DOCSLIB.ORG

Intro to Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intro to Philosophy Intro to Philosophy Review for Exam 3 Philosophy of Mind • Are there minds? • What is the nature of mind and consciousness? – Is the mind material? – Is the mind immaterial? – Am I just a brain or something more? Basic Terminology • Substance = A basic thing which underlies change. – X is red, X is 5 pounds, X is 8 by 2.25 inches, X is clay etc… • Whatever x is, it will be a substance. In this case it is a brick. • Informally, it is a basic kind of “stuff.” • Property = A quality/characteristic that is possessed by or true of substances (e.g. redness, weight, size etc…) – Essential Property = A quality/characteristic that a substance has such that if it were not there, then the substance would not exist (e.g. for a brick, the property of being physically extended would be essential). – Accidental Property = A quality/characteristic that a substance has such that if it were not there, then the substance would still exist (e.g. for a brick, the property of being red would be accidental). Substance Dualism (Descartes & • The view that there areLocke) two kinds of basic stuff – material substances, and immaterial substances. • I am = an immaterial substance (i.e. a mind/soul). • I have/own a material substance (i.e. a body) But why think that substance dualism is true? • Descartes gives two arguments for substance dualism. • Both of them depend upon Leibniz’ Law. Leibniz’ Law • If A and B are the same thing, then they will have all of the same properties. • Suppose we are wondering if A and B are really the same thing. • Suppose further that we know that A is 3 ft tall but that B is 7 ft tall. – It follows that A ≠ B. The First Argument • 1) I can conceive of myself without this body. – Whether it is a different body or no body at all. • 2) I cannot conceive of myself without a mind. • 3) Thus something is true of the body that is not true of the mind. • 4) Things that have different properties cannot be identical. (i.e. Leibniz’ Law) • 5) Therefore, the body and mind are not identical. The Second Argument • 1) Minds are essentially indivisible. – Even though I have different mental faculties, I am the one who underlies all of these faculties. • 2) Bodies are essentially divisible. – Since bodies are extended in space, their spatial nature allows them to be divided into parts. • 3) Thus something is true of the body that is not true of the mind. • 4) Things that have different properties cannot be identical. (i.e. Leibniz’ Law) • 5) Therefore, mind and body are not identical. Substance Dualism: The Relationship Between Brain Events and Mental Events. Peter Carruthers and the Mind/Brain Identity Theory • “Even if descriptions of conscious experiences are logically independent of all descriptions of physical states (as the [C]artesian conception implies) it may in fact be the case that those descriptions are descriptions of the very same things. This is just what the thesis of mind/ brain identity affirms.” – p. 327 The Identity Theory: The Relationship Between Brain Events and Mental Events. But why think that the identity theory is true rather than Descartes’ substance dualism? • Carruthers counters Descartes’ arguments by saying that they are not an appropriate use of Leibniz’ Law. • Cartesian arguments tend to confuse the following distinct notions: – If A and B have different properties, then A and B are not identical. (Leibniz’ actual law) – If I am certain that A has properties but am not certain that B has those same properties, then A and B are not identical. • Descartes’ arguments need the first of these but instead utilize the second. Thus Descartes’ arguments are about himself rather than A or B! A counterexample to Descartes • 1) I am certain that Bruce Wayne is a billionaire and am uncertain as to whether or not he spends his free time fighting crime. • 2) I am certain that Batman spends his free time fighting crime and am uncertain as to whether or not he is a billionaire. • 3) But then Batman and Bruce Wayne have different properties. • 4) Things with different properties are not identical. • 5) Thus Batman and Bruce Wayne are not identical. Carruthers’ Argument for the Identity Theory. • Substance dualism has a major problem – namely, the causal interaction problem. • Since immaterial substances couldn’t causally interact with material substances, we should just do away with immaterial substances altogether. • Material substances can causally interact with other material substances. • Moreover, mental states play an important role in what we do physically (i.e. our physical states). Carruthers’ Argument for the Identity Theory. • 1) Some mental states are causally necessary for the occurrence of some physical ones. – i.e., feeling thirsty is necessary for going and consuming H20. • 2) In a completed neuro-physiological science there will be no need to advert to anything other than physical-physical causality. – i.e., one day our science will be sophisticated enough be able to explain everything with physical-physical causality. • 3) Therefore, some mental states are identical with physical brain states and events. Carruthers’ Modest Conclusion • Why should we be satisfied with the conclusion that only some mental states are identical to physical states? • Think of Carruthers’ tactic as a Trojan horse. – Once the physicalist’s foot is in the door, then there is no reason to open the door wide open! • Imagine how unprincipled it would be to say that my mental state of being happy is a purely physical event, but that my mental state of being sad is purely (and irreducibly) mental! • Once we say that some mental states are purely physical, then the best explanation would be to say that they all are. To sum up the thought process for identity theorists… • Identity theorists acknowledge that mental states exist. • Since they acknowledge that mental states exist, then they need to explain their existence. • They do so by saying that mental states are identical to brain states (hence the name…). Michael Graziano and the theory of Eliminative Materialism. • “Many theories have been proposed [to account for inner mental states], but none has passed scientific muster. I believe a major change in our perspective on consciousness may be necessary, a shift from a credulous and egocentric viewpoint to a skeptical and slightly disconcerting one: namely, that we don’t actually have inner feelings in the way most of us think we do.” Eliminative Materialism: The Relationship Between Brain Events and Mental Events. Eliminative Materialism vs. Identity Theory • Identity Theory: “mental states exist and need to be accounted for.” • Eliminative Materialism: “mental states don’t exist any more than ghosts or centaurs do and thus do not even need to be accounted for.” Interesting questions to ask… • If Eliminative Materialism posits that there are no mental states, then how is it that we can even think about whether or not Eliminative Materialism is true or false to begin with?! • Note that Graziano himself says things like… – “I believe a major change in our perspective on consciousness may be necessary… • This is not to say that Graziano can’t say anything in response to this kind of objection. But it is important to think about none-the-less. Substance Dualism and Substance Monism • Substance Dualists – Descartes and Locke • Substance Monists – Peter Carruthers and Michael Graziano. (Both are physicalists) – What is Physicalism? Physicalism l The view that everything can be explained, in principle, by a physical theory of sorts. (Think something like the science of physics) l Physicalism is not the same thing as materialism. l What is the difference between physicalism and materialism? Epiphenomenalism l The view that there exist qualia, which are caused by physical states, but not do themselves cause anything. l Qualia are not identical with brain states. l Stands in opposition to Physicalism Why opposition? l Physicalism is the view that everything that is true can be explained in terms of the science of physics. That is to say, a person with complete knowledge of the the nature and functioning of the physical world could still not know what it is like to experience redness. l Qualia are things that cannot, according to Jackson, be explained in terms of physics. l This is because Qualia are necessarily subjective in nature, so they cannot be explained adequately by an objective scientific theory. Frank Jackson l “I am what is sometimes known as a "qualia freak". I think that there are certain features of bodily sensations especially, but also of certain perceptual experiences, which no amount of purely physical information includes. Tell me everything physical there is to tell about what is going on in a living brain... you won't have told me about the hurtfulness of pains, the itchiness of itches, pangs of jealousy....” Qualia l The felt quality of a conscious experience. l Directly known to us by means of first-person experience l It 'feels' a certain way to have various kinds of conscious experiences. Pain feels a certain way. Certain foods have a particular taste. A scented has a certain, distinct smell. l According to Jackson, Qualia have no causal power at all in the physical world. He refers to Qualia as an excrescence. l Given qualia, Frank Jackson claims that epiphenomenalism is the only alternative to Dualism. So, which of the following would not be a kind of qualia? l What the redness of a rose is like. l How the sweetness of sugar tastes. l The felt warmth of a blanket. l The biological events causing reaction to injury. l The felt Coldness on a Winter night.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Eliminativist Approach to Consciousness Position Paper
    The Eliminativist Approach to Consciousness Position paper This essay explains my version of an eliminativist approach to understanding conscious- ness. It suggests that we stop thinking in terms of "conscious" and "unconscious" and in- stead look at physical systems for what they are and what they can do. This perspective dis- solves some biases in our usual perspective and shows us that the world is not composed of conscious minds moving through unconscious matter, but rather, the world is a unified whole, with some sub-processes being more fancy and self-reflective than others. I think eliminativism should be combined with more intuitive understandings of consciousness to ensure that its moral applications stay on the right track. 12 December 2015 Position paper by the Eective Altruism Foundation. Preferred citation: Tomasik, B. (2006). The Eliminativist Approach to Consciousness. Position paper by the Eective Altruism Foundation (2): 1-9. First published 12 December 2015. www.longtermrisk.org www.ea-stiung.org Contents Introduction.............................1 Motivating eliminativism....................2 Thinking physically........................3 Eliminativist sentience valuation..............3 Living in zombieland.......................4 Why this discussion matters..................4 Does eliminativism eliminate empathy?.........5 The subjective and objective need each other.....5 Eliminativism and panpsychism...............6 Denying consciousness altogether.............6 Does eliminativism explain phenomenology?......7 Bibliography............................9
    [Show full text]
  • How Can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Consciousness?
    How Can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Consciousness? David J. Chalmers I am grateful to the authors of the 39 commentaries on my article “The Meta-Problem of Consciousness”. I learned a great deal from reading them and from thinking about how to reply.1 The commentaries divide fairly nearly into about three groups. About half of them discuss po- tential solutions to the meta-problem. About a quarter of them discuss the question of whether in- tuitions about consciousness are universal, widespred, or culturally local. About a quarter discuss illusionism about consciousness and especially debunking arguments that move from a solution to the meta-problem to illusionism. Some commentaries fit into more than one group and some do not fit perfectly into any, but with some stretching this provides a natural way to divide them. As a result, I have divided my reply into three parts, each of which can stand alone. This first part is “How can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Conscousness?”. The other two parts are “Is the Hard Problem of Consciousness Universal?” and “Debunking Arguments for Illusionism about Consciousness”. How can we solve the meta-problem? As a reminder, the meta-problem is the problem of explaining our problem intuitions about consciousness, including the intuition that consciousness poses a hard problem and related explanatory and metaphysical intuitions, among others. One constraint is to explain the intuitions in topic-neutral terms (for example, physical, computational, structural, or evolutionary term) that do not make explicit appeal to consciousness in the explana- tion. In the target article, I canvassed about 15 potential solutions to the meta-problem.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CURRICULUM VITAE MICHAEL GRAZIANO Last Updated May 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE MICHAEL GRAZIANO Last updated May 2019 Department of Psychology Peretsman-Scully Hall Princeton University Princeton, N.J. 08544-1010 Tel: (609) 258-7555 email: [email protected] DEGREES AND POSITIONS 2017- Full Professor, Dept. of Psychology and Neuroscience, Princeton University. 2007-2017 Associate Professor, Dept. of Psychology, Princeton University. 2001-2007 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Psychology, Princeton University. 1998-2001 Research Staff, Princeton University. 1996-1998 Post-Doctoral Fellow, Princeton University. 1996 PhD in Neuroscience, Princeton University. 1991-1996 Graduate student, Dept. of Psychology, Princeton University. 1989-1991 Graduate student, Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT. 1989 BA, Princeton University. INVITED LECTURES 2019 TEDx Cornell 2019 Colloquium speaker, Taipei, National University of Taiwan 2019 Invited Speaker, NIH, Conference on Consciousness and Attention 2018 Invited Speaker, Max Planck Symposium on Consciousness, Berlin 2018 Keynote Speaker, European Society for Philosophy and Psychology, Rejika, Croatia 2018 Invited Speaker, Trinity College, Doublin 2018 Invited Speaker Chile Science Festival, 2017 Keynote speaker, Designed Mind Conference, Edinburgh. 2016 Colloquium speaker, Montreal 2016 Invited speaker, Neurocom summer school, Leipzig. 2016 Keynote speaker, ASSC, Buenos Aires. 2016 Colloquium speaker, George Washington University. 2016 Colloquium speaker, University College London. 2015 Invited Speaker, Accessibility and Consciousness Conference, Paris. 2015
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphilosophy of Consciousness Studies
    Part Three Metaphilosophy of Consciousness Studies Bloomsbury companion to the philosophy of consciousness.indb 185 24-08-2017 15:48:52 Bloomsbury companion to the philosophy of consciousness.indb 186 24-08-2017 15:48:52 11 Understanding Consciousness by Building It Michael Graziano and Taylor W. Webb 1 Introduction In this chapter we consider how to build a machine that has subjective awareness. The design is based on the recently proposed attention schema theory (Graziano 2013, 2014; Graziano and Kastner 2011; Graziano and Webb 2014; Kelly et al. 2014; Webb and Graziano 2015; Webb, Kean and Graziano 2016). This hypothetical building project serves as a way to introduce the theory in a step-by-step manner and contrast it with other brain-based theories of consciousness. At the same time, this chapter is more than a thought experiment. We suggest that the machine could actually be built and we encourage artificial intelligence experts to try. Figure 11.1 frames the challenge. The machine has eyes that take in visual input (an apple in this example) and pass information to a computer brain. Our task is to build the machine such that it has a subjective visual awareness of the apple in the same sense that humans describe subjective visual awareness. Exactly what is meant by subjective awareness is not a priori clear. Most people have an intuitive notion that is probably not easily put into words. One goal of this building project is to see if a clearer definition of subjective awareness emerges from the constrained process of trying to build it.
    [Show full text]
  • ID Lecture 10 Mind Issues 2014
    Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Defending God’s Creation Matthew 7:12 12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” Sexual Dimorphism • Sexual dimorphism is a phenotypic difference between males and females of the same species. Examples of such differences include differences in morphology, ornamentation, and behavior. Peacock’s Tail • “The peacock has a very ornate plumage which it uses to attract peahens. The peacock will use its ornate plumage to court a mate.” from Wikipedia ! • “One of the most ostentatiously adorned creatures on Earth, the peacock uses its brilliant plumage to entice females.” from National Geographic website Peacock’s Tail • “It is hard to see a peacock’s tail as something other than an impediment to his survival” from PBS series Evolution ! • Limits peacocks to short bursts of flight • Easily spotted by predators and humans Sexual Selection • Proposed by Charles Darwin • Powerful Driving force behind evolution • But why sexual reproduction at all? – Genetic Variability Theory – Research on certain minnows in Mexico • Reproduce sexually and asexually • resistance to parasites • Drought contradicted findings Sexual Selection • “Some believe it all got started billions of years ago, with two single-celled creatures sharing a chance encounter in the primordial night. They meet, and genes are exchanged. … The moment is brief, but it leaves them a little bit stronger, a little more likely to survive and reproduce.” from PBS series Evolution • “Sexual selection is often powerful enough to produce features that are harmful to the individual's survival. For example, extravagant and colorful tail feathers or fins are likely to attract predators as well as interested members of the opposite sex." from Understanding Evolution for Teachers web resource • We found no evidence that peahens expressed any preference for peacocks with more elaborate trains (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • ARE WE REALLY CONSCIOUS?” by Michael C
    “ARE WE REALLY CONSCIOUS?” By Michael C. Graziano New York Times, October 10, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/opinion/sunday/are-we-really- conscious.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad&_r=0 OF the three most fundamental scientific questions about the human condition, two have been answered. First, what is our relationship to the rest of the universe? Copernicus answered that one. We’re not at the center. We’re a speck in a large place. Second, what is our relationship to the diversity of life? Darwin answered that one. Biologically speaking, we’re not a special act of creation. We’re a twig on the tree of evolution. Third, what is the relationship between our minds and the physical world? Here, we don’t have a settled answer. We know something about the body and brain, but what about the subjective life inside? Consider that a computer, if hooked up to a camera, can process information about the wavelength of light and determine that grass is green. But we humans also experience the greenness. We have an awareness of information we process. What is this mysterious aspect of ourselves? Many theories have been proposed, but none has passed scientific muster. I believe a major change in our perspective on consciousness may be necessary, a shift from a credulous and egocentric viewpoint to a skeptical and slightly disconcerting one: namely, that we don’t actually have inner feelings in the way most of us think we do. Imagine a group of scholars in the early 17th century, debating the process that purifies white light and rids it of all colors.
