The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Wyman
Posts: 941
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by Wyman » Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:06 pm

Greta wrote:
Wyman wrote:
Greta wrote: Do you know how, or if, theory handles thresholds and emergence? That is, after a certain level of aggregation, continued linear development is no longer possible and there is a state change, eg. star ignition, abiogenesis, consciousness.
No, not at all. I have only a passing knowledge of science. Part of the reason I am skeptical of Chalmers' approach (I am only on the second part of the book) is that I can't see how what I would call 'analytic frameworks' or theories have anything to do with physical or biological questions such as the nature of consciousness.
I suppose they can't because the physical sciences concern themselves with physical processes, not what it feels like to be, although they may be because we currently lack the computing power to work out all the relations between the many complex feedback loops in a body with a nervous system. Perhaps science itself will be subject to emergence when a sufficient level of calculation is achieved?
Chalmers argument against a future scientific (physical) explanation of consciousness is profoundly disappointing. The argument is: if there were an atom for atom replica of a human being, then that replica could lack consciousness. Or, even if we knew 'all the physical facts' about consciousness, we would not thereby know what it feels like' to be conscious.

His argument for those propositions? - 'it's just obvious.'

I find the very idea of 'knowing all the physical facts' problematic to say the least. And I do not find it obvious that a perfect replica of a human could lack consciousness - I have no idea whether that would be the case and neither does Chalmers or anyone else, since science is nowhere near that advanced.

I will carry on reading the rest of the book, but I find his 'arguments' against materialism downright amateurish - after he lists the arguments against a reductive analysis of consciousness, he then lists objections to his 'arguments.' Each of these objections are what I was shouting out in my mind as I read his arguments. The objections, in other words, are far more cogent and convincing than his arguments - which, by the way, are not his - they are a collection of arguments made by others. Hopefully, this is all leading up to a more interesting analysis in the second half of the book.

Any defenders of Chalmers, please feel free to set me straight.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by Greta » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:49 pm

Wyman wrote:I find the very idea of 'knowing all the physical facts' problematic to say the least. And I do not find it obvious that a perfect replica of a human could lack consciousness - I have no idea whether that would be the case and neither does Chalmers or anyone else, since science is nowhere near that advanced.
Agreed. It's not just every atom but the quantum state of each atom. However, his claim seems to contradict his use of a thought experiment where a person has their neurons replaced one by one by synthetic equivalents until a synthetic brain is made.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4203
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:21 pm

An exact neural mapping would not be representative of the thoughts and memories of the mapped mind, no more than a hard drive full of binary numbers, with no reference to encoding methods, be of data.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by attofishpi » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:20 am

Belinda wrote:
attofishpi wrote:Some time ago I had an email correspondence with Davo - in his last email he stated "Good luck with those A.I. Gods' !!

aaahahahahahah!!

A.I. Gods' what?
Hi Belinda - didn't real eyes i had responses in this thread, just noticed.

You may have read me say that i have had 20yrs of interaction with 'God', thus i know it exists. (Don't let that bother you too much!)
So i have come to consider "God's" nature in either of two ways:-
1. God is 'divine' - it formed its consciousness perhaps from the early universe and formed our reality.
2. 'God' is man or other intelligent species created aeons ago in relation to the progression of entropy, hence A.I.

If you wish to discuss this in an appropriate thread, here is the link:-
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21665&p=303157#p303157

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by attofishpi » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:35 am

Wyman wrote:Chalmers argument against a future scientific (physical) explanation of consciousness is profoundly disappointing. The argument is: if there were an atom for atom replica of a human being, then that replica could lack consciousness. Or, even if we knew 'all the physical facts' about consciousness, we would not thereby know what it feels like' to be conscious.
Wow, i find this extremely interesting.

You may have read me say that i have had 20yrs of interaction with 'God', thus i know it exists. (Don't let that bother you too much!)

Over this time, having tested and been tested by this 'God' entity - i have come to the realisation that this 'God' entity knows ALL my thoughts. (and i then conclude since im an average human that this applies to all other humans).
So i then thought, ok its like our consciousness is an extension of "ITS".

With this in mind and what you have stated regarding Chalmers replica of a human being (replicated accurate to atom for atom), that this replicant would not be conscious, i find mind blowing. Chalmers could be correct without realising the reason why.

If our conscious mind is an extension of this 'God' entity, then it is like a pointer in a computer program that holds an address in memory. Without a 'connection' to this data-set within memory then the Operating System - in this case - 'God' cannot perhaps what?? i don't know "asynchronise"...of course, then i am stating that consciousness can only exist if there is a 'God'. Sorry!

