Philosophical Dilemmas : The hard problem of consciousness is a highly debated philosophical question that seeks to understand why physical states give rise to conscious mental states. Despite advances in science, the difficult problem remains unresolved, as it goes beyond explaining the physical processes that create consciousness and delves into the deeper question of why consciousness exists at all.
The Elusive Nature of Consciousness
The hard problem of consciousness has a long history in philosophy, with the current version of the problem formulated by Australian philosopher David Chalmers in 1995. Despite various attempts to solve the problem, none of the proposed theories have been conclusive. One solution, offered by “weak reductionists,” suggests that consciousness cannot be broken down into more basic, non-conscious parts, but can be identified with physical activity if scientific evidence supports it. Another solution, panpsychism, posits that everything is at least a little conscious. However, this idea is not intuitive, and not all philosophers are willing to accept it. A third proposition, put forward by some philosophers, suggests that the problem may be unsolvable for humans. However, not all philosophers agree that the hard problem even exists. In a 2020 survey, 29.7% of philosophers did not believe in the hard problem, while 62.4% agreed that it existed.
Why Something Exists : Philosophical Dilemmas
The problem of why there is something rather than nothing is a fundamental question in metaphysics. This problem has been discussed by philosophers throughout history and is still debated today. Martin Heidegger believed that the ultimate question of metaphysics was why anything exists at all. This is because the expectation that everything must have a cause raises the question of what caused reality itself. While philosophers have offered various theories to answer this question, none have provided a definitive solution.
One ancient Greek philosopher, Parmenides, argued that “nothing” was impossible, and “something” must exist by definition. This view has found some support in modern science, which suggests that empty space does not exist. On the other hand, David Hume suggested that our tendency to think that everything has a cause might not apply to the universe as a whole.
Robert Nozick suggested that multiple universes may exist, including ones where nothing exists. He also proposed that “nothing” could be a possibility, but the probability of it was much lower than that of “something” existing. Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, accepted the universe’s existence as a brute fact that cannot be explained by any other information. Some philosophers find the question of why something exists rather than nothing unanswerable.
The Ship of Theseus problem has been a longstanding question about identity, dating back to at least the 1st century AD. The story involves the Athenians maintaining the trireme of their hero-king Theseus by replacing its parts as they break down. But at what point does the ship cease to be the ship of Theseus and become another ship? And what if the old parts are saved and used to make a new ship?
The Ship of Theseus Paradox: Identity and Persistence in Philosophy
Philosopher David Lewis proposed that different parts of objects exist at different times, allowing for the ship to be made up of distinct parts. Another solution is that the ship is a different object from the material it is made of, although this requires accepting that two different objects are in the same place at the same time. Noam Chomsky argues that the problem arises from the assumption that what is true in our minds is also true in the world, but his view does not offer a solution to the problem. The Ship of Theseus problem continues to be debated in modern philosophy of mind.
Rethinking the Nature of Science
Philosophical Dilemmas: The problem of distinguishing science from non-science has been around for centuries and has practical implications, such as in legal cases. Despite its importance, the question is challenging to answer without expertise in every field. However, philosopher Thomas Kuhn proposed that science is defined by paradigms that scientists work within and agree on. Anything inside the paradigm is considered science, and anything outside of it is not. Paradigms do not have to be perfect, and major problems are usually only tackled right before a paradigm shift. While many have supported Kuhn’s ideas, they are often criticized as relativistic. Nevertheless, his ideas have proved useful in the social sciences.
Karl Popper, a prominent philosopher of science, proposed that falsifiability is the key characteristic that separates science from pseudoscience. He argued that a scientific theory should make predictions that can be tested and potentially proven false, while pseudoscientific claims cannot be disproved. For example, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicted that gravity would bend light in a specific way, which could be observed and confirmed through telescopes. In contrast, theories like psychoanalysis or Marxist history lack this ability to be falsified.
However, there are criticisms of Popper’s view, as any claim that could be potentially falsified could be considered scientific. Another theory, proposed more recently by Victor Moberger, focuses on the concept of bullshit as a defining characteristic of pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific claims often lack concern for truth and evidence, as seen in the persistent belief in a flat Earth despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While this theory is widely discussed, some argue that it relies too heavily on the character of the people making the claims rather than the nature of the claims themselves. Philosophical Dilemmas
