As always, Elitzur's rationale is ingenious and impeccable. Is it any wonder that Chalmers goes quiet about it? In Elitzur's example, since Chalmers can think of a robot without feelings but the robot can't think of a robot that doesn't see toys, by definition, this means their confusions are different. If I had a paycheck and a following like Chalmers, I too would pretend I didn't hear this argument. Great job, Elitzur.
Agree or not (and I do), this is philosophy at its purest sense, the kind the ancient Greeks practiced. Not concerned with history for history's sake but with what we can say about the world, given what we (think) we know about it today.
Mr Elitzur, I think I might have come a bit further in this problem, as answer to Leibniz. Bergson said experience is time related. The problem is, everything experiences the same time according to newton (and Einstein similarly, says everything has a proper time, a fourth dimension of time), no matter a rock, a bird or a man. This is where panpsychism etc comes from: simultaneity, and the fact we have consciousness as humans (according to Descartes). My solution is to redefine time. If time is intimately related to consciousness, and you say things that don't experience time cannot be conscious, you are one step further to a future benchmark for consciousness. It happens to be I found a way to redefine time: adiabatic systems don't experience time, because they are cyclical, and isothermic objects experience time. And therefore, the conclusion is or must be, that only isothermic objects can have consciousness. I did not say *all*, but at least it's an objective minimum requirement, that separates the wheat from the chaff. Regards, Albert Jan
Whether we say qualitative or quantitative which is a subcategory of qualitative or quale; both are quale describing the massive collection of quale we call consciousness. Whether its circularity of reason or circulation of consciousness itself; its still circularity.
My god :) I thought about this problem with color :) I like to think and it cam to me question do we actually see same tone of color or even same color? We learn to associate objects with words. Now I have better word to use quality not tone :)
I find something lacking about Leibniz's example of going inside someone's brain and then saying that he himself will know less about his experience than "the windmill itself". Well you know some people that were blinded and went through an operation to restore their sight, have to relearn to interpret what their eyes see in a way that allows them to function. So I think there is very little doubt that in actuality all that exists are sense perceptions, be it physically neural impulses or something like that, and then on top of that there is an interpreting layer. So in exactly the same way Leibniz should have gone further and say, it would only take a bit more time to build the required apparatus that will be able to interpret all of the physical information inside of the windmill, and more importantly that no single interpretation is correct and valid. You know some people are masochist for example, so they interpret exactly the same common pain sensations in a very different way than most of us. We tend to re-interpret our past experiences all the time, so even after the fact what we call "experience" is not really a well defined thing. We only have memories and our interpretation of them change all through our lives...
3. How can you/ chalmers presume it to be q not p.. lines are blur .. bigger question for me is the difference between the known and the unknown.. the dimension of unknown is there for a reason.. God/quale himself is learning.. the theory that we will know will kill the unknown hence making the world incomplete ... Unknown is what makes reality complete..~a descendent of rama.
I see it could be interpreted that way, but also not as he says it kind of loops back to physicalism. More explicit version would be "matter is a product of mind or matter is in mind"
Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. This is common in physics: macroscopic systems can acquire laws of physics that do not exist at the microscopic level.
But we make the distinction between fundamental laws and emergent laws... that is, we tend to think there is a set of fundamental laws that are absolute, and the emergent laws may or may not arise depending on the particular system. So I think the question is really, whether consciousness has any place at the fundamental level of nature. After all, this is a macroscopic system that is making the statement that the capability to refer to itself and say "I am an emergent phenomenon" is an emergent phenomenon :) So it's not clear whether this system is really in a position to make that statement with full confidence. It can never be free of this "emergence", if it really exists, and say for certain whether consciousness is there in a more fundamental level. I think that's why the ultimate solution to this problem will remain elusive forever...
Claiming that emergent phenomenon have laws that cannot be determined from the fundamental laws is not agreed upon, and I'd argue most physicists are reductionist and would argue against your claim. Plenty of good content on closer to truth exploring this.
As always, Elitzur's rationale is ingenious and impeccable. Is it any wonder that Chalmers goes quiet about it? In Elitzur's example, since Chalmers can think of a robot without feelings but the robot can't think of a robot that doesn't see toys, by definition, this means their confusions are different. If I had a paycheck and a following like Chalmers, I too would pretend I didn't hear this argument. Great job, Elitzur.
Agree or not (and I do), this is philosophy at its purest sense, the kind the ancient Greeks practiced.
Not concerned with history for history's sake but with what we can say about the world, given what we (think) we know about it today.
Mr Elitzur, I think I might have come a bit further in this problem, as answer to Leibniz. Bergson said experience is time related. The problem is, everything experiences the same time according to newton (and Einstein similarly, says everything has a proper time, a fourth dimension of time), no matter a rock, a bird or a man. This is where panpsychism etc comes from: simultaneity, and the fact we have consciousness as humans (according to Descartes).
My solution is to redefine time. If time is intimately related to consciousness, and you say things that don't experience time cannot be conscious, you are one step further to a future benchmark for consciousness.
It happens to be I found a way to redefine time: adiabatic systems don't experience time, because they are cyclical, and isothermic objects experience time. And therefore, the conclusion is or must be, that only isothermic objects can have consciousness.
I did not say *all*, but at least it's an objective minimum requirement, that separates the wheat from the chaff.
Regards, Albert Jan
Whether we say qualitative or quantitative which is a subcategory of qualitative or quale; both are quale describing the massive collection of quale we call consciousness. Whether its circularity of reason or circulation of consciousness itself; its still circularity.
My god :) I thought about this problem with color :) I like to think and it cam to me question do we actually see same tone of color or even same color? We learn to associate objects with words. Now I have better word to use quality not tone :)
It's called "the inverted spectrum problem"
I find something lacking about Leibniz's example of going inside someone's brain and then saying that he himself will know less about his experience than "the windmill itself". Well you know some people that were blinded and went through an operation to restore their sight, have to relearn to interpret what their eyes see in a way that allows them to function. So I think there is very little doubt that in actuality all that exists are sense perceptions, be it physically neural impulses or something like that, and then on top of that there is an interpreting layer. So in exactly the same way Leibniz should have gone further and say, it would only take a bit more time to build the required apparatus that will be able to interpret all of the physical information inside of the windmill, and more importantly that no single interpretation is correct and valid. You know some people are masochist for example, so they interpret exactly the same common pain sensations in a very different way than most of us. We tend to re-interpret our past experiences all the time, so even after the fact what we call "experience" is not really a well defined thing. We only have memories and our interpretation of them change all through our lives...
The great mystery is the ‘experience’ and the ‘experiencer’ ! Which leads to the original mystery of ‘consciousness’!
3. How can you/ chalmers presume it to be q not p.. lines are blur .. bigger question for me is the difference between the known and the unknown.. the dimension of unknown is there for a reason.. God/quale himself is learning.. the theory that we will know will kill the unknown hence making the world incomplete ... Unknown is what makes reality complete..~a descendent of rama.
I am surprised that you didn't consider the possibility that matter exists within mind..
I think he states @20:18 as Identity Theory.
I see it could be interpreted that way, but also not as he says it kind of loops back to physicalism.
More explicit version would be "matter is a product of mind or matter is in mind"
@@itsalljustimages I agree. Another option could be (Hermetic principle) mentalism. (if you insist on an "ism":)
BULLSHIT this man has never done DMT consciouness it real .
Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. This is common in physics: macroscopic systems can acquire laws of physics that do not exist at the microscopic level.
But we make the distinction between fundamental laws and emergent laws... that is, we tend to think there is a set of fundamental laws that are absolute, and the emergent laws may or may not arise depending on the particular system. So I think the question is really, whether consciousness has any place at the fundamental level of nature. After all, this is a macroscopic system that is making the statement that the capability to refer to itself and say "I am an emergent phenomenon" is an emergent phenomenon :) So it's not clear whether this system is really in a position to make that statement with full confidence. It can never be free of this "emergence", if it really exists, and say for certain whether consciousness is there in a more fundamental level. I think that's why the ultimate solution to this problem will remain elusive forever...
Claiming that emergent phenomenon have laws that cannot be determined from the fundamental laws is not agreed upon, and I'd argue most physicists are reductionist and would argue against your claim.
Plenty of good content on closer to truth exploring this.
You just said absolutely nothing