2 ms·

I referenced Chalmers for saying that we don't yet know what causes consciousness. He points in some possible directions, but they're not yet conclusive. There

I referenced Chalmers for saying that we don't yet know what causes consciousness. He points in some possible directions, but they're not yet conclusive. There's plenty of literature on why phenomenal experiences are fundamentally different from mechanic devices or even zombies, bodies that do what we do but have no feeling of anything they do. Just like computers that see yellow because they're programmed to react by means of logical circuits to a narrow frequency range around whatever yellow radiation is.

joe_the_user 12y ago
I referenced Chalmers for saying that we don't yet know what causes consciousness. He points in some possible directions, but they're not yet conclusive. There's a big difference "we don't yet know the cause" and "we cannot know the cause, let's give up and just call it a fundamental constituent of the universe". I'm pretty his video is arguing the latter point. There's plenty of literature on why phenomenal experiences are fundamentally different from mechanic devices Maybe there is but Chalmers even give a very plausible argument. There's lot of literature on theology too. I am aware "philosophical zombies" are a common topic in contemporary philosophy but I feel entitle to demand references to such things in the context of neurology give at least plausible logical arguments rather than arguing from authority or popularity.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]