This article provides some insight on how and why the explanation of human consciousness might be the reason for a paradigm shift of science away …
—- He has some really good extrapolated points.
I think the shorter version of what he is saying, so far as ‘the whole of correlations do not a mind make’, I think concerns my hard problem of consciousness as distinguished from Chalmers hard problem; Chalmers hard problem I think it’s just a very difficult problem, and not hard in the sense of the word that we understand hard beyond the meaning that is “very difficult”. My Hard Problem of consciousness actually indicates a significance of the problem of consciousnes that must be come to terms with before any other problem of consciousnessness has any skin in the game. Without addressing my Hard Problem, the rest become merely an idealized word game.
I keep saying it here in there in various posts of mine, but here it is again:
The hard problem of consciousness is that there is no way to absolutely be convinced that someone else’s brain has anything to do with one’s own consciousness, or consciousness whether or not it is mine or someone else’s. That is, I am only able to be convinced because I’m already convinced.
In other words, it is merely that I believe that I have a brain in which my consciousness resides and that when I look at another human being with a brain, what they find out goes on there, actually has to do with my consciousness.
It may, but then does it really have to do with a brain ? and then as well, does it have to do with my brain (do I have a brain)?
These are the hard questions because Typically They are answered with answers that have wiggle room, for a word, that are soft answers. ￼￼￼
We love soft questions and soft answers because it never requires us to really think, it never requires us to really reflect upon what is actually occurring. ￼On The contrary, it only requires of us to a stay one dimensional, that is to say, non-reflective. we get to have opinions, we get to argue all sorts of great ideas. It’s all really interesting.
There is plenty that people could say to convince me through various proofs that working on someone else’s brain, or doing anything to someone else’s brain has to do with my brain and by extension my consciousness, but the only way that I could understand the equation is to already believe that it is the case.
In other words, I have to already understand that there is a correlation between my consciousness and someone else’s brain that has to do with consciousness.
This hard problem that I am elaborating upon is no different than this authors post of the correlation between electrical activity in one’s brain, say, and consciousness itself.
I would also beg to differ in his use of the idea of “materialism”. For Sure I know what he’s talking about when he refers to materialism, but this materialism he refers to, and then also references it to a true Philosophy, (even as I tend to agree with his definition of philosophy) ￼it’s just one type of materialism, and in fact, it is an “Old materialism”. That is, the “new materialism” is of a different sort￼.
However, in so much as the correlation pointed out by my hard problem of consciousness is no different than the correlation he makes note of between brain activity and consciousness itself, I would then have to point to that problem in which he is inherently involved with is in fact an “old” materialistic problem.
But I like his argument so far is one adheres to the old version of materialism. ￼