6 Answers

  1. Is the existence of something a scientific question? Science doesn't work that way. There is a certain phenomenon. We observe this phenomenon in ourselves and attribute it to the people around us, too. And we call this phenomenon consciousness. Further, we can argue about whether we have correctly drawn the boundaries of this phenomenon, whether we should not draw them differently (or even see other phenomena instead), but this is not a scientific dispute, but a dispute that is conducted within the philosophy of consciousness. While this argument is being conducted, a certain current consensus about what we call consciousness and where the boundaries of this concept, at least approximate, “boils” out of the cauldron in the form of foam of days. And we study what we see when we attach this concept to the surrounding reality.

    Science can't even prove your existence, doesn't have to, and won't do it.

  2. In science, there is no conventional definition of being, and there is no conventional definition of consciousness at all. Only by defining these things can we approach the question of what is considered proof for this case. And after that, you can approach the proofs themselves.

  3. consciousness is a concept, and there are no concepts in nature itself. you see the stone, and do not ask if it exists, the same situation with zero, for example. and it would also be worth clarifying what exactly is meant by consciousness, but what about the ability to think, perceive what you see, have self-awareness, reflection-of course there is, but you didn't notice?

  4. Why do you need scientific evidence?

    Accepting” science ” as such is already an indirect confirmation of the validity of your consciousness, not to mention the essence of the issue.

  5. Consciousness is a collection of knowledge-as if on the surface, neuroscientists are already close to the fact of fixing this phenomenon as a physical phenomenon.

    My non-expert opinion is that it is unlikely to determine this phenomenon physically , but it is probably a neurobiological phenomenon at the level of a hypothesis . Logical proofs from the time of the great thinkers of the past are available on the web they are not unambiguous like philosophy

    Rene Descartes “I think-I exist”

    What is most important in our time, I think, is how possible the appearance of consciousness in artificial neural networks is and how it can be determined .Some networks already pass the Turing test !

  6. It depends on what is meant by consciousness. If we abstract from the classical formulations, we can see that there is something inside us that is aware of itself(/us) as such.
    Can it be a physical part of the body, such as the brain? No.
    And where do we want to put our consciousness? What is consciousness? And what happens to him in the moments of clinical death, sleep, or the real death of this mortal body?
    Can the totality of our knowledge be called us? Also no. There are huge layers in us that are not part of consciousness, but nevertheless determine our behavior and reactions. Including in dreams, in clinical death of the same.
    But the evolution of man is the evolution of his self-awareness.
    So what is self-aware? Who is ” I ” in all that is within me?
    And why does one thing want one thing and another thing want another?
    What kind of swan, cancer and pike are tearing our consciousness, our life, our attention?
    Are mind and consciousness the same thing? ))) And the mind?

    You can ask a lot of questions. But the answers can only be understood by understanding the architectonics of a person. Then a coordinate system appears, in which it becomes clear what is what and what to do with it)
    And when you know that, it's easy to get repetitive results that are necessary in science as evidence)
    There would be a desire.

Leave a Reply