But strong feelings only slightly more politely expressed are commonplace. Not everybody agrees there is a Hard Problem to begin with — making the whole debate kickstarted by Chalmers an exercise in pointlessness.
- Account Options?
- On Explaining Existence - Nicholas Rescher - Google книги?
- 1. Regress and Theoretical Vices.
- Fundamentals of Modern Police Impact Weapons.
- Nuclear Proliferation and International Security (Routledge Global Security Studies).
- 1. Regress and Theoretical Vices;
This is the point at which the debate tends to collapse into incredulous laughter and head-shaking: neither camp can quite believe what the other is saying. Chalmers has speculated, largely in jest, that Dennett himself might be a zombie. But everybody now accepts that goldness and silveriness are really just differences in atoms.
However hard it feels to accept, we should concede that consciousness is just the physical brain, doing what brains do.
Under Pressure, Does Evolution Evolve?
Light is electromagnetic radiation; life is just the label we give to certain kinds of objects that can grow and reproduce. Eventually, neuroscience will show that consciousness is just brain states. After all, our brains evolved to help us solve down-to-earth problems of survival and reproduction; there is no particular reason to assume they should be capable of cracking every big philosophical puzzle we happen to throw at them. O r maybe it is: in the last few years, several scientists and philosophers, Chalmers and Koch among them, have begun to look seriously again at a viewpoint so bizarre that it has been neglected for more than a century, except among followers of eastern spiritual traditions, or in the kookier corners of the new age.
Does God Exist?
Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds, too — well, where does it stop? Growing up as the child of German-born Catholics, Koch had a dachshund named Purzel. The problem is that there seems to be no logical reason to draw the line at dogs, or sparrows or mice or insects, or, for that matter, trees or rocks.
Which is how Koch and Chalmers have both found themselves arguing, in the pages of the New York Review of Books, that an ordinary household thermostat or a photodiode, of the kind you might find in your smoke detector, might in principle be conscious. The argument unfolds as follows: physicists have no problem accepting that certain fundamental aspects of reality — such as space, mass, or electrical charge — just do exist.
Explanations have to stop somewhere. The panpsychist hunch is that consciousness could be like that, too — and that if it is, there is no particular reason to assume that it only occurs in certain kinds of matter. It is the argument that anything at all could be conscious, providing that the information it contains is sufficiently interconnected and organised. But in principle the same might apply to the internet, or a smartphone, or a thermostat.
The ethical implications are unsettling: might we owe the same care to conscious machines that we bestow on animals? Koch, for his part, tries to avoid stepping on insects as he walks. Sure enough, when people fall into a deep sleep, or receive an injection of anaesthetic, as they slip into unconsciousness, the device demonstrates that their brain integration declines, too. Gather enough of this kind of evidence, Koch argues and in theory you could take any device, measure the complexity of the information contained in it, then deduce whether or not it was conscious.
But even if one were willing to accept the perplexing claim that a smartphone could be conscious, could you ever know that it was true? Surely only the smartphone itself could ever know that? Koch shrugged. Personally, I have no experience of black holes. But the theory [that predicts black holes] seems always to be true, so I tend to accept it.
It would be satisfying for multiple reasons if a theory like this were eventually to vanquish the Hard Problem. The universe is throbbing with it. Last June, several of the most prominent combatants in the consciousness debates — including Chalmers, Churchland and Dennett — boarded a tall-masted yacht for a trip among the ice floes of Greenland. This conference-at-sea was funded by a Russian internet entrepreneur, Dmitry Volkov, the founder of the Moscow Centre for Consciousness Studies.
About 30 academics and graduate students, plus crew, spent a week gliding through dark waters, past looming snow-topped mountains and glaciers, in a bracing chill conducive to focused thought, giving the problem of consciousness another shot. In the mornings, they visited islands to go hiking, or examine the ruins of ancient stone huts; in the afternoons, they held conference sessions on the boat.
For Chalmers, the setting only sharpened the urgency of the mystery: how could you feel the Arctic wind on your face, take in the visual sweep of vivid greys and whites and greens, and still claim conscious experience was unreal, or that it was simply the result of ordinary physical stuff, behaving ordinarily? The question was rhetorical.
Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness? – podcast
Dennett and Churchland were not converted; indeed, Chalmers has no particular confidence that a consensus will emerge in the next century. It would be poetic — albeit deeply frustrating — were it ultimately to prove that the one thing the human mind is incapable of comprehending is itself.
- The Princes Body: Vincenzo Gonzaga and Renaissance Medicine.
- Are Ghosts Real? — Evidence Has Not Materialized!
- Note on explaining existence | Just Thomism.
- The science and logic of ghosts.
- The Ontological Argument?
An answer must be out there somewhere. And finding it matters: indeed, one could argue that nothing else could ever matter more — since anything at all that matters, in life, only does so as a consequence of its impact on conscious brains. Follow the Long Read on Twitter: gdnlongread.
Infinite Regress Arguments
The long read. Philosophers and scientists have been at war for decades over the question of what makes human beings more than complex robots by Oliver Burkeman. Facebook Twitter Pinterest. Topics The long read. Philosophy Psychology Neuroscience Human biology features.
Reuse this content. Order by newest oldest recommendations. Show 25 25 50 All. It is thus opposed to most forms of idealism , such as those that stress Consciousness , Spirit, Reason, Idea, or Oversoul.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Second, it is opposed to any doctrine that sees in human beings some given and complete reality that must be resolved into its elements in order to be known or contemplated. It is thus opposed to any form of objectivism or scientism , since those approaches stress the crass reality of external fact. Third, existentialism is opposed to any form of necessitarianism; for existence is constituted by possibilities from among which the individual may choose and through which he can project himself.
And, finally, with respect to the fourth point, existentialism is opposed to any solipsism holding that I alone exist or any epistemological idealism holding that the objects of knowledge are mental , because existence, which is the relationship with other beings, always extends beyond itself, toward the being of those entities; it is, so to speak, transcendence. Starting from such bases, existentialism can take diverse and contrasting directions. It can insist on the transcendence of Being with respect to existence, and, by holding that transcendence to be the origin or foundation of existence, it can thus assume a theistic form.
On the other hand, it can hold that human existence, posing itself as a problem, projects itself with absolute freedom, creating itself by itself, thus assuming to itself the function of God. As such, existentialism presents itself as a radical atheism. Or it may insist on the finitude of human existence—i. As such, existentialism presents itself as a humanism.
From on, with the diffusion of existentialism through continental Europe, its directions developed in keeping with the diversity of the interests to which they were subject: the religious interest, the metaphysical or nature of Being interest, and the moral and political interest. That diversity was rooted, at least in part, in the diversity of sources on which existentialism draws. One such source is the subjectivism of the 4th—5th-century theologian St. Augustine , who exhorted others not to go outside themselves in the quest for truth , for it is within them that truth abides.
Still another source is the nihilism of the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky , who, in his novels, presented human beings as continually defeated as a result of their choices and as continually placed before the insoluble enigma of themselves. As a consequence of the diversity of such sources, existentialist doctrines focus on several aspects of existence.
They focus, first, on the problematic character of the human situation, through which the individual is continually confronted with diverse possibilities or alternatives , among which he may choose and on the basis of which he can project his life.
- Note on explaining existence.
- Essays on art, race, politics, and world affairs.
- The Diary Of A Hapless Father: months 0-3 (The Diary Of A ... Father, Book 2)!
- Computer Programming. A Mixed Language Approach.
Third, the doctrines focus on the intersubjectivity that is inherent in existence and is understood either as a personal relationship between two individuals, I and thou , such that the thou may be another person or God, or as an impersonal relationship between the anonymous mass and the individual self deprived of any authentic communication with others.