David Chalmers on Consciousness

Another example of why mind-body dualism illustrates why I studied science and not philosophy. I sometimes think that some philosophers belong in caves, gazing at the flickering shadows of unfettered imagination on the wall. Joking aside, neurosurgeons and neurologists would be very unlikely to subscribe to the notion that the soul, mind, or consciousness exist independent of the processes of the physical mind. Evidence suggests that these are all experiential manifestations of brain activity.

David John Chalmers is an Australian philosopher specializing in the area of philosophy of mind.

In "The Conscious Mind" (1996), "Chalmers argues that all forms of physicalism (whether reductive or non-reductive) that have dominated modern philosophy and science fail to account for the existence (that is, presence in reality) of consciousness itself. He proposes an alternative dualistic view he calls naturalistic dualism (but which might also be characterized by more traditional formulations such as property dualism, neutral monism, or double-aspect theory)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory

"If I understand the basic idea, naturalistic dualism holds that consciousness:
- Is not a reducible phenomenon
- Cannot be explained in terms of function
- Is fundamentally different from anything physical or any function of anything physical, and is therefore a qualitatively different entity from anything else in the known universe

source: http://thinkingasaprofession.blogspot.com/2008/07/naturalistic-dualism.html


The term "hard problem of consciousness", coined by David Chalmers, refers to the difficult problem of explaining why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences. Chalmers contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he assumes that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Online papers on consciousness
http://consc.net/online

Closer to Truth PBS
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/#
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/resources/index.html


Blue Brain Project:
The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level.

The aim of the project, founded in May 2005 by the Brain and Mind Institute of the École Polytechnique in Lausanne, Switzerland, is to study the brain's architectural and functional principles ... Using a Blue Gene supercomputer running Michael Hines's NEURON software, the simulation does not consist simply of an artificial neural network, but involves a biologically realistic model of neurons. It is hoped that it will eventually shed light on the nature of consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project

This is a mirror of a video that was originally uploaded by LennyBound. Because his channel has two strikes, he has suggested that his videos be mirrored because he is concerned that his videos might be lost if his channel suffers another hit.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LennyBound

Neuroscience Neurophilosophy playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F625403703FA718A
Philosophy Mind playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6ECC9241093D7099

Category:

Education

Tags:

• David
• Chalmers
• Consciousness
• philosophy
• of
• mind
• naturalistic
• dualism

[infinityprodinc]

Consciousness is one of the hardest problems to explain and science has done a poor job explaining it. Science has shown what happens in the brain during certain responses. BUT there is no scientific explanation why we have our OWN interpretation to certain objects or situations. Its unique like a thumbprint. Thats why people say its hard to explain. Evolutionist even say that we never always had consciousness but it developed over time. This is also hard to explain.

[EvolvedAtheist]

@infinityprodinc

There is no denying that extremely complex processes are difficult to explain, particularly when they are not directly experimentally accessible. 10^14 neuronal interconnections with response times in the tens of millisecond range make the problem extremely challenging. If science cannot explain it, neuro-philosophers certainly never will. It is tautological that our experiences are individual. Evolutionists CAN trace the evolution of nervous systems.

[infinityprodinc]

@EvolvedAtheist You are getting a bit confused with explaining and proving. Neuro-philosophers can not prove it, they are just giving hypothetical explanations based on certain information. Science has done the same but they have not proved their hypothesis either. Hence, the debate.Also, evolutionist say we evolve due to a need that will help us in the end in our enviroment. BUT evolutionist CANT prove why we have consciousness because it doesnt help us, it could just as easily been reflexes.

[EvolvedAtheist]

@infinityprodinc

Where *exactly* did I mention "proof"? You are talking rot.

[LocustFurii]

Consciousness is further confounded by how there have been numerous case studies in the mind/body connection. Michael Talbot in his book "The Holographic Universe" brings up one in which an individual suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder. In one personality has a tumor the size of a grapefruit and in another does not. Transitioning from one personality to the next it completely vanishes and reappears.

[EvolvedAtheist]

@LocustFurii

There is abundant evidence that different identities in a patient with DID can manifest different perceptual/physiological responses (eg, changes in visual acuity, responses to medication, as well as changes in voice and motor coordination). However, switching between one identity and another does NOT alter the physical body in the way you describe: claims are NOT equivalent to documentation. Except to the credulous, of course.

[platermanone]

''There is more to consciousness than the physical process in the brain''. He said it and i don't buy it.

[EvolvedAtheist]

@cryptickripke

Please read the description again. I was hardly likely to be implying that a video in a *series* about neurophilosophers of consciousness indicates anything about YT commenters. They followed upon the series.

Please what I *actually* wrote in the comment that you are addressing. Changing what I *wrote* scarcely constitutes an argument; though it is, in principle, a far too common strategy.

'consciousness = brain process' is NOT equivalent to 'consciousness = illusory'.

[cryptickripke]

@EvolvedAtheist You said in the description that this video is "another example," so I took you to be talking about Chalmers, not about Plantinga or YT commenters. The question at hand is whether a conscious state--a feeling, a thought--is identical to a brain state. If it is, it's certainly not tautologically true. I'm confused as to what you actually think. On Dennett: he doesn't think there's a conscious process separate from a brain process, because he thinks conscious processes are illusory

[EvolvedAtheist]

2

... implies it in his "I am not equivalent to my body" argument. Self-interested rubbish, imo. Neither Plantinga nor I have minds independent of neural activity. Consciousness is not a brain-independent, supernatural property of the universe, as some theists long to believe.

Mental states *are* equivalent to brain states, but that statement is tautological. Our conscious *experience* is not one-to-one equivalent. Therein lies Chalmers' rub.