ghost
New
So our conscious experience comes from the combined consciousness of our cells?
I think that runs into the combination problem panpsychism faces.
Combination problem?
So our conscious experience comes from the combined consciousness of our cells?
I think that runs into the combination problem panpsychism faces.
Combination problem?
Panpsychism has yet to produce fruitful research programs as emergentist and reductionist approaches have. In short, panpsychism may be a solution in search of a problem as it commits a category mistake similar to dualism by presuming consciousness is to be found as part of or a property of matter itself rather than as an abstract notion referring to certain patterns of interaction among matter. Thus, panpsychism tends to live mostly in pure philosophy and woo-related fields.
Empirical arguments for materialism are highly circumstantial —based, as they are, upon inductions from our knowledge of the physical and upon the fact that mental phenomena have physical correlates, causes and effects. However, the qualitative characteristics of first-person conscious experience are empirically distinct from uncontroversially physical phenomena in being—at least on our present knowledge—thoroughly resistant to the kind of abstract, formal description to which the latter are always, to some degree, readily amenable. The prima facie inference that phenomenal qualities are, most probably, non-physical may be resisted either by denying their existence altogether or by proposing that they are properties of some peculiar sort of mysterious physical complexity, located, for example, within the functioning of the brain. It is argued here, however, that the first, eliminative hypothesis is empirically absurd—while the second is extravagant, vague, ad hoc and (for various additional reasons) profoundly implausible.
Taken together, these considerations provide a compelling empirical case against materialism—yet its converse, mentalism, is usually regarded as subject to serious difficulties of its own. I conclude by suggesting empirical and theoretical desiderata, respectively, for the vindication of materialism and alternatively, for the development and defense of a potentially robust and viable mentalist theory of consciousness.
Yes! Been on my radar for a couple of years. Pls invite him.
The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest for Purpose by John F. Haught
'[Materialists] apparently reject any dualism that would give to mind a separate ontological status. However, although they are monists metaphysically speaking, in that they reduce reality to only one kind of stuff, they remain dualists in their epistemology, that is, in their view of knowledge. They demand that we be objective in our understanding of nature, and this objectivity requires that we keep our subjectivity detached from the object, nature. The scientist’s own mind must remain at a distance from the object being investigated in order that an "objective" perspective become possible. This divorce of the scientific subject’s mind from the object being examined amounts to an epistemological dualism.
I dont think either has much of an edge yet in terms of explanations. Simply declaring consciousness to be fundamental doesn't explain what consciousness is any more than simply declaring it to emerge out of matter.
I agree with materialists that brain=mind, but I differentiate between brain/mind and experience. Many people seem to confuse the hard and easy problems of consciousness. Easy things are like neural correlates and mechanisms behind mental activity; the hard part is explaining why there is experience in the first place. Materialists are stuck with explaining how there is experience, but idealists do not have that problem. For an idealist, the brain/mind exists in consciousness, not the other way around. But for most materialists this notion is impossible to wrap their heads around (pun intended). And granted, it can be pretty hard to explain!
Good point about it being "too soon" for idealism. In fact, there has been a ton of backtracking since idealism and panpsychism were the dominant views near the onset of the Enlightenment.
I disagree that dualism is useful; it's still a hidden and therefore problematic assumption for many self-stated monists who somehow still think in terms of "the interaction between the mental and the physical". This is mostly a linguistic problem which causes us to confuse the map for the territory; in reality, mind and brain are two sides of the same monistic coin. A useful way to reconcile this dilemma is with double-aspect theory, which may view mind and matter as, for instance, qualitatively "inside" versus quantitatively "outside". From this perspective, it is possible to be either a dual-aspect materialist or a dual-aspect idealist.
Max Planck, who was neither an atheist nor a materialist, said... "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
That's one of my favorite quotes, but I got to thinking about it lately and wonder if it is as true today as it was in Planck's time. Of course, Planck was speaking in general terms, but still. We live in an age where progress is more rapid and information dissemination throughout the world is at levels unimaginable just a few decades ago. I can't help but think all this could help wake up the human spirit faster and give more hope that we don't really have to wait for a whole generation to die off, because the truth is getting harder to hide from ;-)
That's one of my favorite quotes, but I got to thinking about it lately and wonder if it is as true today as it was in Planck's time. Of course, Planck was speaking in general terms, but still. We live in an age where progress is more rapid and information dissemination throughout the world is at levels unimaginable just a few decades ago. I can't help but think all this could help wake up the human spirit faster and give more hope that we don't really have to wait for a whole generation to die off, because the truth is getting harder to hide from ;-)
Hi Ethan. I think we must distinguish between the expansion of knowledge in an opened field; and the opening of a new field. It was the opening of a new field that Planck was referring to - I think. A lot of the progress being made today is within already opened fields within the standard paradigm; so it doesnt come under P's comment.
But maybe you are right, and maybe the information age will increase the speed at which new fields and new paradigms can be opened. I hope so. We definitely need it very badly.
It was the opening of a new field that Planck was referring to - I think. A lot of the progress being made today is within already opened fields within the standard paradigm; so it doesnt come under P's comment.
Forgot to mention, there is a bit of historical precedent we can put some stock into when it comes to our hope for change. The Guttenberg press was a major step up in information dissemination back in the day, which is now widely credited for many of the advances/changes that "rapidly" followed afterwards. Some say the full effect took about 100 years, though. When it comes to information dissemination, the Internet is the Guttenberg press on a massive dose of steroids and we're really only 10-20 years into it.
At the moment I see our greatest challenges in the political, economic and environmental spheres...and reductive materialism has a deeply negative effect in those areas. Combined with the sociopathic efficiency of the corporate structure that is taking over at every level of social organisation we are in deep trouble. We have developed a global system that may not be able to avert disaster. Things may have to get worse before they can get better.
I totally agree! We get too focused on just science around here, like it's the source of the problem. But, it really is a problem inherent to all levels in our culture at this point, at least in the West.
...If you really must be neuroscientific about it and talk about “neuroplasticity” (the research showing that there are changes in the brain when one acquires a skill), then you should be reminded that neuroplasticity is often self-driven, and that the self that does the driving cannot be understood without invoking the collective and individual transcendence that is the intentional world greatly expanded through language and culture. And we could extend the application of the term “plasticity” far beyond neuroplasticity: there is also bodily plasticity, plasticity of consciousness (including increased confidence in my abilities, which can be self-fulfilling), plasticity of the self, and plasticity of the world of selves (as when I decide to cooperate with others to ensure that one of us makes that so-important catch). It is a mistake to try to stuff all of that back into the brain and see it solely in terms of changes in synaptic connections at the microscopic level, or alterations in cortical maps at the comparatively macroscopic level. Stuffing it back in the brain, of course, is the first step to handing it all over to the no-person material world, and then tiptoeing back to determinism...