"(...) all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, (...) we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves." (Bill Hicks) - regarding that last theory about "a piece of consciousness being everywhere" :)
problem with the hard problem : as the easy problem encompassed all our behavior, it encompasses everything we say about consciousness too. So there is no hard problem after all since by solving the easy problem we will be able to understand everything we say about consciousness, and why we say these things. Chalmers himself saw this and called it t"the paradox of phenomenal judgement", though he's in denial bout its implications.
He's turned his attention to it recently and calls it the meta-problem of consciousness, he's very open to the fact that it's a tractable problem since it's one of the easy ones. It won't fully solve the hard problem as you think though...
@@kwastimus He gave a talk at Google about this (easy) meta-problem. But he seems to be himself confused or sloppy about it. He say the meta-problem is _to explain our beliefs about consciousness._ But that would be a _hard_ problem, since beliefs are mental states, and mental states are part of consciousness. The easy meta-problem is to explain _what we say_ (not what we believe!) about consciousness. What we say is a form of physical event, it consists of mouth movements for speech or finger movements for writing. Beliefs on the other hand are mental, and to explain them would require to solve the hard problem of consciousness.
@@cube2fox Explaining beliefs doesn't solve the hard problem. The hard problem isn't about all mental states, it's specifically about phenomenal states. A belief is a psychological state, explaining a belief is like explaining why the perception of pain makes one wince (this can be explained fully without saying anything about how pain feels and why it feels like anything at all). Solving the metaproblem will help with giving a definition of consciousness and maybe explain why we feel consciousness is puzzling, but it doesn't fully solve the hard problem unless you're an illusionist. There's so much confusion around Chalmers despite him being a pretty clear in his writing and talks.
@@kwastimus "Explaining beliefs doesn't solve the hard problem." - I didn't say it would solve the hard problem of consciousness. I said explaining the existence of beliefs _is a_ hard problem (an instance of _the_ hard problem), since beliefs are mental states. Any explanation must entail the existence of what it explains. "The hard problem isn't about mental states, it is specifically about phenomenal states." - No, a zombie is conceivable which would have no mental states at all, which includes not having beliefs (and desires, hopes, intentions, fears etc). Maybe you are confusing brain states with mental states. A zombie has brain states, but not mental states. The brain contains neurons, not beliefs. "Solving the meta-problem ... doesn't fully solve the hard problem" - Exactly, because the easy meta-problem is just to explain why we show physical behavior which consists in utterances about mental states and the hard problem (mouth and hand movements). It can only explain why we talk about consciousness because zombies also talk about consciousness. Distinguishing zombies from non-zombies is the hard problem.
Chalmers' thinking is both insightful and imaginative. But just to be a little deflationary I think his hair was definitely better before (I'm sorry, it is hard to ignore it).
this is so indian philosophy guys, these are the exact thoughts the sages had when they tried to explained what is the "real you". which can be said that is the consciousness of a person. they told that it is a fundamental thing in this universe which is why everything is connected to everything and as a human we have to expand our awareness(consciousness) though entire universe by the methods of Yoga(a sanskrit word which means "to unite" or "a process of unification". which means unify yourself with the universe). Indian philosphers alos agreed to these facts.
Be yourself with yourself through meditation!Exist alone in the moment deeply into the self control of your body/mind be the connection between the physical and the awareness of your existence!
Personally I believe conciousness is an emergent behaviour from the neurological processes of the brain. In other words it's a category of emergent behaviours and there are many other emergent behaviours of complex systems, such as evolution which is an emergent behaviour of biology. Panpsychism seems to me to be flipping this around and using the term conciousness to refer to all emergent behaviours of everything that has behaviour (i.e. that exists). So I think it might have some value if it gets people thinking about emergent behaviours, but using the term conciousness for that is assuming a result. By using a specific term to refer to a general category it's pre-loading the terms of the inquiry.
Imagine that IIT could actually quantify/measure the contents of consciousness (what Tononi refers to as 'Phi', a measure of integrated information). It still does nothing to address what Chalmers refers to as 'the hard problem'. Let us assume that you have quantified consciousness (and that is a big assumption), what does it tell me about my EXPERIENCE of that known quantity. If you assign a number to qualia, it says nothing of my experience of that qualia. That is the hard problem, and IIT does nothing to bridge that gap.
mastertheillusion Sorry, how do you know that voodoo doesn't have some validity at some level of consciousness. It appears that this topic is beyond the scope of your simplistic skeptical bias.
Roy S "It appears that this topic is beyond the scope of your simplistic skeptical bias." Very true. Skepticism makes everything so simple exactly because we refuse to believe anything that cannot be proven. It means not trusting things unnecessarily. Especially if you hear an idea that can neither be proven nor tested, just try to ignore it because you can never even begin to trust it and so it is useless even if true. _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ contains as much useful information as Chalmers' crazy ideas, and we've no particular reason to expect one to be closer to the truth than the other. We can no more establish or refute the existence of Narnia than we can establish the existence of panpsychism. Let's keep things simple and call them both fantasies.
+Neil McIntosh Hameroff is an idiot who can't even get relatively basic physics correct. See HERE where he completely screws up half a century of known stimulated radiation emission physics: nonlocal.com/hbar/superradiance.html The FIRST thing any physicist learns is that photons are emitted when an electron drops from an energized state back to its inherent ground state. That the amount of energy that emitted photon possesses is equal to the change in state of the electron that emitted it. This is the reason we "pump" lasing mediums. To excite electrons above their inherent ground state so they can be "coaxed" into emitting photons of a particular wavelength. Yet Hameroff babbles about coherent photons being created from "the lowest rotational energy state". Which is precisely the state in which an electron CANNOT emit a photon. WTF??? And, of course, Hameroff and his old BFF Penrose rely upon the absurd concept that Order arises out of Disorder. Even Chaos theory demonstrates intricate sub-ordered phenomenon. If one so chooses, this exact premise is attributed to "Satan" in the christian bible. "From where did you come?". "I created myself". At least one intelligent thing has come out of Penrose's decades of scientific participation. He had a student, George Sparling, who finally caught on that there are multiple Temporal dimensions.
Good afternoon Sir. I am Chuck Struse Sr. Please you tube ...captivus brevis... a new theoretical theory... this is a short 2 minute video I made. I would like to engage in a discussion with you if possible. My thoughts go much further than just this short 2 minute video. I hope you will find this interesting and very far reaching. Thank you so very much for your kindness, respectfully...Chuck...
The way the philosophers have been goofing around in the field of consciousness has in no way increased our knowledge about the subject. On the other hand, the scientists who look into the neural correlates of consciousness with various imaging methods and meticulously designed studies, have made tremendous progress. It can very well be that people have been asking the wrong questions from the beginning, bound as we are to our subjective reality. Where are the philosophers of today? Why are we not getting any deep insights about what is going on in the world right now, what are the conflictual world views and how they could be settled? Is the best they can do just word soup?
+Martti Suomivuori You seem to have an interesting twist on philosophy. On knowledge: Heard of the renaissance and Aristotle and the relationship between the two? Without them, what would we be today? On world conflicts, do the scientists mange to solve these? If so, how?
Consciousness is software, with many layers of languages and algorithms. So, trying to understand it by looking at the hardware, the brain, seems pretty pointless. Consciousness is as special as Windows 10.
Yes I agree. Lets say consciousness is the RAM. So when we are awake, it accesses those parts of the software/memories it needs to make the right decisions at any given moment.
Ben Jamin' Making decisions, thought processes, and short term memories are still not what we call "qualia" or conscious experience. They are not the same thing. Short term memory would be the best equivalence to RAM however. While long term memory would be HDD.
That would depend on the amount and nature of the data it is accessing. I guess the difference between a computer and the brain is the way the various algorithms and data are interconnected. It's perhaps this interconnectedness the gives rise to qualia.
Ben Jamin' I personally disagree with that. The human brain can process information while we are asleep, while we have no experience. The very "nature" of qualia is quite a strange one. Qualia emerging out of any processing in general is quite absurd, as it is something so unpredictable and something so non objective. David Chalmers talked about this "weak emergence" and "strong emergence".
just so you know, that black jacket dr. chalmers is wearing is his favourite jacket..he wears this jacket all the time.
I really like his approach.
Chalmers is a rockstar!
This is excellent
Thank you
Chalmers is one of the best
"(...) all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, (...) we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves." (Bill Hicks) - regarding that last theory about "a piece of consciousness being everywhere" :)
David is the man! 😄
David cut his hair!
+David Walsh and his beard
Maria elena
Maria elena
Maria elena what sex
Maria elena what sex
problem with the hard problem : as the easy problem encompassed all our behavior, it encompasses everything we say about consciousness too. So there is no hard problem after all since by solving the easy problem we will be able to understand everything we say about consciousness, and why we say these things. Chalmers himself saw this and called it t"the paradox of phenomenal judgement", though he's in denial bout its implications.
A solution to the easy problem only encompasses what we say about consciousness, but not what we think about consciousness. Big difference.
He's turned his attention to it recently and calls it the meta-problem of consciousness, he's very open to the fact that it's a tractable problem since it's one of the easy ones. It won't fully solve the hard problem as you think though...
@@kwastimus He gave a talk at Google about this (easy) meta-problem. But he seems to be himself confused or sloppy about it. He say the meta-problem is _to explain our beliefs about consciousness._ But that would be a _hard_ problem, since beliefs are mental states, and mental states are part of consciousness. The easy meta-problem is to explain _what we say_ (not what we believe!) about consciousness. What we say is a form of physical event, it consists of mouth movements for speech or finger movements for writing. Beliefs on the other hand are mental, and to explain them would require to solve the hard problem of consciousness.
@@cube2fox Explaining beliefs doesn't solve the hard problem. The hard problem isn't about all mental states, it's specifically about phenomenal states. A belief is a psychological state, explaining a belief is like explaining why the perception of pain makes one wince (this can be explained fully without saying anything about how pain feels and why it feels like anything at all). Solving the metaproblem will help with giving a definition of consciousness and maybe explain why we feel consciousness is puzzling, but it doesn't fully solve the hard problem unless you're an illusionist. There's so much confusion around Chalmers despite him being a pretty clear in his writing and talks.
@@kwastimus "Explaining beliefs doesn't solve the hard problem." - I didn't say it would solve the hard problem of consciousness. I said explaining the existence of beliefs _is a_ hard problem (an instance of _the_ hard problem), since beliefs are mental states. Any explanation must entail the existence of what it explains.
"The hard problem isn't about mental states, it is specifically about phenomenal states." - No, a zombie is conceivable which would have no mental states at all, which includes not having beliefs (and desires, hopes, intentions, fears etc). Maybe you are confusing brain states with mental states. A zombie has brain states, but not mental states. The brain contains neurons, not beliefs.
"Solving the meta-problem ... doesn't fully solve the hard problem" - Exactly, because the easy meta-problem is just to explain why we show physical behavior which consists in utterances about mental states and the hard problem (mouth and hand movements). It can only explain why we talk about consciousness because zombies also talk about consciousness. Distinguishing zombies from non-zombies is the hard problem.
Chalmers' thinking is both insightful and imaginative. But just to be a little deflationary I think his hair was definitely better before (I'm sorry, it is hard to ignore it).
During neural correlates of conscious experience, is there one neuron that correlates, or a network of neurons?
Could you state the date the video was recorded ?
look at "List of Closer to Truth episodes" in Wikipedia and see the various times he was interviewed -- it's one of those 3 or 4 episodes
Can the first person subjective data in brain be correlated with energy of neurons?
