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.
It’s time to revive dualism: “And lastly, Pigliucci insists, without offering evidence, that dualism is “antiscientific.” Dualism is a logical conclusion from our circumstances; we are beings of both mind and matter. And those who would refute dualism tend to involve themselves in stranger claims, as we have seen.”
Well, if the mind is an illusion and the computer simulations were wildly wrong, how would Hoffman even know? But does it matter, as long as he keeps the Darwinian faith? No wonder the scoffing grows—and increasingly, the thought police are always somewhere else.
We actually don’t know what consciousness is, so it feels odd to speak of “engineering” it.
Egnor: How tight a link might we expect between reproductive success and the contemplation of truth? Not a lot, it would seem, if the experience of philosophy majors on the dating scene is any measure.