apologetics.pro

Evidence · Case 08 · Science

David Chalmers and the hard problem

One exhibit from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.

Suggest a correction
Chalmers, who named the hard problem, is not arguing for God. He is a naturalist who concludes that experience resists physical explanation so stubbornly that it may be a basic feature of reality in its own right. His point is that describing physical structure and function only ever yields more structure and function, never the felt quality of experience.

Sources

Objections & responses

Chalmers is a naturalist who explicitly rejects theistic explanations of consciousness. Isn’t using him for a theistic argument borrowing his premise and ignoring his conclusion?

Chalmers is not arguing for God, and he is used here for the premise only. That is legitimate as long as it is clear that his own solution, consciousness as a fundamental property within a naturalistic framework, is a rival to the theistic one, not a step toward it. The fork is this: if the hard problem is real, reductive physicalism is in trouble, and both a mind-first universe and Chalmers’s naturalistic dualism are ways of taking that seriously. Which fits better is the comparison the next exhibit makes.

Isn’t this a god-of-the-gaps argument? Neuroscience is young. “We can’t yet explain consciousness” isn’t “consciousness can’t be explained physically.”

The hard problem is not a gap in the ordinary sense. It is the claim that no amount of structural and functional explanation could in principle yield experience, because experience is not a structure or a function. Chalmers’s argument is conceptual, not an appeal to current ignorance. That argument may be wrong (Dennett and the illusionists say it is), but if it is right, more neuroscience will not close the gap. The distinction between a gap in knowledge and a gap in kind is the whole question.

Appears under 1 claim in this case

Read it in context