Understanding the origin and purpose of consciousness is called "the hard question".

Below is a video, where a neuroscientist, a psychologist, and animal psychologist and a philosopher discuss the current scholarship on consciousness.

14:30 There is no current explanation, only correlations.

35:00 Whether consciousness is "fundamental" and not a function of the brain is an unsolved question.

37:30 Whether physics can solve the problem of consciousness is in question.

55:30 The discuss whether a new approach to science itself would be required.

56:00 How science made it a taboo to talk about it (which is what happens when they don't have answers).

59:00 They confirm that there is no scientific model for consciousness. First person or testimonial evidence is the only evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_MTuVozQzw

Welcome and it is wonderful to see such a
terrific turnout here. A Huge thank you to
the Nour Foundation and The New York Academy of Sciences for making this
event possible.
I have to say it is a great pleasure to be here because we have a terrific panel
and we have some fascinating ideas to dig into, and I know this because I have
been neck deep in questions about consciousness for the last four to
five months. As Richard
mentioned, I'm in the process of putting the finishing touches on a
a big six hour radio series on the science of consciousness... which
will be coming to a public radio station near you in the coming months.
Now I'm not a scientist or a philosopher... I'm a public radio guy... but
for whatever reason, I can't stop thinking about this subject which i have
to say is rather odd, so at night I
look over at my wife Ann, who is reading some great novel,
and here i am plowing through some philosophical tome about the mind-brain
problem and i can't really explain it but it is strangely addictive, for me at
least, to read books about the nature of consciousness.
Let me give you two recent examples:
the neuroscientist Christof Koch who did groundbreaking work with
Francis Crick recently came out with a very interesting book called
"Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist"
So i interviewed him, and mentioned that
some scholars, including the distinguished philosopher on our panel
David Chalmers,
have suggested that science will never understand certain dimensions of
consciousness
Koch replied, and i quote,
"If you look at the historical record of philosophers it's pretty disastrous.
Science has a spectacular record of understanding the universe." And he went on to
say:
"I'm profoundly skeptical when philosophers tell us once again what we'll never know."
...end of quote.
Something to talk about this evening I think.
Now to take another example, the philosopher Thomas Nagel has a new book
called "Mind and Cosmos"
hot off the press... also quite interesting
Nagels... the guy who wrote the famous essay "What is it Like To Be a Bat".
The answer, by the way, is: we will never know.
Nagels' new book is a critique of the standard materialist model of science, and
specifically how many neuroscientist try to explain consciousness through
neural correlates...
He ends the book by saying, and I quote,
"I would be willing to bet that the present right thinking consensus will
come to seem laughable in a generation or two."
So here we have fundamental questions about science and philosophy
not to mention a certain degree of testiness when it comes to trying to explain
the nature of consciousness.
Of course there are all sorts of other big questions as well, for instance:
what kind of consciousness do animals have?
will computers become conscious someday?
and what about the people who've fallen into comas after suffering severe
brain trauma?
where does consciousness begin and end with them?
This is fascinating stuff...
We'll be talking about all of this and more
on our panel "The Thinking Ape: The Enigma of Human Consciousness". So let me
introduce our very distinguished panel of speakers

On the far end over there, David Chalmers is a philosopher of mind and consciousness
at New York University
and director of The Center for Consciousness at Australian National University

