SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
That's correct. AFAIK, there are several theories on the subject but we haven't gathered enough evidence for any of them yet.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Physicalists: does this question make sense?
- Thread starter GrowingSmaller
- Start date
That's correct. AFAIK, there are several theories on the subject but we haven't gathered enough evidence for any of them yet.
I don't think causation is a matter of empirical analysis, not first order anyway. Rather it is a philosophical matter where the a concept of science made more clear by philosophers (like Hume) rather than scientists. This might involve observing how a term is used in practice, but that is different sort of observation from than is the fundamental sciences. A bit like with epistemology, we have a referent (knowledge), but we cannot analysie it physically in a test tube etc (although there is IIRC "naturalised epistemology").
I think, if the brain causes consciousness, the best model of causation would be either counterfactual dependence ("if no brain activity, then no consciousness"), or the nomological model ("certain brain activity is always contiguous in space and time with consciousness").
I think the problem with the counterfactual model is that brain activity may be a necessary condition for consciousness, but not sufficient. However if we don't know what else is needed we may as well stick with the brain model.
The problem with the nomological model is that brain activity and consciousness may be like day and night, following one another but not being causes of one another. Also, it seems that consciousness does not come after brain activity, but at the same time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
