I am curious about the problem of the unbounded accumulation of a conscious mind, or of a collection of conscious minds. Where do we store all this information about the past as the interval of time of the past stretches into infinity in the future? I mean store both physically in atoms in the form of libraries on earth and in the memories of conscious minds.
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily 'die' (like in the movie 'Flatliners') and move into another body (like in the movie 'Avatar') or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily 'die' (like in the movie 'Flatliners') and move into another body (like in the movie 'Avatar') or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily 'die' (like in the movie 'Flatliners') and move into another body (like in the movie 'Avatar') or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily 'die' (like in the movie 'Flatliners') and move into another body (like in the movie 'Avatar') or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily "die" (like in the movie "Flatliners") and move into another body (like in the movie "Avatar") or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
@stevo728822 Agreed. Anybody saying they do is probably full of shit. If they say they do they're 'explaining' away the problem by dismissing precisely what the majority of thinkers believe is interesting and at issue.
This video and the video about the Science of Consciousness were illuminating. I think though, that Chalmers' attempt to separate the case of consciousness from the case of vitality, with respect to strong emergence, was either weak or rushed. I think he is right, and time will tell.
Or, from what these other peeps are debating (without a lot of Gwynnies) is this: LTM is the identity function - simple, emergent, evolution. There's my trinity. ;)
alla that yappin... d' oh! My "TOE" is Pure Number, comes straight outta chapter 42 of the tao te ching - which implies that the universe is counting, everything else is interaction of the count. Ya gotta be an atheist, to think that kinda big, make everything so small... for the theists in the studio audience, once upon a time I made a choice (morality-making choices)
I selected for the real God -Gwyneth Paltrow. If she don;t exist, I'm not an atheist; and there it is.
illustrating stuff without illustrating "built in programming" like YHWH and evolution, one might end up turning an illustration like Flatland into a "who knows" like string theory.
I wanna know what he ain't saying. "Strong" and "weak" emergence smells too much like "micro/macro" evolution - which is completely made up nonsense in biology...
Then again, I'm a evolutionist; if consciousness ain't just 'random' from evolution and emergence -someone's Ockham ain't properly sharpened. :p
The one that works. My name is human. I'm one of seven billion getting worked. If he's got me thinking he's "not mentioning god" like an "ID theorist" my personal experience is my moral right to be worried kinda YHWH a mofo identifying with. The number four, gonna explain emergence, right now.
Yeah, you take the paper with the one dot, lie on top of the other one, and you get a tetrahedron. A mathematical point is dimensionless - therefore you cannot illustrate it. So when one starts ...
So here's what you do: ya take a piece of paper. Ya draw three dots in a triangle like ya know what you're doing.. Get another piece of paper, draw a dot on it. That's where we're at - is there a critical flaw in the logical system? There's a couple of them in grammar. the I/you/you/YHWH structure is -by this simple illustration, evidence of moral control structure - wired into personal identity - as a function of grammar. There only has to be one conspiracy...
I'm right, and you're a zombie; it's a function of simple math to discriminate. If you're not David Chalmers, you're a zombie - we got this fuck out numbered. Let's get 'em!
Nah. but YHWH, along with being (obviously) the number 4, is identity. I identify with YHWH. I'm an atheist - religion is wrong, and it's gotta go, and the way to make it go away; taking alla bad, leaving alla good, is to use YHWH.
A demonstration is in order! I'm a mathematician, I never liked Flatland...
I had a problem with this guy cause he called me a zombie. Know anything about YHWH? That's the fourth identity. I wanna know how much YHWH this cat has in his identity. Im an atheist. That means, anybody who is not an atheist prolly has too much YHWH in their identity. If Chalmers atheist, all is forgiven and I love the guy.
Tell you about grammar. "You" is second person plural. When one says, my consciousness is fundamental...
I'm me, the experiencer of my life. If I had one event of my life erased from my memory I'd still be me, and it was also still me who experienced that event, even though the memory of it is gone. Repeat this until my memory is vague, and I'm still me. It would be like starting over. I could have a new identity, be taught Chinese, have a Chinese accent, but I'd still be me. So how is it that if they cloned me on my death, that clone, with an identical brain, wouldn't be me, but a new experiencer?
@1simonmatthews What I'm saying is, if consciousness is purely emergent, if I'm me the experiencer only because of my brain, then I should be able to be me the experiencer every time they cloned me, like being reborn. Obviously I wouldn't know I was reborn because all my memories would be gone, but I'd be the same experiencer starting afresh each time, as if for the first time. But I don't think this would be the case with clones, rather it would be a whole different experiencer each time.
@1simonmatthews So what is it that makes me the experiencer? It can't be the experiences I've had, because I've already shown that I'd still be me if I had my memories erased one at a time, to the point where my memory became vague, and I could start afresh and have a different identity, even a different nationality. Or am I totally wrong here? Would there be a point in the memory erasing process where I lose the ability to experience as me and me the experiencer would be lost for good?
@1simonmatthews You'd still be you... BUT NOT Consciously... you'd be in an Altered Conscious State !!!
The self is the collection of the individual's memories... there is NOT much outside of your memory of you. You even CAN'T describe yourself without your MEMORY OF YOU !!!
The current model of the self is that it is more like an... Onion... then a Stone fruit... NO Core !!!
Your clone would have to have the same EXACT Environmental experiences, at at the same maturity and to the same degree.
@Redshift313 I believe the following: I can describe myself without memories. I'm the experiencer. The experiencer is more than just the sum of the physical parts of its brain. Consciousness is not produced from complexity of information. They will never produce a computer that is conscious. The smallest and earliest life forms were conscious, to a tiny degree. These evolved in complexity to make us. The complexity of the brain allows a greater degree of consciousness.
@1simonmatthews As with both an Amnesia or Alzhiemer's disease patient... neither are, who they were... to themselves or to the external world. There is still an Experiencer, though by definition, not the same conscious one.
Memory is more then Episodic. It's Emotional. Take away Memory, and you effect the EMOTIONAL and INTUITIONAL base of the individual.
I'm assuming that you've been referring to LTM. Without Short Term Memory, one, could NOT function or relate to himself or the External world.
@Redshift313 My idea differs from yours. I don't agree with your first paragraph. I guess I could say that the experiencer is in the short term memory. If we only had 2 second memories it would mean that we experience life in 2 second segments. It would be the same experiencer each time, even though they'd have no memory of the previous 2 seconds. It would be like stopping time every 2nd second and jumping back 2 seconds. It's not a different experiencer each time, it's the same one.
@1simonmatthews Memory is the PRIMARY component of self... without Sentient Memory there can be NO self reflective consciousness or SELF awareness... NO internal Soliloquy.... just raw Sentient consciousness...
the lower order of Consciousness.
Without Memory the Experiencer or Zombie would NOT know he is having an experience.
Even if we built a Self Aware Machine that chose to communicate, we might NOT recognize or be aware of it and interpret it as malfunction and have it sent for repair.
@Redshift313 Ok, although this may slightly be missing the point of my last comment. The zombie would of course know they are having an experience, but for only 2 seconds, and it would be the same zombie experiencing those 2 seconds each time, even if the zombie wasn't aware of this fact. They won't build a self-aware machine, not unless they find a way of harnessing that special part of nature. No computer as we currently think of them will ever possess consciousness.
@1simonmatthews I get your point. Your definition of Self & Zombie are Unorthodox or Radical... mine closer to the Standard Model. If, as you say, the Zombie would KNOW he was having an experience... the text book model says he would NOT be a Zombie. Your point, it would be the "SAME" Zombie... he would be the SAME to you and me but NOT to HIMSELF... Zombies have NO SELF.
Hypothetically, even if "AI" Machines will exist and want to communicate... We Humans may never know it.
@Redshift313 Actually then, I need to correct myself, it wouldn't be a zombie at all, it would be a conscious experiencer, only one with a 2 second memory. I've forgotten what we were even talking about now lol! What video is this? I've got a 2 day memory :-)
If consciousness is emergent, it can only emerge from the organization of simple "proto-consciousness" stuff. But, since we can't have (objective) access to any consciousness at all, how can we ever hope to (objectively) find this proto-consciousness stuff?
@hasenj Your opening sentence is very well worded. The first step is to answer the question "Is conciousness emergent?" To speculate beyond the anwer to this question is foolish.
The ides of consciousness "strongly emerging" from specific structures in matter sounds like special pleading to me. IMO it makes much more sense for immediate experience to be fundamental, that matter itself is made of some simple form of subjective experience. Everything makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way.
@bitplane That is also my view. There is no reason complexity, in itself, implies consciousness. Complexity will expand and more full articulate consciousness, but complexity is not the essence of consciousness. I think we have to postulate proto-consciousness as a fundamental property of matter - it apparently cannot be derived from anything else. There are many problems with the "hard AI" view, that program is a sufficient paradigm for consciousness.
@Omnicron777 THe main problem as I see it is that I see no evidence that consciousness was ever caused by anything!THe idea that consciousness is in any way caused is a dualistic idea,and dualism is generally accepted as false.I believe that consciousness is a primary reality,not a secondary,and that the physical reality is really consciousness.Anyway,if you do meditaion,you will discover that consciousness can exist without sensory inputs.
@kasaduhallo My reply was to omnicron 777,not to you,md.Although your comment too is basically gobbledogok.Talk to a philosopher on your theory.You will lose heart.
Causation predicts emergence. Emergent consciousness occurs as a result of causative abandonment. That is to say: removing obstacles to consciousness allows consciousness to emerge. Emergence is emergence, neither weak nor strong. Consciousness is determined by many factors, aptitude and environment being only two. Many levels of consciousness are possible within each organism. There is an outer limit as well as inner. Consciousness is intrinsically useless on its own.
And we have no information about the direction of the causation, if there is any. I also want to say that with no base to support it, the experience of red is kind of floaty, woolly stuff from a scientific point of view. But the hardness and the reality of it from the subjective point of view can't be gotten at by science.
I don't want to knock Chalmers; he is probable more open on this issue that most - people like Churchland and Dennet, who I consider to be clueless.
"Chalmers' thesis seems to be that this consciousness still arises out of the brain, rather than co-existing on some floaty, woolly spiritual level."
Again, I want to stress that we don't know what we mean when we say "arises out of the brain". Let's assume that at minimum it means something must happen in the brain before it happens in the mind and that the something that happens in the brain is causal of what happens in the mind. But other than coorelation, there is no evidence.
When I use the verb "emerges" in a context like, "the woman emerges from the building", I can form an image that corresponds to that usage. When I use the verb "emerges" in a context like, "the color red emerges from such and such a neural activity, I can form no image that corresponds to the usage. In other words, I am speaking nonsense. I might as well say, "some neurons fire, magic happens, and I experience red".
Not only does he not know the link, he doesn't know if there is a link and he doesn't know the direction of causality, or if there even is a causality. "Something completely new arises" is a statement that seems to have meaning because of it's grammer, structure and vocabulary. But it really means nothing. It provides you with no information.
Which is why I don't think the usage of the word "emergence" in this context is particularly correct.
However, this lack of an understandable link between "neural activity" and "red", is the very core of the hard problem, and philosophers articulating and talking about it don't do much more than pointing to and describing this "gap".
Chalmers' thesis seems to be that this consciousness still arises out of the brain, rather than co-existing on some floaty, woolly spiritual level.
There is no such thing as strong emergence. We cannot, in our wildest imagination, imagine how an organinzed firing of neurons can be the experience of red. When David Chalmers says "strong emergence", he has no idea in his imagination that corresponds to anything actually happening. Consiousness does not "emerge" from neurons firing.
Um... I can't follow his "demon" argument, I think it distracts from the topic by introducing an unnecessary assumption, but yea, makes sense apart from that.
The problem i have with this is that I can see that if we had all physical knowledge of particulars involved in a wave, we could accurately predict whatever we like about the wave. However, to say that if we had equivalent knowledge of the brain we couldn't predict or see a mind seems absurd! How can he know this?
I don't think the dichotomy Chalmers is describing really exists. Works by people like Hofstadter show at least some possible ways in which Laplace's demon would, in fact, be able to predict consciousness as a necessary outcome of physical processes of brains.
The difference between the two categories he's describing is really just one of human understanding. In other words: strong emergence = explanatory gap.
I don't think the dichotomy Chalmers is describing really exists. Work by people like Hofstadter show at least some possible ways in which Laplace's demon would, in fact, be able to predict consciousness as a necessary outcome of physical processes of brains.
The real difference between the two categories he's describing is really just one of human understanding. In other words: strong emergence = explanatory gap.
Doesn't an emergent phenomena share the same fundamental properties, as the thing it emerges from? e.g A chemical has properties that do not exist in the particles that it emerges from, however it still shares the same basic fundamental properties of the particles, such as mass and size. If this is true, than consciousness could not be an emergent property of the brain because it does not share the same basic fundamental properties of the brain, such as mass and size.
@scribb7 "If this is true, than consciousness could not be an emergent property of the brain because it does not share the same basic fundamental properties of the brain, such as mass and size."
I think you're confusing things. Consciousness obviously shares the mass and size of the brain that produces it. It's a bit like its unproblematic for a computer having emergent capabilities for math without that negating that it has mass and size.
@Gnomefro A computer is a computational device. The mathematical properties exist in the form of electrical circuits and is a physical process. I don't see how this is the same as consciousness.
@scribb7 Emergence can be thought of as simply changing your abstraction level. If you're a physicist you might look at individual atoms forever and never ever spot that they were in fact involved in computing PI. Similarly, you could study microscopic elements of the human brain forever and never realize that they form a complex whole that produces beliefs about reality based on sensory data, contain memories etc.
If individual elements interplay to form a system, then the appearing system will obtain sets of rules and properties absent in those individual elements and form a new, yet dependent level of ontological reality. Similar to the idea that a whole is "more" than just the sum of its parts, with the addition that a collection of elements can be called a whole only when they display systemic organization. This system gives rise to rules which can not be explained in the lack of it.
emergance is nothingbut when people decide something is truth but unable to prove this. So whyen we cannot prove this, make up something else to give us answers for things we cannot prove. It becomes a psuedo faith
I understand English on hearing not well , but I am infinitely grateful for his idea of zomby. But I think that this idea is much deeper, than at Chalmers.
I for a long time observe, that many people at all have no ability to feel......a guilt, repentance. They simply haven't it. Their sensitive experience of a reality is limited by SELF. I'm afraid, that such people - the majority now. I would understand more deeply this problem.
The whole problem seems to be: So what if you can describe the functions of the human machine, why is it that we actually experience this process. No matter how many times you explain the the function of a part relative to another to another, then sub-explain the components of the components of the components.....why do experience it?
...my response: A robot can be created to accept audio, video, feeling, etc...and have it all routed to a central source for a complete mode of being, but what transcends these commands to the feeling of actually consciously experiencing it? My answer would be a software program relating all this information to the concept of self. As this concept is conditioned, the senses become meaningful toward the central needs of the objective system.
