Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
I have to answer this tard's false claims, for my own satisfaction:
| Quote | 1
mike1962
01/24/2007
8:36 am
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
Yeah, me too. If consciousness *is* the activity of the brain, then why only a subset of it’s activity? |
I haven't read the Time piece (no reason to, since Damasio and Dennett have no explanations for consciousness's aspects), but of course consciousness is not "the activity of the brain", it is "an activity of the brain." It arises from only a subset of its activity, as Mike1962 notes, and any explanation must account for this. That Dennett and Damasio don't even try is their problem.
| Quote | | Obviously not of all the brain is conscious or partains directly to consciousness. |
Of course not. It is well understood that consciousness is not only restricted to an area, or more likely in my judgment (and that of others), to several areas, but that consciousness can diminish or disappear from conscious areas. This is why consciousness of certain functions disappears with those functions during dream states, or in other altered states of consciousness. Again, Damasio's and Dennett's lack of even an attempt at explanation for this is their mistake, not that of neuroscience or my own model of what consciousness is.
| Quote | | Where is the location of this special “unity of experience” and why is IT conscious and not the rest of the brain? |
It's not "a location", nor even several fixed locations (of course consciousness has to be somewhere or "somewheres", but it's naive to ask "where it is" like we can point to a town on a map). The fact is that consciousness almost certainly has to be associated with the processing, the sorting, and the routing that the brain effects upon the information that is both conscious and visibly being processed by the brain.
That is to say, it would not be unlikely that visual consciousness would be located in the retinotopic map of the (partly) conscious brain, while acoustical consciousness would likely be found in the tonotopic map of the awake (or dreaming) brain. I'm not saying that those are the only posibilities, but that the consciousness has to be where the information contained in consciousness is to be found, unless, of course, the laws of thermodynamics and rules of information are violated magically by some "soul".
| Quote | | There are no answers from the materialists. |
A complete lie. I have been arguing typical neuroscientific and cognitive science so far, without bringing in my particular ideas on the subject (not that I'm a "materialist", but tards like Mike couldn't recognize this fact so I'll tolerate the term with this caveat). Now I'll link directly to where in 2005 I discussed reasonable explanations for the unconscious existing side-by-side with the conscious (and did so earlier in a book copyrighted in 2000):
http://students.wwcc.edu/~glendavidson/website/unconsciousness.htm
I don't know if Mike actually came up with these objections on his own, or if he actually did get them straight out of my website (apologies for the problems with the site, btw, I'm always planning to fix it but seem to always find something more interesting, like arguing with Jason Rennie or this especial tard). I mention the latter because DaveTard did once direct UDiots to the site, along with his usual stupid and pig-ignorant insults, so have reason to believe that some UDiots did take him up on it.
And yes, I'm well aware that my hypothetical solutions remain to be demonstrated to be (at least 'some of') the right explanations, what I'm pointing out is that I have indeed addressed the matter, quite unlike his false witness states, and well before he is on record with his objections.
| Quote | | They only have bald assertions based on their materialist faith. Yawn. |
Hm, yeah right. There are plenty of good reasons quite apart from my model to point to a marked dependency of consciousness upon brain states (anyone who's tripped out, or even dreamed, should know this), while I have directly addressed his "concerns". Even if he doesn't know that I have (there is a tremendous amount of conservatism in science where cross-disciplinary hypotheses venture into uncharted waters), let's see, don't UDiots claim to be the champions of whatever is not currently establishment science? One knows better, naturally, and also knows that the "scientific dissent" they tolerate usually involves areas where they don't tolerate any religious dissent, no matter how scientific.
Glen D
[edited for a slight shift in nuance]
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
So what were the "three interesting things that happened in 2004"? Anyone?
Set phasers to huffy for A Flock of Dodos: