David Chalmers - Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?

[@dhammaboy1203]

How can you not love a genius, Australian, philospher-scientist who looks like he played lead guitar in Metallica? 😂 Chalmers is one of my philospher heros! So clear in laying out the philosophical positions regarding conciouness! Rock n roll brother! 👊🏻✌🏻⚡️⚡️

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Yes. I've seen scientists go after him for being abundantly clear about scientific failure. A regler sokratease!

[@jimimased1894]

yes but it is a wig

[@Greco-Romano]

you mean Spinal Tap 😂😂

[@brucecmoore2881]

Genius! This is all, Bullshit! Two Idiots are revealed in this clumsy discussion.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

@@brucecmoore2881 it is a bit clumsy....

[@JamesBS]

I was waiting for the final part on idealism, but the video ended!

[@cthoadmin7458]

This is one of the best you've ever done, but you cut it off! Too short! Consciousness is fascinating and Chalmers did a very good job of going through the current ideas, but too short!

[@NiteTrain345]

I think this video is part of an interview from a while back, there are other segments, IIRC. I saw a recent video of Chalmers, looked like he had cut the rockstar hair.

[@adabsurdum3314]

Yeah it's the rudiments of the problems

[@normaodenthal8009]

This is simply superb. Would love to see a discussion between David and Bernardo Kastrup; that would be a mind blowing experience in consciousness.

[@rooruffneck]

Same here. We know that David and Bernardo have had robust private conversations; it's time they make them public! :)

[@bradtexas377]

My mind would explode!!!!

[@normaodenthal8009]

@@rooruffneck Totally agree! Hope it happens.

[@normaodenthal8009]

@@bradtexas377 Fantastic fireworks expanding the mind. Hope that discussion happens.

[@gaiusbaltar7122]

Kastrup is complitly confused. He jumped from materialism to idealism just to avoid the "hard problem", but the hard problem always remains, even if you try to eliminate one part of it like he does without recognizing it. At least, he is less incoherent than materialists.

[@PabloVestory]

It always amazes me how many materialist scientists usually dismiss any hint of spirituality, trascendance, purpose, etc. as mysticism, magical thinking, wishful thinking, uncientific, unprobable and such... and then they declare so easily something like : "conscious experience EMERGES from the brain..." or so, and that's it. in wich way to say that differs from saying "conscious experience appears MAGICALLY...out of the blue..."?? both statements aport exactly the same information: zero. What the h... is TO EMERGE? To say "we have absolutely no clue about how is that happening" wold give a litle bit more info

[@bobs182]

Consciousness/mind and brain are 2 aspects of the same thing that are perceived by 2 different types of senses which makes them seem independent. The term emergent is only used to say that minds/consciousness are dependent on brains. Many things that alter the brain alter the mind and surgical anesthesia makes the mind/consciousness disappear. Minds and brains are so starkly different that describing one in terms of the other doesn't work so it isn't necessary to describe minds using terms that describe brains. Experiencing them differently doesn't take anything away from the experience of either.

[@rockprime1136]

Who's to say that a patient suffering from some brain disorder or damage is not fully conscious from within. All we have to go on are outward signs. Patients who are suffering from locked-in syndrome are the closest we have who are almost fully conscious but look comatose to the untrained eye. It's like a driver operating a defective vehicle. The driver is trying to go straight but is unable to. Still, the driver still intends and wants to go straight. Also, even if the vehicle is operating normally, one would not say that the driver is an emergent property of the vehicle. Maybe it's the same with those patients.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@@bobs182 Consciousness comes back from anesthesia. The only thing it does not return from is death, in most cases, although some who have passed on have been seen between waking and sleeping, the space between, where dimensions meet, when the not dead want to communicate with someone they were very close to. They have been numerous reports of this and many have experienced it. The so-called dead person may address a current problem showing that not only are they not dead they are aware of what is happening in this dimension. Consciousness is absolutely fundamental. Mind on the other hand is material and it emerges with quantum events.

[@bobs182]

@@ALavin-en1kr If consciousness is immaterial, how does material anesthesia affect it?

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@@bobs182 It affects consciousness as the mind is affected, therefore the mode that consciousness expresses through is temporarily inoperative. When the anesthesia wears off consciousness expresses again. The same with sleep consciousness is not extinguished in sleep, its mode of expression is temporarily inactive. We do recall if we slept well, had dreams, or dreamless sleep, so consciousness was still active. After anesthesia may be a blank because anesthesia dulls the mind to a greater extent than sleep does.

[@craigroaring]

I'm fascinated by the idea that matter is completely featureless and our minds give the matter features and qualities.

[@DJWESG1]

Enough to make clevages and capital.

[@danielmcgregor8803]

Really enjoyed this one. Thanks!

[@jonnyjay3222]

“Consciousness is an illusion” is one of the most ridiculous statements some of these thinkers would say. in fact it’s the only think we can be sure about.

[@juanchopadilla96]

What is being eluded?

[@clarion1571]

Who is perceiving the illusion?

[@blackieblack]

It's really interesting to see materialists squirm when confronted with the possibility that their worldview is inaccurate. It's one thing to see a person confronting a new idea, or adjust to the possibility of realities they haven't considered. It's entirely something else to watch someone processing something they DON'T WANT to believe.

[@pug9431]

I believe it's because materialism has such radical implications about how life works that the intellectually consistant materialist bases their whole identity and approach to life on said beliefs. For me, its much more important to engage with life how it behaves independently of theoretical conclusions based on inevitably incomplete observations. We most certainly do have a large degree of agency and choice in our lives that blatantly contradicts the most life-negating materialist conclusions.

[@con.troller4183]

What's more interesting is when crypto-theists pretend that a disagreement within science is a win for god and superstition.

[@pug9431]

@@con.troller4183 Low tier strawman but go off

[@con.troller4183]

@@pug9431 Not a strawman but a perfectly logical implication of characterizing the supposed reaction of materialists as "squirming". As if they knew they were wrong but simply refused to accept the obvious. But please outline a non-theistic hypothesis for a preexisting consciousness as the foundation of the universe. Or even a model where material and non material existence co-evolved. "... life-negating materialist conclusions." Straw-man, your name is _pug._

[@pug9431]

@@con.troller4183 Please notice how your responses are precisely characterized by the first gentleman's description as "squirming." You're not here to have a friendly discussion about ideas and the nature of the universe, you're here to assert that you're right and we are wrong. Your approach is to demean and deligitimize-you're not fooling anyone.

[@ArjunLSen]

Thanks

[@michaelmckinney7240]

Mr Chalmers is exactly right. Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. This explains how matter can self organize into ever greater levels of complexity. It explains how a heart cell beating independently on a microscope slide is seen to coordinate it's beat when it touches another heart cell.

[@bobs182]

Complexity and heart beats are subconscious rather than conscious.

[@michaelmckinney7240]

@@bobs182 I couldn't agree more. What you're saying is a heart beat and indeed a vast array of metabolic activity takes place below the threshold of our direct awareness. Yes these things take place at a subconscious level and are automatic. This says very little. A distinction needs to be made between what you call being "conscious" of something and "consciousness" because they represent very different things. To say that I'm "conscious" of something is to say I have a direct and personal experience of being aware that this or that object or phenomenon is real. We cannot be conscious of something with out thinking about that something and this is based totally on cognition, Consciousness however is the back drop and supervening reality that makes cognition in the human brain possible. Consciousness can be likened to the palpable sense of expectation in a theater when the lights go out and every mind is receptive and as a result a heightened sense of consciousness is in that auditorium. Our brains don't produce consciousness. Instead they give us the capacity to experience consciousness through cognition which is a thing removed from that original consciousness. This notion of universal consciousness explains how matter in our cosmos self organizes in to evolved complexity. It also explains how two independent heart cells synchronize their beats when they touch on a microscope slide. They are an expression of universal consciousness.

[@michaelmckinney7240]

@@bobs182 Not true,

[@rasanmar18]

Fascinating approach to the nature of consciousness.

[@doloreslehmann8628]

Great, great, great! The only thing I was missing here was the approach of Donald Hoffman, who basically says that consciousness is a one-way-street in the other direction: Consciousness creates all that we assume to be the physical world, including spacetime and matter.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

He doesn't make the leap to consciousness "creating", rather that what we experience as reality is nothing at all like it appears to be. Bernardo is along the line that everything is mind, and I agree. With NDEs weighing in, and 5-MEO backing it up, anyone is able to experience firsthand the unfathomable nature of universal consciousness, and the horrendous illusion of "reality" that leaves one believing they are located in a body, on a planet, in a universe.

[@doloreslehmann8628]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 I agree with you, maybe I just worded it in a misleading way. I said that consciousness creates all that we ASSUME to be the physical world, so yes, that means it's all just an illusion.

[@TGMResearch]

Rather, the key thing that was missing.

[@BboyKeny]

Who knows maybe some people are actual NPCs making materialism true for some people.

[@pug9431]

@@BboyKeny You're an "NPC" to the extent that you allow unconcious processes and impulses to guide your behavior and choices

[@brendawilliams8062]

I like the ending about a perfect space. A two way street. Perfect

[@AmorLucisPhotography]

When I was a grad student I had the immense pleasure of sharing a post-talk dinner with David Chalmers (he was presenting his Matrix as Metaphysics paper). Lovely guy, and a great philosopher. He seemed to take a genuine interested in my research, bless him.

[@Nocturne83]

Where can I see the whole thing?

[@transcender5974]

The Vedas state that everything is an expression of consciousness knowing itself. The transcendent, non material, absolute field of pure consciousness through it's self referral dynamics creates all the notions that we experience in the "material" world.

[@dhammaboy1203]

Indeed! The schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, Advita Vedanta & classical yoga - all created profound philosophical systems that lead any adventurous person to verify these conclusions about the nature of reality for themselves!

[@Reno_Slim]

Where's the evidence for consciousness existing outside of physical material? As far as I'm aware of, no such evidence has ever been brought forth.

[@dhammaboy1203]

@@Reno_Slim this philosophical position of the Vedas is monoism - everything IS conciousness. The Western equivalent is panpsychism. Conciousness existing outside of conciouness is called dualism. Both positions are considered by modern neuroscientists to be serious contenders for describing “what is conciouness”. Although there seems to be more evidence supporting panpsychism and evidence against dualism. Which means the Vedas model logically follows as a possible model of reality. Refer to Chalmers, Goff, Hoffman etc to get insight into the various modern views pertaining to the nature of conciouness (whatever it is) Science is quantitative - it simply measures and predicts. Conciouness is qualitative - it can’t be measured or predicted. So science can’t ever “prove” anything about the quallatiatve aspect of consciousness (called qualia) yet - we can only look at its physical correlates in the brain. Yet correlation is not causation and this is where science has hit an issue. This problems is called The Hard Problem of conciousness - it’s one of science’s biggest problems right now. Essentially the functionality of scientific method is too limited to deal with conciousness (for now). So we need a new philosophy of science like Galelio introduced in the 17th century to develop a new approach to the issue. Most Western scientists don’t know much about Eastern philosophy. I’m a phislopher of both the Eastern and Western phislopical traditions and thus have some knowledge of both philosophical canons - so most scientists won’t know what the Vedas assert philosophically. Hence, they won’t even be consdoering it. So look at the arguments for and against panpsychism to get to the closest equivalent. Note also - science presently has no concensus on the nature of conciouness. So you’ll find lots of arguments and competing theories.

[@transcender5974]

@@Reno_Slim Actually, there is no conclusive objective evidence of either..that consciousness is a product of material functioning, i.e., the brain or that consciousness is preexisting and the basis/source of what we "experience" as material creation. The nature of consciousness is known as the "hard question". The answer by most people can, at best, be characterized as speculation. The Vedas offer what that tradition claims to be the primordial sounds/vibrations of what is said to be an absolute, unborn, uncreated, eternal field of pure Being, consciousness, intelligence knowing itself and describing it's nature and how it creates., maintains and evolves creation. These sounds aren't products of the human intellect, but were "heard" by the ancient rishis of the Vedic Tradition in their absolutely settled awareness and can be cognized by any human being with a normal functioning nervous system.

[@transcender5974]

@channelname The first word of Rig Ved..the first impulse of sound is Agni (then...milay purohitam.....). The first sound is "A" where the mouth is open (this is fullness of consciousness). The second letter "G" closes the mouth to a stop. So the fullness of pure consciousness (Being) being conscious by nature musty be aware of something. That can only be itself because that's all there is. But in that process of pure consciousness knowing itself it collapses to a point ("G") creating three...a knower a known and a process of knowing, all, of which are absolute consciousness. Now there is a notion of three within the singularity of unbounded pure consciousness. These 3 notions being pure consciousness are conscious of each other and create new iterations of knowers, knowns and processes of knowing. This goes on at an infinite frequency...eternally creating the dynamic impulses of what we experience as the "material" world. So..that first syllable of Rig Ved ("Ag") contains within it's collapse all the subsequent sequentially unfolding sounds of the Ved which are the seeds of creation. This is knowledge...absolute, eternal perfect knowledge. But as you say it is not man made knowledge as an expression of intellect. It is shruti (heard) in the settled state of mind. It is revealed to those whose nervous systems are functioning in the way Nature designed them to function.

[@edwardlawrence5666]

Saying that consciousness is a physical aspect of our bodies, does not ‘get rid of’ consciousness.

[@maydaymemer4660]

He doesnt doubt it’s physical he just doesnt think you can dismiss subjective experience

[@terencedavid3146]

David Chalmers is one of the leading minds in modern consciousness studies over the last few decades. Other names worth a mention in this field of consciousness studies include Anil Seth, Donald Hoffman, Tom Campbell, Bernado Kastrup and my favourite, the brilliant Swami Sarvapriyananda.

[@cesarluziard]

Never heard of them! D:

[@terencedavid3146]

@@cesarluziard it's obvious you haven't heard very much.

[@cesarluziard]

@@terencedavid3146 wooow how rude haha I, a philosopher who was accepted in the MSc Philosophy at The University of Edinburgh, apologise. I could ask Andy Clark to reccommend me some of their works so I won't keep being unaware about these guys.

