Strictlylogical

56 minutes ago, anthony said:

Because one can't see/touch consciousness - how can it exist? hmm.

Going to call strawman... 

The genuine first person experience aspect of consciousness cannot be proved by third person perception but that is not problematic.  We being humans introspectively know that first person experience.

In fact it is no more a philosophical conundrum  that we, as humans, can never really know “what it is like to be a bat“. What the experience of being a bat is, IS wholly out of reach of our perception and hence knowledge... but no sane philosopher would conclude that because we cannot prove it by third person perception and science, nor measure it, that “what it is like to be a bat” (experienced from its perspective) is not a fact of the universe...

perfectly accessible to a bat.

So too, human consciousness as a first person experience is perfectly accessible to human beings.

No one here denies the existence of consciousness merely because it cannot be measured directly from third person inquiry.

3 minutes ago, anthony said:

Of course, no disconnect nor untethering (nice word). What I'd call "the cusp" has been arrived at and pin-pointed. Not a favorite word, but "holistic" describes the entirety and unity of mind-brain to me. I think function and structure here are identical. Similar to "acts of consciousness" and "contents of consciousness" to Objectivist epistemology. 

My own opinion is that we can do away with the distinction, "strong or weak emergence", there is only one (and it is self-evidently pretty strong ...). 

Why characterize consciousness as “emergent” at all?  What beyond “attribute” “property” or  “action” does the concept “emergence” bring to the table?  What metaphysically does it identify?

1 hour ago, anthony said:

A consciousness "emerges" from billions of fresh synaptic connections being made all the time in the brain

Once it has done so, is it independent from or untethered from what the brain does?  Does it “function” (complex chain of causality) absent any structure whatever?  Are you advocating strong or weak emergence?

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Wrong.

I've said this many times. Some emotions are self-made in the manner you say.

Not all.

In fact, not even most.

Michael

I find substance dualism and/or strong emergence as weird and spooky...  and not consistent with my metaphysics.  Much interesting science is interpreted using as a basis, metaphysics which is different from mine... which does not invalidate for me properly conducted science... only some of the interpretive conclusions therefrom.

“Reductionism“ has always come across to me as a vague anti concept posing as a strawman.

Dualism for me has always been mystical in one way or another, a ghost always pops up here or there, or the non-interacting interacts... or causeless causation is caused...

I prefer weak emergence ... or a kind of attribute functionalism i.e. mind is what the brain does, and first person experience is just what it is like to be a person with such a brain so doing and being. Nothing supernatural, no violations of causality or identity.

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Eyes wide open, I assure you.

You guys should be more explicit and specific about your actual disagreement so that bystanders can gain something from it ...

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Some empathy is taught, some is hardwired in response to distress signals and a few other things.

Oxytocin.

Michael

Agreed. Like almost everything spiritual: nature, nurture, and possibility of manipulation all factor in.

I wonder if empathy is more complex than what most people casually think of it... in an analogy to the same way sensation - perception - cognition - evaluation - emotion works is complex.

Since empathy is not supernatural revelation of another, it must start with sensation.  Something parallel to perception is involved and then instead of conscious identification and conscious evaluation there a kind of subconscious “recognition” and “assessment” which leads to an emotion.

That emotion tends to be an odd mixture of the feeling the other person is intuited as experiencing as well as a feeling of some regard for or standing with that person.

We observe that some situations and persons evoke empathy or resonance in some others but not everyone.  Empathy is  individual and fallible.  The premises one holds affects this lightning calculator too. 

Since the emotions potentially generated by it from sadness to   anger to joy, I tend to see it less as a single emotion and more as a whole intuitive pathway of a process of “participating” with another on a non cognitive level.

Like emotion however, it can’t be trusted as a final arbiter guiding action, but it certainly can be a useful capacity for gaining insight about others and therefore insight about the self... and it certainly plays a big part in the enjoyment of life!

the above is speculation ... i suppose i should have done some research first 

22 minutes ago, tmj said:

And too also , it’s creepy as fuck.

The kneeling, symbolic of a prayer to a new religion, or merely of self abnegation or supplication before any authority higher than the self... is very wrong, very disturbing in itself,

but don't theses jokers realize that they are PERFORMING THE SAME ACTION... which the police officer took, which lead to the victim's death? 

Don't they know how bad the optics are that while showing solidarity with victims, they present a living image, a replay, and an visual homage of the officer at the moment he slowly killed his victim?

If they are play acting here, they are playing out the tragedy in the role of the perpetrator...

Creepy indeed!

45 minutes ago, Peter said:

Perhaps we ARE on the same page. 1/ Say you are driving down the road and from the car in front of you, a food wrapper is tossed out the window. 2/ A police officer is driving down the road and from the car in front of him, a food wrapper is tossed out the window. If you are an objectivist or any reasonable person you make value judgements about every person you meet though you may not immediately or always act on those value judgements. Even here on OL and other web sites, every o’ist and every human being judges who they are reading or corresponding to.

A police officer is no different but the police have a more critical perspective as explained below. If the police are about to make an arrest they evaluate how the arrest will go. What are the perp’s physical attributes and metal demeanor if an arrest must be made?  What are the risks? Peter

Notes. By FindLaw Staff | Reviewed by Kellie Pantekoek, Esq. | Last updated June 02, 2020. When the police arrest someone, they take away that person's fundamental right to freedom. Consequently, there are several procedures the police must follow before they can make a legal arrest so that our rights remain protected. Many states and police departments add extra procedures. These extra procedures might be designed to: protect police officers' physical safety, help the officer document the arrest, or help the officer avoid making a legal mistake which could ruin the prosecution's case. Police arrest-procedures differ from one department to the next, so if you have questions about the procedures used in your area, it's best to contact your local police. The following is a general discussion of the procedures police must follow while making an arrest.

When an Officer May Make an Arrest There are only a very limited number of circumstances in which an officer may make an arrest: The officer personally observed a crime; The officer has probable cause to believe that person arrested committed a crime; The officer has an arrest warrant issued by a judge. An officer cannot arrest someone just because she feels like it or has a hunch that someone might be a criminal. Police officers have to be able to justify the arrest usually by showing some tangible evidence that led them to probable cause.

Requirements of Police: Arrest Procedures The rules regarding what an officer must do while making an arrest vary by jurisdiction. Generally, an arrest happens when the person being arrested reasonably believes that she is not free to leave. The officer need not use handcuffs, or place the arrestee in a police cruiser, although police often use these tactics to protect themselves. Police also do not have to read Miranda Rights at the time of arrest. However, the police must read a suspect their rights before an interrogation, so many police departments recommend that Miranda Rights be read at the time of arrest. This way, they can start questioning right away, and any information volunteered by a suspect can be used against them.

Finally, although police will almost always tell an arrestee why they're under arrest, they may not necessarily have any legal obligation to do so. This depends on both the jurisdiction and the circumstances of the arrest. Police Arrest Procedures and Excessive Force Police aren't allowed to use excessive force or treat the arrestee cruelly; this is universal and protected by the U.S. Constitution. Generally, police officers are only allowed to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves and bring the suspect into police custody. This is why people are advised to never resist an arrest or argue with police, even if they believe the arrest is wrongful since resistance could lead to the use of more force. If the arrestee thinks the arrest is unjustified or incorrect, they can always challenge it later with the help of an attorney and, if warranted, bring a civil rights case . . . .

What you say here seems correct.

On 6/6/2020 at 2:31 AM, Peter said:

Floyd was no hero. He was a low life criminal.

Every human is an individual.

Absolutely agree.

On 6/6/2020 at 2:31 AM, Peter said:

Was FLOYD'S  behavior, appearance, response to conflict, in any way consistent with what police see, react to, and BELIEVE to be the truth, EVERY DAY?

That “some people are dangerous criminals” ... of course it’s true and the vast majority of police see that.  What are you trying to say?

On 6/6/2020 at 2:31 AM, Peter said:

Are you seriously saying everybody is the same?

That came from nowhere.  Of course each    individual is different. It would be an error to think all people of any group (or in general all people) are the same because it ignores the content of each person’s character which IS different.

On 6/6/2020 at 2:31 AM, Peter said:

A cop can't respond to a situation and not observe and react to what he knows are the facts of ANY traffic stop?

Your train of thought insofar as it is, does not follow from anything I’ve said.  This discussion is going off the rails but I will just respond by saying that a cop must react to the facts and carry out his duties to the best of his abilities to act in accordance with objective principles of law enforcement to protect individual rights.

On 6/6/2020 at 2:31 AM, Peter said:

Police records garnered from the name he gave or license plate number show his record and prior arrests. and reveal the police's  prior knowledge of the perp His later autopsy reveals fentynol SP? a synthetic opiate and meth in his bloodstream which DID affect his behavior JUST AS the arresting cops observed.  Fioyd's prior brain and experiences,  plus drugs, plus stressful situation predestined his behavior that day,. Could Floyd have volitionally changed things?

I’m not sure what this is all about.

The quote from Ayn Rand I posted is not a statement about free will of an individual contradicting the nature of that particular individual (such is impossible ... choice is free but cannot violate metaphysical identity).

The quote from Ayn Rand I posted is not about ignoring any relevant factual aspect of a person in front of you.  I understand her idea of justice to require a man to respond to others according to what they deserve...  this in no way implies treating an innocent deserving individual less than what they deserve nor does it imply treating a criminal individual any better than they deserve.

Ayn Rand’s point was about the errors of racism.  It’s in The Virtue of Selfishness.

It’s a good read.

I recommend it, highly.

but I am not here to explain it too you.

7 hours ago, Peter said:

You are subjective and emotional. 

Not so.  Was I do dense I misread your level of sarcasm?

Your post was cryptic.  Please speak plainly.

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Darn I bet you have the luck of the Irish in your blood. Is your hair blond or dyed? With that red hair you must be from Scotland. My, you are so pale. Are your people from Sweden or Iceland? I don’t think it is racist to say, I am sure everyone has noticed how “African” Floyd looked.  I looked up different tribes and areas and I thought the image of a person from Ghana on the African coast looked similar to him. The African continent is diverse, and some of the people look  SO different from others, that you would not think they were from the same continent. For instance not all Africans have what anthropologists call the flatter, “tropical nose.” Some are dark hued and almost black, but some could pass for Hispanic in coloring. I saw a woman from what may have been Ethiopia and she had very, light blue eyes. 

Nice sarcasm there... it's good to see your pointing out to us that racism (to quote one of my betters) "negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination" and is an error of the highest order and of the lowest most crudely primitive form.

27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think it's quite plausible she will be the first female President of the USA in a couple of decades or more..

Oh my... don’t fill me with false hopes like that.

 A living example to explode so many of the false narratives in identity politics and a sane voice to reject socialism and encourage right thinking (up to a point) ??  

That really would be awesome!
 

25 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

The window of putting pressure on someone’s carotid artery until they pass out until they actually die is pretty small..

PS: someone on fentanyl isn’t exactly a threat.

PCP on a he other hand...

Handcuffs should have been sufficient...

 leg restraints could also have been used?

It's 2020 we should be able to design and manufacture more effective (and safe) restraint systems...

rather than train our officer(s) with dangerous techniques (concentrating on the neck) which can easily go horribly wrong with permanent consequences.

36 minutes ago, Peter said:

When do you use lethal force?

Hmmm..

I wonder what the statistics are for securely handcuffed persons (handcuffed behind their back) actually being successful at attacking and injuring their captor(s) ...  I don't doubt that a forceful effort at some kind of head-butt is often tried.

I wonder about how often that kind of thing actually succeeds... and hence what the risk actually is to the captor(s), once the person is securely handcuffed behind the back. 

A very delightful musical, from a distinct Objectivist perspective, in case any of you missed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIs9xM7Sac8

I find it a little ironic that on the one hand I advocate for a system where there would be little to no public property, state media, public utilities of any kind.  Where all is privately owned, traded, rented, sold and used in the free market. Yet I almost am tempted to treat the various media service platforms as coming within the public sphere, I almost conflate their private with public good and their private action with government action...but reason brings me back from the brink.

My only consolation is the double negative... that since we live in a mixed economy there no doubt is favouritism and cronyism which needs to be reined in by force of regulation.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

Welcome--and a warm welcome at that.

Michael

Thank you Michael.  

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

I don't mind at all.

If you like, I can let through all kinds of people for you to discuss interesting ideas with: people selling penis enlargers, student loans, multi-level marketing time-share opportunities, Asian and Russian brides, Nigerian princes who have difficulty getting money out of their country, and so on.

We aim to serve our users.

Michael

I’m glad you don’t mind.

In summary

penis enlargers - moral if shown to be effective, immoral if claims fraudulent

student loans - moral if no taxation was used to obtain wealth leant

multilevel ... - although many fraudulent schemes have similar structure and description it is within the realm of possibility that time - real estate - responsibility - ownership might be woven into a complex structure and traded for value among voluntary individuals

Asian and Russian brides - although slavery is wrong, agents who bring parties with potentially mutual interest together provide value... when they aren’t fraudsters

Nigerian Princes - The one who contacted me, I ignored ...  the next time one contacts me I’ll tell him I’ve already sent him the initial fee and he already sent me the riches ... then thank him profusely in my goodbyes and good riddances.

Honestly though, it would be nice to have a forum to discuss things without hucksters or lefties harassing you all the time, but sometimes they leave crumbs for discussion.

On 5/11/2020 at 7:21 PM, Mark said:

All on Facebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salsman (date unkown, quoted by Yaron Brook 5/5/2020)
Richard Salsman  To Todd Hartle.  Do you mean it, really?  The Yaron Brook Show?  sorry to say, but it’s garbage.  Second-hand trash.  Unoriginal.  Borrowed.  Filched.  Second-handed, Keating-Like, if you know what I mean.  Worse, it’s uninformed.  It took me at most 5 listenings to know it.  So sad.  he should know better.  he is now a mere wannabe Jordan Peterson.  Pathetic.  I’d say go elsewhere – else go insane.  But who really cares?  Most people, including many ex-Objectivists like YB, negotiate themselves out of the life of principle and integrity and consequently most detest those who retain those virtues.  Sunshine patriots, they cravenly flee to and podcast from the decadence of places like Starnseville – aka Puerto Rico.  Real heroes.  To Hell with them, I say – but no one need be victimized by choice, unless they’re clueless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Salsman, 4/29/2020
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism provides a consistent, comprehensive case for liberty, egoism, rights, and capitalism. One might think, therefore, that an institute many decades old with her name on the door would help the wider world know that crucial fact. Alas, tragically, it is no longer so, indeed hasn’t been so for many years, but especially in the years that one OG [Onkar Ghate] has been granted the title Chief Content Officer (CCO), or, more accurately, Chief Censor. A wholly unqualified charlatan who couldn’t get a job in academia, nonetheless he is venerated by the likes of YB, TS, HB and a host of other sycophants, who attempt to elevate themselves by trying to dissipate the great legacy of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. That’s impossible, of course, but they do still try. Now watch, if you can stomach it, this dishonest and pathetic performance by OG, the CCO at ARI whose simple task is to explain why AR’s philosophy is DISTINCTIVE. He cannot do it; his ramblings are vague, dilatory, subjective and wholly lacking in rational content. By the way, this is NOT a spontaneous, extemporaneous Q&A but a preplanned, “thought-out” opening statement devoid of any coherent argument. Her philosophy, he intones, is “new!” — “different!” — “pathbreaking! — “unconventional!” Different, how? No answer. True, in what way? Blank out. Why should I care? Because I’m OG, and here’s how it hit me, subjectively, in Calgary, many years ago.

This is waste; this is ridiculous; this is corruption. Why would anyone fund such tripe, who possessed even a scintilla of conscientiousness, or pride? It is using Ayn Rand’s illustrious name as a shield for incompetence. Don’t fall for it, Objectivist sheeple. It is the now the oak tree in Atlas Shrugged, if you know what I mean. I yearn nostalgically for the 15 years when the great Mike Berliner built that place, grew it, made it real, professional, viable, COLLEGIAL. All that’s mostly gone now, due not to MB of course, but to all those inferior successors who squandered his achievements and preferred to carve out personal sinecures. In the process they trashed and ostracized more than a few wealthy businessmen, who eventually left - shrugged - out of pride. Yet it still stands, like that oak tree, sentry at its side, the “Chief Content Officer,” ensuring unending content-less-ness. ARI supported the bailouts of 2008-09, then the Lockdown of 2020. There’s “content” for you - no different than what you’d find at Heritage or Brookings. The CCO remains, ever as smug, ever pretending to promote Rand’s views, hoping contributors won’t notice and won’t stop funding the fraud. But the CCO, thougn [sic] funded, is irrelevant; the truth will out, eventually; reality is the best avenger of all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yaron Brook 5/5/2020

If you don’t know who Richard Salsman is, you should skip this post – it’s not worth your precious time. I’m posting this primarily for my Facebook “friends” who know Richard and might have missed his diatribes against The Ayn Rand Institute and its intellectuals, including this about me (see below before reading on).

Now I think this speaks for itself. It reeks of anger, resentment and envy. There isn’t even a point being made to respond to. Sad…

It’s especially sad if one knows, that for years I fought (against the advice of many, whose judgment I trust) to help Richard. ARI provided him with loans when he was in graduate school, and I actively helped raise the money that made possible his current academic position at Duke (in 2014).

But no acknowledgement of this. And now, apparently I’m so awful that he must condemn me publicly in such offensive terms. Although, I must admit that I’ve seen him do this before to people I respect.

I’m sure I often say things that many of you disagree with and/or that my style might offend some. I’ve been at the forefront of speaking about and applying Ayn Rand’s ideas to current events for 20 years. It’s inevitable that I offend some people. But, there are rational, respectful ways to express one’s disagreement, especially about intellectual issues. Unfortunately, Richard’s post seems unhinged, and rabidly personal. In such cases, there is nothing to discuss.

I hope that most of you can see the irrationality and injustice of Richard’s outburst. However, if you agree with or find plausible even part of what he has written here, then please “unfriend” me now. And if you see it for what it is – emotionalist drivel – then consider, in the name of justice, “unfriending” Richard.

It’s not the first time someone has written horrible things about me over the years, and I’ve kept quiet. Why speak up now? For a few reasons. No longer being the CEO of ARI frees me to express my personal views more forcefully, and Richard is considered a respectable member of our community – after all he is identified in academia with Objectivism, he’s a Contributing Editor of a journal with “Objective” in its title and he’s about to teach an “Ayn Rand Camp,” with the support of a Foundation supporting other similar efforts. Ultimately, his recent, dishonest attacks on ARI and intellectuals I admire and respect were the final straw.

I’m sure Richard and others will respond to this. I have no intention to engage and very much hope this is the last you will hear from me about this topic.

[attached graphical quote of Salsman’s reply to Todd Hartle]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salsman 5/6/2020

In two recent posts I harshly criticized a handful of people who I know to have misused ARI to besmirch solid Objectivists and Objectivist organizations whom they oppose and in consequence have risked devaluing Ayn Rand’s reputation. That bothers me very much. It’s just not right. A just rebuke is warranted. But I here apologize because FB isn’t the forum for that, since the matter requires lots of information, background, context, and judgment that most readers don’t have. Those who know it, know it, those who can’t, can’t. It’s hard to be fully objective in so narrow a context. I wasn’t. Contributors to ARI, of course, would (or should) inquire about such things, but I leave that to them, as I should have in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I say in so many words in The Center of Mass Shifts Further, there is no one to root for in this fracas.  PF/TOS is no better than ARI.  It will be interesting to see if Barney goes through with Salsman‘s “Rand Camp.”

Are TOS and ARI Imperfect?  Likely yes.  Are some individuals of these organizations doing good, I have to say yes (keeping in mind what “good” means). In particular I find Tara Smith’s work to be of the highest order.

What’s your beef with these organizations?  

Are the effects of the flaws in their pronouncements on other individuals in society at large inimical to your flourishing or incrementally beneficial to your flourishing?  

Do you “wish” someone better qualified would step up to take their place in publicly disseminating and engaging the modern world in Rand’s ideas?  

Are you simply disappointed that they have nothing to offer you, your having already studied and understood the source material fully?

Finally, are you simply angry with the sheer fact (alleged), independent of any consequences to you, that they get it wrong?

Hello All:

Joined a while back but only started participating recently.

I’m familiar with Objectivism and wish to explore the boundaries of it.  I have no dogmatic loyalty to any person or body of work, but the systematic whole of the knowledge and conclusions I have independently arrived at of which I am certain (as a fallible finite consciousness) will be very well established personally, and sometimes they might be the same as the ideas of other recognizable personalities.  The coincidence or departure of my convictions with or from anyone else’s does not have any cognitive or persuasive weight with regard to their objective correctness or incorrectness.

The principle that ideas stand for themselves and not he/she who said it is something I will stand by, both for myself, and for others.

Looking forward to good meaningful discussions with those interested!

Strictlylogical

21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

Go on and listen all you want. But if that poster(s) ever get your email, I suggest you hold tight to your wallet.

Michael

I’ll try not to be drawn into anything “personal” as my purpose is to explore ideas, as such.  Whenever I stray into evaluating an idea by “who” said it (with the exception of having to do so to truly understand their meaning) rather what was said I, have failed myself.

And certainly, indulgences of a “personal” nature can be financially detrimental if it’s the wrong kind of person.

I’ve reread this thread and although there is a discernible level or “circus” here, it did not amount to a level that negates the interesting subject raised.  

Insofar as I can discuss interesting ideas amidst the noise, I will contribute to the discussion.

On 5/23/2020 at 8:58 AM, weareacouple said:

We admit that much of the pushback comes from our own Christian community however there is no question that society as a whole still has a huge issue with it. We do also admit that public nudity can (and often does) lead to other less acceptable behavior and speaking as a couple that has gone down that road several times, we don't feel that nudity should get the blame. 

This is a very complex and interesting subject.  I’m only qualified to speculate as I have not done the research but I suspect that the various civilizations that evolved independently all over the world slowly arrived at certain cultural norms of enrobement for a number of reasons.  This slow formation of culture of course follows an evolution similar to that which generates the customs and teachings of religions over time as well.  Culture and religion both tend to suppress behaviour which traditionally for whatever perceived reason have had some negative impact on the “tribe” or its members.  Consequences of eating pork (primitively raised), premarital sex, and marriage of siblings come to mind. The Christian teachings are likely not unique or special in regards to nudity, but it is informed by the same causes.

As you have hinted at, nudity has power and can have consequences.  Especially if either or both the object or subject is a hormone drenched adolescent in his/her prime.  It’s natural that in the primitive dawn of civilization those aspects embued with power when they could not be harnessed by those in charge we’re largely kept in check and under wraps.

I hear you. As responsible persons rules against nudity and its power seem silly.  In modern times with community safety (gun control ) and “safe spaces” being more popular than self defence, self responsibility, and individual freedoms ... it’s not such a mystery.

1 hour ago, Peter said:

No. What really intrigues me is how consciousness, memory, and 'some' volition are found in all sentient animals. They are not locked onto an instinctual auto-pilot. If you have ever had a pet you know that when you look at and have contact with your pet, it is a unique individual. Recently, (and they think they are sure) when your cat voluntarily blinks its eyes while looking you in the face it is saying it has a high regard / loves you. I am also intrigued by the idea that during brain surgery the surgeon can touch a portion of the brain and certain memories come into the mind of the person being operated upon. Peter 

If we agree that a "mind" is what a brain "does" and not some third magical stuff appearing out of nowhere, then affecting the brain can be seen almost trivially to affect what it does, and hence the state of the mind "happening" in the brain.  I am so glad Rand cut through the false dichotomy of brain/mind... corpse/ghost.  We are, in our entirety and very naturally ... quite entirely natural.

47 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Psychology is a science.

I agree.

48 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

One could then say that psychology in its current state of practice is not science, or is failing to adhere to scientific principles

I'm not sure about this.  To be sure some psychologists have failed in rigorous scientific adherence, but that does not mean all have so failed.

50 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Does anyone hold that consciousness cannot be studied scientifically?

Certainly not I.  As part of reality, it must be studied.  From a third person view as well as from a first person view... although there is really only one "thing" to study, via two different channels.

20 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ghs wrote: You are also assuming that every change in a state of consciousness has a physical correlative that can be measured in terms of mass and energy. Although this may indeed be the case (and this is a question to be answered by science, not philosophy), it is not self-evident, nor is it dictated by philosophical necessity. end quote

 

Intriguing. When we have a thought or lay down a memory is our brain forever changed? Is something added? Is mass moved?  If there is no additional mass, then is the change electrical? Peter  

Hi Peter:

I can't tell which ideas are yours versus those which you are quoting.

Just out of curiosity, do you think there is a conflict (of a philosophical nature) between our current knowledge of the natural word (including biology, chemistry, physics - QM) and the idea that consciousness is wholly natural?

SL