John Sergey Biography

It is noteworthy that Serge rejects the unconscious. He does not consider it a separate substance, but reduces it to neurophysiology or consciousness. The author attributes all these properties of consciousness to ontology, they are subjective, and therefore different in each individual. He does not talk about derivatives of consciousness from the epistemological point of view, which gives rise to a certain contradiction.

According to D. Dubrovsky, Serl showed a real picture of philosophical views in the world. Along with “folk psychology”, the so -called “folk ontology” appears, which is far from epistemology and the application of knowledge in the minds of a particular person. Dubrovsky speaks of a mixture of faith and psychiatry, fiction and philosophical theories [3].

In the fair opinion of Serg, the epistemological component of consciousness is in the embryonic stage of development. Objective knowledge of itself is too limited today, it does not receive development, the cognitive activity of consciousness is focused on the stimuli of the outside world. Is it not because a person only thinks about how to make the world convenient, he “does not know what he is doing”, does not realize all the consequences of a deficiency of self -awareness sometimes, as history shows, very deplorable?

Serl criticizes the introduction as a process, he speaks of its failure.

The author claims: “I am not able to observe my own subjectivity, for any observation that I would wish to undertake is what was supposed to be observed” [1, S., he does not consider the postulate to be true that every element of consciousness implies the presence of self -awareness, otherwise he would not have been perfect. Self -awareness, in his opinion, if it turns on, then only when consciousness has to transfer landmarks from external stimuli to a state of its own Self.

The controversial opinion that has a place to be, but is criticized and contradicts the statements of Serga in the first chapters, where he speaks of mixing mental and material components. Self -awareness manifests itself as an act of consciousness and arises with any attempt by the latter to interpret reality and build behavior in accordance with the knowledge gained. And how does it manifest in this case, what affects its activity?

Can a computer possess consciousness, and how in this case it will manifest itself? Serl criticized the situation according to which the main sign of “other consciousness” appears. The presence of consciousness is not a prerequisite for the emergence of behavior. It is impossible to say that consciousness exists, relying on the fact that an object or creature does something.

Serl expresses the idea of ​​the causal component, the connection of behavior with causal structures, for example, animals. Only based on this connection, we can talk about the presence or absence of consciousness. The author gives an example with a dog. We know that the dog, like a person, has eyes. Therefore, we can conclude that she sees. However, Serl himself notes the comparison a little one -sided.

The comparison of humans and higher animals is not objective, since the presence of the psyche and consciousness in the latter is undeniable. He says that the function is not inherent in the internal system. This situation raises a lot of questions. Based on it, we can say that the body's breathing is not a component of the internal system, but is an external factor?

There are no answers in the book. There was no cognitive direction of the study of mental processes without criticism [1, ch. The author questions the analogy between the work of the brain and the machine, saying that the greatest misconception of cognitiveism is the statement that the brain and computer function the same. It is a mistake to believe that, by analogy with a smart machine, the brain receives, processes and stores information.

Serl claims that “the brain does not carry out any processing of information” [1, C. There is no unconscious and information mental processes, these processes should be attributed to neurophysiology, the manifestations of which exist in the brain together with consciousness. It is through the prism of consciousness that an information flow and unconscious behavior are missed, they are not internal processes, but come from outside and force neural connections and consciousness to work.

So, we see the inconsistency and criticality with which the book “Expecting Consciousness again” is filled. It causes a lot of controversy and reasoning, and therefore interesting as food for reflection and revising many philosophical provisions from a new side. List of sources used: 1. Sergey J. Opening consciousness again. Dubrovsky D. New discovery of consciousness?