Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Awww, well please point out just 1 well documented thing that he says.

The "hard" and "easy'' problems of consciousness.

This explains exactly nothing, and only shows how easily manipulated you are.

Hex, do you know what the "easy" and "hard" problems of consciousness are?

Our brains and nervous systems are made of the same stuff as everything else, yet consciousness is present. The matter is in a different state. What is the difference between conscious matter and unconscious matter? It seems that certain dynamic configurations of feedback loops are the difference. Why should what is essentially a matter of physics and geometry produce this theatre in our heads? What is the connection between this dynamic geometry and a sense of experience?

Greta wrote:Hex, do you know what the "easy" and "hard" problems of consciousness are?

Our brains and nervous systems are made of the same stuff as everything else, yet consciousness is present. The matter is in a different state. What is the difference between conscious matter and unconscious matter? It seems that certain dynamic configurations of feedback loops are the difference. Why should what is essentially a matter of physics and geometry produce this theatre in our heads? What is the connection between this dynamic geometry and a sense of experience?

The hard–easy effect is a cognitive bias that occurs when, based on a specific level of difficulty of a given task, subjective judgments do not accurately reflect the true difficulty of that task. This manifests as a tendency to overestimate the probability of success in difficult tasks, and to underestimate the probability of success in easy tasks

As I said all the time, just because he uses fancy words, doesn't mean he explain anything by them or with them, that's what charlatans always do, by seducing the naive and simple minded by using just a few scientific words, but in incoherent order that explains nothing or are irrelevant. He makes no useable points, he doesn't really point towards any flawed points in science.

double posting

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Awww, well please point out just 1 well documented thing that he says.

The "hard" and "easy'' problems of consciousness.

This explains exactly nothing, and only shows how easily manipulated you are.

Read your post again, you didn't ask for an explanation. All you said was to name one documented thing. If you want an explanation then I can provide that.

HexHammer wrote:As I said all the time, just because he uses fancy words, doesn't mean he explain anything by them or with them, that's what charlatans always do, by seducing the naive and simple minded by using just a few scientific words, but in incoherent order that explains nothing or are irrelevant. He makes no useable points, he doesn't really point towards any flawed points in science.

Chalmers is a respected academic whose book, "The Conscious Mind" has been well received by the following academic journals:

Scholarly reception
The Conscious Mind has been reviewed in many journals including Foundations of Physics,[3] Psychological Medicine,[4] Mind,[5] The Journal of Mind and Behavior,[2] and Australian Review of Books.[6] wikipedia

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
The "hard" and "easy'' problems of consciousness.

This explains exactly nothing, and only shows how easily manipulated you are.

Read your post again, you didn't ask for an explanation. All you said was to name one documented thing. If you want an explanation then I can provide that.

I can say Fermions without really knowing what that is, and I can make the same bull speech as he spews without documenting anything, so again that proves nothing!

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:As I said all the time, just because he uses fancy words, doesn't mean he explain anything by them or with them, that's what charlatans always do, by seducing the naive and simple minded by using just a few scientific words, but in incoherent order that explains nothing or are irrelevant. He makes no useable points, he doesn't really point towards any flawed points in science.

Chalmers is a respected academic whose book, "The Conscious Mind" has been well received by the following academic journals:

Scholarly reception
The Conscious Mind has been reviewed in many journals including Foundations of Physics,[3] Psychological Medicine,[4] Mind,[5] The Journal of Mind and Behavior,[2] and Australian Review of Books.[6] wikipedia

That might be, but I refute his nonsense and babble!

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:As I said all the time, just because he uses fancy words, doesn't mean he explain anything by them or with them, that's what charlatans always do, by seducing the naive and simple minded by using just a few scientific words, but in incoherent order that explains nothing or are irrelevant. He makes no useable points, he doesn't really point towards any flawed points in science.

Chalmers is a respected academic whose book, "The Conscious Mind" has been well received by the following academic journals:

Scholarly reception
The Conscious Mind has been reviewed in many journals including Foundations of Physics,[3] Psychological Medicine,[4] Mind,[5] The Journal of Mind and Behavior,[2] and Australian Review of Books.[6] wikipedia

That might be, but I refute his nonsense and babble!

Give it up Hex, you're got nothing. Besides, academia couldn't care less what you think.

Ginkgo wrote:Give it up Hex, you're got nothing. Besides, academia couldn't care less what you think.

Yearh, likewise!

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Give it up Hex, you're got nothing. Besides, academia couldn't care less what you think.

Yearh, likewise!

I am part of academia.

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:This explains exactly nothing, and only shows how easily manipulated you are.

Read your post again, you didn't ask for an explanation. All you said was to name one documented thing. If you want an explanation then I can provide that.

I can say Fermions without really knowing what that is, and I can make the same bull speech as he spews without documenting anything, so again that proves nothing!

You said to name one documented thing and I did that. Do you want me to explain it in simple terms?

HexHammer wrote:but in incoherent order

I like to file my albums in incoherent order.

HexHammer wrote:I can say Fermions without really knowing what that is, and I can make the same bull speech as he spews without documenting anything, so again that proves nothing!

You already demonstrated this point with circularity. You brought it up without really knowing what it is.

HexHammer wrote:That might be, but I refute his nonsense and babble!

If only a refutation were possible by simply saying that one refutes something. You'd like to refute it. But that would require reading and understanding it first. And it requires more than saying that you refute it or that you disagree with it or that you think it's nonsense and babble.

Not that I'm a Chalmers fan, but you're not refuting anything. You don't seem capable of refuting anything. Try actually learning something about philosophy rather than just giving up in frustration and being a superficial reactionary. There's a lot of well-accepted stuff that deserves to be criticized, but you need to criticize it from within an understanding of it or no one will ever take it seriously. (It's difficult enough to get people to take it seriously when you criticize it from within an understanding of it.)

Ginkgo wrote:I am part of academia.

How?

Ginkgo wrote:You said to name one documented thing and I did that. Do you want me to explain it in simple terms?

I'm very greatful for that! Thanks!

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Give it up Hex, you're got nothing. Besides, academia couldn't care less what you think.

Yearh, likewise!

I am part of academia.

In which way and you obviously failed any academic approach to this topic.

See a journalist made up a completely babble article and called it scientific, it passed and was taken into 2 respected science media.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161121183 ... ?aid=81030

So just because some reviewers has accepted this nonsense and babble, doesn't mean it's actually worth anything. You are being fooled.