I always find it odd when I hear people say, "We have no idea what consciousness is." Unless you're a philosophical zombie, you know exactly what consciousness is because you experience it directly. It's the one thing you can't be mistaken about.
Maybe what people mean is that they don't know what causes consciousness or what the underlying physical mechanism is. There's got to be some kind of misunderstanding going on. I used to think maybe it was just in the difficulty of giving a precise definition of consciousness. There are a lot of words that are hard to define but that we nevertheless have no problem understanding. Maybe consciousness is one of them.
If you are a philosophical zombie, maybe I can help. Consciousness is first person subjective experience. Hmm. I guess if you're a philosophical zombie that probably isn't any more clear. I tried, though.
6 comments:
could you help me with this? http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2017/12/can-metaphysical-claims-be-falsified-by.html?m=1
Luan, the argument uses two premises that I'm unsure about. One of them is that special and general relativity refute presentism. The other is that "becoming" is only possible on presentism, not eternalism. I talked about both of these issues in two earlier posts I made on this blog. One of them is eternalism vs. presentism, and the other is The Kalam cosmological argument on a B theory.
personally, I see the correct theory of time b, the point is that the author assumes that the 5 ways are not possible in theory B
have you seen this elephant video about Mereological Nihilism? https: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = oWGaZoQFFL4
do you think this objection works on theory b of time?
The hard problem o consciousness leads some to dualist solutions, others to panpsychism, whereas materialists will appeal to emergence and supervenience. Dualism has the problems of iteraction, emergence faces epiphenomenalism, panspsychism faces the giggle test :-)
The giggle test. . .that just gave me the giggles.
Post a Comment