I find your response to Jacob, a bit self-conceited. You present yourself as the enlightened purveyor of wisdom to the ignorant masses, i.e. a “reality salesman”. To me, your ontological naturalism sounds more like dogma than encouragement to inquire into the mysteries of existence.
You fail to distinguish between the knowing subject and ideas, which are the means by which we know. A computational model of the brain explains how the brain produces something akin to propositional relationships and information bearing signals. Computational model do not explain how you can have any awareness of the content, or meaning, of those relationships and signals.
It is not sufficient say that the brain responds mechanistically to sense data that produce only mechanical movements and then suddenly consciousness magically appears, like a rabbit from a hat. You want to wish a knowing subject into existence by moving a sparkly wand and throwing confetti just because that’s how you want things to work. You need a rabbit first, before you can bring it out from hiding.
The only problem with dualism is the interaction problem. But nothing prevents a source of intentionality from influencing brain states by means of some quantum process. I often hear that future advances in science will allow us to better understand consciousness. If that is so, then why do materialists insist that consciousness must only be explained by 19th century physics? After more than 100 years of trying no viable theory has been forthcoming. We need to start looking elsewhere. Why do you cling to failed models that are so blatantly counter-intuitive?
For crying out loud don't you guys ever brush Dennett's spooge off your teeth!
You fail to distinguish between the knowing subject and ideas, which are the means by which we know. A computational model of the brain explains how the brain produces something akin to propositional relationships and information bearing signals. Computational model do not explain how you can have any awareness of the content, or meaning, of those relationships and signals.
It is not sufficient say that the brain responds mechanistically to sense data that produce only mechanical movements and then suddenly consciousness magically appears, like a rabbit from a hat. You want to wish a knowing subject into existence by moving a sparkly wand and throwing confetti just because that’s how you want things to work. You need a rabbit first, before you can bring it out from hiding.
The only problem with dualism is the interaction problem. But nothing prevents a source of intentionality from influencing brain states by means of some quantum process. I often hear that future advances in science will allow us to better understand consciousness. If that is so, then why do materialists insist that consciousness must only be explained by 19th century physics? After more than 100 years of trying no viable theory has been forthcoming. We need to start looking elsewhere. Why do you cling to failed models that are so blatantly counter-intuitive?
For crying out loud don't you guys ever brush Dennett's spooge off your teeth!