[@terencedavid3146]

@@cesarluziard my apologies mate, but I didn't mean to be rude. Obviously, there are people whose work you are familiar with that I'm not and by the same token the names that I've mentioned are not people that you're quite aware of. Perhaps the best way is to google them, or better still u tube those names, then make up your own mind and come to your own conclusions.. ✌️

[@smiles4fears]

I'd highly recommend adding Rupert Spira to this list - he and Bernardo are great friends and have some amazing talks together

[@KR-jq3mj]

Does anyone know what year this interview was conducted ?

[@wayneasiam65]

Another great video from Robert Khun's channel Closer To Truth. I'd just like to say THANK YOU for all the videos you have made. All the production and details and the kindness of your guests to participate and give us so many different slices of minds from the brightest among us. If we can't pinpoint exactly the first level of life that has consciousness, then it may extend all the way to inanimate things. Wayne from Northwest Alabama.

[@steveflorida5849]

"Inanimate things" do not have consciousness. Life & Consciousness are not inherent in atoms. Atoms have motion but are not living organisms with consciousness.

[@willmosse3684]

Where is the rest of this conversation? I want to see him outline the problems with the quantum consciousness theory, and cover idealism

[@Dion_Mustard]

My personal opinion - after experiencing an Out of Body Experience as well as Lucid Dreams more real than my current reality - is that consciousness is MORE than brain. I never used to believe in things like OBEs and Lucid Dreams but now I know how important it is to keep an open mind. All I can say is I had experiences which seemed separate from the matter, so to speak. I am not sure this was a "spiritual" experience, but more an altered state of consciousness, possibly non-local.

[@dwai963]

Same

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Yes. Why should we be a closed system?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Yes, "consciousness is MORE than brain". Consciousness is what the brain is doing. Doing and materially existing are radically, *radically* different.

[@dwai963]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Correlation does not imply causation. Try OBE

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@dwai963 yes good point. i've had 2 OBEs myself . I lifted away from my body ie the "matter" and transcended away from my body. So unless it was some sort of AMAZING illusion which I doubt, I am led to believe Consciousness is Non Local.

[@samashify2]

I truly enjoy your show. I've been following you for quite a longtime but I've realized that not all ppl can understand your show because technical terms are not properly explained for an average person to grasp the real meaning of most topics discussed. I'd wish that you would do something about it .

[@Flicklix]

It may be that our conscious reality fundamentally begins with the folding of space itself. This folding manifests itself as a spiral/vortex. The interesting thing about a spiral is that it contains a "time" aspect to it, as one point in space arcs around to make contact with another point in space. I wonder if this spiraling of space creates a kind of reflection within the vortex, as one arching point in space reflects against another arching point, creating a kind of out-of-phase echo. These out of phase reflections of space, manifest themselves as matter/consciousness...imo.

[@fluentpiffle]

This is described as the ‘wave structure of matter’ spaceandmotion

[@TGMResearch]

Yep. Patterns OF space and time, vs. patterns IN space and time. Quantum Field Theory gets very close.

[@fluentpiffle]

@@TGMResearch spaceandmotion

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How might present time measure and decohere quantum wave function / field(s)?

[@katherinestone333]

"In the unobserved state, a quantum object does not have definite location in time or space, nor does it have definite properties, at least not in the way that we think of definite in classical terms. How can something be said to exist if it doesn't have properties, location, or existence in time? We don't know, but it suggests that something about our ordinary assumptions of an objective classical reality 'out there', independent of us, is mistaken." Dean Radin, Entangled Minds

[@alexjustin2149]

There is a classical physics analogue to think about when you hear about this 'indefinite location in time and space'. If you have a wave travelling through space, it can have a very well defined frequency but a poorly defined position (the wave can said to be 'everywhere at once' along a line). Now you can add lots of waves together with a range of frequencies and you get something called a wave packet. Add many frequencies together and you get a very well defined position in space, but a poorly defined frequency. So there's nothing magic about that wavelike indefiniteness in time and space. Quantum fields and their associated particles very much work like this, but for reasons we haven't quite figured out, measurement/observation cause the collapse of this behaviour.

[@steveflorida5849]

If brain neurons are the source of Mind, then scientists should be able to communicate with individual neurons. They could extract human neurons and place them in a sustaining environment, and then have a meaningful conversation with the partial brain. However, if there is no conscious rapport with the neurons, then questions arise. And if the Mind is not material like the human brain, then we humans should be open minded. The Mind might be an essence/entity not of material "properties".

[@wishlist011]

@@steveflorida5849 "then scientists should be able to communicate with individual neurons." What if the source of the mind is not the neurons but is instead something to do with an interaction between collections of them ... we wouldn't expect scientists to be able to communicate with individual neurons if that were the case would we?

[@steveflorida5849]

@@wishlist011 then how many neurons does it require before X quantity of neurons are --- coherent & cognitive & communicating?

[@wishlist011]

@@steveflorida5849 Is a particular number important? Coherence, cognition and communication are likely quite vague/diffuse concepts. If they happened to be a feature of a process going on between neurons rather than something intrinsic to any individual neuron itself then pinning down how many are required would be quite a challenge I imagine. Do you have some objection to the idea of such a process being behind these features in principle? Are you very confident that it couldn't be such a process for some reason and, if so, could you explain why?

[@Flicklix]

What a great conversation between these two thinkers! I suspect that matter is what consciousness "looks like" (or feels like, tastes like, etc.). Consciousness is "What it's like" to be matter...two perspectives of the one thing.

[@fluentpiffle]

It is energy, not consciousness. Consciousness is simply a form of energy.. spaceandmotion

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@fluentpiffle To say one thing is another thing is to say nothing.

[@fluentpiffle]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL And it worries you enough to comment every time someone says nothing, does it?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@fluentpiffle Only when the mood strikes me.

[@fluentpiffle]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I’ll consider you stricken, then..

[@David.C.Velasquez]

I want to be in a rock band with David Chalmers! Also, he sure has gotten his money worth, from that leather jacket over the years. One of my academic heroes, along with Dr. Kuhn. Brilliant minds, the both of them.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

And yet neither of them has hit upon the answer.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL This question is asked of many quests on this channel. Mr. Chalmers gave his perspective of the question through the lens of Dualism, without claiming to have a definitive answer. By all means, enlighten us with your answer...

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@David.C.Velasquez I am conscious of the chair over there because I see it. When I close my eyes I am no longer conscious of it. This seems to me quite obvious. Sense organs convert the world to analogies in the encoded form of discharge frequencies on the neurons that connect the organs to the brain. In the brain every neuron maintains a discharge- frequency-encoded analogy. These 85 to 100 billion analogies interact with each other via synapses in the process we call thinking. We refer to one complex subset of analogies as the 'self' (i.e. what the word 'self' *means* and what it refers to). When other analogies modulate the analogy of the self, it is those modulations of which the self is conscious. i.e. The world changes me and these changes, cascading thru synaptic logic, may later on move my muscles in just the ways that lead to accomplishment of my self's desires. (And by 'me' and 'I' I mean my self). The average number of synapses influencing the discharge timing of a neuron is 20,000. That's a lot of analogies to be participating in the definition of a one. The definition is thus widely distributed and so hinting at holographic storage. This train of thought leads to these conclusions: It is my self that is conscious and my self is a dynamic analogy complex in nature. Since analogies are abstract entities and abstract entities are immaterial, I conclude my self to be an immaterial existent. (i.e. what some call an illusion). To avoid confusion with this conclusion I emphasize, my immaterial existence is 100% dependent on the physical existence of the material substrate. Without the material substrate there could be no process There's more to it than that but people don't read long answers, especially those they cannot follow, so my self will stop here. Cheers! here.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I can follow just fine, and understand a neural network. I also don't disagree with you, for the most part, but the question being discussed, is much more nuanced than just possible mechanisms for consciousness. You also seem to be arguing for consciousness being both, a material physical process of neuronal entrainment, but also immaterial, as an abstract being. Again, I'm not in total disagreement, merely pointing it out.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@David.C.Velasquez Wonderful! This is the background over which these thoughts wander: Matter is the 'substrate' which must be present in order for any process to manifest. (Process manifests as a dance of components in the substrate. Photosynthesis and Krebs cycle are two of my favorite 'pirouettes' among the many processes of life). The being-conscious-process is indeed a process. The word 'self' refers to the being-conscious-process. The self *is* the being-conscious-process. The self is a *particular* kind of dance. The self is dynamic and so complex that our current instrument's can't begin to get a handle (aside from the fact that 'self' lacks a consensus definition and in some quarters meets denial of its very existence). The dancers in the being-conscious-process are all analogies being instantiated by synaptically inter modulated neural discharge frequencies. I'm losin it so ttfn.

[@mickeymoon7547]

Ditto! Another great interview.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(2:45) *DC: **_"I find that view impossible to believe myself because I take consciousness to be a fundamental datum of our existence."_* ... The problem isn't with determinism, idealism, materialism, or dualism; the problem is "language." For biologists, scientists, and philosophers to correct this issue, they need to take a page from theism. The early periods of theism attributed natural phenomena (life, energy, complex structure) to supernatural entities (gods) because they didn't understand how everything naturally worked together. The sun was deemed a god along with fertility gods, celestial gods, food gods, and gods who served as the overseers of life and death. Fast forward to modern times and theism ends up with a single, all-powerful God. Science is no stranger to this type of evolution. Science is constantly discovering that what was once thought were completely separate phenomena can actually be manifestations of a single phenomenon i.e., space-time, energy and matter, heliocentrism, etc.). Eventually science will realize that consciousness, brains, life, the cosmos, and everything else in existence are not separate items in need of their own, special arena, but rather a single phenomenon called "information." *Example:* A physical brain represents "information." The brain also produces information (what we call "consciousness"). In actuality, a brain and consciousness represent _"information processing information."_ This satisfies dualism in that the information a brain produces is separate from the physical brain while also satisfying materialism in that the physical brain and what the brain produces consist of the same core structure ... which is "information."

[@frankjspencejr]

Regarding consciousness and collapse of the wave function: Wouldn't the act of collapsing the way function also be a physical act? So even if you said consciousness was involved, why would it have to feel like something to collapse a wave function? Still no specific role for conscious experience.

[@JungleJargon]

Object credit giving has always been called into question. It’s called idolatry, ascribing properties to physical things that they do not have. Information is not something physical things are able to produce. When you see information that has meaning and purpose, you know that it is not the product of the physical universe. The credit goes to a higher order than the universe since the universe cannot make or direct itself.

[@sabarapitame]

As soon as I hear "wave function" I think that would be amazing a chat with Sean Carroll and him

[@davidpalmer5966]

Of all the videos I've seen on consciousness, this interview and Kuhn's interview of Deepak Chopra struck me as the most insightful. Everyone else seems to talk around the subject without saying what it is. Chalmers analyses all the possible options, which clarifies things enormously, while Chopra actually attempts to define consciousness. Great stuff.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does future time disrupt closed physical system?

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

1) Consciousness is primary and material existence is secondary. 2) Material existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. 3) For any organism, they are experienced as arising mutually.

[@hereforthedip]

Nice breakdown. Which if any do you opt for?

[@Knight766]

@@hereforthedip It's n. 1 if you follow the work of David Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup

[@G_Demolished]

@@Knight766 *And believe it

[@agaef2792]

@@G_Demolished you do not believe it?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

causation / measurement of quantum wave function probabilities may produce both physical particle in space and consciousness in time?

[@gr33nDestiny]

I’d like to call myself a materialist but I have to agree with Dave. I don’t think it’s a logic trick or bias, unless someone can convince me otherwise and nobody in this series is, even the physicists

[@demiurge4421]

Mike Hockney and Dr Thomas Stark would like to convince you, read their books.

[@MegaOptimizer]

Does software defeat need of hardware?

[@mitchelweaver6801]

Interesting that the "most radical" view of consciousness/material interaction is the common sense view lol

[@jamesspero5884]

Fascinating, my conscious mind is blown!

[@martynrawlins8050]

About 15 months ago I was at death's door in hospital having suffered from internal bleeding. I drifted in and out of consciousness and learned later that the doctor didn't think I would pull through. Whether I dreamed the following or it actually happened I'm not sure but a really fit and beautiful nurse was bending over the bed next to me. Guess what: I pulled through. Consciousness may defeat materialism but it can never defeat a fit nurse. Not to everyone's taste but thanks NHS.❤️

[@cameronforester8413]

So this is why people don’t die on my wife’s HDU shifts 🤔 You’re welcome brother 😂

[@AWT8900]

Lol...that was kinda funny

[@EtsperalUnofficial]

Skill issue

[@jkadoodle]

He's cranking the science up to 11

[@RGSCOTT]

🎶“Big Quantum Girls”🎶 😉

[@jasonbennett5621]

Dr. Kuhn, your affect at the beginning of this video is the most relaxed, present, flowing, “real” I’ve ever seen you. Really easy to hear you when you’re in this “place.” In the past, there has been a “performance” formality, a kind of “acting” voice and affect that was distracting. Great work…nice evolution…”seasoning” we call that sometimes in the theater.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

neural correlates of consciousness in physical brain might correspond to consciousness in recohered quantum waves(s) of mind?

[@nissimhadar]

I agree with the last thing Robert says - physicists will vehemently disagree with the idea that consciousness "collapses" the wave function. And rightly so.

[@joeclark1621]

It's kind of weird because I have this idea that dualism in essence doesn't have to contridict materialism. I know, it sounds crazy, here's what I mean. I meant if we have an enlarged materialism that encompasses everything there is in the natural world/existence, it may very well encompasses an immaterial element to existence. I'd say that most difficult thing that many on this show have stated is connecting consciousness/metaphysics in general into the materialistic world and for very obvious reason why is that materialism deals with what is quantified and subjected to scientific measurement whereas consciousness, while we do see a quarralation between it and the physical brain, it doesn't present a clear sameness in identity. For example, if you step on a nail and you feel pain, we know that certain nerves in the brain when tampered with impact that brain but it's crazy to think that these neurons/vessels in the brain are the sensation of pain itself.

[@joeclark1621]

Ppl do need to avoid the use of the word real in these topics like when ppl say real or not, it has a subjective element to it cause it becomes a preception claim to some extent so it's better to say actual for a lack of better term. An atheist philosypher in this show named Ray also stated something true which is that it's pointless to call consciousness an illusion cause to have the illusion of being conscious is being conscious itself. I believe consciousness/metaphysics to be true and maybe even fundamental but it's not a discovered territory. It's something that unfortunately I say we can't quantify but logic and common sense can play an element in seeing this which is if you look at the hard scientists, the reason why they believe the brain creates consciousness, at least most of them is cause they view consciousness from a third person point of view which makes sense except we can attribute something to someone else when we sense it. For example, I can speculate that you see a red car or apple based on my personal observation or I can sense that you find a sauna hot cause I find it hot too, etc. so the crazy thing is that this is pretty simple in a way but pretty freaking complicated too cause you can't integrated to a materialistic world view.

[@nissimhadar]

@@joeclark1621 Consciousness is physical. We can turn it on and off. We can even read thoughts, including dreams, to some level.

[@joeclark1621]

It's certainly part of the natural world. @@nissimhadar

[@utilitymonster8267]

@@nissimhadar What physical dimensions does consciousness have? Can you show me a piece of consciousness? It's certainly not physical since it just falls outside of the definition of matter. You can try to claim it arises from the physical, but it's not physical itself.

[@triciasearcy2119]

I'm wondering where I could find the rest of this interview? It appears to cut off in the middle

[@godlesscommie3499]

Fun to think about. But, it just sounds like a reification error. Is not "consciousness" a verb rather than a noun? The brain is an organ of the body. Its machinations cannot "defeat" the material of which they are phenomena. Contrarily, a blunt "material" object, given sufficient velocity, might "defeat" "consciousness" rather easily. :P

[@legron121]

You're absolutely right that it's a reification. To talk of "a consciousness" (as if there were things in the world called "consciousnesses") is nonsense. Now, "consciousness" is not a verb, but a nominal derived from a verb (the verb is, "to be conscious"). Philosophers are often confused by nominals, since they appear to introduce new entities (e.g. there is something called a "perception" in addition to an animal's perceiving something). But, no new entities are introduced: "I have consciousness" means nothing more than "I am conscious". Indeed, creatures don't really 'have' or 'contain' consciousness; they _are_ conscious. 'Have' is a misleading Germanism. Having said that, consciousness is not, as you suggested, a property or activity of brains. It is animals that are (sometimes) conscious, not parts of them (such as their brains). The brain _makes it possible_ for a creature to be conscious; and neural activity is a causal condition for a creature to be conscious of something. Nonetheless, it is not brains that are conscious, but human beings. The criteria for calling something 'conscious' lie in its behaviour, and there is no such thing as a brain behaving.

[@danbreeden5481]

When I read his book the conscious mind and I find his double aspect of information very appealing

[@JungleJargon]

It’s only the photons that we measure or otherwise detect that collapse the wave function. 😄🤔 Quantum mechanics happens at the speed of light. It’s when we go to observe or measure *our perception* of the speed of light is that it has a finite speed since we don’t exist at the speed of light. We exist in dilated limited measurable time and distance which appears to slow down light from our perspective.

[@konberner170]

He is so young here. What a great mind, and a great human.

[@LionKimbro]

I think that David Chalmers is an amazing communicator.

[@thetruthoutside8423]

Why exactly didn't your program interviewed Naom chomsky? We would like you to do that. Thanks.

[@rprevolv]

Consciousness simply evolved from materialism to improve the processing of information.

[@charleswofford6296]

But the brain is not an information processor. Also, why would consciousness improve processing?

[@rprevolv]

@@charleswofford6296 I believe the brain is an information processor. Much sensory information is sent to brain where it is processed and a response produced. Most of this processing is done subconsciously. It has been proposed that consciousness evolved as an advanced processing mechanism enabled by, and perhaps simply simultaneously with, brain development, affording an enhanced capacity for complex decision making and improved survivability.

[@charleswofford6296]

@@rprevolv I disagree. I think the information processor model is more a function of our neoliberal political era, where the market is conceived as a kind of mind and the mind as a kind of computer processor (See Philip Mirowski). It's not just metaphysics or science; there's political ideology caught up in all of this.

[@alistercaddy1208]

​@charleswofford6296 that's an interesting thing to say. Do you have a alternative explanation? It's sad that this has to be said as I wish it were obvious but this is a legitimate question and I genuinely want to hear your point of view as I find what you said intriguing but I don't understand it all that well.

[@emptycloud2774]

The metaphysical position of physicalism has no place for conscious properties. It does have a place for biological organisms, but not for consciousness. There is a serious limitation in how physicalism is defined; how the physical laws are defined.

[@michaelshortland8863]

I would think that if consciousness can collapse a wave function, then consciousness itself must be some kind of quantum effect/system? consciousness must be at least partially a quantum system??

[@Kiwi-fl8te]

Consciousness doesn't have any effect on quantum particles. The wave function is not a physical thing, it is the representation of the moment where we do not know what is where. And the wave function collapse is when we look at where is what and know for sure where is what. It's a common misconception (so common it made it into this video) to believe that measuring has any impact beyond giving us information on the outcome of a probability.

[@msmacmac1000]

Brilliant! I’m on board! At 73 I have lovely new stuff to learn❤ thank you 🙏🏼 David

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would a materialist consciousness be based on energy, such as energy spikes in neuron(s)?

[@HappyBirthdayGreetings]

Isn't it strange that if you are a deep thinker you will naturally land at these three thoughts and sort of hit a crossroad

[@fluentpiffle]

Many people only appear ‘deep’ to those who are so used to paddling in the shallows..

[@warrendriscoll350]

You'd have to be pretty big egoed to think these are deep questions. Welcome to the shallow end of metaphysics.

[@williammcenaney1331]

I don't understand eliminative materialism. Eliminative materialists deny that there's conscienceless. But I think I'm conscious when I'm aware of what happens in and around me. How can I be non-conscious and know I'm that way?

[@RadicOmega]

Consciousness is just irreconcilable with materialism. All of the physicalists theories have serious problems or are just implausible. A proper philosophy of mind and unified theory of existence just needs to leave physicalism/materialism behind

[@izzymosley1970]

Based

[@kos-mos1127]

Consciousness is reducible to physical processes. Logic and reasoning have already been reduced down to computations. We are at the beginning of the age of artificial intelligence. AI is already aware that there is a difference between them and humans. We already have AI in the early stage of consciousness. Physicalism/materialism has already been demonstrated as fundamental. It is time to leave dualism and idealism to the dustbins of history.

[@izzymosley1970]

@@kos-mos1127 just because logic and reasoning are correlated with brain States doesn't mean they're caused by brain States.

