Philosophy Now Forum

I picked up this book at a used book store a while back. Made the mistake of reading the first chapter and then putting it down for a while. So needless to say, I'm back to re-reading the chapter.

Anyone else currently reading this book or already read it? If so what did you think of it? What are your thoughts on supervenience and consciousness? Do you think the "hard problem" of consciousness can or will ever be solved?

.




Chalmers presents the major arguments against materialist theories of consciousness, and then advances his own dualistic theory of consciousness based on "Shannon information partitions"


Here are some notable reviews.


.

Gary Childress wrote:I picked up this book at a used book store a while back. Made the mistake of reading the first chapter and then putting it down for a while. So needless to say, I'm back to re-reading the chapter.

Anyone else currently reading this book or already read it? If so what did you think of it? What are your thoughts on supervenience and consciousness? Do you think the "hard problem" of consciousness can or will ever be solved?

I continue to be surprised that more people don't realize that the hard problem is completely superseded by the problem of other minds.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

If you are committed to using science as much as possible to understand the world around you, you won't ever end up concluding that other people are conscious in the first place. If fundamentals of physics underlie all phenomenal events, and consciousness doesn't "do" anything, then there is simply not empirical evidence for it! The hard problem comes when you just accept that other people are conscious and then try to figure out why you believe that and how to justify your belief using reductionist scientific terms. In so doing, you have certainly set yourself a hard problem indeed.

Who gives a shit about another's consciousness. I've got my own to deal with.

It's nothing but pure talkative nonsense and babble, don't be fooled by this charlatan!

http://yanko.lib.ru/books/philosoph/cha ... ind=en.htm

HexHammer wrote:It's nothing but pure talkative nonsense and babble, don't be fooled by this charlatan!

http://yanko.lib.ru/books/philosoph/cha ... ind=en.htm

The only reason it is nonsense and babble to you is because you have absolutely no idea what Chalmers is talking about. Perhaps you could put forward a critique on Chalmers' theory.

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:It's nothing but pure talkative nonsense and babble, don't be fooled by this charlatan!

http://yanko.lib.ru/books/philosoph/cha ... ind=en.htm

The only reason it is nonsense and babble to you is because you have absolutely no idea what Chalmers is talking about. Perhaps you could put forward a critique on Chalmers' theory.

He is charlatan that fools people like you! If it actually was useful, he could have put it on TV, newspapers and internet, but it's nothing but beautiful empty rhetorics!! ..that you fall flat on your face for!!

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:It's nothing but pure talkative nonsense and babble, don't be fooled by this charlatan!

http://yanko.lib.ru/books/philosoph/cha ... ind=en.htm

The only reason it is nonsense and babble to you is because you have absolutely no idea what Chalmers is talking about. Perhaps you could put forward a critique on Chalmers' theory.

He is charlatan that fools people like you! If it actually was useful, he could have put it on TV, newspapers and internet, but it's nothing but beautiful empty rhetorics!! ..that you fall flat on your face for!!

Still waiting for your critique on Chalmers.

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
The only reason it is nonsense and babble to you is because you have absolutely no idea what Chalmers is talking about. Perhaps you could put forward a critique on Chalmers' theory.

He is charlatan that fools people like you! If it actually was useful, he could have put it on TV, newspapers and internet, but it's nothing but beautiful empty rhetorics!! ..that you fall flat on your face for!!

Still waiting for your critique on Chalmers.

You're likely in for a long wait. From what I've seen this hammer guy is better at criticizing the posts of others than at producing anything worth saying himself.

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Still waiting for your critique on Chalmers.

I just did, why would you want me to make a long winded critique, when 1 line is sufficient?

Interjectivist wrote:You're likely in for a long wait. From what I've seen this hammer guy is better at criticizing the posts of others than at producing anything worth saying himself.

That's kinda difficult when you disengage my attempt on an intellectual conversation, you make a blanket dismissal on prophecies, then our conversation died there.

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

I just did, why would you want me to make a long winded critique, when 1 line is sufficient?

Because one line doesn't constitute a critique. Would you like me to do it for you?

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

I just did, why would you want me to make a long winded critique, when 1 line is sufficient?

Because one line doesn't constitute a critique. Would you like me to do it for you?

Please show me!

Gary Childress wrote:I picked up this book at a used book store a while back. Made the mistake of reading the first chapter and then putting it down for a while. So needless to say, I'm back to re-reading the chapter.

Anyone else currently reading this book or already read it? If so what did you think of it? What are your thoughts on supervenience and consciousness? Do you think the "hard problem" of consciousness can or will ever be solved?

Gary, I haven't read his book but was a fan of his talks and debates a few years ago. He raises interesting points about the hard problem of consciousness; how certain patterns of electrochemical impulses can create this incredible theatre in your head is not known.

Along with supervenience, we need to consider emergence. Emergences in nature are shaped by both internal properties and environmental influences.

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:I just did, why would you want me to make a long winded critique, when 1 line is sufficient?

Because one line doesn't constitute a critique. Would you like me to do it for you?

Please show me!

Chalmers is a property dualist and this means he agrees that the world consists one type of substance- physical substances. However, he claims that the physical brain can be explained in terms of mental properties and physical properties. In other words, one type of substance with two distinct properties.This is in opposition to the materialists/physicalists who claim that mental phenomena can be explained in physical terms.
The distinction Chalmers makes is exemplified in his famous easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem of conscious.

This is not a critique, rather it is a brief summary of Chalmers' position in relation to consciousness.