In Graziano’s words, “the brain describes a simplified version of itself, then reports this as a ghostly, non-physical essence.” In this context, Graziano argues that consciousness is merely a model the brain constructs of itself, so it can “monitor and control itself”.Ĭonsciousness seems immaterial-his argument goes-simply because, in order to focus attention on survival-relevant tasks, the model fails to incorporate superfluous details of brain anatomy and physiology. to have a model of ourselves-if we are to survive. His argument rests on the idea that consciousness is adaptive: it is undoubtedly beneficial to us to recognize and understand ourselves as agents in our environment-i.e. So Graziano’s challenge is to persuade you that, despite all appearances to the contrary, those experiences don’t actually exist. Phenomenal consciousness entails the subjective experiences that seem to accompany the material stuff going on in your head. Clearly, thus, Graziano is talking about phenomenal consciousness, not the other technical usages of the term. It is the subjective experience of some of that stuff” (emphasis added). He starts the essay by defining his usage of the term ‘consciousness’: “it isn’t just the stuff in your head. In it, Graziano argues-predictably-that consciousness doesn’t actually exist. The cover story of last September’s issue of New Scientist, for instance, sensationally announced the discovery of the “ True nature of consciousness: Solving the biggest mystery of your mind” based on an essay by Michael Graziano. The only way to go about elucidating the mystery is to investigate, with patience and an open mind, the arguments offered by eliminativists and illusionists. But still, what kind of conscious inner dialogue do these people engage in so as to convince themselves that they have no conscious inner dialogue? Short of assuming that they are insane, fantastically stupid or dishonest-none of which is plausible-we have an authentic and rather baffling mystery in our hands. As a matter of fact, the ‘whoa-factor’ of this magic gets eliminativists and illusionists a lot of media attention. What kind of conscious inner dialogue do people engage in so as to convince themselves that they have no conscious inner dialogue?ĭon’t get me wrong, the motivation behind the denial is obvious enough: it is to tackle a vexing problem by magically wishing it out of existence. For I find this denial extremely puzzling for both philosophical and psychological reasons. My interest now is different: I want to understand what makes the consciousness of an intelligent human being deny its own existence with a straight face. The denial of phenomenal consciousness is called-depending on its particular formulation-‘eliminativism’ or ‘illusionism.’ Its sheer absurdity has recently been chronicled by Galen Strawson, David Bentley Hart and yours truly, so I won’t repeat that argumentation here. Remarkably, the intractability of the problem has led some to even claim that consciousness doesn’t exist at all: Daniel Dennett and his followers famously argue that it is an illusion, whereas neuroscientist Michael Graziano proclaims that “ consciousness doesn’t happen. Nothing we can-or, arguably, even could-observe about the arrangement of atoms constituting the brain allows us to deduce what it feels like to smell an orange, fall in love, or have a belly ache. Phenomenal consciousness is seen as one of the top unsolved problems in science.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |