Consciousness: Belated "sublimely ridiculous" award for 2006

It's too bad I wasn't giving out a "completely ridiculous" award for comments on consciousness in 2006. This one, from theoretical psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, would be a slam dunk:

"Our starting assumption as scientists ought to be that on some level consciousness has to be an illusion. The reason is obvious: If nothing in the physical world can have the features that consciousness seems to have, then consciousness cannot exist as a thing in the physical world. So while we should concede that as conscious subjects we do have a valid experience of there being something in our minds that the rules of the physical universe doesn't apply to, this has to be all it is - the experience of something in our minds." Nicholas Humphrey, "Consciousness: The Achilles Heel of Darwinism? Thank God, Not Quite", in John Brockman (ed.), Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement (Vintage, 2006), pp. 58-9. Original emphasis.

Actually, consciousness isn't the Achilles heel of Darwinism; it is Darwinism's grave. Here's the Humphrey paper.

Hat tip: Krauze at Telic Thoughts

Also just up at The Mindful Hack:

When pop science TV wants to hear only one side ...

Psychology: Compassion is an emotion, not a virtue unless disciplined, prof says

Neuroscience: Making sense of uncontrollable itching

Evolutionary psychology: The selfish gene in the art world

Evolutionary psychology: Key concept of "memes" trashed as "one of the bigger crocks hatched in recent decades"

Does a recent discovery in honeybees "prove" that the "selfish gene" exists?

Comments

[Ken Brown]

I posted that quote back then as well, along with a couple appropriate quotes by TelicThought's "Deuce", here:

http://salvomag.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/why-consciousne.html

[Denyse O'Leary]

Well, as quotes go, it sure ages well. It is no less ridiculous. - d.