Well, you know, I am a deist but I don't like argument from consciousness much. I think this is the legitimate god-of-the-gops argument in this case. I accept that it is very hard to comprehend how matter can give rise to mental and Searle's analogies aren't valid, but who knows if we wont know the mechanism in the future? I think it needs to be coupled with argument from reason, because reason itself is IMO more problematic than consciousness on its own.
To say that the emergence of life from non-life is a case of weak emergence is, I think, a huge error. Life is as radically different from non-life as sentient life is from non sentient life. Moreover, even in a purely chemical level, emergence substances are more than just extrapolations from previous physical states. Water for example is a unique substance with unique properties not shared by hydrogen or oxygen.
What's fascinating is that consciousness doesn't have to emerge. We can very well imagine Philosophical Zombies roaming around trying to fulfill the evolutionary purpose of spreading their genes. We don't actually need 'experience'; what it feels like from inside. Yet it is, here with us. The question is why?
Chalmers is a real philosopher, his illustration of a Zombie takes out the illusion notion of Counciousness. One thing is certain, machines will never pass the turing test. I have a feeling the conciousness is only real in this universe, all other is a illusion.
@pingala10 If you think machines will never pass the turing test then you either do not understand the Turing test, or do not appreciate what computers can do and what is computable as described by Turing
@Corestore16 Machines are based on axiomatic rules which is just symbolism, it is just a discrete system. As language which as limit of vocabulary the same way Machines will not be able to express everything because they are not in continues system. Dennett and Others like you are living in a illusion notion that machines can express everything. There will always be a hole in this system which will be breached by other best discrete system. Not sure you understand it.......
It's called abstract processing of information into abstract behavioral phenomenal positive, negative, and neutral patterns on various levels.. It's essentially self-osculation that leads to self-organization that leads to self-directed cognitive dynamics to where it ultimately leads to conscious dynamics like instinct. eventually full consciousness is reached through adaptation
The only reason why it is impossible (and always will be impossible) to determine exactly how consciousness supposedly "emerges" from non-conscious matter is that it is a myth.
In reality, consciousness is not caused by matter, it is caused by the soul, which is spiritual, not material.
@Purushadasa it just seems like hes been saying the same thing over and over. Yes he is concious, but only to an extent.
P.S. im not implying that im better or anything like that.
HE also uses alot of "i" statements therefore he's only in it for himself, which is NOT what the IDEA is really about... therefore he is some what lost still... :(
@JoeyLaRoca1 You can find ways to say that about essentially all the philosopher's with theories in the field of consciousness. We are all lost for the most part.
The universe is not made of particles, it is composed of "aspects". An engine does not become self aware when it reaches an appropriate level of complexity. But, energy, when certain states are attained, may converge to create a conscious state- like RGB color combining to make white. Brainwaves themselves are the emergent objectively observed traces of consciousness, and it's interesting to see that they are not seen as such by science.
On merely logical grounds, there can be no mind arising from "absolutely dead" matter because that idea rests on the increase of complexity.
But from an absolutely dead matter's POV, there can be no increase of coplexity since the "togetherness" or Gestalt (generated by particles, molecules, cells, what have you) exist only from the POV of a mind interested in such Gestalt.
So without mind no coplexity in objective world. If matter conditions mind, it must already be of mental nature.
David Chalmers would make a wonderful 4th member for the band Spinal Tap...ok., now that I completely said something unmindful, let us move along. There is a place for theorizing on non-material materialism or for theorizing on the supernatural in naturalism, yet for these creative & imaginative notions to trump or challenge the important methodology of science is of a great concern. I do not mind drinking a few pints & being creative, yet we...
do need to place a very clear distinction between notions that are to enjoy freedom within the imagination and of notions that are to be readily translatable in the realm of science that is quantifiable. I feel I am more apt to support Patricia Churchland's philosophical notions tied closely to neurobiology than one's from a philosopher that tries to introduce a ghost in the machine. But again, these are just opinions. And y'all are entitled to your own, too :D
i find chalmers and all the qualia = irreducible magical dualism folks generally unimpressive.
for me they are the equivalent of folks who say: "well, you can't tell me what happened before the big bang - so where's your science now - and how dare you say there is no god?!"
consciousness IS a process - a brain process that is embodied & produces an entirely unique first person experience - there is a problem of language that sets up a fallacious dualism.
consciousness is a higher order activity of complex synergy in the brain - predicated of course also on the endocrine & nervous systems as well - but a la searle "consciousness is a state the brain is in - causally reducible to the brain but ontologically irreducible in terms of it's 1st person characteristics"
what do you think about john searle's position on the mind/body problem as discussed in his interview on closer to truth?
for me he has the most elegant position and makes the distinction between causal and ontological reductionism. because consciousness is so unique we have to recognize the paradox that it is causally reducible but not ontologically reducible to the brain.
this does not however justify any kind of dualism - which is simply wrong-headed!
WHAT! How can he know (time 2:10) what can be predicted by knowing the organization of nerves alone!? We don't know what that organization is fully, how it comes about or what processes within and around the neurons drive that organization... what a completely bonkers leap of faith that statement is. Silly Chalmers.
And that milqutoast BS at the end... UGH! He basically just falls victim to the ease of 20/20 hindsight, it really is quite pathetic.
DC: "Oh yes, those poor silly saps 100 years ago, haha, isn't it great that we know better. But OUR problem really DOES need magic and no one in the future can possibly be able to look back and chuckle at us."
Yeah, sorry, I'm just not impressed by that "logic", thanks for playing Dave.
I've pretty much got nothing from David Chalmers. I'm more of a reductionist and determinist, when it comes to consciousness. Yes, I think we are robots. More complex than the machines we have. But still machines
It's easy to see how something as invisible as consciousness ( and yet as observable as electricity/magnetism) could be thought to be unexplainable. Is it possible that consciousness is like a magnetic field strengthened by the complexity of organism that produces it?
Consciousness is overrated. Of course a lot of things are much too complex to be able to calculate. But still, in principle, everything has to be explainable, especially with all of our concepts that simplify everything.
Saying consciousness cannot be explained seems rather religious a thought...
So he is sure that "consciousness" would never be explained and/or understood and makes up some "strong emergence" box to put it in. It somehow reminds me of theist and theirs "god is outside the nature therefor can never be explained by scientific means" argument.
No, he doesn't think that. He thinks that consciousness will never be explained in terms of underlying physical processes (i.e. phenomenal properties do not supervene on physical properties). But this leaves it open the possibility of consciousness being given some other kind of explanation (e.g. being explained from within a dualistic metaphysics).
And how exactly would one explain (prove) this (or anything else) by metaphysics? I don't know much about this sort of stuff so feel free to educate me. :-) I just don't understand why would one be so convinced about these "mystical" properties of consciousness.
I would recommend that you read the entry 'metaphysics' in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (which is online and free). If you are keen you could also try the articles titled 'dualism' and 'physicalism'.
the key point in all this was "consciousness might be a fundamental force". it really surprises me how 99% of all researchers in those fields seem to totally ignore the latest insights in physics, which basically suggest just that - consciousness is the most fundamental force/field of all. everything else unfolds out of it (string theory). makes by far the most sense to me. so, EVERYTHING is conscious, just to different degrees (depending on complexity)
That which cannot be explained with David Chalmers' current understanding of neuroscience.
I always get nervous when people make up a new word to put one particular thing in its own category to keep you from trying to explain it in the same way as other, similar phenomena. It seems like a lot of word games to me.
I havent read Chalmers on emergence, but I dont think your definition captures what he means by strong emergence. Perhaps this is what he means: a phenomenon is an instance of strong emergence if that phenomenon does not supervene on physical properties.