his many books include the conscious mind in search of a fundamental theory
removing down uh... the row here
lori santos is a professor of psychology at yale university investigating the
evolution of the mind theory of mind and the development of cognition in humans
and nonhuman primates
daniel comment is eight nobel laureate and professor emeritus of psychology at
princeton university who pioneered behavioral economic theory
he's the author of thinking fast and slow
and nicholas jeff is a physician and scientist at weill cornell medical
college where he focuses on the pathophysiology of impaired
consciousness arousal regulation and effects of deep brain stimulation
techniques
on minimally conscious
patients it is great to have
altogether
i noticed a quick word about what we're gonna do this evening we will talk for
roughly an hour or so and then we're gonna open it up to you
four questions
and uh...
we'll be off and running it
dave thomas let me start with you since i mentioned you earlier some people say
understanding consciousness
is the biggest myth mystery left and science
policy that is pretty well the biggest challenge
for scientific worldview
and i thought about ten the sciences and mathematics and physics and the book
levels
in this in these areas
somehow
work in the middle of these areas
kind of a sense of a kind of uh... debasement of the world views tration
where a mckinney up
some uh... some puzzle like white around the edges from we've got a sense of
the relevant picture of the uh... universe of what the domain
looks like it was just beautiful
scientific picture we have a great chain of explanation
explains chemistry chemistry
explains
biology and biology at least explains aspects of it
psychology aspects of
sociology and so on
under the whole lot that we haven't worked out
the police car
somehow sense of the end of the picture allah
fit together what's interesting about consciousness is it just doesn't seem to
fit easily
into that picture
as this is a picture of the world in terms of
object of mechanism
describe from the objective
point of view
unconsciousness as the quintessentially subjective
phenomenon is how things feel
from the inside is how we experience the world from subjective
point-of-view embossing
in this objective
picture of the world
seems on the face of a chilly weather is going to be
subjectivity sweatsuit with by the way i never said the thing that you said i
said it
it's notified scott explain
consciousness but if the u_s_ intended that there is some kind of a certain
kinds of standard scientific explanation holy for example
in terms of
brain mechanisms i think that fail
festival both more farley is a challenge
decides that maybe the time at the decisive theories of science have to be
expanded
to bring a bring consciousness and for years of organizer
conference call toward the science of consciousness went i'm pro science
everybody healthful diet might have
understands your data recites uh... will will come back to that how far
sites google and go
let me just for this opened to the rest of you are
is consciousness
one of the big question souter is that one of the big mysteries or have we have
we overblown this is it that not as big a challenges were saying that
maker shipley not and i i i would totally agree and i would say that this
time
the size of consciousness is extremely challenging and in the context of trying
to make
operational valuations of patients when the question is are they conscious or
not his is something where we don't have a standard model i don't think there's a
dogma there would be laughable so we do have
measurements and we have operational approaches to it and we certainly know
when somebody's conscious the way we know karthik adlai when somebody's
conscious but when you have somebody who is in a coma and starts to recover
but they inconsistently respond it may be very difficult to know when when
they're not responding are the conscious either not conscious that they never
respond could they become conscious are they conscious now we just don't know
has it
and we're getting better that measurement tools
approximate answers the probabilities of well which you worry about this more
and actually i would say that as i've looked at this in my college it looked
this more carefully with better measurements over the last ten years
this is more challenging
and harder
and ira realize how many mistakes high-paid textile make them
and today so i would like a find it very child very humble and kind of problem of
didn't read it
attached soft
laura so just let me turn to you know your specialty is more animal
cognition uh...
panic is this is this a big question for you what is consciousness and i think i
agree with weapons and said so far i don't even think as modern era
scientists and hadn't side as we know how to get at
the question
subjective experience when you're having it what it looks like that i had a
measure it
that said
no cognitive science has made
tremendous inroads into other things that we thought we were going to be able
to measure answer grabbing his panel
back in the nineteen fifties and given to be here sitting up here we tell you
we can measure data and has deeply well but we look at the black box in my mind
is just gonna remain a black
and fascinating we've come up with all kinds of cool techniques to probe what's
going on in the black box both behavioral ones inner scientific ones
and so n_f_l_ uh... i didn't think you would be that the optimist appeared
image of god is is that
cynthia and i have to add glass half full approach that i think we definitely
don't even know where the search yet but that doesn't mean fifty years from now
we'll all be in the streets and alleys this fantastic to we know him
danny comment how how big a help big question is this insights consciousness
it's very odd and and
i'm in the minority because for some reason
i'm one of those people who knew
cup myself completely fascinated by this
fees and and
in part i think because i remember could imagine with an answer to that question
would be
so i'd find it difficult to conceivable question without having some idea
of the structure of with an acceptable answer would be
that
if there is one
i don't know about it
what's
i do
c
and you know that's the approach that you talked about
in fact
weekend identified consciousness
we can agree on it
it's not
it is subjective but we can
evaluate the consciousness
of other people
and and above the rebels and we're getting better at it and we're getting
more consistent that
building from the bottom up
i think we can get an understanding
you know the better understanding or at least better description
of the conditions for coffers
to sort of bridge the gap between the material in this objective
i don't know
how that gap could be great
i don't know what the meaning of the question is will any of that is the
objective that we hopped
i don't see how we can succeed
is is neuroscience
that the the most important discipline and trying to understand consciousness
paul angry at nagpur so i i i i i
desire to find a sub set
commitment or science is a very broad topic
move most the people i know
or work closely with former scientists
some of the earth is uh... some other or engineers some of them are cross train
and lots of other things so
if if he it a simple answer is yes if they uh... size of the brain if we
believe that consciousness is a brain process which
i you know see patterns of brain process
be center around our science but there are signs per se is a
a barge kind of set of active so let's come back to this question of subjective
experience and interests yes neuroscience can map
lots of things that are happening in the brain and you know such and you know
these
these parts of the brain have to fire for this particular of mental state to
happened but
is that really getting after what subjective experiences about
maybe the question is why
is neuroscience
the most important thing but is there are signs all you need
split plan optusnet for all the reasons that
neuroscience alone isn't going to tell you why there is
some activity uh...
because of this
potentially on bridgeable gaps of my peers always been a correct out of the
data from your side to be a huge pup
of the story both together but we might think of a subjective data
about consciousness measured by the for the first person point of view or from
the
synthetic third-person point of view weaponry
talk to people and ask them
what they're conscious thought
and building into a kind of multilevel
picture the take seriously the nearest hospital should take seriously the
deliverance is
off the deck of experience
i want to say a word
salute for my discipline it's not only in your slot machine there is
really experimental psychology i think that a lot to say about the cause
and in fact some of the more interesting data coming from there
because they're raising the question if we accept the sort of he
obvious definition of what consciousness business
there is an enormous amount of mental activity that goes on outside contras
and and i think
they're all discovery is being made their that's for some people if my field
raises the question of innovate they don't know what consequences for because
lake never confine anything that cannot be done without fifty and and i think
that this is actually happening so we have the feeling that consciousness is a
very important for
sort of deeper mental activity for more boldly mental ability food following
that does seem to be of or fall extremely sophisticated stuff that can
be produced without that semester measurements very difficult
setbacks
i want to come back to this question about subjective experience and
and yes we can ask people what they're thinking what they're feeling
we cared uh... you know hook them up to and from a ride
and uh... aspin some of these questions and monitor what's going on the brink is
that
but still to try to understand
the the essence of what they're feeling is that good science really go there and
the other then asking what the person is is thinking about
i mean is that science listing between gathering
data about what they are
conscious often explain
the day again dot american gathered i could find out what your conscious off
by asking let me just read this tough race philosophical questions archivist
role
your conscious maybe europe complete zombie
and so on and you know
that time i can
it seems reasonable
that for some people based take we're saying is a gut cure conscious and
thereby i can find out about
other people's consciousness
it's nothing to explain it
what we're doing right now actually from there has been a very big
neuroscience unconsciously developing especially on the left
twenty years of animating places
right now it is the science of correlation
correlates of neural processes of certain kinds of of consciousness people
draw the diagram of the
visual system it looks like okay these bits
connect more closely to the kinds of conscious states them
people report
and so on then the than other bits to missiles are at the correlation what
would not
lacking is explanation why is it that all these processes
in the in the brain sugar growers
and we have no idea what it would look look like improvement
can we ever kept that can we ever get
and explanation
for y
subjective experiences
forgets the answer is yes but
that doesn't mean that that if there's any closer to it
went to raise it difficult to you because
one thing that troubles me is that
something is going to be happening from robotics so we're going to have robots
with with facial expressions expressing emotions
and we're going to be responding mohali to go
and then they're going to talk and they are
forces are going to express emotion they're going to make sense
they were not conscious to us
uh... will have no doubts that this is something that is going to happen
before we understand consciousness we will have robots that will appear
contrast what's will appear
they are and i don't know if they are affected
i mean how do you know
and it's her any better criterium them
it's a document that we make about the other plans
you know i know my own subjectivity let me know contras but but my belief about
your consciousness i think could really be simulate by my belief in the robots
consciousness advance
you know without those book
you know other i have no idea to let me ask you a maybe david a question
confusing that robot that robot could use that language
and what we what what i would have a robotic aneta adequately use natural
language and i i think that's the heart of problems with that so that's not a
problem except all be convinced of the robot was conscious when that robots
estimate
already under unloaded down that i'm a set of
soulful soccer practice cuts blaming her

experiment but that subjectivity don't
think you can
find conference was leading the philosopher
got stuck
and that is unnecessary and
position
well so it was just pursue this question of computer consciousness could
certainly a lot of people speculate on that
does a computer or have to
does the makeup of the computer have to mimic the human brain
the human brain in some way or is gonna be entirely different six we what does
it take
for computer to start to develop what would what would seem to be
consciousness me we have no idea for an accident attrib r tripwire thinking that
they're going to use all they have to do
i mean syria on my iphone sometimes get shit like we knew there was a writing
about dan fleischman canada conscious objective extinction
and sell any dictate the different question about whether or not actual
gears are producing something like a subjective statements robot i think any
simply not true that we can tell
women bird flu loosened further
is
overwhelming but it's a little bit other people
poland portugal everybody assumed definition
but back one-sided
you know really convincing robots
something in this audience
i would not be able to say or that's what it is not conscious moment it would
look the evidence about how the consciousness of other people can be
free but that was that it can be produced nazi it can be produced
you know when we say they won't speak that will end with her
either
teacher and
philosophy many years ago professor will he learned that he was all sometime in
the nineteen fifties
about when computers would understand language
and he said all
and by never i'd be the next fifteen years and myself we really don't know
what does that mean
context
to join fellow and i just i just think that part of the problem is
our best evidence for consciousness and anyone else is on subjective experience
and in in essence it's it's it's transferring the problem to how little
we can get out of external observation about intuitions about the process
and what could be and for might work and we've is very bottom up as you say and
the the questions that we're dealing with often are okay
could this system recover consciousness
so they become immediately mechanistic
and the error mealy in the context of the human brain
and every challenger
and they really do require that we think about wealth and what state
can produce
consciousness we're getting much better i think even with causal uh... efforts
to get to the state question but
the ship subjectivity how that happens
mechanistic lee i think is is opaque
lauria what our uh... pursue this uh...
in terms of animal consciousness is that you study
uh... cognition in primates in particular uh...
what kinda comparisons can we make between human consciousness and uh...
and nonhuman primate consciousness i mean it's a big
difficult issue especially when you mean about that subject experience i can't
hang out with them without thinking on the subject of experience
mean any of you guys out there who have a pet
i bet you implicitly assume that that dog heaven keep enrich subjective
experience right
regis right now
uh... it's it's still a puzzle to ignore the subject of experience question asked
what are they thinking which i think we had better measures to name some
traction on
but but it's a real puzzle and i think the more we get to know about animals in
the more fascinating things they do they're not using natural language but
they're making incredibly complicated decisions incredibly complicated
valuations they have preference is they have all that kind of behavior of
signatures that we associate with
a creature that's having subjective experience
uh... but again uh... that's my that's might require which is gonna get tripped
up by you really can't see g_i_ to d_n_a_ jobstreet mood swings
slightly differently from cricket ball from a very important in our produced
enough contras split
and that antoinette mls
uh... you know computers can compute very complicated things than that
needles we don't think that's it
it is really the
it is emotional connections that gives us the situation so
it's an interesting psychological question what makes us feel than
something it's conference besides ourselves
you know that's how the psychology to it whether that psychology consisting of
science
i'm very skeptical about and and the example of the computers
you know the robot sweeping by looking at most mo
well maybe not fooling me
if it doesn't go far
baps you know that's why i've never
quite caught up in that issue
responded
the classic philosophical problems
people called the problem of all the mines
how do you know that anybody has a mind how do you know
has a mind the moment finding is that this problem is cropping up
practically
families within that
the science of of consciousness all the time how do you know that
or conscious how do we know that um...
eventually the problem will come up about computers and the negroes were
come
how do we know that
or coming up for months on fish in the states and so on
diagnose the presence of consciousness
and these people before we find that people very
the very imaginative creative defiant and you know that in their techniques
which people are
for developing don't slow
the uh... the
the philosophical
problem but they've
you know if we find criteria for consciousness that seem to fit
without mobile practices describing consciousness to uh...
two people and
everyday life
and elsewhere me there is a
beginning to be up
a field of uh... we'll call the psychology of other months dependence
alluding to
here's funded greta real ordinary people
views prescribing
consciousness to an experiment something of the robots
is a baby has this has not shown the movie as it is that one conscious
because i'm thinking to make a difference of actually yeah
consciousness to deal with you know
the through things like uh... pain and the through the motions so i'm thinking
teams and much more with
the sophisticated stuff
so if you could come up and he said he did tell us
some of the things that you're doing the best slow
so strange
about damned caps that after this
parse that a little bit
the and fascinating in it
a relation or did just that i think right did so
but i think this is this this point about
is somebody conscious can can come up
in ways that unit just
unimaginable
until you're actually faced with certain
patients at the bedside
and um...
in our life
come into the dayton this comes up almost all of our work but there's some
cases that you know i i still go home every night and i think about and and i
worry a lot about
because in we know that
some people can peel often
debasing the dive and on the butterfly is encountered
an example of a someplace fully conscious they lost their motor function
silkroad all from the outside perspective they seemed totally without
cutting know if you're good examiner you can figure out the conscious right away
it's no problem
this isn't the problem
fact i'm setting it up
and nadia noticed if i thought i'd let you know
because you have a reliable
communication channel
okay so this is like a sort of a apart
right answered so there's a let me despite worth kind of saying operation
they won't work
looking at patience
so there's
common vegetative state and least
by definition
one amaral decisive patient and identifies them as income or vegetative
it means the same thing from a behavioral point of view
there's no evidence that they're responding to the world there's no
evidence that they're taking in sensory information and are aware of it
the difference between cullman vegetated state is a technical one that has to do
with
the arousal systems in the brain stem returning to patterning apna hi soap and
eyes closed
changing in the eye opening and i closure this is not related to sleep and
wake it's not
associated with the kind of electric light and easy and sleep
and it's just eight part of
this sort of the typical recovery pattern after combo with you know
some fine print for all those in the audience of thirty who has opened commas
in there
so say with particular kind and rick
but uh... it's a very border vegetative state from the next level
tell recovery which is now being called minimally conscious state
you start to see sort of on ambiguous signs of some response the environment
and in the survey grey zone between these two conditions
five things are just
tracking of a visual image
uh... adult uh... their eyes look over to a sound
although those don't seem very different than just opening arising closing on the
turns out that
their creasing to recognize that even those small signs can make you
differences and prognosis predictions and and
this is something that's not being dealt with very well because there's nowhere
to put people like this early on and they can't go on for weeks to recover
and
you know they might some of them might recover so there and waiting and walking
around in the year and not get adequate their piece of you know this is sort of
like a major shift
as you move on and people
start recover more function they might
sort to respond to a coming up
and then that becomes very obvious that somebody is dead lift up
give me a thumbs up but taking up that's not most people can get the debts like
okay that maybe that's all they can do they're a little consciousness fits into
this
minimally conscious state but you know
that's within our office want to call it
a lot of people his conscience and that's that's it
but operationally
once we can communicate with somebody with
uh... yes or no
it's reliable it lifted lifter farm up on the right for yes lifted from up on
the left for no
and
do this every time we cover the bedside
that's transferring up but there are these
locked in patients through as in the diving bell yes but if i can only have
control over there
applique what widely dinnertime letterhead all that
the question always
just me about
uh... these patients how do we know they're out
locked impatience
or just like that
simply out of control but so does this do you anticipate why was setting all
this up for the audience that's exactly right
so
to two examples
one example is a published case if anybody wants to read about it was a
patient who was blocked in classically with the brain stem injury to my
colleagues and i saw
who had an unusual extension of the injury into the auditory system
dietary system is usually very well preserved for this bilateral goes to
both sides of the brain
but this person ended up with the central
auditory i'd never shown what that means is
they could hear
but they couldn't really put together complex outs
and as a result cult e although it was unrecognized for many months
they've rely primarily on the breeding
but anytime somebody would come and try to test their cognitive level
they we get to a point where this person to see mike they fell off
and they were judged to be no my conscious or cognitively impaired
wasn't into hock
my colleague judges see no finally figured out uh...
draw
from the right
the questions it became clear that the personals fully conscious
okay
and just needed to have the visual representation of the works a case of
the in that case they're locked in their fine
but the kind of cases that we're dealing with now that i think a really most
troubling
our patients whom the times are just like a lot conviction
look down for yes look to the side for now
actor communication
for two hours a day
they can try to work with the d_c_i_ but they're not good enough
or that i've been up to use one reliably
and understand this and then this challenges think is a virgin c to the
whole problem because i have an urgency to treat if you want this person to come
out
and you need to understand support of the problems they're having has it that
they're that it'll controller motor function where they're conscious state
having problem and how do we make those measurements and that's that's kinda
like you know
that's one example there are many this effect is so fasting i want to come back
to get the threat that we were talking about earlier about
animal consciousness 'cause they're all kinds of fastening questions here uh...
i get one i mean that the question that
so many of us ask is
so what is if it makes pots human what is it about human consciousness that
sets us apart from
the rest of the animal world
is it something fundamentally different about us or is it just a matter of
degree are are chimpanzees basically like us that sort of adolescent level

