4 ms·

This argument is not "eliding" the hard problem. This argument is saying that Chalmers' hard problem does not actually exist. We have many explanations for wha

This argument is not "eliding" the hard problem. This argument is saying that Chalmers' hard problem does not actually exist. We have many explanations for what people describe as "the hard problem". But nobody who believes in "the hard problem" accepts these explanations, which have been given for decades by philosophers like Dennett. There is no way to reconcile your view, that there IS a hard problem and that no progress has been made toward solving it, with our view, that there is no such problem, and that it does not need solving.

brotchie 4y ago
I’m convinced at this point having read almost every book on the topic, hundreds of threads across the web, and many an in-person debate, that individuals actually have wildly different experiences of consciousness. For me, the hard problem is such an obvious and almost intractable thing that any folks who dismiss it clearly don’t understand it (or live an inner experience that lets them understand it). And because I’ve never really seen anyone flip on their view of the hard problem, I’m 99% convinced it’s because they actually have a different lived conscious experience. Perhaps they process information different, or have more or less access to their internal state. It’s possible that folks who dismiss the hard problem actually have more conscious access to their internal state and hence don’t understand why it’s an issue. An analogy is aphantasia (folks who don’t have an internal visual experience). Somebody with an aphantasic brain simply doesn’t experience consciously like others. I feel that understanding that the hard problem exists is something rooted in a different internal experience.
- CloudRecondite 4y ago
  It’s also extremely obvious to me we have a fundamental gap in our understanding of the universe and reality that needs to be filled to explain the hard problem. I suspect most people have fairly similar conscious experiences though, that seems like a reasonable assumption. Humans hate to not understand something, we’ve come up with crazy religions and who knows what else to explain the world around us. The reality is there’s just so much we don’t know, so much we can’t know. I think that makes most people uncomfortable.
namero999 4y ago
Dennett's argument is that consciousness is an illusion. Where would such illusion take place? I'm genuinely convinced that Dennett is a troll.
- meroes 4y ago
  I only don't think he's a troll because the non-illusion options seem just as wild to me. I think it's fair to say we've made almost zero progress on how sensations/experience physically work, and there's not much more room to look. For one critique of the progress toward a computational theory of mind, Tim Maudlin (philosopher of physics) says we are no closer today than thinking water and trough computation could get us to explaining how toothaches feel. As for how illusions occur and from what things, it does hardly seem possible. But the alternatives are hardly better.
  - namero999 4y ago
    Total agreement on the fact that we are as clueless as it gets to explain emergence of experience. That's why I think that the only reasonable avenue forward is to try and take experience as a fundamental building block. We are going through our age's copernican revolution. The illusionism argument is ridiculous because an illusion is still experienced (the very fact we are talking about it is proof), so at best it is circular reasoning. Probably it's woo-enough to be taken seriously by some :)

brotchie 4y ago

I’m convinced at this point having read almost every book on the topic, hundreds of threads across the web, and many an in-person debate, that individuals actually have wildly different experiences of consciousness. For me, the hard problem is such an obvious and almost intractable thing that any folks who dismiss it clearly don’t understand it (or live an inner experience that lets them understand it). And because I’ve never really seen anyone flip on their view of the hard problem, I’m 99% convinced it’s because they actually have a different lived conscious experience. Perhaps they process information different, or have more or less access to their internal state. It’s possible that folks who dismiss the hard problem actually have more conscious access to their internal state and hence don’t understand why it’s an issue. An analogy is aphantasia (folks who don’t have an internal visual experience). Somebody with an aphantasic brain simply doesn’t experience consciously like others. I feel that understanding that the hard problem exists is something rooted in a different internal experience.

CloudRecondite 4y ago
It’s also extremely obvious to me we have a fundamental gap in our understanding of the universe and reality that needs to be filled to explain the hard problem. I suspect most people have fairly similar conscious experiences though, that seems like a reasonable assumption. Humans hate to not understand something, we’ve come up with crazy religions and who knows what else to explain the world around us. The reality is there’s just so much we don’t know, so much we can’t know. I think that makes most people uncomfortable.

namero999 4y ago

Dennett's argument is that consciousness is an illusion. Where would such illusion take place? I'm genuinely convinced that Dennett is a troll.

meroes 4y ago
I only don't think he's a troll because the non-illusion options seem just as wild to me. I think it's fair to say we've made almost zero progress on how sensations/experience physically work, and there's not much more room to look. For one critique of the progress toward a computational theory of mind, Tim Maudlin (philosopher of physics) says we are no closer today than thinking water and trough computation could get us to explaining how toothaches feel. As for how illusions occur and from what things, it does hardly seem possible. But the alternatives are hardly better.
- namero999 4y ago
  Total agreement on the fact that we are as clueless as it gets to explain emergence of experience. That's why I think that the only reasonable avenue forward is to try and take experience as a fundamental building block. We are going through our age's copernican revolution. The illusionism argument is ridiculous because an illusion is still experienced (the very fact we are talking about it is proof), so at best it is circular reasoning. Probably it's woo-enough to be taken seriously by some :)