If memory serves me right that's actually the position he takes.
He says that everything (including biology, sociology, economics, etc.) are all "logically supervenient" on the physical, except for consciousness, and that this means that it is strongly emergent.
@LennyBound@LennyBound Almost but not quite correct. Strong emergence doesn't deny supervenience or else it wouldn't be an emergent property at all. Instead it takes the weakest supervenient claim possible which is that if you don't have the underlying stuff, you don't have the emergent stuff. What strong emergence denies is predictability. For weak emergence every brain state has a corresponding mind state, like a function. For strong emergence there is NO correlation what so ever.
I think I have a rudimentary understanding of what supervenience is. Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding it, that is fully possible, but for me it seems that all things are dependent on the physical. Although, perhaps this is due, on my part, in regards to my rudimentary knowledge of what supervene is, but I think that is what I mean to say.
I also think that everything in the actual world supervenes on the physical. But I think it is logically possible for something not to supervene on the physical and indeed, I can easily imagine possible worlds where this is the case. It follows from this that if physicalism is true of our world it is only contingently true, things could have been different, there could have been spooky properties floating around, but as it happens there are not.
I'll grant that, but I'll add that I tend to avoid the 'other world' type arguments. I have a hard enough time trying to focus on one world. I don't need to get all mixed up with another.
Although, I wonder how easy it would be for you to imagine a property that doesn't supervene on the physical?
For me that would seem like a rather difficult task, being that we are fully physical creatures, and then to create something that isn't, seems strange.
I don't think I understand. Why is he choosing to place this concept on a dimension, calling it "strong" or "weak" emergence if we can come no closer to explaining some things that emerge (consciousness) if we are moving across dimensions (effort or time) ourselves? Like I said, I think it's me.
Strong emergence is suspiciously like a magic trick; every time it is proposed it feels like it should be accompanied by a cymbal crash, an exclamation of *ta da!*, and an appreciatively awe struck *oooooh!* from the audience. I suspect Chalmers performance of it rests on some phenomenologist/ idealist sleight of hand.
Then you suspect wrongly. I disagree with Chalmers, but he is a top-notch philosopher and gives challenging arguments to support his position (which doesnt involve phenomenology or idealism). If you endorse physicalism then you should probably go read Chalmers because he is the best critic of your view you will find.
I am familiar with Chalmers arguments against physicalism, and their debt to idealism / phenomenology. What I am unfamiliar with are his, or indeed anyone elses, argument to the effect that strong emergence actually pertains to certain mental properties, rather than being a mere mathematical possibility. One may after all portray mathematically what it would be to pull a rabbit ex nihilo from a hat without necessarily implying that it is possible in practice for such a thing to happen.
Chalmers arbitrarily place the demons understanding of what a process really entail and what it inherently means to be a process to be on the level of current human understanding. If the demon doesn't find consciousness completely explainable, then it does not have a full understanding of what a process actually is and what it is capable of creating and why it can do this, etcetera. In other words, I think Chalmers is making this demon ignorant, while saying it understands everything.
Can we really predict what a hypothetical molecule that we imagine, but has never seen, will appear to be in the macro world when clustered together based on the structure and binding etc? Is not the micro -> macro transition also strong emergence?
I like this blurb from Chalmers as I think it really underscores the differences between his position and that of Dennett. They are all at once, not so far apart as I had previously supposed and farther apart than I could possibly have imagined.
The fundamental question in my mind is this - why posit the existence of a thing which is fundamentally unexplainable in any possible terms? If such a thing happens to exist, it is by definition of no use for us to talk about.
It also explains Dennett's strong objection to the invocation of the term "emergence". Something I had previously found to be dumbfounding since I am a strong advocate of the idea. Chalmers idea of "strong" emergence though seems to be what Dennett is reacting against and I understand and agree with his objections.
I think there are a few terms in the current lexicon that are questionable, philosophically. I'll state that I found Chalmers statements in regards to his theories of emergence, quite unsatisfying, as someone mentioned in another post, it rings similar to the concept of god.
I am curious about the problem of the unbounded accumulation of a conscious mind, or of a collection of conscious minds. Where do we store all this information about the past as the interval of time of the past stretches into infinity in the future? I mean store both physically in atoms in the form of libraries on earth and in the memories of conscious minds.
mphello 1 month ago
Comment removed
packe777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mphello Time may be a sort of illusion, only a property of a conscious mind. See Zeno's paradox on that topic. The arrow paradox.
packe777 1 month ago
Excellent distinction between weak vs strong emergence by Chalmers!
mphello 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily 'die' (like in the movie 'Flatliners') and move into another body (like in the movie 'Avatar') or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
mphello 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily 'die' (like in the movie 'Flatliners') and move into another body (like in the movie 'Avatar') or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
mphello 1 month ago
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily 'die' (like in the movie 'Flatliners') and move into another body (like in the movie 'Avatar') or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
mphello 1 month ago
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily 'die' (like in the movie 'Flatliners') and move into another body (like in the movie 'Avatar') or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
mphello 1 month ago
A necessary (but not sufficient) experiment that would go a significant way towards answering some of these questions about consciousness is if we could somehow cause a (brave) individual to temporarily "die" (like in the movie "Flatliners") and move into another body (like in the movie "Avatar") or simply return to the original body and report back information locked in a box somewhere. Get enough researchers to do that to confirm the results.
mphello 1 month ago
Interesting stuff. He looks kindda like Mike Portnoy!
Sssn777 2 months ago
I've watched 10 of these videos about free will and consciousness and causality....none of them have the answer.
stevo728822 2 months ago
@stevo728822 Agreed. Anybody saying they do is probably full of shit. If they say they do they're 'explaining' away the problem by dismissing precisely what the majority of thinkers believe is interesting and at issue.
S2Cents 2 months ago
This video and the video about the Science of Consciousness were illuminating. I think though, that Chalmers' attempt to separate the case of consciousness from the case of vitality, with respect to strong emergence, was either weak or rushed. I think he is right, and time will tell.
rbutler111 3 months ago
Or, from what these other peeps are debating (without a lot of Gwynnies) is this: LTM is the identity function - simple, emergent, evolution. There's my trinity. ;)
houseofcantor 3 months ago
alla that yappin... d' oh! My "TOE" is Pure Number, comes straight outta chapter 42 of the tao te ching - which implies that the universe is counting, everything else is interaction of the count. Ya gotta be an atheist, to think that kinda big, make everything so small... for the theists in the studio audience, once upon a time I made a choice (morality-making choices)
I selected for the real God -Gwyneth Paltrow. If she don;t exist, I'm not an atheist; and there it is.
houseofcantor 3 months ago
illustrating stuff without illustrating "built in programming" like YHWH and evolution, one might end up turning an illustration like Flatland into a "who knows" like string theory.
I wanna know what he ain't saying. "Strong" and "weak" emergence smells too much like "micro/macro" evolution - which is completely made up nonsense in biology...
Then again, I'm a evolutionist; if consciousness ain't just 'random' from evolution and emergence -someone's Ockham ain't properly sharpened. :p
houseofcantor 3 months ago
The one that works. My name is human. I'm one of seven billion getting worked. If he's got me thinking he's "not mentioning god" like an "ID theorist" my personal experience is my moral right to be worried kinda YHWH a mofo identifying with. The number four, gonna explain emergence, right now.