    [Show full text]
  • A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2012 Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics Joel P. MacClellan University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation MacClellan, Joel P., "Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2012. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1433 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Joel P. MacClellan entitled "Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. John Nolt, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Jon Garthoff, David Reidy, Dan Simberloff Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) MINDING NATURE: A DEFENSE OF A SENTIOCENTRIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Joel Patrick MacClellan August 2012 ii The sedge is wither’d from the lake, And no birds sing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grateful Un-Dead? Philosophical and Social Implications of Mind-Uploading
    1 July 23, 2020 The grateful Un-dead? Philosophical and Social Implications of Mind-Uploading Ivan William Kelly Professor Emeritus, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada Email address: [email protected] Abstract: The popular belief that our mind either depends on or (in stronger terms) is identical with brain functions and processes, along with the belief that advances in technological in virtual reality and computability will continue, has contributed to the contention that one-day (perhaps this century) it may be possible to transfer one’s mind (or a simulated copy) into another body (physical or virtual). This is called mind-uploading or whole brain emulation. This paper serves as an introduction to the area and some of the major issues that arise from the notion of mind- uploading. The topic of mind/brain uploading is, at present, both a philosophical and scientific minefield. This paper ties together several thoughts on the topic in the popular, philosophical, and scientific literature, and brings up some related issues that might be worth exploring. A challenge is made that uploading a mind from a brain may have intrinsic limitations on what can be uploaded: whatever is uploaded may not be recognizably human, or will be a very limited version. Keywords: mind uploading, brain emulation, mind transfer, virtual reality, robots, android, the mind-body problem, mind transfer, trans-human, 1.Introduction What if (a big if) you actually could upload or transfer your mind into a computer network or a robot? That is, you would now have your mind in a different body or ‘live in’ a virtual reality (or virtual realities).
    [Show full text]
  • The Parallel Mind by Rana Zandi a Thesis Exhibition Presented To
    The Parallel Mind By Rana Zandi A thesis exhibition presented to OCAD University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Digital Futures April 2018 © Rana Zandi 2018 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I authorize OCAD University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. I further authorize OCAD University to reproduce this thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. ii Rana Zandi, OCAD University, Parallel Mind, Master of Arts, Digital Futures, 2018 ABSTRACT Throughout the last century, Western scholars from various fields have contributed toward finding a general theory of consciousness that can accurately describe how the human brain processes information, and how it reflects and becomes aware of this information. In 2013, Michael Graziano an American scientist focused on the awareness aspect of consciousness and proposed the Attention Schema Theory of Consciousness (AST) to solve why the mind becomes aware in the first place. This thesis takes a stance that life on the screen has allowed us to extend our identities through embodiment of a second self in cyberspace. By using textual analysis, thought experiments, conceptual models, and mind activities, this work formulates parallel mind– as a self-aware digital entity that uses the content of the digital self.
