[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 33 KB, 450x407, consciousness1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2839606 No.2839606 [Reply] [Original]

What are some more recent books on consciousness I should read if I'm interested in learning about it?

>> No.2839619

>>2839606
I would suggest Dan Dennett. Not sure what he's written on the subject, but this video in particular is awesome.

Daniel Dennett lecture on "Free Will" (Edinburgh University)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E

>> No.2839650

>>2839619

Watching now, thanks.

I know of Dennett, but I also know some of his books received criticism for tending to argue semantics.

This doesn't make him wrong, but I'm also looking for more non-controversial books, if they exist.

>> No.2839835

Bamp.

>> No.2839848

Define consciousness.

>> No.2839862

>>2839619

I couldn't watch 10 minutes of that lecture. How boring being a philosopher must be.

>> No.2839866

>>2839862
>boring philosopher
There's another kind? Lols. Sorry you didn't like it. I love it. It does a great job explaining how our intuitive notions of determinalism and free will are entirely compatible, despite lots of public sentiment to the contrary.

He also introduced me to a new word: evitability, which I plan to use a lot more in my daily speech.

Lols, it's so rare that Firefox flags it as a spelling error.

>> No.2839882
File: 65 KB, 268x265, 1282591592282.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2839882

>>2839866

Wow you're a pretentious faggot. Thought exercises are the lowest common denominator of scientific thinking.

>> No.2839896

>>2839882
You know, I have been an ass in other threads today, but not this one. I'll remedy that problem now. It's my mistake really.

Fuck off.

>> No.2839901
File: 131 KB, 360x360, 1295108841771.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2839901

>>2839896

>> No.2839908

Be careful treading the waters of research when it comes to consciousness. Even Oxford professors take the pseudoscientific route.

My advice is study neuroscience. Leave philosophy at the door.

>> No.2839914

>>2839619
Lawl, don't pick Dennett if you believe that consciousness exists.

He has found a great way to solve all problems regarding consciousness. Just declare that they, along with consciousness itself, doesn't exist.

http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Mind-Search-Fundamental-Philosophy/dp/0195117891

Read that if you want a great book on consciousness.

>> No.2839924

>>2839914
To paraphrase Dan Dennett, "But we do have a soul. It's made of millions of tiny robots [our proteins, etc.]!"

I don't see a problem with this.

>> No.2839943

>>2839924
define soul ffs

>> No.2839948

>>2839924
You can pick and choose a phrase or two, tripfaggot, but when you read his books you will understand.

Dennett, along with most eliminative materialists, denies the reality of subjective experience. There is no way (for them) around it.

>> No.2839957

>>2839943
I at least meant it to be humorous. The idea is that all of the things we care about, relying on others to make decisions, having a moral justification to punish them when they don't, and so on, don't require a non-material soul, or a non-material consciousness, or some-thing in the mind which is neither true random nor determinalism. What we have is real, and it's pretty good enough for me.

>> No.2839963

>>2839948
>denies the reality of subjective experience.
I don't know what this means. Can you please phrase your statement in terms of falsifiable predictions, as an assertion in a formal axiomatic system like ZFC, as a moral axiom, or equivalently clarified.

>> No.2839967

>>2839963

> mfw when using terms you don't understand

>> No.2839971

The big question is whether proponents of pseudoscience in cognitive studies are a)retarded or b)lack the proper education to make good judgement.

>> No.2839973
File: 30 KB, 316x317, 1282541796628.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2839973

>>2839967

>mfw when you dont have a face

>> No.2839977

>>2839967
I never used terms like "deny the reality of subjective experience".

>> No.2839987

>>2839977

What books do you have on ZFC or NBG?

>> No.2839994

>>2839987
None. I was making a point that I was trying to ground this discussion in some sort of agreed upon axiomatic framework. If we don't share some sort of ground rules, the discussion will go nowhere. I was asking for you to explain your worldview so that the sentence "makes sense".

>> No.2839997

>>2839963
If you don't know what subjective experience is, then you have neither read his books, nor have you even the slightest understanding of the philosophy of mind.

