David Chalmers - What is Extended Mind?

[@BrentSimpsonEnhance]

Love Chalmers. Such an important thinker in these times imho

[@MZONE991]

Brent Simpson Agreed

[@PrettyPatriciia]

I notice this when looking at old photos on my phone. Sometimes, I remember only the moments of life I've photographed. As if, if the memory needs to be in this 2-d image form, and if it is not, the memory doesn't exist, it's like it never happened, because I don't have the memory of it in my brain either.

[@AlistairAVogan]

I think what you’re describing is really a form of confirmation bias. The things you’re thinking of seem to exist more than things you’re not thinking of. If you see an image on your phone it will activate your memory, pulling it from your subconscious mind. Now you have a box to tick to say you know it exists. Before you looked at the image, that memory still was there, you just hadn’t recalled it. Play old song, it’s something you only had as a child, smell of particular smell. All of these could be used to activate memories and background knowledge and so could be used to create the same argument. What is amazing is that there’s so much informing our choices and the way we see things that is below our conscious awareness.

[@PrettyPatriciia]

That’s an interesting perspective as well. You’re right, smelling something familiar can evoke strong memories that we had “forgotten”.

[@StarTigerJLN]

"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it." -Samuel Johnson

[@peterphilip]

Anyone interested in this should read Bernard Steigler's Technics and Time. He puts the idea of technology as prosthetic into a deep philosophical context. If you are not interested in trying to parse that language there is a film that has been uploaded here called The Ister, it is the same philosophy told by Steigler through the story of the fall of Epimetheius.

[@anjankatta1864]

Thank you Pete, this looks really good. Is there a second or third rec you'd recommend to read after this? Ps have you read Jacques ellul on technique and freedom

[@mattsigl1426]

When your phone “stores memories” it is fundamentally unlike memory storage in the brain. KNOWING the meaning of a book in the mind is different than owning a book and being able to reference it. When the mind knows something it automatically integrates this knowledge with the entire corpus of knowledge that the brain knows at any given time (ultimately grounded in primitive phenomenological knowledge like “I perceive myself as existing in space over time). We know everything we know in the context of everything else, and the mind does this automatically. Not true with information located outside the mind in a book or phone. Real knowledge is understanding and only the mind understands.

[@zoenation6573]

I can put the products / sums of my consciousness on paper or device but not my consciousness. ie what I produce and think about takes shape so it's tangible & transferable -consciousness feels separate to the product, not so much separate, the source of the product, a gentle background wobble that's in great silent contrast with the vibrations it produces. ...A billowing stillness that permeates space, the device, & the memorizables etched in them. Abstract interpretation but as best as I can do

[@jasonaus3551]

We out source our evolution. We wanted to fly, instead of growing wings we built them. We wanted non local communication with other individuals we got phones. We wanted better brains and recall of information, now the internet. It's nothing new either

[@lp4755]

So mind is not the same as consciousness? Can he or anyone elaborate more on it please? So where would memory reside? Consciousness or mind? What about collective memory?

[@denni95HM]

Clark stated he wouldn't defend the thesis about the extension of the consciousness. He does think mind and consciousness as different topics, whose the latter is more complex.

[@rodgerbroome]

Memories are "re-presentations" of primordial experiences but the objects of memories are not primordial themselves. The identities of the objects/events re-presented are the same things as experienced primordially, but in memory they are irreal. The "memory" in a smartphone is data or information, but not a memory of experience. When I remember my childhood phone number, my childhood, home, and family are part of that re-presentation of the number. But when I get the number from my smartphone, it is raw data without Lived-Context.

[@harishpudukodu4796]

Really cool discussion, though I would disagree with one statement made by Dr. Chalmers. Consciousness is not the "tip of the iceberg"; consciousness is the water, the iceberg is the mind, the tip is attention (amplified reflected consciousness... imagine an image being "amplified" using two mirrors facing each other). This distinction follows from the Eastern view of consciousness, wherein consciousness is not seen as identical to experience. Rather, we see consciousness as That which is AWARE of experience (or, the Knowing of experience). To appreciate this distinction, consider the visual experience of an apple. Surely you would agree that you are aware of the experience of the apple, but is the experience of the apple aware of you? Of course not; this is because YOU are conscious, not the experience. Or more precisely, you are consciousness itself. What we refer to as "conscious experiences" are experiences that are amplified through attention in consciousness.

[@andraskovacs6403]

And how do you define "you" or the self ? I don't think of the self as one single entity.

[@harishpudukodu4796]

Nice question! Here I am referring to the Vedantic Self, which is pure consciousness; not to the identity (which is often referred to as the "ego"). I agree, the ego is not a singular self-existent entity. More like a pattern of thoughts and associations.

[@truethinker221]

Harish Good stuff.... I like !

[@Letop5suryoutube]

"Taking away his cellphone is assault" that's a bit far fetch isn't it? In this case taking anything from the outside world is an assault. I may not remember a person until I see that person again... Is that person (or place or object or idea or about anything else) an extension of my mind? What are we talking about here?

[@PrettyPatriciia]

I definitely feel this way when I've lost my iphone and months of travel pictures are gone forever. Now how could I ever remember what I ate for lunch on March 21st, 2018??

[@MarmaladeINFP]

The interviewer's response is naive. There is tremendous research on how media technology alters neurocognition, behavior, mentalities, and identities. Even a simple technology like written text, in terms of literacy, restructures the brain; as seen in brain scans. There is a vast literature on the differences between oral and literary cultures. But with these newer media technologies, we have little knowledge because they have been around long enough.

[@ElementInfinity]

Whats up? Was the Hard Problem too hard of a wall to get through, so lets go to the extension?

[@jasonaus3551]

ElementInfinity Chamlers has realised he was just simply full of shot so he decided to get into this Extended mind stuff which is basically what stoner have been saying in the smoking circles since the dawn of time

[@malteeaser101]

Can one mind be an extension of the another? A group of individuals, working out something together, are perhaps one extended mind? In the example of the phone storing my numbers, what if I get another person to remember the numbers? Is the PA of some CEO paid to extend his/her mind? Also, which direction is the extension happening? Who is extending who, or is it mutual?

[@Javo_Non]

Thats part or the cognitive niche hypothesis and the distributed cognition thesis. For the former, you can read Sterelny or Clark, for the latter, Hutchin's Cognition in the wild

[@stephensillett9020]

Yes, our mind stores memory (phone number) in the unconscious and also references that same data via a storage device (phone). Not a good example, it is very physics orientated and not biological or experiential. What is sad about this interview, is the reference to dead knowledge and how it is stored externally (such as numbers). The interesting stuff is in the embodied, coupled meaning making that can be reactivated when connected to idea, place, space, object and orientation to intention.

[@paulwillisorg]

This views seems like pandering to the new and hip. Is an artificial leg an extended body? I'm quite disappointed in this conversation. I expected more. What does Robin Collins think?

[@jessecanada14]

test the person with the phone!

[@Kube_Dog]

Looks like he stopped developing when he was a high school junior in 1983.

[@asmaamohammad1999]

i didn't buy the concept :). this will mean that all our environment is part of our extended mind. let's say i have a hard disk, where i store my business information in (which i do not memorize every single thing), this hard drive is stored in my drawer, which i use for storing electronics. now, every time i need to get this hard drive, i will have to open my drawer, so actually, the drawer is part of my extended mind, because i need to remember where i did put the hard drive, to get the hard drive, to retrieve that one information.

[@konberner170]

The Extended Phenotype, Dawkins 1982

[@DSE75]

My house is part of me

[@fiazmultani]

If i got tested with my phone i would google the answers.

[@mycount64]

like a calculator is an extension of your brain ...

[@92359hg]

"Taking away his phone is assault" My son's daughter's school contacted him and asked why she does not have a cell phone" - My son's reply because she is only ten years old! Giving a young child a cell phone should be child abuse! I am on board with my son - he does not want his daughter building her identity around a cell phone and social media!

[@TheHotelHolland]

Your son is depriving your grandaughter of normal social interaction for her age group. That is close-minded and controlling.

[@lycanzhp1141]

Taking away his cellphone is assault? I can wrap my head around these sort of notions but it kind of feels a bit of a stretch for me. Just because you’ve forgotten what you put in your iPad, it doesn’t make your iPad part of your ‘consciousness’ when you look that info up again. Isn’t there something else more useful he can focus his obvious intelligence on? Please tell me why I might be finding this interesting but unbelievable at the same time. Lol

[@lycanzhp1141]

Echapolus - Ahh yes he said that the phone is part of his 'exoconsiousness' contributing to his consciousness around the 3 minute mark. He said that the phone was an extension of his mind also yes indeed. He may be a very intelligent fellow but it's hard for me to follow his point. I suppose I am just stuck on believing that the mind is our truly amazing organ that can give us awe inspiring powers of mind bending intellect and insights on reality. I don't need to postulate about external technology being part of my mind. If my mind was integrated INTO the tech then I might consider we are blurring the line between having our human conscious experience expanded. Very interesting idea about a potential future of man.

