New theory of consciousness

Sorry for not replying yet, I’m trying to tackle how best to sincerely respond to you considering that you seem to be playing devil’s advocate pretty hard rather than trying to move into the middle of a shared understanding or at least a shared and open disagreement.

Religion is different from philosophy at the fundamental level: religion is driven by ideology, philosophy is driven by truth-seeking. Religion is fundamentally closed due to prescribing required beliefs and ways of thinking that are not seriously challenged or examined, whereas philosophy is fundamentally open due to prescribing only a must basic and upright relationship between oneself and thought, or between thought and its object. Philosophy arrives at conclusions because those conclusions were objectively tested in the fires of reason and honed through collective process of examination, critique and change; religion doesn’t even arrive at conclusions, it simply asserts things based solely on an appeal to the authority of the past, appeal to fear and rewards, and thereby is essentially a pathological enterprise.

Religions arose only because of a lack of philosophy. Science is a branch of philosophy, religion is not; religion is a branch of pathology/ideology and will be eliminated eventually as science and philosophy continue to develop and replace the psychological, social and economic functions that religion formerly performed.

As for the rest, again I’m not sure how to respond from here, because I can’t tell how serious you’re being (for example, we don’t simply wander around randomly in a library of ideas, that’s a disingenuous metaphor to use). If you are being serious then I suggest looking at Fixed’s reply above. Science and scientific method are branches of philosophy and philosophic method, not the other way around.

Okay, I’ll accept that science is a branch of philosophy. A pity Fixed didn’t get back to us, but I remember him always being a bit of a one night stand merchant from way back anyway. Lol, maybe it’s only some of our ILP posters who wander randomly in the library.

I think you dislike religion and I dislike, let’s say ‘highly theoretical’ philosophy, for the same reasons. They both attempt to make pronouncements on things they’re not very well equipped to explore, in language either explicitly or argh, vocabulary failure, subliminally aimed at disguising this aspect. Obfustication. The word itself implies its definition. At least every scientific paper bears the legend “only temporary” at the top of the page.

Of course I’m not blind to the fact that scientists willfully do exactly the same thing, if the conclusions of experiments or studies fail to astound, or even prove statistically significant. However, in place institutions of peer review and meta-analysis do cut down on the more obvious snake-oil sellers. Damage control mechanisms largely absent from the philosophical field. Unless there are branches of the logic police I haven’t heard of.

Perhaps it’s a more personal thing, disappointment. Religion promises to save the world, but it doesn’t, I came to philosophy seeking the meaning of life, like most people, prompted by the birth of my first child, and found it hollow to be honest. Science is my great last hope. The wire-mother, without comfort, but bearing gifts.

With such a noble profession you would think that you have found the meaning of life already.

Nah, I’m still left, rather bleakly, with none. Still, no need to pass it on, if I can make my family happy, for no reason other than I can, I can chisel ‘win’ on the gravestone.

Your children cannot inherit a meaningful life from you if you yourself do not possess one.

Nope but they can inherit a bunch of money. Every Parsifal needs a horse.

Teachers do tend to focus on money a lot and, more often than not, cry poor.

Generalisations are generalisations.

There was a thread on ILP several years ago on Michael Graziano’s Attention Schema Theory and it died a miserable death much like this thread (very unfortunate in my opinion).

Meh, I had fun while it lasted. If some people read the article that wouldn’t have otherwise, then, time well spent.

So what do you know about the theory?

Bsc. Applied and human biology (circa a long time ago) and I try to keep up with the brain stuff.

Anyway, enough one liners, I think we’re done here.

Very simply, and troll like, consciousness is a tool of adapting. A basic survival mechanism. As survival becomes more pernicious and complex, the modes of survival have to become more complex as well. The central nervous system becomes less automatic, and memory continuously re-integrates into the system.
More and more memory creates more complex circuitry.

However, LIFE it’s self has ALWAYS been complex, but the lower brain functions could not perceive it. It preferred simplicity.

Since LIFE as perceived, is always the function of capacity, it negates the idea of a complex, super intelligent universe. So it creates the false impression of invention, even that of inventing, willing , creating it’s self, by choosing evolutionary types, most capable of adaptation.

The hit and miss nature of natural evolution, left to Nature’s own designs, lead men to denigrate Life, as an intelligent entity. They dismiss the idea of natural intelligence, as much as possible to further the idea of preference to learning.

That the intelligence of nature, need not develop a consciousness becomes foreign to them. It has been done by the likes of Asimov, that consciousness is not developmental qua species, but it is more a foundation, which needs no more elaborate evolution.

Absolute concepts like life, beauty, soul, love, the world, need no evolution conceptually, because they are formal, unlimited attributes. Lower primates also, have some inkling as to what some of these things mean, albeit in limited senses. Perhaps consciousness is more then an adaptive tool, perhaps it is a way to appreciate the given.

Your teacher side coming out again (too many words bad and too few words bad).

Jerkey,

How does one appreciate eternity unless the hard drive is reformatted? Eternal soul, endless life cycles, semi-fresh do overs. Does adaptation mean perceivable change? If so, to whose perception? We as beings are lead to believe a great many things, but life is faith-based, not fact-based.

Michael Graziano’s Attention Schema Theory is highly controversial in the neuroscience/neuropsychology fields as it very much resembles Madhyamaka Prasangika Buddhist schools of thought; which he is trying to distance himself from via the use of semantics (caricature not illusory view of self).

Thanks for the heads up, I’ll check it out.

Please do.

Interesting and informative article. I like its explanation of consciousness from an evolutionary perspective
And not just human consciousness but animal consciousness also. I am bookmarking it for future reference

The author expands further in this video (worth the watch)

youtu.be/peHcu8LEgEE