4 ms·
The non-materialist argument is similar to creationist critiques of evolution. Scientists who study these things see a material explanation, but because these a
by Chathamization 7y ago
The non-materialist argument is similar to creationist critiques of evolution. Scientists who study these things see a material explanation, but because these are enormously complex emergent properties they don't know the exact details. Critics then use a god of the gaps argument, saying that if a material explanation can't explain everything right now then a supernatural explanation (which which explains far less and runs counter to available evidence) should be favored. Behind both arguments lie an unease that the scientific approach knocks humans off their pedestal and makes them seem like everything else.
It's not surprising that the only neuroscientist in the article is arguing for a materialist approach.
- corporate_shi11 7y agoI think you miss the point of the hard problem of consciousness. No one is capable of offering any physical sort of coherent explanation for the experience of consciousness. There is no process in the brain that, if discovered, would lead to an "aha!" moment about the source of qualia. We could understand the physical law governing every single atom in the brain and simulate it with the best achievable accuracy and still not understand anything more about the emergence of qualia than we do now. Similarly, there is no coherent metaphysical or mystical explanation for consciousness. Such an explanation would have to invoke some interaction between a non physical world and the physical world, which is an absurd notion for multiple reasons. I believe consciousness for humans is the equivalent of differential equations for amoeba. It is beyond our comprehension.