glory what's your cell amateur in terms of subjective experience messages kazan
great ways to measure uh... in terms of cognition in terms of how they think
we're starting to get thinks an imprint hints about what makes this different
any idea that they did a search elkins away move might think makes us unique
event language would come up as i could be cancer and i think language helps
because you don't have language as we said without natural language it's hard
to see express yourself and so on
my guess is that language is actually a red herring i'm kind of in the minority
of animal researchers thinking the stuff
by just think if it keeps if pigeons had language they just wouldn't really have
anything interesting to see anyway here there are any other item i did
and to get like that dot and
and and so legally folks have started to think that really one of the things that
makes us human is that kind of thing that we're doing right now which is not
a factor we're communicating with natural language but that they were
motivated to actually share what we're thinking at all
uh... that's the power that language does in its expression but it's built on
a motivation that's not the words that we use and then after language we had
it's built on this motivation actually share and we're getting new hints that
it seems like other animals team in our closest relatives chimpanzees in the
numbers they don't seem to have the same kind of motivation to share what they
know about the world
and that
critics a big difference is that means they're not connect communicate in the
same way last they're not going to in a day and to share with you know
uh... so that's kind of wet
what folks have been thinking that let me mention something that
jane goodall once told me when i interviewed her one time she said that
uh... she's fascinated by
the whole idea of
sinking without words thinking about language in
she said that if she could
spend just a few minutes
inside the mind of a chimpanzee
learn more
what a chimpanzee is that both of
decades of research pretty standard is that resonate with you
uh... yes questioning if i can take some sort of math and science fine machine
but said it might be xin incident i havnt been fantastically interested
i wouldn't think it should then the epic something
we crazier than that you take to take you can't uh... summit view people
always tend to end sex when they try to pick something that is unconscious
but the fact is that you actually look inside behavior sometimes insects and
doing some fantastic re complicated things that mimic what humans do
and really retrace my favorite example is asked for appeal will simply talks
about
and gets reaction to death
uh... so if you live in in colonie one of the things you have to deal with his
degree in death around you
and it turns out that if you prepared etc and inside an ant colony they cancel
take the and out identify it take it out to an area of refuse in way and what
folks calling him cemetery
uh... and this little easy mci mission trips a while millions have concept of
death you know what are they using to decide this other is unconscious about
stuff
turns out they have problems actually pretty easy it's ismael chemical called
a lake acid that the intimates
uh... from ithaca skelton when it dies
and if you put
that chemical on living instead arriving around events in the congo grafton
entered
cumplea f mistake when typing without him i don't have a living follow-up on
that end i mean this is an ask you all to speculate on this how far
family and watching keeping consciousness goes
across
yes ok sorry it'll be a long time ago
yeah i mean advantages today i a m was raises a college student i with the lead
on griffin who's a scholar of the animal consciousness
and he made the claim is that we don't know anything different about the
organic matter uh... mix of non human brains vena nothing that makes it
different than human brain
and therefore his even most parsimonious explanation as it goes to all other
organic reaches delhi college
that's one thing about
in the absence of a procurement
in some cases amanda there at the end story that you tell is very interesting
because
it ties up
with with newt talking only about emotional responses
here is something that looks like an emotional response
and our tuition is all that's you know
week we can empathize with that
and then it turns out or if it's a reaction to a chemical
forget it something that's not evidence of consciousness
well this argument is flawed every possible way
domain you know we do feel that way and it ruins our intuition
maybe what we are responding to the equivalent of a chemical it's just you
know
and an emotional expression that we can empathize with
it's very hard to find a place where
consciousness
gives out as you move across yeah whopping didn't the natural order of
maine
you're talking first in some capacity so that
without that
you wouldn't have consciousness
any subpoena language maybe you know our reasoning
it appears to me i don't know if you need a break
they have dissident that was among the questions you know
amended its constitution returned to them
real consensus on the other biological aunt animals but in fact uh...
dot reference product david griffin
as a false for bruised come out and favorite in favor of
pen psycho
the view that everything
the some elements of consciousness
at the very bottom level
of the uh... of them
the natural order of protection
dave have everything you guys wanna countless yup how did you come up with
something so i don't really have taught does so i have some idea i i do have
suggested that maybe they consciousness cannot be
reduced
to physics that in fact consciousness maybe
a property of nature in itself
thinkin top college just maybe
we have things inside psych space and time unmatched cannot be explained in
terms of thinks of bubba foley explains
in terms of things simpler
than themselves ascot unscientific leads to some agrees to itna in physics and
when you step outside physics
explaining things in terms of
things simpler than themselves but
this is a strategy to that doesn't seem to work well
for consciousness level has been led to speculate that we should take seriously
the idea that
consciousness is fundamental
once you do that and that the sdt two different steps in the uk
and the ira once you've done that
also natural
to speculate that it is just speculation
the cost of may be present at a very fundamental level of the physical
natural order
and the printout and that you know
david griffin may be correct in the consciousness has to be found some
element of consciousness is becoming fundamental
papa both rodrico with the fact that
you know what what
is it may to some people because they proto consciousness just center
that the other defense i can send us a suburb of her to uh... because then we
don't understand the south we don't understand the nature of matter
regardless of consciousness
when it comes a conscious of our india
or in the dark and uh... africa lost really speculate
for a living we discussed pragmatic o kelleher he had a very you're shaking
your head
no i don't want to spoil the fun
huh
linearity group green
that's what we hav fire intuitions about consciousness unwed
when we stop in
and talk about consciousness of the mom rather than about their intuitions about
consciousness there's literally no limit to what we could all of you
because we actually don't know
all we hv orion our intuitions about consciousness
the legitimacy
of that question
is something that i would like to question
i thought it is you know if we don't know what it is this all we have our
intuitions
ultimately what we can do and study the psychology of the situation
and that is a very different thing than studying the apology of consciousness
itself

