Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

18
  • 3
    Instead of "god of the gaps", its qualia of the gaps. Consciousness is satisfactorily explained as a property of the physical , no need for "theistic/mystical" explanations that explain nothing and can't predict anything. Commented Mar 8, 2025 at 20:54
  • 6
    you are making the claim that consciousness is anything other than the results of our brain making observations about itself. You carry the burden. You declaring consciousness "redundant' in evolutionary psychology is another bold claim you offer no support for. And parapsychology is just another unfalsifiable religion that has no reasonable evidence for, otherwise it would be an actual science. Commented Mar 9, 2025 at 19:21
  • 5
    Consciousness is certainly not redundant in evolutionary terms unless you assert that something non-physical serves the same purpose, in which case the argument becomes circular. Consciousness is paralleled by unconscious processes, but those do not conduct longer-term advance planning, and you cannot argue that advance planning does not have evolutionary advantage. Nor do they override reflexes, when the reflex response is inappropriate; that too is a function of consciousness. Nor do they mediate training the unconscious to perform complex skills that do not have immediate value to it/them. Commented Mar 10, 2025 at 18:34
  • 3
    @infatuated Got anything other than appeal to authority and ad hominems, or are you conceding the point that you can't demonstrate any "redundancy" in consciousness evolving? Commented Mar 10, 2025 at 18:39
  • 3
    I think you are reacting to a caricature of physicalism. How about asking a physicalist what we believe, rather than asserting what you think we must believe? My definition has no such problem. Subjective experience IS a physiological process, IS of direct evolutionary benefit, IS evolved. There isn't a problem with the mind being in the body unless you assume that the mind isn't in the body. There doesn't seem to be a Hard Problem unless you make that assumption. Physicalism may not satisfy your non-physicalist assumptions/needs, but it IS self-contained and consistent. Commented Mar 10, 2025 at 22:55