Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?


forbisga...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 25, 7:41 am, tvashtar <tvash...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, c...@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:
Is consciousness or awareness third person observable?
I don't think so.


That really is the question which is the foundation
of all the debate. I think consciousness is third
person observable because I don't believe there's
anything in a conscious person other than the physical
behavior of their brain.


We just don't have the tools or evidence to prove
this belief right or wrong.


I just don't believe in dualism. It's inconsistent
with everything we know about the universe so I
choose to believe we are not dualistic. I believe
that the physical world, and the mental world, are
not two separate things, but that they are one and
the same thing.

Another point of view:

The mental world and the physical world are not
the same and there is such a thing as a first person
observation that is not third person observable.

The mental world only exists as neural activity in a
brain just as the virtual reality world only exists as
electronic switching activity in a computer.

The physical world always exists and its reality or
nature remains unchanged and doesn't require a mental
world to exist.

The mental world by contrast depends on the physical
world to exist and its nature is changed by changes
in the physical world.

Subjective experiences (the mental world) such as
"seeing red" or "feeling pain" have no existence
independent of activities in the brain. The physical
world has no "red" it has no "pain". They are
descriptions of how things behave not descriptions
of what things are. They are properties of the mental
world which in turn depends upon the physical world
to exist.

Understanding the mental world will mean understanding
the relationships between interacting patterns in the
brain whereas understanding the physical world is a
matter of physics.

The physical world is limited by the laws of physics
whereas the mental world, although dependent for its
existence on the parts that make up the physical
world and how they interact, is not limited by the
laws of physics as demonstrated by any cartoon movie.

In other words the "mental world" and the "physical
world" are not the same thing although the physical
world is only known through neural activity.



--
JC



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... There is no coincidence involved. ... signal that the brain interprets as a color. ... process in the brain that produces consciousness. ... If physics and chemistry are correct, then there can be no evolutionary ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... Below you say that material brain activity is associated ... The experience of consciousness? ... and it would require its own Physics to work. ... they have faith in philosophical materialism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... The organism will follow the laws of physics by analysing the situation ... that is presented in his/her consciousness and taking ... I assume you mean the brain is structured in such a way ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... physics, need not be composed of particles to be considered material. ... The activity in the brain is composed of balanced reactions, ... Our consciousness is the pattern of brain activity developed by ... they have faith in philosophical materialism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Identity Theory of Mind
    ... The granularity (biochemical, electrical, ... So is classical physics. ... >>underyling sublime from which dualism and other ... >>mathematics, paradox, religion, consciousness itself). ...
    (sci.cognitive)