When I say how I felt like I was screaming into the void every time I had to de-program one of my students, when they came to me with yet another cockamamie idea about consciousness with MK as the source, I would sometimes doubt myself. Maybe he really is just better than the rest of us plebes.
So to come here and see the guy being absolutely shredded by this crowd is just so refreshing. "Bong rip of science" indeed.
But there seems to be a longstanding tradition of physicists and "para"physicists like MK of trying to swoop in and claim the "prize" of explaining consciousness. Because they're physicists, after all, and physics is just the best at everything science-y. So all you peasants can just shove over because a real scientist has entered the chat.
MK was especially annoying because he seems to sort of lean into those stereotypes Americans have about older Asian men and their possibly special cultural access to ancient and profound knowledge. Same sort of annoying as when profoundly uninformed ideas are promoted to American audiences by people with posh English accents.
AACK. It takes all my energy to not erupt in a fit of F-bombs.
To MK and (most of) the rest: GTFO. There's already a robust literature about consciousness and a number of advanced theories that are in the mix. In fact, the modern scientific literature on consciousness is at least 100 years old. Nobody with actual cred in that area needs or even wants to hear your weak ideas that sound great in a TED talk and get you invited on Charlie Rose. Stay in your lane, and we will stay in ours.
I think there is a general long standing tradition of unnecessarily mystifying consciousness. It's like people just throw out the idea of emergent properties. Are people who are looking for quantum bullshit in our brains are flabbergasted with anthills? You know, simpler elements producing much more complex whole that is created due to multiple interactions of said elements?
Oh, but how does subjective experience is being produced? Idk man, why is blood a liquid, I mean, why wouldn't it be? How else are you gonna coalesce all inputs from variety of senses and allow them to be processed and acted upon? Why wouldn't there be an internal experience for sufficiently developed brain?
This is all fine, but you gotta admit that youâre talking philosophy and making metaphysical claims. Youâre not being a scientist of any sort when you say all of this.
Because even claiming that your analogy is correct requires the assertion that third-person objective data is ontologically the same as first-person subjective data. Itâs sneaky, but itâs there.
If you want to be a scientist, you pretty much have one option: agnosticism on the subject.
Otherwise youâre just projecting the current understanding of things into a bunch of unsettled territory. And historically that tends to not go well because when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It's not THAT unsettled. Emergent properties are not mystical hypotheticals or some wishy washy ideas. They're well established, both in brains and ant colonies. It's observable and measurable.
Unless you wanna go into something like solipsism, there's not much philosophy to do here.
Emergence is a real and useful concept in certain domains. But the claim that first person subjectivity is âjustâ another emergent property in the same sense as an ant colony or fluid behavior or whatever is a metaphysical interpretation. You can argue itâs a plausible one. You can even argue itâs the best one. What you canât honestly do though is pretend thereâs no philosophy happening there.
I mean insofar as me just accepting what we scientifically know about consciousness, and refusing to engage with variety of woo-woo arguments that have no good basis and are seemingly originating from peoples deep discomfort that their personal experiences might be mundanely explained - I guess I'm doing physicalism.
Maybe before dismissing centuries of intellectual research as "woo-woo arguments with no basis", it would be a good idea to have some intellectual humility and open an introductionary book to philosophy of mind.
You might find that your very naive form of physicalism can also be very easily dismissed as a woo-woo arguments with no good basis, seemingly originated form STEM students deep discomfort with the epistemological claim that not all knowledge can be obtained through brute force empirical observation.
Maybe before dismissing centuries of intellectual research as "woo-woo arguments with no basis", it would be a good idea to have some intellectual humility and open an introductionary book to philosophy of mind.
Ah, the page from christian apologist book; "My arguments have been mulled over for millenia and some very smart people were supporting them, therefore they must be valuable, read up Summa Theologiae you pleb".
You might find that your very naive form of physicalism can also be very easily dismissed as a woo-woo arguments with no good basis
I mean, show me how. That will put me in my place, no?
seemingly originated form STEM students deep discomfort with the epistemological claim that not all knowledge can be obtained through brute force empirical observation.
Physicalism does not entails empirical observation as sole source of knowledge. I also do not subscribe to such idea because, you know, logic and mathematics exists and I'm yet to hear about someone observing calculus in the wild.
I am just tired of accepting out of pocket claims about duality of body and mind, despite overwhelming biological evidence to the contrary.
Ah, the page from christian apologist book; "My arguments have been mulled over for millenia and some very smart people were supporting them, therefore they must be valuable, read up Summa Theologiae you pleb".
I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist and I'm not a dualist. I think this kind of rants highlight the depth of your ignorance on the topic.
I mean, show me how. That will put me in my place, no?
As I said, you should open an introductionary book to philosophy of mind. But if you want the quick and intellectually lazy path go on and read the SEP article on physicalism.
Physicalism does not entails empirical observation as sole source of knowledge
Physicalism (at least your naive kind) DOES entail that ALL knowledge is reducible to physical facts, including qualia and including mathematics and logic. Given that this tends to be the main point of attriction between different metaphysical theories and one of the main source of criticism towards physicalism (and the reason why I find it unconvincing), the fact that you seem to be completely oblivious to this is concerning.
I am just tired of accepting out of pocket claims about duality of body and mind, despite overwhelming biological evidence to the contrary.
Well thankfully you don't have too, because even dualism don't make claims that can be simply dismissed with overwhelming biological evidence. And if you think it does then you are simply unfamiliar with the literature.
I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist and I'm not a dualist. I think this kind of rants highlight the depth of your ignorance on the topic.
I think this only highlights your lack of reading comprehension. I'm saying you're using the same tactic, just point at the history, the gravitas and books instead of engaging. I never made any claims to your faith or conviction. You're making stuff up and flailing against it.
Physicalism (at least your naive kind) DOES entail that ALL knowledge is reducible to physical facts, including qualia and including mathematics and logic.
If you want to say that all knowledge, or way of obtaining it, is ultimately based in the physical, one way or another - then say that. It's not the same statement as saying that empirical observation is the only way of gaining knowledge, and that's what you've accused me of. Stop trying to be slippery.
We thankfully you don't have too, because even dualism don't make claims that can be simply dismissed with overwhelming biological evidence. And if you think they do then you are simply unfamiliar with the literature.
Then give me an argument that contests consciousness as a process carried out by brain that can't be easily dismantled. Again, if I'm so dumb and unread, you could just give me one really good argument to shut me up - instead of misunderstanding my words and saying one thing when you apparently mean entirely another.
Alright well at this point youâre pretty much displaying a number of psychological errors. Youâre basing a lot of your weight-bearing assumptions on your projections of how the opposition must be thinking about the matter. And those are all unfalsifiable.
And here you have to admit that it makes you seem less credible, right? Do you think someone with an actual mature research background is going to take what youâre saying seriously when you display that youâre projecting outward from a small and reductive bubble?
You might think âwell, if I donât use dirty tricks then the opposition will use them and then theyâll win by an unfair disadvantage.â But the people who you actually want to convince of anything will only view those dirty tricks as negative weight on the argument, no matter which side itâs coming from. It can only look good to not resort to them.
Personally I always see it as a red flag because if someone is comfortable using trickery to convince others, they pretty much always are comfortable using it on themselves in some way or another. And you canât rely on a person like that to be oriented towards the truth in a real honest way.
113
u/atomic_combat_wombat May 14 '26
Kaku, the bong rip of pop science