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.
Michael Egnor: If consciousness is merely a property of the brain, it has no agency—no power to cause anything—in itself. Properties can’t do anything. For example, if you hit a nail with a yellow hammer, you hit it with the hammer, not with the yellow.
In Scientific American: We are told that many physicists have “gotten interested in consciousness. Hard to see how the Hard problem of Consciousness will help.
He says all such theories either deny the very thing they are trying to explain, result in absurd scenarios, or end up requiring an immaterial intervention.
He worries that their concern is “clouding their objectivity.” But isn’t objectivity the next two-minute hate?
You didn’t think plants were conscious, did you? Did you really think salad is murder? Yet telling us that plants are not conscious is the gist of a recently published major paper in Trends in Plant Science. (open access) Part of the background to the “plants think like people” movement in science, which they oppose, Read More…
The thing is, scientists do philosophy whether they admit it and try to be coherent or don’t admit it, with distressing results.