, the hard problem). The answer to the hard problem could of been right there staring you in the face this whole entire time and all it took was a bit of reasoning to figure it out.


The flaw in the premise is that you just toss in the concept of self as if it doesn't need explaining. How does the self arise? If the self arises due to the physicality of the brains function then you haven't solved anything when you suggest taste or feelings can't be the physicality of the brain.

You can't just toss in self undefined or explain how it arises.

You haven't solved anything.
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 04:47 pm
@Krumple,
Actually, I think neuroscience already has a definition for 'self.' The self gets wired with all the rest of the neurons. When those neurons get stimulated, an experience arises since the self is wired to all those neurons. But take the self out and there won't be any experience. There will only be just stimulation of those neurons and nothing more.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jan, 2017 04:19 am
@MozartLink,
You seem to be assuming that the brain is the seat of consciousness.

What if the brain has nothing to do with consciousness? After all, studies seem to indicate that plants, which do not have brains, have some form of consciousness.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jan, 2017 05:57 am
@Cyracuz,

Welcome back, Cyracuz.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jan, 2017 06:13 am
To the OP, I agree with Krumple that you haven't solved much. You've just shown that we cannot get rid of the self hypothesis. We've known that since Descartes. You do not EXPLAIN the self.

Quote:
So maybe the hard problem can never be figured out through science. Maybe it can only be figured out through just reasoning alone like I have just done since reasoning alone will give you an answer to the hard problem.

But science and reason are one. Or rather, science is reason + experience (observation). So are you saying that observation should be jetisoned?

Science is not equal to hard-core materialism.

MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Jan, 2017 01:06 pm
@Olivier5,
I'm not sure if you missed this post of mine, but I will repeat it:

"Actually, I think neuroscience already has a definition for 'self.' The self gets wired with all the rest of the neurons. When those neurons get stimulated, an experience arises since the self is wired to all those neurons. But take the self out and there won't be any experience. There will only be just stimulation of those neurons and nothing more."
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jan, 2017 07:26 am
@MozartLink,
Quote:
The self gets wired with all the rest of the neurons.

What does that even mean??? It's not an explaination of the self and how it came to be.

If I say: "my car is connected to the internet", I am not explaining how its internal combustion engine functions...
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » My own theory of consciousness
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/14/2024 at 10:37:07