Well, David Chalmers is right. There is a hard problem in science, but the hard problem is not the object of research, but science itself and researchers with their anthropocentric worldviews and attitudes. Arguments about the mystery of consciousness and the “hard problems” associated with it are exaggerated in this presentation below (What is consciousness). They tell more about the internal problems of philosophy than about man himself. The problem is not that the human mind is a hard problem, as David Chalmers says in the video, but that humanistic world view refuses to accept a negligible part of man in the universe.
It is good to give thought on what psychedelic experience means in terms of Western philosophy, but then again it is hardly worth trying to sneak psychedelic experience into philosophy! There is a danger that psychedelics will nullify the most of what philosophy is built on. Psychedelics make rationality and logic – which are cornerstones in western philosophy – look rather flat and uninteresting. So, why are some philosophers (including Peter Sjostedt-H and Daniel Greig) interested in psychedelics? Well, I think it’s this: because psychedelics are about to make philosophy a dull discipline, philosophers try to prevent such conclusions from being drawn. Philosophers draw psychedelic experiences into the bottomless abyss of quibble so that they never could flourish and come back in life.
Philosophical reflection easily becomes mere smoke and mirrors. As a discipline, philosophy it can be imagined as a club whose members tend to stumble upon the language and make it a profession. The key task is to make the tail wag the dog. One could think that philosophers would take the lead to define the key concepts, such as consciousness, but they don’t. As much as they teach the importance of defining concepts, they forget it themselves. However, they have the audacity to argue that psychedelics are of no use unless one have internalised their philosophical meaning and framework of interpretation. The purpose of such claims is to take the base away from experiences as such and subject them to cognitive processes. Philosophical wisdom is the buzz of a fly alongside experiences that are hard if not impossible to translate into words. Perhaps that is why they “miss” the definition of consciousness.
In constructing a heavy, human-centered worldview, many philosophies make it extremely difficult to understand human mind. An engineered way to solve problems is a good thing for science, because it generates endless possibilities for new projects and exploration. In addition, it is up to science itself to determine the criteria for its success! I understand that science competes for attention and its place as a prestigious authority, but isn’t it a bit strange to talk about unlocking mysteries with logical reasoning! Seriously, I think they are mutually exclusive. Mysteries and logic do not simply fit together. That’s probably the purpose of the whole thing. Science programs that talk about human mystery are like cheap soap series that always resemble each other: they are full of promises but leave you only with new questions.
However, in science, it is impossible to think of better ways to solve problems than science has. And yet there is. When consciousness is thought of as a mystery, it also remains a mystery. And when one thinks of man as the most advanced being in the world, he’ll also remain so. But consciousness is not a mystery. It is simply a mechanism of our body that serves to protect the growing individual. This is not easy to accept in science, because for science it means the end of its work. That is why in many fields of science there are no answers, there are only questions. And even some possible answers ultimately exist, they are there just to create new questions.