Turns out that formulating a theory of consciousness (hard problem, “why are there qualia”) without at least one crazy-sounding implication is pretty hard. They’re fun to list though:
- Consciousness is just an illusion
- There’s an immaterial soul that pushes atoms around in your brain
- Your thoughts/decisions do not drive your actions, even if you think they do
- Electrons are conscious
- Only particular carbon processes can be conscious
- A properly wired network of walkie talkies among the citizens of China could be conscious
For this reason I don’t think that mocking someone’s views of consciousness without offering one’s own is respectable.
(I do think the scientific questions regarding consciousness are mostly orthogonal to the hard problem)
You can tell when someone has actually understood the hard problem etc. because they’re like a timid abused child when it comes to Philosophy of Mind questions, curling up in a corner and hoping no one asks them to speak decisively. Confidence comes from the untraumatized.