4 ms·
If we can't explain consciousness in terms of physics yet, then clearly it's not like circulation, since we can explain that in terms of physics now.
by goatlover 5y ago
If we can't explain consciousness in terms of physics yet, then clearly it's not like circulation, since we can explain that in terms of physics now.
- michaelmrose 5y agoThat doesn't even slightly follow. For any given discipline we require frameworks for understanding and specific understandings. Not having obtained a specific understanding doesn't indicate it doesn't fit in within the same framework else one would be forced to conclude that because we didn't understand how to treat certain conditions (that we know can) they are somehow outside of medicine!
- goatlover 5y agoChalmers and several other philosophers have made the argument for why consciousness doesn't fit in a physical, functional or objective framework. That's because sensations aren't abstract/descriptive facts or functions. You don't get red, taste, pain from number, extension or chemical makeup. Consciousness is something additional correlated with the biological substrate.
- michaelmrose 5y agoThis argument is philosophical nonsense from people fully disconnected from real science. This isn't to say his mind didn't work. It's entirely possible to produce extremely sophisticated mental constructs fully divorced from any connection to reality. Imagine if nobody had figured out any parallel between programming and math and claimed you couldn't get in any way from the latter to the former! Dualism is complete and total nonsense. Red is just a label used within a certain pattern of neurons the same way main is a label in a program. If you don't introduce nonsense you don't then find yourself with the hard problem of explaining the result of your own mental gymnastics.