we don't know where consciousness as president i said i don't know that
consciousness is present in these long biological systems
we also don't know that is not present no we don't we simply don't have that
i'd be a bit high maintenance queen kono
that is it's the only thing that we have is originally from the world the
presence of contrition
religion when you do not understand the question i think i don't understand what
we don't know if i think what we need to do is build the theory
of consciousness that explains the data that we know about
between which is she wondered that explains the regeneration animals
stated that i was back to the question all
concise explain conscious as i mean
the idea that's on the table here it seems to me is maybe there are some
dimensions of consciousness that are beyond the explanatory power
assign font
it is and it is a legitimate hypothesis to entertain
but based on a very interesting one
dante's
traffic because it doesn't do any work for us them and i i think it's fair to
stutter i would say which is bracket
that possibility and work is if we could
discover enough
information about how certain things work mechanistic lee digging intuition
that's precise about how
things that we consider conscious happen her in the human brain
uh... that the question of where is conscious and starts a runoff file a
genetic spectrum his art one because you know without a mechanism attached to
what we already are trying to solve about when were conscious or not valued
is not a medieval questioning me and i don't think it jellyfish is conscious at
least in a way that makes any contactor does any work for me tell me understand
the problem of assigning consciousness as a possibility mechanistic lead for
physical system which is a brain usually when i'm thinking about it
if it is true victory could be fooled into thinking that
that the robot this controversial fully express and most from mobile
that really change in the picture entirely and good all that is left i
think in the psychology
because of asking that onto logical question is the robot really contras
undreamed not sure that there is any more that we can do beside the fact that
yes we think it is both and i feel it is as i say and i think that day addicts
studying in figuring out our and to wishes about what is conscious is an
important question for you is what is
they're fantastically ron i mean i think everything we know about intuition
suggest they're fantastically on however
the governor a lot of our behavior in a lot of our judgments about things right
means of right now in in politics with questions about whether corporations
should have rights
and i bet hardly intuitions about whether those corporations have
subjective experiences probably tell something about
you know what we should be doing tonight there's a big question about let me be
the reception here should we be eating things that had me inept certain forms
of certain kinds of animals and i bet our intuitions about whether we should
be doing that
at governing fact that one and i think that have come to states that
i think understanding what our intuitions are telling us
uses canoe for any really meaningful
intimidating daytona come back to you because having do you agree
the rest of the panel are some of the analysts are saying that basically
some of these questions are not relevant because science
has no handle on
some of the larger philosophical questions about conscious but i'm not
saying that nutrition
development agent but study electrolytes lesbian
this is the crazy but i do think
that it is a me front is a meaningful question
whether jellyfish
conscious wet weather goes further
and there is a fact
of the matter about which may be
but not my position to
but now maybe another
however i think you know there's going to be a waiter
it may be ways eventually togethers
scientific methods if indirect land-use is what i think we have to do
stop of the cases of cartoons as we know about
the case but we have data roughly
at the human condition
builder theory
an explorer free theory that connects
cautions that for example
throughout uh... to bring prices i think of this is
try to abstract way that we have some fundamental principles of connect
brain process
too cautious that could set up to the most successful theory that
explains the data we have
consciousness is generated by certain kinds of your complex
versus certain kinds of reasoning on
certain kinds of complex power structures
and so on
then will be in a position to say
to extend these two other cases in sable
that's the theory that works extended family cases where the structure of the
present
we should expect the consciousness of is not present it could turn up on the
other hand of the theory of consciousness of
the best turns out that high cost of some basic properties for example of
and information processing in the brain and then what what to do is to extend it
to other cases that may be speculative because we've had measure questions
directly in the system to protect that my theory gives us reason to think
that there is no doubt that might help to explain computer consciousness that i
mean if if consciousness ultimately is about information uh...
you know a computer might have a
rooted in the game integrated information system as the human brain
does
welcoming could be
and that's what he did nothing for the conflict that tuition
it could be the jury so it could isolate
and area in the brain
that is associated
wisconsin's that is actodine e speculated and then if we found animals
that don't have that area of the brain we would have some
evenly
we would have some reason to say they don't have conclusive
but that would really conflict
intuitions associated with the robot was certainly doesn't have those areas of
the brain and can't fool us into the cancellous can lead us into
give generate the same intuitions
but it has consciousness
i don't i don't really see a map
the way outlook looks
i have it does promise a robot i think there's an analogy is depicted it isn't
typically the case that most of the intuitions but consciousness just come
from observing other people they come from this and respected aspect of
examine natural language and and having subjective
or at least taking the idea that we as a bit of experience and then acting
according and sharing it as you would say so i could truly program
robot
to do all of you about man there is no no you could but it now it was a robot
then that might be the only reason why you wouldn't attribute consciousness to
it and it wouldn't be batteries
unless we have a mechanistic accountable consciousness
burrows from and we had instantiated that in the robot today to have a v_
taken your own replacing one of the time her
and that effort
functionally isomorphic to the original uh...
neurons and not be enough to bring them of a leftist
nih
go to the
well done
we speculate that the law school bus whether you know it has to be made of
meat
and uh...
and uh... i don't see any reason would would have to be made and sell
this if you found silicone substitutes
but i see no reason
and the functioning would remain the same and the emotionality expressions
would remain the same pet transfers the problem sort of the way david is talking
about the because it is they say it could be a permission or could be some
other aspect
of complex matter
that the brain is an is an example of sharing that property
it's essential
and once we understand that certain things become transparent about
how this kind of thing happens at that but i think it's more likely to be the
information than something
than the biology
for to highlight what like plasma physics like something about decried as
a matter of some kind of late
you know the thing that happens
with certain kinds of things and hope
if it is the inflammation
then that doesn't fit with our intuitions
which are driven primarily by emotion
so our attributions of consciousness of driven by the motions when we think
about consciousness we think about
installation process
this is there is really a deep
disconnect between those two
but let me ask you about
research project that is now going on what some people have called the connect
up this

extremely ambitious project two
the neural circuitry of the brand it's
it's you know
sort of almost beyond comprehension to think about it i mean they're nearly a
hundred billion neurons in the brain
trillions of synopsis was to say theoretically somewhere down the road
this would be tapped
how close are we to understanding consciousness
pele
and a lot of people project info
i feel like if i answer of each and one of their ideas so
i don't really did
but i think one of my colleagues partha nature of the rubrics articles from
harbor is trying to develop a um... estes digital atlas of
the detailed connections of a mouse
since my mother
one of us projects in that space
and he points out
that many of the cells
their connections are so manifold across the bridge when you actually do one of
these uh... uh... studies that they're doing
retake ultra micah thompson take the entire brain
int reset every possible
hip that's gonna require
theoretical models
and laws about how systems that have this architecture mighty possibly work
so and other were closer but that is the right direction money
adair leasing absolutely fascinating project backpack at lunch today with
someone's working on the science project of the brain activity mats
yeah tried funding to really
get the whole uh... you know the whole brain for medical bhi aa
a fly and then uh...
your true fees if the
central
and then maybe
fifty years a
human brain through that kind of uh... imaging techniques of her
threat once complete
developed in i do think that want to go up
that kind of trolling neuroscience obviously going to be revolutionized
than yours aspects of the message
about toll for the tools they have been very limited
and religion
technique comes along like a tomorrow right
and suddenly most besides co sponsors will dissolve a tree
what gives us access to
having access for example to every bit of
neural firings
and the brand every uh... every connection is going up suddenly put us
in a position where the mechanisms
stuff to be
transparent to us but it's still a mechanism
saluda doesn't and what we end up
having is probably a situation where we an extraordinarily sophisticated science
of the correlations
usually the other manipulate the brands unseemly certain things and see how kat
what will even be able to uncomfortable
to oneself a great actors psychologist pull me over an article back in the
nineteen fifties call them
the complete officer prosthesis
emphasizes the just exactly this the severity of the photos from
you have a picture of your brain there
you uh... ul yiv the experiment three of you are in this uh... this caveat the
completed about your brain in front of you could experiment
on their own brain and see how your experience
changes to this
unprincipled
we have uh... the stroke of
objective data about the brain
troop of subject a bit about consciousness you're seeing them one
police be able to have stressed out
the relevant kinds of principles
the objective here
to the subject of the word that means we cross the my brain
cap out of the delivered
it ever goes away but we
we boil it down to the simplest possible with a big deal from we're going to be
not because como
i think it's
my own view is the best we can get is
correlational but we can get
that her in
more systematic devil in front of the lots of course
poliana physics ultimately if you have
fundamental principles of a certain sense correlational what the law of
gravity we get a simple principle generates
i think uh...
this in physics told your phone calls
a civil war so simple can ride on the front of a t-shirt
so you know maybe there's there's a golfer cap on what we have laws of
consciousness connecting physical presence unconsciousness
so simple
but on the front of a t-shirt maybe that wouldn't remove them and bring down
according to the principal i think we would call the peak of theory
do you need
consciousness to have a sense of self
possums we can't
clean measure consciousness is chiquita asked that
and sense of self
consensus about is also very different
so that his band that out long history of work in the field of animal
psychology trying to measure a sense of self
uh... and in a lot of that his checking placed in some creativity on the part of
researchers but
not great methods ultimately despite the fact that a lot of creativity wasn't
quite so an answer to that working assumption is that if if the animal
command recognize itself in in the earth than it has a sense of self again in
fact even till this day date
researchers testing new animals with new mir as a new kind of our contact for a
training see they recognize themself
and and you know that that pattern seems to be that you know the the standard
been creatures who cmos might like that seemed to do it pretty well see
chimpanzees during this an elephant's doing it
uh... and other critters who are smaller and don't look a lot i just don't seem
to do it but when if you thought of your sense of self anger set of preferences
in your future goals or whatever that had to reduce that to here did you
notice he had some splotch on your face when you walked by the bathroom near you
might feel that i was missing something he does in general said the man look i
think you're right now is that that measured yet might tell us something
about the can recognize that softening their address not capturing we really
wanted to capture don't miss the big puzzle for books or animal cognition
raise a week we have these good ideas of the kind of things that we do that
feel like it didn't in capturing those very things in a m on optimism after
languages really tricky
i think it's time to go to the audience here loved
you know there are too
or roving mikes
and that way if you have questions when you raise your hand i will call a new
please don't talk until you have mike because we're recording this
and uh...
but usko here let's go writer
very much appreciate
heated dependents
giving definition
consciousness fifteen
i think it's very hard to define consciousness in terms of anything more
basic
that consciousness just as it's very hard to find time and space in terms of
anything more basic
time and space for their fees we can save which of these i think are helpful
as they uh...
a phrase future of thomas nagel affection
who wrote this article what is it like to be a bat
you might say that the system is conscious when there is something it's
like to be that system with some things like to be me
the somethings like to be ruined
if you know the pass i can still say there's nothing i select b dot com
what by the mental state like seeing will be conscious if there's something
it's like
to be in that state for something it's like for me to uh... see right now but
this nothing it's like me to maybe do some competition
and my cerebellum
i don't know that the definition exactly but it was the way of getting a grip on
what i'm talking about maniacal
gap so no and uh... credits to william james i think most neurologists omg use
some variation of william james definition of consciousness which is
that consciousness is awareness of the self and or the environment
okay and and and most unusual weather where you know i act which it was just a
logical as david said
naa circulated rightly pointed out by uh...
and got away with it and james until then
the and then i connect and painful oscar taking your definition of satisfying i'm
sure we not going to the hospital
weapon
i'm going to question whether there is a satisfactory performance
because of i think ball reno is what intuitions we have about what his
consciousness and if that's all we know
defining consciousness of the fit
exists independently of our intuition
is is an exercise that i have no idea how to conduct i mean i know that you
know very intelligent people
deal with this and spend their lives doing it and it is a necklace i think
you have never understood that's that
that's good enough the frustration of the expressing
my favorite letters consciousness
that annoying time between naps cap
explains what we can go with that
well let's go over here
we wait for britain to bite
on the tourists in difference between uh...
hinds and degrees of consciousness
you know that the reserve evolution and variations itself
worldwide
place we think that capabilities are the only thing that
that very consciousness
and not liking the examples
that would give him
gravity in electricity
that uh... then they're very different fundamentally devil forces
eat different kinds
uh... consciousness investments rather than
from the state of the loop
response and then i think once we get a good
metrics for subjective experience once we know how to measure it cost versus
other things
i can't hot button agin that we're gonna find differences in kind of subjective
experience for example
again i don't have a great way to measure consciousness in the necessary
dot we don't have a good way to measure consciousness in a jellyfish
but maddening something that it feels like for me to feel embarrassed
if that's the that i could experience that there's no similar thing that it's
like for jellyfish to field and asked
and so my guess is we're gonna find all kinds of gradations once we actually
have a good way to look
um... but the problem is we keep coming up with is that we don't
have a great way to look
alessandro
we back there
i was wondering
uh...
using a scientific mappings
requires
asking some objectivity
pakistani subjectively
when in fact
discovering
subjectivity consciousness
requires new scientific method
doing it in his science fair
i think they could be objective facts about
subjectivity
gotti's object if at the time comcast bubbly objective fact
your consciousness or
yoga can be fighting up maybe a couple of shop
but you are a your conscience

