I think people make it too complicated and mystical. Take away the supernatural explanations and all you are left with is physical matter and a series of chemical reactions. I heard it said once that "consciousness is simply the nature of matter".
This man talks like he knows all the concepts and ideas for consciousness and question like "what is really going on" - but he doers not know all of them, even most of them.
THE MOST VALUABLE FOR ME AND CONFIRMED BY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is this one - "My Big Toe" by Thomas Campbell.
Stay open minded and septic.
The truth is personal just like everything - and to know the truth you have to experience it - otherwise you would know only the concept or description of the truth.
quantum mechanics is about random outcomes, right?
say at each moment, you split by binary fission into 2 people. at each moment, you would find yourself being 1 of the 2 product people, but would you be the one on the left, or the one on the right? only the act of the observation would answer that question. if you were to perform this on yourself, your observed outcome would be completely random. now answer me this, is the country that you found yourself to be born in a purely random outcome?
(Comment continued) The chess program that defeated Kasparov has no idea of what it is doing, any more than a scientific calculator "understands" trigonometry by doing a cosine calculation. Think about this: What is your "programming model" to make the chess machine "feel good" when it wins and "feel badly" when it loses? There is no conceptual framework that answers that question. Programming chess itself is of an entirely different kind being completely objective.
Open Google search engine and read book .Seeing is Believing: First Time in World by V.K. Sonakia
From his childhood, V.K. Sonakia’s interest has lain in solving the deep mysteries of nature. His research in nature and invention revealed a story which needed to be told.
FIT is powerful and unified science-based tool, which is available in the human body. It generates logic and decodes future manmade and natural disasters as RDX blasts, tsunamis, and earthquakes.
GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA ans read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-boson-or-god-particle-which-exist-in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist atr welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology
IMO, consciousness is an intrinsic part of the universe, and the brain is more of a filter for consciousness, like a kaleidoscope we look through to perceive the world.
I have yet to see a youtube commentator actually argue against Chalmers points. They either attack him or they construct a barely coherent straw-man argument coupled with a smarmy conclusion about the ridiculousness of Chalmers position. This is very irritating.
I think that consciousness is "experiencing" or "observing", and I think it's basically how the physical reality exists (by experiencing itself, even the smallest quanta), information moving through a system allows a consciousness to gather together- that experiences the logic/activity of that system (which is what shapes the specific experience that this consciousness will be).
In order to create consciousness we must first know what it is. AI only learns what we teach it. It plugs millions of lines of code, and equations all programmed by people, but anything that relies on human reliability will always be fallible, as all men are. To understand consciousness is to understand the universe. If time and the universe are just fractals like all natural things (1 1 2 3 5 8 13...) then everything would be onething and each component would define the next. SO LOVE EVERYTHING
I think the main thing to remember is that a physical or neural correlates of consciousness do not logically lead to the conclusion that these neural happenings are identical with consciousness.
conciousness is present all times ,as soon as brain begins to act with it awareness arises.Awareness is the state of mind when information is processed by your brain and you become aware of this world.You cannot look or investigate conciousness of this reason.You are in a bubble of awareness wich your own brain has processed and you cannot look out of it.Conciousness will be forever unsolved.
Yeh , like Godel's box, we can't see outside the box, and the more info we gather the bigger the box grows but we're still inside it, never outside. We can always know more, never everything.
Consciousness is the symptom of the 'atma' or soul. It is carried via the blood corpuscles to all parts of the body. It is non-material and therefore unknown to the
scientific mind unless they submit to the spiritual methodology stated by yogis
What Mr Chalmers doesn't realise is that the hard problem of consciousness has already been solved. Consciousness is just the result of electrons, protons and neutrons moving and interacting via the laws of physics. It is just physical processes in the physical brain. What he describes as "subjective experience" is actually just "objective physical processes, matter, etc" that can be studied empirically. Chalmers talks a lot of hot air. He has abandoned science in favour of airy-fairy imaginings
@johndoe43210 Roger Penrose shot that idea down, consciousness cannot arise from algorythm based machines, flesh or metal. You run into Godels incompleteness theorum. and Turings halting problem.
We don't know what it is, but we know what consciousness cannot be.
@jonesgerard nice try with the dogma, but penrose and lucas's arguments concerning implications of godel and turing issues have been heavily criticized by many in many different ways....saying strong artificial intelligence isn't possible isn't something you can do quite so offhandedly...
@vav0om Strong AI, if you mean conscioussness, that is so far beyond the ability of science its funny, they can't even agree what conscioussness is. Thats Penrose's whole point, he's addressed their arguments in later books, they're just moving the goalposts.
@jonesgerard I didn't argue that science was only a few minutes away from Strong AI, my point was that you saying that "Consciousness CANNOT arise from algorithmic processes" isn't a factual statement so to state it dogmatically is deceptive and wrong. Consciousness may be some kind of dualistic object, or it may be simply a inescapable product of information processing complexity. This question hasn't been SOLVED by ANYONE. Some tend to intuitively lean one way, others another way.
@copernicus633 he's an idiot in the same sense that garry kasparov is. he is a world class chess player, yet he fails/ed to see the bigger picture of things outside his chessified mindset (ref his statements regarding chess being "art" in the sense that it can only truly be mastered by humans - and that "no machine will ever beat a human grand master". doh!). have you read penrose's the emperor's new mind? i have. a world class mathematician does not a world class philosopher make.
@cortesuprema Oh, So Now Kasparov is also an idiot! That is an absurd thing to say, even if you had some world class distinction yourself, which I'm sure you don't (Generally, world class people don't go around saying things like that). But if you have a serious point about why Penrose or Chalmers, or anyone else is wrong, please explain in a sensible way. As it is, you do violence to any serious treatment of the subject.
@copernicus633 i have nothing against chalmers. in fact, i've been exhanging a few emails with him on these things, and we're pretty much aligned. but maybe you didn't quite grasp the flavor of idiocy i'm referring to, even with the kasparov example. compare it to an idiot savant situation then. one can be very good at something, without being good at all at other things. and when it comes to penrose's skill at mathematics, it doesn't mean he's equally good at applying himself to philosophy.
@cortesuprema The isolated statements of Kasparov have little relevance to the main issues. In Kasparov's case, it turns out that chess lends itself to algorithms more than he thought. But in the larger sense, the algorithm is fragile and makes blunders too (A specific case is in Penrose's book "Shadows of the Mind, p46.) The program can only do things the programmer explicitly considered. It has no characteristics of general intelligence. Does a scientific calculator "understand" trigonometry ?
@copernicus633 again, i think you - much like penrose and kasparov - fail to understand the point. firstly, the reason for mentioning kasparov was only to draw a *parallel*, regarding being clever at something in an isolated sense, yet still not benefitting from that cleverness in the big picture - hoping that would illustrate what i meant regarding penrose. other than that, i was not implying that kasparov had anything interesting to say about the issues of consciousness. obviously, i failed.
@cortesuprema My issue was as much as your calling them "idiots" as anything else. Geniuses like them deserve more respect. They can easily have much else of importance to say about many things. You don't seize on a single statement and generalize to them being idiots, as if to totally dismiss their intellect.
@copernicus633 as for your comment regarding me calling them "idiots etc: i think it's just as appropriate to call them idiots in a specific narrow sense (the one relevant to THIS topic, where they DON'T "get it") as it is for you to label them geniuses in a broad sense, based on their excellence in certain, highly specific OTHER areas. what does it take for someone to be a genius, anyway? and don't forget "idiot savants", a term which basically encapsulates my point, albeit to the extreme.
@copernicus633 yes, we are, in a sense. but - and this is the point i was trying to make from the start, then when we start being more specific about what we are interested in, we realize we can call someone an idiot if he/she is "an idiot" within the field in question. which is what i was doing with penrose and kasparov - no matter how good they are at *other* things.
@copernicus633 i have not read "shadows of the mind", as i found penrose's books on consciousness a waste of time (i do have other books by him, though, on subjects where he has more to offer). therefore i do not know if you by "the algorithm" and "the program" are referring to a specific algorithm/program in his book or to algorithms and programs in general. if the latter, you are way off in such a fundamental sense, that you not understanding what i meant earlier is starting to make sense.
@cortesuprema The program or algorithm referred to was "Deep Thought" an IBM program that at the time was the world's strongest chess computer program and seriously competing against world grandmasters in strength. Yet, in Shadows of the mind (p46), there is a position shown where it makes a blunder, which would be avoided by any chess beginner. It was a gap in the algorithm, unforseen by the programmer. That is what I meant by the fragile algorithm. It has no understanding of chess.
@copernicus633 well, deep thought is a *chess playing algorithm* (that, incidentally, also largely relies on a huge database of *stored* games and moves). there was never any ambition of (or need for) trying to give it consciousness, so in that sense it's completely irrelevant.but algoritms comes in all flavors. the brain is running one of them. question is, what aspects of it are key to giving rise to consiousness as we experience it?
@cortesuprema The problem I pose is not that Deep Thought had no specific programming to "feel", but that there is no conceptual framework on how to do that at all, even if they wanted too. It is problem of a qualitatively different kind. All programming so far is functional, about objective things. For chess its about board coordinates, piece positions, strengths, tactical schemes (pins, forks, etc.) are all objectively computable and tractable. But how do you "program" a feeling ?
@copernicus633 do you seriously think that an algorithm or a program can only do what the programmer explicitly considered or intended? do you have any understanding or experience with programming yourself (i'd think not, but i could be wrong)? i'm biting my tongue here to not go off on a whole rant about the plasticity of the human brain, machine learning, artificial intelligence, self-reprogrammability etc. instead, please tell me - what are the characteristics of general intelligence?
@cortesuprema I was a programmer professionally. When I say a program can do only what the programmer explicitly programmed, I don't mean the details of a particular kind of computation. Like seeing ahead 35 moves in a chess position. What I mean is, if you write a chess program, that program will not suddenly compose music, prove math theorems, or write poetry. Those are distinctly different kinds of programs, and have to be written with those explicitly in mind. To Be continued next comment:
@cortesuprema comment continued: There are no AI programs that display any significant degree of general intelligence, such as that exhibited by the human mind. The are all "one trick pony's" or else trivially multi talented. You have not answered my question: What is your programming model to make your chess program "feel good" or "feel sad" at winning or losing ? Don't you see a conceptual gulf there ?
@copernicus633 of course there is a conceptual gulf. the conceptual gulf is the fact that you don't program for conscious experience. conscious experience would be an emergent property, a derivate of the processing taking place within the algorithm, but that exists outside the algorithm itself. but what pushes something over the threshold for attaining consciousness? is it the medium? is it the complexity? at least the brain is vastly more complex than anything we can build at the moment [cont.]
@cortesuprema I don't like the term "emergent", used so much relative to this topic. It is just a cover for our ignorance. By using that term we are saying absolutely nothing substantive. If we don't know we should just say so. We are clearly conscious. There is no philosophical bridge, as far as I have read, that algorithms "explain" consciousness. They may play a role, but are not the complete story. I believe some deep property of matter is also essential. [continued]
@cortesuprema [continued] The purely abstract conception of program as the essence of consciousness makes no reference to any property of matter. AI (and CS) types are too wed to their plaything of "hardware independence". A good thing in CS, but not a good thing when talking about consciousness. Consciousness must depend on properties of matter (if not, why not disembodied spirit ?). Or other Chinese room type arguments. Algorithms + properties of matter come closer to my conception.
@copernicus633 [cont.] so, obviously, any naive dabblings into the field at the moment will tend to be much simplified, regardless of whether it's the medium or the complexity, and so specialized. but don't confuse artificial intelligence with consciousness! that's the whole CONCEPT of The Hard Problem - and zombies. all programs we have made / can make at this point would only be zombies - with some degree of (specialized) intelligence.
Religion is nothing more than brainwashing people into ideological constructs. Hence, manipulation to enforce servitude and obedience without question. No thanks son.
Eliminative Rationalism posits that common-sense ontology is wrong. Negative numbers, imaginary numbers, and other counterintuitive notions in advanced mathematics show that empiricism (folk-logic) is flawed. Complete descriptions of reality will be purely mathematical, disproving folk-logical notions of matter and proving that only minds are real.
13.7 billion yrs ago the universe appeared. Matter cooled and condensed, stars ignited to forge heavy elements, supernovae seeded the galaxy. 9.2 billion yrs after the bang, the Earth formed. Starshine made organic molecules reproduce, compete and evolve. 2.5 million yrs ago an apelike creature started to use tools. Humans walked on the moon and now approach immortality. A small part of the cosmos, the human mind, reflects on itself and the universe becomes self-aware. Explain that!
[continued] And so, while I heartily applaud those who say this is a real question and there is no current scientific "solution to the problem" of consciousness, I must say that to think there could be an empirical explanation of consciousness is to be just as mistaken as those who say there is nothing to be understood. An ideal complete deterministic model of brain/behavior would still leave us where we are now, i.e. not knowing if our neighbors are conscious in the first place.
Well, I don't know if this is addressed elsewhere, but fundamentally, one cannot define or demonstrate the "objective existence" of "subjective consciousness" in the first place. As far as empiricism can say, there is no such thing. And thus, empirical science can have nothing to say about something it cannot register. If I said "you know all those people you ever thought were conscious? I claim they were not. They're simply automotons", this cannot be refuted empirically.
People who think science can 'explain' love haven't fully graped what love is. People who think science can 'explain' what the taste of orange juice havent grasped what the taste of orange juice is. people who think science can 'explain' what happiness is haven't fully grasped what consciousness is. people who think science can 'explain' being in a coma dreaming loops of subjective experience haven't graped what being in a coma dreaming loops of subjective experience. OH THE DUALIST DRAMA.
It surely can't be made of nothing.. You can feel free to explain what exactly non-material is then, and how it can exist without having any means to exist.. The hard problem you will have a harder time explaining far exceeds the hard problem you think science can not. How can nothing be that of something and exist as a self contradiction.. Please defined what non means to understand why notions of non-material in a dualist belief is a self impossible contradiction
@TheJackelantern if it is non-material, then it violates physical closure (causality). how an non-material event can cause a material event (interact)? For X to be a cause of Y, X must contribute something to Y. The only way a purely mental event could contribute to a purely physical one would be to contribute some feature not already determined by a purely physical event.
As for how and why x causes y and z can be found in feedback loops and the natural unpredictability of chaotic systems to which emerging patterns become a reality. Energy is very complex and has the ability to achieve cognitive dynamical behavior and relationships. Hence observer matter relationships. AI for example is an observer matter relationship even though it's far more primitive than human consciousness. Every mental even is purely a physical one, but a very misunderstood one.
So tell me, can you feel anything without physically feeling it? Can you do anything at all without energy? Can you even post a reply to this without the requirement of material physicality? If you have no substance and are made of nothing, how can you have properties, attributes, or even existence? If you do not have spatial dimension, how can you have the capacity to exist when one would require a place to exist in order to exist? Can you exist in a negative capacity?
@TheJackelantern But if physical closure is true, there is no feature of the purely physical effect that is not contributed by the purely physical cause. Hence interactionism violates physical closure after all.
I don't think you understand that physical closure can have interaction-ism without violating physical closure. The idea of being outside of physical closure is a philosophical fallacy. And all minds are bound to material physical causality, and all are equally temporally bound in the same way.
@TheJackelantern chalmers views can be described as a type of neutral monism, ontologically non-reductive but causality reductive, or even panprotopsychist or property dualist
@TheJackelantern Substance dualism is not impossible. If you have seen The Matrix you will see that the humans in the matrix have their minds outside of the simulation, and the minds are not part of the "physical reality" of the simulation but outside, yet communicating with the "physical". Chalmers have written about this.
nobody is arguing substance dualism.. It comes down to the fact you can not magically violate material physicality. It doesn't matter if you think your mind is in lock-in from another reality. What it comes down to is that no matter what, you will need a place to exist in (a where), you will need to be made of something since you can not be nothing. The sum total of existence is material physicality. all minds must be made of something.
You can have fun trying to argue how minds are made of nothing.. And all minds require a container to exist in. Even solipsism would still require material physicality to exist. Nothing can not be a literal existing thing, substance, person, pattern, or object. Nothing can not even be a feeling or emotion. And this is because nothing states that itself doesn't exist.
@TheJackelantern "all minds must be made of something" - I agree, but you can't claim that it has to be physical as we know it. You can't define "material physicality" as the total sum of existence when we don't know what that total sum is. The reason is that what we know from science would, if we existed in a simulation, be completely arbitrary properties which would have nothing to do with the ultimate reality in which the simulation exists.
@TheJackelantern Your writing is very hard to understand, but from what I gather you have a problem with non-material. I can tell you material is a much bigger problem than the material.
The Hard problem is solved by mental addiction.. Emotions, feelings, ectra are just behavior physical phenomenal patterns that swing on a pendulum like everything esle does.. This pendulum is represented by positive, negative, and neutral selection, behavior, reaction, or response to any given observation of self or stimuli to self and environment .
Human mind processes information in abstract, probability, and possibility.. This means any reaction to stimuli can be neutral, negative, or positive on a various levels depending on the abstract perceptual interpretation of information observed.
so all that is happening is the self-osculation and self-organizing natural tributes of energy achieve a neuro structure complex enough to to process other information including self.. This is where self-osculation and self-organization gives rise to self-directed cognitive dynamics that can lead to consciousness.. Energy and information are 2 sides of the same coin.. And is the Universal set to all existence.
@TheJackelantern, Your logic is flawed when addressing Consciousness. You explaining without knowing it the phenomena of behavior, Emotions are physical, the broad term "Feelings" are subjective. The hard problem is not "mental addiction" as you so have put it, it's the inner-felt experience that arises from just seeing thing's like the color blue, or the smell of fish tacos etc... These are subjective and only i feel the result of said experiences.
It wouldn't necessarily be all mental addiction, however I am fairly correct. Here is your hard problem, and this explains exactly why those who claim such things as non-material are wrong.. Consciousness or feelings can not be made of nothing. If they are without substance or material physicality, they essentially could not exist. Nothing can not be a literal person, place, or thing. Stating non-material is stating properties of nothing and non-existence.