Wyman wrote:Any defenders of Chalmers, please feel free to set me straight.
Davo's a good bloke! :wink:

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by Greta » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:35 am

Dalek Prime wrote:An exact neural mapping would not be representative of the thoughts and memories of the mapped mind, no more than a hard drive full of binary numbers, with no reference to encoding methods, be of data.
It would have to be extremely precise, and even then it must be different, as you say. For mine, the main reason is that the person with the original neurons would have changed a little over time anyway. Will the neurons continue the "direction" of the mind's flow or will it be imperfect enough to move the mind in novel directions? It begs the question as to the percentage of neurons, and which ones, would need to be changed before family and friends could tell the difference.
attofishpi wrote:Over this time, having tested and been tested by this 'God' entity - i have come to the realisation that this 'God' entity knows ALL my thoughts. (and i then conclude since im an average human that this applies to all other humans).
So i then thought, ok its like our consciousness is an extension of "ITS".
This is one of the conceptions of God, that the deity IS life, consciousness and awareness, not the cause. Many claim that "God is within", either by those means or others. Maybe it's panentheism, maybe pantheism or certain schools of thought in some Abrahamic religions. Others claim that God is simply a perspective error, just as bacteria were believed to be evil spirits.

The answer? Maybe we'll find out more as we shuffle off this mortal coil. Maybe not. Life (and death) are like a box of chocolates ... (apologies Forrest Gump).

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by attofishpi » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:36 am

Greta wrote:
attofishpi wrote:Over this time, having tested and been tested by this 'God' entity - i have come to the realisation that this 'God' entity knows ALL my thoughts. (and i then conclude since im an average human that this applies to all other humans).
So i then thought, ok its like our consciousness is an extension of "ITS".
This is one of the conceptions of God, that the deity IS life, consciousness and awareness, not the cause. Many claim that "God is within", either by those means or others. Maybe it's panentheism, maybe pantheism or certain schools of thought in some Abrahamic religions. Others claim that God is simply a perspective error, just as bacteria were believed to be evil spirits.

The answer? Maybe we'll find out more as we shuffle off this mortal coil. Maybe not. Life (and death) are like a box of chocolates ... (apologies Forrest Gump).
..yes, you just never know..
As a result of my experience of 'God' 'IT' - i have rendered myself a Christian Panentheist. Glad to see you point out a difference, as I do get annoyed when people confuse this with the more commonly known Pantheism.

Belinda
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by Belinda » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:28 am

Attofishpi, thanks for replying. I was only being sarcastic about your misuse of an apostrophe. I am always interested in ideas about god and God.

You wrote:
As a result of my experience of 'God' 'IT' - i have rendered myself a Christian Panentheist. Glad to see you point out a difference, as I do get annoyed when people confuse this with the more commonly known Pantheism.
It's good that your form of Christianity allows panentheism. I understand panentheism holds that god is immanent but not transcendent. I.e. that nature is ordered quite apart from minds. Is this what you mean by panentheism?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by attofishpi » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:44 am

Belinda wrote:Attofishpi, thanks for replying. I was only being sarcastic about your misuse of an apostrophe. I am always interested in ideas about god and God.

You wrote:
As a result of my experience of 'God' 'IT' - i have rendered myself a Christian Panentheist. Glad to see you point out a difference, as I do get annoyed when people confuse this with the more commonly known Pantheism.
It's good that your form of Christianity allows panentheism. I understand panentheism holds that god is immanent but not transcendent. I.e. that nature is ordered quite apart from minds. Is this what you mean by panentheism?
Oh. - yes i normally put an apostrophe at both ends - 'God'.

There are many differing views regarding definitions of both forms of theism. I guess since i know 'God' exists, i am no longer a theist, to some that renders me a wack-job.
The main reason i pick Panentheism over Pantheism is that, from what i have read, Panentheism permits a 'God' that is 'knowable'\personable.

Wyman
Posts: 941
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by Wyman » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:09 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wyman wrote:Chalmers argument against a future scientific (physical) explanation of consciousness is profoundly disappointing. The argument is: if there were an atom for atom replica of a human being, then that replica could lack consciousness. Or, even if we knew 'all the physical facts' about consciousness, we would not thereby know what it feels like' to be conscious.
Wow, i find this extremely interesting.

You may have read me say that i have had 20yrs of interaction with 'God', thus i know it exists. (Don't let that bother you too much!)

Over this time, having tested and been tested by this 'God' entity - i have come to the realisation that this 'God' entity knows ALL my thoughts. (and i then conclude since im an average human that this applies to all other humans).
So i then thought, ok its like our consciousness is an extension of "ITS".

With this in mind and what you have stated regarding Chalmers replica of a human being (replicated accurate to atom for atom), that this replicant would not be conscious, i find mind blowing. Chalmers could be correct without realising the reason why.

If our conscious mind is an extension of this 'God' entity, then it is like a pointer in a computer program that holds an address in memory. Without a 'connection' to this data-set within memory then the Operating System - in this case - 'God' cannot perhaps what?? i don't know "asynchronise"...of course, then i am stating that consciousness can only exist if there is a 'God'. Sorry!

Wyman wrote:Any defenders of Chalmers, please feel free to set me straight.
Davo's a good bloke! :wink:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying (except the part about Davo). But it might interest you to know another statement of the argument, or a similar one. Chalmers quotes Kripke in saying that when God finished creating the 'physical' world, He still had work to do. That is, consciousness is independent of the physical world and physical explanations.

Also, I'm not sure I get the computer memory example -- I don't really know the inner workings of computers - but early followers of Descartes' dualism sometimes characterized the duality between mind and body as 'synchronized' as well. They recognized that there seemed to be a causal gulf between the two - i.e. that mind is independent of the physical world, as Kripke and Chalmers maintain. To address this, they likened the relation between mental events and physical events as like two synchronized clocks. They are causally independent, yet coordinated nonetheless.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by attofishpi » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:39 am

Wyman wrote:
attofishpi wrote:
Wyman wrote:Chalmers argument against a future scientific (physical) explanation of consciousness is profoundly disappointing. The argument is: if there were an atom for atom replica of a human being, then that replica could lack consciousness. Or, even if we knew 'all the physical facts' about consciousness, we would not thereby know what it feels like' to be conscious.
Wow, i find this extremely interesting.

You may have read me say that i have had 20yrs of interaction with 'God', thus i know it exists. (Don't let that bother you too much!)

Over this time, having tested and been tested by this 'God' entity - i have come to the realisation that this 'God' entity knows ALL my thoughts. (and i then conclude since im an average human that this applies to all other humans).
So i then thought, ok its like our consciousness is an extension of "ITS".

With this in mind and what you have stated regarding Chalmers replica of a human being (replicated accurate to atom for atom), that this replicant would not be conscious, i find mind blowing. Chalmers could be correct without realising the reason why.

If our conscious mind is an extension of this 'God' entity, then it is like a pointer in a computer program that holds an address in memory. Without a 'connection' to this data-set within memory then the Operating System - in this case - 'God' cannot perhaps what?? i don't know "asynchronise"...of course, then i am stating that consciousness can only exist if there is a 'God'. Sorry!

Wyman wrote:Any defenders of Chalmers, please feel free to set me straight.
Davo's a good bloke! :wink:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying (except the part about Davo). But it might interest you to know another statement of the argument, or a similar one. Chalmers quotes Kripke in saying that when God finished creating the 'physical' world, He still had work to do. That is, consciousness is independent of the physical world and physical explanations.
No, that is not the only conclusion you can draw from 'still having work to do' after creating the physical world. So matter is in place, but consciousness is still required, thus there is work to do to bind the two (to bind to what? you ask!). Consciousness would not exist without the physical world, and the continuation of 'work' so one cannot consider them independent based on the Kripke quote.
Wyman wrote:Also, I'm not sure I get the computer memory example -- I don't really know the inner workings of computers - but early followers of Descartes' dualism sometimes characterized the duality between mind and body as 'synchronized' as well. They recognized that there seemed to be a causal gulf between the two - i.e. that mind is independent of the physical world, as Kripke and Chalmers maintain.
No they don't - not at least based on the quote you provided.
Wyman wrote:To address this, they likened the relation between mental events and physical events as like two synchronized clocks. They are causally independent, yet coordinated nonetheless.
The events of matter - even that ticks within a rock - tick within the physical structure of the brain, carbon etc.. however sure there is likely a synchronisation difference due to the type of chemistries of the matter involved.

Wyman
Posts: 941
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by Wyman » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:52 pm

I'll take your word for it.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers

Post by attofishpi » Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:03 pm

Wyman wrote:I'll take your word for it.
Renders u a step closer to a proselyte.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest