/sci/ - Science & Math

>neuroscience

Just talk about free, consciousness and qualia.

>neuroscience

Just talk about free will, consciousness and qualia.

>>5756927
i'm well prepared for anything related to neuroscience they can throw at me. more worried about what kind of "social" questions they will ask.

>>5756933
>metaphysics
>related to neuroscience

Hahaha, oh wow.

>irrelevant /adv/ personal blogging bullshit
>low quality pornographic picture

Are you 13? Get the fuck out with your off-topic shitposting.

>>5756939
nigga do you even read? just wanted to say that the neuroscience part is not what worries me, nowhere did i mention these things.
anyway consciousness if perfectly within the realm of neuroscience though.

>>5756949
Dualism and spiritualism are not subject of neuroscience. Science deals only with observable phenomena. I seriously hope you're trolling. If you actually believe in magical souls, >>>/x/ is the right place for you.

>>5756949
>non-interacting soul spirits without testable effects
>in the realm of neuroscience
Choose only one.

>>5756958
it's more concerned with explicit/columnar coding and what type of information will be made consciously available. nowhere does it mentions non-observable phenomena.

>>5756967
Care to show me any piece of evidence for a soul/consciousness? What are its observable effects? Name one thing that cannot be explained biologically and requires us to resort to metaphysical magic.

>OP wants to go to grad school in neuroscience
>mistakes neuroscience for spiritualist pseudoscience
top lel

You're gonna fail the interview so fucking hard and you deserve it.

>>5756939
if this were to happen just talk about Kant's theory or some shit.

You'll have one day of interviews. You'll go see four to six faculty members, you'll talk with them for half an hour. They'll ask you about your experience and your research and why you want to go to graduate school.

Be at least briefly acquainted with the professor's research (know their model system, and have a general idea of the ultimate goal they're working toward even if you can't understand the nitty gritty), and if you have time you might get a chance to talk about their research and ask a question or two, but mostly you're going to be talking about yourself.

Then you'll have a day of visiting the town/city, touring campus, and so on.

You'll probably end up drinking at least once with the current crop of graduate students.

>>5756958
Would you please just take the hint that nobody on /sci/ likes your shit or agrees with you, and stop shoe-horning your shit opinions into every thread that even remotely triggers your butthurt?

>>5756973
everything can be explained biologically that's the whole point of it.
anyway i do study things like multistable perception and how the shift is represented in term neuronal firing.
as for the soul no one mentions it nor is it required. stop being stuck in 27th century dualism.

>>5756992
>scientific facts
>opinions
Choose one.

How about you learn the scientific method?

>>5756996
>everything can be explained biologically
Exactly. That's why the concept of a soul/consciousness isn't needed and has been rejected.

>as for the soul no one mentions it nor is it required
That's what I'm telling OP.

>>5756998
You have a childishly simple understanding of the scientific method.

Go read some modern philosophy of science and then come spout your shit.

>>5757005
you still call it consciousness though. it has nothing to do with the soul. if you need to, equate it with awareness.

>>5757009
He's just going to spout off nonsense about how you don't get to redefine scientific terms.

Don't bother arguing with him.

>>5757007
>philosophy

Why? Because science is too hard for you?

>>5757009
Science doesn't use spiritualist/dualist vocabulary. Science has its own terminology and that word isn't needed anywhere. It doesn't refer to any observable phenomenon and has no explanatory value.

>>5757011
You cannot argue against scientific facts. Please educate yourself.

>>5756990
ok thanks. in that case i'm probably well prepared.

>>5756973

>demand observable evidence of consciousness
>observation is conscious

>>5757028
Observation is a physical process of measurement, you pleb tier troll. No magic involved.

>>5757016
it's a proper term in science Crick, Searle, Libet etc they all use it. the only thing that isn't used anymore is unconscious, which is now non-conscious due to freudian terminology.

>>5757031
Metaphysica is not science. Metaphysical drivel is not a science publication. Philosophers are not scientists. Please stop spouting ignorance and learn what the scientific method is.

>>5757038
>>5757031
>>5757028
>giving the troll the attention he craves

>>5757032

>>5757032

So a ruler "observes" length? No, it measures it. Consciousness means "what-it's-likeness". When we measure something with ruler, there is something it is like to look at the ruler. Unless we're talking about a case of blindsight, which is some sort of measurement or information-processing without consciousness. Do you deny that there is something it is like to be awake?

>>5757034
oh yes how could i forget. francis crick the imminent philosopher of mind...
anyway i'll leave now.

>>5757044
Perception is a physical process. It is entirely explained within the laws of physics. There is no need to attribute any metaphysical qualities to it. Take your spiritualism balderdash to >>>/x/

>>5757048
Francis Crick was a biologist. If he was talking about metaphysics, he did so outside the realm of science and without scientific basis. And probably he was already old, senile and demented. Just because someone studied science, that doesn't make any off-topic comment he made scientific.

>>5757059

>equivocating on perception and perceptual phenomenology.

Ok fuck this, I give up.

>>5757071
It isn't my fault that you failed high school biology. Please educate yourself.