[MD] Consciousness & Moq.

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
Let me repeat the central question, just in case you missed it. "Why should
physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?" 
 


Krimel replied:
The richness of inner life is this synthesis. Neuroscience, while still in
its infancy, is giving us answers to both how and why questions. What you
seem to be pursuing is the fundamentally skeptical attitude of two years
olds asking an endless stream of "Why?"
 
Why are these impossibly complex processes experienced in just this way and
not some other or why are they experienced at all? (there is a rich
literature on philosophical zombies, BTW. Since this seems to be all new to
you, check it out.) That is like asking why it is that when you put two
hydrogen atoms together with an oxygen atom it feels wet. Or why a candle
flame produces a particular frequency of light. Or, why does the porridge
bird lay its eggs in the air?
 
Your panpsychic approach provides exactly the kind of answer we end up
giving to two year olds: "Because God made it that way."

dmb says:
The question that you mock as the skepticism of a two year old is Chalmers' question.
David Chalmers entertains the panpsychic approach that you mock.
That would be fine if you hadn't praised him as thee go-to man just a few days ago.
This reversal does have implications with respect to you personally but that's just gravy.
Pointing out that such a reversal is bogus, however, is an attack on your argument, not you.
Philosophical Zombies, by the way, are just Chalmers' way to illustrate the hard problem. 
John Searle's thought experiment, known as the Chinese room, also gets at the idea.
But apparently neither of them can help you see the problem.

As I see it, you are fundamentally confused about the difference between science and philosophy.
The difference between physicalism and panpsychism, for example, is NOT a factual difference.They both draw conclusions from the same set of facts. You seem to think that we differ on the facts, as if you had them and I don't.
But you need to realize that what we are doing here is making sense of the facts. This is what James and Pirsig were getting at with the classic-romantic, tough-tender distinctions.The differences between James and Royce were not at all about the facts or the data.Their difference was one of temperament, was a matter of how to construe those facts.

Your response to the hard problem, which is a philosophical problem, is to cite the facts.
That is simply NOT what is in dispute. I don't know how many times I've tried to explain this already.
And so we are literally talking about two different things.
In fact, you're not even operating in the right discipline.
And now you're trying to discredit Chalmers, your own expert witness in this case.
As I see it, you are a profoundly bad philosopher who has no freaking idea what to make of the facts.
Well, that's not quite fair. You're not bad at it. You just don't do philosophy at all. 
Try Heisenberg. He was one of those scientists who also happened to be a good philosopher of science. 
Try reading something besides science.
Then talk to me. Otherwise there really is no point. It's just a waste of time. It's just so much straw.
Otherwise your contributions will continue to be Kriminelly shallow and empty and irrelevant.
YAWN!