Donald Hoffman on why the neuroscientific/empirical approach will never solve the problem of consciousness
Don Salmon
Here's another way of explaining what Anil's approach could not possibly give us any significant insight into consciousness.
This is from Donald Hoffman's work: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Imagine the world as we normally experience it is like a computer interface. And imagine you have absolutely no sensory means of knowing anything but the interface. There were, for several thousand years, people who knew there was hardware and all kinds of other things involved in the interface, but somewhere around 300 years ago, a new method of knowledge arose, which involved first, ignoring the parts of the world that existed outside the interface, and then in the 19th century, believing that ONLY the interface existed, and referring to people who thought otherwise as hopelessly naive believers in woo or new age nonsense.
The mechanists (as the modern scientists were first called) devoted themselves to measuring and analyzing the movements of the interface. They eventually developed the ability to manipulate and control the interface in ways far superior to people in the past (well, there were people in the past who could manipulate it infinitely better, but nowadays the mechanists believe that is all revisionist hogwash).
So now, in the 21st century, the typical answers you get if you question the "everything is just the interface" theory of the materialists, naturalists and physicalists, they'll say, "So, you want to get rid of your computer, your cell phone, cars, airplanes and go back to when everyone was ignorant and in poverty and couldn't do squat with the interface?"
And you sigh and realize that if someone is committed to the faith in the interface as the sole reality, anything you say - for example, if you say the consciousness associated with the interface is only an infinitesimal distorted reflection of the consciousness underlying the interface, they'll just scowl at your with contempt and give you all kinds of explanations that involve the interface, and maybe talk about motivations you have based on various aspects of the interface that make you want to believe in "something more."
So does that make it clearer why studying the brain or any other sensory phenomenon - which is the equivalent of the computer interface in the above fable - couldn't possibly give you more than a hint of what lies beyond the interface? And if you realize that you're the one working the computer interface, you realize you were never really lost in the interface to begin with, but you've been so thoroughly hypnotized, you've come to believe you ARE the interface.
I don't agree with all of Hoffman's ideas, but i think this metaphor is a pretty good one.
RHC
Peter Jones
In the Matrix the natural sciences and philosophy are exactly the same as they are in our world, otherwise the plot-line would fail. It succeeds because science does not have the tools to see beyond the illusion, and modern philosophy has succumbed to science envy, not seeing that philosophy is far more important than physics.
I just came from a long argume... er, discussion with a Stoic who is a materialist. Hopeless. It's a complete waste of time talking to materialists.
The reason is, I think, that materialists cannot allow themselves to take metaphysics seriously. This prevents any counter-argument based on reason and logic from being effective and one goes round in circles in Kants' 'arena for mock fights'.
This materialist, a senior academic, believes he has a pretty good understanding of metaphysics. This is level of dishonesty and self-deception that we're up against.
Don Salmon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/p_iCDP_1dxk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RHC
Peter Jones
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 13:54:46 UTC, Don Salmon wrote:
Hmmm, can you give us the link to the argument??!
No. Sorry. I don't feel I handled it well and will leave it to fade away. The interesting thing is that Stoic ethics are almost the same as Buddhist ethics, but it claims to have no metaphysical foundation. Rather, many Stoics are materialists, and some would say that Stoicism is materialism. Their ethics would be perfectly easy to justify if they adopted Buddhism's metaphysics, but they cannot justify their ethics because they know that materialism is true. I can take this nonsense from a layman but when a senior academic thinks in this ridiculous way they deserve what they get.
I lent Marcus Aurelius to a young person I know and they came back asking why I did this since it was perfectly obvious that MA did not understand metaphysics. It hardly takes a genius.
It was interesting to be told by a materialist that they had a 'pretty good understanding of metaphysics'. Professional philosophy is comical.
Don Salmon
--
RHC
Peter Jones
On Monday, 7 November 2016 16:27:03 UTC, RHC wrote:
This is very interesting, stoic philosophy, the little I have read anyway, seems metaphysically neutral to me. Mostly Buddhist like rules of thumb for taming the ego. It would be interesting to read more about this connection.
I think you mean 'metaphysically ungrounded' or 'in search of a metaphysic'. It is therefore popular with materialists who are uncomfortable with having no ethical framework. They do not seem to see that if materialism is true then ethics is self-serving nonsense and might as well be game-theory. Two commentators pointed out that this approach is ego-driven and the very opposite of the ideal Stoic approach, but of course this is a subtle point that cannot be seen by a materialist.
The Stoic I spoke to was arguing that Stoic ethics are underdetirmined by metaphysics. This suits the materialist down to the ground. The very last thing a materialist ever wants to do is think about metaphysics, and the idea that it can reach a conclusion scares the pants off them.
Nice one, Don. Synchronicity strikes.
RHC
Peter Jones
Yes, They call this 'rational' thinking and thus prove their inability to think rationally. They do not seem to make a distinction between favouring an assumption and buying into a dogma.