Thread: Age and Lucidity

Have been thinking more about that video interview with cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is that if consciousness, as opposed to matter, is the fundamental basis of reality, then why does the nature and even existence of consciousness appear to be so dependent on matter? For example, if we ingest certain material substances, such as alcohol or cannabis, it directly impacts our conscious experience in obvious ways. Other material substances, such as certain general anesthetics, can even cause our consciousness to completely disappear, at least temporarily. And physical measurements (EEGs, etc.) of our brain activity directly correlate strongly with the nature or even presence or absence of our consciousness. It seems far more plausible to assume that matter existing in space and time is the fundamental basis of reality and that consciousness is dependent on matter. That is, different configurations of matter produce different forms of consciousness, including the absence of consciousness. How do you think Hoffman would respond to this line of reasoning?

The other thing that doesn't make sense to me is his claim that we can't know anything at all about reality. That doesn't seem plausible, given the vast knowledge we've accumulated over the centuries regarding how reality behaves. Specifically, the laws of physics. It's true that we don't know everything about reality, but we know enough to have developed advanced technologies that work extremely well. If we didn't really know anything about reality, how could we possibly make working automobiles, aircraft, spacecraft, communication systems, computers, and so forth? It seems far more plausible and useful to assume that we really do know quite a bit about reality, to the point where we can describe how it behaves mathematically in minute detail, as well as to control how it behaves in sophisticated and useful ways.