3 ms·

Nobody said it was a win for philosophers. It says it's a win for a philosopher (singular), and it is because he won the bet and therefore won a case of wine.

• LeonB 3y ago
  Anytime one philosopher wins, two other philosophers lose. And vice-versa.
• jfengel 3y ago
  It is a sort of win for the kind of philosophy this philosopher practices. He thinks that there is more going on in consciousness than just neurons firing. It doesn't really prove anything, of course. I actually don't think much of Chalmers' work. But it's very remarkable that the bet expired just as machines are coming tantalizingly close to being consciousness without qualia.
  • andrepd 3y ago
    > consciousness without qualia Isn't that a contradiction in terms? And how do you know if they have/haven't qualia? :)
    • jfengel 3y ago
      That was the question they were hoping to answer. We still don't know.
• sirk390 3y ago
  It could be double speak, but the obvious thing you understand from this formulation it that he won because he is a philosopher. Not that he won, and by the way he is a philosopher.