How come ''consciousness doesn't exist'' is so popular among philosophers and scientists today?
I don't even have to get into it too deep to see how ludacris that is:
1. How can you do science if you are not conscious in the first place?
2. If consciousness is an illusion, how can we tell that our scientific measurements are not an illusion as well?
3.If consciousness doesn't exist and it's all an illusion, than how can we experience illusions if we don't have consciousness in the first place?
Although such a stupid statement, this is very popular among people who form the philosophical and scientific world. How is this possible?!?!
1. How can you do science if you are not conscious in the first place?
2. If consciousness is an illusion, how can we tell that our scientific measurements are not an illusion as well?
3.If consciousness doesn't exist and it's all an illusion, than how can we experience illusions if we don't have consciousness in the first place?
Although such a stupid statement, this is very popular among people who form the philosophical and scientific world. How is this possible?!?!
Comments (211)
For example, this is a survey of professional philosophers in 2009 and go to the zombie question. It seems most think a zombie without consciousness is impossible. Only 24% consider it a metaphysical possibility which is a much weaker claim than saying consciousness doesn’t exist. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=All+respondents%26areas0=0%26areas_max=1%26grain=medium
Some people may have trouble with a non-physical notion of consciousness but still admit we are conscious in some sense; it’s just not as ‘special’ as we think it is. I think Dennett takes this position.
Can you give an example?
Easy: brain states. Make of that what you wish.
But Dennet, although not a sofisticated guy, he actually does not deny the 1st person experiences, nor consciousness.
Edit: Here's a better one:
Do you have anything more substantive to say than just declaring your own incredulity? Like any view on the detail of any of the arguments you oppose, for example?
The guidelines specify that you should be
Here's a link to a few points about writing a quality OP.
So I wasn't right about the majority. But I truly believe 1/4 of scientists (minimum) have a real problem: they cannot accept things that somehow get in conflict with their rooted beliefs. People of CHurch have said and done many stupid things, but I have never heard a thing said by religion that matches the stupidity, ridiculousness and absurdity of ''consciousness don't exist''. If 1/4 of the scientific world has this problem, then the scientific world has a real issue.
- I am wondering if it exists
- I have the illusion it exists, and to experience illusions, I need to be conscious
- to believe in reasoning, arguments and scientific proofs, I need to be consciouss
I can continue, but I don't think I need to, I think providing arguments for something so obvious is simply silly.
On the other hand, we have a bunch of people saying: consciousness or 1st person experiences do not exist because we don't see them when we perform experiments. Well, my issues with that are:
- firstly, seeing or hearing or any other observational qualities are consciousness extensions, so if you deny consciousness, you may as well deny the results of your observations;
- only what science can prove it's valid - well, in this case, the burden of proving this claim is on you. Good luck with that!
24% is merely an upper limit given by that survey. Believing in the possibility of p-zombies doesn't necessarily mean disbelieving in consciousness. An example of a philosophical or scientific publication that assumes consciousness doesn't exist would be useful for the discussion.
Irreducible consciousness might be what you've heard of. This is basically saying the soul doesn't exist, and that consciousness (as in the self, as opposed to consciousness that the ball is red) is a non-elementary function of certain systems in certain states. Anyone who ever said consciousness didn't exist was presumably labouring under the impression that their words could be seen or heard, i.e. that consciousness was in fact real.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I am not talking about those who say consciousness is different than most of us believe, I am talking about those who simply deny it. And there are many of them, trust me! Even if 2,4% instead of 24% believe that, it is really problematic.
That's my guess – it's an anxiety about the current feebleness of human inquiry or the social institutions it gets routed through.
That sounds to me more like religion than what science should be. That's scary!
If someone claims that first person events are identical to neural events then...
Quoting Eugen
For them there is no resultant "output state" corresponding to our first person consciousness; it isn't a productive (functional; input-output) relationship at all, the relationship between mind states and brain states is instead posited to be one of identity. Compare wondering how someone could ever possibly go on a walk when all they do is put one foot in front of the other. It isn't so much that first person consciousness doesn't exist at all or in any way, it's that you're criticising eliminativists' beliefs based off a reification of mental content; whether that reification itself is justified is a key component of the issue.
If equivalent = correlation, or how does the subjective reality manifests itself in the objective reality, or vice-versa, that wouldn't be ridiculous. But a correlation is just a correlation, an interface, not the actual thing. First person is fundamentally different from third person, objective is fundamentally different from subjective. So denying the intrinsic aspect of reality just because science does not explain the intrinsic part, it's purely childish.
If all you want to do is throw names around, it's pretty childish to dismiss a well researched body of work when you've not put in even a little effort into understanding their claims.
But it isn't 24%. 24% believe p-zombies are possible. Of those, most will believe that humans have consciousness and zombies don't. Without an example of what you mean, it's difficult to imagine that the problem you're asking about exists. I think it's more likely there's been a misunderstanding. Unless you believe that consciousness as a system function isn't consciousness.
If one says ''If we arrange atoms in this way, we obtain something with consciousness'', I wouldn't disagree. Consciousness may be in fact a result of previous material causes. So that means you can tell everything about it? Does that mean this is all about it? If yes, than 1st person experiences don't exist, because science shows nothing more than a bunch of atoms interacting. Science simply does not tell us more than that and scientists know and accept it in a proportion of minimum 76% according to the poll mentioned above. But there are some scientists who simply do not accept this, so what they do is simply deny the ''extra'' part science cannot reveal.
Semantics. You could say fun or love doesn't exist but is a biologic function of.. yadda yadda to prolong and reward survival and/or biologically enriching experiences.
This is a very poor view of science. I suggest you go read some biology.
In fact, that poll has little to do with my problem here. Even if 2,4% believe this, it's a problem. Even if 1000 scientists believe this, it's problematic.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I don't have a definitive opinion, but I give a lot of credit to the idea that consciousness appear when some atoms are put in certain positions. Some just think exactly like this, minus the consciousness part ))), and they call the result of the collision of the atoms an illusion, something that does not exist, and that really makes no sense to me.
They don't exist, but they are...
Isn't the concept of philosophical zombies one that was introduced by the dualists to argue for non-materialism? One of it's greatest champions is David Chalmers, a staunch dualist, versus Dennett, who considers them impossible. So much as there are people who believe in p-zombies then, they're most likely not gonna believe that we ourselves are zombies.
Indeed that was my ''the most reductionist'' personality ))). I do believe biological things are fundamentally different.
I don't know much about these ''authorities'', but I thought he was a panpsychist, not a dualist. Panpsychists deny dualism. But I don't care that much. As for Dennet, he is, as I've said, a funny ''bag of tricks''.
Ohhh, by the way, I do not care about ideologies so much, I see that some of you guys have real sensitivities regarding them. If materialism = consciousness does not exist and all that exist is an objective reality that we can observe with the help of science, then I believe materialism is really dumb. And the problem is that most of the guys who say that happen to be materialists. Sorry!
If only this discussion was posted as a Question...
The Atheist Guide to Reality https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005LW5JTY/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i2
You mean solipsism?
Berkeley’s idealism.
Quoting Eugen
Simulation hypothesis or brain in a vat thought experiment?
Quoting fdrake
:chin:
I didn't claim that. It was, in fact, an argument against my ''majority'' statement.
1. Mr. Bee claims that in fact those 24% are many-Chalmers.
2. Chalmers not only believes in consciousness, but he thinks it's a fundamental part of the reality.
3. 1+2 = those who believe in zombies, also believe in consciousness - 1st contradiction.
4. These guys are anti-materialists. The problem is those who deny consciousness are materialists.
5. 76% are cool materialists who deny zombies and consciousness. there you have a majority.
When it comes to materialism and all the other non-sensical philosophical ideologies, I still hope psychiatry will do its job.
Perhaps. Mathematical Ficionalism trumps them all.
I am not proposing a dictatorship by banning discussions. I am just worried about people who truly believe in those things and I really think they need help.
This is probably a good explanation of the problem. A guy spends half an hour talking about a naturalistic explanation for consciousness and some douchebag in marketing titles it "The Illusion of Consciousness".
It would be less surprising to me if 24% philosophers were anti-materialists.
I've heard the materialists form the majority, but I've also heard that majority is fragile and decreasing. Hopefully we'll have a new alternative soon.
Yes, the media and the desire of some guys to become popular is also toxic to science.
No. You wondered if it existed. You have no experience of wondering, you are not aware of these processes in real time.
Quoting Eugen
Do you? Isn't that just begging the question?
Quoting Eugen
Question-begging again.
Quoting Eugen
You haven't quoted a single person saying this.
Quoting Eugen
Says who?
