The Hard Problem: Illusions (3/3)

On these videos I explore what is called the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• hard
• problem
• consciousness
• chalmers
• earl
• mind

[manishmicrobe]

All through the discussion, u use too many words to explain a simple thing. Repeating the same with a thousand different examples helps nothing.

[SpiritualAtheist]

Perhaps you're right. But do you agree with the basic idea?

[Censeo]

The Carthesian dualism is by most discarded as nonsense today. Instead materialism has been popular. But how is this not as much nonsense? This makes mind physical, but what does that do to the meaning of something being physical. Clearly the word don't mean the conventional idea of what is physical... like objects and stuff.

[SpiritualAtheist]

What i was trying to establish in this video is just that the common sense assumption that physical things are objectively real is an illusion. It may have seemed like i was straying from that position when i argue that "thoughts and things are the same kind of stuff". In saying that i did not mean to imply that thoughts are physical. What they are exactly is something i will explore in the next video, which i hope to have out in the next few days. Thanks for watching!

[SixMillionDollarAcid]

What an interesting chanel! *subscribes*

[SpiritualAtheist]

Thank you!

[marsh8472]

sounds like a redefinition of what physical is but it's still physical. It just happens to be mostly nothing (since atoms are mostly nothing). I'd like to know how we can look at the brain or a piece of artificially intelligent software and prove that it has a conscious experience like a person.

[demrings]

You should watch the first video in this series again. There, he's explicitly denying ontological idealism. At least, that's what I interpret him saying.

I think he's very close indeed to Kant's position, only that Earl's equipped with some modern metaphors which makes the claims a lot more clear and charged with significance!

[meinonghitdatbong]

at least thats what i picked up. it also seems contradictory to use neuroscience as evidence for the huge role of subjectivity in our experiences. if your sort of idealism is true, there is no reason to suppose the brain or buzzing neurons exist in any 'objective' sense in the first place. thats my two cents. let me know watcha think

[meinonghitdatbong]

this is the mistake i think youve made so far. you can say that all we know of the external world is our subjective experiences (this is an epistemic claim). however, your conclusion is an ontological claim, that only the mentally actually exists. this is something to be extremely wary of i think. i cant help but think that a kantian conclusion is more sensical than a berkleyian one.

[TheDevilsAdvocate55]

Sounds like your rehashing Goswami's idea of monostic idealism.

[AfanassievIgor]

excuse my bad english.

there are atoms but there are no objects. There is indeed objective primary materia , but it is we are the one's who perceive objects out of this materia.

[JNdigital]

as though there is an objective source of experience, only all sentient beings perception of that source is filtered through their disposition; however, we must factor in the subjects participation in the creation of experience and manifested reality

[A51Zombie]

So are you saying that subjective consciousness is an illusion? I watched the videos a few times each, and I'm just trying to simplify a few ideas. I'm still new to a lot of this and I only have a very, very basic understanding of most things.