Tim Maudlin - Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?

What would it take for consciousness to defeat materialism or physicalism? This is the worldview that only the physical is real, which is the dominant view of scientists and philosophers. Here’s what it would take: our inner awareness, our experience of what things feel like, could not be explained by physical brain alone That’s it. A tall order, though.



Tim Maudlin is a philosopher of science and a Professor of Philosophy at New York University.


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.

[alanbooth]

pure gold- the problem lucidly explicated - makes all the other interviews on this matter redundant - full circle Robert methinks!!!!

[chrisconklin]

Good presentation and it is nice to have someone who is willing to say they don't know. I wish that Mr. Maudlin's last sentence: "conciseness supervenes on physics", was expanded upon. If I understand it, conciseness builds upon the physical brain. Life on earth has had a long time to develop a brain that exhibits consciousness and the how is a closely held secret.

[peweegangloku]

This is one of the most realistic and honest excerpts. The guest is crystal clear. Robert, can you identify and quantify pain in the part of the brain responsible for pain?

[hershchat]

Materialists need to remember that, in the end, it is consciousness, and not matter, that is “primary” and irrefutable. Anyone who refers to matter, does so because she is conscious of it. For us to be conscious of matter, we need consciousness.

Spiritualists need to remember that we are only aware that we are conscious, because we apprehend matter. If there was nothing to be conscious of, then “consciousness” will be moot.

I still think consciousness is primary, and possibly independent of matter. However, it is the second preposition that is hard to prove (or, per scientific method, non-falsifiable).

[Cap]

I come back to this discussion every now and then to get perspective on the experience of consciousness and its relation to the neurochemistry of our brains. Correlation of neurochemical events and perception and consciousness while true cannot be an explanation of aspects of consciousness. Consciousness at this time is irreducible.

[francesco]

Very interesting interview .. i also think that materialism is defeated by the universe initial set.

[realcygnus]

Something like Kastrup's alters is what currently connects the most dots & by FAR IMO.

[williamburts]

Tim Mauldin is very smart, he understands that the mind-consciousness is aloof from matter.

[brainwrite]

Great conversation. I thought the camera panning in then out was a bit distracting, but please keep up the good work!

[davikow]

Kudos for accepting not-knowing, but categorically dismissing a physical explanation is one step too far, isn’t it?

[marinorodriguez]

Consciousness is fundamental, we actually live in our minds, reality is merely an illusion.

[margaretpoling]

What about phantom limb pain? There is a place in the brain that still feels the pain

[pietropipparolo]

What this interviewer fails to understand is that the brain and nervous system is an epiphenomenon of the consciousness, the immutable essence we all are.The brain is no more than a switchboard at the physical body level.The awareness of awareness unit, the perceiver is the source of everything else.

[DianelosGeorgoudis]

That mechanical regularity (and that’s what physical matter means) supervenes on consciousness seems to nake much more sense than the other way around.

[GradyPhilpott]

Maudlin used the wrong analogy on the wrong interviewer. I think what we have here is an excellent demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[kpunkt.klaviermusik]

There's a difference between
what's happening in the brain
and
how does it feel.

Or other example

I listen to two pieces of music.
One gives me the feeling of overwhelming joy
the other annoys me to death.

How do you explain this phaenomenon?
From the view of the brain?
From the view of the musical score?
From the data of the soundwaves?
From the view of a newborn baby?

[lindal.]

Does consciousness defeat materialism? Yes yes and yes.

[mentalitydesignvideo]

Physicalist idiocy is looking for the meaning of the novel in the cellulose structure of the paper it's printed on, the shape of letters it's typeset in, in the grammar of the language, in the taxonomy of the animal whose skin went into the leather binding — and not in the human culture, a tiny slice of which is captured in the narrative.

[tom-kzpb]

Union of human sperm and egg is a material event. It is unlikely that a material event would spawn an "immaterial" reality. It is more likely that consciousness is an outgrowth of material phenomena that are simply, poorly understood. Consciousness is not an undifferentiated "entity" or "field", not something on the order of, say, "electromagnetism", but is a *process* involving a complex *system* that has multiple component parts, working together to create the experience of an integrated whole. To some degree, the distinction between a "material" phenomenon and and "immaterial" one is a question of linguistics. You could take the position that any observable phenomenon in the universe is "material".

[PaulHoward]

The existence of meanings defeats materialism. Meanings can't be defined from things. Things, which represent complex meanings, depend on abstract meanings, revealing a hierarchy of meanings with the independent whole as the origin.