David Chalmers on "Thinking Allowed" with Jeffrey Mishlove

[grisgrisy]

love the video really good

[distractionxx]

you have some great stuff here

[shoppittsburghnow]

Very enjoyable thank you

[hottbaguettestube]

I'm sorry but, what does he say from 01:10 to 01:13. I can't understand it.

[zatoichiable]

I thought he was dave mustain of megadeth.

[gamerunknown]

Wilhelm Wundt too

[rockandoroll]

hes marking my essay question tommorrow. looks like an easy marker :)

[CosmicThinking]

I don't necissarily agree with Chalmers but I like hearing him talk about consciousness, he seems excited when he does ha.

[CosmicThinking]

@CosmicThinking necessarily* 

[skvfighter]

WHY IS IT THAT I SEE TWO FACIAL PROFILES IN BLACK FACE ABOVE THE COFFEE TABLE?

[theprophet20]

Great hairstyle, if I may be superficial! I haven't studied his theory however.

[LennyBound]

@ToldCurkey My guess is sometime around 1996, which would make Chalmers around 30 at the time.

[zencat01]

Chalmers has a new book to be released October 28th:

"The Character of Consciousness"

[AtheistCitizen]

not paradox, but irony...perhaps

[AutodidacticPhd]

As far as I'm concerned, he tips his hand at 3:45. He can't accept that what he calls consciousness can be explained, ie he is too fixated on it being a miracle to accept anything else. I have yet to see him give ANY reason why consciousness can't be an emergent property of a complex system. The feeling of hotness will be understood in due time as we work our way through the system and come to understand its parts and their interactions.

Anyone else think he looks like Elijah Wood's Frodo?

[AutodidacticPhd]

...I especially love the bit at the end where he casually glosses over the opinions of people who suggest that the problem can be addressed scientifically, but we haven't yet laid all the groundwork. I guess he also assumes that Euclid could have discovered Calculus if he had just faced the question of continuity.

[kpirooz92]

If anyone wants to know why Chalmers is wrong, read his book.

He introduces an objection called "the paradox of phenomenal judgment", then goes on to say, that it is an accurate objection according to any plausible epistemological theory, but says that it would not apply to consciousness because we need a new epistemology for consciousness (and gives no argument as to why or how).

His own book proves his views are logically inconsistent.

[bulletforthetrooper]

it's dave mustaine!

[Nades129]

As Douglas Hofstadter has written: how is it that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter.

[renumeratedfrog]

Whoa, he looks so young all of a sudden... Could be a guitarist for a heavy metal band.

[KohrAh]

What about emergence? Ever heard of that? Seems to me the problem of consciousness is the same problem of snowflake forming and it's not a problem at all. Like fractals, endless repetition produces unexpected complex results. I really can't grasp what all that fuss is about, please explain what exactly is there a problem.

Thank you.

[badblueman]

@KohrAh The fuss is about the limits of this consciousness. Does it exist only human brains? Is it limited by self-awareness... or do bees experience qualia? Does consciousness emerge, for example, in a glass of water when there is sort of information transfer etc. I mean it would be rather interesting to find out if possible, no?

[RyRyVids]

@badblueman Just In water... probably not, but maybe in the Earth as a whole organism. After all, we do see electro chemical systems in our atmosphere. And we know electricity can carry information.

[badblueman]

@RyRyVids Everything to do with chemistry is "electro chemical" that's the point I was making. If random electrostatic interaction between the electrons in water represents "pure information" like we see in our brains, then why not presume some sort of consciousness can emerge from time to time...or all the time in different ways. In water as a simple example. Regarding the other fundamental forces, it's debatable. But still, if emergence is the key it might not have such limits.

[GuillermsII]

@KohrAh

The difference is that we can fully account for the structure of a snowflake by referring to its smaller components. We know exactly what happens. While consciousness might emerge from the brain, no-one has thus far offered a comprehensive explanation as to why this might be so.

