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

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net 0 points 3 weeks ago

but the language around things being untestable as a way to dismiss them is kind of what i'm getting at, it seems you're operating with "scientific method = direct path to philosophical knowledge" as an a priori truth, which i think misunderstands a lot of what philosophy is about and the distinctions between the two fields.

I see what you mean now with the skepticism. We are at an impasse. Either consciousness is emergent from the brain, and science can explain it. Or it's foundational, and our complete lack of other higher consciousness beings leaves us wholly unable to further understand the foundational nature of it, which basically falls into solipsism.

Though I will say having an a priori assumption that the scientific method will pan out has paid off so far. Not sure that's true for the a priori assumption that all a priori assumptions are shaky though :^)