David Chalmers on "Thinking Allowed" with Jeffrey Mishlove

NOTE: This is an excerpt from the two-part, 60-minute DVD.
http://www.thinkingallowed.com/2dchalmers.html

Original Upload: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4SLOr2icnY
Original Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThinkingAllowedTV

Philosopher David Chalmers points out that most modern attempts to explain consciousness fail to address the fundamental problem of subjective experience (i.e. what it is like to be conscious). He argues for a "naturalistic dualism" in which non-physical consciousness is viewed as a fundamental aspect of nature.

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

David Chalmers is a leading thinker in contemporary philosophy of mind. He is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Consciousness at Australian National University.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• David Chalmers
• Consciousness
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophical Zombies
• Physicalism
• Property Dualism
• Hard Problem
• Qualia

[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.

[zencat01]

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

"The Character of Consciousness"

[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]

@CosmicThinking necessarily*

[CosmicThinking]

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

[skvfighter]

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

[JonathanM00r3]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[AtheistCitizen]

not paradox, but irony...perhaps

[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.

[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]

@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?

[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.