I’ve receive some questions/comments that I’d like to air out.
“The core difficulty is that consciousness defies observation.”
“You can’t look inside someone’s brain and see their feelings and experiences. Uniquely with consciousness, the thing we are trying to explain cannot be publicly observed."
“And if you scan their brain at the same time, you can try to match up the brain activity, which you can observe, with the invisible consciousness, which you can’t.” We know a lot about the basic chemistry: how neurons fire, how chemical signals are transmitted. And we know a fair bit about the large functions of various brain regions. But we know almost nothing about how these large-scale functions are realized at the cellular level.”
I reject this dismissiveness toward the evidence being gathered on a few grounds.
How much does the hunter know before taking down its pray? The hunter actually knows very little, but focuses on absorbing the most important information, drawing conclusions, then acting, significant parts of that process unfold under our consciousness.
In a world where close enough, is enough. Better understanding that process is what matters. I see Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” as a desperate attempt to keep Abrahamic attitudes of human exceptionalism on its pedestal.
I mean asking: Why does a bat feel like a bat? Without immediately answering, because a bat inhabits a bat’s body, within a bat oriented world.
What’s up with that?
Can anyone explain, where the philosophical mystery lies?
“Because consciousness is not an observable phenomenon, the “why” question is not one we can make progress on with experiments.”
Why does that justify us squandering precious time, energy, resources on pointless unanswerable distractions off in the land of mental thoughts, meta-physical mirages, and human tendencies toward spiritual and magical thinking?
Why can’t philosophers ponder that the only serious understanding we can ever achieve about human consciousness (which is fundamentally an outgrowth of mammalian consciousness) is via physical science.
Philosophy can ask questions, but if the questions are impossible, or focused on trivial pursuits rather than real and pressing existential questions and challenges, what good is it?
Chalmers is basically asking Nature to prove itself to us, or we get to keep fiddling with metaphysical notions.
Rather focusing on better understanding the solid information we have at hand
“Most say conscious is not an observable phenomenon.”
Right, got it, that’s why I’ve formulated the simple equation:
physical reality ~ human mindscape divide
(source)
“Most say conscious is not an observable phenomenon.”
So what? Is that what this is about? Maybe are asking too much?
Scientists are probing thought processes with ever more fidelity. We can watch the electromagnetic evidence of various aspects of consciousness in action.
What more do philosophers want? To have Casper the ghost climb out of our body and present itself?
Where do we go from there? Why keep trivial questions at the top of the intellectual mountain? Simply to keep our need for Abrahamic human exceptionalism alive?
Biological neurological studies are providing plenty of evidence. I mean evidence that makes excellent fodder for some truly mystical personal adventures towards better understanding your own body and the self that it produces, along with a little help of the world around you personally.
We can’t understand our selves, without gaining a better understanding of this body that host your “me, myself, and I”
That why we individually really need to achieve some solid scientific background, before going off on the adventure of trying to grasp the consciousness brass-ring.
===================
Ask Mark 5.5 - Difference between agency and free will
Question: "In the first video “Agency” is likened to “Free Will”.
Would you agree the two are different - agency being the capacity to make decisions and act accordingly, consciously or otherwise, and arising from causal chains of thought which in turn, are the product of brain biochemistry;
and free will being a more abstract concept carrying some implication of moral judgment?Actually, does free will even exist?"
CC-BY-NC University of Cape Town.