- It looks like this guy didn’t get the memo about science clashing with a belief in the soul. I doubt he’s scientifically inclined…oh, wait, he’s the “Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell Technology and an Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.”
- Oh no, this guy didn’t get the memo regarding science clashing with a belief in an objective morality either. Like Bernard said, it must be another person not “scientifically inclined”…oh, wait, he has his “Ph.D. in biochemistry from the City University of New York, where he also holds a bachelor’s of science degree in chemistry. In addition to publishing more than 200 scientific publications in genetics, epidemiology, the environment and other areas…” And on it goes…
- Wait, there’s more…I guess Chalmers also didn’t get the memo either that “science” is equivalent to materialism (which is basically what Burk, Bernard, and JP are really arguing when asserting that “science” clashes with beliefs in an after-life or objective morality). And Chalmers is hardly a “believer.”
- I don’t know about the “modern” part, but they certainly invented the “hard” part.
- This may be the most honest assessment of where we are politically…
“First of all, I’m not negative towards the science of consciousness. I have been very involved in conferences with the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, Toward a Science of Consciousness, and so on. What I’m skeptical of are certain reductionist approaches to the problem of consciousness, about developing a theory of consciousness in wholly physical terms. I think that’s probably not going to work out. But I’m very much open to scientific non-reductive approaches to consciousness, which take consciousness to be something fundamental and primitive and develop theoretical principles about it. I think there’s a lot of that happening right now. The talk I’m doing tomorrow can be viewed as a contribution to that project – consciousness collapsing wave functions. The work of someone like Tononi is also interesting. He very much sees his work as a non-reductive approach. So what we have got out of the science of consciousness in recent years, as I see it, is basically a non-reductive science. It doesn’t try to reduce consciousness to the brain. It’s finding interesting correlations between consciousness and the brain, and ultimately we want to figure out the fundamental principles that align those correlations. It is early days for doing that, but someone like Tononi is putting forward some hypotheses, and maybe there are others. So I suppose the distinctive pessimism I have would be just directed at reductionist approaches. I think one shouldn’t identify science with materialism. Those are two very different things.”