🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Jeff Baldwin wrote:

> Given: Life/conciousness/mind is nothing more than chemical reactions.
> Then:
> 1) Why/how did/does subjective perception "come to be"?
> 2) If mind and all its attributes are mere checmical reactions with
> deterministic, material (and therefore objective) origin, then why
> does subjective perception at times differ (and markedly so) from
> objective reality?
> 3) Why does "the subjective" (in humans only?) strive to "objectify"
> itself?

If the stated given is correct (and it is not at all clear that it is),
then subjective perception came about as did any other physical phenomena.
It came about, for instance, like heat, which is nothing more than the
product of a certain type of behavior among molecules.  In similar
fashion, consciousness would then be reducible to the behavior of
molecules -- all there would be to being conscious is having a certain
molecular configuration.  Currently we have absolutely no idea what kind
of molecular configuration leads to conscious experience.  We do, however,
have a pretty good understanding of heat, which, if I recall, is mean
kinetic energy (or something like that).  

In fact, our efforts to reduictively explain consciousness in terms of the
physical properties of our universe have been so fruitless that we might
begin to suspect that consciousness might not be part of the physical
world.  This is precisely the move Chalmers makes in his recent book "The
Conscious Mind."  He argues for what he calls "naturalistic dualism,"
which basically treats consciousness as outside the domain of the
physical and essentially epiphenomenal in nature.  That is, consciousness
does not influence our behavior -- it is explanatorily irrelevant to the
things we say, and possibly casually irrelevant to the things we do.
Ulitmately I'm not in complete agreement with Chalmers, but he has written
a fascinating and persuasive book which is certainly worth reading.

     2) I'm having problems understanding the second question.  I'm not at
all clear on why you'd expect subjective "reality" to correspond exactly
to objective reality, given that experience is physical.    

     3) I'm also unclear on this one.  Do you mean to say that we like to
think that our subjective experiences are somehow representative of an
objective universe?  I guess I don;t understand what it means to
"objectify" something.  

                                - Mike