Yeah, you take the paper with the one dot, lie on top of the other one, and you get a tetrahedron. A mathematical point is dimensionless - therefore you cannot illustrate it. So when one starts ...
houseofcantor 3 months ago
So here's what you do: ya take a piece of paper. Ya draw three dots in a triangle like ya know what you're doing.. Get another piece of paper, draw a dot on it. That's where we're at - is there a critical flaw in the logical system? There's a couple of them in grammar. the I/you/you/YHWH structure is -by this simple illustration, evidence of moral control structure - wired into personal identity - as a function of grammar. There only has to be one conspiracy...
houseofcantor 3 months ago
I'm right, and you're a zombie; it's a function of simple math to discriminate. If you're not David Chalmers, you're a zombie - we got this fuck out numbered. Let's get 'em!
Nah. but YHWH, along with being (obviously) the number 4, is identity. I identify with YHWH. I'm an atheist - religion is wrong, and it's gotta go, and the way to make it go away; taking alla bad, leaving alla good, is to use YHWH.
A demonstration is in order! I'm a mathematician, I never liked Flatland...
houseofcantor 3 months ago
Not if I know how to read the tao te ching.
I had a problem with this guy cause he called me a zombie. Know anything about YHWH? That's the fourth identity. I wanna know how much YHWH this cat has in his identity. Im an atheist. That means, anybody who is not an atheist prolly has too much YHWH in their identity. If Chalmers atheist, all is forgiven and I love the guy.
Tell you about grammar. "You" is second person plural. When one says, my consciousness is fundamental...
houseofcantor 3 months ago
I'm me, the experiencer of my life. If I had one event of my life erased from my memory I'd still be me, and it was also still me who experienced that event, even though the memory of it is gone. Repeat this until my memory is vague, and I'm still me. It would be like starting over. I could have a new identity, be taught Chinese, have a Chinese accent, but I'd still be me. So how is it that if they cloned me on my death, that clone, with an identical brain, wouldn't be me, but a new experiencer?
1simonmatthews 4 months ago
@1simonmatthews What I'm saying is, if consciousness is purely emergent, if I'm me the experiencer only because of my brain, then I should be able to be me the experiencer every time they cloned me, like being reborn. Obviously I wouldn't know I was reborn because all my memories would be gone, but I'd be the same experiencer starting afresh each time, as if for the first time. But I don't think this would be the case with clones, rather it would be a whole different experiencer each time.
1simonmatthews 4 months ago
@1simonmatthews So what is it that makes me the experiencer? It can't be the experiences I've had, because I've already shown that I'd still be me if I had my memories erased one at a time, to the point where my memory became vague, and I could start afresh and have a different identity, even a different nationality. Or am I totally wrong here? Would there be a point in the memory erasing process where I lose the ability to experience as me and me the experiencer would be lost for good?
1simonmatthews 4 months ago
@1simonmatthews You'd still be you... BUT NOT Consciously... you'd be in an Altered Conscious State !!!
The self is the collection of the individual's memories... there is NOT much outside of your memory of you. You even CAN'T describe yourself without your MEMORY OF YOU !!!
The current model of the self is that it is more like an... Onion... then a Stone fruit... NO Core !!!
Your clone would have to have the same EXACT Environmental experiences, at at the same maturity and to the same degree.
Redshift313 3 months ago
@Redshift313 I believe the following: I can describe myself without memories. I'm the experiencer. The experiencer is more than just the sum of the physical parts of its brain. Consciousness is not produced from complexity of information. They will never produce a computer that is conscious. The smallest and earliest life forms were conscious, to a tiny degree. These evolved in complexity to make us. The complexity of the brain allows a greater degree of consciousness.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews As with both an Amnesia or Alzhiemer's disease patient... neither are, who they were... to themselves or to the external world. There is still an Experiencer, though by definition, not the same conscious one.
Memory is more then Episodic. It's Emotional. Take away Memory, and you effect the EMOTIONAL and INTUITIONAL base of the individual.
I'm assuming that you've been referring to LTM. Without Short Term Memory, one, could NOT function or relate to himself or the External world.
Redshift313 3 months ago
@Redshift313 My idea differs from yours. I don't agree with your first paragraph. I guess I could say that the experiencer is in the short term memory. If we only had 2 second memories it would mean that we experience life in 2 second segments. It would be the same experiencer each time, even though they'd have no memory of the previous 2 seconds. It would be like stopping time every 2nd second and jumping back 2 seconds. It's not a different experiencer each time, it's the same one.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews Memory is the PRIMARY component of self... without Sentient Memory there can be NO self reflective consciousness or SELF awareness... NO internal Soliloquy.... just raw Sentient consciousness...
the lower order of Consciousness.
Without Memory the Experiencer or Zombie would NOT know he is having an experience.
Even if we built a Self Aware Machine that chose to communicate, we might NOT recognize or be aware of it and interpret it as malfunction and have it sent for repair.
Redshift313 3 months ago
@Redshift313 Ok, although this may slightly be missing the point of my last comment. The zombie would of course know they are having an experience, but for only 2 seconds, and it would be the same zombie experiencing those 2 seconds each time, even if the zombie wasn't aware of this fact. They won't build a self-aware machine, not unless they find a way of harnessing that special part of nature. No computer as we currently think of them will ever possess consciousness.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews I get your point. Your definition of Self & Zombie are Unorthodox or Radical... mine closer to the Standard Model. If, as you say, the Zombie would KNOW he was having an experience... the text book model says he would NOT be a Zombie. Your point, it would be the "SAME" Zombie... he would be the SAME to you and me but NOT to HIMSELF... Zombies have NO SELF.
Hypothetically, even if "AI" Machines will exist and want to communicate... We Humans may never know it.
I get your points.
Redshift313 3 months ago
@Redshift313 Actually then, I need to correct myself, it wouldn't be a zombie at all, it would be a conscious experiencer, only one with a 2 second memory. I've forgotten what we were even talking about now lol! What video is this? I've got a 2 day memory :-)
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
If consciousness is emergent, it can only emerge from the organization of simple "proto-consciousness" stuff. But, since we can't have (objective) access to any consciousness at all, how can we ever hope to (objectively) find this proto-consciousness stuff?
hasenj 4 months ago
@hasenj Your opening sentence is very well worded. The first step is to answer the question "Is conciousness emergent?" To speculate beyond the anwer to this question is foolish.
unwinsis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
chalmers you are realy........fucking idiot
raviJadhav250 4 months ago
I cant believe Chalmers didnt notice his own special pleading at the end of the video.
DemokritosAbdera 4 months ago
Amazing clarity of thought from both men.
totalshowman 4 months ago
The ides of consciousness "strongly emerging" from specific structures in matter sounds like special pleading to me. IMO it makes much more sense for immediate experience to be fundamental, that matter itself is made of some simple form of subjective experience. Everything makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way.
bitplane 5 months ago
@bitplane That is also my view. There is no reason complexity, in itself, implies consciousness. Complexity will expand and more full articulate consciousness, but complexity is not the essence of consciousness. I think we have to postulate proto-consciousness as a fundamental property of matter - it apparently cannot be derived from anything else. There are many problems with the "hard AI" view, that program is a sufficient paradigm for consciousness.
copernicus633 4 months ago
Chalmers is to Dan Dennett as Phlogiston is to the Standard Model.
joetheli0n 5 months ago
what the fuck ?
he needs a haircut, a shave, a wash, and a fucking change of clothes.
matchbox555 5 months ago
@Omnicron777 THe main problem as I see it is that I see no evidence that consciousness was ever caused by anything!THe idea that consciousness is in any way caused is a dualistic idea,and dualism is generally accepted as false.I believe that consciousness is a primary reality,not a secondary,and that the physical reality is really consciousness.Anyway,if you do meditaion,you will discover that consciousness can exist without sensory inputs.
kasaduhallo 6 months ago
@kasaduhallo Interesting, I am just beginnng to study Philosophy, where does the primary reality come from?
I so far agree the consciounes can exist without sensory inputs
Thanks
billyboy630 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kasaduhallo Interesting, I am just beginnng to study Philosophy, where does the primary reality come from?
I so far agree the consciounes can exist without sensory inputsThanks
billyboy630 5 months ago
@Omnicron777 Hello??How can you say that?
kasaduhallo 6 months ago
@kasaduhallo My reply was to omnicron 777,not to you,md.Although your comment too is basically gobbledogok.Talk to a philosopher on your theory.You will lose heart.
kasaduhallo 6 months ago
Causation predicts emergence. Emergent consciousness occurs as a result of causative abandonment. That is to say: removing obstacles to consciousness allows consciousness to emerge. Emergence is emergence, neither weak nor strong. Consciousness is determined by many factors, aptitude and environment being only two. Many levels of consciousness are possible within each organism. There is an outer limit as well as inner. Consciousness is intrinsically useless on its own.
md17761492 8 months ago
And we have no information about the direction of the causation, if there is any. I also want to say that with no base to support it, the experience of red is kind of floaty, woolly stuff from a scientific point of view. But the hardness and the reality of it from the subjective point of view can't be gotten at by science.
I don't want to knock Chalmers; he is probable more open on this issue that most - people like Churchland and Dennet, who I consider to be clueless.
vsaluki 9 months ago
"Chalmers' thesis seems to be that this consciousness still arises out of the brain, rather than co-existing on some floaty, woolly spiritual level."
Again, I want to stress that we don't know what we mean when we say "arises out of the brain". Let's assume that at minimum it means something must happen in the brain before it happens in the mind and that the something that happens in the brain is causal of what happens in the mind. But other than coorelation, there is no evidence.
vsaluki 9 months ago
When I use the verb "emerges" in a context like, "the woman emerges from the building", I can form an image that corresponds to that usage. When I use the verb "emerges" in a context like, "the color red emerges from such and such a neural activity, I can form no image that corresponds to the usage. In other words, I am speaking nonsense. I might as well say, "some neurons fire, magic happens, and I experience red".
vsaluki 10 months ago
@vsaluki
Which is why he says that "something completely new arises", WITHOUT knowing the actual link. Not being able to explain the link =/= wizarddidit.
twooffour 9 months ago
@twooffour
Not only does he not know the link, he doesn't know if there is a link and he doesn't know the direction of causality, or if there even is a causality. "Something completely new arises" is a statement that seems to have meaning because of it's grammer, structure and vocabulary. But it really means nothing. It provides you with no information.
vsaluki 9 months ago
@vsaluki
Which is why I don't think the usage of the word "emergence" in this context is particularly correct.
However, this lack of an understandable link between "neural activity" and "red", is the very core of the hard problem, and philosophers articulating and talking about it don't do much more than pointing to and describing this "gap".
Chalmers' thesis seems to be that this consciousness still arises out of the brain, rather than co-existing on some floaty, woolly spiritual level.
twooffour 9 months ago
@vsaluki
Hence the causality.
twooffour 9 months ago
There is no such thing as strong emergence. We cannot, in our wildest imagination, imagine how an organinzed firing of neurons can be the experience of red. When David Chalmers says "strong emergence", he has no idea in his imagination that corresponds to anything actually happening. Consiousness does not "emerge" from neurons firing.
vsaluki 10 months ago
Um... I can't follow his "demon" argument, I think it distracts from the topic by introducing an unnecessary assumption, but yea, makes sense apart from that.
twooffour 10 months ago
The problem i have with this is that I can see that if we had all physical knowledge of particulars involved in a wave, we could accurately predict whatever we like about the wave. However, to say that if we had equivalent knowledge of the brain we couldn't predict or see a mind seems absurd! How can he know this?
joshuamhardwick 10 months ago
Let's radiate your brain with this device in the background. That will help you emerge. As a mutant maybe, but you will still emerge.......
blabblab1212 11 months ago
Comment removed
soldatheero 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think the dichotomy Chalmers is describing really exists. Works by people like Hofstadter show at least some possible ways in which Laplace's demon would, in fact, be able to predict consciousness as a necessary outcome of physical processes of brains.
The difference between the two categories he's describing is really just one of human understanding. In other words: strong emergence = explanatory gap.
dalpaugh 1 year ago
I don't think the dichotomy Chalmers is describing really exists. Work by people like Hofstadter show at least some possible ways in which Laplace's demon would, in fact, be able to predict consciousness as a necessary outcome of physical processes of brains.
The real difference between the two categories he's describing is really just one of human understanding. In other words: strong emergence = explanatory gap.
dalpaugh 1 year ago
Doesn't an emergent phenomena share the same fundamental properties, as the thing it emerges from? e.g A chemical has properties that do not exist in the particles that it emerges from, however it still shares the same basic fundamental properties of the particles, such as mass and size. If this is true, than consciousness could not be an emergent property of the brain because it does not share the same basic fundamental properties of the brain, such as mass and size.
scribb7 1 year ago
@scribb7 "If this is true, than consciousness could not be an emergent property of the brain because it does not share the same basic fundamental properties of the brain, such as mass and size."
I think you're confusing things. Consciousness obviously shares the mass and size of the brain that produces it. It's a bit like its unproblematic for a computer having emergent capabilities for math without that negating that it has mass and size.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@Gnomefro A computer is a computational device. The mathematical properties exist in the form of electrical circuits and is a physical process. I don't see how this is the same as consciousness.
scribb7 10 months ago
@scribb7 Emergence can be thought of as simply changing your abstraction level. If you're a physicist you might look at individual atoms forever and never ever spot that they were in fact involved in computing PI. Similarly, you could study microscopic elements of the human brain forever and never realize that they form a complex whole that produces beliefs about reality based on sensory data, contain memories etc.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
get retired dude
a new campus rat to capitalize over educationn fund
what did he said new i wonder
is this a product to keep young minds busy
how many suppose to get paid to dwell on centuries old crap
with new linguistics
how old is he i wonder
would be fun to listen him after midlife crisis
artregeous 1 year ago
@artregeous sounds like your in a midlife crisis.
shilohwillcome 1 year ago
Its interesting topic. I'd like to see materialists being challenged, they might be right but I feel they are given a free pass today.
pkingo1 1 year ago
"Strong emergence" is total nonsense.
tmtyler 1 year ago
@tmtyler Why?
pkingo1 1 year ago
If individual elements interplay to form a system, then the appearing system will obtain sets of rules and properties absent in those individual elements and form a new, yet dependent level of ontological reality. Similar to the idea that a whole is "more" than just the sum of its parts, with the addition that a collection of elements can be called a whole only when they display systemic organization. This system gives rise to rules which can not be explained in the lack of it.
eydos 1 year ago
emergance is nothingbut when people decide something is truth but unable to prove this. So whyen we cannot prove this, make up something else to give us answers for things we cannot prove. It becomes a psuedo faith
daveme7 1 year ago
I understand English on hearing not well , but I am infinitely grateful for his idea of zomby. But I think that this idea is much deeper, than at Chalmers.
I for a long time observe, that many people at all have no ability to feel......a guilt, repentance. They simply haven't it. Their sensitive experience of a reality is limited by SELF. I'm afraid, that such people - the majority now. I would understand more deeply this problem.
