Patricia Churchland has always been ahead of her time, a pioneer thinker, a genuine academic treasure. Science is demystifying the "mystical" and "magical" with each passing day. Neurophilosophy (and eliminative materialism) is the inevitable future of how we will discuss our understanding of being and of consciousness - without speculative idealism, cooky dualism, or other anthropocentric fantasies. Her book "Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain" is an engaging read and a great place for a layperson to start if you're not familiar with her work.
I am familiar with her work and I do not think reducing consciousness to the physical brain is the solution. Most of philosophy is still wrestling with the hard problem of consciousness and she has it all figured out, I don’t think so. The self as brain sounds depressing and awful and it is. We, in her view, are just elemental; composed of the five macro and a multiplicity of quantum elements and that is responsible for consciousness. That the mind is elemental emerging with quantum events will likely be found to be the case but consciousness as elemental? Fortunately hers is a minority opinion and most philosophers do not agree, they stick with the hard problem of consciousness until it is solved and they are right to do so. It is ironic as ‘eliminating materialism’ is supposedly eliminating consciousness, the new physics is eliminating the material as illusionary.
@@ALavin-en1kr "The self as brain sounds depressing and awful" is what's called an appeal to emotion. The only people who have a problem with materialism, physicalism, and EM are human exceptionalists who want to believe that humans are special, magical, eternal. Which would be fine if it were at all provable or at least warranted. You say Prof. Churchland has the "hard problem" all figured out. Then tell us what her position is and which part(s) is she wrong about. And if you could back it up with some science, that'd be great.
@@woodygilson3465 Quite simply she thinks, in contrast to most of the philosophical community, that consciousness is not a hard problem as they see it because in her opinion it arises from the elemental, the physical, is material as the elemental or physical is understood to be; in other words is composed of what we call matter. She is the person making this claim so it is up to her to scientifically prove it and present the evidence to the majority of philosophers who do not see consciousness as elemental; physical or capable of being measured or accounted for as the elemental or physical can be measured and accounted for. It is not up to me, a layperson; a non-philosopher to prove anything.. I am just following the discussion. I do have reason and exercise it so I think why is she so sure of her definition while the rest of the philosophical community sees it differently, that consciousness is a hard problem while she sees it as not a hard problem but solved. I am just an observer here; not a philosopher or a scientist but I go with what the majority thinks, especially if the minority opinion is not proved or other than an opinion based on a bias towards physicalism. It is up to her to prove it, not me.
@@woodygilson3465 More accurately I would say: Mrs. C. having a bias towards the material rather than considering the physical. as now most philosophers lean towards that expression. The material being reserved for what is seen as non-living systems in contrast to forms which are physical; being subject to motion; time; space; and the atom; as all of reality is, but it is more apparent in forms. How consciousness relates to these four is the hard problem. One view they produced it; an opposing view it does not appear likely or probable that they did, and there it rests.
@@ALavin-en1kr You keep mentioning philosophy. Philosophy is just logic structures and semantics games. Neuroscience, and science in general, isn't philosophy.
We have no clue whatsoever if under anesthesia we are "unconscious". That's just an assumption, a premise that is posited as obvious, but it isn't. So, whatever speculation on consciousness based on this eytrapolation is a void argument.
All measurable consciousness does cease in anesthesia. Is it possible a form of subjective experience persists somewhere in that murky darkness? Surely it's possible, but all awareness is clearly gone, all memory is clearly gone, any ability to respond is clearly gone; it's still a fact that from any practical standpoint the mind does cease to function. The effects of anesthetics are absolutely essential to understanding the nature of consciousness, whatever that may turn out to be.
Me, victim off Swaab inst. , tees you freeze , and my eye operations 2019 👍👌 hurt onbelieveble in the back off your brain ( good not operate me in the past ) ,, yellow👍,, hole and cract 👎😭 . For five minutes 👎😭😭😭😭👎 unbelievable pain. But it was worth it ( still have problem with it , light sensitive and dubble 5****** when I get tiered .. and so on . But happy as a child. I can ( see ) AGAIN😎👍🙏
What do you think of this talk? Leave a comment below.
You can watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/understanding-ourselves-patricia-churchland?TH-cam&
Patricia Churchland has always been ahead of her time, a pioneer thinker, a genuine academic treasure. Science is demystifying the "mystical" and "magical" with each passing day. Neurophilosophy (and eliminative materialism) is the inevitable future of how we will discuss our understanding of being and of consciousness - without speculative idealism, cooky dualism, or other anthropocentric fantasies. Her book "Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain" is an engaging read and a great place for a layperson to start if you're not familiar with her work.
I am familiar with her work and I do not think reducing consciousness to the physical brain is the solution. Most of philosophy is still wrestling with the hard problem of consciousness and she has it all figured out, I don’t think so. The self as brain sounds depressing and awful and it is. We, in her view, are just elemental; composed of the five macro and a multiplicity of quantum elements and that is responsible for consciousness. That the mind is elemental emerging with quantum events will likely be found to be the case but consciousness as elemental? Fortunately hers is a minority opinion and most philosophers do not agree, they stick with the hard problem of consciousness until it is solved and they are right to do so. It is ironic as ‘eliminating materialism’ is supposedly eliminating consciousness, the new physics is eliminating the material as illusionary.
@@ALavin-en1kr "The self as brain sounds depressing and awful" is what's called an appeal to emotion. The only people who have a problem with materialism, physicalism, and EM are human exceptionalists who want to believe that humans are special, magical, eternal. Which would be fine if it were at all provable or at least warranted.
You say Prof. Churchland has the "hard problem" all figured out. Then tell us what her position is and which part(s) is she wrong about. And if you could back it up with some science, that'd be great.
@@woodygilson3465 Quite simply she thinks, in contrast to most of the philosophical community, that consciousness is not a hard problem as they see it because in her opinion it arises from the elemental, the physical, is material as the elemental or physical is understood to be; in other words is composed of what we call matter. She is the person making this claim so it is up to her to scientifically prove it and present the evidence to the majority of philosophers who do not see consciousness as elemental; physical or capable of being measured or accounted for as the elemental or physical can be measured and accounted for. It is not up to me, a layperson; a non-philosopher to prove anything.. I am just following the discussion. I do have reason and exercise it so I think why is she so sure of her definition while the rest of the philosophical community sees it differently, that consciousness is a hard problem while she sees it as not a hard problem but solved. I am just an observer here; not a philosopher or a scientist but I go with what the majority thinks, especially if the minority opinion is not proved or other than an opinion based on a bias towards physicalism. It is up to her to prove it, not me.
@@woodygilson3465 More accurately I would say: Mrs. C. having a bias towards the material rather than considering the physical. as now most philosophers lean towards that expression. The material being reserved for what is seen as non-living systems in contrast to forms which are physical; being subject to motion; time; space; and the atom; as all of reality is, but it is more apparent in forms. How consciousness relates to these four is the hard problem. One view they produced it; an opposing view it does not appear likely or probable that they did, and there it rests.
@@ALavin-en1kr You keep mentioning philosophy. Philosophy is just logic structures and semantics games. Neuroscience, and science in general, isn't philosophy.
interesting 💗
We have no clue whatsoever if under anesthesia we are "unconscious". That's just an assumption, a premise that is posited as obvious, but it isn't. So, whatever speculation on consciousness based on this eytrapolation is a void argument.
All measurable consciousness does cease in anesthesia. Is it possible a form of subjective experience persists somewhere in that murky darkness? Surely it's possible, but all awareness is clearly gone, all memory is clearly gone, any ability to respond is clearly gone; it's still a fact that from any practical standpoint the mind does cease to function. The effects of anesthetics are absolutely essential to understanding the nature of consciousness, whatever that may turn out to be.
If the pain is to much , the brain , knox it self out . And you feel nothing , cut of the leg. 2 kinds of pain,,the wrong one , and the healing pain.
Me, victim off Swaab inst. , tees you freeze , and my eye operations 2019 👍👌 hurt onbelieveble in the back off your brain ( good not operate me in the past ) ,, yellow👍,, hole and cract 👎😭 . For five minutes 👎😭😭😭😭👎 unbelievable pain. But it was worth it ( still have problem with it , light sensitive and dubble 5****** when I get tiered .. and so on . But happy as a child. I can ( see ) AGAIN😎👍🙏
I think when you have heartbreak or falling in love, and you may have no physical pain at that moment only😀
at what point was philosophy supposed to be discussed here? watched the video and it was about a historical take... video mislabeled?
Eliminate the Question instead of answering it, duh. 😏
If you have pain you will be told you are simply' delusional'.
Patricia, You can do a much better job in making this material interesting.