Look, ideas about any brain function that were proposed before the very recent advances in brain science, in other animals - mainly rats, is pretty useless. Thus, the idle speculations of philosophy and the social sciences are real dead ends, discussing any brain processes. These are matters of medical facts, not cultural beliefs and semantics...duh...
BTW, a truthful statement is any statement that predicts a measurable event in the future. All other kinds of statements are opinion and cannot be judged as truthful.
Actually my "hint" reflected the act you just used to read these words... the acts of selection of which there are only two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive origin variables that give rise to states of existence. The mechanism of selection comes first, then the effect we call consciousness second (see pg. 4).
Why are "consciousness" folks always running off to physics and ignoring biology, medicine and physiology...duh?
Perhaps Elmer, without our physical reality there would not be "biology, medicine and physiology".
Gee, I guess your doctor then should just spend his time learning more physics...
physics is a "simple" and well ordered discipline, not so biology, medicine and physiology. I miss psychology.
Frankly Elmer, I find all the disciplines of science fascinating for they are all fundamentally mechanical. In other words, we cannot act in violation of the laws that govern our existence which means that these laws are universal to all disciplines. Perhaps you would find the application of my findings to how we get angular and linear momentum from nothing?
In some answers, which consider consciousness as a quantum mechanical phenomenon of the wave functions of quantum objects in the brain, I have the impression that the authors did not understand quantum mechanics.The wave function has no meaning and is just a mathematical model. What does not exist, nothing can bring.
"What does not exist, nothing can bring."
So where was the selection you just used to read these words located prior to you using them? What was the scale of your selection?
See -"Claim of Unambiguous Empirical Evidence" section of the link below.
even scientists can talk nonsens.
"even scientists can talk nonsense."
... but nature cannot.
As exemplified by my discovery of Einstein's hidden variables, nature is indeed absolutely deterministic (see - "Claim of Unambiguous Empirical Evidence" section).
I answered recently (17, 04. 2015) to Wilfried Musterle's question: How does the subjective consciousness of self emerge? I am refering to my answer there. Best wishes! Yours Lüder Deecke Vienna
Any discussion of this cultural belief in "consciousness" has to be continous with other animals brain and behavior molecular processes. Claims for biologically and physiologically/medically unique processes in humans, mainly using academic English, is magical thinking.
As of Aug. 29, 2015, the editors at Wikipedia have threaten to delete information about what John S Bell called "Superdeterminism" due to the addition of my findings. Seems they cannot handle the possibility that absolute determinism is more than just a philosophical assumption.
See section - Unambiguous Empirical Evidence
Jump off a building and you will test the philosophical assumptions of "determinism."
"What is consciousness? What is its nature and origin?"
Elmer, the following is my response to the Wikipedia editors who wish to delete the topic of "superdeterminism" which answers the question of this topic above by addressing its origin, our ability to select.
In order to have a topic about a "super-deterministic" universe as described by physicists John S Bell:
"Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears."
... philosophy cannot be used as a basis for this topic because metaphysics is not physics. Either the universe is absolutely deterministic or it is not, ambiguity of any kind is not acceptable including opinions, my own included. If the findings from the Tempt Destiny experiment which show that it was impossible to conduct an experiment without a selection event first being made are true then they also need to be true about our own existence or the findings are erroneous. Again, we are not talking about metaphysical assumptions or statistical degrees of certainty. Only absolute value, not opinions, will suffice. What this means is that not a single human being can be the source of a "super-deterministic" universe only nature itself. Thus, the Final Selection Thought Experiment (pg. 3 of link) was designed for all to confirm for themselves if the act of selection is a cognitive function of our reality or a physical necessity of our existence.
The first editor who has conducted the thought experiment in real life and then continues his/her existence without the ability to select has the unequivocal authority to dictate his terms on this topic. Until then, only nature can be considered the source of a super-deterministic universe and the research conducted by Morales serves only as a conduit about such a source.
Moving forward, I would like to propose that John S Bell's comment above be the starting point of this topic since he is the originator of the topic and that the content that follows deals with physical discussion not metaphysical assumptions.
Philosophy is a dead language. It falsely trades in nothing but pop culture, solipistic beliefs using everyday language. Since so-called philosophy is nothing but bad faith dealing in pop culture beliefs, it has nothing meaningful to say. Of course, economics and the humanities are the same - along with most of the social sciences.
Be nice to have some peer-reviewed medical facts on this thread.
"Be nice to have some peer-reviewed medical facts on this thread."
Medical facts based on a method of predicting effects (guess) to support hypothesis (another guess) are based on omitted-variable bias due to lack of knowledge of which causal variable caused which effect. This leads to false positive data and why medical facts change. Facts do not change if they are truly facts.
Are truly facts depend or not depend on our senses receptors? Can we believe 100% to our senses recepors?
Julio Cesar Magalhaes
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Universidad Mayor de San Andres
University of Michigan
George Mason University
Emanuela A. Matei
Antitrust Law Institute author
University of Washington Seattle
Kunjumon I Vadakkan
University of Toronto