No, most memories are dormant and not active, else we would be barraged with all kinds of irrelevant memories, and there's different long term and short term memories, therefore it's nonsense. Besides people meditating can empty their their mind for any thoughts and still be conscious.Greta wrote:Orgasm, I agree, is basic. However, while memories may be unconscious, as in digital and cellular memory (also organs apparently maintain some memory too), memories can also be conscious, eg. deliberate recall.HexHammer wrote:He starts off saying the list of things that consciousness are like pain, hunger, memories, orgasms, I wouldn't say that memories in itself are consciousness, since then a hard drive on a computer are consciousness, which is nonsense, and neither does neurologists describe memories as consciousness, but through our consciousness we can access memories and store new experiences.
Orgasms can be achieved on a headless bodies, but the mind can experience orgasms, thus again and again he's just babbling random incoherent things that you fools fall flat on your faces for!
I approach philosophy like I approach music - I have no problem with trivial sloppiness if the major concepts are of interest. The "hard problem" was a useful articulation of the explanatory gap between the patterns of neuronal firing and a subjective sense of being. His "philosophical zombie" concept has implications regarding the prospect of general AI eventually passing the Turing Test.
The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
This was a TED talk, communicating concepts with a mind to the many laypersons in the audience. So he was loose with his language (besides, it's logical to interpret his comment as the experience of memories, not the storage, which is an aspect of processing, not of subjective experience). Still, Chalmers provides some useful general concepts, as mentioned previously.HexHammer wrote:No, most memories are dormant and not active, else we would be barraged with all kinds of irrelevant memories, and there's different long term and short term memories, therefore it's nonsense. Besides people meditating can empty their their mind for any thoughts and still be conscious.Greta wrote:Orgasm, I agree, is basic. However, while memories may be unconscious, as in digital and cellular memory (also organs apparently maintain some memory too), memories can also be conscious, eg. deliberate recall.HexHammer wrote:He starts off saying the list of things that consciousness are like pain, hunger, memories, orgasms, I wouldn't say that memories in itself are consciousness, since then a hard drive on a computer are consciousness, which is nonsense, and neither does neurologists describe memories as consciousness, but through our consciousness we can access memories and store new experiences.
Orgasms can be achieved on a headless bodies, but the mind can experience orgasms, thus again and again he's just babbling random incoherent things that you fools fall flat on your faces for!
I approach philosophy like I approach music - I have no problem with trivial sloppiness if the major concepts are of interest. The "hard problem" was a useful articulation of the explanatory gap between the patterns of neuronal firing and a subjective sense of being. His "philosophical zombie" concept has implications regarding the prospect of general AI eventually passing the Turing Test.
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
..useful? ..which are?Greta wrote:Still, Chalmers provides some useful general concepts, as mentioned previously.
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
HexHammer wrote:..useful? ..which are?Greta wrote:Still, Chalmers provides some useful general concepts, as mentioned previously.
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?HexHammer wrote:I've asked you here in this thread, apparently it's so bad that you couldn't answer my question.Ginkgo wrote:HexHammer wrote:And what job might that be that doesn't allow me to comprehend Chalmers?
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
What Chalmers is saying is that space, time and mass are fundamental for an explanation of the universe. In a similar way he is saying that consciousness might also be subject to analysis through fundamental principles. He is NOT saying that space,time and mass explains consciousness, he is providing us with an analogy.HexHammer wrote: He argued about consciousness with words like: "space, time, mass" how do they relate to consciousness?
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
That would explain your skill of reasoning.Ginkgo wrote:I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?HexHammer wrote:I've asked you here in this thread, apparently it's so bad that you couldn't answer my question.Ginkgo wrote:
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
You don't know what you are talking about, if he knew anything about physics, he wouldn't use such terms as they are extremely complex to comprehend fully, as things begins to become relative, unmeasurable and incomprehensible for normal people, why his analogy is useless and more misleading than leading.Ginkgo wrote:What Chalmers is saying is that space, time and mass are fundamental for an explanation of the universe. In a similar way he is saying that consciousness might also be subject to analysis through fundamental principles. He is NOT saying that space,time and mass explains consciousness, he is providing us with an analogy.HexHammer wrote: He argued about consciousness with words like: "space, time, mass" how do they relate to consciousness?
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
You idiot, what do you think someone like me does for a living? I teach philosophy and science.HexHammer wrote:That would explain your skill of reasoning.Ginkgo wrote:I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?HexHammer wrote:I've asked you here in this thread, apparently it's so bad that you couldn't answer my question.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
You asked a question and I provided the answer.HexHammer wrote:You don't know what you are talking about, if he knew anything about physics, he wouldn't use such terms as they are extremely complex to comprehend fully, as things begins to become relative, unmeasurable and incomprehensible for normal people, why his analogy is useless and more misleading than leading.Ginkgo wrote:What Chalmers is saying is that space, time and mass are fundamental for an explanation of the universe. In a similar way he is saying that consciousness might also be subject to analysis through fundamental principles. He is NOT saying that space,time and mass explains consciousness, he is providing us with an analogy.HexHammer wrote: He argued about consciousness with words like: "space, time, mass" how do they relate to consciousness?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
First off, sure I can do that, especially if you feel I did it. You'd say that I just did it, after all.HexHammer wrote:Explain please, you just can't say I don't understand anything without explaining whyTerrapin Station wrote:In other words, you don't actually know what circularity conventionally refers to. Little surprise that.
Of course, you'd not be saying that "literally" it's not possible for me to do that, but that I shouldn't do it for some reason, but I'm not a fan of normatives for their own sake.
At any rate the reason I said this is simply that it's clear as day from comments you've made. You have no understanding of what the conventional definition of circularity is.
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
It must be hard to squeeze that in between all the window cleaning ;)Ginkgo wrote:You idiot, what do you think someone like me does for a living? I teach philosophy and science.HexHammer wrote:That would explain your skill of reasoning.Ginkgo wrote:
I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?
I'm happy to have a Hex-free chat about Chalmers. HH's views about DC are well enough documented.
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
So does many people, and can only make parrot speeches, not really think critically and abstract which those who earn more money typically can, as their reasoning skills typically are higher.Ginkgo wrote:You idiot, what do you think someone like me does for a living? I teach philosophy and science.HexHammer wrote:That would explain your skill of reasoning.Ginkgo wrote:
I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
True enough but it was imo a poor answer.Ginkgo wrote:You asked a question and I provided the answer.
Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
I think I've PLENTY of times proved that you have no deeper understanding of anything and I have superior understanding! You like most other people here can only do parrot speeches!Terrapin Station wrote:At any rate the reason I said this is simply that it's clear as day from comments you've made. You have no understanding of what the conventional definition of circularity is.