A Response to Tom Bartlett’s “Has Consciousness Lost Its Mind?”
A Response to Tom Bartlett’s “Has Consciousness Lost Its Mind?”
On June 6, 2018 Thomas Bartlett wrote an article
for The Chronicle cleverly and ironically titled “Has Consciousness
Lost Its Mind?” the expanded title is a bit more extensive (and does not
really roll off the tongue) “What would Noam
Chomsky, Deepak Chopra, a very friendly robot, plus a bevy of scientists,
mystics, and wannabe scholars do at a fancy resort in Arizona? Perhaps real
harm to the field of consciousness studies, for one thing.” The article is an attempt to
showcase the absurd, circus-like show of a conference that pretends to be
serious. The Conference held in Tucson, Arizona biannually, The Science
of Consciousness is spreading misinformation thanks to a bunch of ammatuer
scholars, many of whom have their own theories for contending theories for
some all encompassing ‘theory of everything’. These amateurs are deluded that
they shall, one day make a lasting contribution and leave their mark
where other giants have stood. Essentially this is the point of view
of the article. I am somewhat inclined to state that it is not an
absurd opinion. Albeit partially reasonable, Bartlett’s opinion
might hold validity it is however far from true and unfalsifiable. It must
be mentioned that philosophical rhetoric has been on the decline for the
past few decades. I argue that the reason for this is the emergence of a
new attitude towards historical philosophical and scientific movements.
Real (pure) academia has slowly been perverted and distorted.
For instance, today the definition of and the rigour of Postmodernism has
become obscured largely due to the fact that it has been seen as irrelevant
and obsolete in the past 3-4.5 decades (or so). I argue that this same sort of
effect has happened to certain aspects of the ‘hard’ sciences not because
of individuals who teach physics at university levels, seriously study the
conventional fields, or even those who want to turn paradigms on their
head. Oftentimes those who wish to personally, directly benefit from
misinformation are those who push to publish a book on a topic that the author
could not care is accurate.
for The Chronicle cleverly and ironically titled “Has Consciousness
Lost Its Mind?” the expanded title is a bit more extensive (and does not
really roll off the tongue) “What would Noam
Chomsky, Deepak Chopra, a very friendly robot, plus a bevy of scientists,
mystics, and wannabe scholars do at a fancy resort in Arizona? Perhaps real
harm to the field of consciousness studies, for one thing.” The article is an attempt to
showcase the absurd, circus-like show of a conference that pretends to be
serious. The Conference held in Tucson, Arizona biannually, The Science
of Consciousness is spreading misinformation thanks to a bunch of ammatuer
scholars, many of whom have their own theories for contending theories for
some all encompassing ‘theory of everything’. These amateurs are deluded that
they shall, one day make a lasting contribution and leave their mark
where other giants have stood. Essentially this is the point of view
of the article. I am somewhat inclined to state that it is not an
absurd opinion. Albeit partially reasonable, Bartlett’s opinion
might hold validity it is however far from true and unfalsifiable. It must
be mentioned that philosophical rhetoric has been on the decline for the
past few decades. I argue that the reason for this is the emergence of a
new attitude towards historical philosophical and scientific movements.
Real (pure) academia has slowly been perverted and distorted.
For instance, today the definition of and the rigour of Postmodernism has
become obscured largely due to the fact that it has been seen as irrelevant
and obsolete in the past 3-4.5 decades (or so). I argue that this same sort of
effect has happened to certain aspects of the ‘hard’ sciences not because
of individuals who teach physics at university levels, seriously study the
conventional fields, or even those who want to turn paradigms on their
head. Oftentimes those who wish to personally, directly benefit from
misinformation are those who push to publish a book on a topic that the author
could not care is accurate.
It is a difficult hypothesis to defend however there is no doubt
that a full understanding of mind shall expose the deepest ontological
matters of the universe. I place the priority of the task of delving into
the mind right next to the task of completing the theory of quantum gravity
and solving the matter of completing a model for the foundations of mathematics.
that a full understanding of mind shall expose the deepest ontological
matters of the universe. I place the priority of the task of delving into
the mind right next to the task of completing the theory of quantum gravity
and solving the matter of completing a model for the foundations of mathematics.
It seems that to those whom dismiss matters of the most serious metaphysical,
abstract and esoteric either want to hold onto classical empiricism (i.e.scientism) or do
not wish to admit that dualism can be integrated into a more complete, complex, and
extensive model for scholastic rigour.
abstract and esoteric either want to hold onto classical empiricism (i.e.scientism) or do
not wish to admit that dualism can be integrated into a more complete, complex, and
extensive model for scholastic rigour.
From many years informally investigating serious fields of academia I came an
extremely unremarkable conclusion which is not an extraordinary conclusion
either. Most scholars agree that the entirety of physics is, much like
mathematics, (from the ground up) very fragile. The foundations of
mathematics has been the focus of study for some scholars. There
are scholars who have dedicated their lives trying to solve very complex
dilemmas in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, and computer
science.However, all serious textbooks still remain unfinished and still
have gaps on information that is critically significant.
extremely unremarkable conclusion which is not an extraordinary conclusion
either. Most scholars agree that the entirety of physics is, much like
mathematics, (from the ground up) very fragile. The foundations of
mathematics has been the focus of study for some scholars. There
are scholars who have dedicated their lives trying to solve very complex
dilemmas in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, and computer
science.However, all serious textbooks still remain unfinished and still
have gaps on information that is critically significant.
“...But because you are conscious, you might feel as if you can say
something significant about the profoundly complex phenomenon
of consciousness…” It seems that Bartlett is under a misapprehension
about who is taken seriously and obviously why the input for many
voices is helpful. I do not think that one’s presence (at some event)
requires some justification; one is free to attend a conference as one
wishes. Intuitively, those who attend a conference happen to have an
appeal to the matter of the topic that the specific conference is based
on (or about). The individuals who happen to attend the conference on
the science of consciousness happen to have a deep fascination to learn
about deep metaphysical, existential, ontological and epistemological
topics. There have been a number of popular articles written about proper
scientific discoveries. These articles are often written by writers who are
non experts and the articles are put in popular magazines read by laymen.
something significant about the profoundly complex phenomenon
of consciousness…” It seems that Bartlett is under a misapprehension
about who is taken seriously and obviously why the input for many
voices is helpful. I do not think that one’s presence (at some event)
requires some justification; one is free to attend a conference as one
wishes. Intuitively, those who attend a conference happen to have an
appeal to the matter of the topic that the specific conference is based
on (or about). The individuals who happen to attend the conference on
the science of consciousness happen to have a deep fascination to learn
about deep metaphysical, existential, ontological and epistemological
topics. There have been a number of popular articles written about proper
scientific discoveries. These articles are often written by writers who are
non experts and the articles are put in popular magazines read by laymen.
I attended the 2018 conference and at no time did one attempt to abuse an
appeal to authority, nor was there any time that one proclaimed that they
were in possession of some ‘true theory of everything’, ‘theory of quantum
gravity’ or that he/she had ‘it all figured out’. Most people brought an open
mind and bits and pieces of knowledge from various fields. To the contrary,
a large majority of the passionate thinkers were, themselves professional or
former professional academics. Many individuals came from prestigious
institutions of higher learning.
appeal to authority, nor was there any time that one proclaimed that they
were in possession of some ‘true theory of everything’, ‘theory of quantum
gravity’ or that he/she had ‘it all figured out’. Most people brought an open
mind and bits and pieces of knowledge from various fields. To the contrary,
a large majority of the passionate thinkers were, themselves professional or
former professional academics. Many individuals came from prestigious
institutions of higher learning.
Individuals have made it their life work to dedicate their time
studying phenomena that is very obscure and extremely ill defined
in contemporary textbooks in academic institutions. Renowned
scholars have had a hard time agreeing to parameters for semantic
arguments.
studying phenomena that is very obscure and extremely ill defined
in contemporary textbooks in academic institutions. Renowned
scholars have had a hard time agreeing to parameters for semantic
arguments.
In the article Bartlett focused on the main heavy hitters of the Science
of Consciousness. Chopra was an easy target to begin with. Rightfully,
Deepak is a figure of ridicule. He is often seen as a crank who dilutes misunderstood
scientific phenomena within realms of extremely complex ‘hard’ sciences.Chopra
thinks that he is taken serious by certain professional scholars. He fancies himself
to be a healer who has a mild, working knowledge of quantum physics.Critics of
Chopra have often said that he has been able to find a place in the realm of
respectable sciences because he holds academic degrees. According to
many, Chopra simply acts as a guru, a glorified self help author who
profits off of spreading misinformation.
of Consciousness. Chopra was an easy target to begin with. Rightfully,
Deepak is a figure of ridicule. He is often seen as a crank who dilutes misunderstood
scientific phenomena within realms of extremely complex ‘hard’ sciences.Chopra
thinks that he is taken serious by certain professional scholars. He fancies himself
to be a healer who has a mild, working knowledge of quantum physics.Critics of
Chopra have often said that he has been able to find a place in the realm of
respectable sciences because he holds academic degrees. According to
many, Chopra simply acts as a guru, a glorified self help author who
profits off of spreading misinformation.
In the article, Bartlett wrote that “when ideas collide, it keeps you on
your toes if you have no clue whether the next speaker will be
a goofball or a genius…” It is unclear as to whether Bartlett
was quoting David Chalmers (whom Bartlett wrote high praise
of compared to other attendees). The quote is not necessarily true.
