Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:12 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
placid wrote:But who would believe this?
Other bong heads. :D
Dude, I regularly use medical cannabis for chronic pain, and I don't believe it. It's got to be something else. Maybe...
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:14 pm

placid wrote:Yuk, only idiots put poison in their own temple.
Cannabis isn't poison. Go look up "endogenous cannabinoids."
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:21 am

placid wrote:Because there is No one here,
Placid? Are you really that stupid?

If you really believed there is "no one here", then why did you spend three hours deleting all your earlier posts so no one could see them?


Can you see what an idiot and hypocrite you are? That's why we are all laughing at you. :lol:

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby placid » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:57 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
placid wrote:Because there is No one here,
Placid? Are you really that stupid?

If you really believed there is "no one here", then why did you spend three hours deleting all your earlier posts so no one could see them?


Even if they'd been left visible, no one can see them. The seer is invisible.

The looker is emptiness - the looked at is an image of that emptiness, appearing solid. I've explained all this before, but it seems you like to play with your imaginary fantasy phantom friends...or phantom enemy in this case.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you see what an idiot and hypocrite you are? That's why we are all laughing at you. :lol:

In space, no one can hear you scream.....careful you don't permanently damage your larynx....although it would be fun to watch your ranting parrot face be silenced.

Image

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Poodle » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:03 am

"When you're already on the floor you can't fall out of bed".
Hamish McTavish III, Astral Colonel, Society of Loonar Mush.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Gord » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:06 pm

Poodle wrote:"When you're already on the floor you can't fall out of bed".
Hamish McTavish III, Astral Colonel, Society of Loonar Mush.

I say something similar, except I speak about lying in a ditch.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26382
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:12 am

placid wrote: Even if they'd been left visible, no one can see them.
Placid, you nincompoop, we can still see your deleted posts and the day you deleted them. It's recorded by the software and your original posts supporting Hitler are on the "way back" web service.

So try explain yourself again. You entered your forum password, searched for all your earlier posts and then deleted them, one by one, over three hours. You consciously did this over three hours.

How can you say you didn't do this and it is a illusion?
:lol:

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Cadmusteeth » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:21 am

I'm going to have to say it's because of denial.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby placid » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:41 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
placid wrote: Even if they'd been left visible, no one can see them.
Placid, you nincompoop, we can still see your deleted posts and the day you deleted them. It's recorded by the software and your original posts supporting Hitler are on the "way back" web service.

So try explain yourself again. You entered your forum password, searched for all your earlier posts and then deleted them, one by one, over three hours. You consciously did this over three hours.

How can you say you didn't do this and it is a illusion?
:lol:


Life is not an illusion, the illusion is that some 'thing' is living life.


Right here and now no ''thing'' is living life...there is here now a boundless peace and freedom - a pure spontaneous fresh aliveness living itself as one unitary movement of consciousness. By dividing it comes to know it's wholeness.

Mind divides what essentially cannot be divided except in this conception as illusory other.

Who you are is NOT A THING - NO THING and simultaneously EVERYTHING

You can't find NOT A THING....Everything is appearing out of NOT A THING

Everything is not-a-thing appearing as everything.

So everything is appearing from itself as everything and not-a thing.

There is nothing to attach to.

This is so close there is no room to make an approach. Tag, you're IT

What is done to other is done only to yourself.

Now - make peace with yourself the only real self here now.

This is love.

Love comes from the silent heart of pure knowing your true self which is always present and can never leave you.

Listen out for that one.

But you have to stop shouting or you'll not hear yourself.


__________

In the above post..I am using both skeptical & critical thinking skills like a hot knife cutting through the BS of man-made, aka imagined conditioned belief systems we are so hopelessly attached to.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:30 pm

placid wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: Even if there is only one knower, what is Red? Red seems like a thing in itself. What is the Redness of the Red? You can experience it but you can't describe it to anyone. It is a special thing that exists in the Universe and it must be explained.

Red is inseparable from the knower/seer/experiencer of Red.

So Red, is not a thing in itself..red is an appearance of consciousness the knower/seer/experiencer, therefore red is an image of the imageless.