On the other hand, if you're being facetious, as I suspect, then you know you are asking a stupid question. How can I state what "subjective experience" is "in terms of falsifiable predictions?"

I think you're a pretentious asshole who's really just asking for what people would usually call, uh, a "definition."

>> No.2840004

>>2839997
I admitted that I haven't read any of his books /in this very thread/. Please see me here:
>>2839619
>I would suggest Dan Dennett. Not sure what he's written on the subject

I have not claimed to be an expert on the topic. Can we avoid that strawman red herring please?

>> No.2840014

>>2840004
Fantastic!

Now that we both agree that you don't know what you're talking about, let's just cut the pseudo-logical bullshit and you can get on outta here!

>> No.2840023
File: 34 KB, 257x300, Science_makes_me_horny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2840023

>>2840014

>> No.2840026

>>2839994

So let me get this straight: you browse Wikipedia on certain pages about logic, fallacies, math and thinking, pick up talking points and buzz words, then in your arguments try to throw them out to try to connect to the very vague understanding you have of those terms to try to feel smarter and think you're helping move the conversation along?

Stick with what you know. Don't bring things into conversations you have little understand of. Yes, this means we all don't get to talk about very much, but guess what: that's intellectual honesty. Get used to it.

>> No.2840028

>>2839997
>How can I state what "subjective experience" is "in terms of falsifiable prediction

In my world, there are several different kinds of knowledge. You have scientific knowledge, which is testable with evidence. You have moral knowledge, which is largely by fiat and consensus. You also have math, which is true entirely because of definition, axiom, and deductive reasoning.

In each of those formal axiomatic systems, there are possible measures for rightness and wrongness. That is, a statement made in the context of one of those axiomatic systems is meaningful in some sense because you didn't know if it was wrong or not before looking into it. That is, it's not an empty statement.

When you talk about the reality of subjective experience, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about how I'm aware of my own thoughts, my own body, etc etc., but not my neighbor's body and memories?

I'm not really sure what it means to "reject the reality" of that. It seems like rather a silly proposition to say that other people don't have this same subjective experience as you or I. I sincerely doubt Dan Dennett says that.

Thus I am left confused as to what you mean by "reject the reality of subjective experiences".

>> No.2840039

>>2840014
>>2840026
Guys, or maybe samefagging guy, this is 4chan. What the hell else are you expecting? There is no minimum bar of education here, neither by explicit requirement nor by common understanding.

Thus far, in this thread, I linked to a video that I thought was interesting, and gave a brief synopsis of why I thought it was interesting. Some asshat decided to rip into me for some god knows why reason, and I told him to fuck off.

You guys really need to chill. I swear to fucking god.

And finally, I reject your insinuation that you have to be fully learned in any particular topic of conversion before you can participate, especially about something so important and fundamental as moral responsibility and free will.

Also, it's not like there's really that much to it. You have to spend years to become a good medical doctor, but to learn all of the good arguments on something like free will can be done in a fortnight.

>> No.2840051
File: 9 KB, 234x216, images..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2840051

>>2840026

Told status:

[] Told
[] Really Told
[] Super Told
[] FUCKING TOLD
[x] Told of the rings

>> No.2840057

>>2840028
>Scientific knowledge
The basis of that being, of course, the senses. The key to those being, of course, subjective experience.

I assume, excluding your earlier facetious stupidity, you know what subjective experience is.

Daniel Dennett denies that people have subjective experiences. He believes that it is an illusion. He denies the "reality" of subjective experience.
Mr Dennett does just what you say that you doubt he does. Which is why you should go read his fucking books, and the read David Chalmers books (like the one I recommended), and then get back to us. You will learn a lot, although I must say, there is very little on ZFC.

>> No.2840071

>>2840039
> I reject your insinuation that you have to be fully learned in any particular topic of conversion before you can participate

Can you please define "conversation," "reject," and "insinuate" in terms of falsifiable predictions, as an assertion in a formal axiomatic system like ZFC, as a moral axiom, or equivalently clarified.

