/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14739755
>Which question? No nothing I said implied that.
That was your own statement that I just forgot to greentext.
>They are abstractions. They are not made of anything.
So they are non-physical? Are you now admitting consciousness is non-physical? Are you saying they are not made anything PHYSICAL or what? You seem to be drifting away from a materialist explanation. You stated consciousness IS the brain. There should be nothing extra in brains that are not the brain like 'abstractions'. You are now appealing to extra physical things.
>Then why did you say measurement of the brain tells us nothing?
Pic rel is a brain scan. Tell me what details about what the owner of the brain is thinking. Of course you can not. What I mean is in a more general sense. If a freewill awareness unit (consciousness) decides to become a drug addict and uses drugs for years and then goes and gets a brain scan, the disease of the virtual avatar brain of the consciousness will likely reflect the years of abuse in the form of particular signatures of disease. So there will be correlations between the quality of the consciousness and the bad decision making of the drug addict and the quality of the virtual avatar brain This is a form of agent causation in which consciousness' free will effects the brain, which is a mental object that gets rendered in the mind of observers, say a neurologist, and so a subjective consciousness object (a mind) effecting an objective object of consciousness (a brain) and they will show correlation. So no substance dualism, no mind body problem. Or, If you drill a hole in someones head with a large drill bit, effects on the virtual brain will likely correlate with effects rendered in the owner of the brains quality of conscious.