It cannot ever solve..?
in its present form.
But enough about my view. Lets hear some other people's........
It cannot ever solve..?
The current mode of trying to explain the mind/body problem using a model that is woefully inadequate is quite perplexing. Then you get trite answers like 'but science will eventually provide us with the truth' which seem to show a complete ignorance to the problem at hand. The problem is that scientific materialism cannot, in its current form, ever solve the hard problem of consciousness without a paradigm shift...
This about sums it up for me. Reductionist Materialism seems to not have the view or tools to be able to tackle consciousness. It's great to see a lot of scientists looking at the idea that consciousness is the pre-requisite for matter as this opens up a whole new set of questions and possibilities.
Slightly off topic but the "brain manifest consciousness" angle can be pretty damaging in a lot of ways - one big one being mental health conditions. The following video is a moving and thought proving look at this subject and well wroth a look (can be seen free for the next couple of days I think: https://crazywisefilm.com/
Interesting article here which raises a good question for me. That being if conscious was the fundamental underpinning feature of the universe 'and the sub atomic particles it's made from' why would many conscious particles form a larger consciousness? My bias is to believe we are all small vessels experiencing the universe to give it/us self knowledge but I don't see the mechanics of this in play.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/panpsychism-is-wrong/500774/
I don't really see a problem with a small consciousness being part of a bigger consciousness. It's like a small electro-magnetic field being part of a bigger one no?
What consciousness is is still very much up for debate I believe.No. Without wishing to be all scientistic about it, there are four forces that we know of at play in the universe: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity. Consciousness is a function of brains, a bit like digestion is a function of the stomach. You may have had a load of experiences that tell you otherwise, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
No. Without wishing to be all scientistic about it, there are four forces that we know of at play in the universe: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity. Consciousness is a function of brains, a bit like digestion is a function of the stomach. You may have had a load of experiences that tell you otherwise, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
I think consciousness is a function rather than a thing. I'm not aware of anything that suggests consciousness can function outside of a brain, a bit like the way that, e.g., momentum cannot exist in isolation (this analogy is not perfect, but I hope it helps explain what I think).Do you at least think that consciousness exists? Or do you come down more on the Dennett side of denying its existence?
I think consciousness is a function rather than a thing. I'm not aware of anything that suggests consciousness can function outside of a brain, a bit like the way that, e.g., momentum cannot exist in isolation (this analogy is not perfect, but I hope it helps explain what I think).
Do you mean by 'momentum (consciousness) cannot exist in isolation' that consciousness must be developed in relation to other consciousnesses? By that i mean consciousness (as you see it) cannot be exhibited by an organism that lives a solitary life , only by a social one? Or, perhaps, in some sort of predator/prey 'arms' race?