After a sudden religious deconstruction that left me reeling, I immediately turned to science to expand my knowledge base and philosophy to ground myself. Surprisingly, I found philosophy to be much more difficult to wade through, particularly philosophy of mind. Neurophilosophy was a lighthouse in the fog for me. I'm reading Prof Churchland's books and often searching for the latest interview, lecture, or debate. Words can't express my appreciation for her work. Maybe they could, but I'd be typing all day, and who wants to read all that? Lol
I can see fantastic colors or have exquisite feelings, but none of these can be perceived if you open up my brain. So where are they? If you keep researching neural correlates for another 50 years and you eventually isolate it to a secret neuron somewhere in the depths of the brain, or a bunch of neurons or some module, that still does not make the colors or feelings perceivable to the 3rd person observer. It is this that is mysterious about the hard problem (no, memory, motor control, etc. are not hard in this sense, we already have working models of these functions in our computers and robots, and an eventual solution to how they work in the brain does not look like it will force a change of metaphysics on us, except to the extent that they are accompanied by qualia, which just brings us back to the hard problem.) That Chalmers goes on to posit a different realm (does he? I have not read his paper in a while) or appeals to mysticism is irrelevant here. Mystical or no, it is possible that we will one day get very good at manipulating brains to elicit, control or alter qualia, but that is engineering - the philosophical puzzle remains. I will lay my cards on the table. The hard problem is a clue that, to me and many others, is telling us something essential about the world that we find ourselves in. And that is, it has an "inside" to it - in fact, it is all inside. It's not about some otherworldly realm, rather this very world appears to be inside a dream or a mind, and everything that appears to us, including our minds and bodies, arrives as an experience. It is not all visible at all times - much is obscured, then sometimes revealed. If this means science as we currently know it needs to be expanded, so be it - that to me is not mystical, it is just acknowledging that science has to grapple with the qualities that were excluded so far - first person experience in all its facets.
Not sure if I agree that we can judge morality without thinking of intention. Even adoption can be immoral if it comes from the wrong intentions, as the Disney movie Tangled illustrates
Everything being reduced to biology, to the physical level, and sociobiology at the community level is rampant today. What is not acceptable is this being labeled philosophy. It is the case that consciousness ‘the hard problem’ and mind are not understood yet. Until they are, It is best to keep the realms and disciplines separate. Philosophy deals with consciousness and mind and not with biology. It implies that consciousness and mind arises from the physical brain and there is no hard evidence that this is the case. There is still the body/mind problem. Consciousness is not perceived as fundamental and mind is not seen as independent of biology. In the East they are more advanced in their approach to these as their philosophy and research goes all the way back to higher cultures. Schizophrenia in Greek means split at the diaphragm, it usually arises from trauma or impulses that are suppressed and kept out of the conscious mind. If this breaks down the subconscious imagery gets into the conscious mind and the if ego is not strong enough to cope with it, there is a psychotic breakdown. The ego has to be strengthened, a strong ego is important, but not so strong as to be egocentric. I enjoyed the interview, she knows a lot, but is still more in the realm of biology and sociobiology than in the realm of philosophy which has to do with consciousness and mind. There are multiple other disci[lines to deal with biology. Philosophy is increasingly tacked onto everything today to give what it is tacked on to cache. Let us keep philosophy (the love of wisdom) exclusive to consciousness and mind by not making it reductive.
![จากรุ่นใหญ่สุดรวยในเกม FIVEM สู่การติดคุกแก๊งแตกในชีวิตจริง [สรุปแก๊งOREO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Vjj8EX4qpiU/mqdefault.jpg)
this should have millions of views,.. you are our legend pat.!!
After a sudden religious deconstruction that left me reeling, I immediately turned to science to expand my knowledge base and philosophy to ground myself. Surprisingly, I found philosophy to be much more difficult to wade through, particularly philosophy of mind. Neurophilosophy was a lighthouse in the fog for me. I'm reading Prof Churchland's books and often searching for the latest interview, lecture, or debate. Words can't express my appreciation for her work. Maybe they could, but I'd be typing all day, and who wants to read all that? Lol
I'm so glad you found this!
One of the best episodes yet
Thanks. I think so too.
read some of her work while studying neuroscience in undergrad - great to have her on!!
thanks phil I thought you might have read her
Pat is so cool. Glad you got her on.
Great episode :)
My fave
thank you so much for this content! greetings from Italy!
I can see fantastic colors or have exquisite feelings, but none of these can be perceived if you open up my brain. So where are they? If you keep researching neural correlates for another 50 years and you eventually isolate it to a secret neuron somewhere in the depths of the brain, or a bunch of neurons or some module, that still does not make the colors or feelings perceivable to the 3rd person observer. It is this that is mysterious about the hard problem (no, memory, motor control, etc. are not hard in this sense, we already have working models of these functions in our computers and robots, and an eventual solution to how they work in the brain does not look like it will force a change of metaphysics on us, except to the extent that they are accompanied by qualia, which just brings us back to the hard problem.) That Chalmers goes on to posit a different realm (does he? I have not read his paper in a while) or appeals to mysticism is irrelevant here. Mystical or no, it is possible that we will one day get very good at manipulating brains to elicit, control or alter qualia, but that is engineering - the philosophical puzzle remains.
I will lay my cards on the table. The hard problem is a clue that, to me and many others, is telling us something essential about the world that we find ourselves in. And that is, it has an "inside" to it - in fact, it is all inside. It's not about some otherworldly realm, rather this very world appears to be inside a dream or a mind, and everything that appears to us, including our minds and bodies, arrives as an experience. It is not all visible at all times - much is obscured, then sometimes revealed. If this means science as we currently know it needs to be expanded, so be it - that to me is not mystical, it is just acknowledging that science has to grapple with the qualities that were excluded so far - first person experience in all its facets.
Not sure if I agree that we can judge morality without thinking of intention. Even adoption can be immoral if it comes from the wrong intentions, as the Disney movie Tangled illustrates
Everything being reduced to biology, to the physical level, and sociobiology at the community level is rampant today. What is not acceptable is this being labeled philosophy. It is the case that consciousness ‘the hard problem’ and mind are not understood yet. Until they are, It is best to keep the realms and disciplines separate. Philosophy deals with consciousness and mind and not with biology. It implies that consciousness and mind arises from the physical brain and there is no hard evidence that this is the case.
There is still the body/mind problem. Consciousness is not perceived as fundamental and mind is not seen as independent of biology. In the East they are more advanced in their approach to these as their philosophy and research goes all the way back to higher cultures.
Schizophrenia in Greek means split at the diaphragm, it usually arises from trauma or impulses that are suppressed and kept out of the conscious mind. If this breaks down the subconscious imagery gets into the conscious mind and the if ego is not strong enough to cope with it, there is a psychotic breakdown. The ego has to be strengthened, a strong ego is important, but not so strong as to be egocentric.
I enjoyed the interview, she knows a lot, but is still more in the realm of biology and sociobiology than in the realm of philosophy which has to do with consciousness and mind. There are multiple other disci[lines to deal with biology. Philosophy is increasingly tacked onto everything today to give what it is tacked on to cache. Let us keep philosophy (the love of wisdom) exclusive to consciousness and mind by not making it reductive.