In a short essay, Bernardo Kastrup argues that consciousness cannot be the product of evolution:
Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
I disagree, but I’ll leave my objections for the comment thread.
In a short essay, Bernardo Kastrup argues that consciousness cannot be the product of evolution:
Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
I disagree, but I’ll leave my objections for the comment thread.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
For a second I thought that was you commenting on the first paragraph quoted. Thanks for the info. Still intend to put up an OP but it will be a while. (I guess there’s no rush if folks are still arguing over something Plato came up with.)
But you didn’t just blindly make that choice. You had to choose by way of thinking. Only thinking can give the senses meaning.
It may be that we have come to different conclusions about some of the relationships between brain activity and thinking, but we both start by thinking about the problem.
No.
We’re still wrestling with the problems that Plato invented. Hardly anyone accepts his own solutions to those problems, since he himself admits that they don’t work.
I think that’s backwards. Only having something to think about gives sense to thinking.
And therein lies the whole problem with your view: it allows no room for the idea that the senses have meaning of their own, independent of whatever the intellect contributes.
Thanks.
Then I don’t understand. If you accept the fact that we can gain knowledge about the external world, then why do you refuse to take it into consideration? You keep dismissing it on the grounds that you acquired it by “thinking”. So what if you did?
CharlieM thinks that thinking itself is the necessary starting-point for epistemology. The difficulty that some of us are having with him is that he doesn’t seem to appreciate that naturalism is not an unjustified assumption (as he regards it) but a warranted conclusion.
I admire that you seemed to have gained an understanding of Charlie’s line of reasoning. Even granting him his premise that “thinking” is the basis for epistemology, I fail to see how any of his conclusions follow.
Please don’t trust a USAmerican philosophist to “straighten things out” for you on the topic of “naturalism”! This is the same curiosity that distorts Swamidass’ message also.
Naturalism is an ideology. Full stop. KN in his philosophistry attempts to make naturalism sound good to fresh curious ears. To call ideological naturalism a “conclusion”, whether “warranted” or “unwarranted”, reveals a misunderstanding in communication. Arguing that it is one’s conclusion, does not require taking for granted that people will accept that conclusion, in short, that “there is nothing beyond nature”. In the human-social sciences, one surely need not commit to such naturalistic bias, even though many hands-off, highly abstract, impersonal “philosophers” do these days, and though a philosophist like KN might not realize is possible, there are indeed available alternatives.
An unjustified assumption, or a hidden presupposition that biases the entire discussion field. Either one won’t help move the conversation forward constructively.
Which naturalism? Whose naturalism? KN’s a self-declared Marxist, plus a whole bunch of other self-accepted -ists. Not really my go-to definition-setting re: “naturalism.” Disguised anti-theism as naturalism still carries little appeal for non-skeptic humanists. Let’s see what gross inflation of “naturalism” he has to offer this time, in the tradition of buyers of superficial, dehumanising knowledge through Sellars.
Yes, I wasn’t asking these questions to criticise you, I was just sort of thinking aloud.
So do you agree that in order to know anything in the beginning the only thing I can be sure of is my thinking? It may be wrong but it is my activity.
But it would be a mistake to begin a theory of knowledge by thinking about the phenomenal world without first thinking about the activity of cognition itself.
As Steiner put it:
“Cognition is not to be defined in terms of consciousness, but vice versa: both consciousness and the relation between subject and object in terms of cognition.”
Gregory, calling someone a sophist is calling them a liar in my opinion. Please stop doing it. TIA.
But the “something to think about” does not depend on us in the way thinking does. Yes, we require both, but we need to acquire concepts to give meaning to that which we perceive. And it is only through thinking that we acquire concepts.
You seem sure about your existence already if you are sure you are thinking.
Their meaning lies in the fact that they are never consciously experienced without some form of thinking on the part of the one perceiving.
Steiner again:
Are you making up your own definitions now Alan? You cloud this site with an unsightly grey ash with your opinions Alan.
I think you should stop it. I bet I am not alone in thinking that.
Someone fetch the smelling salts! Gregory used the term “philosophist”!
keiths:
phoodoo:
Zombie Keith isn’t actually lying, though his statement is untrue. He doesn’t intend to deceive. He thinks he’s telling the truth, and so does Qualia Keith. There’s no difference.
keiths,
Then they either both have qualia or they both don’t. Which is it?
Alan Fox,
Sorry, but your butting in again opinion, is worth little here, since you’re twisting a definition simply because you don’t like something. That doesn’t make “calling it like I see it” wrong in this case.
What seems obvious is that Alan likely wouldn’t recognise philosophistry if he saw it staring right at him in the mirror, lead Admin (not Moderator), at TAMSZ.
KN has demonstrated philosophistry throughout the history of this site. His recent pretend understanding of the term “irreducible” is a case in point. Notice he still hasn’t either retracted what he wrote, or admitted his own confusion?
Such is the most ideologically tangled “position” being put forth at TSZ. To require censorship from calling “philosophistry” for what it is, does not seem consistent with Lizzie’s rules. Do you really wish to censor that term, Alan?
Are you at all familiar with what sophistry is, Alan? That would be a good start.
Gregory,
I looked it up. Meaning “the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.” Rule is we don’t accuse fellow members of lying. The whole tone of your comment was a personal attack. You can make your points perfectly well without it.
Alan:
Physically identical. In one universe the physics leads to qualia, and in the other it doesn’t.
Qualia aren’t “possessed” by people. They’re experienced, and then in most cases they go away.
The difference isn’t discernible. Remember, the two Keiths behave identically. How could you determine which one experienced qualia?
I’m not dismissing it. I’m looking for the point where we can begin to acquire knowledge without making any prior assumptions. To posit an “external word” is a conclusion we make after thinking about what comes to us through our senses. The concepts I and the world are concepts gained by thinking about what I perceive.
keiths,
How can anyone? Occams razor says: no need for qualia.
The justification for naturalism could be debated, but that is not the point. It seems to me that many philosophers take as their starting point the position that naturalism is an undisputed fact.
You can of course dispute it. But it is impossible to conclude anything about a concept that doesn’t manifest itself physically in any way whatsoever, however indirectly.
In considering the phrase “I think”, I am sure of the thinking part. The “I” part (the existence of my ego) is a conclusion I have arrived at through thinking. I don’t know it as directly as the thinking part.
He says it is true he has qualia but is unaware if he does or if he doesn’t. At best he is maybe ,not a yes.
Well there have been many disputes over what is meant by the concept “physical”, but would anyone from any standpoint dispute that thinking was involved in arriving at this concept?
newton,
The information processing he’s doing is identical to Qualia Keith’s, and so he reaches the same conclusion as QK: that he experiences qualia. Turns out his answer is incorrect, though he isn’t trying to lie.
Then ask him if he prefers oranges or broccoli. If he has no experience, then he has no preferences.
keiths,
How is this anything more than idle speculation?
phoodoo,
He’ll state the same preference as Qualia Keith. His access consciousness functions the same, after all. It’s just that he won’t experience the qualia associated with oranges and broccoli.
Alan:
It’s a thought experiment, and it has the same function as other thought experiments.
keiths,
But what is it meant to show? That qualia are ineffable?
Alan Fox,
Ah, yes, the “One definition I found says…” defense! = P
Well, then I’ll just stick with the “fallacious” part of such definition, and have not ever accused KN of lying or deceit. He seems to really believe these ideologies he holds, that they are worth holding, and that there is no other “reasonable” choice, which is why he speaks using the verb “to be -> is” the way he does.
When making truth claims, does one not often run the risk of self-deceit?
Nonsense in words, just as KN’s misunderstanding of “irreducible” above in this thread. Naturalism is an ideology, one a person can choose to hold or instead discard as they mature, and eventually put aside such stultifying “naturalistic” thinking.
I prefer the following definition of sophistry: “reasoning that seems plausible on a superficial level but is actually unsound”. Definitely not going to stop challenging that at this zone for skeptics. = )
All defeated nations, but especially proud world superpowers, like Egypt in those days, love to commemorate their military failures, put it in history books, and make sure it’s taught in schools…
I relish both but tend to get defeated with the latter…
Who am I to judge why?
But it must have been an amazing experience and now science has proven you can do it on the smaller scale at home using strong magnetic fields…
Have you actually read the account??? Ask Harshman, if you need help…
I don’t think it’s necessary to infer ID.
DI seems to be moving forward with the Return of the God Hypothesis..
It’s your argument that is leading to infinite regress, not mine…
Why would you move the goal posts?
I have already explained it to you the practicality of a visual effect rather than the actual intervention in the laws of physics…
Gregory, Will you just
kerbcurb* your personal comments about KN. It looks like an unhealthy obsession.ETA* oops
Alan Fox,
When KN writes nonsense, it will be called nonsense.
Nonsense. Any sense in further badgering me about it?
Gregory, There’s no issue about attacking ideas.
Up thread, KN wrote this dinger:
Nonsense. Not according to Behe’s mousetrap or mt. rushmore & many other IDist analogies.
KN was met by at least 3 persons in opposition to his claim above. When challenged, where did he go avoiding an answer? Will he not answer now?
Throwing up one’s hands, shouting “consciousness is evolvable” is one thing. Sitting on one’s hands suggesting “design” is just an abstract notion in one’s mind that cannot in principle make/create/build/manufacture “irreducible systems”, is a rather different approach to interpersonal communication. The suggestion that human beings cannot and do not design “irreducible systems” is not sustainable.
The information Qk is processing is informed by the awareness of the experience of qualia, the information zk is processing cannot be informed that awareness by definition. If we accept this, we can conclude the actual experience of qualia is not a necessary basis for the belief that one experiences qualia .
Perhaps our experience of qualia is just as much an illusion as zk’s experience of qualia.
Then again zombies themselves may be the only illusion.
It’s undecidable by introspection (or any other method).
You have been able to dig out OMagain’s comment from ions ago, I you haven’t seen mine…
Amazing!!!
J-Mac,
Where “ions ago” means “three days ago”.
I repeat:
Maybe, but not the philosophers I read and find interesting — for them the entire question is, “on what basis would naturalism be justified?”
I don’t think it is helpful to do epistemology in terms of tracing knowledge to its unquestionable first principles. I think that this language like “in the beginning” and “the only thing I can be sure of” amounts to framing the entire problem of epistemology along Cartesian terms, and I think that once you’ve done that, there’s no Middle Way between dogmatism and skepticism.
I thought you were referring to my OP on consciousness from 2017
Sorry.
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/what-is-consciousness-the-soul-vs-the-quantum-state-of-particles-in-human-brain/
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20141216-can-you-live-with-half-a-brain
https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul
The idea is not how much brain mass is missing or is disfuntional , but which part of it I damaged. Even 1% damage can leave you with consciousness and 90% dysfunction or missing may leave you conscious…
J-Mac,
Which one of those contains the story about the 90% surgical removal of the brain?
newton:
Yes. That’s what I was getting at here:
Alan,
Chalmers used it to argue for property dualism, but it also provides a tool set for discussions about consciousness generally.
It’s useful even to skeptics like Dennett, who mentions ‘zombie’ 50 times and ‘qualia’ 85 times in his book Intuition Pumps.