Consciousness; further review of current thought (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, July 08, 2016, 19:57 (2842 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The sort of mind I am referring to in the context of the biological complexities of evolutionary innovation is that of the organisms themselves. I have offered three hypotheses concerning the origin of such a mind, and find all of them equally unconvincing. -And that is because you refuse to accept the observation that cells have planned purposeful behaviour that looks as if they can think, but simply represents thoughtful planning of their purposeful reactions.
> 
> DAVID: Reductive materialism is necessary in research to uncover the mechanisms of how cells work. That is all it is. I never try to reduce consciousness to neurons because you know full well, no one knows how that works and I object to your trying to compare the discussion of cell material activity to whatever it is that creates consciousness. How the brain runs muscles, for example, is what is equivalent to cell biological responses. Consciousness is a different breed of cats.
> 
> dhw: Of course it is. But you have missed the point of what I wrote, which is why I have quoted it again. You object when neuroscientists try to reduce consciousness to chemical and electrical activity. But when scientists suggest that brainless organisms may also be conscious, you point to chemical and electrical activity as if that explained all their seemingly conscious behaviour. Double standards.-You totally misunderstand or misconstrue my thoughts. In studying cellular responses to stimuli one must use reductive materialism to elicit the molecular reactions that motor the results. No neuroscientist has ever come close to proving that neurons produce consciousness, only that consciousness appears to be neuron dependent, accept during NDE's. That is why Nagel's book is so significant. We do know what neurons can do and that is the result of necessary reductive materialism in brain research.