[ExI] What is "Elemental Redness"?

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Jason,
You always have such great things to say, but I'm having a hard time
keeping up with this one.

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:50 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 2, 2023, 10:19 AM Gadersd via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> > Chapter One
>> >
>> > There is no 'hard problem'.
>> >
>> > The end.
>>
>> I agree that most philosophers are hallucinating a problem into
>> existence, but there is some interesting structure to the way the patterns
>> are organized in the brain that is worth elaborating on. It is beautiful,
>> sort of like a mosaic.
>>
>
> The hard problem of consciousness comes about by assuming a particular
> answer to the mind-body problem.
>
> The mind-body problem asks: what is the nature of the connection between
> mind and matter.
>
> If you assume matter is fundamental (materialism) then you end up with
> "the hard problem of consciousness" -- how to explain the appearance of
> consciousness given only matter.
>
> On the other hand:
>
> If you assume consciousness is fundamental (materialism) then you end up
> with "the hard problem of matter" -- how to explain the appearance of
> matter given only consciousness.
>

Did you mean to use the same term (materialism) in both different cases
here?  Or was that a typo?  Did you mean to say something different like
(spiritualism or subjectivism) in the second case?


> There is, I believe, a solution to the mind-body problem which explains
> the appearance of matter as well as the existence of consciousness. But the
> answer ventures beyond philosophy of mind and into ontology. I think
> without this complete picture, no attempt at answering either the hard
> problem of consciousness or the hard problem of matter would have led to a
> satisfactory explanation.
>

Can you give some examples of what you mean by ontology, or go into more
details about what you are saying here?


> Many on this list have written off philosophy as an outmoded and pointless
> endeavor, but I disagree. Good philosophers use thought, logic and
> rationality to frame the possibility space of answers and their
> implications. In this way, philosophers scout out and chart paths which
> theoretical scientists will later traverse and which empirical scientists
> will eventually test.
>

Yes, yes, brilliant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230503/7858bd8e/attachment.htm>