Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Physicist: Regrettably, materialism can’t explain mind


From Adam Frank at Aeon:

It is as simple as it is undeniable: after more than a century of profound explorations into the subatomic world, our best theory for how matter behaves still tells us very little about what matter is. Materialists appeal to physics to explain the mind, but in modern physics the particles that make up a brain remain, in many ways, as mysterious as consciousness itself.

Some consciousness researchers see the hard problem as real but inherently unsolvable; others posit a range of options for its account. Those solutions include possibilities that overly project mind into matter. Consciousness might, for example, be an example of the emergence of a new entity in the Universe not contained in the laws of particles. There is also the more radical possibility that some rudimentary form of consciousness must be added to the list of things, such as mass or electric charge, that the world is built of. Regardless of the direction ‘more’ might take, the unresolved democracy of quantum interpretations means that our current understanding of matter alone is unlikely to explain the nature of mind. It seems just as likely that the opposite will be the case. More.

The reader who mentioned the story to us points out that Frank fails to so much as mention Thomas Nagel or his book Mind and Cosmos.

No surprise. The way these elegant essays work: One is allowed to wring one’s hands politely over the distressing state of affairs as long as one does not address serious alternatives, except to rule them offside.

Okay, the problem awaits those who can even afford to address it and are not required by the demands of their position to come up with something that sounds ridiculous but not heretical.

See also: Split brain does NOT lead to split consciousness? What? After all the naturalist pop psych lectures we paid good money for at the U? Well, suckers r’ us.

Does the ability to “split” our brains help us understand consciousness? (Apparently not.)

What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness

Or else: Consciousness as a state of matter

Rocks have minds?

Researcher: Never mind the “hard problem of consciousness”: The real one is… “Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind”

Searle on Consciousness “Emerging” from a Computer: “Miracles are always possible.”

Psychology Today: Latest new theory of consciousness A different one from the above.

Evolution bred a sense of reality out of us

Claim: Science is afraid of animal consciousness. Why? Won’t crackpot theories work as well as they do for human consciousness?

So then: Question: Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away

Follow UD News at Twitter!

"Rocks have minds?" More likely the other way around. Stephen Sparrow
Never let grand delusion loose in your worldview . . .
“Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind”
--> Oops! kairosfocus
Choosing to believing in a real person/spirit is every bit as scientifically viable as choosing to believe in no person/spirit. Everyone has faith/beliefs/unprovable worldview axioms - even Materialists. tjguy
Yeah... like this is going to deter materialists from claiming otherwise.... It's all about what you want to believe... And suppress the truth... The question still remains as to "why" someone would do that and chose to lie to himself? J-Mac

Leave a Reply