Berent, Iris. 2023. “The ‘Hard Problem of Consciousness’ Arises from Human Psychology”
Her thesis is that we are intuitive Dualists and Essentialists, and that this is why we find consciousness so puzzling. I found the paper interesting, though I recognized that at least the first premise is dubious as a universalization (as you point out, it is false on a historical view). All the experimental subjects were WEIRD (and dualism is probably well entrenched in Western folk intuitions, after 2000 years of Christianity), but of course so are most of the people worrying about the Hard Problem. It raises the question: if we could find a culture relatively uncontaminated by Western dualism, would they also think the Hard Problem was a thing? Or would they be puzzled by our puzzlement?
I hadn't seen it, but such papers are ubiquitous. Essentialism in the physchology context, by the way, means something different to philosophy, although the distinction is often not recognised by either discipline. Susan Gelman's work on children as essentialists is more about the reality of categories than about hylomorphism or metaphysical dualism: "Essentialism is the idea that certain categories, such as" dog,"" man," or" intelligence," have an underlying reality or true nature that gives objects their identity." [From The Essential Child]
We have some idea of what untainted cultures would think, from anthropological and historical sources. For example, the Lokāyata or Charvaka materialist philosophy preceded Vedic dualism, although whether that was a folk philosophical tradition or just a tradition of the sages is open to question (I'm insufficiently educated in that tradition). But that there are spirits, including individual spirits of people, in folk societies is not at issue: the question is whether this made them substance dualists. I think not.
Have you seen this?
Berent, Iris. 2023. “The ‘Hard Problem of Consciousness’ Arises from Human Psychology”
Her thesis is that we are intuitive Dualists and Essentialists, and that this is why we find consciousness so puzzling. I found the paper interesting, though I recognized that at least the first premise is dubious as a universalization (as you point out, it is false on a historical view). All the experimental subjects were WEIRD (and dualism is probably well entrenched in Western folk intuitions, after 2000 years of Christianity), but of course so are most of the people worrying about the Hard Problem. It raises the question: if we could find a culture relatively uncontaminated by Western dualism, would they also think the Hard Problem was a thing? Or would they be puzzled by our puzzlement?
I hadn't seen it, but such papers are ubiquitous. Essentialism in the physchology context, by the way, means something different to philosophy, although the distinction is often not recognised by either discipline. Susan Gelman's work on children as essentialists is more about the reality of categories than about hylomorphism or metaphysical dualism: "Essentialism is the idea that certain categories, such as" dog,"" man," or" intelligence," have an underlying reality or true nature that gives objects their identity." [From The Essential Child]
We have some idea of what untainted cultures would think, from anthropological and historical sources. For example, the Lokāyata or Charvaka materialist philosophy preceded Vedic dualism, although whether that was a folk philosophical tradition or just a tradition of the sages is open to question (I'm insufficiently educated in that tradition). But that there are spirits, including individual spirits of people, in folk societies is not at issue: the question is whether this made them substance dualists. I think not.