Science of Consciousness (David Chalmers)

An interview with David Chalmers discussing his theory of consciousness, the hard problem, and the explanatory gap.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• David
• Chalmers
• consciousness
• hard
• problem
• explanatory
• gap

[MrWillToPower]

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.

[jonesgerard]

@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.

[greenecountytornado]

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".

[trumasta333]

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 :)

[skatechildd]

talks to much with his hands

[gaurdian22]

Hmm, it will also be interesting to understand what unconsciousnous is too, that wavey world of the subconscious...

[Clearlight76]

Perhaps there is no single phenomenon of 'consciousness' for neural happening to be identical to.

[TheFoolisher]

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?

[cortesuprema]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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 ?