Consciousness is emptiness in which everything arises... as embodied awareness. No 'man' can ever be outside of consciousness looking back at itself. A man is a concept in it, not out of it, and a concept is not a visible thing, it's a thought.

I think that Red is part of what we are as Conscious Minds. But the question still remains how do we experience Red, even if Red is inseparable from the Mind? Still seems that Red can be separated from the Mind when we are thinking about it.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby placid » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:55 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:I think that Red is part of what we are as Conscious Minds. But the question still remains how do we experience Red, even if Red is inseparable from the Mind? Still seems that Red can be separated from the Mind when we are thinking about it.


Steve, I don't know how you are perceiving how red can be separated from what's knowing and seeing it.... do you mean how does invisible white light experience itself as colour..?

It's really hard to tell what you are saying .... I've read your website, and I still can't grasp what you are trying to show in words...but you obviously are seeing something ...else you wouldn't be writing about it...but it's hard to understand what you are seeing....

Here we are using words like mind and consciousness as if they are known things that exist without ever being seen....so it's hard to explain what we mean....don't you think?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:04 pm

I am truly impressed by some people's ability to take a random fictional Deepak Chopra quote and expand it to an entire treatise. :roses:
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby placid » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:06 pm

Steve..does this help you?....

Lets try and imagine what the mind is....

I cannot say who or what I am. Or who is experiencing the colour Red.

What can be said without doubt?

... Here now is seeing, smelling, feeling, tasting, hearing and knowing...

Collectively called 'consciousness'.

This 'consciousness' is not seen, smelled, felt, tasted, heard or known... yet there is no argument (and no one to argue with) about this... it is simply 'self evident'.

To ask if this is so for 'you', is to presume some 'other' consciousness... of which there is no consciousness here and now.

Here now there is only this consciousness, and no other.

That which is 'seen, smelled, felt, tasted, heard and known' is inseparable from this consciousness... as dream images are inseparable from 'the dreamer'.

And, as in a dream, all images (all apparent things sensed) are not conscious, nor are they 'consciousness'. They are simply content.

As in a dream, all things sensed have no absolute shape or size, they are neither near nor far in relation to the 'dreamer'.

The content appears to change, though consciousness does not.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:56 pm

placid wrote:Steve..does this help you?....

Lets try and imagine what the mind is....

I cannot say who or what I am. Or who is experiencing the colour Red.

What can be said without doubt?

... Here now is seeing, smelling, feeling, tasting, hearing and knowing...

Collectively called 'consciousness'.

This 'consciousness' is not seen, smelled, felt, tasted, heard or known... yet there is no argument (and no one to argue with) about this... it is simply 'self evident'.

To ask if this is so for 'you', is to presume some 'other' consciousness... of which there is no consciousness here and now.

Here now there is only this consciousness, and no other.

That which is 'seen, smelled, felt, tasted, heard and known' is inseparable from this consciousness... as dream images are inseparable from 'the dreamer'.

And, as in a dream, all images (all apparent things sensed) are not conscious, nor are they 'consciousness'. They are simply content.

As in a dream, all things sensed have no absolute shape or size, they are neither near nor far in relation to the 'dreamer'.

The content appears to change, though consciousness does not.

I think you are saying that there is only one Consciousness. I know that is a realization that Eastern Religions seem to come to. It might be true but I have tried to understand that and cannot. You say things like: "... all images ... are not conscious. They are simply content.". If I am interpreting this correctly you are directly saying that Conscious images including the experience of Red are Simply Content. By calling the experience of Red Simple Content you have renamed the Conscious experience of Red but have not explained how we experience it. I'm interested in the process of how Conscious experience happens.

I approach it as a reverse engineering study. I can only study my Consciousness. But I assume everyone has their own Consciousness. My "I" is the thing that experiences the Conscious experience. I assume we all have this Conscious "I". I don't know what a Conscious "I" is. But I do understand that it is what I am. Next I pick some aspect of Conscious perception like the experience of Red. My Conscious "I" is the thing that experiences the Red. Tracing the process back into the Brain we know that when certain Neurons fire in the Brain there is then that experience of Red. How do Neurons firing lead to the experience of Red? There is an Explanatory Gap in going from Neurons firing to the experience of Red. That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. The reverse engineering process itself discovers the Explanatory Gap and that leads to the Hard Problem. This is the way it has to be for me.

