h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Explanatory gap - A926949
Author: Simulacron3 - U212063

This might be a bit dense and heavy for H2G2.

I tend to disagree there

The three views would better be put into an ordered list, or given each a subheader of their own.

My only question is, why is it philosophers who are dealing with the gap? I would have guessed it was neurologists or something like that

Greetings....

Mmmmm..... philosophy of mind.....

I think that has a lot of potential. I don't think that the subject matter is intrinsically too tough for the guide, but I do think that it's worth saying a bit more to define the terms. What are qualia, for instance? (I know, or at least I think I do....)

If I recall correctly, someone came up with the "Mary the Super Scientist" thought experiment to illustrate the gap vis a vis qualia. I think that example would be a really good way to open the entry. (I assume you know the example I mean?)

I do think this needs a more informative title, but I can't think what!

Hope some of this is useful,

Otto

PS. Phenomenology!
(doo doo, do doo doo)

Hi S3.

I think this is pitched at just the right level. Challenging enough, but not impenetrable.

I agree with Sir Bossel about breaking it up into sections with headers and stuff. You'll need a bit of Guide ML for that. See A187229 for the GuideML clinic, which should give you some ideas.

And to answer SBs question - Philosophers tackle the question because it's a philosophical problem. My own view (as a materialist) is that the gap is irreducible (which gives you a fourth view), but that this does not matter. If consciousness regularly appears with brain activity, but not without, that is enough to establish it as a natural phenomenon.

Good luck with this anyway S3

Noggin

Otto: Perfectly right. Terms need explication and background should be added. Thanks!

Noggin: Good points. Would be happy to share authorship if you shoud care to add substantial content.

Sir Bossel's point is a very good one. In fact, much of the current wave of thought on the mind-body problem is grounded in neurology and an engagement, if not marriage, between philosophy and neuroscience. That because the accelerating advances in neuroscience is producing answers to questions that have previously been beyond the reach of science (the stomping ground of the philosophers). I'll bring that out. Thanks!

That's very kind of you S3, though whether I can add enough to justify joint authorship I don't know. I'll have a think about what could be added, and then it's up to you to decide.

Noggin

"Philosophers tackle the question because it's a philosophical problem."

That rather begs the question, I think. If you are a materialist, then the problem is surely a scientific one. If you believe in the supernatural, then the question is (by definition) not amenable to scientific explanation, and must be left to philosophers and theologians...

"My own view (as a materialist) is that the gap is irreducible (which gives you a fourth view), but that this does not matter."

I really don't see how you can describe this as a materialist view. *My* materialist view is to regard consciousness as an "emergent" property of the brain, much as "wetness" is an emergent property of an assemblage of water molecules, and to expect that evolutionary theory will eventually explain how and why consciousness has evolved. That is not to say that I think the problem is 'solved' (pace Daniel Dennett), but I certainly don't think the gap is irreducible.

Oooh - this sounds like fun. Does anyone know if there's a philosophy forum here on h2g2? TIA.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Oh yes. There's endless amusement to be hand talking about these things, but it's much better with beer.

Alrighty then.



Granted it's a problem that scientists are interested in. Granted it MAY become a scientific problem at some point. But for the moment we're still trying to get a handle on the conceptual framework, which is a philosophical enterprise regardless of the hat you're wearing. And being a materialist doesn't automatically render all topics (eg ethics or aesthetics) as scientific ones.

<*My* materialist view is to regard consciousness as an "emergent" property of the brain, much as "wetness" is an emergent property of an assemblage of water molecules, and to expect that evolutionary theory will explain how and why consciousness evolved.>

This passage is a good example of why the conceptual unpacking of the problem is so important. It is my view also that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain - a natural phenomenon as I said before. It is not the case, however, that "wetness" is such a property. Fluidity is, and how it arises from an assemblage of water molecules can be understood from the properties of interactions among them. "Wetness" - the qualia of fluidity - would only be such a property if the assemblage of water molecules could experience its own fluidity; and this could not be understood with reference to the physical properties of the assemblage.

Evolution is not an issue here; what we are looking to understand is the process involved in the production of consciousness in an already evolved brain. How are we conscious at all, and why does this little group of cells here produce the sensation of "red", and that one over there the sensation of "A Flat minor"?
And we don't have a clue.

Noggin

"none of that has to do with the actual subjective experience that we each know first-hand"

Um, isn't that a false statement according to the "Gap? What gap?"-crowd?

Oh how easy it is to import personal opinion into objective writing!

But a gap's a gap for all that....

Noggin

This has to be approached with the methods of science until it fails us. I don't think it will. I believe the gap is either reducible or nonexistent. If science fails, there can only be pointless speculation and meaningless belief.
It's all about qualia, a concept worthy of an article on its own.

Isn't that putting all your eggs in one basket? Outside the realm where science is relevant and applicable, there can still be rational and comprehensible reality, you know!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I wonder about that. My view, which shamefully hasn't really been thought through very far, is that knowledge of reality comes only from science. Philosophy is rational speculation on reality that is valuable for stimulating scientific enquiry and setting directions, but it doesn't produce knowledge about reality directly. Belief is the actual basis for action; it is influenced to various degrees by knowledge (the fruit of science) and ideas (the fruit of philosophy), but can exist happily with little input from either.

Oh, excellent! I'll move this to your home page, as it's drifting way too far off topic. See you there? [Give me a few minutes to write the note, though. I'm posting this one first. ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I don't think it's too dense or heavy, although as others have said, a bit of formatting and a few definitions wouldn't go amiss.

Also, you might mention another viewpoint, those who have a sort of Wittgensteinian view of the whole debate (i.e. roughly speaking that they're just playing with words).

Also, you might mention Colin McGinn's reasonably influential article "Can We Solve the Mind-Body
Problem?" which, if memory serves me well, argues that we can't solve the mind body problem even in principle.

I don't know what qualia are, and would like an explanation to be included in the entry. Other than that, I think it is good.