TheChicarusa 1 year ago
The whole problem seems to be: So what if you can describe the functions of the human machine, why is it that we actually experience this process. No matter how many times you explain the the function of a part relative to another to another, then sub-explain the components of the components of the components.....why do experience it?
dcraven016465 1 year ago
...my response: A robot can be created to accept audio, video, feeling, etc...and have it all routed to a central source for a complete mode of being, but what transcends these commands to the feeling of actually consciously experiencing it? My answer would be a software program relating all this information to the concept of self. As this concept is conditioned, the senses become meaningful toward the central needs of the objective system.
dcraven016465 1 year ago
Well, you know, I am a deist but I don't like argument from consciousness much. I think this is the legitimate god-of-the-gops argument in this case. I accept that it is very hard to comprehend how matter can give rise to mental and Searle's analogies aren't valid, but who knows if we wont know the mechanism in the future? I think it needs to be coupled with argument from reason, because reason itself is IMO more problematic than consciousness on its own.
Rockstafeller 1 year ago
Consciousness, the level at which the hard problem deals with, is not emergent.
geodesicks 1 year ago
To say that the emergence of life from non-life is a case of weak emergence is, I think, a huge error. Life is as radically different from non-life as sentient life is from non sentient life. Moreover, even in a purely chemical level, emergence substances are more than just extrapolations from previous physical states. Water for example is a unique substance with unique properties not shared by hydrogen or oxygen.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
What's fascinating is that consciousness doesn't have to emerge. We can very well imagine Philosophical Zombies roaming around trying to fulfill the evolutionary purpose of spreading their genes. We don't actually need 'experience'; what it feels like from inside. Yet it is, here with us. The question is why?
HecklerBoy7 1 year ago
well, it seems clear that explanations of consciousness are not going to come from philosophy, at least not from this guy.
hrmIwonder 1 year ago
Great interview.
greenheadjoe 1 year ago 8
Chalmers is a real philosopher, his illustration of a Zombie takes out the illusion notion of Counciousness. One thing is certain, machines will never pass the turing test. I have a feeling the conciousness is only real in this universe, all other is a illusion.
pingala10 1 year ago
@pingala10 If you think machines will never pass the turing test then you either do not understand the Turing test, or do not appreciate what computers can do and what is computable as described by Turing
Corestore16 1 year ago
@Corestore16 Machines are based on axiomatic rules which is just symbolism, it is just a discrete system. As language which as limit of vocabulary the same way Machines will not be able to express everything because they are not in continues system. Dennett and Others like you are living in a illusion notion that machines can express everything. There will always be a hole in this system which will be breached by other best discrete system. Not sure you understand it.......
pingala10 1 year ago
It's called abstract processing of information into abstract behavioral phenomenal positive, negative, and neutral patterns on various levels.. It's essentially self-osculation that leads to self-organization that leads to self-directed cognitive dynamics to where it ultimately leads to conscious dynamics like instinct. eventually full consciousness is reached through adaptation
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
The only reason why it is impossible (and always will be impossible) to determine exactly how consciousness supposedly "emerges" from non-conscious matter is that it is a myth.
In reality, consciousness is not caused by matter, it is caused by the soul, which is spiritual, not material.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
PS -- Chalmers is a genius.
Purushadasa 1 year ago 11
@Purushadasa it just seems like hes been saying the same thing over and over. Yes he is concious, but only to an extent.
P.S. im not implying that im better or anything like that.
HE also uses alot of "i" statements therefore he's only in it for himself, which is NOT what the IDEA is really about... therefore he is some what lost still... :(
JoeyLaRoca1 1 year ago
@JoeyLaRoca1 You can find ways to say that about essentially all the philosopher's with theories in the field of consciousness. We are all lost for the most part.
rickyp17 10 months ago
@rickyp17 we are all lost. when will the public want advance in a hunger for intelligence rather then food?
JoeyLaRoca1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The universe is not made of particles, it is composed of "aspects". An engine does not become self aware when it reaches an appropriate level of complexity. But, energy, when certain states are attained, may converge to create a conscious state- like RGB color combining to make white. Brainwaves themselves are the emergent objectively observed traces of consciousness, and it's interesting to see that they are not seen as such by science.
lollolllolllll 1 year ago
Comment removed
lollolllolllll 1 year ago
Comment removed
lollolllolllll 1 year ago
Interesting !
etiennealive 1 year ago
he's full of shit, gave up research and started preaching that humans don't know anything...
googamanga 2 years ago
@googamanga
I agree.
braveheart2013 1 year ago
On merely logical grounds, there can be no mind arising from "absolutely dead" matter because that idea rests on the increase of complexity.
But from an absolutely dead matter's POV, there can be no increase of coplexity since the "togetherness" or Gestalt (generated by particles, molecules, cells, what have you) exist only from the POV of a mind interested in such Gestalt.
So without mind no coplexity in objective world. If matter conditions mind, it must already be of mental nature.
LooksAeterna 2 years ago
Please, do forgive me for stating this:
David Chalmers would make a wonderful 4th member for the band Spinal Tap...ok., now that I completely said something unmindful, let us move along. There is a place for theorizing on non-material materialism or for theorizing on the supernatural in naturalism, yet for these creative & imaginative notions to trump or challenge the important methodology of science is of a great concern. I do not mind drinking a few pints & being creative, yet we...
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
do need to place a very clear distinction between notions that are to enjoy freedom within the imagination and of notions that are to be readily translatable in the realm of science that is quantifiable. I feel I am more apt to support Patricia Churchland's philosophical notions tied closely to neurobiology than one's from a philosopher that tries to introduce a ghost in the machine. But again, these are just opinions. And y'all are entitled to your own, too :D
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
i am right there with you deeliciousplum.
JAYDUBYAH29 2 years ago
i find chalmers and all the qualia = irreducible magical dualism folks generally unimpressive.
for me they are the equivalent of folks who say: "well, you can't tell me what happened before the big bang - so where's your science now - and how dare you say there is no god?!"
it's an infinite regress that makes no sense.
what am i missing?
JAYDUBYAH29 2 years ago
consciousness IS a process - a brain process that is embodied & produces an entirely unique first person experience - there is a problem of language that sets up a fallacious dualism.
consciousness is a higher order activity of complex synergy in the brain - predicated of course also on the endocrine & nervous systems as well - but a la searle "consciousness is a state the brain is in - causally reducible to the brain but ontologically irreducible in terms of it's 1st person characteristics"
JAYDUBYAH29 2 years ago
what do you think about john searle's position on the mind/body problem as discussed in his interview on closer to truth?
for me he has the most elegant position and makes the distinction between causal and ontological reductionism. because consciousness is so unique we have to recognize the paradox that it is causally reducible but not ontologically reducible to the brain.
this does not however justify any kind of dualism - which is simply wrong-headed!
JAYDUBYAH29 2 years ago
WHAT! How can he know (time 2:10) what can be predicted by knowing the organization of nerves alone!? We don't know what that organization is fully, how it comes about or what processes within and around the neurons drive that organization... what a completely bonkers leap of faith that statement is. Silly Chalmers.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
And that milqutoast BS at the end... UGH! He basically just falls victim to the ease of 20/20 hindsight, it really is quite pathetic.
DC: "Oh yes, those poor silly saps 100 years ago, haha, isn't it great that we know better. But OUR problem really DOES need magic and no one in the future can possibly be able to look back and chuckle at us."
Yeah, sorry, I'm just not impressed by that "logic", thanks for playing Dave.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
I've pretty much got nothing from David Chalmers. I'm more of a reductionist and determinist, when it comes to consciousness. Yes, I think we are robots. More complex than the machines we have. But still machines
Nades129 2 years ago
It's easy to see how something as invisible as consciousness ( and yet as observable as electricity/magnetism) could be thought to be unexplainable. Is it possible that consciousness is like a magnetic field strengthened by the complexity of organism that produces it?
creosotegirl 2 years ago
Consciousness is overrated. Of course a lot of things are much too complex to be able to calculate. But still, in principle, everything has to be explainable, especially with all of our concepts that simplify everything.
Saying consciousness cannot be explained seems rather religious a thought...
tpsisokayiguess 2 years ago
Comment removed
richidpraah 2 years ago
So he is sure that "consciousness" would never be explained and/or understood and makes up some "strong emergence" box to put it in. It somehow reminds me of theist and theirs "god is outside the nature therefor can never be explained by scientific means" argument.
heethen1 2 years ago
No, he doesn't think that. He thinks that consciousness will never be explained in terms of underlying physical processes (i.e. phenomenal properties do not supervene on physical properties). But this leaves it open the possibility of consciousness being given some other kind of explanation (e.g. being explained from within a dualistic metaphysics).
Guaguanco11 2 years ago
And how exactly would one explain (prove) this (or anything else) by metaphysics? I don't know much about this sort of stuff so feel free to educate me. :-) I just don't understand why would one be so convinced about these "mystical" properties of consciousness.
heethen1 2 years ago
I would recommend that you read the entry 'metaphysics' in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (which is online and free). If you are keen you could also try the articles titled 'dualism' and 'physicalism'.
Guaguanco11 2 years ago
Ok, will do. Thanks for the directions.
heethen1 2 years ago
Never?
I fucking hate flat earthers.
TipoftheSlung 2 years ago
the key point in all this was "consciousness might be a fundamental force". it really surprises me how 99% of all researchers in those fields seem to totally ignore the latest insights in physics, which basically suggest just that - consciousness is the most fundamental force/field of all. everything else unfolds out of it (string theory). makes by far the most sense to me. so, EVERYTHING is conscious, just to different degrees (depending on complexity)
awaken69 2 years ago
definition of strong emergence:
That which cannot be explained with David Chalmers' current understanding of neuroscience.
I always get nervous when people make up a new word to put one particular thing in its own category to keep you from trying to explain it in the same way as other, similar phenomena. It seems like a lot of word games to me.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
I havent read Chalmers on emergence, but I dont think your definition captures what he means by strong emergence. Perhaps this is what he means: a phenomenon is an instance of strong emergence if that phenomenon does not supervene on physical properties.
Guaguanco11 2 years ago
If memory serves me right that's actually the position he takes.
He says that everything (including biology, sociology, economics, etc.) are all "logically supervenient" on the physical, except for consciousness, and that this means that it is strongly emergent.
LennyBound 2 years ago
Comment removed
KrispyIsAwesome 1 year ago
@LennyBound @LennyBound Almost but not quite correct. Strong emergence doesn't deny supervenience or else it wouldn't be an emergent property at all. Instead it takes the weakest supervenient claim possible which is that if you don't have the underlying stuff, you don't have the emergent stuff. What strong emergence denies is predictability. For weak emergence every brain state has a corresponding mind state, like a function. For strong emergence there is NO correlation what so ever.
KrispyIsAwesome 1 year ago
@Guaguanco11
How would something not supervene on the physical?
skatingpragmatist 2 years ago
Is this a rhetorical question? Do you understand the term 'supervenience' qua technical philosophical term?
Guaguanco11 2 years ago
I think I have a rudimentary understanding of what supervenience is. Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding it, that is fully possible, but for me it seems that all things are dependent on the physical. Although, perhaps this is due, on my part, in regards to my rudimentary knowledge of what supervene is, but I think that is what I mean to say.
skatingpragmatist 2 years ago
I also think that everything in the actual world supervenes on the physical. But I think it is logically possible for something not to supervene on the physical and indeed, I can easily imagine possible worlds where this is the case. It follows from this that if physicalism is true of our world it is only contingently true, things could have been different, there could have been spooky properties floating around, but as it happens there are not.
Guaguanco11 2 years ago
I'll grant that, but I'll add that I tend to avoid the 'other world' type arguments. I have a hard enough time trying to focus on one world. I don't need to get all mixed up with another.
Although, I wonder how easy it would be for you to imagine a property that doesn't supervene on the physical?
For me that would seem like a rather difficult task, being that we are fully physical creatures, and then to create something that isn't, seems strange.
But I catch your gist.
skatingpragmatist 2 years ago
I don't think I understand. Why is he choosing to place this concept on a dimension, calling it "strong" or "weak" emergence if we can come no closer to explaining some things that emerge (consciousness) if we are moving across dimensions (effort or time) ourselves? Like I said, I think it's me.
joe64716 2 years ago
Interesting that he completely ignores the obvious possibility of physicality emerging from consciousness
PBrofaith 2 years ago
What is the date of this interview?
Very interesting btw!!
2bsirius 2 years ago
I'm not really sure, but since it was shot for the third season of the show it was probably at some point in the last year or two.
LennyBound 2 years ago
Strong emergence is suspiciously like a magic trick; every time it is proposed it feels like it should be accompanied by a cymbal crash, an exclamation of *ta da!*, and an appreciatively awe struck *oooooh!* from the audience. I suspect Chalmers performance of it rests on some phenomenologist/ idealist sleight of hand.
leawardseif 2 years ago
Then you suspect wrongly. I disagree with Chalmers, but he is a top-notch philosopher and gives challenging arguments to support his position (which doesnt involve phenomenology or idealism). If you endorse physicalism then you should probably go read Chalmers because he is the best critic of your view you will find.
Guaguanco11 2 years ago
You took the words right outta my mouth. Good post.
imbalancingact 2 years ago
I am familiar with Chalmers arguments against physicalism, and their debt to idealism / phenomenology. What I am unfamiliar with are his, or indeed anyone elses, argument to the effect that strong emergence actually pertains to certain mental properties, rather than being a mere mathematical possibility. One may after all portray mathematically what it would be to pull a rabbit ex nihilo from a hat without necessarily implying that it is possible in practice for such a thing to happen.
leawardseif 2 years ago
????!
Guaguanco11 2 years ago
Comment removed
leawardseif 2 years ago
Chalmers arbitrarily place the demons understanding of what a process really entail and what it inherently means to be a process to be on the level of current human understanding. If the demon doesn't find consciousness completely explainable, then it does not have a full understanding of what a process actually is and what it is capable of creating and why it can do this, etcetera. In other words, I think Chalmers is making this demon ignorant, while saying it understands everything.
Censeo 2 years ago
Can we really predict what a hypothetical molecule that we imagine, but has never seen, will appear to be in the macro world when clustered together based on the structure and binding etc? Is not the micro -> macro transition also strong emergence?
Censeo 2 years ago
I like this blurb from Chalmers as I think it really underscores the differences between his position and that of Dennett. They are all at once, not so far apart as I had previously supposed and farther apart than I could possibly have imagined.
The fundamental question in my mind is this - why posit the existence of a thing which is fundamentally unexplainable in any possible terms? If such a thing happens to exist, it is by definition of no use for us to talk about.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
It also explains Dennett's strong objection to the invocation of the term "emergence". Something I had previously found to be dumbfounding since I am a strong advocate of the idea. Chalmers idea of "strong" emergence though seems to be what Dennett is reacting against and I understand and agree with his objections.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
@sammcalpine
I think there are a few terms in the current lexicon that are questionable, philosophically. I'll state that I found Chalmers statements in regards to his theories of emergence, quite unsatisfying, as someone mentioned in another post, it rings similar to the concept of god.
skatingpragmatist 2 years ago
1st
robinsoncrucify 2 years ago