Quoting Eugen
Why?
---
Please have a look at the advice on OP writing and consider reading some of the existing work on the philosophy of conciousness before commenting on it. When you do, you may find the discussion more productive if you take a single issue you disagree with and explain why, most of the arguments on either side are quite complex and composed of many linked stages, it's generally better to take them one stage at a time.
I don't think so. It takes a remarkable amount of confidence in social norms to believe that the categories of folk psychology are structurally identical to the driving forces of our inner lives. If we were so descriptively transparent to ourselves, there would be fewer functional pathologies of self relation (we'd know what our problems are intimately, rather than fumbling in the dark) and fewer people finding solace in "ineffability"("I love you more than words can say"... "Words don't do this justice...")
You can wonder only if you have consciousness. Quoting Isaac
no, it's self-evident
Quoting Eugen
To believe scientific information you need to be conscious. Being in a non-conscious state wouldn't help you.
Quoting Isaac - self-evident
Quoting Isaac
I didn't
Quoting Isaac
''Only God exists.'' The scientists will say ''prove!''. the scientist says ''Only science can reveal truth''. Me: prove!
So prove! :)
Quoting Isaac
... there is nothing complex and I find it a waste of time to prove the existence of the probably only evident thing existing. So my belief is that denying consciousness literally is purely silly and no, I don't want to waste my time reading long complicated phrases that advocate stupid things. Some things are stupid and they don't deserve my time. I find it problematic when stupidity becomes part of the scientific world.
So you posted all this because...?
The videos where Dennett is talking about consciousness being an illusion is far removed from the average Joe's interpretation of the term.
And Churchland's eliminativism is again far removed, it seems they see social constructivism as nothing more than folk psychology to be removed and updated by a better more accurate explanation in the future. I don't think they have said outright consciousness is not real.
Quoting Eugen
I wasn't talking about Dennet, I have actually mentioned he admits consciousness is real.
The video you've posted. He says consciousness is ''a bag of tricks'', it is not magic, and it does not reflect the reality with 100% accuracy. I don't deduce from that consciousness isn't real, I just deduce it isn't what we believe it is.
Sounds like an anecdote to me.
that's a good article
Who are the Deniers? I have in mind—at least—those who fully subscribe to something called “philosophical behaviorism” as well as those who fully subscribe to something called “functionalism” in the philosophy of mind.
Yes, but why would we all want to know what you find problematic? We're not your therapists.
Exactly! And it is said they represent the majority nowadays.
https://www.dailycal.org/2019/07/02/former-professor-john-searle-loses-emeritus-status-over-violation-of-sexual-harassment-retaliation-policies/
Quoting Eugen
Maybe they are.
Who have you seen?
I have found, and been told on a number of occasions, that there exists a cultural aversion to engaging with consciousness, in the west. Engaging with consciousness for idealists is not a problem, but for materialists it is a major issue.
My still evolving understanding is:
In the West, for the past 2000 years, consciousness has been the domain of the soul, - In the possession of the clergy - and as such has been off limits to philosophy. I wonder if Descartes would have gone further if he could have? That he could have gone further seems likely, given Buddha managed to some 2000 years before him. I think therefore I am begs the question why / how do you think? But he stops there, just short of consciousness! – and consciousness remains off limits – in some peoples minds – the unknowable – ineffable - deniable!
This is the tradition of Cartesian dualism / materialism. It seems to be rooted in political expediency rather then open minded philosophy - hence difficult to defend - but it is a belief system! And it persists - It is the basis of western sanity.
Okay, but both articles you've linked revolve around philosophical behaviorism and functionalism which he is affiliated it and are both penned by Galen Strawson. Dennett even wrote a direct response to the article you posted on the third page here: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/03/magic-illusions-and-zombies-an-exchange/
By the way 24% represents the number of people who consider that position a possibility not a legitimate possibility or the likely case.
So, not what you evidently think. Read the Stanford article fdrake linked. Its good and informative, as per usual- the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia is an excellent resource. You might not be any more inclined to accept eliminativism, but at the very least you will hopefully become acquainted with what it does (and does not) claim, and on what basis it does so.. which probably would have been advisable before posting a silly strawman thread on the subject, but hey better late than never right?
Just saying it isn’t what who thinks it is? After all, illusions can only ever be artifacts of a conscious intelligence.
But garnering four pages in a day. Isn't that a good OP?
