Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Дэвид Чалмерс: Как объяснить сознание?" video.

  1. Panpsychism is not in opposition to materialism.
    8
  2. His consciousness as fundamental physical phenomenon doesn't make much sense, since there is a spectrum of consciousness and we first had to evolve to the degree of consciousness we have. A bacterium has none, we definitely have it. So it's something that arises slowly, nothing fundamental. His second idea is similarly far fetched. Consciousness is, as far as we know, always connected to information processing in complex animals. There is no reason it should be found somewhere else. I think there is a much more elegant explanation, a purely neurological one. Daniel Dennett wrote on some attempts.
    4
  3. Consciousness clearly happens in time. One thought appears after another. I don't know what a static consciousness would be like. Can the qualia of orange exist without time? Further consciousness seems to directly depend on our immediate circumstance. When there is a tree we might experience the qualia of it's smell. When a part of our brain is missing, the experience of sight might end altogether. I don't know what "dimensionless" is supposed to mean here.
    3
  4. But matter seems to influence consciousness, not the other way around.
    2
  5. ***** No single person in the world could build or explain a complete computer. An uneducated person or a person from the past would probably consider it magic. And may come to a similar conclusion that everything can do a little bit of calculation. This kind of explanation for a phenomenon seems to be wrong in most cases. Attributes usually arise through the structure of things.
    2
  6. Your first two steps don't make sense.
    2
  7. You can also say that consciousness comes from dragons. The problem is that this explains nothing and that dragons don't exist.
    2
  8. What does any of this have to do with consciousness?
    1
  9. Haha. Perhaps... : 3
    1
  10. How so?
    1
  11. Observing how something presents itself and explaining how something came to be are quite different.
    1
  12. The hard problem is a question of physics. Where else should it belong?
    1
  13. Vector Shift "Taxtro has spoken. We hear and believe." When you have nothing to say, you can still make fun of others. What about arguing for consciousness in bacteria instead of this empty polemics. "Taxtro admits ignorance?" No, I'm making REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. You could as well claim that only you are conscious and that you have an immaterial, immortal soul from god, but that would not be a reasonable assumption. "whereby matter produces conscious experience" What besides matter produces anything? You mean to answer the question with fuzzy thinking and mysticism. Well good luck with that, but I'm not optimistic about it. "let's throw in free will too" Free will, as people understand it, is a nonsense concept. Not even your god could have free will. That's not even a question in philosophy anymore. The problem is only "compatiblisists", who have redefined free will and generate the illusion of a controversy to the public. People like Dennett are not saying that you have, what people feel they have, "free will" / "agency", but they use free will in a new way. As you say: "some paper mache version so people can point and pretend" I think at some point we have to strip off the illusion of free will in order to improve our society further. All hatred, all shame and all pride comes from it "All in a day's work" No the real work is just beginning. It's critical inquiry not mystical thinking.
    1
  14. ***** If I hadn't understood, how could I have written about it, you obnoxious halfwit?! What you wrote is EXACTLY what I talked about and rejected in my first comment. -__-
    1
  15. ***** What you just said is simply bullshit. First you claim, I cannot make reasonable assertions, then you continue to with "we can assume". No, you can't. All the indications of consciousness are connected to a complex brain.
    1
  16. ***** Nice run along sentence. Let's cut through the bullshit here: Do you think stones and mud and water needs the same protection as dogs, cats, humans, etc? Or is there a significant difference?
    1
  17. ***** That's even more incoherent than before. It least try to be readable. "would you feel confortbale doing smashing you laptop or smashhing a jelly fish?" A jellyfish still possesses a neural structure, though you can argue that it isn't aware of anything. I think I would feel similarly uncomfortable smashing a robot that moves like a jellyfish, since both resemble animals, which consciously feel pain. "now we are not sayng everyfing has the same level or focus of  awarness" Exactly - and what makes this difference? The brain.
    1
  18. ***** You are still rambling in run-on sentences. Just make one paragraph for each point. Anyways you still haven't answered my question. If you really ask yourself what creatures and objects are more worthy of protection, I think that consideration will cut through your mysticism like a hot knife through butter. I cannot "know" that you are conscious and a stone is not. But it's a REASONABLE ASSUMPTION.
    1
  19. Dennett ignores consciousness rather than explaining it. I don't know why I thought what I wrote there. Upon reading Harris' book on the topic, I must say that panpsychism doesn't seem more far fetched than it's alternatives. I disagree with this older version of myself. EDIT: Apologies to Jeff and Info. I cringe at my responses to you guys. : 3
    1
  20. You are confusing consciousness with intelligence.
    1
  21. Panpsychism is still "hardcore materialism".
    1
  22. Different kinds of consciousness would still be an emergent phenomenon though?
    1
  23. I think you are confusing it with intelligence. What part of judgement requires qualia to exist?
    1
  24. You are making no sense. Why should an unconscious agent do better at understanding consciousness than a conscious one?
    1
  25. An unconscious intelligent agent could distinguish between itself and the rest of the world.
    1
  26. You are using meaning in two different ways here. If the word was erased from your mind, you'd immediately get ten times smarter.
    1