I am new to UTOK. Maybe I have misunderstood something, but it looks to me like UTOK’s approach is fundamentally misguided. Gregg Henriques does not appear to understand the relevance of the Hard Problem of consciousness, and I think that is a show-stopper. Unless I have misunderstood UTOK, it is just plain old “emergence” theory, albeit with some fancy clothes on. It claims consciousness somehow “emerges” from an underlying physical realm, but does not explain how such a thing can possibly happen, or make any sense.
The AI review tells me this: “In essence, UTOK proposes that by addressing the “problem of psychology” and developing a new grammar for understanding the relationship between the material world and subjective experience, we can make progress towards understanding the hard problem of consciousness.”
New grammar can’t solve the hard problem. It can’t fix materialism.
This link homes in on the issue:
I have read this article twice now, and I still don’t have the faintest idea what Henriques is going on about. It looks to me like Daniel Dennett level of incomprehensible bullshit. At the end you are left thinking What the f**k did I just read?
This statement, refering to Donald Hoffman, sums it up:
Second, he accepts that there is a profound “hard problem of consciousness” in the move from objective description of brain activity and neurocognitive correlates into the explicit qualities of subjective states.
This is a straightforward denial that the HP exists. It absolutely does exist, and it has no solution.
My position on this is exactly the same as that of Thomas Nagel. Nagel also “accepts” that there is a profound HP. In fact he’s gone so far as to write a book claiming that we need to completely rethink evolutionary theory, cosmology and the mind-matter relationship because of it. Nagel is a naturalist-atheist-skeptic who is proclaiming the need for the scientific component of 2R, and the whole thing spins on the failure of materialism.
I don’t think it is possible for Henriques and Nagel to both be correct, and I think it is absolutely clear which one of them is correct. Nagel hits the nail right on the head; UTOK looks to me to be total garbage.
Can anybody explain in fewer than 2000 words why we should believe that materialism can account for consciousness — that mind can “emerge” from matter?
Are there lots of materialists in 2R? I find this very difficult to understand.
For me, the simplest way to explain what 2R needs to be is in terms of three hugely influential ideas that are based on false assumptions:
(1) Growth based economics (based on the assumption infinite growth is possible in a finite system). Solution: commit to post-growth economics (whatever that is).
~
(2) Postmodern antirealism (which for me might as well include Hoffman’s anti-realism – he goes too far). Solution: commit to epistemic structural realism.
(3) Metaphysical materialism (because of the HP). Solution: commit to post-materialistic science (whatever that is).
We need all three. UTOK is a continuation of materialistic science. From my perspective, materialism can no more be smuggled into the new paradigm than postmodernism or growth-based economics can.
My problem with this is it looks to me like Nagel warrants a major role in 2R and that UTOK is a confusing distraction and a mistake. And yet I see no mention of Nagel here, but plenty of mention of UTOK. And I think it is the Hard Problem that decides which is which…but presumably UTOKers will disagree.