Michael Shermer - Is Consciousness Irreducible?

Why is consciousness so contentious? Neuroscience can increasingly explain many facets of consciousness, but what about conscious awareness itself? Some philosophers claim that although facets of consciousness—such as how we see edges or colors—can be explained, we have no possibility of explaining, in purely physical terms, the experience of consciousness.

Michael Brant Shermer is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[jameswright]

Until the very end, he never understood the question.

[cultist]

Over a decade of videos on same issues, zero answers, every just spouts off about their own unprovable assumptions.

[FiveEars]

Wow. Talk about cognitive bias. Schermer demonstrates no grasp of the questions being posed to him. He reframes every question about consciousness into some constructivist, idealist, or hard dualist straw man. He sounds like an NPC. But then again, tbh, this is exactly the difference between a skeptic (who just poo-poos) and a philosopher (who reasons). It is obvious, that the truth of realism about the physical world does not entail that consciousness is merely some permutation of the non-conscious. Skepticism is thus "wronger" than even plain common sense (a third category not mentioned by our host). Until an adequate physicalist theory is provided, the skeptic is just "silly" to pronounce that consciousness is not somehow and to some degree qualitatively different. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to provide warrant for his reductionist faith statement.

[nigelobrien]

No conscious observer, no basis for 'reality'.

[hhiskgj]

This guy is a con and a phoney critic.

[everready]

Consciousness will never be able to be scientifically explained.

[jabster]

So if your a rock it doesn't matter...lol

[grijzekijker]

It amazes me how intelligent, aged men can be so scientific, so limited.
Just a bunch of neurons firing.
The fact that apparently never anything happening in his life caused some doubt.
No miracles, no extreme coincidences, no out of place NPC's, no lucid dreams, etc.

[lenspencer]

We only listening to shermers opinion got no substance

[deanodebo]

Have to love the irony of a self-professed skeptic, so-called, that has supreme faith in his perception of reality

[yinYangMountain]

As I understand, the question being asked was based upon what David Chalmers suggests: Because we cannot figure out consciousness, maybe it’s part of the foundation of reality and/or akin to a law of nature.

This question / suggestion seems premature and closely tied to an Argument from Ignorance / Incredulity.

[petermartin]

Material reality and subjective reality are different levels of description of the same underlying reality that we can never fully access. Both have strengths and weaknesses, valuable insights and blind spots. For example in a material model of reality, we never have enough information about material properties, initial conditions and boundary conditions to make perfect predictions or explanations.

[MilushevGeorgi]

Both the materialistic and the quantum groups can’t explain consciousness

[jordan_]

Shermer is not a scientist. He is not a philosopher. He's a "skeptic" with a very flawed understanding of logic.

[noelwass]

The questions Robert was leading up to was about the five forces fundamental to the universe: strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, gravity and consciousness! This idea was rejected.

[realitycheck]

God ( the law of Spirit) doesn't observe nature. The law of Spirit can't observe what doesn't exist to it. It can only see the inner spirit of man that was created as perfect. It can only see this perfection. Being unchanging it can only see the unchanged inner spirit. There is the law of Spirit, and the law of nature. The law of nature can't "observe" God, and the law of Spirit can't "observe" nature. One is completely non-material. The other is seemingly material. The material cannot "observe" what is non-material. The non-material can't "observe" the material. If there was a being that was both man and spirit, then both can be seen but only one is real. Jesus saw both, but only spirit was the truth.

[DylanAcer]

The guy was an evangelical Christian. He gave up one ideology and took on another. He’s making absolute statements about subjects which are fundamentally unknowable.

[rogerjohnson]

6:00 I think Shermer rightly points out that religious fanatics should be grouped with the quantum fanatics; they are both religions! Both desparate to make 'god' in the image of humans.

[stellarwind]

Scientists have spent 100 years trying to explain how an electron can be in two places at once until it’s observed.

[lightworker]

Michael Shermer isn't someone I'd put on the ad for the video. He has the personality of a cheese grater and the tact to match. Didn't even watch the video btw...because above stated reason