The problem of the language of physical science in regarding 'consciousness.'

[El_Machinae]

Thankfully, this problem does not exist for Indians like me - our languages have an elaborate vocabulary dealing with consciousness and all things related to it.

That would be handy to have in people cooperating in experiments. If you can easily explain to people what you're looking for while they're in the fMRI (brain-scanner), it would be much easier to get good data.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Tell me something about this fellow briefly on what he failed to do since i am not familiar of him or his works.

From Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Another solution to the problem of the meaning of theoretical terms is based on the rules of correspondence (also known as meaning postulates). They are statements in which observational and theoretical terms occur. Theoretical terms thus gain a partial interpretation by means of observational terms. Hempel raises two objections to this theory. First of all, he asserts that observational concepts do not exist. When a scientific theory introduces new theoretical terms, they are linked with other old theoretical terms that usually belong to another already consolidated scientific theory. Therefore the interpretation of new theoretical terms is not based on observational terms but it is given by other theoretical terms that, in a sense, are more familiar than the new ones. The second objection is about the conventional nature of rules of correspondence. A meaning postulate defines the meaning of a concept and therefore, from a logical point of view, it must be true. But every statement in a scientific theory is falsifiable, and thus there is not any scientific statement which is beyond the jurisdiction of the experience. So also a meaning postulate can be false; hence it is not conventional and thus it does not define the meaning of a concept but it is a genuine physical hypothesis. So meaning postulate do not exist.

That's exactly why I'm saying it's a bad idea to stipulate a definitional link between concepts used in a scientific theory and "observables". You don't want to straitjacket future science and prevent it from revising the definitions of terms in the light of new evidence.

 

[Brighteye]

Spirits exists.I know this because i am spiritual.

Consciousness is a property of an object. I know that it is possible to have this property because I have it. The relationship between spiritual and spirits is a different one. The correct sentence, that echoes my logic, would be 'spirituality exists because I am spiritual'.

I think therefore i exist.I know this because i am a thinking thing.

And your point? That you'd have to be unthinking not to think of the first sentence?

That is not science.Just an expression of you being in a community of individuals, who by custom,use the word 'consciousness' in variety of ways because the word itself exist for the purpose of having the sense of 'belonging'.

The word does not exist 'for the purpose of having the sense of 'belonging''. The word has the meaning of being self-aware (as near as I can define it quickly). Science takes observable data and creates theories. So this is science.

You are speaking of 'action',err...right?

As I mentioned in my previous sentence, I am speaking of the actions that I associate with consciousness. When these stop, so does brain activity. It is quite legitimate, therefore, to conclude that consciousness is associated with brain activity.

 

[CartesianFart]

From Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy



That's exactly why I'm saying it's a bad idea to stipulate a definitional link between concepts used in a scientific theory and "observables". You don't want to straitjacket future science and prevent it from revising the definitions of terms in the light of new evidence.

I will take a look at it.

BTW-ever heard of Karl Popper?

Consciousness is a property of an object.

What kind of an object are you talking about as being the owner of consciousness?

I know that it is possible to have this property because I have it. The relationship between spiritual and spirits is a different one. The correct sentence, that echoes my logic, would be 'spirituality exists because I am spiritual'.

I think this is quite tautological.You say that "spirituality exists because i am spiritual," as something as meaning that you are a person who is in principle,a spiritual being concern of being a spirit.

The word does not exist 'for the purpose of having the sense of 'belonging''. The word has the meaning of being self-aware (as near as I can define it quickly). Science takes observable data and creates theories. So this is science.

No.Man takes what it can by sense observation and experience and collect material data for in order to create a theory;which is called the activity of science.

As I mentioned in my previous sentence, I am speaking of the actions that I associate with consciousness. When these stop, so does brain activity. It is quite legitimate, therefore, to conclude that consciousness is associated with brain activity.

Are you saying that as long as the activity of consciousness being active that the brain by association with conscious activity,continues to work and that if the activity of the consciousness is severed from the brain is in fact in consequence of having the brain ceasing to work.-Well that is just downright rediculous and nonsense of you supposing that it is so.