A funny thing happened as I was finishing my Chalmers’ Hard Problem and the Living Moment of Now thesis a couple months ago. A genuine philosophy professor engaged in a nearly two month dialogue. Actually subsequently we’ve continued an occasional correspondence. He gave me the full scoop on what the Chambers’ hard problem was about philosophically. During our initial dialogue the professor sent me 27 emails in all, succinct and informative. They seemed to me the perfect counterpoint and invitation for a little deeper discussion.
#Addendum — A Philosopher Schools Citizenschallenge.
A counterpoint to “Chalmers’ Hard Problem and the Living Moment of Now — A story and a challenge for the philosophically minded.” at Medium.com
There’s an introduction and then the body containing the professors emails, then the following afterward. Listening to it after finally finishing, I was surprised how often flashes of our dialogues crossed my mind. I got to thinking I owed you a Tip of my Hat for the challenges.
#Addendum — A Philosopher Schools Citizenschallenge.
Afterword
What was so refreshing and respectable about my Prof. is that he took an interest and helped this, out of the box, student to arrive at a clearer understanding. He willingly took on my arguments, then explained his constructive dismantling, sidestepping a few, but that was okay. All in all, he left me better informed to understand my choices.
He helped me to more clearly recognize the Hard Problem for the idealistic metaphysical construct that it is and I thank him for that.
This exercise also has me thinking of the difference between philosophy, which starts with formalizing idealized human notions, then strives to fit the world through that lens. Whereas, science begins with observation and questions, and is committed to allowing the facts to drive our view of nature. That is key.
I understand the D-N-C construct seems intellectually irresistible. Still, by definition it is unsolvable. So I’m left wondering what real world good is it — beyond philosophizing for the fascination of it?
I’m an Earth-centrist, I do real life and science, not metaphysics. For me, it is self-evident that to understand my Self requires understanding my physical body. After all it is the vehicle through which I experience the world, while the world experiences me through my body.
That’s big and getting a grip on it requires learning about our body and its deep story. There we find keys to the dueling voices that dwell within us, and more. This learning process opens surprising insights that have a direct, and lasting, bearing on how I interact with myself.
Only science can offer the feeling — after years’ worth of homework, learning facts and more facts, over and over, ruminating on the growing knowledge. Then one day, cold facts burst into understanding — such as the brilliant flash that accompanies the realization that, holy heck, my body/brain possesses half a billion years’ worth of successful generations under its bellybutton. That’s not metaphor or myth, that is Earth’s reality coursing through my blood and I would not exist without it.
Then while digesting the new understanding, new insights pop into view. It’s been a spectacular journey for me, now I get to share.
Earth’s Evolution is where everything exciting and important about us human beings happened, and it is way more complex, interwoven, and relevant than our human intellect can imagine. Thus the adventure of Science.
I’m convinced it’s not enough to know Evolution happened. Our personal introspective journey requires learning about what happened, which leads to understanding why it matters to the making of you — along the way revealing insights that lead to a clearer appreciation for the evolved animal Self that we are.
Here we also discover strategies for better resolving life’s conundrums. It seems a perspective worth sharing and defending.
I’m told we can’t separate science from philosophy. Okay. Still, my experience has left me feeling traditional philosophers aren’t capable of giving scientific physical reality a fair shot.
I wish for some scientists with enough of a philosophy background to step up and present an evolutionary bottom-up physical reality coherent theory of consciousness. Such as Arthur Reber’s CBC (Cellular Basis of Consciousness).
As Dr. Mark Solms points out: The most productive way to think of our consciousness is as the inside reflection of our body communicating with itself. Seems a good start.
There’s even a formula: “Sense + Body + Brain + Interacting (with interior & exterior) = awareness, consciousness, mind.”
Why, you may ask? Because at its most fundamental, without internal and external awareness living is impossible, so nothing would have happened on Earth. Which is why I think it’s time we learn to temper our blinding human hubris and start learning from Earth and our Evolution.
{ I’m withholding the Professor’s name, (though he’s given me permission to share), because I like him and respect him. He’s an excellent professor whom I don’t want to denigrate by association. This is about my quarrel with the D-N-C paradigm itself, he’s the teacher, not the target. }
