Regarding a recent article

[papangul]

This is regarding the recent article authored by Bernardo Kastrup titled "Consciousness could not have evolved".
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-c ... -auid-1302

In that article, it has been stated that materialists try to attribute functions to phenomenal consciousness. Specifically, three common arguments have been cited and have been refuted.

I would like to point out that, recently, I came across another strong argument put forward by scientist Brian Greene which I am reproducing below with its source. He says, "The one that really seems most convincing to me at the moment comes from Michael Graziano at Princeton. He basically says whenever we engage with the world, our brain makes a schematic model of what’s happening in the world because it would burst at the seams if it had to include every single detail of everything that we encountered. So, we have these rough schematic models of everything that we encounter, including a rough schematic model of our own brain. Consciousness, he says, is nothing but the schematic representation that our brain holds of our own awareness."
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -interview

Personally, I don't agree with Brian Greene because even if he might be true regarding the utility of phenomenal consciousness, he is still unable to explain the nature of qualia itself.

I am posting this message because I would like to hear the viewpoint of Bernardo Kastrup on this particular argument put forward by Brian Greene.

[Jim Cross]

One problem with this is that, under the premises of materialism, phenomenal consciousness cannot—by definition—have a function.

This is a typical argument I've heard. It's a strawman argument because some materialists believe consciousness does not have a function, many do believe it has a function or maybe functions. The functions that are most obvious are learning and integration of multiple sensory inputs. Graziano's theory is another explanation for a function consciousness serves. It is a a version of the integration function I mentioned which also compares to the dashboard view of consciousness that Bernardo himself sometimes uses. Since Bernardo starts with a premise that under materialism, consciousness can't have a function, he would have to dismiss the argument in some other way.

Some materialists do believe that consciousness is an epiphenomena and cannot influence anything, hence it cannot have a function. However, if consciousness is material itself - energies and waves that arise from electrical activity in the brain - it could influence other matter, namely the neurons in the brain itself.

[AshvinP]

This is regarding the recent article authored by Bernardo Kastrup titled "Consciousness could not have evolved".
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-c ... -auid-1302

In that article, it has been stated that materialists try to attribute functions to phenomenal consciousness. Specifically, three common arguments have been cited and have been refuted.

I would like to point out that, recently, I came across another strong argument put forward by scientist Brian Greene which I am reproducing below with its source. He says, "The one that really seems most convincing to me at the moment comes from Michael Graziano at Princeton. He basically says whenever we engage with the world, our brain makes a schematic model of what’s happening in the world because it would burst at the seams if it had to include every single detail of everything that we encountered. So, we have these rough schematic models of everything that we encounter, including a rough schematic model of our own brain. Consciousness, he says, is nothing but the schematic representation that our brain holds of our own awareness."
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -interview

Personally, I don't agree with Brian Greene because even if he might be true regarding the utility of phenomenal consciousness, he is still unable to explain the nature of qualia itself.

I am posting this message because I would like to hear the viewpoint of Bernardo Kastrup on this particular argument put forward by Brian Greene.

I would point out first that this is not even close to being a new argument, purposed by many philosophers and scientists before. Second, explicating a function of consciousness does nothing to reveal its essence. That's like thinking my explication that the Sun provides light for seeing the world reveals the essence of the Sun. Third, it is simply an assumption that cognition would "burst at the seams" by perceiving all essential processes, not only today but indefinitely into the future. That assumption has no empirical support other than the fact that we currently cannot do it. So even that function of consciousness is relative (as all functions) and could theoretically fade from existence eventually.