Although there are silly ideas proposed by amatuer scientists
(and scholars), not all new ideas are irrational if they fail to
contort into the known paradigm. Bartlett speaks about the
opinions of other scholars such as Steven Pinker (from Harvard).
your toes if you have no clue whether the next speaker will be
a goofball or a genius…” It is unclear as to whether Bartlett
was quoting David Chalmers (whom Bartlett wrote high praise
of compared to other attendees). The quote is not necessarily true.
Although there are silly ideas proposed by amatuer scientists
(and scholars), not all new ideas are irrational if they fail to
contort into the known paradigm. Bartlett speaks about the
opinions of other scholars such as Steven Pinker (from Harvard).
“...And into that gap can be thrown almost anything. If you
believe in, say, Carl Jung’s notion of the collective
unconscious, that is one-hundred-percent consistent
with the hard problem. Or if you’re sympathetic, as many
at Tucson are, to panpsychism, the idea that all matter, including
the chair you’re sitting on and the dirt under your fingernails, in
some sense contains consciousness, that’s cool too. You can squeeze
God into that gap as well. The hard problem practically begs for
creative solutions…” Bartlett, as well as many others who are
writers fail to see that there are ideas within reason that should
be taken seriously. The problem is that someone such as
Bartlett (as a matter of fact, very few serious scholars) are
simply not clever enough to see the visionary work and the
potential for a true revision in the realm of physics and ‘hard’
sciences. Individuals such as Bartlett shall belittle the rigour
and decide that they want to chuck out anything that they are
unable to fathom.
believe in, say, Carl Jung’s notion of the collective
unconscious, that is one-hundred-percent consistent
with the hard problem. Or if you’re sympathetic, as many
at Tucson are, to panpsychism, the idea that all matter, including
the chair you’re sitting on and the dirt under your fingernails, in
some sense contains consciousness, that’s cool too. You can squeeze
God into that gap as well. The hard problem practically begs for
creative solutions…” Bartlett, as well as many others who are
writers fail to see that there are ideas within reason that should
be taken seriously. The problem is that someone such as
Bartlett (as a matter of fact, very few serious scholars) are
simply not clever enough to see the visionary work and the
potential for a true revision in the realm of physics and ‘hard’
sciences. Individuals such as Bartlett shall belittle the rigour
and decide that they want to chuck out anything that they are
unable to fathom.
Bartlett wrote about a few individuals who view Tucson's conference
as a joke that is flooded with theories that lack substance and are
speculative. As an individual who has studied the matters of consciousness
for well over a decade I can attest that many scholars have been trained and
educated in a very dogmatic manner.
as a joke that is flooded with theories that lack substance and are
speculative. As an individual who has studied the matters of consciousness
for well over a decade I can attest that many scholars have been trained and
educated in a very dogmatic manner.
The potential to address more practical issues (that would be attached to
deeper dilemmas) would be immeasurable. The manifestation of a mind
is undoubtedly the most practical matter that humanity deals with daily.
Mathematics, ‘hard’ sciences meet the social sciences at the edge of the
philosophy (science) of mind.
deeper dilemmas) would be immeasurable. The manifestation of a mind
is undoubtedly the most practical matter that humanity deals with daily.
Mathematics, ‘hard’ sciences meet the social sciences at the edge of the
philosophy (science) of mind.
I would not like to be petty and harp on each paragraph in the article.
However, I shall share a story of one of my experiences. On the
authorization of the respectable credentials of specific attendees.
In 2018 I attended a talk given by Elizabeth Rauscher. Rauscher
had a distinguished career in academia. She worked with David
Bohm. Rauscher is among a group of a select group of physicists
who are trying (and whom have tried to) posit unorthodox hypotheses to
further progress physics. Rauscher happens to be a researcher in one area
that is dismissed by many (‘vanilla’) scientists, para-psychological topics
(i.e. remote viewing). Rauscher as well as others worked with government
agencies who took an interest many decades ago) in parapsychology.
However, I shall share a story of one of my experiences. On the
authorization of the respectable credentials of specific attendees.
In 2018 I attended a talk given by Elizabeth Rauscher. Rauscher
had a distinguished career in academia. She worked with David
Bohm. Rauscher is among a group of a select group of physicists
who are trying (and whom have tried to) posit unorthodox hypotheses to
further progress physics. Rauscher happens to be a researcher in one area
that is dismissed by many (‘vanilla’) scientists, para-psychological topics
(i.e. remote viewing). Rauscher as well as others worked with government
agencies who took an interest many decades ago) in parapsychology.
It seems to me that (as usual) there are individuals who fail to think on a
certain critical level and who look into the mirror to see the reflection of an
intellectual giant. Perhaps it is just another bitter man who was unable to
fill shoes of the giant who he has seen in the mirror for so long.
certain critical level and who look into the mirror to see the reflection of an
intellectual giant. Perhaps it is just another bitter man who was unable to
fill shoes of the giant who he has seen in the mirror for so long.
Original article: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Is-This-the-World-s-Most/243599
Comments
Post a Comment