philosophy

20217 readers

2 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes

Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net

MiraculousMM@hexbear.net

Leon_Grotsky@hexbear.net

What do you think of panpsychism/the hard problem of consciousness? (hexbear.net)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by itsPina@hexbear.net to c/philosophy@hexbear.net

241 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Personally I think it's silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience... Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I've been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism... Maybe I am just tripping idk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PowerLurker@hexbear.net 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

i think a more precise version of what Dessa was trying to convey is more like: "the ultimate nature of consciousness isn't a field of study for science," which i agree with. you're right re: psychology and neuroscience - that we can study how conscious experience seems to behave under certain conditions and contexts, and within certain baseline assumptions. and through that we find practical breakthroughs that can really help people.

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 4 points 3 weeks ago

"the ultimate nature of consciousness isn't a field of study for science,"

Yes, I absolutely agree with that, some questions are metaphysical. I just think we shouldn't discount the field of "talking to people about their subjective experiences and using the scientific method to see what effects them" as unscientific.