The Hard Problem: Rivers of Energy (3/3)

More bizarre ideas about the hard problem of consciousness with Mike Earl.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• hard
• problem
• consciousness
• mike
• earl
• chalmers
• distinction
• unity
• binding
• energy

[Promatheos]

Funny enough, we use distinction to distinguish between distinction and unity. To say distinction is one thing that is different from unity, is itself distinction. On the other hand, you can't have distinction without a different thing, unity, to compare it to. And if you can't have one without the other, then they are really inseparable, and, therefore, unified.

Look how funny language is.

[SpiritualAtheist]

Yes, they are in a sense two sides (distinction) of the same (unity) coin. Perhaps other minds can escape this logic. Mine can not.

[cosmanthony21]

its like a man attempting to tell what a woman is, this thing of subjectivity and objectivity.

[SpiritualAtheist]

It is a tricky business to be sure!

[NeoPsiTom]

Excellent. The things I've learned in the last several years are directing me to look into the fundamental aspects & nature of consciousness. Tom

[b4skin]

It almost sounds to me the stumbling across of a personal definition of 'original god' in concluding a whole (unity) through basically the conditions (or you may argue 'conditioning') of experience..or more aptly the study of which has led you to that postulate. Not to be taken negatively as I didn't state which god! :)

[Canteatpancakes]

In light of Dennett being discussed below, I would like to insert my favorite Dennett quote...

"If you make your self very small you can externalize virtually everything..."

"...If you make your self very large you'd be surprised what you can internalize..."

- Daniel C Dennett

[Censeo]

Very nice work you've done, sharing what you've discovered. Some things you claim is so obviously working perfect to make up a great deal of understanding. One thing I get more frustrated on more than dualists are physicalists. It is only a dualistic view that makes sense if the conclution is that the world is exactly how we percieve. Only dualism has the objective interpreter in the box. Yet physicalists seem to have the same idea

[2bsirius]

Interesting points, Cheiz87...Here's a quote from Dennett, "Consciousness looks like an insoluble mystery when you have an inflated vision of what consciousness is...We tend to think we're conscious of a lot more than we are.We tend to think consciousness has properties that it doesn't have...I think Dawkins and to a lesser degree, Hofstadter would agree. SO even if they call something "qualia," they aren't talking about what Chalmers or Ned Block are talking about when they use the same word.

[Cheiz87]

i think people are mistaken who think that people like Dawkins, Dennett, or Hofstadter deny consciousness or qualia are mistaken, i mean, everyone has experiences, including them! Only, they try to show that the properties and claims about these concepts we have are usually based on misassumptions