Template talk:Critical theory, modernism and the death of objective truth
Given the brightest minds still can’t reconcile the physics of atoms with that of galaxies, and neither provides a great explanation of what we experience at a human scale when we get in planes, we can’t really blame the relativist for arching an eyebrow at Professor Dawkins and his purported certainty. It seems rather a matter of faith.[1]
“Truth” or “consciousness”: you decide
There is an irony here: materialist philosophers have grappled ineffectually at the question of consciousness because it seems to defy scientific explanation: it gets in the way of the Platonic, materialist idea that there are forms, we just can’t directly apprehend them, but that science and rationalism are somehow allowing us covertly to converge, by increments, on these ideal forms — the fundamental truth of the cosmos.
The general vibe is therefore to define consciousness away — to make it an illusion, a trick of the mind. Algorithms appear to open that door: we can replicate intelligence without consciousness then perhaps consciousness disappears in a puff of logic.
But preserving truth at the expense of consciousness is surely to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. The relativist says, why not keep the idea of consciousness and give up on truth?
- ↑ If you need further evidence of the bad place modern cosmology finds itself in, try this: “Time may be an illusion created by quantum entanglement: The true nature of time has eluded physicists for centuries, but a new theoretical model suggests it may only exist due to entanglement between quantum objects” — New Scientist, 31 May 2024