Science Says . . .

The following article is a prime example of why bowing to authority in matters of thought is not a good idea:

Is it time to give up on consciousness as ‘the ghost in the machine’?

[Note: For some reason, the link above no longer works, but the same article seems to be viewable here.]

Let me paste some extracts and give some very brief criticism.

"There are those who believe consciousness is like a ghost in the machinery of our brains, meriting special attention and study in its own right. And there are those, like us, who challenge this, pointing out that what we call consciousness is just another output generated backstage by our efficient neural machinery."

Notice the biased language: "believe" versus "pointing out"; the phrase "pointing out" is, in fact, an example of the 'begging the question' fallacy of assuming one's conclusion in advance (as one of the premises of one's argument). You can't 'point out' something that's not there. Also, are those beliefs, by any chance, conscious beliefs?

"Giving up on the ghost of consciousness to focus scientific endeavour on the machinery of our brains could be an essential step we need to take to better understand the human mind."

I recommend reading this sentence over a few times. What exactly does 'focus' mean here if it does not involve consciousness? In what way will we 'understand' the human mind better, if not consciously?

"Our experience of consciousness places us firmly in the driver’s seat, with a sense that we’re in control of our psychological world."

So, we have an experience of consciousness. Is that experience ... Surely you know what I'm going to ask? Is that experience conscious or not? Apparently that's the kind of simple question the authors of this article are incapable of asking. And look again at the slogan under the website's title: "Academic rigour, journalistic flair." And then remember that these are the kind of people who are telling you you should give up on consciousness (possibly the most precious thing you possess). But we can't argue with 'the science', right?

"One reason for this is that many of us, including scientists, have adopted a dualist position on the nature of consciousness. Dualism is a philosophical view that draws a distinction between the mind and the body. Even though consciousness is generated by the brain – a part of the body – dualism claims that the mind is distinct from our physical features, and that consciousness cannot be understood through the study of the physical brain alone."

 Again, the question-begging: "Even though consciousness is generated by the brain  ..." The desired conclusion is what they base their argument on. Oh, and consciousness is generated by the brain, but also doesn't exist? Well, no wonder people incapable of setting down a single coherent thought doubt the existence of consciousness. 

Why people continue to swallow this excrement, I don't know.

Meanwhile:

Crows Are Self-Aware and 'Know What They Know,' Just Like Humans 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Dark and Stormy Night

  It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.  I wonder if you will recognise this. It is the opening sentence of the novel Paul Clifford , by Edward Bulwer-Lytton. I have just seen Bulwer-Lytton's name brought up, and the above sentence quoted, in response to the question, "Who have been the world's worst published writers?" I have not read more of Bulwer-Lytton than a few quotes such as that above, but I cannot think he really deserves to be numbered among 'the world's worst published writers'. Tellingly, the person who quoted the above did not give any reason why we are supposed to consider this such bad writing, apart from mentioning that the opening phrase is a cliché...
Read more

In Passing

 Some sentences tell us a great deal, not because of their essential information, but because of the way they are phrased, or their context. It is possible to learn something new from a book even if it does not present you with any new facts, because of the way the facts are assembled and because of the phrasing used in presenting the facts. I found the following sentences, from Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations , quite piquant: In the nineteenth century successful industrialization and emigration reduced the political impact of young populations in European societies. The proportions of youth rose again in the 1920s, however, providing recruits to fascist and other extremist movements.
Read more

Simplicity in Writing

 I've just read a little of this article in the Times Literary Supplement , written by one of the cultural scions of Messrs Strunk and White: Plain Speaking - How to Write Well I do have some sympathy with writing plainly and maximising the virtues of the demotic Anglo-Saxon (in a way that I have not done in this sentence), but I can't help thinking there's a pathology posing as common sense in a lot of this hand-wringing about simplicity.   For instance, from the opening paragraph:   "Our teacher is a seasoned journalist who insists that we learn how to edit our own prose ruthlessly. (If he saw this paragraph, he would cut 'seasoned' – a cliché – as well as all the words ending with -ly.)"   She goes on to say that her teacher would eschew not only obvious jargon, but anything "long and Latinate".   Is this not a kind of stylistic hair shirt, the pursuing of rules for their own sake? Just take the first sentence of the article's first para...
Read more