On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer what
it's thinking and we know how to build a brain that behaves as we want,
in other words when we can do consciousness engineering, the "hard
problem" will be bypassed as a metaphysical non-question, like "Where
did the elan vital go?"
This is a position expressed by Jeffrey Gray as follows (he does not share it):
«What looks like a Hard Problem will cease to be one when we have understood the errors
in our ways of speaking about the issues involved. If the route were successful, we
would rejoin the normal stance: once our head have been straightened out, science could
again just get on with the job of filling in the details of empirical knowledge.»
I think the main mistake in formulating the 'hard problem' is thinking that we can't
explain consciousness with mathematical theories like mechanics, astrophysics, quantum
mechanics. The mistake isn't that we can explain consciousness, it's supposing that we
can explain physics. We don't explain mechanics or gravity or electrodynamics - we have
models for them that work, they are predictive and can be used to control and design
things. Bruno points out that *primitive matter* doesn't add anything to physics. When
asked what explained the gravitational force Newton said, "Hypothesi non fingo". Someday,
consciousness will be looked at similarly.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at