Your proposal, like most, doesn't address the hard problem, the
subjective 'likeness' of consciousness. That what makes the problem
intractable enough so that it constitutes a problem for physicalists and
which led McGinn to make his proposal. Faced with this sort explanation
you can always ask "But is it conscious". Subjective experiencing just
does not seem to coalesce with the objectivity of physical laws in any
way that we can experience. We might have a perfect account of behavior
that absolutely supervenes on physical laws and yet leaves consciousness
dangling as a non-causal epiphenomenon. I see no reason to think that we
are not epistemically bounded. On the other hand, the assumption of
physicalism has been so productive in getting rid of mysteries that it
is too soon to throw up one's hands as McGinn does.
Don't see much of a connection between consciousness and religion, aside
from the fact that some religions talk about consciousness in a sense
that probably isn't the same as that used in contemporary philosophy.
By what notion of necessary could physicalism be considered as necessary
truth. A dualist world doesn't seem to be contradictory so it can't be a
logical necessity. To treat it as a nomological necessity would beg the
question as the dualist is precisely claiming that there are things that
do not obey physical laws.
Can't saddle McGinn with the phrase epistemological blindspot, though it
seems to fit. More or less appropriated by me out of Roy Sorenson's
notion of logical blindspots. Then again, to be a bit pedantic, you
might not saddle Searle with property dualism which he explicitly denies
in an article called, um, "Why I am not a Property Dualist."
j
On 10/18/10 12:44 PM, bill harris wrote:
> --_1c60c3d9-9ab6-44e2-a553-71db6da24463_
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
> Hi John=2C
> =20
> I disagree with McGinn=2C and agree with Davidson that physicalism is a nec=
> essary truth.=20
> =20
> I also believe that Dennett's explanations are rather poor=2C thereby expos=
> ing himself to Mcginn's rhetorical flourish=2C "the epistemological blindsp=
> ot". After all=2C who among us doesn't understand that Philosophy is an ag=
> on of the mind?=20
> =20
> I like Searle's 'property dualism' because it permits us to discuss QM as a=
> physical process=3B the 'dual'=2C of course=2C referring to the fact that =
> photons follow their own set of rules. So might the brain operate like sort=
> of a Josephson Junction?
> =20
> Otherwise=2C to speak of 'consciousness' seems to be nothing more than a re=
> ligious hangover. Or worse=2C it's a post -Rorty panic attack that's meant =
> to save an entire field of study from the philosophical wastebin. 'Sort of =
> like the Rennaissance art historian who still insists that Michelangelo int=
> entionally used smudgy=2C smokey stuff in The Sistine. After all=2C reality=
> must conform to ideas consistent with those held dear within the professio=
> n=2C yes?
> =20
> In any case=2C a phycalist explanation for consciousness might go something=
> like this:
> The brain fires off electrical impulses that can easily be measured in cycl=
> es/sec. These vary from place to place=2C by the way. Physical function=2C =
> then=2C comes in intervals=2C-- much as film is made of discreet images lia=
> soned together to be perceived as an illusory stream.
> =20
> Therefore=2C the brain gizmo that's responsible for outputting a consistent=
> flow of 'thought' might be said to be the consciousness-center...
> =20
> BH=20
>
> =20
> =20
> =20
>> Date: Mon=2C 18 Oct 2010 09:53:09 -0400
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Philosophical query to Bill& Co.
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> =20
>> How to resolve the hard problem of consciousness given the assumption=20
>> of physicalism remains an issue. There are those=2C like Colin McGinn=2C =
> who=20
>> have argued that there is no actual duality but that we may in an=20
>> epistemic blindspot that does not allow us to understand the connection=20
>> between consciousness and the physicalist world. Once saw Dennett give a=
> =20
>> lecture called something like "What it is Like to be a Bat=2C" claiming=20
>> resolution=2C on Thomas Nagel's home turf and was interested in how=20
>> certain that almost everyone I spoke to seemed to think one or the other=
> =20
>> scored a knockout but there was a strong lack of agreement about which=20
>> was knocked out. For what it's worth=2C I don't see it as being resolved=
> =20
>> soon but my bet is physicalism based on its track record is resolving=20
>> past conundrums. (Admittedly=2C haven't kept up with this stuff for the=20
>> past decade or so. . .)
>> =20
>> j
>> =20
>> On 10/18/10 5:03 AM=2C Henry M. Taylor wrote:
>>> Has the Cartesian mind-body duality ever been resolved by philosophy? O=
> r =3D
>>> brain research=2C etc. ? I'm aware that this is a particularly occident=
> al =3D
>>> question=2C as Eastern philosophies apparently know no such split ...
>>>
>>> Thanks for your thoughts!
>>>
>>> H=3D
>>>
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Film-Philosophy
>>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you =
> are replying to
>>> To leave=2C send the message: leave film-philosophy to: jiscmail@jiscma=
> il.ac.uk
>>> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>>> For technical help email: [log in to unmask] not the salon
>>> *
>>> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>>> **
>>>
>> =20
>> *
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy
>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you ar=
> e replying to
>> To leave=2C send the message: leave film-philosophy to: jiscmail@jiscmail=
> .ac.uk
>> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>> For technical help email: [log in to unmask] not the salon
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>> **
> =
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
>
> --_1c60c3d9-9ab6-44e2-a553-71db6da24463_
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <html>
> <head>
> <style><!--
> .hmmessage P
> {
> margin:0px=3B
> padding:0px
> }
> body.hmmessage
> {
> font-size: 10pt=3B
> font-family:Tahoma
> }
> --></style>
> </head>
> <body class=3D'hmmessage'>
> Hi John=2C<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
> I disagree with McGinn=2C and agree with Davidson that physicalism is a nec=
> essary truth.<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
> I also believe that Dennett's explanations are rather poor=2C thereby expos=
> ing himself to Mcginn's rhetorical flourish=2C "the epistemological blindsp=
> ot". After all=2C who among us doesn't understand that =3B Philosophy i=
> s an agon of the mind?<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
> I =3Blike Searle's 'property dualism' because it permits us to discuss =
> QM as a physical process=3B the 'dual'=2C of course=2C referring to the fac=
> t that photons follow their own set of rules. So might the =3Bbrain ope=
> rate like sort of a Josephson Junction?<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
> Otherwise=2C =3Bto speak of 'consciousness' seems to be nothing more th=
> an a religious hangover. Or worse=2C it's a post -Rorty panic attack that's=
> meant to save an entire field of study from the philosophical wastebin. 'S=
> ort of like the Rennaissance art historian =3Bwho =3Bstill insists =
> that Michelangelo intentionally used smudgy=2C smokey stuff in The Sistine.=
> After all=2C reality<U>must</U>conform to ideas consistent with those he=
> ld dear within the profession=2C yes?<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
> In any case=2C a phycalist explanation for consciousness might go something=
> like this:<BR>
> The brain fires off electrical impulses that can easily be measured in cycl=
> es/sec. These vary from place to place=2C by the way. Physical function=2C =
> then=2C comes in intervals=2C-- much as film is made of discreet images lia=
> soned together to be perceived as an illusory stream.<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
> Therefore=2C the brain gizmo that's responsible for outputting a consistent=
> flow of 'thought' might be said to be the consciousness-center...<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
> BH =3B<BR>
>
>  =3B<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
>  =3B<BR>
> >=3B Date: Mon=2C 18 Oct 2010 09:53:09 -0400<BR>>=3B From: jmatturr@EAR=
> THLINK.NET<BR>>=3B Subject: Re: Philosophical query to Bill&=3B Co.<B=
> R>>=3B To: [log in to unmask]<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B How to res=
> olve the hard problem of consciousness given the assumption<BR>>=3B of p=
> hysicalism remains an issue. There are those=2C like Colin McGinn=2C who<B=
> R>>=3B have argued that there is no actual duality but that we may in an =
> <BR>>=3B epistemic blindspot that does not allow us to understand the con=
> nection<BR>>=3B between consciousness and the physicalist world. Once sa=
> w Dennett give a<BR>>=3B lecture called something like "What it is Like =
> to be a Bat=2C" claiming<BR>>=3B resolution=2C on Thomas Nagel's home tu=
> rf and was interested in how<BR>>=3B certain that almost everyone I spok=
> e to seemed to think one or the other<BR>>=3B scored a knockout but ther=
> e was a strong lack of agreement about which<BR>>=3B was knocked out. Fo=
> r what it's worth=2C I don't see it as being resolved<BR>>=3B soon but m=
> y bet is physicalism based on its track record is resolving<BR>>=3B past=
> conundrums. (Admittedly=2C haven't kept up with this stuff for the<BR>>=
> =3B past decade or so. . .)<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B j<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B On =
> 10/18/10 5:03 AM=2C Henry M. Taylor wrote:<BR>>=3B>=3B Has the Cartesi=
> an mind-body duality ever been resolved by philosophy? Or =3D<BR>>=3B>=
> =3B brain research=2C etc. ? I'm aware that this is a particularly occident=
> al =3D<BR>>=3B>=3B question=2C as Eastern philosophies apparently know=
> no such split ...<BR>>=3B>=3B<BR>>=3B>=3B Thanks for your though=
> ts!<BR>>=3B>=3B<BR>>=3B>=3B H=3D<BR>>=3B>=3B<BR>>=3B>=
> =3B *<BR>>=3B>=3B *<BR>>=3B>=3B Film-Philosophy<BR>>=3B>=3B =
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are =
> replying to<BR>>=3B>=3B To leave=2C send the message: leave film-philo=
> sophy to: [log in to unmask]<BR>>=3B>=3B Or visit: http://www.jis=
> cmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html<BR>>=3B>=3B For technical help =
> email: [log in to unmask] not the salon<BR>>=3B>=3B *<BR>>=
> =3B>=3B Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com<BR>>=3B=
> >=3B Contact: [log in to unmask]<BR>>=3B>=3B **<BR>>=3B&=
> gt=3B<BR>>=3B<BR>>=3B *<BR>>=3B *<BR>>=3B Film-Philosophy<BR>>=
> =3B After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you =
> are replying to<BR>>=3B To leave=2C send the message: leave film-philosop=
> hy to: [log in to unmask]<BR>>=3B Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.u=
> k/lists/film-philosophy.html<BR>>=3B For technical help email: helpline@j=
> iscmail.ac.uk=2C not the salon<BR>>=3B *<BR>>=3B Film-Philosophy online=
> : http://www.film-philosophy.com<BR>>=3B Contact: [log in to unmask]
> com<BR>>=3B **<BR><BR> </body>
> </html>=
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
>
> --_1c60c3d9-9ab6-44e2-a553-71db6da24463_--
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|
