Independent philosopher

Posted by Simon Raggett on 19 August 2010 | 1 Comments

Tags: ,

Barbara Montero is an independent philosopher to the extent that she does not follow so many modern philosophers in acting as an under-labourer to a dated Newtonian view of science. Montero offers a shrewd analysis of the reasons why mainstream thinkers are unhappy with theories of consciousness that derive consciousness from the fundamental level of the universe. She asks why properties that are mental should be accounted as non-physical, rather than as being part of the physical universe. She suggests that properties related to the mental tend not to be regarded as acceptable parts of the physical universe, because if the mental were seen as fundamental, it would have emerged like that from the Big Bang. She thinks that for some this might hint at the existence of a god, and further than that a human or mental related purpose to the universe.

I think this analysis give a good idea of the reason why quantum and fundamentalist theories of consciousness arouse such unreasoning and unscientific hostility in many mainstream quarters. Montero suggests that even researchers who are unaware of the gods/purposes implications of fundamentalist theories, pick up on their generally tainted reputation and respond accordingly.

Montero points out that there is broad scientific and philosophical agreement that the features of the world arise from a fundamental physical substrata. Every feature of the world can therefore be traced back to and shown to depend on fundamental physical properties. From this simple definition, it would appear that any theory of consciousness that arises from the fundamental level is a physicalist theory, and does not involve any form of dualism. She is open to the view that consciousness is a fundamental property, with the fundamental property not conscious as such, but acting as a ground state from which consciousness can arise given certain favourable circumstances, such as those that exist in the human brain.


Post your comment

Comments

  • I have a question which relates, I think, to this post. First of all this is an understanding I have:

    In an exploration of the 'actual experience' of "Reality" the non physical is rooted in the sensed perception of the physical. Perception is embodied ~ processed ~ through the neural pathways and distilled cognitively from culturally shared perspectives. The process of understanding the physicality of 'Reality' is a qualitative response to the relationship between sensed perception unfolding in a perceptual sense of what 'Reality' is.

    Is there an "Ultimate Reality" beyond 'cultural perspectives' in this rooted idea of matter?

    Posted by Anthony Stapleton, 06/01/2011 1:58pm (1 year ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments