Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

14
  • 2
    An electrical current in a feedback loop is what is responsible for consciousness. Commented Feb 25, 2025 at 23:50
  • 3
    Its unclear why this is different from "how does the brain know anything?" Knowledge about the consciousness does not seem that different from other knowledge in this context Commented Feb 26, 2025 at 11:20
  • 1
    @keshlam Necessity is not the standard used by sciences to accept or reject a hypothesis. Utility is. And your assertion that "physical" sprits are untestable in principle is -- clearly false. Commented Feb 26, 2025 at 15:04
  • 1
    @tkruse If knowledge requires the apprehension of awareness of a theory or a phenomenon -- IE experiencing qualia of "knowing", then per non-interactive dualism a brain cannot know anything. If knowledge is working with a functional category that can be treated as assumed true or assumed falsified, which processing systems can do without qualia, then brains can have knowledge. BUT -- under epiphenomenalist dualism, brains can never get any data from a conscious mind, so as a processing system it could never build up the evidence to infer it was associated with consciousness. Commented Feb 26, 2025 at 15:09
  • 1
    @tkruse The problem is unique to epiphenomenalist dualism, as neither definition of knowledge could ever apply to a brain. Commented Feb 26, 2025 at 15:10