User avatar
placid
Regular Poster
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby placid » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:46 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:I think you are saying that there is only one Consciousness. I know that is a realization that Eastern Religions seem to come to. It might be true but I have tried to understand that and cannot. You say things like: "... all images ... are not conscious. They are simply content.". If I am interpreting this correctly you are directly saying that Conscious images including the experience of Red are Simply Content. By calling the experience of Red Simple Content you have renamed the Conscious experience of Red but have not explained how we experience it. I'm interested in the process of how Conscious experience happens.


Steve, all sages new and old have as and through an inward introspection as to the nature of an individual self discovered there isn't one. . . only to find the self is totality alone.

Is there an individual I ..and can it be explained is what you want to know so it seems?

My answer is there is not, .. for I cannot find my individuality apart from the totality. Totality is a nondual concept which is very difficult to grasp...and even Deepak Chopra himself said only the rare few ever grasp it fully.

It seems you believe we each have our own consciousness and can find it, and explain those findings to others? ..is that right?



SteveKlinko wrote:I approach it as a reverse engineering study. I can only study my Consciousness. But I assume everyone has their own Consciousness. My "I" is the thing that experiences the Conscious experience. I assume we all have this Conscious "I". I don't know what a Conscious "I" is. But I do understand that it is what I am. Next I pick some aspect of Conscious perception like the experience of Red. My Conscious "I" is the thing that experiences the Red. Tracing the process back into the Brain we know that when certain Neurons fire in the Brain there is then that experience of Red. How do Neurons firing lead to the experience of Red? There is an Explanatory Gap in going from Neurons firing to the experience of Red. That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. The reverse engineering process itself discovers the Explanatory Gap and that leads to the Hard Problem. This is the way it has to be for me.


What exactly do you mean by Gap anyway?

Gap to me sounds like a void ..but nature doesn't do voids does it?

So it's up to you now to explain what you mean by Gap...before we can understand the need to fill it in with an explanation.

Also, why does consciousness need to be explained anyway? what would it change? what would happen if consciousness is explained and we all become aware of what it is and why it is and how it happens?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Gord » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:39 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:I am truly impressed by some people's ability to take a random fictional Deepak Chopra quote and expand it to an entire treatise. :roses:

Is my job here done?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:45 pm

Gord wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:I am truly impressed by some people's ability to take a random fictional Deepak Chopra quote and expand it to an entire treatise. :roses:

Is my job here done?

Yes.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:24 am

“To be is to do.”
—Socrates

“To do is to be.”
—Jean-Paul Sartre

“Do be do be do.”
—Frank Sinatra
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:22 am

placid wrote:Steve, all sages new and old have as and through an inward introspection as to the nature of an individual self discovered there isn't one. . . only to find the self is totality alone.

Is there an individual I ..and can it be explained is what you want to know so it seems?

My answer is there is not, .. for I cannot find my individuality apart from the totality. Totality is a nondual concept which is very difficult to grasp...and even Deepak Chopra himself said only the rare few ever grasp it fully.

It seems you believe we each have our own consciousness and can find it, and explain those findings to others? ..is that right?

Seems like there would be certain consequences if there was only one Consciousness that we all shared. I would expect that in such a reality that we would all automatically know what we were all thinking and experiencing. It should not take years of Meditation to understand this. I should be obvious.


placid wrote:What exactly do you mean by Gap anyway?

Gap to me sounds like a void ..but nature doesn't do voids does it?

So it's up to you now to explain what you mean by Gap...before we can understand the need to fill it in with an explanation.

Also, why does consciousness need to be explained anyway? what would it change? what would happen if consciousness is explained and we all become aware of what it is and why it is and how it happens?

Its an Explanatory Gap, not just a generic Gap. It involves the observation that each Conscious experience that we have seems to have a corresponding Neural Activity event. The basic example of the situation is for the experience of the color Red:

1) Neurons for Red Fire in the Cortex
2) There is a Conscious Red Experience

The Explanatory Gap is the missing Explanation of how when 1) happens, does 2) then happen? Solving this Explanatory Gap is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Consciousness needs to be explained because: It Is There! Basic Human Curiosity drives the quest. We can't really know what the applications will be when we obtain a Scientific understanding of Consciousness. Maybe we will learn how to transfer our Conscious Minds to Android replicas. This would vastly increase our lifespans and capabilities. Maybe when we understand the Conscious Mind it will lead to a recognition of a Conscious Space phenomenon where the limitations of distance that there is in our Physical Space don't apply. We might be able to instantaneously communicate with the whole Universe when we understand some simple basic concepts of Consciousness. We think we are going to drag our Physical bodies around the Universe in space ships. I doubt it. Distances are too far and the only way we can communicate is with Light and that is too slow. There has to be a better way.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:04 am

I advise caution. We all know what happened to the Donner Party when they tried crossing Explanatory Gap. :shockd:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Omniverse » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:18 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Consciousness might be subjective, but the brain is not. Studying brain function indirectly studies consciousness.


I find this to be a contradiction. If the brain is objective and brain=mind according to the materialistic worldview, then consciousness should also be objective. The fact that consciousness is subjective might imply a brain and mind distinction.

Confidencia
Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Confidencia » Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
placid wrote:Steve, all sages new and old have as and through an inward introspection as to the nature of an individual self discovered there isn't one. . . only to find the self is totality alone.

Is there an individual I ..and can it be explained is what you want to know so it seems?

My answer is there is not, .. for I cannot find my individuality apart from the totality. Totality is a nondual concept which is very difficult to grasp...and even Deepak Chopra himself said only the rare few ever grasp it fully.

It seems you believe we each have our own consciousness and can find it, and explain those findings to others? ..is that right?

Seems like there would be certain consequences if there was only one Consciousness that we all shared. I would expect that in such a reality that we would all automatically know what we were all thinking and experiencing. It should not take years of Meditation to understand this. I should be obvious.


placid wrote:What exactly do you mean by Gap anyway?

Gap to me sounds like a void ..but nature doesn't do voids does it?

So it's up to you now to explain what you mean by Gap...before we can understand the need to fill it in with an explanation.

Also, why does consciousness need to be explained anyway? what would it change? what would happen if consciousness is explained and we all become aware of what it is and why it is and how it happens?

Its an Explanatory Gap, not just a generic Gap. It involves the observation that each Conscious experience that we have seems to have a corresponding Neural Activity event. The basic example of the situation is for the experience of the color Red:

1) Neurons for Red Fire in the Cortex
2) There is a Conscious Red Experience

The Explanatory Gap is the missing Explanation of how when 1) happens, does 2) then happen? Solving this Explanatory Gap is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Consciousness needs to be explained because: It Is There! Basic Human Curiosity drives the quest. We can't really know what the applications will be when we obtain a Scientific understanding of Consciousness. Maybe we will learn how to transfer our Conscious Minds to Android replicas. This would vastly increase our lifespans and capabilities. Maybe when we understand the Conscious Mind it will lead to a recognition of a Conscious Space phenomenon where the limitations of distance that there is in our Physical Space don't apply. We might be able to instantaneously communicate with the whole Universe when we understand some simple basic concepts of Consciousness. We think we are going to drag our Physical bodies around the Universe in space ships. I doubt it. Distances are too far and the only way we can communicate is with Light and that is too slow. There has to be a better way.


Consciousness need not be explained. It is your mind that needs to stop asking questions. For every answer by its very nature creates another question.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Why Science Will Probably Never Address The Problem Of Consciousness

Postby Gord » Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:07 pm

Omniverse wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Consciousness might be subjective, but the brain is not. Studying brain function indirectly studies consciousness.

I find this to be a contradiction. If the brain is objective and brain=mind according to the materialistic worldview, then consciousness should also be objective. The fact that consciousness is subjective might imply a brain and mind distinction.

Your error is in your equation, "brain=mind". The mind is generated by the brain. My old analogy is to the engine of a car: Brain is to engine as mind is to combustion.

It is possible to study objective things to learn more about the subjective natures of those things. For instance, food may be objective but taste is subjective.

The subjectivity of consciousness, on the other hand, is related to the concept of qualia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest