Posted: Oct 22, 2014 2:59 pm
Shrunk wrote:
Is it the job of neuroscience to define "consciousness"? If there is not yet an adequate definition of the term, then it is highly premature to start making any claims about it, such as that it cannot be produced by material processes.
If that's the case, then by the same line of reasoning you could say it's also premature to make the claim that consciousness is the product of a material process. I never said it was the job of neuroscience to describe consciousness, but most rational skeptics would expect for science, particularly neuroscience to explain consciousness as accurately as possible and for the explanation to be backed by evidence. Neuroscience is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine, genetics, and allied disciplines including philosophy, physics, and psychology. So, it's not as though we're restricted to biology here with this term "neuroscience."
Shrunk wrote:
By that line of reasoning, physicists should be better able to predict who will win this years World Series than someone who follows baseball closely.
I never said that we should get physicists for all our issues, I just didn't understand why SpeedOfSound didn't feel a physicist should hold an opinion about consciousness. I believe a physicist, especially a physicist like David Bohm who contributed to other fields involving the topic of consciousness, would have a say on what consciousness may be that should be heard.