If your theory of consciousness contains a Hard Problem, it means that you recognize that your theory does not work.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
No, this is like saying "if your theory of QM has a measurement problem, it means you recognize that your theory doesn't work." No one's theory works, that's why it's a problem!
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NeuroMyths
If no one's theory [in any given domain] works, it means that no one has a working theory, no?
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @NeuroMyths
The “hard problem” is only a problem for those who fail to place organismic affect (homeostatic, emotional affect) at the foundation of their model. Once you conceptualize subjective experiences as an emergent characteristic of affect, the hard problem vanishes completely.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
To be replaced by the problem of claiming that a "conceptualisation of subjective experiences as an emergent characteristic of affect" bears any connection to what our actual subjective experiences actually are.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @SimsYStuart and
more generally, having a Hard Problem is rather better than not noticing that you have a Problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Now mapping the precise causal mechanisms (neurochemical and neuroarchitectural) which elaborate brainstem affect into cortical subjective experience is certainly a very, very hard problem. But that problem is not a conceptual problem. It’s just a problem of system complexity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The conceptual problem that I see, is mapping a '3rd person' description of a brain to 1st person subjective experience. There is no such mapping?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I don’t think that the functional implementation of the mind and the conscious self exist in the same frame of reference. From the perspective of the self, phenomenal experience is primary, outside of it, there is no experience. The self is a story, the mind a story generator.
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
That’s my thinking as well - all of the nuances of our SE is a separate issue best left to philosophers. The relevant fact is that SE is an elaboration of organismic affect. Physiological affect is real. It exists and can be measured. SE exists and can be measured.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You cannot leave anything to philosophers. At best, they are busy solving problems caused by other philosophers.
-
-
Ha! A scientist saying this is entirely analogous to a driver saying, “you cannot leave anything to mechanics, at best they're busy solving problems caused by other mechanics”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sorry for coming off as flippant. I think that most low hanging fruits in philosophy have been reaped long ago, and most of the present debates take place within very field specific contexts. In this sense philosophy is perhaps not different from math.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.