SURE!
My problem with some philosophers and scientists is that they come with a baggage of personal beliefs and sometimes they just reject everything that gets into conflict with their previous beliefs. After all, they are more humans in the classical sense than ''rational beings''.
I didn't expect to be successful with this question because it is neither philosophical nor scientific, so the success of this thread represents exactly the proof of the human nature comes first :)
Thank you too!
I think begging the question means nothing in terms of the obviousness of the fact that we exist and have consciousness. It is the most obvious thing, we are in a direct experience with it and I truly believe that those who argue with that and find all kind of long complicated explanations to make others feel that things are much complicated than they seem to be, are either crazy or they just don't accept things that are in conflict with their previous beliefs.
By the way, your name sounds Romanian.
I puzzle at this, since a few of the things you have said have indicated that you might have a theistic bias, and hence a preference for spirits and souls and such.
1. Please show me exactly those things indicating I am a theist.
2. Even if I were a theist, would that be sufficient to make me being wrong? I see absolutely no relevance, you should bring some arguments for that too.
Methinks you protest too much.
I think you're forgetting some key definitions
Other people's opinions = biases and personal beliefs.
My opinions = rational, self-evident common sense
Ok, I didn't see the ''?''
Finally, a good point )))
Eugen's opinions = biases and personal beliefs.
My opinions = rational, self-evident common sense.
My opinion is biased (which, by the way, doesn't automatically makes it invalid) in the sense of beliving that when you are searching for the truth, you should forget about previous beliefs. I see no difference between a guy denying consciousness and those who claim dinosaurs didn't exist but they were planted by the devil to make people believe Earth is older than 7000 years.
I agree. But you also have to agree you're jealous of my success hahaha
You goata long way to go to reach my record, friend.
Who is this folk?
SO, who is it that claims consciousness does not exist?
Nothing can stop me!!!
No, that's exactly what you were doing in your opinion, which is just a biased personal belief.
In my opinion, which is self-evident common sense you weren't.
This is really easy, I can definitely see the attraction. I'm going to start a thread on how Jumbo Jets must be a conspiracy because c'mon, they're obviously too heavy to fly, and no amount of so-called aeronautical engineers biased and personal beliefs are going to persuade me otherwise.
And my answer was...? I really don't remember mentioning names.
Quoting Eugen
I'm hoping it'll stretch to at least ten pages, the first five of which will be me arguing that the laws of air flow dynamics are wrong before declaring that I've actually re-invented those laws in a completely new way.
In the mid section I'll claim the word 'fly' really means 'to flap wings' because that's what Aristotle meant by it, so anyone using it differently is obviously part of a deceptive conspiracy theory.
Finally I'm going to claim that aeronautical engineers foolishly think weight has no bearing at all on flight, fail to cite any such thing, then pretend I'm above such workaday requirements as actually reading the subject you're criticising.
It'll be pretty standard fare, shame you'll miss it.
That triple negation construct leaves me a bit unsure of what you are saying.
Come one man, I've been asked several times, I have provided with links and I have mentioned I've seen this in various documentaries, articles, etc.
Might it be that you were mistaken in asserting that these folk exist?
I really hope so!
Dennett really does deny that the first-person nature of lived experience is real. What he says it is, is the consequence of billons of unconscious cellular interactions that give rise to the illusion of first-person consciousness, which is ultimately devoid of anything personal, as such. Only molecules are real, and we are the consequence of the collective action of their ‘unconscious competence’.
It is, as Nagel says in that review, preposterous. In fact, if Dennett has done a service to philosophy, it is in ably demonstrating, across the span of an entire career, what a preposterous claim ‘eliminativism’ amounts to.
...
Quoting Wayfarer
Sounds real to me. How have you concluded he denies something is real yet in the same paragraph go on to summarise what he thinks it is. What's the 'it' if he's denying it is real?
What's problematic is saying something like "consciousness is a neural phenomena, and hence it is not real". Why can't it be a neural phenomena and still be real?
So contrary to what seems obvious at first blush, there simply are no qualia at all (Last paragraph).
@Wayfarer @Banno @Isaac
Yeah. In his joint works with Marcel Kinsbourne, Dennett says
The objection, in Nagel's terms is over the "immediately aware of real subjective experiences". Neurologically, we are not 'immediately' aware, we recall (and in doing so, construct) experiences from the past.
Things have just become complicated again, apparently.
Source
The way I would challenge this is to say that this, too, is a judgement. It can't have any intrinsic merit, as the only merit any intellectual act has, is ultimately subordinated, in Dennett's philosophy, to its adaptive fitness. 'Truth' and 'illusion' can't have any first-order meaning for Dennett, because all such judgements are the output of neural mechanisms. So his philosophy is hoist by its own petard, as critics have said about him ever since he started publishing.
Yeah, that's one of the claims. As this thread's failure to cite a single example is amply demonstrating, absolutely no one is denying that there is a phenomena in need of explanation. The arguments within science are entirely over what the properties of that phenomena are. The argument in philosophy seems to be entirely over what constitutes an explanation. Which, as ever with philosophy, seems to be irresolveable.
Scientists will never understand why philosophical questions are not resolvable by scientific means, because it's a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.
Alex Rosenberg. I remember that he held the view that only quarks and leptons exist.
I didn't say "irresolvable by scientific means", I just said "irresolveable".
I've read a little of Rosenburg, could you supply a quote?
Nihilism is the view that there are there are no composite objects (i.e., objects with proper parts); there are only mereological simples (i.e., objects with no proper parts). The nihilist thus denies the existence of statues, ships, humans, and all other macroscopic material objects. SEP
Our belief in a continuing identical self over a lifetime is an illusion. In praise of nihilism.
No identity overtime means no consciousness over time.
@Isaac Take what you want from this. I know it's not the smoking gun you were hoping for.
Rosenberg may not outright deny consciousness, but he might as well.
No indeed. I should add some element of arguing against ridiculous strawmen to my 'all the worst argumentative techniques I've recently encountered' fantasy-thread.
I had no idea what I was getting myself into. It's so hard to find quotes from Alex Rosenberg without buying his book. I scoured much of the internet.
1. Dennet doesn't give a damn about the consciousness, his point was to make us believe that it isn't ''extraordinary'', because anything that is out of the ordinary scares the atheist inside him.
2. Therefore, Dennett refutes the panpsychist view by saying everything that consciousness is made of is just dead matter, so it is just an emergent property of dead unconsciouss matter. Panpsychism is far from being a theistic view, but it does imply something extraordinary about reality, and again, everything extraordinary, even if does not directly imply God, simply scares Dennett.
3. The problem with that is that if this were the case, than it would be even more than extraordinary, I would say magic: to add things with 0 value of something and to get something with a value greater than 0. That's not extraordinary, it's magic.
4. So Dennett doesn't say consciousness doesn't exist, because he knows he'd be ridiculous. Dennet, on one hand, denies the ''extraordinary'' and translates the ''magic'' of the emergence into ''tricks'' in order to look banal. As long as everything remains banal, there is simply no room for God.
This is why Dennet is so ambiguous. His purpose wasn't consciousness but that of denying everything that might imply a God, even if very indirectly.
So yes, this guy is truly is a ''bag of tricks''!
This x 10,000
If this is correct then it will be impossible to find physical form for consciousness. As it will always be something different in the future. No enduring physical state.
I have no idea how anyone can take Alex Rosenberg seriously. It's impossible to strawman someone who is made of straw. If @Isaac want's defend Rosenberg, that's fine. I'm out.
And in case you were wondering: No, this isn't an attempt to be a formal argument. :roll:
If you equate 'real' with 'elementary', your error is understandable. But then translating that more reasonable language, we have:
"
What he says it is, is the consequence of billons of unconscious cellular interactions that give rise to the emergence of first-person consciousness, which is ultimately devoid of anything personal, as such. Only molecules are elementary, and we are the consequence of the collective action of their ‘unconscious competence’.
"
which is less obviously wrong. But in fact that's not what Nagel is saying either. He can take no issue with the idea that the brain unconsciously preprocesses data, so he instead casts aspersions on Dennett's motives and dismisses the logical conclusion ad hominem.
I guess how compelling that is depends on how inclined you'd be toward Nagel's own biases before the fact. I find it quite stupid and dishonest myself.
Emergency clarification: I mean Nagel's review, not anyone here! Phew!
WAS EINSTEIN WRONG?
No.
And yet...
Quoting Wheatley
Funny how it's hard to take seriously a man for whom you've no written record of anything he's said.
Magic
Well then quote something from his talks on YouTube. This is a discussion forum. There's nothing to discuss regarding your opinion that Rosenberg should not be taken seriously on this, or any, matter.
I've learned my lesson now, I have to be extra serious around you, or else...
Fair enough.
Nagel is a dick.
Let me help you: @Wayfarer
We don't use that word here. I'm serious this time.
The gist I got from Dennett is that the subjective experience of consciousness is real, but it's the result of physical processes, not an objective metaphysical entity (e.g. Soul). So, the semantic debate comes down to definitions of "physical" and "metaphysical"; which philosophers and theologians have been gnawing on for millennia. So, I have adopted a personal worldview which reconciles those seemingly incompatible semantic concepts. It's based on the common denominator between Materialism and Spiritualism as worldviews : multi-functional Information. :smile:
1. You are ignorant: I didn't mention Dennett when I posted the question. Moreover, I said he doesn't deny consciousness.
2. Regarding your other accusation, I don't even bother responding to such a silly accusation.
Please ignore this thread!
You used it at as a pejorative- as a smear or insult, to imply something negative/derogatory- and even if you hadn't, it wouldn't really have been any less offensive or over the line. Same for any other racial/sexist/homophobic slur. They're extremely offensive and harmful, you shouldn't use them, full stop.
And people shouldn't need to actively ignore or avoid threads with no philosophical content or that contain extremely offensive bigoted language- those threads ought not exist in the first place, and in the event that they do, they should be deleted and their authors moderated appropriately (warned, restricted, banned, whatever is deemed warranted by the situation).
I am not a native speaker, but I searched the Eglish dictionary and this is what I found: https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03X1xjc7bfjXW-czrnQzzq469LZWA%3A1593501079604&ei=l-X6Xvm0JLGSrgTmgrzoBA&q=fag+meaning&oq=fag+meaning&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECAAQR1DPPFj9QWCeR2gAcAJ4AIABdYgBmAWSAQM1LjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi53LGO_qjqAhUxiYsKHWYBD00Q4dUDCAw&uact=5
The term ''offensive'' or any other synonyme was missing.
On the other hand, for the word ''nI**&r'', I found this: ''a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person.'' Contemptuous is indeed offensive, so if I had used the word ''n%**%r'', that would have been racist indeed. But as long as the English dictionary doesn't mention ''fag'' being offensive in any way, you shouldn't consider it this way and even if you do, you cannot force other people to think that way.
Quoting Banno - too bad, exactly when I was becoming so popular. I guess I'll never be as popular as Dennett :(.
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
You are an ignorant:
1. You accused me of posting a question related to Dennett.
2. You didn't bother to go check the English dictionary.
3. You accused me of admitting the word is offensive, without mentioning the ''if'' part, which changes radically the whole point.
Keep accusing people left and right they are being racist and homophobes and one day you will have a huge majority tired of being accused for no reason. I wish you good luck with a huge mad crowd!
And remember: your opinion regarding a word is completely irrelevant as long as the English dictionarydoesn't agree with you. So go check it!
uses a homophobic slur = "you're accusing people left and right they are being homophobes!"
nice try
We'll see. Your refusal to acknowledge that using homophobic slurs is not acceptable is not going to help your case, that's for certain.
I can't find the full context in which you used the word "fags" (even from our changelog). But your interlocutors are right to point out it's a homophobic slur and its use could get you banned. Back to topic now, please (or the thread will be closed).
I said it indeed and I did a more detailed research on google, and it is indeed a bad word, especially in North America. So I need to accept I made a mistake and I apologize! But I am not a native, I didn't know it's slur, I thought it is simply a synonym for gay, and I didn't have the intention to offend.
OOOO that was a really strong one! But I don't believe Dennett is denying it, I just believe he wants to convince people there's nothing special about it or about anything in this reality. So he simply reduced it to banal elements that come up together and form something... banal. I need to read more about this Nagel guy.
I wonder what intentions lay behind the asking of the question and in the decision to respond to any part of the thread.
I could speculate that Eugen had noticed that a common theme among scientists and philosophers was a claim that "consciousness does not exist" and it was not an idea supported by his view of the World. I don't know. I don't know who the scientists or philosophers are or how they define consciousness.
A view of consciousness I'm currently exploring is akin to my experience of reading this thread on my phone. In my busy mind a thought will pop up, an observation, and it will precipitate a question that invites an answer. And the answer may generate a question or lead to a conclusion.
"Hm, that's another scientist that thinks consciousness doesn't exist"
"But I'm thinking, feeling, experiencing the World. There is some consciousness that I am aware of that is experiencing"
"This seems like nonsense, I wonder if other people have noticed this silliness?"
Tappety-tap on the keyboard.
What answer is being sought?
Simple confirmation that what we concluded was correct or an inquisitive exploration of the possible answers?
What does it mean when someone disagrees or interprets the question differently? Are they an idiot?
Do some answers stimulate some outrage or frustration that we feel as an attack and demand a defensive or aggressive response?
Perhaps in these reactionary scenarios consciousness takes a back seat. There is a sensation of positive or negative emotion in response to a stimulus and a reaction. Some would say that in these circumstances we have no choice about how we respond. We have formed a system of beliefs and values which form the basis of our identity. And it is the identity, who we think we are, and the chattering of our brains that is confused as out consciousness.
The thread is the chatter, the identity, the negative self talk, the outage when our values are violated and the defensiveness when our beliefs are challenged.
The consciousness is the observer watching this play put on the phone, unattached to thoughts and evident emotions. It is in the present and non-judgemental. It notices the thoughts and emotions, good and bad, but does not confuse it with the identity we believe we are.
Anyway, the intention of this was to offer a viewpoint that might be interesting and to encourage a respectful and humble approach to discussions. Maybe think about how what you write might be hurtful to others and if you feel outraged by something, try not to take it personally and seek to educate and bridge a gap.
I listened to your advice and I did some research on this topic. I read about Chruchland's view. I think that unlike Dennett he didn't have any agenda other than disproving dualism and I think he actually did a decent job. The problem with his view is that he wasn't able to fix the problems of materialism and he ended up in the exact trap of contradicting himself.
Curious guy: Mr. Churchland, is the 1st person experience something true?
Mr. C.: Of course it is.
C.g.: So can you explain it?
Mr.C: Of course, everything can be reduced to the moving of the particles in the brain = this is not a correlation, it is the same thing = moving particles is the same with 1st person experience.
Well, this is very hard to grasp, and it basically denies experience.
So he basically contradicts himself.
56% of the best minds in the world think that the best way to decide philosophical questions is by consensus. Furthermore, of this 56%, a 32% think that if consensus can't be achieved, then at least a 2-point margin must be validated by voting to make true what the largest minority thinks.
The source information is lost. However, 64% of all Hindustani-speaking car mechanics and 32% of all left-handed dentists residing on South Hokkaido Island, believe that the industry borrowed the two-point lead idea from Ping-Pong.
If you mean something that fits in a human conception of the world, i agree that consciouness exist.
If you mean something that is a variable of the natural world, no it doesnt.
We could have the theory that humans only attribute consciousness to themselves, and other things that they can have empathy for.
There is two view-point:
- The common-sense, innate viewpoint : Consciouness exist and this is an objective fact.
- A very strict physicalist viewpoint : Consciouness isnt a variable of the natural world(it doesnt exist), humans say that they are conscious an can rarely be reasoned out of it.
Now, if human aren't conscious, they have quite a lot of neurons structured in a quite complex architecture, wich may explain why they are able do intellectual activity such a science or philosophy.
Extremely ludicrous.
My guess is that science and society in general are influenced by materialistic and atheistic systems in many different ways.
As society becomes more and more materialistic, people become increasingly engrossed in material things and trapped in material concerns. This gives rise to an irrational fear of non-material things that science can't explain and people come to feel they must reject, sometimes even violently, anything higher than their physical selves e.g. concepts such as soul, afterlife, God, or anything that doesn't fit a materialist worldview.
As consciousness is something that can't be measured or defined by science it is either dismissed as a product of the nervous system/brain or its existence is simply denied.
But the concept of consciouness is probably useful for things such a empathy or self-control.
But ask yourself why don't innately think that things such a computer, earth or anything that you don't have empathy for are conscious.
Have you wondered if the ground you are walking you on could suffer, are you a monster ?
I bet great scientists like Mao Zedong would have said something similar.
I don't mean that we shouldn't have empathy for menber of our species, the situation we are in shouldn't be changed. But i don't think you should expect to find consciousness somewhere.
That's exactly what I meant. Good to see that we agree.
As I said, I agree. Agreement and consensus and, above all, commonsense are without doubt of the essence.
I wonder how Daniel Dennett would answer the question that appears in the first line of the preceding paragraph.