Thoughts on the Hard Problem - Printable Version +- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com) +-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html) +--- Forum: Logic, Metaphysics & Philosophy (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-80.html) +--- Thread: Thoughts on the Hard Problem (/thread-8753.html) |
Thoughts on the Hard Problem - C C - Jul 3, 2020 BACKGROUND: the hard problem of consciousness. Thoughts on the Hard Problem https://evolvingthoughts.net/2020/06/30/thoughts-on-the-hard-problem EXCERPT: . . . These presuppositions are automatically assumed to be real; after all, we all have experiences of the world, of being ourselves and not someone else. We all have a phenomenologically unique state of awareness of ourselves. Nobody could deny their reality, right? Hold my beer… I want to suggest three things:
- - - Alter Ego / Devil's Advocate: Looks basically like more denial of sensations and thoughts having manifestations. Would have expected more from John S. Wilkins than jumping on a fashionable, lunatic bandwagon. This is what Eric Schwitzgebel calls the "inflate & explode" tactic of eliminativists, illusionists, phenomenal nihilists, etc. Where the self-evident experiences or manifestations of vision, hearing, touch, smell, etc are erroneously conflated with a particular scholar's conception or description of consciousness. If the latter has vulnerabilities, then so does your consciousness (or the latter goes down the drain along with the former). As a figurative example, in the 19th century William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) proposed that the sun’s heat was produced by the impact of meteors continually falling onto its surface. Now imagine that because his conception of the sun was incorrect, judged faulty, etc -- that the sun itself was dismissed afterward as imaginary. Which is to say, science would never move on to nuclear fusion as an explanation, due to the sun being pronounced as no more valid than Lord Kelvin's way of describing the solar situation. In Wilkins' case here (which is pretty typical) he flits about conflating consciousness with various "definitions" or word constructs of the past/present, which he either criticizes or feeds from, and then suggests that the focus of the hard problem (experience) is itself just an illusionary figment of language or whatever nonsense. (When you stub your toe, does the pain feel like a religious belief? When you watch a sunset, is that really nothingness masquerading as something?) Since verification of any object or circumstance depends upon vision, hearing, sight, touch, etc having exhibited content (even symbols and language of reasoning/arguments depend upon being manifested!) -- then declaring that the content actually isn't there as an internal state of brain processes, etc (nothing more than invisible matter as usual) sets up the consequence of all knowledge being potentially fictional or unconfirmed. As if the offshoots of postmodernism needed more craziness to grab and run off with to undermine WEIRD civilization. RE: Thoughts on the Hard Problem - Syne - Jul 4, 2020 Those who insist we have scientific explanations will always choose to explain away what they can't really explain. RE: Thoughts on the Hard Problem - Zinjanthropos - Jul 4, 2020 Why think about things we don’t understand, Brain exercise? There’s no reason for me to think about things I know very little about, but I do. I’m not going to contribute to the overall knowledge of things yet something compels me to try to figure things out. Am I in the minority or does everyone do this? Perhaps it’s just out of fascination or curiosity, idk. Seems like it should be a waste of time for me to postulate or hypothesize, nothing’s ever going to come from it. I feel like I’m somewhere between a daydreamer and bonafide scientist/experimenter, not sure of what level of knowledge I’m truly at. I figure there must be those who actually don’t care one iota about scientific discovery or even think about how things work, I just can’t imagine why. So I’m perfectly willing to listen. What’s the difference between someone like myself who doesn’t actually experiment scientifically and the scientist who devotes their life to scientific knowledge yet ultimately found out to be wrong later? Does a false hypothesis contribute to our overall understanding of the world? Hell, I can do that. RE: Thoughts on the Hard Problem - Magical Realist - Jul 5, 2020 I couldn't get past his equating qualia with simple visual perspectives. As if the world somehow magically constitutes itself as seen at every point of lighted space without the necessity of a brain or eyes at all. Yep..space comprised of endless points of view of it's surroundings without the need for a viewer. Qualia such as shape and color and pattern just falling out naturally from the nature of space and light itself, absent any reference at all to an experiencing mind. Sounds like panpsychism to me. Maybe I'll continue with his article as days go by and respond to parts separately. Right now my main concern is will I be able to sleep tonight with the qualia of fireworks explosions assaulting my brain from all sides. RE: Thoughts on the Hard Problem - C C - Jul 11, 2020 (Jul 5, 2020 07:10 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [...] Sounds like panpsychism to me. [...] I've infrequently contended that everyone is at least a subliminal panpsychist (lacking verbal awareness or acknowledgement of the fact). The latter could not apprehend exactly what the hard problem is since they've never truly removed appearances and classifications from their "objective world", despite declaring that their doctrine has eliminated psychological furniture from it. |