I want to hear more about the pants psychist approach to consciousness. It is true I feel more (self) conscious when not wearing pants in public.
have the phenomenologists not been interested in this for over 100 years?
+couldbeblue They have certainly been, and it's not solved yet - neuroscience is there to help us though.
N.B. Husserl is not out of date!
this is so indian philosophy guys, these are the exact thoughts the sages had when they tried to explained what is the "real you". which can be said that is the consciousness of a person. they told that it is a fundamental thing in this universe which is why everything is connected to everything and as a human we have to expand our awareness(consciousness) though entire universe by the methods of Yoga(a sanskrit word which means "to unite" or "a process of unification". which means unify yourself with the universe). Indian philosphers alos agreed to these facts.
Be yourself with yourself through meditation!Exist alone in the moment deeply into the self control of your body/mind be the connection between the physical and the awareness of your existence!
"Everybody recognizes the hard problem"
One look at the comment section under any Chalmers video, and that line seems like a bad joke
Sturer 111 everybody who studies consciousness seriously have to deal with hard problem. Not so much any random on the Internet.
He wears that fucking jacket 24/7
Seriously and in Tucson Arizona no less, Dear God!!!
This is not the Chalmers that I used to love. His philosophical ability is directly proportional to the length of his hair.
Personally I believe conciousness is an emergent behaviour from the neurological processes of the brain. In other words it's a category of emergent behaviours and there are many other emergent behaviours of complex systems, such as evolution which is an emergent behaviour of biology. Panpsychism seems to me to be flipping this around and using the term conciousness to refer to all emergent behaviours of everything that has behaviour (i.e. that exists). So I think it might have some value if it gets people thinking about emergent behaviours, but using the term conciousness for that is assuming a result. By using a specific term to refer to a general category it's pre-loading the terms of the inquiry.
Just listen to Rupert Spira. We are aware that we are aware. There is nothing but consciousness.
emergent property is just another word for magic
You didn't even make sense "evolution is an emergent property of biology" yeah sure bud
@@estring123eggggzactly
Only consciousness is fundamental, Consciousness is the computer
Consciousness and superconsciousness are not equals and carelessly disrespect in the facility of learning.
*Integrated Information Theory! Quantified, measurable qualia.*
Another crazy idea is *_New Realism._*
Imagine that IIT could actually quantify/measure the contents of consciousness (what Tononi refers to as 'Phi', a measure of integrated information). It still does nothing to address what Chalmers refers to as 'the hard problem'. Let us assume that you have quantified consciousness (and that is a big assumption), what does it tell me about my EXPERIENCE of that known quantity. If you assign a number to qualia, it says nothing of my experience of that qualia. That is the hard problem, and IIT does nothing to bridge that gap.
IIT addresses the easy problem.
It just hit me: Lisa Randall and David Chalmers share the same distinct cadence in their speech.
Yeah, but the difference is that Lisa Randall solves problems
Lisa has more of it than him
Consciousness evolved from the Planck scale? More complexity = higher consciousness?
tigno323 all of which is pure speculation. Might as well be talking about voodoo at this point heh
mastertheillusion Sorry, how do you know that voodoo doesn't have some validity at some level of consciousness. It appears that this topic is beyond the scope of your simplistic skeptical bias.
Roy S "It appears that this topic is beyond the scope of your simplistic skeptical bias."
Very true. Skepticism makes everything so simple exactly because we refuse to believe anything that cannot be proven. It means not trusting things unnecessarily. Especially if you hear an idea that can neither be proven nor tested, just try to ignore it because you can never even begin to trust it and so it is useless even if true.
_The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ contains as much useful information as Chalmers' crazy ideas, and we've no particular reason to expect one to be closer to the truth than the other. We can no more establish or refute the existence of Narnia than we can establish the existence of panpsychism. Let's keep things simple and call them both fantasies.
+tigno323 right thats what stuart hammeroff reckons too
+Neil McIntosh Hameroff is an idiot who can't even get relatively basic physics correct. See HERE where he completely screws up half a century of known stimulated radiation emission physics:
nonlocal.com/hbar/superradiance.html
The FIRST thing any physicist learns is that photons are emitted when an electron drops from an energized state back to its inherent ground state. That the amount of energy that emitted photon possesses is equal to the change in state of the electron that emitted it. This is the reason we "pump" lasing mediums. To excite electrons above their inherent ground state so they can be "coaxed" into emitting photons of a particular wavelength. Yet Hameroff babbles about coherent photons being created from "the lowest rotational energy state". Which is precisely the state in which an electron CANNOT emit a photon. WTF???
And, of course, Hameroff and his old BFF Penrose rely upon the absurd concept that Order arises out of Disorder. Even Chaos theory demonstrates intricate sub-ordered phenomenon. If one so chooses, this exact premise is attributed to "Satan" in the christian bible. "From where did you come?". "I created myself".
At least one intelligent thing has come out of Penrose's decades of scientific participation. He had a student, George Sparling, who finally caught on that there are multiple Temporal dimensions.
Chalmers the morosoph!
Good afternoon Sir. I am Chuck Struse Sr. Please you tube ...captivus brevis... a new theoretical theory... this is a short 2 minute video I made. I would like to engage in a discussion with you if possible. My thoughts go much further than just this short 2 minute video. I hope you will find this interesting and very far reaching. Thank you so very much for your kindness, respectfully...Chuck...
If Einstein and Gandhi had a son...
Are you kidding me? He was a racist and hate monger against native Africans and others. Read "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity"
Wow.... you are seriously clueless. Chalmers from Einstein... you need to read more
He looks a lot more respectable without all that crazed hair.
But less bohemian without it:)
More like a scientist/philosopher.
Plato, Plato, PLATO.
This is embarrassing.
I miss the hair...
David's blinking frequency is so low that it feels like he is high or trying to seduce the interviewer.
Damn he cleaned up
David combed his hair.
The way the philosophers have been goofing around in the field of consciousness has in no way increased our knowledge about the subject. On the other hand, the scientists who look into the neural correlates of consciousness with various imaging methods and meticulously designed studies, have made tremendous progress. It can very well be that people have been asking the wrong questions from the beginning, bound as we are to our subjective reality.
Where are the philosophers of today?
Why are we not getting any deep insights about what is going on in the world right now, what are the conflictual world views and how they could be settled? Is the best they can do just word soup?
+Martti Suomivuori You seem to have an interesting twist on philosophy.
On knowledge: Heard of the renaissance and Aristotle and the relationship between the two? Without them, what would we be today?
On world conflicts, do the scientists mange to solve these? If so, how?
It’s all nonsense and it will be exposed as such.
Two words: category mistake
+vincentmack37 Why and how so?
Chalmers is a mystic. A jewish mystic.
Consciousness is software, with many layers of languages and algorithms. So, trying to understand it by looking at the hardware, the brain, seems pretty pointless.
Consciousness is as special as Windows 10.
software would be the thoughts, feelings, emotions, and memories. But "conscious experience" or "qualia" is neither software nor hardware.
Yes I agree. Lets say consciousness is the RAM. So when we are awake, it accesses those parts of the software/memories it needs to make the right decisions at any given moment.
Ben Jamin' Making decisions, thought processes, and short term memories are still not what we call "qualia" or conscious experience. They are not the same thing.
Short term memory would be the best equivalence to RAM however. While long term memory would be HDD.
That would depend on the amount and nature of the data it is accessing. I guess the difference between a computer and the brain is the way the various algorithms and data are interconnected. It's perhaps this interconnectedness the gives rise to qualia.
Ben Jamin' I personally disagree with that. The human brain can process information while we are asleep, while we have no experience.
The very "nature" of qualia is quite a strange one. Qualia emerging out of any processing in general is quite absurd, as it is something so unpredictable and something so non objective. David Chalmers talked about this "weak emergence" and "strong emergence".
They too just get fatter and richer.
I wonder what this guy smokes.