On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:19 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019, at 22:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > On 5/13/2019 6:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > Physicalism fails to account for consciousness. This is the worst possible > failure I can imagine, given that consciousness is the only thing I can be > certain to exist. > > > I think this misunderstands what science does. In the words of John von > Neumann, "The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to > interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical > construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, > describes observed phenomena. > > > I agree with you and von Neumann on this, and this is precisely why I used > the words "account for" instead of "explain". I literally mean that > consciousness does not fit the physicalist models, it appears as magic or > supernatural. To be precise, and avoid empty authoritative proclamations, I > make clear what I mean: > > 1) Darwinian evolution is a theory (a brilliant theory, possibly my > favorite scientific theory of all times) that accounts for biological > complexification. Under physicalism, it fails to account for consciousness. > There is simply no reason for the "lights to be on". A functionally > equivalent p-zombie does the trick. > > 2) So maybe it's a spandrel. But again we have the magic step, because > spandrels must arise from something. What are the first principles? > > 3) Or maybe it's "what the brain does", as many physicalists like to say. > My body as mass, because the atoms that make up my body amount to that > mass. What amounts to my consciousness? What are the building blocks? There > is no accounting, there is no description in yours or van Neumann's sense. > > It is Bruce who accuses Platonism of being a failure, even though he is > not able to name any point where physicalism succeeds and Platonism fails. > It goes without saying that all of modern science is compatible with > Platonism. I am pointing out a direct observation of mine that, thus far, > is not compatible with physicalism. > > Telmo. > You are too quick. You have not shown that consciousness is incompatible with physicalism. Just give Brent's engineering approach some time to work. Platonism has not accounted for the physical universe -- Bruno keeps saying that this is just "a work in progress". So the same for consciousness. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSctFqjGoW2bcJsGHi_jtNo_tDEQFk_w3E_po%3DBRzS9aw%40mail.gmail.com.
