What if there were nothing

1
What if there were nothing?

• A denial of consciousness

2
Structure

• Introductory remarks - what might be gained by
  denying consciousness.
• The denial - can it be done if so, how?
• So what?
• Where did we all go so wrong?

3
Introductory remarks

• A long drawn-out incompatibility between mental
  terms and physical terms.
• Because this problem has gone on so long, there
  are more ways of phrasing it than we have time to
  enumerate.

4
Introductory remarks

• Previously all conflicts between the scientific
  viewpoint and the first-person viewpoint have
  ended in clear and complete victory for science.
• So whats different about this one?

5
Whats different about this one?

• We need longer
• At some point observer and observed are one and
  the same.
• This goes to the very heart of being someone.

6
Whats different about this one?

• Miracle talk - Do you believe in magic?
• I dont have a problem with ontologies that
  include magic.
• What I have a problem with is ontologies that
  specifically deny magic and then let it back in
  as (for eg)-
• Epiphenomena
• Causal powers
• Quantum gravity

7
Whats different about this one?

• Early (and maybe not-so-early) attempts to push
  scientific accounts through in this area seen
  (quite justifiably imnsho) as failures.
• Eg mid 20th Cent eliminative materialism,
  Skinnerian behaviourism, reductionism

8
The denial

• For those who seek to elucidate the notion of
  consciousness, it is agreed that it is complex,
  multiple-faceted, and very hard to define.
• For those who seek to deny it, it is therefore a
  shape-shifting, hydra-headed demon that keeps
  coming back from the dead.

9
The naming fallacy

• If we all know and can correctly use a word for
  some entity, it must therefore exist

10
The denial

• Consider the claim There are no such things as
  unicorns

11

• Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18)
• 1990 CHAPTER 18

12
(No Transcript)
13
The denial

• I am not conscious

14
Responses

• Obviously you are.

15
Responses

• Obviously you are.
• I think we can agree that this is morally and
  intellectually reprehensible, roughly equivalent
  to Ill convince you by thumping you.

16
Responses

• You are because you are awake.
• (anaesthetists defintion - how is this
  incompatible with science?)

17
Responses

• You are because you are awake.
• (anaesthetists defintion - how is this
  incompatible with science?)
• Consider conscious experience while not awake,
  wakefulness without consciousness.
• Do these make sense?

18
Responses

• You are because you would pass the Turing test.

19
Responses

• You are because you would pass the Turing test.
• Ive never actually taken the Turing test.
• Its not clear that I would pass.

20
Responses

• I cant parse that statement.

21
Responses

• I cant parse that statement.
• Is consciousness a lifestyle choice that we can
  allow people to adopt if and when they want?

22
Responses

• I cant parse that statement.
• Is consciousness a lifestyle choice that we can
  allow people to adopt if and when they want?
• If not, why not?

23
Why must people be conscious?

• (at least in our society)
• Its a socially constitutive myth.
• That alone does not make it real.
• Consider Walford, London E20

24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Could there be nothing?

• Humans are highly social animals.
• Language works only within a form of life.
• People who deviate from the consciousness myth
  are often a serious problem.

28
Could there be nothing?

• People who deviate from the consciousness myth
  are often a serious problem.
• I is required for linguistic, moral, and social
  interaction.
• Consider the notion of mental illness.

29
Could there be nothing?

• Before my teacher came to me, I did not know
  that I am. Helen Keller 1908
• From the moment I could talk, I was ordered to
  listen. Cat Stevens 1970

30
Could there be nothing?

• Consciousness appears to conform better to the
  rules of fiction than the rules of science.
• Consistency of character -
• Historical consistency rather than present
  observations -

31
So what?

• Ive put a lot of diverse opinions on the same
  page! Including
• Lodge
• Dennett
• Metzinger
• Chalmers

32
And probably-

• Lodge
• Dennett
• Metzinger
• Chalmers
• Nietzsche
• Marx
• Foucault

33
So where did we go wrong?

• Cartesian rational doubt is compatible with
  scientific method.
• However, Cogito ergo sum is a mistake.
• The correct (and more useful) conclusion is
  dubitatio est
• As for me Perstat tamen dubitatio

34
Perstat tamen dubitatio

• Always no, sometimes, think it's me
• but you know I know when it's a dream.
• John Lennon, 1966