10 ms·

The overwhelming majority of people accept that drugs can temporarily alter someones personality and brain trauma can interfere with memory and or function. Th

The overwhelming majority of people accept that drugs can temporarily alter someones personality and brain trauma can interfere with memory and or function. The fact that many of these same people also believe in a soul setups an odd sort of cognitive dissonance. Anyway, for most neuroscientists results like this are far closer to conformation using an interesting technique than truly groundbreaking research.

Alex3917 14y ago
"The fact that many of these same people also believe in a soul setups an odd sort of cognitive dissonance." There's no cognitive dissonance if you believe that the brain influences consciousness but aren't committed to the idea that the brain is the source of consciousness. E.g. you could believe that the brain is a reducing valve, a la Huxley, and there is no cognitive dissonance there at all.
robododo 14y ago
When one's core beliefs have no basis in logic or objective reality, it's simple to maintain consistency. All that's needed is the invention of some new concept to explain the discrepancy. The world created in days -> but a "day" could be a million years. Evolutionary theory -> but <creator> is driving the evolution etc...
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "When one's core beliefs have no basis in logic or objective reality, it's simple to maintain consistency. All that's needed is the invention of some new concept to explain the discrepancy." Like empiricism.
ma2rten 14y ago
I am not religious, but I feel something is not adding up in this purely scientific view of the world. I never tried to explain this thought to anyone else, because it's damn hard to explain. I will give it a try: As far as science goes (or I understand it) the brain is just a neural network, which gets activated based on inputs and produces some outputs, like a computer does. Neurons can also self-activate, but that is not really the point. The point is consciousness would not be required for that. When look around me I see things. If my brain would just do input/output, there would be no need for me to see anything. I would just act without seeing/hearing/feeling consciously. I don't claim I have any idea about anything, but I feel like something is not adding up here on a fundamental level. I don't even know if other people experience the same thing or if they do indeed just act on inputs and have no idea what I am talking about. I wonder if what I said made any sense to anyone and if any philosophers were considering the same thing.
- xyzzyz 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
  - ma2rten 14y ago
    Thanks. This is what I am talking about (I think). I have a hard time understanding the counter-arguments though, without any background in philosophy beyond Plato. I will try again when I am less tired.
- jbri 14y ago
  Are you talking about the self-awareness and introspection you perceive yourself as having? Does it help if you view your consciousness as both being produced by the brain, and used as an input - i.e. a key part of a feedback system?
  - ma2rten 14y ago
    Are you talking about the self-awareness and introspection you perceive yourself as having? Maybe, depends how you fill in those words. I guess you could write a computer program that has self-awareness, in the sense that it is able to talk about itself. That is not what I meant. Does it help if you view your consciousness as both being produced by the brain, and used as an input - i.e. a key part of a feedback system? I'd even say that this is what most likely is going on, but it opens a completely different can of worms, with questions like: Does the part responsible for the consciousness (let's call it soul for lack of a better word) survive after you die? This realization tipped the scale for me from "No, that is just wishful thinking." to "I have no clue, but it is slightly more likely that it does, than that it does not.". It's very annoying that I can barely talk about this without using words, which have been claimed by people, who hold believes I consider completely irrational.
- cpeterso 14y ago
  You might like Douglas Hofstadter's book I Am a Strange Loop. He examines consciousness as a recursive feedback loop. The book has some hokey tangents, but I think it's a good presentation. btw, this book is much more accessible that Hofstadter's GEB. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop

Alex3917 14y ago

"The fact that many of these same people also believe in a soul setups an odd sort of cognitive dissonance." There's no cognitive dissonance if you believe that the brain influences consciousness but aren't committed to the idea that the brain is the source of consciousness. E.g. you could believe that the brain is a reducing valve, a la Huxley, and there is no cognitive dissonance there at all.

robododo 14y ago

When one's core beliefs have no basis in logic or objective reality, it's simple to maintain consistency. All that's needed is the invention of some new concept to explain the discrepancy. The world created in days -> but a "day" could be a million years. Evolutionary theory -> but <creator> is driving the evolution etc...

Alex3917 14y ago
"When one's core beliefs have no basis in logic or objective reality, it's simple to maintain consistency. All that's needed is the invention of some new concept to explain the discrepancy." Like empiricism.

ma2rten 14y ago

I am not religious, but I feel something is not adding up in this purely scientific view of the world. I never tried to explain this thought to anyone else, because it's damn hard to explain. I will give it a try: As far as science goes (or I understand it) the brain is just a neural network, which gets activated based on inputs and produces some outputs, like a computer does. Neurons can also self-activate, but that is not really the point. The point is consciousness would not be required for that. When look around me I see things. If my brain would just do input/output, there would be no need for me to see anything. I would just act without seeing/hearing/feeling consciously. I don't claim I have any idea about anything, but I feel like something is not adding up here on a fundamental level. I don't even know if other people experience the same thing or if they do indeed just act on inputs and have no idea what I am talking about. I wonder if what I said made any sense to anyone and if any philosophers were considering the same thing.

xyzzyz 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
- ma2rten 14y ago
  Thanks. This is what I am talking about (I think). I have a hard time understanding the counter-arguments though, without any background in philosophy beyond Plato. I will try again when I am less tired.
jbri 14y ago
Are you talking about the self-awareness and introspection you perceive yourself as having? Does it help if you view your consciousness as both being produced by the brain, and used as an input - i.e. a key part of a feedback system?
- ma2rten 14y ago
  Are you talking about the self-awareness and introspection you perceive yourself as having? Maybe, depends how you fill in those words. I guess you could write a computer program that has self-awareness, in the sense that it is able to talk about itself. That is not what I meant. Does it help if you view your consciousness as both being produced by the brain, and used as an input - i.e. a key part of a feedback system? I'd even say that this is what most likely is going on, but it opens a completely different can of worms, with questions like: Does the part responsible for the consciousness (let's call it soul for lack of a better word) survive after you die? This realization tipped the scale for me from "No, that is just wishful thinking." to "I have no clue, but it is slightly more likely that it does, than that it does not.". It's very annoying that I can barely talk about this without using words, which have been claimed by people, who hold believes I consider completely irrational.
cpeterso 14y ago
You might like Douglas Hofstadter's book I Am a Strange Loop. He examines consciousness as a recursive feedback loop. The book has some hokey tangents, but I think it's a good presentation. btw, this book is much more accessible that Hofstadter's GEB. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop