>>5259506 (OP)
How are functionalism, Identity Theory, Behaviorism, and Cognitivism explanations on their own? They just seem like little statements that could be grouped together into one, while most of the other explanations actually describe what consciousness is rather than how it works

>>5259529
I'd switch behaviorism with higher order theory.

Behaviorism pretty much says that there's no such thing as consciousness. We're just robots that behave in a way that looks conscious.

>>5259543
>pretty much says that there's no such thing as consciousness
don't all 4 of those say that?

I'd personally subscribe to functionalism, quantum consciousness, higher order theory and cognitivism.

This is not a philosophy question anymore. Quantum consciousness has been scientifically confirmed.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9711064
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9505023
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0009062
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1394
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2634
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2128
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5339
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1651
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3158

>Functionalism
>Behaviourism
>Epiphenomenalism
>Cognitivism

The rest is hippy bullshit.

Panpsychism, "higher order theory," and buddhism.

Higher order theory because it is evident that our thoughts only compose a portion of the information our brain processes, and specifically we are only conscious of a narrative laid over and judging those processes.

Pan-psychism, because there is nothing in a materialistic explanation of nature which would call for consciousness, yet consciousness is an observed phenomena, and brains are material, therefore consciousness is a property of material.

Buddhism, because all events flow from previous ones and to later ones, so to call a mind separate is a lie.

>>5259543

>hurr i believe in free will

What the fuck are you doing on /sci/?

File: 1353024112295.jpg-(81 KB, 274x268, 1336451536693.jpg)

>>5259595
Looks like a hippy infiltrated /sci/

>>5259602
Nigga you must be trolling.

Nobody said anything about free will.

>>5259608
I'm just following the data.

>>5259613
>Behaviorism pretty much says that there's no such thing as consciousness. We're just robots that behave in a way that looks conscious.

I think they're all equally interesting explanations for consciousness. I don't think I can rank them, but the first one where the brain is essentially a conduit for our consciousness seems interesting.

>>5259619
He never said that he subscribed to behaviorism. He just explained what it was. Not to mention that he never even mentioned free will.

>>5259622
Although I might add, I think the most realistic would be consciousness just being an accidental side effect.

File: 1353024627587.png-(100 KB, 281x211, 1337485592639.png)

>>5259616
>data
>buddhism

>>5259602
not that guy, and probably not related to whatever he's saying, but doesn't a quantum underpinning for consciousness imply free will since everything's probabilistic as opposed to causal?

>2012
>not accepting behaviorism as a foundation of your theories
I seriously hope you guys don't do this....

>>5259629
Most likely, quantum effects have fuck all to do with the brain's function.

It would seem that Substance Dualism/Quantum Consciousness appears to be the correct theory on our consciousness. I can't say I know exactly what the correct one is, because I don't know what the correct one is, or what exactly what those ideas entail.

I would say this because from what I've seen, there seems to be things that point towards that our brain/body is simply a body for our mind, rather then the cause of it. That, and to say that there isn't anything beyond our perception in terms of higher dimensions is an ignorant statement. It could simply be based in another dimension and we would never be able to perceive it being stuck in the one we're in now.

Things that seems to point towards it are NDEs, out of body experiences, potential psychic ability of some kind, and a few other things. Ghosts may be explained away with this idea in mind, and I find it interesting that almost every religion usually has some form of afterlife.

There have been other studies like this which have found similar results.
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1330596/Humans-psychic-powers-New-study-proves-fu
ture.html
>Dailymail
>First one I clicked

Ultimately though, I don't fucking know.

>>5259629
It would, if there was any chance at all of the brain being affected by quantum mechanics.

It's just something for people who refuse to believe that they don't have free will, and are willing to call on incredibly less likely explanations for things out of fear.

>>5259661
>Dualism
>correct
Stopped reading there.

>>5259661
>Hurr I'm going to make shit up to make myself feel better because reality is scary!
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1330596/Humans-psychic-powers-New-study-proves-fu
ture.html
If human psychic powers have been proven how come no credible scientist has come out supporting them?
>>>/x/

both behavior and a side effect of brain complexity (behavior isn't consciousness until it's reached a high level of complexity)

Honestly, I've never even heard a decent question about consciousness, never mind an answer.

>>5259669
> worshiping scientists

I swear, it's like a cult.

>>5259669
Then why are you in a thread discussing it?

>>5259668
>Hurr I'm going to make shit up to make myself feel better because reality is scary!
I was 12 once too, and thought that people thought like that too. While some retards do, I can assure you that while the idea of life after death makes me comfortable, (Of course it fucking does) I had become comfortable with the thought of my death long before I found these theories.

>how come no credible scientist
That's easily the most retarded argument ever. Attack the data, not the person behind it.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Not to mention that this isn't something that is often studied. Eventually you will have a wide range of people to choose from, over a wide range of studies. (Not saying there will be agreement, mind you.)

>>5259687
It's turned into that.

This picture seems to imply that human consciousness is the -only- consciousness. As if there's a line that's been crossed from primal urges to so called higher thinking.
Frankly, consciousness is ubiquitous, and is therefore hard, if not impossible, to define.

Functionalism and Epiphenomenalism.

Dualism is false. There is only one reality, not two. The impression of dualism comes from the brain itself, namely its object level representations and introspective mental representations, which intuitively don't match up.

Epiphenomenalism, panpsychism, buddhism (as decribed here) are conceptual garbage.

The actual answer depends on how you define consciousness. The only useful ones revolve around perception awareness and introspection, which would leave higher-order theories as plausible candidates.

>>5259661
>NDEs
http://www.livescience.com/19106-death-experiences-lucid-dreams.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peace-of-mind-near-death

>out of body experiences
Completely compatible with materialist explanations.

>potential psychic ability of some kind
No credible evidence has ever been produced indicating this potential exists.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/back_from_the_future

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Bem#.22Feeling_the_Future.22_and_the_resulting_controversy

>>5259595
>Pan-psychism, because there is nothing in a materialistic explanation of nature which would call for consciousness, yet consciousness is an observed phenomena, and brains are material, therefore consciousness is a property of material.

Also compare:
>There is nothing in a materialistic explanation of nature which would call for wetness, yet wetness is an observed phenomena, and fluids are material, therefore wetness is a property of material.

Or:
>There is nothing in a materialistic explanation of nature which would call for sharpness, yet sharpness is an observed phenomena, and sharp objects are material, therefore sharpness is a property of material.

Insert whatever other specific phenomenon you want. This gives you no explanatory power whatsoever.

>>5259721
>NDEs
The name for NDEs are misleading. There are many accounts of NDEs where the brain has stopped, these people have been brain-dead, yet they still have memories and experiences which go beyond our understanding of the body and mind.

I'm not saying they're all not lucid dreams, but some aren't lucid dreams.

>Completely compatible with materialist explanations.
I'm un-aware of them, could you point me towards some literature/give me an explanation please?

>csicop.org
The site that is out to "de-bunk" any alternative explanations/theories that doesn't coincide with the 'official' explanations? I would appreciate a better source for your claims. That website, and the people behind it are bullshit.

>arguments over one sentence descriptions of entire bodies of thought from philosophy and science
stay classy /sci/

>>5259769
>I'm un-aware of them, could you point me towards some literature/give me an explanation please?

You have a somatosensory gyrus, and it is made of matter.

They're all equally shit.

>>5259777
>You have a somatosensory gyrus, and it is made of matter.
Well put a hat on my head and call me a donkey. I though it was made of pixies and fairy dust.

What I did see from that is that stimulating that part of the brain may lead to OBEs, which is interesting. However it still doesn't explain how people are able to see things that they shouldn't be able to see/know if they were in their body/remembering experiences.

>>5259855
You've convinced me, anon.

I think consciousness is the result of our brain. I think consciousness can be created with the correct pattern of matter.

>>5259844
>However it still doesn't explain how people are able to see things that they shouldn't be able to see/know if they were in their body/remembering experiences.
That's too anecdotal for my taste, it's like meeting someone who does cold reading and then telling your friends, "I swear! She knew things about me she couldn't have know if she wasn't psychic!"

I have no empirical evidence of any information flow that would require an OBE as the most parsimonious explanation.

>What I did see from that is that stimulating that part of the brain may lead to OBEs, which is interesting.
Well, it's your brain's representation of your body. What you experience as your body is that representation, not your actual body. Whatever gets your brain to misrepresent aspects of that body model will get you to experience that misrepresentation as real (e.g. location in space in relation to other objects).

Google a bit. You'll find interesting experiments.

great pic, OP

I'm going with Higher order theory. Thoughts about other thoughts would lead to the brain acknowledging it's own existence: in other words, self-awareness.

>>5259702
This would be an argument toward what the image describes as Buddhism, in my opinion.

If and only if we have consciousness, all matter must have it in equal proportion, as the human brain is made up only of particles and matter that behave in ways completely normal according to the way matter behaves. This system came to be due to the random motion of particles in the universe, which led to positive feedback loops which had layer upon layer of emergent properties or abstraction, to the point that something like human social behaviours like love triangles, corporations, football teams, subtle passive-aggressive rivalries, are nothing other than the apparently random motion of quarks.

>>5259769
I would conjecture that these experiences weren't taking place at the time in which they happened, but the memory of them was formed as the brain regained activity. We know that memories can change over time; how do we know, for example, whether hallucinogenic drugs cause us to experience the illusions they are thought to, or whether the brain is simply damaged and fantastical things are constructed by the brain to fill the gaps as it regains consciousness? I don't intend to imply that psychedelics all affect memory and not real-time experience, but that could well come into play.

File: 1353035827849.jpg-(122 KB, 720x693, Data4-e1307568899113-720x693.jpg)

I don't know exactly where I fall in that picture, but I'd place my money on Integrated Information Theory & Strange Loops (ala Douglas Hofstatder)

>>5259739
There certainly is plenty in a materialistic explanation of nature which calls for wetness. Water molecules are slightly polar, so they form hydrogen bonds, so water acts as a liquid crystal with a perfectly flexible structure made of molecules, hydrogen bonded but not rigidly so. It flows, and it adheres to some degree to other surfaces (via hydrogen bonding), depending on how hydrophilic or hydrophobic they are, and so when it is between two other surfaces they are not in contact, the friction between them is reduced, they are "wet".

There is no such explanation for consciousness. So, pan-psychism.

>>5260065
complexes of nucleic acids and polypeptides have the ability to encounter external sources of chemicals and cause chemical reactions that result in further complexes resembling the original one. These further iterations are similar to the original but have slight, random differences. If these differences result in a new complex that creates new copies at a greater rate then there will be more of that type, or more accurately there will be a lesser probability of this type failing to copy itself before it is destroyed. This is especially true if these complexes build farms to gather these raw materials and houses to protect themselves from danger.

>>5260065
>There is no such explanation for consciousness. So, pan-psychism.
Then pan-psychism is only true until you have an explanation that satisfies you. Why not just say "we'll look for the best material explanation" instead of using a concept like pan-psychism that gives you the illusion of knowledge without adding explanatory value.

Was pan-wetism true when people didn't know anything about hydrogen bonds yet?

>>5260099
He's claiming that there exists no such explanation, not that we simply don't know it. {{Citation Needed}}

>>5259967
There a few accounts of OBEs that people have had who describe things that are beyond our understanding. This is a great website, and has a ton of accounts on them.
>http://www.near-death.com/
While these are focused towards NDEs, some of the people who experience them experience (Since it's usually in a clinical setting, understandably.) memories about the doctors and surgery that they shouldn't be able to remember. The one from Pam Reynolds is one of the best, however there aren't many.

Veridical perception during OBEs is fairly anecdotal. I'm fairly sure people have killed themselves, then brought themselves back to life, although I'm not sure if it's replicated the same situations or if it's been successful.

>>5260050
The problem with that is that for many people who experience traumatic events like the ones that caused their deaths, they tend to suffer from amnesia of events preceding, and following the event.

While the brain could of easily constructed these events, they tend to be very similar, despite different back-rounds and beliefs. There seems to be that tunnel to the light, feeling of complete calm, then usually contact with god. Of course, this is something that almost everyone hears about sometime during their lives so it could be their minds creating the situation. Also not everyone experiences this, but it is fairly common in the ones that do have it.

>>5260119
How idiotic is that? Should people have declared there is no explanation for wetness when they didn't have it yet?

>>5259593
When you're asleep, do your thoughts exist? Who observes them?

>>5259593
Dammit Carl, why do you post the same thing every time this thread pops up?

>>5259602
>arguing free-will in the first place
>>>/x/

That's a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

>>5260188
Philosophy fits in with science, and more so with mathematics, because it is search for truth and knowledge; like mathematics rather than science because it employs only direct logical explanation and not observation and experimentation. It is based on a small set of initial assumptions or axioms.

>>5260212
But it's not what *I* call science!