Consciousness does in fact pose a hard problem (1)
Rowan Hooper, with help from philosophers Patricia Churchland and Daniel Dennett, does a great disservice to “the hard problem” in the theory of mind. (22 June, p 34) Were “qualia”, the experiential qualities of consciousness, so easily dismissed as the maunderings of the spooky-minded, the problem would never have become so notoriously difficult.
Why do we experience consciousness at all? Nothing in any objective scientific theory of physics or information accounts for the subjective qualities of our otherwise empirically measurable experiences. In the integrated information theory proposed by Giulio Tononi, consciousness is what information feels like when it reaches a certain level of sophistication. But the fact of that feeling has no underpinning. That is the hard problem.
Consciousness does in fact pose a hard problem (2)
“What is consciousness?” isn’t answered by saying how it is produced and where in the brain this happens, unless we start by assuming we know the answer. If it is just neural activity, there is nothing more to explain. But if I am sad, feeling guilt or in pain and I describe the accompanying physical goings-on in minute detail, you wouldn’t know what I was experiencing. What is missing is the subjective experience: what I am aware of and you aren’t.
We may want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness and not a “spooky non-biological” account, but we need one that preserves what is characteristic of consciousness: the subjective phenomena. This “hard problem” isn’t solved by dismissing these as illusory. For something to be an illusion, it has to be observed 鈥� that is to say, experienced. Evolution has produced something of great selective advantage using only the physical stuff of the universe, but that also involves subjective phenomena. We know of consciousness only by means of those phenomena, which adds to the puzzle.
Consciousness does in fact pose a hard problem (3)
It was interesting how much of your article on the human brain was littered with computer analogies. I suspect some future human brains will shake their formidable heads at this, reflecting on how each generation tries to explain things with the mechanism of their day.
Singapore's falsehood law leaves the courts to decide
Donna Lu makes claims about Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (POFMB) (1 June, p 23). Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung and other Singapore officials can’t affect expressions of opinion, since it covers only false statements of fact. It follows existing jurisprudence that defines what a false statement of fact is. This means that academic research won’t be subject to POFMB so doesn’t need to be exempted. Inquiry in the humanities also won’t be covered, as it is in the domain of opinion, not fact.
Lu suggests that the bill gives government free rein to ban any information that the “state deems to be false”. The bill prescribes that Singapore’s courts, not its government, are the final arbiters of truth. Singapore welcomes groundbreaking research and the government is committed to applying the law responsibly. We aren’t seeking to set any global precedent with this law, which is designed for our own multiracial and multireligious context.
The importance of climate change for Christians (1)
Graham Lawton notes the potential for common ground between science and religion on climate change (22 June, p 24). The Anglican church in five areas. The fifth, added in 1990, is “to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth”.
Climate change will probably disproportionately affect the poorest in the world. Another part of the Anglican mission is to work to “transform unjust structures of society”. The challenges of climate change should be as immediate to Christians as to atheists.
The importance of climate change for Christians (2)
It is generally accepted that Pope Francis publishing the encyclical letter six months before the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference had a material effect on the resulting Paris agreement. This isn’t forgotten by the .
This looks like yet another carbon capture illusion
Donna Lu reports a scheme to capture the carbon dioxide from industry “before it enters the atmosphere” and produce animal feed by growing bacteria on it.(25 May, p 12)
But if CO2 from fossil fuels is captured, used to make either carbohydrate or hydrocarbon using solar power, then used as animal feed or fuel, it has still gone from being safely sequestered underground into the air. The only gain has been a single reuse, a halving of the carbon intensity of that power station.
Please check that those willow seeds will be viable
Adam Vaughan describes seeking willow seeds to deposit in an underground vault (25 May, p 13). In 1992, I studied Salix alba in the cold, arid conditions of Ladakh in India and observed that the seeds lose their viability six to seven weeks after collection. I noticed a reduction in germination after 14 days and no germination after 52 days. I suggest the Kew scientists check before banking seeds in deep freeze for long-term use.
For the record 鈥� 13 July 2019
鈥� The area in which ammonia was detected on Pluto is about 200 kilometres wide (8 June, p 18).
鈥� Earth takes 23 hours 56 minutes to complete one rotation and Mars takes 24 hours 37 minutes (15 June, p 38).
Flexibility and innovation are key in education
Guy Cox says “able” pupils aren’t challenged in non-selective schools (Letters, 15 June). But most people are able in different ways. As I was good at maths, I could take an exam two years early at my non-selective school thanks to , set up by the Inner London Education Authority, now sadly scrapped.
This allowed pupils to learn at their own pace and for the more advanced students to assist others, a good way of reinforcing learning that was valuable for both pupils. There were always areas in which less academically able pupils were better. Mixing people of varying abilities at school was a good learning experience for everyone.
Selection isn’t necessary if teachers are innovative and schools are well-funded. No child in such schools would feel they had failed academically before they had even started there.
Remember that climate concern goes way back
In his article on how New 杏吧原创 covered a proposed solution to the hole in the ozone layer in 1994, Simon Ings says concern about climate change was then the “preserve of a fringe few” (From the archives, 1 June). Even in the 1980s, global warming was mainstream enough for my teenage friends and me to dread it alongside nuclear war and mass unemployment.
This is important because there were already climate change deniers. Then, they said that the planet wasn’t warming; now, they can’t say this, so instead insist it is a natural fluctuation. These people are running behind the science, throwing dust in the air to try to obscure the facts. It is our duty to point out that they were wrong in the past so that we can decide how much to trust them now.
fautjo