I am grateful to Jakob Korf for his reply to my comment on his “Qualia in a Contemporary Neurobiological Perspective”. I appreciate that Korf’s intention is to approach the issue from the perspective of neuroscience, rather than philosophy of mind, and I suspect that our dialogue may have partly been at cross purposes. Korf concedes that he does not resolve the “hard problem” of Chalmers. This is a reasonable concession and entirely appropriate for his aim. However, to mitigate the potential (...) for miscommunication, some care is needed to ensure conceptual clarity, so that theoretical claims about brain processes are not erroneously exalted to metaphysical claims about the “hard problem”. (shrink)

In dem Artikel wird die These vertreten, dass sich das – um es in populärster Weise zu formulieren – „Problem des Bewusstseins” auf einer falschen Interpretation der Erfahrungsstruktur gründet. Der Kontrast zwischen meiner subjektiven Perspektive und der gemeinsamen Welt, in der ich meine Perspektive einnehme , ist Bestandteil meiner Erfahrung. Beschreibungen von Erfahrungen, die den Grundstein für die Bewusstseinsausbildung legen, neigen jedoch dazu, lediglich Ersteres zu betonen, wobei sie merkwürdigerweise die Tatsache vergessen, dass Erfahrung mit einschließt, sich zugehörig zu der (...) Welt zu fühlen, in der man eine kontingente subjektive Perspektive einnimmt. Der nächste Schritt bei der Formulierung des Problems ist, darüber nachzudenken, wie diese Abstraktion in die wissenschaftlich beschriebene Welt integriert werden kann. Der Verfasser stellt die Behauptung auf, dass die wissenschaftlich beschriebene Welt selbst das durch die Erfahrung konstituierte Gefühl der Zugehörigkeit zu einer gemeinsamen Wirklichkeit als selbstverständlich voraussetzt. Daher schließt das Problem des Bewusstseins mit ein, dass A von B abstrahiert und B abgestritten wird; sodann wird versucht, A in C zu insertieren, wenn C Aspekte von B voraussetzt. Das so geartete Problem ist symptomatisch für massiven phänomenologischen Wirrwarr. Demnach verwundert nicht, dass das Bewusstsein weiterhin ein rätselhaftes Phänomen ist. (shrink)

John Heil’s From an Ontological Point of View (Heil 2003) is a tremendous philosophical work. The neo-Lockean ontology the reader finds within its 267 pages is a sensible and refreshing alternative to the neo-Humean ontologies which presently occupy the vast majority of the metaphysical literature. What Heil offers is a much needed change in perspective. Nor are the strengths of the book limited to Heil’s willingness to approach central metaphysical problems in largely untried and unpopular way; the book is very (...) clear in its presentation, accessible to wide readership, and tightly argued throughout. Heil’s efforts in this book are to be applauded, and the result is one that warrants serious consideration by all those interested in serious metaphysics. But the interest should not end there: the lessons of Heil’s book are ones that almost all philosophers ought to take seriously. Despite the criticism that follows, my overall position should not be taken as anything short of a whole-hearted endorsement of Heil’s book. Nonetheless, when philosophy is one’s trade, there is always going to be something to disagree about, however much one is amenable to a view. (shrink)

Velmans’ paper raises three problems concerning mental causation: (1) How can consciousness affect the physical, given that the physical world appears causally closed? 10 (2) How can one be in conscious control of processes of which one is not consciously aware? (3) Conscious experiences appear to come too late to causally affect the processes to which they most obviously relate. In an appendix Velmans gives his reasons for refusing to resolve these problems through adopting the position (which he labels ‘physicalism’) (...) that ‘consciousness is nothing more than a state of the brain’. The rest of the paper, then, is an attempt to solve these problems without embracing a reductionist physicalism. Velmans’ solution to the first problem is ‘ontological monism combined with epistemological dualism’: First-person and third-person accounts are two different ways of knowing the same facts. This kind of reply is not new; it is, for example, a twist on the position expressed in Davidson (1970). True, there are substantial differences: For one, Davidson reconciles the tension between descriptions of events in mentalistic and physicalist language, not between firstand third-person descriptions of states; for another, Davidson actually provides an argument for his position, although to do so he assumes that there are no psycho-physical (or indeed, psycho-psycho) laws, something which I suspect Velmans would be reluctant to do. Nevertheless, they have in common the idea that the causal efficacy of the mental is not at odds with the causal closure of physics, since a mind-involving causal story is just another way of talking about the same facts that a purely physical causal story talks about. This ‘dual-aspect’ approach is a popular tactic for resolving the mind--body problem, but it has some well-known problems, and it is unfortunate Velmans doesn’t reply to these standard objections. For example, a frequently discussed issue in connection with theories of mental causation is the problem of overdetermination (see, e.g., Unger, 1977; Peacocke, 1979). (shrink)

In contrast to other books popularizing quantum mechanics, the importance and significance of this book is that it both explicitly discusses the connections between quantum mechanics and consciousness, and is used as course material for liberal arts students at the authors’ university and perhaps elsewhere. Teaching with humor and sometimes in parables, the authors skillfully expose some of the enigmas of quantum mechanics with emphasis on their connections to consciousness. Chiefly, these enigmas are: the measurement problem which involves observer created (...) reality and the randomness of nature, and quantum entanglement, experimentally verified through violations of Bell’s inequality, which suggests inseparability or nonlocality at the microscopic levels. Rosenblum and Kuttner also succinctly summarize nine interpretations of quantum physics and point out in no uncertain terms that every interpretation encounters consciousness. (shrink)

I present 3 arguments that the laws of physics, by themselves, cannot explain the origin of phenomenal consciousness. First, physics investigates the objective, while consciousness is subjective. Second, the laws of physics are syntactical, while consciousness is semantic. Third, the concept of consciousness cannot even be defined in terms of physics.