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

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

Isn't this Penrose's weird ether fume huffing thoughts?

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

Perhaps. It still strikes me as a better potential explanation than neurons = transistors, consciousness = computation.

Plus, if you aren't rooting for at least one kind of kooky hypothesis, then whats even the point of spectating modern science?

[–] insurgentrat@hexbear.net 6 points 3 weeks ago

Nobody serious views brains as a computer. Anyone with any technical background in either computational theory or neuroscience knows they're vastly different.

Don't get confused by pop culture nonsense. People used to use clockwork or steam engines as crude analogy for the brain, wasn't any more accurate then.