>> No.2840080

All animals capable of cognition have some form of nervous system with which to detect the environment they exist in (reality). Their evaluation of reality is dependent on their machinery i.e nervous system, brain. This suggests that not all creatures share the same perception of reality. Furthermore even the most advanced human uses at best a framework which is no more than a semblance of reality.

This is the subjective nature of reality. Consciousness arises from the combinatory nature of the brain. Scientific mechanisms, laws, morality, desires, the senses are imposed by the human brain and do not exist otherwise. They are a tool for deciphering the laws of the universe and enabling survival. The vivid imagery provided by the human brain is because of brain chemistry and does not require any spiritual definition of soul.

>> No.2840088

>>2840071
I know what subjective experience is w.r.t. consciousness and mind discussions, but I'm not quite sure what it means to reject the reality of subjective experiences. What does it mean for it to be an illusion? Can you define these terms please? It's like your hijacking the language of science, but you're just using it as a metaphor. There is no falsifiability, and so I'm not sure what information is meant to be contained in the words which you're typing.

>>2840057
>Can you please define "conversation," "reject," and "insinuate" in terms of falsifiable predictions, as an assertion in a formal axiomatic system like ZFC, as a moral axiom, or equivalently clarified.
It'll take me a while, but sure. Next post.

>> No.2840108

>>2840088
>Next post.
What's taking you so long?

>> No.2840117

>>2840071
>Can you please define "conversation," "reject," and "insinuate" in terms of falsifiable predictions, as an assertion in a formal axiomatic system like ZFC, as a moral axiom, or equivalently clarified.

I have a belief in the scientific method. This belief is unjustifiable. It forms the basis of a formal axiomatic framework. In the context of this framework, ideas are measured in terms of observation, aka scientific evidence. An idea either offers falsifiable predictions, or it's not science. It's not wrong per se, but it's simply not described by the axiomatic system of science.

Now, as for a conversation. Well, I've found that there are other things in my observations and experience which have taught me language, and converse back and forth with me about a variety of topics. That's a conversation.

When I practice science, sometimes I consider a new scientific idea, and then I go practice science by trying to prove it wrong by trying to find falsifying evidence. For example, I might entertain that the cute girl at work likes me. I can try to falsify this idea by asking her of her opinion about me, aka gathering evidence. If she replies that she does not like me, well, I just rejected that scientific idea as not correct.

An insinuation is a property of some kinds speech. A person communicating with others can say one thing literally, but intend for the listeners to pick up on a different meaning, usually though a subtle or not so subtle half completed argument which the speaker intends for the listeners to complete themselves.

>> No.2840131

>>2840088
If you understand what subjective experience is, as you say, then when I tell you that Dennett believes that we do not have subjective experience, that consciousness is an illusion, and hence, that Dennett "denies the reality of subjective experience," you should understand what I'm saying.

Experience is what is most real to all of us. It is completely absurd to deny it. That is what I, and most philosophers of mind, mean when it is said that Dennett "denies the reality of subjective experience."

>>2840117
Now wait a second, you're just defining words!
I thought I asked, as you did, for you to state those words "in terms of falsifiable predictions, as an assertion in a formal axiomatic system like ZFC, as a moral axiom, or equivalently clarified."

You should understand why it sounded so stupid.

>> No.2840134
File: 65 KB, 227x219, tumblr_ldv99qXJdm1qb9qwwo1_250.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2840134

>>2840117

>> No.2840146

Can we get some books on consciousness made by theists?

Not like christians though.

>> No.2840150

The tell-tale mind is probably the best book on cosnciousness if you want real /sci/ not some BS about substance dualism.

so yeah The Tell-Tale Mind

>> No.2840161

>>.2840117
The cute girl scenario is poorly conceived. The girl may find many things attractive about you. When you pressurise her into making a sudden judgement the defensive response is rejection. Your simple yes or no basis for subjectivity is flawed.

>> No.2840350

>>2840146