If you think that there is no problem it means that you haven't thought about it enough.

[GuillermsII]

@KohrAh

The difference is that we can fully account for the structure of a snowflake by referring to its smaller components. We know exactly what happens. While consciousness might emerge from the brain, no-one has thus far offered a comprehensive explanation as to why this might be so.

If you think that there is no problem it means that you haven't thought about it enough.

[daveme7]

If you do not know, it is fairly easy to figure out. Leave it to a soldier who got blown up in Iraq, it is fairly easy. When you are not sure, punch yourself in the face or in the throat, or just fight those whoare there but you are not able to see-punch them as hard as you can. Trust me, they will ;pump you full of drugs to help you sleep when in a coma.

[JAYDUBYAH29]

@gnomefro i mean searle's elegant solution that "consciousness is causally reducible but not ontologically reducible to the brain."

[jak1428]

nice mullet.

[JAYDUBYAH29]

there is no need for any dualism, naturalistic or otherwise... there is of course a difference between the biological causality and the experiential ontology of subjective experience. nonetheless consciousness is a product of biological complexity.

this anti-science rhetoric is silly.

sealre gets this right and chalmers is down a blind alley.

[JAYDUBYAH29]

@JAYDUBYAH29 the extremely uniqueness of the biological phenomenon of consciousness does not take it outside of the realm of biology - it just makes it a very complex and unique biological phenomenon. the uniqueness does not require a whole new category and teh dualism that supports it.

mind is what the brain does, just as sensations are what the nerves feel, vision is what the eye sees - no need to add anything..

[Gnomefro]

@JAYDUBYAH29 What do you mean by "Searle gets this right"? Personally I regard Searle as denying the only candidate we have for explanation - information theory, and not coming close to presenting an alternative. IMO, his chinese room argument must be an argument for dualism, regardless of how Searle attempts to deny this.

[Gnomefro]

@JAYDUBYAH29 There are many reasons for this, but the most obvious one is that we already know that information processing is a necessary part of consciousness because nerve signals have no sense qualities at all. They are simply electrical signals and must be interpreted by a reality model in order to construct any kind of intelligible representation of external reality. The simple answer is that brains implement that reality model by simulating/constructing a first person perspective.

[Gnomefro]

@JAYDUBYAH29 If that's true, and so far every single scientific result in brain research suggests it is(Because the parts of the brain that are understood all implement algorithms), then Searle's position is simply irrelevant to reality.

[renumeratedfrog]

@JAYDUBYAH29 Property dualism is actually a materialist monism. It just posits that this matter possesses a yet undiscovered property of consciousness.

[GuillermsII]

@renumeratedfrog

I agree, at least I think that that is the only way we can make sense of property dualism without it positing magic or miracles.

[WayOfTheBastard]

What do you think of Higher order thought theory Lenny? The kind argued by Carruthers. And holy shit is that a young David Chalmers.

[LennyBound]

@WayOfTheBastard I don't really know enough about it to comment one way or the other.

On a related note, I recently saw a talk by Jesse Prinz where he discussed his AIR (Attended Intermediate-level Representations) theory of consciousness. He briefly mentioned that he had an academic peer who had recently become enamored with HOT theories, and that, after hearing this, David Chalmers has taken to calling them the "HOT AIR Theorists." :-)

[WayOfTheBastard]

@LennyBound That's awesome! Even though I disagree with a lot of what Chalmers says, I love the hell out the guy. He even used to teach at my university.

On a side note, where the hell do you get all these videos?? Your channel is a treasure trove of videos I've no idea where else I could see.

[LennyBound]

@WayOfTheBastard I find all of them from just meandering around online. Most of the things I come across aren't any good, but every once in a while I find something worth saving, and so I re-upload it for others to see.

[JonathanM00r3]

@LennyBound Great video LennyBound! What do you think of Chalmers arguments? Are you a Property dualist?