but they don't refer to this problem in science
all the time kind of short of the external world
exists we have to make certain assumptions
together off the ground for example
perception is some kind of guy to reality of a novel
and the matrix
subway doing intensive do we need to decide to the freemen meeting to
scientific paradigm here too
the consciousness problem
but if there was this much we have to take the data
we have to take subject it first-person taken seriously
in conference that is the date we have what we believe or conscience because
we've experienced it
and that they have their ability moments in history of science when
the stuff is going to do
an awful about that's already sent a letter from the third person
point of view i think artist into something we know about
in the first person point of view and science of consciousness has triggered
some of that
observations from the first person point of view estate going there others
should be used in thinking
you know nobody
debating
burst these days
first-person accounts
all data pen
there's no problem the question is you know what do those they took telus and
convey
lead us to a solution and that's
that is quite clear
let's go
with the gentleman
in the middle
i'm a christian would be
listen to me fine
let me online chins
unseemly
signals assigned story
like you suggested
products concerts
jellyfish is conscious
wanted me to do that
his purpose view
maybe
that's thinking back way built to scale back in january
how to look at
llanview's
in reverse
also one thing about it not an
we mentioned spoke was on on your question she and i think you know
there's a there's never go out with haitian to understand this
um... there's a humanitarian issue
behind at least what what
the raha just wanna know on that measurement
because of somebody's conscious and
they can express themselves
they can't communicate with their family members and we could figure out using
the science of consciousness
away to enhance their capacity to do that or to give some of that back by
doing something intelligent
that that's it's an inherent good
at least for my party and that's kind of one of the motivations
well isn't there at profound
ethical question which are alluding to your i mean
someone is in a horrible car crash
the doctor at the the the people on the scene say sorry this person is brain
dead now do we pull the plug
i can make that problem harder
harder and harder
and he keeps getting hotter
and you are stuck with
near ignorance
situations where without that model
you know that you're making mistakes
i can tell you we also making some mistakes
and try to give the best information you can deal with the families make
decisions within the range of uncertainty anderson's visit of
attendance of a number uncertainty this is this is becoming more and more
uncertain as the sciences evolving
not less
so isn't that
the implication there that we should be much more reticent
but that's a good laugh
well but the flip side of the says that
you also don't want to commit people
to indefinite
their communities and individuals
patients who are not going to recover
you need to give
the you know if you have to give her or or reasonable assessment and you have to
give eighty ever cancer
if you're not working with a model
most of what
is done and consciousness science for the reasons that we've heard
in medicine
his testicle
making some reason vegetative state
they had this kind of injury
there are a lot of other measurements uh... that you can do often
if they're in his own where it's not certain sometimes things are simple
and sometimes brings that brain death is death it's not
diagnosis it's not doesn't have a pride now there's a diagnosis mata prognosis
person is dead if their brand
but if there
the minimally conscious state
head edamame after a very severe injury
things become harder
now you might be able to statistically estimate
at their level of function might not be
it expires e
but then it's an issue a value an issue of what no human uh... contect they're
going to have with their family and often the answer those completely on
them
and then there's a range of what is acceptable
there's a range of what
individuals
will see as a meaningful
human contact with somebody they love
and i've known for their whole life
and this happens and alzheimer's disease all the time right i mean this is
something everybody's really worth
an elderly person who slowly slurs slipping down out of contact
if you had some way to bring them back
so they could talk to their grandchildren for a year that might be a
very important thing
right would be
and may not save their life in a might not mean that they would use the bada
contact at some point in the future is the kind of thing that you know besides
a consciousness will make more wal lite
predictable and allow us to talk in a more intelligently with people about
what can he can happen and what we should do it should we do this is
something you want to do
that those covers stations are never going to be easy
that they could be better informed
let's go wave back and that the the backroom
transfer wasn't there
its curse given nobody in the panels representing them
bergeron reductions consciousness
consciousness explained away
pet pet term
there's a program called
nobody's really address which is the reason we bring to study the brain
reciprocal apology here
reserve locked into in
the holdings
biologist summarizing well
a reprieve
basically refuse to believe
mari simply
process because of the world's before me falling off
which is set
it consciousness purely fire
process children's here
exactly instead
it's not something
why should be
what's the technet
steakhouse
credible lots of other there
well it was directed at a production refinement
which which are not that time but i think of the brain
can study the brain microscope microscopes and sunny microscopes
and so on the other start-up
wool in principle of systems directing
studyin them up
directing the scientific
enquiring
up themselves
the question of poses that you know it's really
how do you know any of this is uh...
you know how you know that
which is a basic right how do you know the brain is there a project how do they
not in the matrix no listen
pick up the
me produced in your mind bhaiya
cut even evil
demon was before you and i think if you're a scientist who's doing
experiments on into people's brains and a friend for the first thing i think
it's life
student body of the same kind of argument elsewhere in sciences you've
basically just have to issue
that uh... differences of perception or a guide to reality without doing that
the cops out doing a cut something fast i think in the same in the first part of
the new repairable
apparent paradoxes
but the best response is simply to walk away pathways yourself
right when i interviewed standards and asked him so how big a quest how big a
mystery is
consciousness he said
it's it's been a mystery there just lots apostles
uh... the next question uh... let's come up in the front row here
so far most of
discussion has been
with the more scientists
once behind
not houston which replies
thano would you consider
hasn't wider once made a contribution
crystallize
consciousness is in that sample online
king mrs
uh... list accent
two-legged scenes in there
breakdown of the park and worldwide
maybe not but many people
concerned u
as of right now
may have
contributed
sister
the you you match it one of the ones that i wouldn't put out there it is jane
goodall or anything
good writers that tell us something about consciousness i just fantastically
good at during the game of what it would be like to be off
uh... and in in my worldly knowing what it's like to be a chimpanzee hopes you
hang out with a lot of chimpanzees and not just a good writer i was i think all
all the time she spent trying to get inside their minus fantastically good to
meet you
if you read some of her piece is aimed at a popular audience to try to describe
what it's like to be
david gray beard or one of her fever tend to get it
a fantastic look at that that my read is that it's it's it's about writers being
good at getting inside the heads of other individuals and that's not
necessarily good scientific understanding of consciousness are
figuring out the problem that we've been out here talking about it's a kind of
person who has a good senate system one intuitions about just popping inside
somebody's head in describing back readers like what's it like
some of the first
but i'm really interested in from political methods
representing
one of the questions the challenges for the sciences
tools to accurately describe the represent
states of consciousness but for now
terribly got up
we need a better pharmacological method when you look at them
frist is a monster from well it is
characterizing it states of consciousness in them
and uh...
frost gory detail that's one of the things we can look
to uh...
to rise to the question is can you take that
makes us up
other obliterated food since
all those i would mention have already begun boosters oliver sacks would be the
one who can most current with
and again you know the visualizers
those people speak to your intuitions
i mean they do something that feels right
so it is really pretty interesting
enough for me that's the way i thought about many philosophical questions of
the since it was a trial
the psychology of our philosophical intuitions
is fascinating to me
then the psychology of
what so you know why some accounts of consciousness of pure appealing and
others don't
as a psychological problem is fascinating
even if i really don't think the problem for me so little things that vote
the psychological
can be good
scientific question and
that was coming to my mind immediately is when you asked about consciousness
himself
my answer is consciousness first
because i've been reading helen keller who's an incredibly
amazing writer
but she's written in the end of her life fernando earlier book that she wrote
called teacher
about it and they see solomon she talks about
real feeling about who she was or what she was before solvent bought her
language
and it's amazing because
she does not by experts has not reviewed the self identity
to the conscious
being that she was
checks the labels it phantom
and she describes it in detail as a entity that
being picking up
pushed around and reacting
and usually violently and usually with limit drives and detail which is now a
priority items it's not sought the focus of her book it's mostly about how
solomon taught her and what it meant to her but it is that section for me as a
very interesting and
the reading and thinking about measurements in thing about this journal
issue but that that's that's and that's that's one
you want your
yes definitely
and
william james's is one of my heroes who has been mentioned here and i just i a m
astonished that how contemporary he still
is reacted a book like brightest religious experience and i have a
particular interest in
questions about science and religion and that he's just

