On Mar 9, 11:12 am, "Alpha" <OmegaZero2... from yahoo.com> wrote:
> "feedbackdroid" <feedbackdr... from yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:290aed2b-af2d-43eb-b153-76064e601865 from d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 8, 11:03 am, "Alpha" <OmegaZero2... from yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > Unfortunately, nonthing in that paper tells us how to account for
> > first-person experience, which is the most irrefutable aspect of our
> > existence. Psychology has a chance, AI on its current tracks has no
> > chance,
> > and neither does neuroscience as received; only the addition of an
> > introspective approach (appreciated by some psychologists over a long time
> > span of history) will find out what consciousness is;
>> Good grief, Charlie Brown [to plagiarize a well-known phrase], what
> introspective miracle is going to occur in the future, and that hasn't
> over the past 2400 years or so, to provide some enlightenment on
> ness and first-person experience? Philosophy will magically solve the
> via some newly-minted word-game?
>> No; but a scientific approach to the data ammassed by such introspective
> reports can lend insight into what kinds of mechanisms might be responsible
> for them, and importantly, what can be ruled out as purported NCCs of such.
Ok, that might be a plan. Use introspection to augment neuroscience
measurements. At least it might help plan the next set of neuroscience
But 2400 "additional" years of wordgames alone aren't about to solve
I think. What did introspective philosophy give us? Dualism, and
as a result of lack of imagination. They couldn't think of any better
to explain consciousness. And of course, it also gave us the now-dead
concept of vitalism.
>>> > what the first-person
> > experience is. There is a case to be made that the fields are
> > complementary; introspection would add important data /explanadums those
> > other fields are supposed to be providing analysis and explanation of!