Forget to learn about consciousness for a while[i]

We learn from neuroscientist the correlations between physical and conscious states but we do not learn about consciousness itself. That is because a physical description is not able to say what consciousness is (we can’t get it out). If a reducible description is valid for other areas of science, this is not true for consciousness.
Since Aristotle passing through seventeen century, the science reduced the description of the phenomenon in terms of matter and motion. Matter is one thing that has a structure that can be mathematically described but consciousness not (so far).
Scientific description of matter is just describing certain properties of matter that can be described mathematically. Not all parts of matter can be captured this way. Exactly the consciousness is not possible to be described this way. The way we know that matter is completely different the consciousness is – it is only known by us internally.
For Rebecca, there is no chance for our science to move on and learn about the consciousness. She is really skeptical about that. For her, this is a limitation of our science “way of life”. Well… and about the consciousness?
Dualism definitely is not the case because it means that we don’t know the whole system and then we do not decide what is missing. Panpsychism can be a good theory because it puts the power in some sort of particles that can have one principle. One interesting and fundamental property not so complicated and maybe presented in all matter or arrangement. For Rebecca, it seems more plausible then reductionism or dualism.


[i] According to: https://youtu.be/DG6-wbFgFpY. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein - Is Consciousness Irreducible? Watched on April 28, 2020.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free will and determinism*

          According to SoL (School of Life), the debate between free will and determinism has been crossing the Philosophy History since the beginning until our time reaching even the neuroscientists. It concerns about whether the human being is able to dominate their actions by themselves or they are determined by forces beyond their control, like fate and politics. SoL argues that the long running arguments in favor or against both sides are not conclusive because they are based on objective variables when they should be thought as what is relevant to me (to me… to me?). Also, they vary from person to person guided by two psychological aspects: defeatism and aspiration.           Does the course of our life belong to the others, like our parents, bosses and so on or can we change our life and our relationships based on our strenght and free will? The second should be even better but more difficult, of course. So moving far from the old and objective discussion and changing the para
Read more

Technology to study the brain[i]

The brain is a complex and sophisticated organ made by a lot of layers and billions of cells that is able to study itself. It is not simple, but today, scientists have three main ways to investigate a live brain safely, which is, not being harmful to someone and thus they try to relate our behavior with brain areas. The first method is electroencephalography (EGG), which was invented 100 years ago and it measures electrical waves that happen when the brain cells communicate with each other. It provides us information to identify precisely when electric signals occur during activities like learning or paying attention and registering them in just milliseconds and from that we can extract patterns to study diseases such as epilepsy. fMRI (functional magnetic resonant images), the second way to analyze how the brains work, is a technique to measure how quickly oxygen is consumed by brain cells showing which regions are involved during a cognitive or behavior activity. With thes
Read more

The soul is just a function*

Image
Putman talks about the contribution of Computer Science to Philosophy of Mind in terms of thinking the mind as a kind of function rather than physical or chemistry. He says that the rise of computers could result in everything being explained in terms of machines but the paradox is that it didn´t contribute for this kind of reductionism . Generally, according to Putman, when we work with computer we think in its programs, instructions, rules, etc., and we ignore the hardware. Ironically, he says that there is an emergency (not violating the laws of physics) where we work in a high level of the organization, in the program level. So we can think in the mind the same way: instead of thinking we are spirit inboded would be better think in the relation between the mind and the body in terms of functions. * Short digest of short interisting vídeo: https://youtu.be/m0YIm8p30aU . Acessed in Jan, 28 th . Hilary Putnam on Functionalism.
Read more