I prefer to use Strawson's terms "non-experiential" for matter and "experiential" for mental. — Manuel
Democritus called it atoms. Leibniz called it monads. Fortunately the two men never met, or there would have been a very dull argument. — Woody Allen, My Philosophy
Thank youWelcome to the forum. — T Clark
What if this connection is just a sort of coincidence?But a connection between the two is obviously there. If I experience whatever conscious quality, then there is a material counterpart in the brain — GraveItty
This is along my line of thinking. We know consciousness exists and we also can see how it cannot be explained materialistically, so maybe all we can do as philosophers is interpret what this means. I don't think interpretations can count as a scientific proof but maybe it gives insight on the reality beyond what can be explained physical. Sort of how the different interpretations of quantum mechanics can help us understand reality in a different way.because modern culture is so reliant on that implicit subject-object framework, it can't come to terms with this fact. That's why modern thinking is generally convinced that only what exists 'out there somewhere', in time and space, can be real. That is what leads to 'eliminative materialism', the idea that there really is no such thing as consciousness per se — Wayfarer
Isn't the issue that there is nothing to explain the gap between physical and experience? And in that case I think we should consider philosophers interpretations on the matter. By definition these can be sufficient explanations.The explanatory gap is a scientific problem, not a philosophical aporia, because it concerns explaining facts of the matter which philosophy does / can not; therefore philosophers can only propose woo-of-the-explanatory-gap nonsense — 180 Proof
Why is that?Consciousness simply can't be explained. Only experienced — GraveItty
The "we" an inner homunculus? If not, why the restriction? — bongo fury
Why is that?
What do you all think about the following thought experiment:
Imagine a physical universe of space and time exactly like ours in which all of the same laws of physics apply and all of the same events occur but in this universe there is no conscious "experience". Meaning that there are plenty of books and discussions between philosophers and scientists about consciousness and experiences but no real "observer" in any of these scenarios. — Flaw
ongoing contact — Marchesk
Which begs the question....why does the necessarily given need to be developed? — Mww
What do you all think about the following thought experiment:
Imagine a physical universe of space and time exactly like ours in which all of the same laws of physics apply and all of the same events occur but in this universe there is no conscious "experience". Meaning that there are plenty of books and discussions between philosophers and scientists about consciousness and experiences but no real "observer" in any of these scenarios. — Flaw
Oh, you can imagine a world like you do, but it is just a soul depleted world, you have extracted the matter of the universe only, without its content, and placed it in an Imaginary world.
How will you ever explain the colors you see, the sounds that you hear, or the feeling of music that makes you cry? — GraveItty
I don't believe that the world/scenario that I mentioned is more or less imaginary than the one we currently live in. — Flaw
Isn't it the same world the? How can a material brain, body, and universe exist without the creature seeing, for example, colors, or the world around them? — GraveItty
Yes I suspect it is the same world then. My position is that thinking that a material brain, physics, and universe needs an experiencing creature to see colors, hear sounds, etc, is just an assumption. @Marchesks comment explains how that would look.Isn't it the same world the? How can a material brain, body, and universe exist without the creature seeing, for example, colors, or the world around them? Faces would have no meaning as there is nothing to express. — GraveItty
This is the first time I am hearing of the philosophical zombie argument so thanks for referencing this. I think I'll start reading up on this to see what other philosophers have to say about this.The p-zombie argument is that all that neural and biological activity could take place in principle without there being experiences of color, sound, pain, etc — Marchesk
Yes I agree. But not everything is solvable, not everything is a problem, and I suppose that not everything is physical. I also would not use the word speculation, but rather interpretation. I think philosophical interpretations of reality can move us in a certain direction and have application in real life. I think the interpretations of consciousness especially will be really important in the next few years in society especially with the growth of artificial/computational intelligence and machine learning.Philosophical speculations can't solve scientific problems. — 180 Proof
"The hard problem of consciousness" is a conspicuous example of a pseudo-problem and remains "unsolvable" in so far as "the explanatory gap" is treated as metaphysical topic rather than a scientific one. — 180 Proof
doesn't explain my conscious feeling — GraveItty
OK, I was thinking more in terms of answers to questions, but in any case, "learning to accept my intrusive thoughts and not fight them" is a material change of behavior isn't it. I mean instead of sitting or lying there and ruminating, don't you go and do something else? — Janus
Who says it's unsolvable? — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.