David Chalmers on Consciousness

David Chalmers on Consciousness

David Chalmers is a leading thinker in contemporary philosophy of mind. He is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Consciousness at Austral…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

This entry was posted in Consciousness and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to David Chalmers on Consciousness

  1. ZenMrcinaaa says:

    Consciousness is the basis of thought but Deckartes looking for certainty in the thought, not in the counciousness. Consciousness can not become a concept of discursive thinking as well as the eyes can watch but can never see itself, except in the mirror … But consciousness has no mirror… SUM, ERGO COGITO

  2. SocraticTaoist says:

    Maybe I was drunk and raging the first time I watched it XD

  3. theroland1983 says:

    You clearly haven’t listened to what he said at all. Chalmers doesn’t ‘stipulate God’. Firstly he’s an avowed atheist; secondly you fail at listening – “god” was an analogy. He also specifically states that it is entirely plausible that “Consciousness is just an emergent property” (spends a whole minute on it). He’s merely claiming consciousness exists; it can’t just be dismissed. “This guy” is a leading researcher in cognitive science, he’s probably “examined” a tad more science than you.

  4. subbaman100 says:

    Chalmers’ ‘Hard Problem’ isn’t a hard problem at all. More like the ‘impossible’ problem in the object over subject paradigm. 

  5. SocraticTaoist says:

    This guy clearly hasn’t examined any science at all. You can explain this pseudo-conciseness by understanding the physical process in the brain and how they interact. Consciousness is just an emergent property of the physical processes interacting. You can affect a persons consciousness by messing with their brains, isn’t that proof enough that the brain determinism consciousness. I guess not. Instead stipulate God for something you don’t understand and problem solved.

  6. K Russell says:

    This philosophical navel gazing is so pointless. We humans think we’re so fucking special just because we have consciousness - we’re not. A lot bullshit pedlars have made too much money out of the word ‘consciousness’. Monkeys, elephants and cats, are conscious and will recognise themselves in a mirror among a group. The difference between us and them is intelligence. This crap about consciousness is just our heightened self importance and our inability cope with the fact we are evolved apes.

  7. cupomash2 says:

    Then spread those legs.

  8. naturallogicskincare says:

    What you say here makes sense to me. I often get the intuition that we are that part of the Universe (“god”) that is used to observe itself.

  9. Notenik says:

    ALL ‘physical reality’ IS consciousness! Fundamental reality – which is non-physical – IS conscious energy. ‘Matter’ is consciousness, is formed by it. A multidimensional consciousness, that forms reality structures like this one! Consciousness does NOT arise from matter, it is the reverse! Bad luck for Atheists. ‘Consciousness’ is the finger pointing to ‘God’ – at least, the ‘multidimensional source’ of reality. Call it what you like.

  10. Penny L. says:

    I want to have David Chalmer’s baby!

  11. SolerDunk says:

    From the words of my philosophy professor on David Chalmers: “He’s actually a very major philosopher (not an Australian rockstar).”

  12. esraretin says:

    consciousness exists in 20% of people all of rest are stupid fuckin zombies and i hate them

  13. njf1208 says:

    I find Chalmer’s justification for consciousness contradictory to his own beliefs, considering that as far as I know he is an atheist.

  14. TheJoshua61840 says:

    i was completely open to what he had to say until he pulled the descartes card,,,,,,

  15. urgulp says:

    I think God drops these sort of characters on earth once in a while to give us a few clues as to the development of human understanding. It’s like he’s saying ‘come on mankind, keep guessing, you will figure it out eventually!’

  16. 99Asmae says:

    Consciousness is THE part of THE soul that is not able to perceive THE UNSEEN. THE part of THE soul ( not mind) that is only Allowed to perceive THE seen of human dimension. That part of THE soul is very small and therefore we wil never be able to comprehend all we see out there. THE bigger part of ur soul that is able to Grasp THE UNSEEN is THE unconsciousness that we cannot be aware of But Often we discribe It as instinct or paranormal activity

  17. bagofrandom says:

    What, according to Searle, is involved in understanding the words and sentences of a language? Does Searle succeed in showing that computers cannot understand anything in this sense? anyone wanna contribute?

  18. Ari Flanzraich says:

    read thomas nagel’s work. He is at the forefront of the battle against reductionism and physicalism, in terms of consciousness.

  19. bhigr says:

    Great interview. Short, precise, to the point. I have been marvelling about consciousness all my life and thought about the materialist view that consciousness is merely a product of the brain. I came to the hard conclusion that this is impossible. Physics can tell you how particles interact, it can’t tell you the conscious mind interacts with your body. So I am happy that someone else who is a professional in the area came to the same conclusion in a completely different way.

  20. struancurtis says:

    I once wondered if my cat is a philosophical zombie because it didnt seem to recognise itself in the mirror. I must’ve been smoking some funky logic.

  21. randy tyson says:

    Can it be that what we perceive as feeling, connected to Consciousness is only a side effect of the information being processed in the brain? Our language and the way it is connected with our consciousness, as far as forming thoughts that we understand, may be the scorce of these emotions we connect with the experiance of interacting with things outside of our personal beings.

  22. zezt says:

    IE you first assume their separateness by framing the question ‘how do does x interact with y’. So straightaway you may be asking the question wrong to begin with?

Leave a Reply