On 25 April 2012 08:24, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > To say that consciousness is an illusion does not make any sense. Everything > else can be an illusion, but not consciousness. I think we agree on that.
We do indeed agree on this. The word illusion has become so imprecise in this context that it would be better to avoid it. However, to be fair, in this particular case Susan Blackmore seemed not to intend it in any clearly eliminative way, but rather in the sense of a mirage - i.e. a real something, but a something about whose precise nature and cause we may be misled. Of course, she assumes materialism, and this makes it difficult to tie up a number of metaphysical and logical loose ends (i.e. the "hard" ones). But Brent is probably right that most people will in the end be more impressed by technical wizardry than ultimate philosophical illumination. David > > On 24 Apr 2012, at 20:57, David Nyman wrote: > >> On 24 April 2012 19:37, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Really Susan Blackmore was the >>> only speaker that I saw who advocated a purely materialist view and >>> she was practically booed when she put up a slide that said >>> "Consciousness is an Illusion". >> >> >> Susan Blackmore, New Scientist, 22 June 2002, p 26-29: >> >> "First we must be clear what is meant by the term "illusion". To say >> that consciousness is an illusion is not to say that it doesn't exist, >> but that it is not what it seems to be--more like a mirage or a visual >> illusion.........Admitting that it's all an illusion does not solve >> the problem of consciousness but changes it completely. Instead of >> asking how neural impulses turn into conscious experiences, we must >> ask how the grand illusion gets constructed. This will prove no easy >> task, but unlike solving the Hard Problem it may at least be >> possible." >> >> The article in the NS, taken as a whole, suggests that her position is >> more nuanced than the slogan you quoted might suggest. > > > I really loved her book "The search of the light", which was a rare serious > and rigorous text in parapsychology. She debunked the field, and remains > completely valid in her conclusion. But when praised by materialists for her > debunking of those results in parapsychology, she became a super-materialist > priest, and lost her initial scientific attitude to some extent. > To say that consciousness is an illusion does not make any sense. Everything > else can be an illusion, but not consciousness. I think we agree on that. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> David >> >>> >>> Microtubules were well represented, as were fractals and Higher Order >>> Theories, but nowhere was the kind of knee-jerk instrumentalism that I >>> encounter so often online. It seemed to me that variations on >>> panpsychism were more popular. There is a link to abstract book here: >>> http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/ if you want to read about all of >>> the presentations. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Apr 24, 8:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Craig Weinberg >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But are decisions that a person makes freely caused or uncaused? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Both and neither. Just as a yellow traffic signal is neither red nor >>>>>>> green but represents possibilities of both stop and go. We are the >>>>>>> cause. We are influenced by causes but to varying degrees. We >>>>>>> influence our body and by extension the world with varying degrees of >>>>>>> freedom. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> EITHER something is determined/caused OR it's random/uncaused. This is >>>>>> standard use of language. You can define your own terms but then at >>>>>> least you should explain them in relation to the standard language: >>>>>> "what everyone else calls green, I call red, and what everyone else >>>>>> calls a dog, I call a cat". >>>> >>>> >>>>> It is a standard use of language to say that people are responsible in >>>>> varying degrees for their actions. I don't understand why you claim >>>>> that your binary determinism is 'standard language' in some way. When >>>>> we talk about someone being guilty of a crime, that quality of guilt >>>>> makes no sense in terms of being passively caused or randomly >>>>> uncaused. It is you who should explain your ideas in relation to the >>>>> standard language: "what everyone else calls intention, I call >>>>> irrelevant." >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> By this reasoning nothing can ever have an adequate explanation, >>>>> >>>>> since >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> if the explanation offered for A is B, you can always ask, "But >>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>> should B apply to A?"; and if the answer is given, "Because >>>>> >>>>> empirical >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> observation shows that it is so" you can dismiss it as >>>>> >>>>> unsatisfactory. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> It depends what A and B are. If A is a cloud and B is rain, then >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> can see that there could be a connection. If A is a neural fiber >>>>> >>>>> and B >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is an experience of blue, then there is a gigantic gap separating >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> two which can't be bridged just because we are used to looking at >>>>>>>>> physical objects relating to other physical objects and think it >>>>> >>>>> would >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> be convenient if subjects behaved that way as well. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an >>>>>>>> obvious connection between clouds and rain either. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Sure, it's a matter of degree. If I squeeze an orange, it follows >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> logically that what comes out of it is orange juice. If I poke a >>>>>>> microorganism like a neuron with an electrode, it does not follow >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> logically at all that comedy, symphonies or the smell of pineapple >>>>>>> should ensue. At some point you have to decide whether sanity is real >>>>>>> or reality is insane. I choose the former. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> But it's an empirical observation that if certain biochemical >>>>>> reactions occur (the ones involved in processing information) , >>>>>> consciousness results. That you find it mysterious is your problem, >>>>>> not nature's. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If I turn on a TV set, TV programs occur. That doesn't mean that TV >>>>> programs are generated by electronics. Fortunately I just spent a week >>>>> at the consciousness conference in AZ so I now know how deeply in the >>>>> minority views such as yours are. The vast majority of doctors and >>>>> professors researching in this field agree that the Explanatory Gap >>>>> cannot simply be wished away in the manner you suggest. I don't find >>>>> it mysterious at all that consciousness could come from configurations >>>>> of objects, I find it impossible, as do most people. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups >>>>> "Everything List" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