Thus my logic is not flawed.. The entire sum total of all existence is essentially energy. Matter can convert to energy and energy can convert to matter. Even empty space is entirely comprised of energy or zero base energy. And this is because -1 energy is impossible, -1 spatial space is impossible, and non-existence is impossible to exist or have capacity to exist literally. Thus all consciousness is, is natural plausible attributes, properties, and patterns of energy.
So just because you can't easily explain consciousness, feelings, or emotions does not mean that they are magically non-material.. Hence, good luck feeling Love, hate, anger, or sadness without material physicality. There is a reason why you can physically feel emotions and why they are physical patterns.. You can not even so much as communicate or think without the energy to which makes up the total sum of the material physical world.
@TheJackelantern but hey, I don't thing we are ever going to achieve complex common ground on these matters. I recommend you googling 'NATURALISTIC PANPSYCHISM' and visint the two first links: panpsychism . com and Mind, Brain and the Quantum by Michael Lockwood. my views are similar to his views.
you don't need to achieve complex common ground because regardless of how complex a system or a chaotic system of pattern are, they can never be made of nothing. Sorry, but trying to claim something is that of nothing is just completely nonsensical. We may never understand how consciousness, feelings, or things such as taste work, and this is because such chaotic systems to which the abstract emergence of pattern, property, behavior and attributes is impossible to predict.
When we understand that consciousness is apart of our living bodies own energy metabolism to which is constantly in the process of creating itself, we might realize how unique we really are. Here energy equals all matter, space, and information. Energy is the only thing that can represent a Universal set of all sets, and the only thing that can solve infinite regress due to it's impossibility to not exist.
So I will say this for the last time, Consciousness, thoughts,ideas, dreams, feelings, emotions, data, matter, information, or the very space that surrounds you can not be made of nothing ;) And that is the ultimate hard problem dualism can never resolve even if science can never fully understand how consciousness exactly works. Philosophy only gets you so far, and it can not magically make nothing into a literal person, place, or thing.
so those that are in favor of dualism, let me break it down so that a kid can understand the idea. is everyone here to tell me that the mind is a magical energy that flows through the human material body? because.... honest to allah that's what dualism basically claims. you can word it up as much as you can but dualism and this man's arguments are absolute bullshit. this guy makes claims from a lack of evidence. i bet EVERYONE here that's in favor of dualism is a God-believer. can i get an Amen?
science is in the dark about consciousness for the same reason mathematicians are perplexed about making 7 layer cakes or philosophers can't explain the chemical properties of plutonium:
its just not their field...
is everyone just totally missing this?
if my field is science how can i expect to explain conscious?
get it?
by the same merit, if i try to understand consciousness (philosophy) how can i make scientific claims?
i think the entire "intellectual" community is forgetting this
Science may or may not explain consciousness. But objective empiracle science must be pushed as far as possible, but if scientists don't take into account those who study consciousness from a 1st person perspective, than we will never solve this puzzle. If consciousness is not a 1st person subjective experience, than it is nothing. We have Chalmers to thank for waking us up to this fact.
of course science is in the dark about consciousness, and maybe science will explain what it is in the future, but if you're a dualist, you're just telling me you already know what consciousness is, and you're contradicting yourself. if you're saying you don't know for sure what consciousness is and you'd LIKE TO THINK that its beyond the material world, then that's fine with me.
Ya I see what ure saying. I dont think all dualists are like that. I would think there could be the science of consciousness, but I see no reason that it couldn't be
a.) fundamental
b.)non-physical
c.)I ran out of thing these lists dont work for me....eeek
I dont think they are forgetting it, I just dont think they are ready to admit it. It's kind of like how Newtonian Physicists were so sure that their method could explain everything....for a lack of a better analogy:)
but the requirements for studying consciousness and existence are not of a scientific or psychological nature because in all respects these 2 still fall under the broad subject of consciousness.
otherwise we go on shifting from one paradigm to its extreme opposite:
the earths flat, the earths round
leaches can cure pneumonia, leaches can't cure pneumonia
consciousness comes from matter, matter comes from consciousness
It is like the swinging of the pendulum, only problem is that most people are always on opposite sides. There are a few people in the middle, that is the scary part. I think we need to be open to more possibilities without being an extremist.
Chalmers is an atheist, so I don't think he has a religious card to play here. And are you aware of the difference between substance dualism and property dualism? Gravity is an invisible force that is part and parcel of this universe, is it really a stretch to say the same might be true of consciousness in one way or another? Do you consider gravity to be magic? Like you I don't agree with Chalmers conclusions, but I don't think what he is saying is unreasonable.
the difference with gravity is that we can make observations about how it works and try our best to make mathematical formulas on how it works; however, as far as i know, no one can say what gravity IS. when you say if its a stretch the same can be said about consciousness, its a matter of how a person takes it to mean.
We can also observe the effects of consciousness from a 1st person perspective (every conscious being is aware that he exists). We study the brain to see how it works. But none of this tells us that we can rule out the possibility that it is a fundamental physical property (which is what chalmers is telling us). I may not agree with Chalmers, but I believe a few "holy fuck" moments are headed our way before we have a full understanding of consciousness.
my definition of consciousness is that it is a set of physiological reactions systemized by the brain that results in a mental and/or physical increase or decrease in positive feeling that originates from the interaction of the human senses with the universe (part 1)
Interesting views. I agree that consciousness ultimately depends on the physical. However, we're a long way from proving this and I have yet to see a sound explanation of why this must be true. We have only scratched the surface and it is best to remain agnostic and open minded to alternative possibilities, even if these possibilities are strange and insult our intellectual foundations.
@umrahsahab Who knows? Some western folk (myself included) might not like to hear it but that doesn't mean it isn't true. But we have to push the science as far as possible and we cannot just assume that it's an eternal mystery.
I definitely see where you are coming from. But lets not assume that the physical is the only thing we can describe. I agree with you on pushing science, but I think that science need not always deal with things physical. I have no problem at all with reductionism, I just mean to say that perhaps what has worked so far will not keep working. Maybe we need to start describing things with not only mathematics, but some other known or unknown method. Just a thought:)
@umrahsahab Our study of consciousness is in its infancy, so quite a bit is possible. Even those with the most mainstream materialistic views would be surprised if there wasn't at least one discovery that turns the scientific world upside down and forces us to reexamine at least some of our long held notions and concepts.
where increase or decrease in mental and/or physical positive feeling is dependent on the interaction between one's cerebral physiological reactions and the set of physical reactions newly encountered by the brain that originates from the universe after having been received by the senses and systemized by the brain.
when i make this statement, i try not to seperate consciousness away from the material. my only irk is when consciousness goes beyond being material.
I used to consider myself theistic materialist/reductionist, thinking everything could be reduced (except for God). Now I am still theist but undecided in terms of monism or dualism. But in all honesty me being theist makes no difference in that. I wouldn't want to tell God how to make the world. Regardless I think it is admirable that we should be able to discuss this issue without chocking each other to death:) The way I see it it never hurts to be open minded. Take care.
@umrahsahab It's always a pleasure to have a civil conversation. These days, conformity of opinion seems to be more valued than an open and honest discussion. The monist/dualist debate is not as clear cut as it is usually portrayed. People should ask themselves why they hold a particular opinion. They should put the motivations behind their views under scrutiny, and not ridicule an idea just because it is unpopular with contemporary intellectuals.
nicely put. I also find that even if u are sure u are right about something having some humbleness goes really far. Ex: I f I ever debate with a creationist and tell them they are stupid for not believing in evolution, they will close their ears even though they know I am a Muslim. But if I kindly explain to them why evolution is such a strong theory and they dont need to be scared of it. There is a MUCH MUCH higher chance they will agree. Gentleness and a open mind excel!
@sucitreblig1 lol nicely put. Do u think that maybe perhaps we might be able to learn about consciousness itself though? I dont know enough o say. I am just an "eye" could study itself.....you raise a good point. Let me know what you think?
You could just as easily postulate that there is the easy and hard problem of physicalism. The easy problem would be to undertand the behaviour and relationships of everything physical. The hard problem would be questions like: what is an electron? what is space? what is energy? how do they emerge? how is it possible for them to exist? We don't seem perplexed by these questions.
But the perplexities that are being explored with the LHC correspond to the 'easy problem' above. They are exploring the structure of matter, just as cognitive science explores the structure of the mental world.
But relationships and patterns cannot exist on their own. They must be relations and patterns of some underlying 'stuff'. The nature of this 'stuff' is the 'hard problem'
Although I dont disagree with you, I think they are all trying to find the nature of "stuff".
The LHC is exploring interactions with energy as well, to find out the nature of this "stuff", I would not say at this point that the problem is an easy one for any party, the more they discover, the further in the dark they are it seems.
The difference is that people take electrons, space, energy to be fundamental. People are less inclined to take consciousness as fundamental. Some people even say consciousness does not exist.
I wonder though if the hard problem of physicalism would end up being the same thing as the hard problem of consciousness. I am not saying that I know for sure, but it is a possibility right? Maybe.....perhaps...lol
Search for John Searle speaking on consciousness - compare and contrast. I'm not insisting that one is right and the other wrong. I just think it's important to get different views. Searle is one of the better ones. Dennet is a bit radical for me though and far more radical than he lets on.
Evidence of a consciousness or soul was fond in experiments by Dr. Duncan MacDougall in 1906. New York Times, March 11, 1907, published an article, Soul Has Weight. The article shows evidence of a soul leaving the body upon death.
We will never understand everything but are designed to strive to know everything by nature and the deeper we look the further into the distance knowledge will race away from us! it just strikes me that we miss the point, the striving is important unto itself but i feel that our purpose is pure existence and every choice and direction that we can take is the important thing! think of looking at the night sky and seing just black nothing! we will always see a new thing drawing us endlessly!!!
To deny a causuality between brain and consciousness seems absurd. That is not to say that we do not experience consciousness subjectively, that qualia do not exist.
People who think science can 'explain' conciousness haven't fully grasped what conciousness is. What possible sequence of words could an 'explanation of conciousness' take? If a scientist said "I've discovered what conciousness is; it's the interaction of these molecules with those molecules in the presence of this chemical." This still DOES NOT EXPLAIN what conciousness is.
I agree. However, science doesn't have to describe consciousness in purely physical/psychological terms. It takes a union between phenomenological understanding (perhaps a functional account) and a mature neuroscience.
you are wrong. consciousness itself is an illusion that it is separate from the brain. this illusion is based on the fact that you're only listening to certain parts of your brain at any given time and you can switch to other parts of the brain. it's a neural network, the different chemicals performing different functions. the complexity of it is what makes consciousness, an emergent property. the more efficient the brain at working thoughts, the more consciousness.
also, if you know anything about evolution, or emergence in general..with its many concepts, and then know a bit about quantum physics, which of course includes a lot of math, the easier it is to picture what consciousness really is. but not so far as to think it is lifeless, but to see how powerful it can be by the power of adaptation in its own right, and multiplied when paired with other consciousnesses of diverse features.
People who think science can 'explain' life haven't fully grasped what life is.
What possible sequence of words could an 'explanation of life' take?
If a scientist said "I've discovered what life is; it's the interaction of these molecules with those molecules in the presence of this chemical." This still DOES NOT EXPLAIN what life is.
@dashpowers22 Your post would actually be relevant if scientists knew how life began. But they don't; all they agree upon is the mechanical attributes. Anyway, Chalmers is currently the best philosopher of consciousness.
@versus79 And I suppose your post would be relevant if anyone were talking about abiogenesis. How life began is irrelevant to an understanding of how it works.
@1thousandways Well, you contradicted yourself. You "grasp" what consciousness is but you can't explain it? I don't think so. Nobody said it would be explained in such a rudimentary form as you insist. "You can't solve a problem with the same kind of thinking you used to create it." - Albert Einstein.
@1thousandways Well it would be an explanation, but it would only function to the extent that it intends. Once they know that they will start developing genetic blockers, drugs, markers, comparing 'normal' vs 'abnormal' brains. I think this would be worthless asside from figuring out if other aimals have it. They are important questions for sure, but I agree in the end, it explains almost nothing useful to what the experience of human consciousness is, and its consequences.
@1thousandways well it explains it as well as we can. How can you explain God or Jesus or Mohammad or whoever you believe in? You can't! Because what ever words you say can't explain anything.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The fact that quantum processes take place in our brain and probably help it function has nothing to do with the billshit the idiots are pushing. The science he's talking about correation science is NOT REAL SCIENCE! Big surprise these retards have no idea what quantum physics and quantum mechanics really are.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
With all this wording I am willing to bet the guy can not solve a simple quantum problem, it is mumbo jumbo like Depak Chopka, I hate psychologists and some neuroscientists :/
Quantum mechanics is a problem in itself, regarding not the mathematical aspect, but the consequences of the theory in relation to human experience of the world.
Also note, taht you do not need to play soccer to understand the rules.
I think people make it too complicated and mystical. Take away the supernatural explanations and all you are left with is physical matter and a series of chemical reactions. I heard it said once that "consciousness is simply the nature of matter".
greenecountytornado 2 weeks ago
This man talks like he knows all the concepts and ideas for consciousness and question like "what is really going on" - but he doers not know all of them, even most of them.
THE MOST VALUABLE FOR ME AND CONFIRMED BY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is this one - "My Big Toe" by Thomas Campbell.
Stay open minded and septic.
The truth is personal just like everything - and to know the truth you have to experience it - otherwise you would know only the concept or description of the truth.
Peace and Love :)
trumasta333 4 weeks ago
talks to much with his hands
skatechildd 4 weeks ago
Hmm, it will also be interesting to understand what unconsciousnous is too, that wavey world of the subconscious...
gaurdian22 1 month ago
Perhaps there is no single phenomenon of 'consciousness' for neural happening to be identical to.
Clearlight76 2 months ago
quantum mechanics is about random outcomes, right?
say at each moment, you split by binary fission into 2 people. at each moment, you would find yourself being 1 of the 2 product people, but would you be the one on the left, or the one on the right? only the act of the observation would answer that question. if you were to perform this on yourself, your observed outcome would be completely random. now answer me this, is the country that you found yourself to be born in a purely random outcome?
TheFoolisher 3 months ago
(Comment continued) The chess program that defeated Kasparov has no idea of what it is doing, any more than a scientific calculator "understands" trigonometry by doing a cosine calculation. Think about this: What is your "programming model" to make the chess machine "feel good" when it wins and "feel badly" when it loses? There is no conceptual framework that answers that question. Programming chess itself is of an entirely different kind being completely objective.
copernicus633 3 months ago
Open Google search engine and read book .Seeing is Believing: First Time in World by V.K. Sonakia
From his childhood, V.K. Sonakia’s interest has lain in solving the deep mysteries of nature. His research in nature and invention revealed a story which needed to be told.
FIT is powerful and unified science-based tool, which is available in the human body. It generates logic and decodes future manmade and natural disasters as RDX blasts, tsunamis, and earthquakes.
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
INDIA
vksonakia 4 months ago
GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA ans read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-boson-or-god-particle-which-exist-in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist atr welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology
vk sonakia
unified field scientist
bhopal
INDIA
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
vksonakia 4 months ago
needs a haircut
chulo113 6 months ago
IMO, consciousness is an intrinsic part of the universe, and the brain is more of a filter for consciousness, like a kaleidoscope we look through to perceive the world.
AnduinX 7 months ago
rythm may be able to unfold a word harmony may unfold a song but a song may unfold everything
1+1=3
peace!
SMILES FROM THE SUN!
thesunshon 7 months ago
I have yet to see a youtube commentator actually argue against Chalmers points. They either attack him or they construct a barely coherent straw-man argument coupled with a smarmy conclusion about the ridiculousness of Chalmers position. This is very irritating.
Huesos138 8 months ago 7
My god. I would love to smoke a j with this guy.
And I'm an ex-eliminativist.
theocean1973 9 months ago 2
I think that consciousness is "experiencing" or "observing", and I think it's basically how the physical reality exists (by experiencing itself, even the smallest quanta), information moving through a system allows a consciousness to gather together- that experiences the logic/activity of that system (which is what shapes the specific experience that this consciousness will be).
WiseWeeabo 9 months ago
@WiseWeeabo I agree. I think that electromagnetic behaviors and sensorimotor experience are essentially the same thing, but existentially opposite.
s33light 9 months ago
@WiseWeeabo lol
cortesuprema 6 months ago
SMILES FROM THE SUN!
thesunshon 9 months ago
Comment removed
BHTSLT 10 months ago
In order to create consciousness we must first know what it is. AI only learns what we teach it. It plugs millions of lines of code, and equations all programmed by people, but anything that relies on human reliability will always be fallible, as all men are. To understand consciousness is to understand the universe. If time and the universe are just fractals like all natural things (1 1 2 3 5 8 13...) then everything would be onething and each component would define the next. SO LOVE EVERYTHING
plebe1600 10 months ago
I think the main thing to remember is that a physical or neural correlates of consciousness do not logically lead to the conclusion that these neural happenings are identical with consciousness.
MrWillToPower 1 year ago 31
Let the interviewer do the interview. Ego.
derman077 1 year ago
please take your 17th century hairdo back to the 17th century
Urdoxa 1 year ago
conciousness is present all times ,as soon as brain begins to act with it awareness arises.Awareness is the state of mind when information is processed by your brain and you become aware of this world.You cannot look or investigate conciousness of this reason.You are in a bubble of awareness wich your own brain has processed and you cannot look out of it.Conciousness will be forever unsolved.
tangerineful 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tangerineful "You are in a bubble of awareness "
Yeh , like Godel's box, we can't see outside the box, and the more info we gather the bigger the box grows but we're still inside it, never outside. We can always know more, never everything.
jonesgerard 11 months ago
Consciousness is the symptom of the 'atma' or soul. It is carried via the blood corpuscles to all parts of the body. It is non-material and therefore unknown to the
scientific mind unless they submit to the spiritual methodology stated by yogis
and Vedic literatures to the same effect.
beeveee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beeveee "It is carried via the blood corpuscles to all parts of the body. "
I had the same idea when I was young. Its a fun idea.
