The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

[Ginkgo]

If you mean the below then there is nothing circular here. It is just a commentary on the video.

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.

It is pretty obvious that you have no idea what circular reasoning is. I shall explain in terms you can understand. Circular reasoning is assuming what you are trying to prove. For example, Bob Evenson is divinely inspired. How do we know? Because the Ouzo prophecy says he is. How do we know the Ouzo prophecy is reliable? Because it was written by Bob Evenson who is divinely inspired.


P.S. If you are really interested in criticizing people who talk nonsense and babble why don't you attack Bob Evenson's posts? He talks nothing but nonsense and babble.

What you are talking about is when it's spelled out and very very obvious circular reasoning, but you my good Ginkgo can't detect it when it's more subtle!

Then give me an example of the more "subtle" circular reasoning in the video. In other words, give me an example where Chalmers assumes what he is trying to prove.

[HexHammer]

Then give me an example of the more "subtle" circular reasoning in the video. In other words, give me an example where Chalmers assumes what he is trying to prove.

Ok he's trying to explain consciousness by using unrelated unscientific arguments, therefore he essentially explains nothing, and only say basic things everybody could say without knowing any science aspects of consciousness.
He repeats himself all the time just changing the words.

So by using all kinds of useless buff words, foolish people get the illusion of enlightenment and great knowledge. He says that consciousness is "fundamental" and then barrage us with useless babble, like "space, time, mass" which are pure nonsense, this is circular reasoning!

[Ginkgo]

Ok he's trying to explain consciousness by using unrelated unscientific arguments, therefore he essentially explains nothing, and only say basic things everybody could say without knowing any science aspects of consciousness.
He repeats himself all the time just changing the words.

So by using all kinds of useless buff words, foolish people get the illusion of enlightenment and great knowledge. He says that consciousness is "fundamental" and then barrage us with useless babble, like "space, time, mass" which are pure nonsense, this is circular reasoning!

Show me anything in the above where Chalmers assumes what he is trying to prove.

I have already explained to you in simple terms what circular reasoning is. As I said before all you are doing is providing your commentary on certain aspects of the video.

[HexHammer]

Ok he's trying to explain consciousness by using unrelated unscientific arguments, therefore he essentially explains nothing, and only say basic things everybody could say without knowing any science aspects of consciousness.
He repeats himself all the time just changing the words.

So by using all kinds of useless buff words, foolish people get the illusion of enlightenment and great knowledge. He says that consciousness is "fundamental" and then barrage us with useless babble, like "space, time, mass" which are pure nonsense, this is circular reasoning!

Show me anything in the above where Chalmers assumes what he is trying to prove.

I have already explained to you in simple terms what circular reasoning is. As I said before all you are doing is providing your commentary on certain aspects of the video.

He doesn't per se wants to prove anything, but he makes an illusion of proof but doesn't make a final conclusion, because he can't therefore only poses the questions what is consciousness, and tries to clarify it which he does not, and can't.

So what he really tries, is makeing a false clarification. So the false clarification is the basis of his circular logic.

[Ginkgo]

Ok he's trying to explain consciousness by using unrelated unscientific arguments, therefore he essentially explains nothing, and only say basic things everybody could say without knowing any science aspects of consciousness.
He repeats himself all the time just changing the words.

So by using all kinds of useless buff words, foolish people get the illusion of enlightenment and great knowledge. He says that consciousness is "fundamental" and then barrage us with useless babble, like "space, time, mass" which are pure nonsense, this is circular reasoning!

Show me anything in the above where Chalmers assumes what he is trying to prove.

I have already explained to you in simple terms what circular reasoning is. As I said before all you are doing is providing your commentary on certain aspects of the video.

He doesn't per se wants to prove anything, but he makes an illusion of proof but doesn't make a final conclusion, because he can't therefore only poses the questions what is consciousness, and tries to clarify it which he does not, and can't.

So what he really tries, is makeing a false clarification. So the false clarification is the basis of his circular logic.

i have already told you what the basis is for circular reasoning. It is NOT false clarification (what ever that means). It is assuming what you are trying to prove.

Here educate yourself:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Show me anywhere in the wikipedia explanation that refers to "false clarification."

[HexHammer]

i have already told you what the basis is for circular reasoning. It is NOT false clarification (what ever that means). It is assuming what you are trying to prove.

Here educate yourself:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Show me anywhere in the wikipedia explanation that refers to "false clarification."

See, you take everything literally, it's making false argumentation for a point, and to make a false argumentation towards a point, is the same no matter what you call it.

Dear Ginkgo what kind of job does one such as you have=?!?!?!

[Ginkgo]

See, you take everything literally, it's making false argumentation for a point, and to make a false argumentation towards a point, is the same no matter what you call it.

Dear Ginkgo what kind of job does one such as you have=?!?!?!

Show me in the wikipedia link, or for that matter any link that deals with circular reasoning, whereby false clarification or false argumentation is mentioned as a definition for circular reasoning.

[HexHammer]

See, you take everything literally, it's making false argumentation for a point, and to make a false argumentation towards a point, is the same no matter what you call it.

Dear Ginkgo what kind of job does one such as you have=?!?!?!

Show me in the wikipedia link, or for that matter any link that deals with circular reasoning, whereby false clarification or false argumentation is mentioned as a definition for circular reasoning.

I will not show you,because it's a matter of intellect to interpret such thing, which you have not.

[Ginkgo]

Show me in the wikipedia link, or for that matter any link that deals with circular reasoning, whereby false clarification or false argumentation is mentioned as a definition for circular reasoning.

I will not show you,because it's a matter of intellect to interpret such thing, which you have not.

The reason you won't show me is because you can't. No such definition for circular reasoning exists. It would seem as though you are the one talking nonsense and babble.

[HexHammer]

Show me in the wikipedia link, or for that matter any link that deals with circular reasoning, whereby false clarification or false argumentation is mentioned as a definition for circular reasoning.

I will not show you,because it's a matter of intellect to interpret such thing, which you have not.

The reason you won't show me is because you can't. No such definition for circular reasoning exists. It would seem as though you are the one talking nonsense and babble.

You don't comprehend it, and that reflects in that job you have or lack here of.

[Ginkgo]

Show me in the wikipedia link, or for that matter any link that deals with circular reasoning, whereby false clarification or false argumentation is mentioned as a definition for circular reasoning.

I will not show you,because it's a matter of intellect to interpret such thing, which you have not.

The reason you won't show me is because you can't. No such definition for circular reasoning exists. It would seem as though you are the one talking nonsense and babble.

You don't comprehend it, and that reflects in that job you have or lack here of.

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

[HexHammer]

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.

[Terrapin Station]

See, you take everything literally, it's making false argumentation for a point, and to make a false argumentation towards a point, is the same no matter what you call it.

Dear Ginkgo what kind of job does one such as you have=?!?!?!

What the heck is "false argumentation"?

He doesn't per se wants to prove anything, but he makes an illusion of proof but doesn't make a final conclusion, because he can't therefore only poses the questions what is consciousness, and tries to clarify it which he does not, and can't.

So what he really tries, is makeing a false clarification. So the false clarification is the basis of his circular logic.

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

[Greta]

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]

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!


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