New vid on the Hard Problem of Consciousness

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 2, 2020

Mind}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Inspiring Philosophy:

There is no greater problem for materialists and physicalists that trying to explain how the brain could create consciousness. This video argues the hard problem implies the mind cannot reduce to matter.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

Comments

Folks, the baseline issue is, the undeniable point that absent true freedom of choice, we cannot freely follow a line of argument or make a judgement. Instead, any computational substrate is in the end a programmed, dynamic-stochastic system (typically involving feedback loops and memory). That is, such a substrate is inherently non-rational, a programmed calculator governed by GIGO. Either we are rational, responsible, significantly free morally governed creatures, or in the end the perception of rationality and responsibility is a grand delusion. But, on that, if we are rational enough to genuinely argue against freedom, the argument is self-referentially incoherent. If we are not free enough to so argue, it's just your GIGO vs mine and all of this is grand delusion. We are reduced to accepting morally governed rationality as the antecedent to rationality, just to argue about it. And that's whether or no we can come up with a model like the Eng Smith two-tier controller cybernetic loop model, on which brain-CNS neural networks are in the loop computational substrate controllers and such are supervised, with others suggesting quantum level influences and interfaces. And BTW, as animals have neural network based brains as built-in computational substrates, that would readily explain Sev's correlation while showing failure of the correlation to identify cause. Sev has a hidden, a priori evolutionary materialist premise that begs the question and is actually self referentially incoherent given the dynamic-stochastic system issue. Of course, a common onward move as we have seen for many years at UD is the compatibilist redefinition of rationality, responsibility and freedom. That also fails for much the same reason. At least, the Smith model allows us to discuss the matter on a plausible basis. That's why I have pointed to it ever so many times over the years. KF PS: Obviously, I am not strictly anonymous (and that is not just because various trolls over the years have done online and even on the ground stalking). What I found, was that the use of my name led to spamming surges. As one consequence, I had to resort to crazy length passwords to stop regular breaking into email.kairosfocus_{August 3, 2020
August
08
Aug
3
03
2020
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Doubtless we would get far less idiotic drivel of this sort if we made people stand up and put their names beside their words. Mentioning this brought up a question in my mind: have you Barry personally had to deal with any blowback from your public support for intelligent design? Aside from here of course or other online forums which tend to be pretty nasty. I know that Kairosfocus has stated that he uses a pseudonym because he has received abusive messages and even threats. I think we can all agree that any kind of overly abusive or threatening behaviour is wrong and that, probably, keeping those who wish to be so anonymous is a fairly good line of protection.JVL_{August 3, 2020
August
08
Aug
3
03
2020
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

Apparently, it works like this. Matter by itself is not conscious (unless you're a cosmic humanist). BUT, if you get a really big machine with electrical stuff in it . . . lots of electrical wires and components and stuff, then something happens. It lights up and becomes conscious! You just have to make it big enough or complicated enough and then it will light up. A brain is like that too. It's a big hunk of meat with electricity running through it and there are YouTube videos that show lights moving around it it so at some point it becomes conscious and lights up because it's complicated. That's what I my science teacher told me and we all believe in science. :P -QQuerius_{August 2, 2020
August
08
Aug
2
02
2020
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Wow! Sev solves the hard problem of consciousness with seven words!!! All along the answer had something to do with brains. Who knew? Idiot. It is no wonder that you post behind a pseudonym. Doubtless we would get far less idiotic drivel of this sort if we made people stand up and put their names beside their words.Barry Arrington_{August 2, 2020
August
08
Aug
2
02
2020
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

And seversky would know about not having a brain. Who, in their right mind, would believe that blind and mindless processes produced minds from the mindless? Seriously, how desperate do you have to be to believe such nonsense?ET_{August 2, 2020
August
08
Aug
2
02
2020
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

^^^^ None so blind as those who refuse to see.bornagain77_{August 2, 2020
August
08
Aug
2
02
2020
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

No brain, no consciousness. It's a no-brainer.Seversky_{August 2, 2020
August
08
Aug
2
02
2020
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply