Posted: Sep 07, 2018 1:20 pm
Macdoc wrote:
our brains constantly compare current inputs with previous understanding ..that's how we learn and consciousness is part of a spectrum that includes subconcious processes ....consciousness is an aspect of our neural network....which is indeed a thing.....a very complex thing.
Is the brain complex though?
It's something I've been thinking about a lot of late. Every time I hear of brain complexity it's accompanied by staggering numbers of cells and pathways. As if sheer volume is equal to complexity.
The problem I'm finding to this is it sounds almost like ID proponents when they talk of highly improbable odds to explain the complexity of cells to argue that they couldn't have arisen by the rather simple laws of evolutionary theory. But Darwins rather simple laws are powerful when extrapolated upon.
I'm wondering of late if people are overstating the complexity of the brain due to ancient assuptions about its power and are missing something simple that may be staring them in the face and neurology is simply waiting for their own Darwin.
I think Chalmers' Hard Problem is a perfect example. He claims that the problem of how physical laws translate to experience can never be bridged. For his argument he puts a lot of stock into the idea of the 'spookiness' of the experience, qualia, the sensation of the colour red. But what if not only the chasm between chemistry and experience doesn't exist, but also the qualia supposedly at the the other side of the chasm?
It could end up that when someone cracks neurology with a succinct and parsimonious explanation it will be argued for years by immaterialists who, like ID proponents, argue that the sheer complexity simply can't be explained by the simple (neurological Darwin)-ian explanation. Them still talking about sheer volumes of synapses and axons while overlooking how the theory explains how such intricate networks arise from an underlying principle that aren't that difficult.
Thoughts on this anyone?