[@RadicOmega]

@@kos-mos1127 “Logic and reasoning have already been reduced down to computational states” This just isn’t true. Computations only work algorithmically, and that algorithm does not have to correspond to reality. For example, 2 + 5 = 7. if we have a calculator, we can have an algorithm that runs this, but have the appearance of 7 be 9. Thus, a regular calculator can run the same algorithm as this “broken” calculator, yet one answers 7 and the other one answers 9. Algorithmic Correspondence is ascribed and defined. Regardless, even if logic can be reduced, that doesn’t show that the content of the concepts can be reduced to the computation, and it definitely doesn’t mean the phenomena of consciousness is reduced to that in the slightest

[@kos-mos1127]

@@RadicOmega A.I already shows that content and concepts have been reduced to computation. Algorithm takes concept and content than create general abstractions that the A.I can understand. Consciousness is another layer abstraction that is built on top of logic and reasoning. Now a General A.I have consciousness as well.

[@4give5ess]

Consciousness is a split in the mind. Your true self is an awareness of an aspect of the One Self. When the split is made whole again, your awareness returns to the knowledge of your true self.

[@mintakan003]

Before one even gets to consciousness, one can raised the question whether physics, as a closed system, is even adequate for describing biology. True, there is a material (and energetic) dependency, in broad terms. But there is no amount of equations that can adequately describe the (fine grained) behavior of a living organism. They don't seem to passively follow Newton's laws. It seems to be in a different category, than ordinary dynamical systems, no matter how non-linear (differential equations). Probing the boundary between life and non-life, maybe a more (intermediate) tractable problem. I am surprised by Chalmer's discussion of the "observer" and the "measurement" problem. Most physicists now, do not think the "observer" necessarily mean a human observer. The wave function "collapses", all the time. This is due to interaction with the environment. This is a consistent problem with quantum computers, when dealing with "noise".

[@aclearlight]

You raise very good points, and I think this vid may have been made awhile ago.

[@scambammer6102]

"But there is no amount of equations that can adequately describe the (fine grained) behavior of a living organism" you can't possibly know that, and it seems unlikely, also irrelevant.

[@mintakan003]

The issue pertains not only to biology, but the whole issue of complex systems, and evolution. Physics still largely laboring from a very narrow paradigm, along the lines of "Laplace's demon". I.e.., if one knows all the initial conditions (in principle), one can deterministically predict the trajectory, and end point, of a system. It's a "closed system", ... and in a very narrow sense. Yet reality, esp. in the form of biology, and evolution, presents evidence, that there maybe more than this very narrow paradigm. Some people have recently proposed that evolution, maybe a better primary paradigm (e.g. Lee Smolin, Lee Cronin, the various people of "constructor" theory, or "assembly" theory). Quantum mechanics, is somewhat in between. It is still "deterministic" in the sense, that the probability distributions are quite predictable, even if the specific (discrete) outcomes, are not. Whether through classical chaos theory, of an inherent stochasticity, at the most fundamental aspects of reality, this in combination with "generative rules" (e.g. Wolfram), has a role to play, in evolutionary theory.

[@manifestyourlife6]

Kid Rock has really cleaned up. 😍😍💪💪

[@yardy88]

Very well explained and simply put. I feel somewhat vindicated listening to you talk. More materialists need to explore different states of consciousness imo. That's how i started to peer through the keyhole of the problem.

[@neoskeptic]

Are those different states of consciousness incompatible with materialism?

[@rizdekd3912]

But do you feel like just saying it's 'not material' actually provides any more than vindication? Does saying it's 'not material' actually solve or explain the 'hard problem' of consciousness? What does this vindication accomplish, actually other than make you feel good? Does saying it's not material put it out of reach for study/analysis? If so...what has that accomplished with regard to understanding consciousness? IF not, then saying it's not material is academic. What makes the non-material so attractive or special that IT somehow just 'explains' consciousness but that what we don't know about the material just cannot?

[@wk801]

Is that the guy from the band spinal tap?

[@alexjustin2149]

Very interesting interview. However, the quantum measurement problem as a route in for consciousness reminds me a lot of the god of the gaps argument/argument from ignorance: there is a gap in our understanding of quantum behavior, therefore the cause must be consciousness. That said, consciousness has an interesting parallel to mathematics, which may also exist outside the physical world.

[@RadicOmega]

Ehhh. The difference is that it’s not as if QM doesn’t currently have the explanation, it seems that QM theorists have reason to believe it is indeterminate

[@alexjustin2149]

@@RadicOmega QM most certainly has a problem with measurement - it's entirely a linear theory and measurement is non-linear. The 'explanations' you refer to are tagged on as different interpretations of QM, precisely because of the inability to explain the collapse. Interestingly, physicists over the last few years have been able to experimentally detect and even reverse quantum collapse while it's occurring.

[@vk274]

Before understanding consciousness, the physical universe needs to be understood well. Currently, there is so much unknown in the physical universe that even basic knowledge about the existence of a particle is lacking because as a particle is broken into sub-particles, what is observed is only a field ripple, which is labeled as a particle. So far all fundamental particles are nothing but different modes of fluctuations of field ripple. Therefore, first, there is a need to understand what is the field (which is different from electromagnetic and gravitational fields) and why there is a ripple.

[@alexjustin2149]

@@vk274 Something to think about - my guess would be the fields (and the rest of fundamental physics) are self-consistent mathematical structures that interact with one another. The question then becomes where and how the physical/material world arises from such mathematics.

[@vk274]

@@alexjustin2149 Fields (and the rest of fundamental physics) are self-consistent mathematical structures because scientists cannot publish inconsistent observations and therefore any equations formulated are consistent. I think if inconsistent observations are allowed to be published then there is a possibility that some observations will coincide and lead to expanding the current model of the physical universe. Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon that is consistent with the mathematical formulae but doesn't make sense in the physical universe where change in the spin of one affects the change in the spin of a separated particle at an infinite distance. There is no explanation of what is the physical link between such particles allowing such affectation to occur but still, the quantum entanglement phenomenon is well published. Similarly, some journals need to make space for the publication of subjects such as consciousness, the non-dual nature of the universe and everything in it, etc., and at the same time, such journals must not publish subjects based on superstition, hocus pocus, and voodoo.

[@WorstPrinciples]

Weird question to ask, but interesting video nonetheless

[@Jsurf66]

Consciousness can use the laws of physics to its advantage, therefore it's above anything else, so far.

[@con.troller4183]

It can be "above" but does that make is separate to material reality?

[@justanothernick3984]

@@con.troller4183 I see it as different. Consciousness is subjective and material reality is objective. Material reality can't be "wrong" but our consciousness can interpret it wrongly.

[@saeiddavatolhagh9627]

The view that the measurement problem in quantum physics and the collapse of the wave function may find an answer through possible entanglement with a conscious observer (be it as rudimentory as a detector device), has a great appeal to it. The wave function in Schrodinger equation only describes an unentangled particle that when entangled with the detector collapses in ways that an outsider cannot quite comprehend, of course except for the statistical information provided by the wave function before its collapse. Could it be the case?

[@danbreeden5481]

David Chalmers is one of best philosophers out there he's my favorite I love listening to him

[@demiurge4421]

David Chalmers is far from the best, go read the Mike Hockney and Dr. Thomas Stark books.

[@RichardHarlos]

@@demiurge4421 Apart from defined criteria, 'best' has no meaning beyond subjective preference. If we care about truth, we must care about precision and specificity in communication. Otherwise, we're just sophisticated noise-makers.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Bernardo Kastrup, supported by Donald Hoffman, NDEs, and 5-MEO. The evidence for Idealism being the actual truth is enormous for people who care to actually look for it.

[@demiurge4421]

@@RichardHarlosyou can't get more specific without the PSR and Occam's Razor, these books are very specific, but do you have the intelligence required to accept this knowledge? You won't know unless you read the books.

[@demiurge4421]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 yes, thank you, someone who understands.

[@CarlosElio82]

Where does this conversation take place? What is the role of the pillow and the bed on the background?

[@LunHaolai]

Information is also a fundamental entity... Consciousness relates to experience and knowing, therefore is a concept of information. Just like math is, consciousness is also about getting meaning, experience..

[@tonydg6086]

The fact that you can ask the questions and discuss them proves consciousness is not an illusion.

[@Yomil]

WTF?! The observer effect in quantum physics IS well understood and has nothing to do with consciousness. In quantum physics, you're looking at things so small that to use the term "tiny" is to grossly overstate the size. To "observe" a system, something needs to interact with that system. For instance, to see an oncoming car, photons have to interact with the car, then interact with your method of observation (eyes). This causes no issues at a "normal" scale, as photons are tiny. ...but imagine if you could only observe an oncoming car by first throwing another car at it? Introducing something so massive into the system necessarily changes the behaviour of the system. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. If this is the same Chalmers who wrote "what is this thing called science" then I am beyond disappointed in him. *edit* never mind, that was a different Chalmers. Phew!

[@pandawandas]

Decoherence isn't an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Even Zurek acknowledges this. Consciousness-related interpretations like QBism and the Von-Neumann Wigner interpretation are perfectly valid.

[@thomazmartins8621]

How can we know if consciousness has nothing to do with it? This is just another interpretation of QM.

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

What am I missing if I just call consciousness, experience?

[@pipelineaudio]

Nothing at all...Chalmers has always had a GIANT burden of proof dodge

[@EagleClaw_777]

To all Materialist...research NDE's, then let's talk about consciousness...I promise it'll be worth while!

[@Dion_Mustard]

I've had an Out of Body Experience, and Lucid Dreams, so I know exactly what you're referring to. My experience suggested to me that my consciousness was "non-local" and separate from the "matter" part of me. I can tell you now these experiences were literally out of this world.

[@dwai963]

yep, NDE completely changed my perception

[@S3RAVA3LM]

True. They don't want to listen and learn however. UVA has good video

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Human conscious awareness of physical reality / matter, mathematical description of physical reality, and human experience described by language?

[@haakoflo]

If, by fully understanding the brain, you can explain every bit of information processing, that means you have to be able to explain why the brain tells the mouth to say that it is conscious. If this is so, then not only does any non-materialist aspect of consciousness NOT have a way to affect the real world, the material brain would have to be "programmed" in some way to claim it is conscious.

[@houmous942]

Why programmed? The brain could simply identify its current information-processing activity as a state of consciousness and thus consider itself as being conscious.

[@haakoflo]

​@@houmous942 If the consciousness is part of the information processing AND the information processing is fulily understood by an analysis of the material brain (such as by doing a full simulation of the brain), that means that consciousness is emerging from matter. If, on the other hand, a full material understanding of the brain (for instance by doing a full simulation of it) does not lead to a brain claiming to be conscious, that may be an indication that something non-material is part of the information processing. In that case, we could start looking for exactly how that happens.

[@lynnmcquillan2338]

What if we studied BABIES more - pre analytical concepts- would that shed some light or thought?

[@catherinemira75]

Fascinating. Consciousness is the strangest phenomenon ever. It's so weird that one wonders if it could be ' alive' even after death... Time and life are still a mystery. When you look at reality, physics seems to be the 'easy' bit out of the lot... 🤕🤕

[@Dion_Mustard]

NDEs

[@scambammer6102]

consciousness is nothing but molecules wanting to eat, evolved over billions of years to semi-intelligent apes who think they are special.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@scambammer6102 that explains nothing. That is just the teaching of old school science books. Consciousness is so much more than mere molecules or neurons communicating. Your view is fundamentally flawed.

[@catherinemira75]

@@Dion_Mustard feeling better now? 😉

[@helicalactual]

What about entanglement? Have you considered that into your dualism view? Does that count as non material? It is technically the aether (if entanglement has a “field” ie -Maldecena )

[@dwai963]

👍 conciousness is fundamental

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could there be room for consciousness through time, and would a time based consciousness be dualism? A time based consciousness from quantum wave function / fields?

[@Dion_Mustard]

time is an illusion.

[@LapsedSkeptic]

This sounded an awful lot like the science version of a theist saying “look at the trees”.

[@emptycloud2774]

Chalmers is definately nothing like a theist. And fundamentally, any idea he puts forward he tries to make compatible with materialism. He is just extremely clinical when he argues the physicalist position cannot account for conscious properties without saying it is an illusion or doesn't exist.

[@kencory2476]

What if consciousness were simply a product of evolution, like eyesight and hearing? There are many ways in which consciousness would convey an evolutionary advantage to a species having it, so why is it so mysterious?

[@Ockersvin]

The mysterious part has nothing to do with whether it is advantageous or not. It has to do with what Chalmers calls The hard problem. We at least have an idea of how hearing and eyesight could have arisen. Consciousness, on the other hand, poses an entirely different hurdle. It forces us (if we take a materialist worldview) to consider just *how* inanimate matter can give rise to what seems to be a fundamentally different realm, namely that of experience. In other words, how do inanimate processes create the taste of chocolate, or the redness of an apple? On the one side you have just mindless interactions, on the other you have mind, and color and feelings etc. How to bridge that gap is anyone’s best guess at the moment. Hence why it is referred to as a mystery.

[@kirkalexander4715]

Ken: This is just what many if not most evolutionary biologists think. It's only "mysterious" because Chalmers can't grasp how perception can be a physical process.

[@kirkalexander4715]

@@Ockersvin You are just giving us a variation of Chalmers "non-explanation." Consciousness is not an entirely different hurdle. Consciousness is perception. You begin by saying we have an idea how hearing and eyesight could have arisen. Then you claim that experience, i.e. perception, of what those senses provide is a fundamentally different realm. Only if you are of the opinion that perception - the experience of red - is a "mental", non-physical event. The two are not mutually exclusive. There is no problem if you consider mind to be a physical event or process. You refer to inanimate matter and processes. Last time I checked, the brain was animate, sort of by definition. You - and Chalmers - make an artificial distinction between mindless and mind, mind and matter, inanimate and animate. The gap is artificially introduced. It is a gap in our knowledge, not in cognitive brain processes. And to define this current knowledge gap as "the hard problem" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[@Ockersvin]

@@kirkalexander4715 Chalmers wasn’t trying to explain consciousness, he was trying to outline the difficulties in doing so when formulating the hard vs easy problem distinction. I would say that the problem arises precisely _if_ you consider mind to be a physical process/event that gives rise to qualia. The problem is born out of a materialist worldview, but does not exist within, say, idealism. Now, I get that you don’t buy Chalmers’ distinction, but it seems to me you are just waving it off by appealing to complexity. _Of course_ the problem will be erased if you start with a materialist worldview, and then further assume that the problem hides within the as of yet untangled complexities of brain processes. But I don’t buy that line of thinking. In fact, I believe the problem both arises and is unsolvable if you start from materialism. Certainly, people can and will continue to engage with the problem from this angle. But until they actually make substantial progress and show that qualia is indeed reducible to physical processes, I think it’s premature to deny that the problem exists.

[@kirkalexander4715]

@@Ockersvin Thank you for your response. Spoken like a true philosopher. Unfortunately, not being a philosopher myself, your logic escapes me. Your first statement comes as a surprise. Granted, "Consciousness exists, and is fundamental, separate from the physical world, but it has an effect on the physical world," isn't much in terms of an explanation. But I don't see how it outlines any difficulties, either. It is simply a series of unsupported statements. I do not see how this supposed problem arises from a materialist worldview. I hold a materialist worldview, and I do not see perception of sense input as a problem. Right after saying that the problem arises from a materialist worldview, you say, "Of course the problem will be erased if you start with a materialist worldview," with assumptions. Well there you go. Problem solved. But you also say the problem does not exist within idealism. So there's no problem at all! Except that when Chalmers says that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, I'm going to say he is in the idealist camp, and it's his problem, after all. Regarding the accusation that I am "just waving it off by appealing to complexity." Now I'm thinking you teach first semester philosophy, or you just took first semester philosophy. (Sorry. Couldn't resist the dig.) Appeal to complexity would have me say, I don't understand qualia, therefore the concept is wrong or flawed. I am just not enough of a narcissist or a solipsist (or an arrogant dope) to take that position. In fact, Chalmers is saying something similar when he says, I don't understand how perception can be a physical process or event, therefore it's a problem. Ney, a hard problem. Sorry, but I have never understood how this adds anything to the discussion. That's like Einstein describing the precession of Mercury as the hard problem of celestial mechanics, and then coming up with circles within circles to explain it. Oh wait, they tried that. You admit the problem would not exist in a materialist framework, but not only do you not buy that, you claim the problem is unsolvable within that framework. I don't deny that Chalmers has a problem understanding how perception can be a physical process. But your last two statements sound as though you are a little impatient and perhaps a touch presumptuous regarding the progress of cognitive neuroscience. Scientific progress has a long history of being hobbled by people who claimed things were unsolvable. B.F. Skinner would be the appropriate example here. It would help me better understand your position if rather than apologizing for Chalmers, you just laid out how you see this "hard problem."

[@9snaga]

Hubris, we can't help thinking we are special and concluding consciousness must be as well because science has not cracked it yet. It will fall eventually like all the rest of the feel good spiritual intuitions we have as humans.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Hubris, we can't help thinking we are special and concluding consciousness must be as well because science has not cracked it yet."* ... We are "special." Humans represent the highest state of evolution in over 13.8 billion years. A living, breathing, self-aware entity that can utilize logic, reason, and emotion is far more "special" than the fundamental particles that made it - just like your house is far more "special" than the bricks used to construct it.

[@dimaniak]

No

[@RadicOmega]

i don’t think you understand the arguments or claims

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@RadicOmega *"i don’t think you understand the arguments or claims"* ... I love it when people tell me what I don't know or understand. I find that entertaining! You are free to think whatever you wish.

[@RadicOmega]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC i guess assuming you’re the same person as “9anaga,” Chalmers literally deliberately explains that the hard problem of consciousness is a problem of principle, and not a problem of not having enough scientific data or explanation. He argues you can’t in principle bridge the 1st person gap by sole reference to 3rd person phenomena. If you want to argue that he’s wrong, that’s fine, but to just say that Chalmers and other dualists believe that because “science hasn’t cracked it yet,” is just blatantly ignoring the claims and arguments that are being made

[@e-t-y237]

"Gap" is an interesting word there by Chalmers, as between brain and consciousness, seeing as it's a similar gap, the synactic gap, across which impulses are relayed thru a medium.

[@patrickdelarosa7743]

Bernardo Kastrup analytical idealism is the best argument for the consciousness problem, it is a shame you don’t have him in this series.

[@johnleschak4605]

I imagined that this guy would be saying things like, “well that’s just like your opinion, dude!” The dude abides!

[@Shobahari]

Conscienceness can never be comprehended by Science. Science is based on that which can be Heard, Felt, Seen, Tasted and Smelled. It is Consciousness that enables Hearing, Feeling, Seeing, Tasting and Smelling by the instrument called Brain. All this have been made known by the great thinkers of yore. Yet it is elusive and incomprehensive to all except those who delve deep within.

[@yifuxero5408]

Right! One Substance (per Shankara and Spinoza): i.e. The Infinite Absolute. Set Theorist Georg Cantor used the two words: "Absolute Infinite" (a subtle difference converging on non duality. Enough talk. To experience IT (as one's own Self), - Sat-Chit-Ananda, access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir". Listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks, preforably more.. Enjoy the Bliss. The causation question "from" Consciousness (In-Itself") to dualistic awareness (the observer, observed, and process of observing). The answer: one must have an ontological connecting link. That's mentioned in verse 21 of Shankaras Soundarya Lahari. In Essence, the subtle energy of the universe, Shakti, why physicists might call the primordial sound vibrations of the 11-th dimension. However, still a philosophical problem since the 11-th dimension then should require a causal explanation, (turtles all the way down? No. The ultimate Limit is pure Consciousness the Ein Sof of the Hebrew Scriptures.

[@KeesHessels]

is consciousness full fledged intelligence, or is it possible that its more like a quantum field or mathematical result coming from reality as we know it, If the universe needs to be observable, what "kind" of consciousness would that need

[@smiles4fears]

I highly encourage everyone to check out Bernardo Kastrup if you like this talk. He's had the greatest impact on the consciousness discussion for me - completely blew my mind

[@waldwassermann]

Does consciousness defeat materialism? Naturally not for they are one and the same. - Wald Wassermann, Physicist

[@petermccarthy4525]

My own humble suggestion would be to explore Wittgenstein and his Private Language Argument. It’s in the philosophical investigations. It seems to resolve all of the issues raised here, and Chalmers knows this work.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can human experience described by language be used as data for consciousness?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Can human experience described by language be used as data for consciousness?"* ... Anything that cannot be described using language is most likely either nonexistent, poorly observed, or incorrectly addressed. Information axiomatically must be able to be communicated - otherwise it's not information.

[@christophergame7977]

Mind and matter are different high abstractions from the one fundamental kind of 'substance'. The concrete items of that one fundamental kind are acts of communication. From acts of communication, major abstractions are the individual colloquitors, and from them can be abstracted their respective minds (res cogitantes) and brains (res extensae). An act of communication can refer to other acts of communication, but not to itself. An abstraction is a kind of act of communication that refers in particular way to other acts of communication. There are degrees of defection of acts of communication. Most acts of communication are very defective.

[@bradtexas377]

What about idealism?

[@ohmbasa]

Isn't this an old interview? I thought all the videos they posted were current