    [Show full text]
  • Delusions of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23, 52-64, 2016 Also in Illusionism, Ed
    Delusions of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23, 52-64, 2016 also in Illusionism, Ed. Keith Frankish, 23, 52-64, 2017 Susan Blackmore This is an invited paper for a Special Issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies. Keith Frankish wrote an introductory article, ‘Illusionism as a theory of consciousness’, outlining the general view that phenomenal consciousness is an illusion. Nearly twenty responses follow by authors including Dan Dennett, Michael Graziano, Nicholas Humphrey and Jesse Prinz among others. Here is a version of mine as submitted. It may have been edited before publication. So please do not quote from this version. Abstract Frankish’s illusionism aims to replace the hard problem with the illusion problem; to explain why phenomenal consciousness seems to exist and why the illusion is so powerful. My aim, though broadly illusionist, is to explain why many other false assumptions, or delusions, are so powerful. One reason is a simple mistake in introspection. Asking, ‘Am I conscious now?’ or ‘What is consciousness?’ makes us briefly conscious in a new way. The delusion is to conclude that consciousness is always like this instead of asking, ‘What is it like when I am not asking what is it like?’ Neuroscience and disciplined introspection give the same answer: there are multiple parallel processes with no clear distinction between conscious and unconscious ones. Consciousness is an attribution we make, not a property of only some special events or processes. Notions of the stream, contents, continuity and function of consciousness are all misguided as is the search for the NCCs. In his clear and helpful survey of the illusionist position, Frankish convincingly argues for taking illusionism seriously and for replacing the hard problem with the illusion problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Consciousness and Its Relationship to Social Neuroscience: a Novel Hypothesis
    Cognitive Neuroscience ISSN: 1758-8928 (Print) 1758-8936 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcns20 Human consciousness and its relationship to social neuroscience: A novel hypothesis Michael S. A. Graziano & Sabine Kastner To cite this article: Michael S. A. Graziano & Sabine Kastner (2011) Human consciousness and its relationship to social neuroscience: A novel hypothesis, Cognitive Neuroscience, 2:2, 98-113, DOI: 10.1080/17588928.2011.565121 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2011.565121 Published online: 21 Mar 2011. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3072 Citing articles: 45 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pcns20 COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, 2011, 2 (2), 98–133 (Includes Discussion Paper, Commentaries, and Reply.) Discussion Paper Human consciousness and its relationship to social neuroscience: A novel hypothesis Michael S. A. Graziano and Sabine Kastner Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA A common modern view of consciousness is that it is an emergent property of the brain, perhaps caused by neuronal complexity, and perhaps with no adaptive value. Exactly what emerges, how it emerges, and from what specific neuronal process, are in debate. One possible explanation of consciousness, proposed here, is that it is a construct of the social perceptual machinery. Humans have specialized neuronal machinery that allows them to be socially intelligent. The primary role of this machinery is to construct models of other people’s minds thereby gaining some ability to predict the behavior of other individuals. In the present hypothesis, awareness is a perceptual reconstruction of attentional state; and the machinery that computes information about other people’s awareness is the same machinery that computes information about our own awareness.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 TSC Tucson 20Th Anniv. Program Abstracts.Pdf
    20th Anniversary Conference Toward a Science of Consciousness April 21-26, 2014 Tucson, Arizona Tucson Marriott University Park Hotel Sponsored by The University of Arizona Center for CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES CONTENTS Welcome . 2-4 Tucson Telephone Numbers . 5 Transportation Services . 5 Pre-Conference Workshop . 7 Conference Overview . 8 Optional Social Events . 8-9 Pre-Conference List . 10-11 Conference Week Schedule Grid . 12-22 INDEX to SESSIONS Plenary . 23-25 Concurrents . .. 26-34 Posters . 35-50 Art/Tech/Health Exhibits & Demos . 51 CCS-TSC Taxonomy and Classifications . 52-53 INDEX to ABSTRACTS Abstracts by Classification . 54-274 East-West Forum Abstracts . 275-300 Additional Abstracts . 301-303 Index to Authors . 304-306 WELCOME Welcome to Toward a Science of Consciousness 2014, the 20th anniversary of the biennial, international interdisciplinary Tucson Conference on the fundamental question of how the brain produces conscious experience . Sponsored and organized by the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, this year’s conference is being held for the first time at the Tucson Marriott University Park Hotel, steps from the main gate of the beautiful campus of the University of Arizona . Covering 380 acres in central Tucson, the campus is a hub of education, concerts, plays, lectures, museums, poetry readings, athletic events, playing on the great grassy mall, and just hanging out . Adjacent to the UA main gate and hotel are over 30 shops, restaurants and pubs along University Boulevard . A short walk in the opposite direction leads to the village setting of 4th Avenue and then to downtown Tucson . Toward a Science of Consciousness (TSC) is the largest and longest-running interdisciplinary conference emphasizing broad and rigorous interdisciplinary approaches to conscious awareness, the nature of existence and our place in the universe .
    [Show full text]