The Hard Problem of Consciousness only is relevant for a specific selection of metaphysics. If you chose the metaphysics that approximates reality best, then the problem just doesn't exist.
Selecting a metaphysics makes explicit how reality is (i.e. ontology) and how beings perceive reality (i.e. epistemology). If you skip this step then you can easily fall victim to assumptions you are not aware of.
There are thinkers that have dismissed the hard problem of consciousness. This is a consequence of operating with a different frame of reference (metaphysics) than those who believe in the importance of the hard problem.
Seth is a neuroscientist and thus the construction of his argument is based on a specific choice of epistemology. That is, how do we construct our understanding of this world. If you subscribe to this epistemology, then there should be no hard problem.
But you can ignore the epistemology and head over to ontology and argue still for the hard problem. Now to make use that door is also shut to prevent escape, I present @wolframphysics model of consciousness.
The two doors of metaphysics (epistemology and ontology) are now shut tight to prevent those arguments in favor of the hard problem from entering.
There is no hard problem of consciousness. Only a cultural illusion of a hard problem. Unfortunately, it is excruciatingly difficult to disentangle one's thinking from influences of culture.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reminder to self: I'm a person of color, therefore, I should buy a dashcam for my car.
BTW, what kind of dashcam records also the inside of a car?
It turns out that dashcams are popular in many countries so that you can claim insurance. I guess we'll need it in the US too. You never know when you get pulled over for a minor infraction and god forbid your skin isn't the right color!
Humans have an inclination to find additive solutions over subtractive solutions. But I must ask, how do you arrive at emergent subtractive solutions via a collective consensus mechanism? nature.com/articles/d4158…
The reason bureaucracies become more complex is that it's easier to get consensus on adding something new than removing something old.
Even in the realm of biological evolution, additive solutions is the more pervasive solution. Only through creative destruction do we actually do see subtractive solutions.
The curse of knowledge is that experts become unconscious of their current knowledge and forget how they arrived at that knowledge. missdcoxblog.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/the…
One of the greatest flaws of current education is the assumption that comprehension leads to competence. It's a completely upside-down model of learning!
Explaining complex narratives is also very difficult to get across when you begin with the conclusion and work yourself backward. This is how proofs are presented in mathematics. There's a statement and you find a way to discover why it is true.
There's an intrinsic asymmetry in how reality is understood and how we manipulate our world. Appreciating art is different from creating art. But to gain a deeper understanding one has to be able to create.
Let's take drawing as an example. There is a common myth that drawing is an innate talent. The reality is, people who can't draw haven't learned a vocabulary for drawing. You cannot speak a language if you haven't learned its vocabulary.
Thus to create something in a medium, one needs to learn how to express thoughts in that medium. The Chinese knew this when they identified playing a musical instrument, painting, calligraphy, and playing Go as art forms.
Our noun-centric language generates a bias in many that the word balance implies a state that is unchanging. That something that is inanimate is in balance. Search unsplash for 'balance':
But from a verb-centric frame of reference, balance is a process. Everything that is alive is in movement. To be in balance is to keep something the same while in movement within an environment.
This movement is driven by a multitude of opposing forces, both originating from the self or from the environment. It is a complex process that evolution has been fine-tuning for billions of years.
Is it possible to create a verb-centric language with only a sequential language?
One can classify noun-centric languages in how they construct their verbs. English and German follow satellite-framing, while Romantic languages follow verb-frame. The former express paths and the latter express manner. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_fram…
I'm an English speaker but I often get stumped in my writing with particles like in, at, on etc. It is ambiguous to me as to what is the appropriate path term to use. My way to validate it is to actually vocalize so I can tell if it sounds right.