I addressed why Susan Blackmore's first argument is flawed, she simply ignores the brain is a filter of consciousness hypothesis.
Her 2nd argument is equally flawed against the hypothesis that the brain is a filter of consciousness.. Here is why ...
Quote:
Blackmore writes ....
'....... The second reason I doubt that the paranormal power of consciousness will ever be proven is more theoretical. As our understanding of conscious experience progresses, the desire to find the "power of consciousness" sets parapsychology ever more against the rest of science (which may, of course, be part of its appeal). The more we look into the workings of the brain the less it looks like a machine run by a conscious self and the more it seems capable of getting on without one. There is no place inside the brain where consciousness resides, where mental images are "viewed" or where instructions are "issued" (Dennett, 1991). There is just massive parallel throughput and no centre...
|
If anything this argument should be used against materialism, not in its defence! What Sue Blackmore neglects to mention, this is also known as the 'binding problem' one of the hard problems of any materialistic brain model of consciousness.
Nor can this argument be used against the brain is a filter of consciousness hypothesis. In such a theory the consciousness is not just generated in the brain.
To give analogy, Blackmore's point is rather like arguing since there is no centre of control in television circuit boards, therefore TV programmes, films etc. are generated all over the TV circuit boards.
Yes not a perfect analogy (analogies never are). Although we view TV set as tuning in, it can also be viewed as filtering out other stations as unwanted interference. Similarly in creating any computer virtual reality of the future, the goggles, headphones, etc. do not just provide sensory input, to be most effective these need to block out (filter) the normal reality of room etc.