Here are some formulations of the "problem of consciousness" from Wikipedia with comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

"Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?"

What do you mean by a "rich inner life"? And why shouldn't it?

"How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"

Snails get to be subjects of experience by crawling near humans.

I think they meant to say something else. But it's not very clear what.

"Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"

This assumes there is "awareness of sensory information". That is a bad place to start for the problem of consciousness!

It doesn't make any sense to assume X exists and then get stuck on saying X is. If you can't say what X is, then you should reconsider whether it exists in the way you think it does.

This shouldn't be a *why* question. A *what* question would be better. But it shouldn't be "What is [some string of letters]?" It should give some specific facts or evidence or something and present some problem with them. Which this doesn't.

"Why do qualia exist?"

Assumes qualia exist and that we know what they are. Bad starting point.

"Why is there a subjective component to experience?"

Assumes there is a subjective component. Doesn't say what that is.

"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

Why aren't we rocks? Or snails?

Better question: how do we learn? How can we do philosophy?

"Phenomenal Natures are categorically different from behavior"

That's not a question, it's a very vague assertion.


I'm not saying there is no such thing as a legitimate problem that could be called "the problem of consciousness". But the people pursuing *these* questions A) don't know what the problem is and B) aren't doing anything to solve it.

Quotes from Feb 2000:
Exactly. Classic TCS.Unfortunately, this does not answer the question. The poster did not ask how to find a solution. He asked how to discipline his child. He's already decided A) they aren't both going to get what they want B) whose going to lose out.

It has not occurred to him that, say, he could be mistaken about whether temper tantrums are good or bad. Or whether "discipline" (punishment) is good or bad. Or that there is a truth of the matter about how they should proceed, which he and his child disagree about, and that they should try to find out what this truth is.
His daughter is greatly upset, and his concern is his own embarrassment?

His daughter is being hurt frequently, and he wants help for himself?
The idea that "tantrums" have reasons or problems behind them is rare.

The whole point of calling it a temper tantrum is to deny the child is using reason in any way. And to deny the child is expressing a preference or want of any kind. It's to deny the child exists at all. All that exists is the temper, the genes, the childishness, the parent's embarrassment, and so on.

Most bad parenting can be said to assert that children don't exist.

For example, spanking a child in order to improve it's behavior is treating a child like a donkey at best. It thus denies the child exists as a person.

The idea of temper tantrums denies the child exists, and says instead that other things exist such as 'temper' and 'childishness'.

The idea of aspies denies the child exists and replaces him with a syndrome.

The preferences of children are very commonly denied to exist. He doesn't really want that toy, just an ad told him to pester his parents. Ads exist, and pestered parents, but not children who agree with ads or who would benefit from toys.

Sometimes children are asked to pretend they don't exist: be seen but not heard, or go to bed before the guests arrive.

When a child doesn't want a vaccination, all parents acknowledge to exist is irrationally fear and irrational demands that life consists absolutely entirely of love and unicorns.

When a child doesn't want a medication, all parents acknowledge to exist is the absolute necessity of administering the medication.

When a child doesn't like school, it certainly never occurs to parents that they are dealing with a person who has a preference and a life, and perhaps should have some control over his life. Instead, all that exists to them is a ball of clay which has the potential to be an adult with the skill to run its own life, and will get there not by practicing doing that but by molding.

And it goes on and on.

Despite all this, I think it'd be highly inaccurate to say the primary problem with parents today is they haven't realized children exist.

http://wonderfulgeneration.blogspot.com/2009/03/snsd-gee-lyrics-englishromanization.html

These lyrics, translated from Korean, have a somewhat different style and emphasis than American love songs. I've edited parts out to condense:

Boy My First Love Story

You're so so handsome
My eyes my eyes are blinded
I can't breathe because I'm trembling

Oh I feel so embarrassed
I can't look at you
I feel shy because I've fallen in love

What should I do? (What should I do~) About my trembling heart (My trembling heart)

(Thump thump thump thump) My heart kept thumping
So I couldn't fall asleep at night

My close friends tell me
That I'm really a helpless fool
But as I look at you~~

So tingly tingly my body is trembling gee gee gee gee gee
Oh your glittering eyes (oh yeah~) Oh this sweet aroma (oh yeah yeah yeah~)

I can't even say anything
I'm too embarrassed

Do I not have any courage?
What would be the right thing to do?
Thump thump my heart is anxious as I'm looking at you

I don't think Americans songs are so openly shy and embarrassed.

In any case, how can you be in love with someone you're "too embarrassed" to "say anything" to? In other words, how can you be in love with someone whom you do not have a relationship with at this time?

Assume:

- there are 6 billion people.
- people average 5 broken hearts per lifetime due to a breakup.
- people worldwide live 60 years on average.

Then the number of broken hearts due to breakups per day is:

>> (6 * (10**9) * 5) / (60*365.25)
=> 1368925.39356605

That's 1.37 million broken hearts happening every day.

That is a lot of pain. :(

Perhaps there is a better way.

If abductive reasoning is about "inference to the best explanation" isn't that similar to the Popperian approach, which tries to find good explanations?

No, because:

abduction justifies the conclusion of the inference being the best explanation based on the process used to reach it (i.e., the conclusion is justified b/c it was reached using abduction rather than, say, guessing)

abduction, like induction, is supposed to offer a procedure for how to get from the input data to a conclusion, but actually doesn't.

critical rationalism (CR) doesn't need a procedure for how to create or pick explanations b/c it just says: guess them however you want, and if your method is dumb it doesn't really matter (but feel free to criticize your method and try to improve it).

The reason it doesn't matter to CR where ideas come from is CR doesn't try to justify ideas by having them come from an authoritative process. Instead, CR tries to improve ideas by *error elimination*. Although this does let us improve ideas, it never makes them authoritative or secure (or probably secure), as abduction aims to do.

http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/kate_voegele_lyrics_15408/dont_look_away_lyrics_45047/its_only_life_lyrics_487471.html

How can you say, "It's only life"? No big deal, just your life, not a top priority or anything. What more could it possibly be? What else do you have, but your life?

http://www.the-rathouse.com/bartagree.html

Following his teacher, Karl Popper, the operating principle of Bartley's rationalism is the formula 'I may be wrong and you may be right, and by means of critical discussion we may get nearer to the truth of the matter'.

Note that this conception of rationality is all about *how disagreements are treated*. It has an implicit "When we disagree, I may be wrong..." at the start.

Here is an equivalent statement of rationality:

Rationality is a property of how disagreements are treated, not which ideas one holds. Rational ways of approaching disagreements keep open the possibility of either party being mistaken, or both parties. Rational approaches are those that aim to eliminate errors. Irrational approaches presuppose a correct conclusion. They try to entrench it, or "make it rule". Aiming to convert people to your way of thinking is thus irrational, whereas aiming to discuss which way of thinking is true is rational.