The problem with that idea is you'd lose mind with a complete blood transfusion, but that doesn't happen.
Mind exists beyond the blood/brain barrier so it never contacts blood.
jonesgerard 11 months ago
Is consciousness faster than the speed of light
janne4880 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@janne4880 "Is consciousness faster than the speed of light"
Depends if you're referring to brain functions, or the deeper consciousness where infinite exists.
PArt of mind, if not all, exists outside of time and space so speed is a non question.
Awareness is slow, at least mine is.
jonesgerard 11 months ago
Talk about word jugglery and speculation... kind of painful to hear
tbcarreiro 1 year ago
What Mr Chalmers doesn't realise is that the hard problem of consciousness has already been solved. Consciousness is just the result of electrons, protons and neutrons moving and interacting via the laws of physics. It is just physical processes in the physical brain. What he describes as "subjective experience" is actually just "objective physical processes, matter, etc" that can be studied empirically. Chalmers talks a lot of hot air. He has abandoned science in favour of airy-fairy imaginings
johndoe43210 1 year ago
@johndoe43210 Roger Penrose shot that idea down, consciousness cannot arise from algorythm based machines, flesh or metal. You run into Godels incompleteness theorum. and Turings halting problem.
We don't know what it is, but we know what consciousness cannot be.
jonesgerard 1 year ago 20
@jonesgerard nice try with the dogma, but penrose and lucas's arguments concerning implications of godel and turing issues have been heavily criticized by many in many different ways....saying strong artificial intelligence isn't possible isn't something you can do quite so offhandedly...
vav0om 11 months ago
@vav0om Strong AI, if you mean conscioussness, that is so far beyond the ability of science its funny, they can't even agree what conscioussness is. Thats Penrose's whole point, he's addressed their arguments in later books, they're just moving the goalposts.
jonesgerard 11 months ago
@jonesgerard I didn't argue that science was only a few minutes away from Strong AI, my point was that you saying that "Consciousness CANNOT arise from algorithmic processes" isn't a factual statement so to state it dogmatically is deceptive and wrong. Consciousness may be some kind of dualistic object, or it may be simply a inescapable product of information processing complexity. This question hasn't been SOLVED by ANYONE. Some tend to intuitively lean one way, others another way.
vav0om 11 months ago
@jonesgerard penrose is an idiot.
cortesuprema 6 months ago
@cortesuprema Penrose is a world class mathematician. (And you ?)
copernicus633 5 months ago
@copernicus633 he's an idiot in the same sense that garry kasparov is. he is a world class chess player, yet he fails/ed to see the bigger picture of things outside his chessified mindset (ref his statements regarding chess being "art" in the sense that it can only truly be mastered by humans - and that "no machine will ever beat a human grand master". doh!). have you read penrose's the emperor's new mind? i have. a world class mathematician does not a world class philosopher make.
cortesuprema 4 months ago
@cortesuprema Oh, So Now Kasparov is also an idiot! That is an absurd thing to say, even if you had some world class distinction yourself, which I'm sure you don't (Generally, world class people don't go around saying things like that). But if you have a serious point about why Penrose or Chalmers, or anyone else is wrong, please explain in a sensible way. As it is, you do violence to any serious treatment of the subject.
copernicus633 4 months ago
@copernicus633 i have nothing against chalmers. in fact, i've been exhanging a few emails with him on these things, and we're pretty much aligned. but maybe you didn't quite grasp the flavor of idiocy i'm referring to, even with the kasparov example. compare it to an idiot savant situation then. one can be very good at something, without being good at all at other things. and when it comes to penrose's skill at mathematics, it doesn't mean he's equally good at applying himself to philosophy.
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@cortesuprema The isolated statements of Kasparov have little relevance to the main issues. In Kasparov's case, it turns out that chess lends itself to algorithms more than he thought. But in the larger sense, the algorithm is fragile and makes blunders too (A specific case is in Penrose's book "Shadows of the Mind, p46.) The program can only do things the programmer explicitly considered. It has no characteristics of general intelligence. Does a scientific calculator "understand" trigonometry ?
copernicus633 3 months ago
@copernicus633 again, i think you - much like penrose and kasparov - fail to understand the point. firstly, the reason for mentioning kasparov was only to draw a *parallel*, regarding being clever at something in an isolated sense, yet still not benefitting from that cleverness in the big picture - hoping that would illustrate what i meant regarding penrose. other than that, i was not implying that kasparov had anything interesting to say about the issues of consciousness. obviously, i failed.
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@cortesuprema My issue was as much as your calling them "idiots" as anything else. Geniuses like them deserve more respect. They can easily have much else of importance to say about many things. You don't seize on a single statement and generalize to them being idiots, as if to totally dismiss their intellect.
copernicus633 3 months ago
@copernicus633 as for your comment regarding me calling them "idiots etc: i think it's just as appropriate to call them idiots in a specific narrow sense (the one relevant to THIS topic, where they DON'T "get it") as it is for you to label them geniuses in a broad sense, based on their excellence in certain, highly specific OTHER areas. what does it take for someone to be a genius, anyway? and don't forget "idiot savants", a term which basically encapsulates my point, albeit to the extreme.
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@cortesuprema By that, we are all idiots.
copernicus633 3 months ago
@copernicus633 yes, we are, in a sense. but - and this is the point i was trying to make from the start, then when we start being more specific about what we are interested in, we realize we can call someone an idiot if he/she is "an idiot" within the field in question. which is what i was doing with penrose and kasparov - no matter how good they are at *other* things.
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@copernicus633 i have not read "shadows of the mind", as i found penrose's books on consciousness a waste of time (i do have other books by him, though, on subjects where he has more to offer). therefore i do not know if you by "the algorithm" and "the program" are referring to a specific algorithm/program in his book or to algorithms and programs in general. if the latter, you are way off in such a fundamental sense, that you not understanding what i meant earlier is starting to make sense.
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@cortesuprema The program or algorithm referred to was "Deep Thought" an IBM program that at the time was the world's strongest chess computer program and seriously competing against world grandmasters in strength. Yet, in Shadows of the mind (p46), there is a position shown where it makes a blunder, which would be avoided by any chess beginner. It was a gap in the algorithm, unforseen by the programmer. That is what I meant by the fragile algorithm. It has no understanding of chess.
copernicus633 3 months ago
@copernicus633 well, deep thought is a *chess playing algorithm* (that, incidentally, also largely relies on a huge database of *stored* games and moves). there was never any ambition of (or need for) trying to give it consciousness, so in that sense it's completely irrelevant.but algoritms comes in all flavors. the brain is running one of them. question is, what aspects of it are key to giving rise to consiousness as we experience it?
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@cortesuprema The problem I pose is not that Deep Thought had no specific programming to "feel", but that there is no conceptual framework on how to do that at all, even if they wanted too. It is problem of a qualitatively different kind. All programming so far is functional, about objective things. For chess its about board coordinates, piece positions, strengths, tactical schemes (pins, forks, etc.) are all objectively computable and tractable. But how do you "program" a feeling ?
copernicus633 3 months ago
@copernicus633 do you seriously think that an algorithm or a program can only do what the programmer explicitly considered or intended? do you have any understanding or experience with programming yourself (i'd think not, but i could be wrong)? i'm biting my tongue here to not go off on a whole rant about the plasticity of the human brain, machine learning, artificial intelligence, self-reprogrammability etc. instead, please tell me - what are the characteristics of general intelligence?
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@cortesuprema I was a programmer professionally. When I say a program can do only what the programmer explicitly programmed, I don't mean the details of a particular kind of computation. Like seeing ahead 35 moves in a chess position. What I mean is, if you write a chess program, that program will not suddenly compose music, prove math theorems, or write poetry. Those are distinctly different kinds of programs, and have to be written with those explicitly in mind. To Be continued next comment:
copernicus633 3 months ago
@cortesuprema comment continued: There are no AI programs that display any significant degree of general intelligence, such as that exhibited by the human mind. The are all "one trick pony's" or else trivially multi talented. You have not answered my question: What is your programming model to make your chess program "feel good" or "feel sad" at winning or losing ? Don't you see a conceptual gulf there ?
copernicus633 3 months ago
@copernicus633 of course there is a conceptual gulf. the conceptual gulf is the fact that you don't program for conscious experience. conscious experience would be an emergent property, a derivate of the processing taking place within the algorithm, but that exists outside the algorithm itself. but what pushes something over the threshold for attaining consciousness? is it the medium? is it the complexity? at least the brain is vastly more complex than anything we can build at the moment [cont.]
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@cortesuprema I don't like the term "emergent", used so much relative to this topic. It is just a cover for our ignorance. By using that term we are saying absolutely nothing substantive. If we don't know we should just say so. We are clearly conscious. There is no philosophical bridge, as far as I have read, that algorithms "explain" consciousness. They may play a role, but are not the complete story. I believe some deep property of matter is also essential. [continued]
copernicus633 3 months ago
@cortesuprema [continued] The purely abstract conception of program as the essence of consciousness makes no reference to any property of matter. AI (and CS) types are too wed to their plaything of "hardware independence". A good thing in CS, but not a good thing when talking about consciousness. Consciousness must depend on properties of matter (if not, why not disembodied spirit ?). Or other Chinese room type arguments. Algorithms + properties of matter come closer to my conception.
copernicus633 3 months ago
@copernicus633 [cont.] so, obviously, any naive dabblings into the field at the moment will tend to be much simplified, regardless of whether it's the medium or the complexity, and so specialized. but don't confuse artificial intelligence with consciousness! that's the whole CONCEPT of The Hard Problem - and zombies. all programs we have made / can make at this point would only be zombies - with some degree of (specialized) intelligence.
cortesuprema 3 months ago
@jonesgerard You're talking about his Orch-or theory? His theory was wrong.
