Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The principle of fallibilism says that we strive for the truth, but the ultimate truth is unattainable. The knowledge that we have is only close to the truth, but it can be clarified later.�
There is also a theoretical construct and operationalization in science. The theoretical construct is our hypothesis, as we think it works. Operationalization – how we can prove it (fulfilling Popper's requirement – any hypothesis must be empirically verifiable or refutable).
Modern psychology and neuropsychology, claiming that consciousness is a property of neural networks, proves it this way:�
when the network is disrupted, there is a violation of consciousness
it was possible to localize in the network some certain zones corresponding to the state of awareness
At the moment, this version is the most plausible – it brings us closer to the truth. So far, we haven't come up with anything better – we think so. However, if there is a better idea and ways to prove it with practical research – science is waiting! I think that in 30 years, in any case, we will see a new theory and new evidence.
There is a very smart book by one of the world's most famous neurophysiologists Vileyanur Ramachandran “The Brain tells” (published in Russian and still available in electronic libraries), which describes in detail what functions we attribute to consciousness today, and what brain damage affects the performance of these functions. As well as the history and current state of these studies. I recommend it.
There are quite a lot of examples, you can't describe everything in a couple of paragraphs, and in such a question, the more different the evidence, the more convincing the explanation proposed by scientists looks.