It has been a while since my last post. And that’s because I have been struggling with a hard problem.
No, not the Chalmers hard problem. I have my own hard problem.
The easy problem of consciousness:
The easy problem, for me, has been in understanding consciousness. When I say “easy”, I do not mean trivially easy. It has been difficult at times.
The hard problem of consciousness:
For me, the hard problem of consciousness has been attempting to communicate my understanding to others. And, thus far, I have not found a successful way of doing that.
On truth
In a recent post at the the PeacefulScience forum, I wrote:
What it really boils down to, is that there is no such thing as metaphysical truth. There is only conventional truth. And different social groups will disagree over their social conventions.
Most people find this hard to swallow. They probably see it as obviously wrong. But they don’t point out where I went wrong, probably because they are unable to determine that.
That view about truth is an implication that arises from my study of human cognition. And even if I don’t directly say that, as I start to discuss how human cognition works, people begin to see implications that they do not like.
The age of the earth
The particular forum discussion came from an assertion about the age of the earth. Scientists, and probably most sensible people, take it that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. But YECs (Young Earth Creationists) hold that the earth is around 6,000 years old.
So who’s wrong and who’s right?
Both sides of this disagreement believe that they are right, and that their opponents are wrong. And both sides claim to have evidence to support their position.
The scientists determine the age of the earth using their well established ways of determining age. These ways are, in effect, measuring conventions. They include radiometric dating, the dating of lake varves, the dating of tree ages by counting tree rings, dating by the succession of layers of sedimentary rock in geological strata, and dating by the succession of fossils. They have calibrated all of these methods against one another, and shown that they give consistent dates.
YECs have their own conventions for determining historical dates. Those conventions are based on Biblical genealogies, and on correlating historical events with those genealogies as best possible.
Both groups — scientists and YECs — determine the truth of statements about ancient events by testing them with their conventions. This is why the expression “the conventional truth” seems a good fit. But the two sets of conventions give very different results. So there is no agreement on the truth of such statements.
Which set of conventions is true? We might want to ask that to settle the disagreement. But we really don’t have a way of determining the truth of conventions. We generally adopt conventions on a pragmatic basis. The pragmatism of science is what has led to the scientific conventions for dating. But the YECs can also claim that their conventions are pragmatic. For the YECs, the requirement of being consistent with their literalistic reading of the Bible is their primary basis for pragmatic evaluation.
We can, of course, sit back smugly knowing that we are right and that the YECs are wrong. But, at the same time, the YECs can sit back smugly knowing that they are right and that we are wrong.
What about correspondence?
If you ask people their basis for determining truth, they will often point to the correspondence theory of truth. But, in this case, it does not actually help. For the scientists, their dating conventions are the rules that establish a correspondence between our statements and the reality of past events. And, for the YECs, their conventions are the rules that establish the correspondence that they wish to use. So the correspondence theory cannot resolve this clash of conventions.
Taking things for granted
There is a lot about our world that we take for granted. And, most of the time, what we take for granted works well for helping us understand our world. But, as we start to look into human cognition and consciousness, we need to explain how it is that we are able to take these for granted. People do not like explanations of what they already take for granted. They don’t believe that an explanation is needed, since they already take it for granted. And, if pointing out that what they take for granted depends, in part, on social conventions, then they are likely to see that as questioning what they take for granted.
This is why it is hard to explain consciousness.