Patricia and Paul Churchland on Consciousness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лис 2024
- Patricia Smith Churchland is Professor of Philosophy at UC San Diego. Her recent research interest focuses on neuroethics and attempts to understand choice, responsibly and the basis of moral norms in terms of brain function, evolution and brain-culture interactions.
en.wikipedia.or...
Paul M. Churchland is Professor of Philosophy at UC San Diego. With his wife and philosophical partner, Patricia, he has been an advocate of "eliminative materialism," which claims that many of our common-sense folk-psychological conceptions of our mental lives will fail to have any explanatory role in a mature neuroscience.
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
The complete 1 hour and 45 minute interview can be viewed here:
thesciencenetwo...
I can't believe I heard an eliminative materialist use the words God and Soul.
"A hostage to a fate you don't understand"
Science aside, that was poetic
Very much so. Amen
Hi LennyBound,
Thank you for sharing these vids on Patricia Churchland. I feel a great sense of awe of the research that is being conducted by her and her companion.
Best wishes,
demetri b.
"The argument "we have _only_ 300 more genes than mice" is such a crock..."
Once again, it is a problem of only looking at the statement like a bean counter. The raw number may very well be accurate, but the fact that genes can alter the expression of other genes means that instruction complexity could (though likely doesn't) grow at an exponential rate... so a difference of 300 genes could easily mean an instruction set that is two orders of magnitude more complex.
Is there any statement about 'The Self' from paul churchland?
Great. I'll be doing a cognitive neuroscience PhD starting this fall at UT Dallas.
So you're a scientist now?
@@CamRebires I completed my PhD in 2018, but I decided not to remain in academia and am now a user researcher for a software company. So I guess you could say I'm an applied scientist.
@@ArcadianGenesis Awesome man, good luck to you!
@@ArcadianGenesis What do you now think about consciousness?
How are you doing today in 2024?
Ok, tell me if anyone with what I am about to say. One major mistake of eliminative materialism is the assumption that just because something like consciousness has neurophysiological mechanisms which correlate with it, that means it is entirely physical. This is very similar to the "God of the gaps" where it is assumed that God can only exist in areas where we lack knowledge.
Spot on. This is the mistake of materialism in general, not only the eliminative dialect of it.
Curious if after 11 years you've found any verifiable evidence that any aspect of consciousness isn't purely physical.
And Paul. I believe this is the first I've seen him in a video on UA-cam.
Thanks for Sharing ! This is incredible.
2021 gang
No math is the basis of modern science. Math doesn't always reduce structures in a reductionistic* or a materialistic* manner though.
*see chaos theory and holography
*see digital physics
@Omnicron777 Okay, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. If Consciousness is a verb (and I'm practically puking just to write that), then what is the achievement of that activity? What does that activity achieve? What is its effect? Is it not to make the condition of being apparent?
Personality Test: Are you more like a "thing that perceives space," or a "space that perceives things"?
@Omnicron777 Last time I checked, consciousness meant awareness of the condition of being. That awareness may require neural activity--if that's what you mean by "activity"--but that doesn't mean that consciousness is itself neural activity. That's confusing cause and effect and would be exactly the kind of reductionism you're complaining about in your posts.
@Omnicron777 Imagine that Universe A has consciousness, and Universe B does not. What is the essential difference? According to you, it is that A is DOING something that B is not. According to me, it is that a new DIMENSION has opened up in A. In Chalmers' terms, consciousness is an "emergent," a synergy that cannot be predicted by the substrate. If consciousness were merely activity, then a description of brain activity would describe what being conscious is like. And it doesn't. QED.
@Omnicron777 "Without the body, there cannot be consciousness." Pray tell, how do you know that?
empirical observation indicating that consciousness in other animals is inseparable from the brain
Oh? Where are you studying?
@drn02009 Lots of materialists use the word "soul" as a metaphor, like Dennett, who says, "Yes, we have a soul, but it's made of a bunch of tiny robots!"
which in some ways is true! its all computation
@Omnicron777 Your surly because you don't understand my questions. (Nor did you answer them.) The purpose of any supposed activity of consciousness would be to make the condition of being apparent. Thinking is a process IN consciousness, not OF consciousness. (Machines asrguably think; that doesn't make them conscious.)
@Omnicron777 Check your own words: "Consciousness is a state... which ALLOWS FOR volitive action." I rest my case.
🐉
"If a human male is geneticaly more related to a male chimpanzee than to a human woman->
than there is something wrong with genetic"
Really it just depends on your standard of measurement. In raw number of genes, Paul has only one copy of about 1900 genes that Patricia has two of.... and the difference between chimp Y chromosomes from human Y chromosomes is not that significant... so from a very bean counter POV Pat is right.
@Omnicron777 You seem unaware of the difference between doing and being. I repeat: "Last time I checked, consciousness meant awareness of the condition of being." And, if you check, you'll notice that "you" aren't doing anything more to BE conscious than you are doing to simply BE at all. Consciousness is a CONDITION, not a verb. You're hooked on slotting consciousness as a verb. Please get over it before you reduce away the entire world.
Ruan Fernandes
Two fundamentalists
and all the religious will take from this is your destroying my god your removing the gaps were i can say god did it, if you explain conciousness, you remove the mistery of creation bla bla bla, they hate man gaining new knowledge.
tersse b "All the religious"? So, Mr. Omniscient Guy, how were you able to know that?
@@akosikuyzak Probably because the religious and anthropocentric idealist philosophers, in their egocentricity, want to believe they are the central reason for the existence of the universe and whose only offer of evidence is their ability to imagine it's so.