Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:

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!

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.

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.

HexHammer wrote:

Greta wrote:

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!

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.

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.

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:Still, Chalmers provides some useful general concepts, as mentioned previously.

HexHammer wrote:

Greta wrote:Still, Chalmers provides some useful general concepts, as mentioned previously.

..useful? ..which are?

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:And what job might that be that doesn't allow me to comprehend Chalmers?

I've asked you here in this thread, apparently it's so bad that you couldn't answer my question.

HexHammer wrote: He argued about consciousness with words like: "space, time, mass" how do they relate to consciousness?

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

I've asked you here in this thread, apparently it's so bad that you couldn't answer my question.

I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote: He argued about consciousness with words like: "space, time, mass" how do they relate to consciousness?

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:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:I've asked you here in this thread, apparently it's so bad that you couldn't answer my question.

I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?

That would explain your skill of reasoning.

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote: He argued about consciousness with words like: "space, time, mass" how do they relate to consciousness?

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.

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.

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:In other words, you don't actually know what circularity conventionally refers to. Little surprise that.

Explain please, you just can't say I don't understand anything without explaining why

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?

That would explain your skill of reasoning.

You idiot, what do you think someone like me does for a living? I teach philosophy and science.

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
I clean windows for a living. You have a problem with that?

That would explain your skill of reasoning.

You idiot, what do you think someone like me does for a living? I teach philosophy and science.

Ginkgo wrote:You asked a question and I provided the answer.

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.