(September 10, 2011 at 3:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Is there anything that is currently classified as supernatural that you feel should be removed from this category and studied more closely?
I'd have to know what you meant by supernatural, because my understanding of it is something that cannot be derived or explained by the laws of the universe.
But, ironically, if that's so, it means that consciousness is either supernatural or the laws need a +1 because if consciousness cannot be derived from physical laws, then by definition it cannot be said to be natural. Yet, nobody is arguing that, so something doesn't square.
As Chalmers puts it: "a key observation is that not all entities in science are explained in terms of more basic entities. In physics, for example, space-time, mass and charge (among other things) are regarded as fundamental features of the world, as they are not reducible to anything simpler."
[All good, but it wasn't always so:] "In the 19th century it turned out that electromagnetic phenomena could not be explained in terms of previously known principles. As a consequence, scientists introduced electromagnetic charge as a new fundamental entity and studied the associated fundamental laws. Similar reasoning should apply to consciousness. If existing fundamental theories cannot encompass it, then something new is required."
That's what its all about. Not saying that the existing laws or the science investigating them are incorrect, for that is not the case. But they are incomplete inasmuch as they cannot sufficiently explain the phenomenon of conscious experience. This is not saying they are wrong or should be replaced, because that is stupid. It's saying something needs to be added to the mix in order to sufficiently explain the hard problem of consciousness.
