3 ms·

David Chalmers is not a scientist. Is a philosopher, and quite a respectable one. Consciousness is a much older problem than the new age thingy. And definitely

David Chalmers is not a scientist. Is a philosopher, and quite a respectable one. Consciousness is a much older problem than the new age thingy. And definitely is much older than the pseudo-skeptic that knows better than scholars in a branch with a very long and wide tradition.

joe_the_user 12y ago
It seems like you are defending his claims only based on authority. I can't say whether modern philosophy has dived into New Age nonsense or whether Chalmers just happened to be in the mood to make lazy, bogus arguments just for the video link you posted. But when someone starts saying "maybe a photon has a litter bit of consciousness", they have rather clearly entered the realm of pseudo-science.
- l33tbro 12y ago
  To be fair, 'pseudo science' is both a very sweeping and loaded term. Hate to be that guy, but we have to remember that scientism and 'new age' theory can be equally toxic.
  - joe_the_user 12y ago
    Pseudo-science is a strong term indeed, but I'm not sure what's a clearer term for an approach that uses a dose of social authority - indeed the mantle of science, to make statements that clearly fly in the face of facts that real scientific processes have established with some accuracy. The properties of photons are very well documented. Consciousness has not been found among them. Claiming that photons have "a little bit" of consciousness based "we don't know what consciousness is so it must everywhere/in-everything" seems to rather clearly like an abuse of logic. I am not claiming the mantle of science myself to tell someone what their subjective experiences are. I'm just saying the someone merely referencing their subjective experiences doesn't refute a long string of scientific experiments.
- joe_the_user 12y ago
  In fact I should add that I just looked at an article Chalmers wrote in a Douglas Hofstadter's book on analogies. There, Chalmers is making good, serious arguments that I agree with. My impression read about Chalmers in Wikipedia is that he went from making intellectually difficult but dry arguments about the particulars of consciousness to making rhetorically satisfying but intellectually flabby arguments grounded on the uniqueness of each person's subjective experience. By the time of the Ted Talk, his deal has become just pep talk for the uniqueness of consciousness. I don't know - pseudo-scientific arguments validating a person's uniqueness have a strong appeal even for those with a strong intellect, simply because they appeal to people's emotions. But that doesn't actually make them any more valid.

joe_the_user 12y ago

It seems like you are defending his claims only based on authority. I can't say whether modern philosophy has dived into New Age nonsense or whether Chalmers just happened to be in the mood to make lazy, bogus arguments just for the video link you posted. But when someone starts saying "maybe a photon has a litter bit of consciousness", they have rather clearly entered the realm of pseudo-science.

l33tbro 12y ago
To be fair, 'pseudo science' is both a very sweeping and loaded term. Hate to be that guy, but we have to remember that scientism and 'new age' theory can be equally toxic.
- joe_the_user 12y ago
  Pseudo-science is a strong term indeed, but I'm not sure what's a clearer term for an approach that uses a dose of social authority - indeed the mantle of science, to make statements that clearly fly in the face of facts that real scientific processes have established with some accuracy. The properties of photons are very well documented. Consciousness has not been found among them. Claiming that photons have "a little bit" of consciousness based "we don't know what consciousness is so it must everywhere/in-everything" seems to rather clearly like an abuse of logic. I am not claiming the mantle of science myself to tell someone what their subjective experiences are. I'm just saying the someone merely referencing their subjective experiences doesn't refute a long string of scientific experiments.
joe_the_user 12y ago
In fact I should add that I just looked at an article Chalmers wrote in a Douglas Hofstadter's book on analogies. There, Chalmers is making good, serious arguments that I agree with. My impression read about Chalmers in Wikipedia is that he went from making intellectually difficult but dry arguments about the particulars of consciousness to making rhetorically satisfying but intellectually flabby arguments grounded on the uniqueness of each person's subjective experience. By the time of the Ted Talk, his deal has become just pep talk for the uniqueness of consciousness. I don't know - pseudo-scientific arguments validating a person's uniqueness have a strong appeal even for those with a strong intellect, simply because they appeal to people's emotions. But that doesn't actually make them any more valid.