[@beaconterraoneonline]

The point there is really that the phone though external now, may not be soon ... a mind to device interface is very doable, either via a cable or at some point via wireless connection; imagine an implant to connect your brain to a device. If say at that point, data, knowledge you retain, information, algorithms, references, etc. are placed on the external device and you access it ... and someone steals that device, it would not be dissimilar to someone stealing an amputees replacement arm. It would be an assault ... or something similar.

[@lycanzhp1141]

J A well that's an interesting view, thank you for your very provocative point! I like where this is going. I've always considered that technology can have a seamless integration with humans to the point of eventually not having much of the original human remaining. If our fragile body or biology could be replaced with an appropriate non bio or maybe synthetic platform or host I believe that in essence we would still be considered human however we would live on in the biocompatible computer chip that contains our 'humanness '. If you get my drift :)

[@t.d.lawsr.8053]

dr. chalmers - the evidence is clear... there is no "I" or "you"... you cannot know "your" mind any more than you can know other people's minds... what you call you is a bunch of neurons firing, each of which is an adaptation... but at the very core, yes, we are connected to our phones and everything else through quantum fields... how about that for "extendedness".. i am "excited"

[@toddcooper5077]

?

[@aaronp8874]

Not only is his extended mind incoherent, it's unhealthy to place such a level of attachment on technology.

[@Javo_Non]

why unhealthy? Humans have been so attached to technology that you couldnt even think on eating properly without an artifact that cuts through flesh or heats it. Writing itself made people think differently, in detriment of some capacities illiterate humans had before (read Walter Ong's work on that). It would be nice if you point what are you finding incoherent.

[@richdorset]

If you had been brought up by wolves, you & your cognitive skills would have been very different. Your thinking & your behaviour would be more 'wolf' like.

[@yellowburger]

I usually like Chalmers but this is nonsense. Humans have always had aids for memory since as far back a we know. There is nothing fundamentally different about google maps or a paper map, or a map on a piece of bark. There are some information stored internally, and we carry it in our heads, and there is information stored externally that we can refer to. It allows us to increase the amount of stuff we need to remember. Writing has been doing this for thousands of years. Painted or drawn images for thousands of years before that.

[@jacobl7891]

I think want Chalmers is trying to get at is that these tools are part of the mind as without the interaction between them and the brain/body we wouldn't have concepts such as a phone or contact directory. Chalmers is simply putting the brain as a part of the process rather than a distinct thing, it's like a dam in a river, it resides within the process of the water flowing by redirecting water flow, changing the aquatic environment and altering the ecology of the water. Because of this process you now have a system of a certain type of river that can be called the Nile River or the Mississippi River which is a concept rather than an individual or distinct physical property.

[@otakurocklee]

That's his whole point. Information stored internally is not more "special" than information stored "externally". If we consider internal information "mind", then external information is also "mind".

[@memaimu]

You may want to refer to the article itself for clarification. doi: 10.1111/1467-8284.00096

[@JuraGaga]

​@@otakurockleePerfect! That is where lies a root problem or hard problem of consciousness where some scientists are trying to justify their work and prove their theories of materislistic view of the world to be true.

[@casualjoe2]

So memory is the same as memory.. woop de doo

[@pikiwiki]

so, he's dancing with shamanism

[@perilio]

Damn David surely looks old...

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

Chalmers is confusing tools with conscious minds. He should read Vygotsky.

[@lp4755]

Chalmers and Clark are not taking consciousness and mind as the same

[@Evan-rl1rn]

A prime example of why philosophy is ridiculed and labeled as "pointless".

[@chrisc1257]

CO-CONSPIRATORS.

[@fishface6247]

so much... reaching....

[@alessandropintus]

"Extended mind"? External cognition has been discussed in HCI since the 90s... Literally nothing in this video is original: edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/External_cognition

[@vladimir0700]

I think we’re well into bullshit territory here

[@senjinomukae8991]

You're a Cartesian at core? oh, you mean you torture animals to death because you don't think they have a soul? wow! in this day and age...

[@vladimir0700]

Sounds more like extended bullshit

[@Kube_Dog]

KZbin is a platform for interesting ideas expressed in conversation. This one is a total fail.