The crazy thing to me is that this is the conclusion I came to around 30 years ago, based on evidence that was already present in research available at the time.
For me it was the natural conclusion from coming to accept a no-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Before that, the ghost in the machine seemed to me like maybe it could be hiding somewhere in the spooky apparent randomness of wavefunction collapse, but if the universal wavefunction fully and deterministically describes the evolution in time of all particles everywhere, and there are no terms for “thoughts and feelings and free will” in that equation, then they are epiphenomena.
https://youtu.be/4bBxMs5mhvs ‘Consciousness was invented in the 1600s’
Also, the easiest way to generate ‘Consciousness’ in any system is to add a feedback mechanism. A simple echo in a system or input stream, is a potential emerging ‘consciousness’. It becomes aware of something ‘it’ did before - and then it discover the illusion of ‘I’, free will and personal responsibility (vs long-chained cause&effect from society/environment).
She does a good job explaining how mind-body dualism is a fundamentally flawed idea. And very much agree that consciousness is basically a result of feedback mechanism. More specifically, I’d say that it’s a result of the mind creating a model of itself for the purposes of metacognition that facilitates self modulation. We need to model ourselves to be able to reason about ourselves, do introspection of our actions, and to be able to adjust our behaviors.
This looks more like bad philosophy than good science.
do elaborate
Well reading it I’m not seeing any real studies or math or anything, just back and forth with people saying “Well it looks like we can’t find a soul anywhere, therefore without any real evidence consciousness is just an illusion and we as people don’t really exist, just sort of… believing we do because of brain juices.”
Which is the laughable position of eliminativism. Admittedly I didn’t read the whole thing, but I’m seeing names and quotes, I’m not seeing data.
Science consists of having a theory and testing the theory empirically. This work focuses on the theoretical model, and references numerous studies supporting their position.
therefore without any real evidence consciousness is just an illusion and we as people don’t really exist, just sort of… believing we do because of brain juices
That’s not what it says at all. What it’s actually saying is that what we perceive as consciousness is a byproduct of the subconscious and the likely evolutionary value of this construct is to facilitate social transfer of experience. It’s an argument against mind-body dualism which is itself a deeply unscientific concept.
Furthermore, the whole idea of a soul is laughably unscientific since it posits that there’s this magical entity that’s not an emergent property of the physical reality.
I never said I was “For” the soul hypothesis, just that the way this read was “Well we know conciousness isn’t magic, so clearly it doesn’t exist at all in any meaningful way!” Which is… a leap at best.
And this answer seems like more materialist apologia masquerading as science. So we don’t exist, and the illusion that we do is so we can tell other people who don’t exist about how we’re not existing? You see why that’s dumb right?
And, how do we know there isn’t a non-physical reality from which this reality is itself an emergent property? That seems more likely than “People don’t REALLY exist”
The soul is not a hypothesis. The idea has no basis in science. Period.
“Well we know conciousness isn’t magic, so clearly it doesn’t exist at all in any meaningful way!”
Again, not what the paper says. I get the impression that you didn’t actually read it, and just keep making straw man arguments here.
And, how do we know there isn’t a non-physical reality from which this reality is itself an emergent property? That seems more likely than “People don’t REALLY exist”
Empiricism is the basis for scientific method. Science doesn’t deal with hypothetical that cannot be measured using experimental means. The fact that you posit this suggests you don’t actually understand how scientific process actually works or what science is fundamentally.
- I never said the Soul was valid, you were the first one to say that “S-Word”
- I did read it, it’s just quotes and names, no actual data… It’s hard for me to take seriously what’s essentially about as scientific as Joe Rogan talking to his Nazi of the week
- “You disagreed with me, therefore you are dumb!” - I no longer see any reason to respond to this discussion.
- you were the one to bring up soul in reply
Well reading it I’m not seeing any real studies or math or anything, just back and forth with people saying “Well it looks like we can’t find a soul anywhere, therefore without any real evidence consciousness is just an illusion and we as people don’t really exist, just sort of… believing we do because of brain juices.”
-
It quotes plenty of studies that have data. This is an aggregate analysis of a lot of prior work. It’s hard for me to take your comment seriously when you ignore this.
-
What I actually pointed out was that you’ve demonstrated lack of understanding of what science is in your comment. I even explained specifically what the nature of your misunderstanding was.
I no longer see any reason to respond to this discussion.
At least you know when to stop digging.
