Inherited Magic

[Robert Ramsay]

That's cool. You sound broadly like an emergentist/non-reductive physicalist (a bit like Searle with his biological naturalism IIRC). Personally, when I last looked at the mind-body debate (many years ago), none of the solutions adequately answered the problem for me. They all had flaws. That said, I probably wouldn't spend years of my life writing a book to repair substance dualism philosophically either.

I heartily recommend Being You by Anil Seth. I've just re-read it and it really is the most sensible thing I've ever read about consciousness.

Post automatically merged: Friday at 9:11 AM

If I were forced to put money on it I'd probably go for some kind of property dualist or maybe idealist framework.

I'm not big on idealism either

Does Ether/Aether still exist?

I heard a lot of time, even in my friend circle some of my friends believe... that Ether the 6th element do exist and they said, it was intentionally being removed from the text books and other things due its connection to occultism or self reflection ... some says Ether helps us in astral...

wizardforums.com

 

[Frater M.M.]

I heartily recommend Being You by Anil Seth. I've just re-read it and it really is the most sensible thing I've ever read about consciousness.

I am not familiar with this young whippersnapper

Having read a quick summary of his work, yes it's very interesting and certainly a good project for science. If I'm blind or deaf and want my brain repaired, I'm not going to go Chalmers.

However, none of them (Churchlands, Dennett, Koch, Seth, etc.) seem to explain the brute fact that I have qualia, IMO. And I'm not even sure that closing this explanatory gap is the job for (neuro)science to do by itself, tbh.

The good news for your model tho is I don't think it even needs to deal with Chalmers' version of the hard problem of consciousness. Let's assume (for the sake of argument) p-zombies could nomologically/physically exist. I'm guessing your model would say they could still do magic?

 

[Robert Ramsay]

However, none of them (Churchlands, Dennett, Koch, Seth, etc.) seem to explain the brute fact that I have qualia, IMO. And I'm not even sure that closing this explanatory gap is the job for (neuro)science to do by itself, tbh.

Seth dedicates a portion of the book to explaining why the 'hard problem' is mostly one of our own making; calling it a 'hard problem' implies some assumptions which may not even apply. He compares it to people invoking 'vitalism' when trying to explain life. There's a lot more, and I definitely recommend the book.

The good news for your model tho is I don't think it even needs to deal with Chalmers' version of the hard problem of consciousness. Let's assume (for the sake of argument) p-zombies could nomologically/physically exist. I'm guessing your model would say they could still do magic?

Since I refuse to accept that there could be such a thing, I'm afraid I cannot answer the question

But you are correct that the 'hard problem', whatever the fuck it is, is not part of my remit. As with magic, you have to accept that the thing happens before you can try and explain it

 

[Frater M.M.]

Seth dedicates a portion of the book to explaining why the 'hard problem' is mostly one of our own making; calling it a 'hard problem' implies some assumptions which may not even apply. He compares it to people invoking 'vitalism' when trying to explain life. There's a lot more, and I definitely recommend the book.

I remain skeptical but will add him to the ever-growing book list (if only someone would pay me to sit around reading philosophy and magick books all day and making long rambling posts on WF )

Since I refuse to accept that there could be such a thing, I'm afraid I cannot answer the question

But you are correct that the 'hard problem', whatever the fuck it is, is not part of my remit. As with magic, you have to accept that the thing happens before you can try and explain it

That's fair enough