Nah. I'll pass on that since most of my threads barely past the 2 pages.
If you look example this thread of mine I'm not doing any better. I think if your opening posts would be little bit less admirable complicated and over-stretched you might achieve bigger, longer and uncut threads. You got yourself a marketing problem, that's all. People love simple ideas where they don't have to do too much work, oh there was TED-talks about that too, you might want to check them...
Obviously that is true. But it is a vain attempt to make two seperate general concepts as being something of a synonymity, and then call it a new science (especially the never-ending quest to apply consciousness as a mere substance). Just ask theorecticians who failed many times try in vain to come up with a unifying, end-all of many theories.
Actually I think your whole point here is self-refuting.
If you understand what kind of operation of establishing succeful colony to Mars the operation of understanding human consciousness is, you probably understand there is definetely need for crossfield research and possibly even complete new branch of science.
Or we can stick to these current paper, rocks and scissors models and prey for a miracle or either consider it unsolvable.
Well, I don't know what philosopher you are referring to, but I have to say that he or she probably have a cautious awareness of keeping logic free from theories of consciousness that is not remotely scientific at all; which is in fact it is a metaphysical intention to use substances such as computers as the same substance such as the human body.
Complaining in every day fashion or contemplating what is philosophical truth about something without actually trying to solve anything isn't scientific but keeping mind in constant state of argumentative.
What is wrong with neuroscience using the physicalist method of reducing every parts of the brain in spatio/temporal terms? Unless you are concieving it as one of the many other's as being only "narrative."
IT IS NARRATIVE when it starts to link them to people's psychological reality.
Unless you are some kind of straitjacket behaviorist or closet case dualist the answer won't certainly bring us any closer to anything.
Yeah in that sense they do indeed over time get closer to the theory of knowledge of their respective field. It is just that when mixing things up to some how in the way "unifying it" into incompatible mess is not making (the science of biology and neuroscience) them better but creating nonsense.
Defining nonsense can be hard before you have seen it.
Here is a goofy analogy: "Would you consider taking lessons of computer science inorder to know how to operate brain tumor?"
Here's another "goofy" analogy: Would you practice with computer simulation before trying to operate your own brain tumor?
It's like these people who laugh that consciousness isn't putting camrecorder against a mirror and they laugh to it (sure, we all do).
But if we happen to put that camrecorder into computer that recognises patterns from that mirror, storages it and then later on recognises this same pattern by estimation based into it's earlier information storaged, are you still laughing?
You probably understand where I'm getting at. It isn't to prove that brain works similar to computer but that "how it could happen" in the first place. Then after that we get to link the simulations of computers to the models from neuroscience together. And it's clear this should happen all the time.
I don't find it ever that their narration will win till somewhere in the future when nano-technology becoming the inevitable reality. Then we can do some serious discussion on brain/computer problem.
Nanotechnology gives probably something new but then after we probably have to "wait" for something new again before proceeding or ever expecting results?
Logic of induction.
What seperate philosophy and natural science is simply the uses of logic(deductive and inductive). Science uses terms which point to things that are in the sense general principles from what have been observed and collected. Philosophy on the other hand, uses terms and concepts inorder to understand and test its meaning for to deal with things fabricated by the mind within itself; it is not of understanding terms or meaning of psychical states, but why the conclusion is reached.
Of course, that's why I wanted crossfield research, actually I would recommend adding form of psychology to the mix.
But if you think philosophy should be just about that. Well then it will be always be "just philosophy" and certainly not for people like me.
Just remember that their failure to understand that " synonymity are not to be taken literally without necessity."
Same goes to neuroscience BTW.
Rambling about neurons don't tell anything about how we experience reality in sense we do since there's gap between them. Soft and hard problem by Chalmers, remember?
All it really does is allow people to take many of these listed general concepts(evolutionary psychology,neuroscience,computer theory) into confused images of many things.
So you consider that separately they create more clear image?
Like trying to solve a puzzle with one piece at a time where you take one piece, place it on the table and think where it might fit before taking it off and then proceeding with another piece?
Wonderful idea. I consider this combined theorem much more efficient of solving puzzle of consciousness.
Just because they create theories consisting of parts that are terms of things that we can take cognizance of being real to our senses is still no shape of form having a reality as the whole. Also, I have to conclude that when a general concept made synonomous to another that is predicated of many real things is really saying nothing at all but collection of words grouped up into a word of its own creator.
So theory of evolution or theory of gravity are just narrations?
I might agree with you but be sure that it's only way to get something out of this world except silence by grouping produced words by ourselves and communicating with similar beings as ourselves and consider together how these words express the reality we experience.
Actually I think the model about machine can bring new information because it allows us deattach ourselves from our normal social reality which otherwise affect forming this narration. I personally think this is one of the reasons people have finding common tune regarding consciousness, because by the process itself is different from one human being to another forming personal view of the world for the brain.
I guess our narratives don't match but it's always pleasure to share and exchange some of these fairy tales.
You can answer but let's leave the rest of the thread for TED, shall we?
