We're pretty sure Dark Matter is a particle of some sort. Dark Energy may be the energy of space itself. How does materialism even begin to explain how moving electrons across synaptic gaps in certain ways gives rise to conscious experience? The only things I've been seeing lately are vague handwavings about integrating information or lame attempts to define conscious experience out of existence. There's been no actual progress on how non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness since Descartes.
Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? At what point do we begin to question the premise "brains produce consciousness"? Do we reject it if there's no explanation in 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years*?
*by then the question will no doubt be "Does X produce consciousness?" where X is whatever machine we've invented to replace brains. — RogueAI
At what point do we begin to question the premise "brains produce consciousness"? Do we reject it if there's no explanation in 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years*? — RogueAI
This question is red herring because it conflates materialism-as-epistemology (i.e. scientific paradigm) with materialism-as-ontology (i.e. metaphysical category) wherein the so-called "explanatory gap" only arises for the latter (thus, 'panpsychism' is often a proposed metaphysical Woo-of-the-Explanatory Gap) and does not arise for the former (due ro conceptual shifts like 'eliminativism' which dissolve the so-called "Hard Problem"). Disambiguated or not, materialism is (mostly) irrelevant vis-à-vis "conscious experience". RatherHow does materialism even begin to explain how moving electrons across synaptic gaps in certain ways gives rise to conscious experience? — RogueAI
i. What does "conscious experience" do for an entity? (re: functionality) — 180 Proof
ii. What does an entity do with "conscious experience"? (re: utility-adaptivity) — 180 Proof
b. Substitute "conscious INexperience" (e.g. trance, 'autopilot') for "conscious experience" in questions i-iii above. — 180 Proof
I would agree that any attempt to define consciousness out of existence, or to say that it is an illusion, would be lame. However, I don't see the "integrating information" concept as vague handwaving. I don't know about you, but I get the distinct feeling of being informed while being conscious and that thoughts are a type of information that can be processed as the act of thinking.How does materialism even begin to explain how moving electrons across synaptic gaps in certain ways gives rise to conscious experience? The only things I've been seeing lately are vague handwavings about integrating information or lame attempts to define conscious experience out of existence. There's been no actual progress on how non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness since Descartes.
Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? At what point do we begin to question the premise "brains produce consciousness"? — RogueAI
It informs an entity.i. What does "conscious experience" do for an entity? (re: functionality) — 180 Proof
It uses the information to find food and mates, and avoid predators.ii. What does an entity do with "conscious experience"? (re: utility-adaptivity) — 180 Proof
Conscious experience seems to be a requirement when learning something. Once we have learned it, we can perform it as if on "autopilot". Think about learning to walk, ride a bike and driving.b. Substitute "conscious INexperience" (e.g. trance, 'autopilot') for "conscious experience" in questions i-iii above. — 180 Proof
Our brains seem to be in the habit of filling in gaps in information that our senses aren't providing, but were meant to provide but aren't as a result of faulty sensory organs or having those connections between the senses and the conscious part of the mind minimized when asleep. We still wake up when touched or hearing a loud noise, so our senses aren't completely turned off when asleep, for survival reasons.c. Substitute "UNconscious experience" (e.g. blindsight, dreaming) for "conscious experience" in questions i-iii above. — 180 Proof
There's been no actual progress on how non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness since Descartes. — RogueAI
It's a wonder the professional cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, philosophers and psychologists who've been diligently investigating conciousness for the past few decades, don't just hang up their coats right now after such a damning counter-argument. — Isaac
Some of them agree with RogueAI. His view does not stand in opposition of to the views of the overwhelming majority of academics studying consciousness. There is no settled position on this such that opposition to it is by default unreasonable. — bert1
The point was why on earth would anyone consider giving up just because the positions don't seem right to RogueAI? — Isaac
I suspect they will not find the solution they are after. — bert1
We either discard the possibility out of hand or we have to accept that the content of our intuitions may be wrong. — Isaac
Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? — RogueAI
his is obviously incorrect. There are entire fields of study dedicated to this that are pretty mature now. — Kenosha Kid
I mean really, Descartes of all people is where you identify our philosophical accounts of the mind as having plateaued? — Enai De A Lukal
nd again this is even granting the wildly implausible notion that no scientific results since then have any philosophical relevance either. — Enai De A Lukal
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.