Pentagon1311 6 months ago
what a fuking idiot...he needs to get religion
PokkerLady 1 year ago
@PokkerLady
Religion is nothing more than brainwashing people into ideological constructs. Hence, manipulation to enforce servitude and obedience without question. No thanks son.
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
Eliminative Rationalism posits that common-sense ontology is wrong. Negative numbers, imaginary numbers, and other counterintuitive notions in advanced mathematics show that empiricism (folk-logic) is flawed. Complete descriptions of reality will be purely mathematical, disproving folk-logical notions of matter and proving that only minds are real.
ScaleBerb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice video
i write about consciousness in my blog at rickvgrear.blogspot.com
rickvgrear 1 year ago
13.7 billion yrs ago the universe appeared. Matter cooled and condensed, stars ignited to forge heavy elements, supernovae seeded the galaxy. 9.2 billion yrs after the bang, the Earth formed. Starshine made organic molecules reproduce, compete and evolve. 2.5 million yrs ago an apelike creature started to use tools. Humans walked on the moon and now approach immortality. A small part of the cosmos, the human mind, reflects on itself and the universe becomes self-aware. Explain that!
mrfpercival 1 year ago
[continued] And so, while I heartily applaud those who say this is a real question and there is no current scientific "solution to the problem" of consciousness, I must say that to think there could be an empirical explanation of consciousness is to be just as mistaken as those who say there is nothing to be understood. An ideal complete deterministic model of brain/behavior would still leave us where we are now, i.e. not knowing if our neighbors are conscious in the first place.
1977ub 1 year ago
Well, I don't know if this is addressed elsewhere, but fundamentally, one cannot define or demonstrate the "objective existence" of "subjective consciousness" in the first place. As far as empiricism can say, there is no such thing. And thus, empirical science can have nothing to say about something it cannot register. If I said "you know all those people you ever thought were conscious? I claim they were not. They're simply automotons", this cannot be refuted empirically.
1977ub 1 year ago
The wild hands of David Chalmers.
Braves4321 1 year ago
People who think science can 'explain' love haven't fully graped what love is. People who think science can 'explain' what the taste of orange juice havent grasped what the taste of orange juice is. people who think science can 'explain' what happiness is haven't fully grasped what consciousness is. people who think science can 'explain' being in a coma dreaming loops of subjective experience haven't graped what being in a coma dreaming loops of subjective experience. OH THE DUALIST DRAMA.
includao 1 year ago
@includao
It surely can't be made of nothing.. You can feel free to explain what exactly non-material is then, and how it can exist without having any means to exist.. The hard problem you will have a harder time explaining far exceeds the hard problem you think science can not. How can nothing be that of something and exist as a self contradiction.. Please defined what non means to understand why notions of non-material in a dualist belief is a self impossible contradiction
TheJackelantern 1 year ago 2
@TheJackelantern if it is non-material, then it violates physical closure (causality). how an non-material event can cause a material event (interact)? For X to be a cause of Y, X must contribute something to Y. The only way a purely mental event could contribute to a purely physical one would be to contribute some feature not already determined by a purely physical event.
includao 1 year ago
@includao
As for how and why x causes y and z can be found in feedback loops and the natural unpredictability of chaotic systems to which emerging patterns become a reality. Energy is very complex and has the ability to achieve cognitive dynamical behavior and relationships. Hence observer matter relationships. AI for example is an observer matter relationship even though it's far more primitive than human consciousness. Every mental even is purely a physical one, but a very misunderstood one.
jasonschoenecker 1 year ago
@jasonschoenecker
So tell me, can you feel anything without physically feeling it? Can you do anything at all without energy? Can you even post a reply to this without the requirement of material physicality? If you have no substance and are made of nothing, how can you have properties, attributes, or even existence? If you do not have spatial dimension, how can you have the capacity to exist when one would require a place to exist in order to exist? Can you exist in a negative capacity?
jasonschoenecker 1 year ago
@TheJackelantern But if physical closure is true, there is no feature of the purely physical effect that is not contributed by the purely physical cause. Hence interactionism violates physical closure after all.
includao 1 year ago
@includao
I don't think you understand that physical closure can have interaction-ism without violating physical closure. The idea of being outside of physical closure is a philosophical fallacy. And all minds are bound to material physical causality, and all are equally temporally bound in the same way.
jasonschoenecker 1 year ago
@TheJackelantern chalmers views can be described as a type of neutral monism, ontologically non-reductive but causality reductive, or even panprotopsychist or property dualist
includao 1 year ago
@TheJackelantern Substance dualism is not impossible. If you have seen The Matrix you will see that the humans in the matrix have their minds outside of the simulation, and the minds are not part of the "physical reality" of the simulation but outside, yet communicating with the "physical". Chalmers have written about this.
TzubakiZanjuro 1 year ago
@TzubakiZanjuro
nobody is arguing substance dualism.. It comes down to the fact you can not magically violate material physicality. It doesn't matter if you think your mind is in lock-in from another reality. What it comes down to is that no matter what, you will need a place to exist in (a where), you will need to be made of something since you can not be nothing. The sum total of existence is material physicality. all minds must be made of something.
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
@TheJackelantern
You can have fun trying to argue how minds are made of nothing.. And all minds require a container to exist in. Even solipsism would still require material physicality to exist. Nothing can not be a literal existing thing, substance, person, pattern, or object. Nothing can not even be a feeling or emotion. And this is because nothing states that itself doesn't exist.
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
@TheJackelantern "all minds must be made of something" - I agree, but you can't claim that it has to be physical as we know it. You can't define "material physicality" as the total sum of existence when we don't know what that total sum is. The reason is that what we know from science would, if we existed in a simulation, be completely arbitrary properties which would have nothing to do with the ultimate reality in which the simulation exists.
TzubakiZanjuro 1 year ago
@TheJackelantern Your writing is very hard to understand, but from what I gather you have a problem with non-material. I can tell you material is a much bigger problem than the material.
shilohwillcome 1 year ago
chalmer you are fucking basterd ,embrass physicalism otherwise i will fuck your wife
Kedarkk25 1 year ago
@Kedarkk25 AHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH
Xenophanes21 1 year ago
The Hard problem is solved by mental addiction.. Emotions, feelings, ectra are just behavior physical phenomenal patterns that swing on a pendulum like everything esle does.. This pendulum is represented by positive, negative, and neutral selection, behavior, reaction, or response to any given observation of self or stimuli to self and environment .
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
Human mind processes information in abstract, probability, and possibility.. This means any reaction to stimuli can be neutral, negative, or positive on a various levels depending on the abstract perceptual interpretation of information observed.
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
so all that is happening is the self-osculation and self-organizing natural tributes of energy achieve a neuro structure complex enough to to process other information including self.. This is where self-osculation and self-organization gives rise to self-directed cognitive dynamics that can lead to consciousness.. Energy and information are 2 sides of the same coin.. And is the Universal set to all existence.
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
@TheJackelantern, Your logic is flawed when addressing Consciousness. You explaining without knowing it the phenomena of behavior, Emotions are physical, the broad term "Feelings" are subjective. The hard problem is not "mental addiction" as you so have put it, it's the inner-felt experience that arises from just seeing thing's like the color blue, or the smell of fish tacos etc... These are subjective and only i feel the result of said experiences.
AggressiveNarcissism 1 year ago
@AggressiveNarcissism
It wouldn't necessarily be all mental addiction, however I am fairly correct. Here is your hard problem, and this explains exactly why those who claim such things as non-material are wrong.. Consciousness or feelings can not be made of nothing. If they are without substance or material physicality, they essentially could not exist. Nothing can not be a literal person, place, or thing. Stating non-material is stating properties of nothing and non-existence.
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
Thus my logic is not flawed.. The entire sum total of all existence is essentially energy. Matter can convert to energy and energy can convert to matter. Even empty space is entirely comprised of energy or zero base energy. And this is because -1 energy is impossible, -1 spatial space is impossible, and non-existence is impossible to exist or have capacity to exist literally. Thus all consciousness is, is natural plausible attributes, properties, and patterns of energy.
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
So just because you can't easily explain consciousness, feelings, or emotions does not mean that they are magically non-material.. Hence, good luck feeling Love, hate, anger, or sadness without material physicality. There is a reason why you can physically feel emotions and why they are physical patterns.. You can not even so much as communicate or think without the energy to which makes up the total sum of the material physical world.
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
@TheJackelantern but hey, I don't thing we are ever going to achieve complex common ground on these matters. I recommend you googling 'NATURALISTIC PANPSYCHISM' and visint the two first links: panpsychism . com and Mind, Brain and the Quantum by Michael Lockwood. my views are similar to his views.
includao 1 year ago
@includao
you don't need to achieve complex common ground because regardless of how complex a system or a chaotic system of pattern are, they can never be made of nothing. Sorry, but trying to claim something is that of nothing is just completely nonsensical. We may never understand how consciousness, feelings, or things such as taste work, and this is because such chaotic systems to which the abstract emergence of pattern, property, behavior and attributes is impossible to predict.
jasonschoenecker 1 year ago
@jasonschoenecker
When we understand that consciousness is apart of our living bodies own energy metabolism to which is constantly in the process of creating itself, we might realize how unique we really are. Here energy equals all matter, space, and information. Energy is the only thing that can represent a Universal set of all sets, and the only thing that can solve infinite regress due to it's impossibility to not exist.
jasonschoenecker 1 year ago
@jasonschoenecker
So I will say this for the last time, Consciousness, thoughts,ideas, dreams, feelings, emotions, data, matter, information, or the very space that surrounds you can not be made of nothing ;) And that is the ultimate hard problem dualism can never resolve even if science can never fully understand how consciousness exactly works. Philosophy only gets you so far, and it can not magically make nothing into a literal person, place, or thing.
jasonschoenecker 1 year ago
@jasonschoenecker
To clarify, I accidentally posted under my nephews logged in account.. The above posts are from me the Jackelantern :)
TheJackelantern 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
Nevyfling 1 year ago
He looks like a rockstar not a philosopher.
MusicHypno 1 year ago
This guy interviewing him is an idiot! Do you're research!
Stoke4 1 year ago
"God: Hidden Science" - Google it!
byScrooby 1 year ago
so those that are in favor of dualism, let me break it down so that a kid can understand the idea. is everyone here to tell me that the mind is a magical energy that flows through the human material body? because.... honest to allah that's what dualism basically claims. you can word it up as much as you can but dualism and this man's arguments are absolute bullshit. this guy makes claims from a lack of evidence. i bet EVERYONE here that's in favor of dualism is a God-believer. can i get an Amen?
yongngu88 1 year ago
Amen Ra?
science is in the dark about consciousness for the same reason mathematicians are perplexed about making 7 layer cakes or philosophers can't explain the chemical properties of plutonium:
its just not their field...
is everyone just totally missing this?
if my field is science how can i expect to explain conscious?
get it?
by the same merit, if i try to understand consciousness (philosophy) how can i make scientific claims?
i think the entire "intellectual" community is forgetting this
BADSYNE 1 year ago
Science may or may not explain consciousness. But objective empiracle science must be pushed as far as possible, but if scientists don't take into account those who study consciousness from a 1st person perspective, than we will never solve this puzzle. If consciousness is not a 1st person subjective experience, than it is nothing. We have Chalmers to thank for waking us up to this fact.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
@BADSYNE
of course science is in the dark about consciousness, and maybe science will explain what it is in the future, but if you're a dualist, you're just telling me you already know what consciousness is, and you're contradicting yourself. if you're saying you don't know for sure what consciousness is and you'd LIKE TO THINK that its beyond the material world, then that's fine with me.
yongngu88 1 year ago
@yongngu88
Ya I see what ure saying. I dont think all dualists are like that. I would think there could be the science of consciousness, but I see no reason that it couldn't be
a.) fundamental
b.)non-physical
c.)I ran out of thing these lists dont work for me....eeek
But u see what I'm saying though right?
umrahsahab 1 year ago
@BADSYNE
I dont think they are forgetting it, I just dont think they are ready to admit it. It's kind of like how Newtonian Physicists were so sure that their method could explain everything....for a lack of a better analogy:)
umrahsahab 1 year ago
@umrahsahab
i agree,
Kuhn explains it nicely with the "paradigm shift"
but the requirements for studying consciousness and existence are not of a scientific or psychological nature because in all respects these 2 still fall under the broad subject of consciousness.
otherwise we go on shifting from one paradigm to its extreme opposite:
the earths flat, the earths round
leaches can cure pneumonia, leaches can't cure pneumonia
consciousness comes from matter, matter comes from consciousness
BADSYNE 1 year ago
@BADSYNE
It is like the swinging of the pendulum, only problem is that most people are always on opposite sides. There are a few people in the middle, that is the scary part. I think we need to be open to more possibilities without being an extremist.
umrahsahab 1 year ago
@umrahsahab well put
BADSYNE 1 year ago
Chalmers is an atheist, so I don't think he has a religious card to play here. And are you aware of the difference between substance dualism and property dualism? Gravity is an invisible force that is part and parcel of this universe, is it really a stretch to say the same might be true of consciousness in one way or another? Do you consider gravity to be magic? Like you I don't agree with Chalmers conclusions, but I don't think what he is saying is unreasonable.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
@flockofseagulls87
the difference with gravity is that we can make observations about how it works and try our best to make mathematical formulas on how it works; however, as far as i know, no one can say what gravity IS. when you say if its a stretch the same can be said about consciousness, its a matter of how a person takes it to mean.
yongngu88 1 year ago
We can also observe the effects of consciousness from a 1st person perspective (every conscious being is aware that he exists). We study the brain to see how it works. But none of this tells us that we can rule out the possibility that it is a fundamental physical property (which is what chalmers is telling us). I may not agree with Chalmers, but I believe a few "holy fuck" moments are headed our way before we have a full understanding of consciousness.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
@flockofseagulls87
my definition of consciousness is that it is a set of physiological reactions systemized by the brain that results in a mental and/or physical increase or decrease in positive feeling that originates from the interaction of the human senses with the universe (part 1)
yongngu88 1 year ago
Interesting views. I agree that consciousness ultimately depends on the physical. However, we're a long way from proving this and I have yet to see a sound explanation of why this must be true. We have only scratched the surface and it is best to remain agnostic and open minded to alternative possibilities, even if these possibilities are strange and insult our intellectual foundations.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
@flockofseagulls87
or it could even be that physical things ultimately depend on consciousness...just a thought:)
umrahsahab 1 year ago
@umrahsahab Who knows? Some western folk (myself included) might not like to hear it but that doesn't mean it isn't true. But we have to push the science as far as possible and we cannot just assume that it's an eternal mystery.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
@flockofseagulls87
I definitely see where you are coming from. But lets not assume that the physical is the only thing we can describe. I agree with you on pushing science, but I think that science need not always deal with things physical. I have no problem at all with reductionism, I just mean to say that perhaps what has worked so far will not keep working. Maybe we need to start describing things with not only mathematics, but some other known or unknown method. Just a thought:)
umrahsahab 1 year ago
@umrahsahab Our study of consciousness is in its infancy, so quite a bit is possible. Even those with the most mainstream materialistic views would be surprised if there wasn't at least one discovery that turns the scientific world upside down and forces us to reexamine at least some of our long held notions and concepts.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
@flockofseagulls87
(part 2)
where increase or decrease in mental and/or physical positive feeling is dependent on the interaction between one's cerebral physiological reactions and the set of physical reactions newly encountered by the brain that originates from the universe after having been received by the senses and systemized by the brain.
when i make this statement, i try not to seperate consciousness away from the material. my only irk is when consciousness goes beyond being material.
yongngu88 1 year ago
@flockofseagulls87
I used to consider myself theistic materialist/reductionist, thinking everything could be reduced (except for God). Now I am still theist but undecided in terms of monism or dualism. But in all honesty me being theist makes no difference in that. I wouldn't want to tell God how to make the world. Regardless I think it is admirable that we should be able to discuss this issue without chocking each other to death:) The way I see it it never hurts to be open minded. Take care.
umrahsahab 1 year ago
@umrahsahab It's always a pleasure to have a civil conversation. These days, conformity of opinion seems to be more valued than an open and honest discussion. The monist/dualist debate is not as clear cut as it is usually portrayed. People should ask themselves why they hold a particular opinion. They should put the motivations behind their views under scrutiny, and not ridicule an idea just because it is unpopular with contemporary intellectuals.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
@flockofseagulls87
nicely put. I also find that even if u are sure u are right about something having some humbleness goes really far. Ex: I f I ever debate with a creationist and tell them they are stupid for not believing in evolution, they will close their ears even though they know I am a Muslim. But if I kindly explain to them why evolution is such a strong theory and they dont need to be scared of it. There is a MUCH MUCH higher chance they will agree. Gentleness and a open mind excel!
umrahsahab 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The whole debate is unscientific, it's like debating the soul or god.
volunteersimplicity 1 year ago
@volunteersimplicity The role of philosophy is to raise the questions the big questions for science to answer.
drexelohio 1 year ago
lol my mental image of chalmers definitely does not match the person. wild wild hair.
mirabileamavi 1 year ago 5
@mirabileamavi Actually, his is ironically pretty neat here.
natedaug1 1 year ago
@mirabileamavi I used have wild hair but the problem with it is the increasd posibility of cathing head lice ;o(
greenelf12 1 year ago
The science of consciousness is simply consciousness looking at itself - which actually applies to all phenomena, or at least all sentient phenomena.
Expecting to find an object that is somehow separate from all other phenomena, something to explain everything (except itself) is a kind of madness.
