- #61
Tournesol
- 804
- 0
physics implies maths implies 3rdP
Does Consciousness Have Non-Causal Properties?
- Thread starter StatusX
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Cause Consciousness
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The forum discussion centers on the nature of consciousness and its potential non-causal properties. Participants argue that while the physical world may be causally closed, consciousness may still possess intrinsic qualities that are not solely defined by their causal roles. The conversation references concepts such as the inverted spectrum argument and Davidson's Anomalous Monism, highlighting the complexities of linking consciousness to physical explanations. Ultimately, the discussion suggests that consciousness is intricately connected to physical processes, yet may encompass aspects that defy strict causal interpretation.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of consciousness theories, particularly David Davidson's Anomalous Monism.
- Familiarity with the inverted spectrum argument in philosophy of mind.
- Knowledge of the causal closure of the physical world.
- Basic concepts of qualia and their implications in consciousness studies.
- Research the implications of Davidson's Anomalous Monism on consciousness and physicalism.
- Explore the inverted spectrum argument and its critiques in contemporary philosophy.
- Investigate the relationship between qualia and causal roles in consciousness.
- Examine emerging theories of causation and their relevance to consciousness, such as those discussed in "A Place for Consciousness."
Philosophers, cognitive scientists, and anyone interested in the intersection of consciousness and physicalism will benefit from this discussion, particularly those exploring the complexities of intrinsic properties of consciousness.
- #62
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
Sorry, is this intended to be an explanation of why the doctrine of "physicalism" necessarily implies a "3rd person objective perspective"?Tournesol said:
MF
- #63
Tournesol
- 804
- 0
Yes. typing with 1 hand, hence brevity.
- #64
Tournesol
- 804
- 0
moving finger said:
Whatever.
If physicalism is true, the 3rdP perspective should explain everything.
Physicalism implies everything can be described in S+F terms, which itself implies that everything can be described in 3rdP terms.
The S+F aspects of my experience , such as the squareness of the red square, are the ones I can communicate. The others, eg the redness, are ineffable.
I don't see why I should have to accept the existence of irreducably 1stP descriptions in a physical universe.
maybe.
it implie that everything can be described in S+F terms.
physicalism is a 3rdP perspective, so that would follow.
physicalism means physics means maths means S+F means 3rdP.
because they would be explainable in S+F, hence 3rdP, terms, so they would not be irreducably 1stP.