Bernardo Kastrup: I certainly believe in consciousness after death. I believe that our core subjectivity, that implicit, innate sense of “I”-ness, remains undifferentiated. That’s the reason you still think you are the same person you were when you were five years old even though everything about you has changed.
Earlier, Frankish explained that Dennett accounts for consciousness as “a temporary level of organisation—a ‘virtual system’—that we create for ourselves through certain learned habits of self-stimulation.” But what are the concepts “we,” “ourselves,” and “self-” even doing in this discussion? If consciousness is an illusion, these concepts are illusions that cannot create anything.
Kastrup, a philosopher and computer scientist, does not accept a Darwinian account of the evolution of consciousness and is is also sympathetic to the basic intuitions behind the idea that there is design in nature (intelligent design theory).
In this Part 3, physicalist arguments are debunked.
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.
MMN: “In particular, Tyler points out that “interrogacy,” the ability to formulate questions, “seems unique to a conscious mind.” Yet, he notes, it has not so far been investigated …”
The mystery of consciousness includes our constant awareness of both of these statuses, I and me.
Expect more crazy. Salad is murder, did you know? That time of year.
But wait, say others, the hard problem of consciousness is not so easily dismissed.
If consciousness is intrinsic to the nature of the universe, to say that consciousness evolved would be like saying that photons evolved: “The photon has the characteristics it does in order to maximize its chances of survival and passing on its genes.” Um, let’s go back to the top of the page, shall we? …
Egnor tells us that Tam Hunt offers some good ideas at Scientific American but his dismissal of objectivity is cause for concern.
Kastrup, as readers will see, hasn’t a whole lot of patience with Coyne. One can only wonder why. 😉
Wow. This will be interesting to watch. Remember when AI pioneer David Gelernter bid Darwin goodbye? So far as we know, nothing bad happened to Gelernter. If nothing awful happens to Kastrup, we might have more reasonable discussions in the future of what consciousness even is.
Because, says computer scientist and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, the materialism they are committed to makes no sense and that’s the best they can do
Can you imagine that years ago? But the fact is, materialists are out of ideas about consciousness and don’t know where to go.