WHO is the one looking? Is it merely an expectation? The eye cannot see the eye.
sucitreblig1 1 year ago
@sucitreblig1 lol nicely put. Do u think that maybe perhaps we might be able to learn about consciousness itself though? I dont know enough o say. I am just an "eye" could study itself.....you raise a good point. Let me know what you think?
umrahsahab 1 year ago
Where is the SEEING happening?
You cannot truly say that there is a POINT that is seeing. So it is ALL SEEING - ALL KNOWING.
That is Consciousness. Inexplicable and yet undeniable.
sucitreblig1 1 year ago
All concepts APPEAR in naked unadorned cognition.
How could any concept explain its own source without dissolving back into the source?
Understanding is silent and wordless.
All 'profound insights' are, in their immediacy, wordless. The mind then translates the experience into words.
AND, they all fail to be convincing - one believes and another does not believe.
There is only One Consciousness - it is the mind that divides and separate THAT which has never been divided.
sucitreblig1 1 year ago
Please check out my series of videos, "Solving the Mystery of Dualism".
Basically, I claim that what's prevented us from solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness (as well as Dualism) is our evolved epistemology.
Once we acknowledge how our evolved minds prefer to (incorrectly) think about this matter, it opens up a path to a solution.
Thanks
jeffkosmo 2 years ago
You could just as easily postulate that there is the easy and hard problem of physicalism. The easy problem would be to undertand the behaviour and relationships of everything physical. The hard problem would be questions like: what is an electron? what is space? what is energy? how do they emerge? how is it possible for them to exist? We don't seem perplexed by these questions.
scaryflakybiscuits 2 years ago
"We don't seem perplexed by these questions."
The Large Hadron Collider would like a word with you. As would quantum mechanics et al.
There are many perplexing questions in the physical realm.
chocomalk 2 years ago
But the perplexities that are being explored with the LHC correspond to the 'easy problem' above. They are exploring the structure of matter, just as cognitive science explores the structure of the mental world.
But relationships and patterns cannot exist on their own. They must be relations and patterns of some underlying 'stuff'. The nature of this 'stuff' is the 'hard problem'
Ubu987 2 years ago
Although I dont disagree with you, I think they are all trying to find the nature of "stuff".
The LHC is exploring interactions with energy as well, to find out the nature of this "stuff", I would not say at this point that the problem is an easy one for any party, the more they discover, the further in the dark they are it seems.
chocomalk 2 years ago
@scaryflakybiscuits
The difference is that people take electrons, space, energy to be fundamental. People are less inclined to take consciousness as fundamental. Some people even say consciousness does not exist.
otakurocklee 1 year ago
@scaryflakybiscuits
I wonder though if the hard problem of physicalism would end up being the same thing as the hard problem of consciousness. I am not saying that I know for sure, but it is a possibility right? Maybe.....perhaps...lol
umrahsahab 1 year ago
Search for John Searle speaking on consciousness - compare and contrast. I'm not insisting that one is right and the other wrong. I just think it's important to get different views. Searle is one of the better ones. Dennet is a bit radical for me though and far more radical than he lets on.
1noen1 2 years ago
Evidence of a consciousness or soul was fond in experiments by Dr. Duncan MacDougall in 1906. New York Times, March 11, 1907, published an article, Soul Has Weight. The article shows evidence of a soul leaving the body upon death.
GateMessenger 2 years ago
Comment removed
dan314159 2 years ago
hehe
dan314159 2 years ago
@GateMessenger blahblah
ATWTNAN 2 years ago
If soul has weight, it has mass, therefore it is physical. Therefore we would be able to extract a soul.
The weight loss is much more easily explained as gases released upon decay.
MRaverz 2 years ago
Read Daniel Kolak's 'I am You'. It explains A LOT.
alexxarian 2 years ago
The interviewer's pallid demeanour is somewhat distracting, even for Chalmers.
PancakeFlaunter 2 years ago
i hate that i care about this stuff it fucks my head in and depresses me
wwechamp7 2 years ago 2
haha same here.
REALSLIK 2 years ago
We will never understand everything but are designed to strive to know everything by nature and the deeper we look the further into the distance knowledge will race away from us! it just strikes me that we miss the point, the striving is important unto itself but i feel that our purpose is pure existence and every choice and direction that we can take is the important thing! think of looking at the night sky and seing just black nothing! we will always see a new thing drawing us endlessly!!!
marccas10 2 years ago
Absolute rubbish. Quantum mechanics. Consciousness unrelated. I think you guys are so far off the mark!
tomdehavas 2 years ago
writing a book with blinking takes a lot of time:D
delidani 2 years ago
To deny a causuality between brain and consciousness seems absurd. That is not to say that we do not experience consciousness subjectively, that qualia do not exist.
YouCouldGetBodied 2 years ago
The chaotic nature of quantum mechanics is considered chaotic because we don't yet understand its logical pattern. We deem it chaotic thusly.
Virginityrocks 2 years ago
People who think science can 'explain' conciousness haven't fully grasped what conciousness is. What possible sequence of words could an 'explanation of conciousness' take? If a scientist said "I've discovered what conciousness is; it's the interaction of these molecules with those molecules in the presence of this chemical." This still DOES NOT EXPLAIN what conciousness is.
1thousandways 2 years ago 20
I agree. However, science doesn't have to describe consciousness in purely physical/psychological terms. It takes a union between phenomenological understanding (perhaps a functional account) and a mature neuroscience.
Corestore16 2 years ago
@1thousandways
you are wrong. consciousness itself is an illusion that it is separate from the brain. this illusion is based on the fact that you're only listening to certain parts of your brain at any given time and you can switch to other parts of the brain. it's a neural network, the different chemicals performing different functions. the complexity of it is what makes consciousness, an emergent property. the more efficient the brain at working thoughts, the more consciousness.
Thrashaero 1 year ago
@1thousandways
also, if you know anything about evolution, or emergence in general..with its many concepts, and then know a bit about quantum physics, which of course includes a lot of math, the easier it is to picture what consciousness really is. but not so far as to think it is lifeless, but to see how powerful it can be by the power of adaptation in its own right, and multiplied when paired with other consciousnesses of diverse features.
Thrashaero 1 year ago
@1thousandways
People who think science can 'explain' life haven't fully grasped what life is.
What possible sequence of words could an 'explanation of life' take?
If a scientist said "I've discovered what life is; it's the interaction of these molecules with those molecules in the presence of this chemical." This still DOES NOT EXPLAIN what life is.
Someone probably made this argument once, too...
dashpowers22 1 year ago
@dashpowers22 Your post would actually be relevant if scientists knew how life began. But they don't; all they agree upon is the mechanical attributes. Anyway, Chalmers is currently the best philosopher of consciousness.
versus79 1 year ago
@versus79 And I suppose your post would be relevant if anyone were talking about abiogenesis. How life began is irrelevant to an understanding of how it works.
dashpowers22 1 year ago
@1thousandways Well, you contradicted yourself. You "grasp" what consciousness is but you can't explain it? I don't think so. Nobody said it would be explained in such a rudimentary form as you insist. "You can't solve a problem with the same kind of thinking you used to create it." - Albert Einstein.
pstlwhppd 1 year ago
@1thousandways Yeah thats the hard problem of consciousness... Which is what Chalmers is talking about
1234funsies 1 year ago
@1234funsies ... No, you simply don't understand.
1thousandways 1 year ago
@1thousandways Well it would be an explanation, but it would only function to the extent that it intends. Once they know that they will start developing genetic blockers, drugs, markers, comparing 'normal' vs 'abnormal' brains. I think this would be worthless asside from figuring out if other aimals have it. They are important questions for sure, but I agree in the end, it explains almost nothing useful to what the experience of human consciousness is, and its consequences.
Xenophanes21 1 year ago
@1thousandways well it explains it as well as we can. How can you explain God or Jesus or Mohammad or whoever you believe in? You can't! Because what ever words you say can't explain anything.
ApeShallNevaKillApe 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The fact that quantum processes take place in our brain and probably help it function has nothing to do with the billshit the idiots are pushing. The science he's talking about correation science is NOT REAL SCIENCE! Big surprise these retards have no idea what quantum physics and quantum mechanics really are.
ICANGO247 2 years ago
"I am willing to bet the guy can not solve a simple quantum problem"
Originally a Rhodes scholar working on a D. Phil. in mathematics, before becoming interested in philosophy - I'd take that bet.
TomBisque 2 years ago 11
So?
jonobrow 2 years ago
So saying the man can't do a simple QM problem is probably wrong.
Damn...
BullroarerHalaszle 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
With all this wording I am willing to bet the guy can not solve a simple quantum problem, it is mumbo jumbo like Depak Chopka, I hate psychologists and some neuroscientists :/
kubikmaster 2 years ago
Quantum mechanics is a problem in itself, regarding not the mathematical aspect, but the consequences of the theory in relation to human experience of the world.
Also note, taht you do not need to play soccer to understand the rules.
comicfan88 2 years ago
"Also note, that you do not need to play soccer to understand the rules."
True, simply the difference between knowledge-how, and, knowledge-that.
afieldy 2 years ago