i think he still asking questions that
most people don't even
talk about still eye-to-eye
there let's go over here uh... enough
of one of the things that you guys uh... talked about was how when people our
vision with emotions that there is you can't just
and also making complicated calculations
and my when i walk
work today
i was probably not a word and the steps that i was taking within pakistan but
they were very kind very complicated calculations so why would
seeing abortions or doing things
the calculation the necessary
disassembly
so someone i mean today doing calculations part and abar intuition ek
read your is conscious
i think i mean doing calculations in a way that makes you seem like us
that as somebody who studies in animals i can watch people's intuitions turned
on him and watch people wanting too should be subjected states animals that
do things like we do
nested take decades right anything you know one of the reasons you see
inspecting to death in taking that individuals at the cemetery that's kind
of like what we do and i think that instantly tripped up by mechanisms to
fail we must be like a uh... i'd adding denny's right that uh... acting in
emotional ways like we do is especially to trip up these mechanisms and measure
any of you guys have seen this that that that company a key ahead a commercial
about buying new light bulbs awhile back
buddies district exile xc
asi g_i_ apple oven all the lamp that was about to get thrown out
and they had very emotional music in atlanta sort of hunched over and it
looks at the union and you mentioned
you know it gets passed and the rain and standing in everything
you can help inundate the punch line for the next year in a sales person comes
out is is this just the layout because i have feelings she'll tell you i think i
thank you
uh... wendy l beloit so we have cadets exhibiting these kinds of things that
look like that so some i think is the thing that shoots up the party that
creature has objected experience the most is like us
million that uses dole
feeling guilty
you know that's a powerful intuition you know there is a there is a behavior
that's makes us empathize with guilt
and dog skimp abusive behavior
are rewarded for
paradise
already very short of time i let's go over to this idea that the gentleman in
the middle
uh...
e no matter what
real believe our consciousness somehow we all believe that we are
on some level
and we all believe there's so much that we'll decide to take much time on friday
becomes disband
so my question is from the r_t_c_ involved
so the question is
one of the advantages econ phds
and
harvey wife did give us
and i think this questioned it even more complicated when we start to realize
they and
many of the decisions we make that field the most conscious uh... aren't
necessarily the ones that had the best decisions ideally can speak to this when
i can but i think the puzzle gets bigger because if you think of the stuff that
you do that's not conscious like
not getting hit on the way here in those kinds of things from a natural selection
perspective those could be the ones that
hubert in doing a lot of the hard work is staying alive and getting meats and
so on
expected to another
evolutionary answer to that question right now because we did have a theory
of conscience would be in much
better shite one way to put the basic
question of consciousness and why didn't evolution just producer races on these
communities of east physical systems of what i'm doing other stuff
without consciousness that all of infidelity consciousness is that sir
you might think there's reasons to think that attacked has some function but
every time someone proposed
it looks like boeing you can do about the principal about cops
alexander right up near the front through the
second round
is consciousness the sick
green biological conscience
he seemed even suggested was
accent continue what
and and
organizations that the valve utility inbound tourism partner
as their lives
i work for a consciousness of movement for the first the supreme biologically
but you know
i mean it's pre-qualified intrigued by subject experience for the jellyfish how
much i think that we can see
and a question for you
each of you before we wrap up here uh...
if you could answer one question about consciousness of the big question that
preoccupies me if there is one what would it be what's what's that puts the
question you most want
answer uh...
date lindstrom
i'd just one
but religious tenets and i guess the question is
explain conscious what will be in explanation of consciousness
bubble of theory of consciousness look like maybe less
cheating because the question is the biggest encompass houses to all the
others
were false if that's what we're saying anything
and i want to have his answers
ended up
i think that's treatment programs demand
dance
and this is science in these all facts and they're important facts and
and they were grown unmarried relations of the
make for a better world
you know we need more of us
and i would
i would say i think my answer is the second but it's at
it it would be that if if we could have a mechanistic account
of are subjective experience arises in the brain
probably answers david said lots and lots of questions and then because work
with that
kaposi's and that's possible i'd like to service
uh... since i'm not sure it's hardly possible i'm gonna go with something out
switches
i would like us to have a full account of all of our intuitions about what
what is conscious what's not conscious and how all of that works and permission
processing level killing that's gonna do a good job of making world a better
phase that decisions a better place and so on
and based on what we know about kind of science in the methods we have that
worked pretty well that's something that might be more likely to happen in our
lifetime we are that's
i think that's
loose isn't feasible program
threatening to to understand our intuitions because they're pretty simple
there not until meeku cokie room for me if you know that's why we can't use that
as a basis for science
vadu explain a lot about empathy
and so if we understood that there is a lot of socially motion that we would be
on the stanley at the same
we could go on that we are out of time thank you so much david chalmers daniel
kind of invoice and

That's the transcript of the video for those of you who don't have enough data to watch the lengthy video

http://transcriptvids.com/v2/F_MTuVozQzw.html

Dapo777:
That's the transcript of the video for those of you who don't have enough data to watch the lengthy video

http://transcriptvids.com/v2/F_MTuVozQzw.html

Mr Dapo, please tell us or summarize in brief the message in this lengthy post

Rilwayne001:


Mr Dapo, please tell us or summarize in brief the message in this lengthy post

I haven't even read it myself

.

You people should learn how to summarize.


you are wasting bandwith.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_MTuVozQzw

...just click on the video, it is easier than reading the automated transcript, which has lots of transcript errors.

Dapo777:


I haven't even read it myself

Lol... *I don laugh tire*...I swear you nor well
I think I stopped when you mentioned "Radio guy's wife Ann"

BossTtdiamonds:


Lol... *I don laugh tire*...I swear you nor well
I think I stopped when you mentioned "Radio guy's wife Ann"

sinequanon....what insight can a philosopher have on the subject?

davien:
sinequanon....what insight can a philosopher have on the subject?

Scientists can get trapped in the language they use, and naively argue round in circles. They frequently do.

Philosophers examine the nature of the problem and the assumptions and predicates. They can introduce supplementary questions and thought experiments to draw attention to inadvertent irrationality and circularity.

I'd say that philosophers, psychologists and anthropologists are far more important in this discussion than scientists.

In many ways, philosopher is to scientist as manager is to technician.

sinequanon:


Scientists can get trapped in the language they use, and naively argue round in circles. They frequently do.

Philosophers examine the nature of the problem and the assumptions and predicates. They can introduce supplementary questions and thought experiments to draw attention to inadvertent irrationality and circularity.

I'd say that philosophers, psychologists and anthropologists are far more important in this discussion than scientists.

In many ways, philosopher is to scientist as manager is to technician.

So how does a philosopher verify if his/her postulates as true?...does philosophy have an error margin?...or method to dismiss untestable ideas??

davien:
So how does a philosopher verify if his/her postulates as true?...does philosophy have an error margin?...or method to dismiss untestable ideas??

The purpose of philosophy is not to prefer a particular truth system or to verify its arguments. That would be the job of the "truth" system, itself. Philosophy is more about making you aware that your "truth" system is not universal, that your assumptions are assumptions and how your concept of truth relates to those assumptions.

Philosophy would also help you confine the activities of your truth system to your truth system, and not misapply them to something else.

So, for example, it is philosophically incorrect to use notions of scientific validity, verification, and error margins in dealing with epistemology. Philosophy probes science, not the other way round.

In summary, philosophy is more about awareness of context than preference or "proof" (which is a type of strong preference or conviction).

sinequanon:


The purpose of philosophy is not to prefer a particular truth system or to verify its arguments. That would be the job of the "truth" system, itself. Philosophy is more about making you aware that your "truth" system is not universal, that your assumptions are assumptions and how your concept of truth relates to those assumptions.

Philosophy would also help you confine the activities of your truth system to your truth system, and not misapply them to something else.

So, for example, it is philosophically incorrect to use notions of scientific validity, verification, and error margins in dealing with epistemology. Philosophy probes science, not the other way round.

In summary, philosophy is more about awareness of context than preference or "proof" (which is a type of strong preference or conviction).

I am not referring to subjective "truths" but an objective one that can be understood and/or tested by all(which philosophy can't offer)..

Take for example the philosophical explanation to gravity,aristotelian gravity...this philosophical explanation is purely an untestable assumption...

We cannot know or test it to be true...compared to the naturalistic explanation to gravity...newtonian gravity.

Accurate knowledge is practical,deductive and/or atleast can be shown to be true..

And in the quest for knowledge(epistemology),accuracy is an asset....otherwise the knowledge proposed or acquired cannot be known to be true but only speculated about..

And can you explain how philosophy probes science based on knowledge that it can know to be true?

davien:
I am not referring to subjective "truths" but an objective one that can be understood and/or tested by all(which philosophy can't offer)...

Science has a relative truth. Science doesn't claim any empirical fact to be 100 per cent true. Science defines a system and standard of "credibility" (which involves many human factors), by which it asserts a fact to be "scientifically true". It is a relative "scientific truth" and is particular to science except to the dogmatist, who will try to apply it universally.

The role of philosophy is to keep this in check. Philosophy is not trying to offer objectivity. It avoids the arbitrary leap from "confidence" to "universal objectivity" that science indulges.

davien:
Take for example the philosophical explanation to gravity,aristotelian gravity...this philosophical explanation is purely an untestable assumption...

Before modern scientific methodology was formalized, philosophers not only hypothesized about the "physical world", but established their asseertions.

davien:
We cannot know or test it to be true...compared to the naturalistic explanation to gravity...newtonian gravity.

Yes we can.

davien:
Accurate knowledge is practical,deductive and/or atleast can be shown to be true..

I have discussed the word true, which you are using in ambiguous ways. You originally defined it as "tested" -- in which case it is only as good as the imperfect testing mechanism. Now you are trying to use it in a more universal sense. Philosophy is there to prevent such creep in meaning.

davien:
And in the quest for knowledge(epistemology),accuracy is an asset....otherwise the knowledge proposed or acquired cannot be known to be true but only speculated about..

Again, you have taken a scientific term outside of its domain. Accuracy in science is predicated on a number of assumptions (statistics is the most presumptive branch of applied mathematics). You are now applying the notion universally. Philosophy is there to prevent this misuse.

davien:
And can you explain how philosophy probes science based on knowledge that it can know to be true?

Philosophy probes the basis of any system of knowledge.

If you choose to accept the assumptions of a system, philosophy hands over to the system. But philosophy recognizes that it is a choice and ensures that you don't lose sight of the fact that your assumptions are not universal, and you cannot start applying your "knowledge" universally (e.g to discredit other forms of knowledge which may not be based on your assumptions)

Without philosophy, science becomes a religion.

sinequanon:


Scientists can get trapped in the language they use, and naively argue round in circles. They frequently do.

Philosophers examine the nature of the problem and the assumptions and predicates. They can introduce supplementary questions and thought experiments to draw attention to inadvertent irrationality and circularity.

I'd say that philosophers, psychologists and anthropologists are far more important in this discussion than scientists.

In many ways, philosopher is to scientist as manager is to technician.

Unbelievable
This elicits nothing but laughter.

The chickens have really come home to roost.

I will shred this hilariously ignorant post later.

sinequanon:


The purpose of philosophy is not to prefer a particular truth system or to verify its arguments. That would be the job of the "truth" system, itself. Philosophy is more about making you aware that your "truth" system is not universal, that your assumptions are assumptions and how your concept of truth relates to those assumptions.

Philosophy would also help you confine the activities of your truth system to your truth system, and not misapply them to something else.

So, for example, it is philosophically incorrect to use notions of scientific validity, verification, and error margins in dealing with epistemology. Philosophy probes science, not the other way round.

In summary, philosophy is more about awareness of context than preference or "proof" (which is a type of strong preference or conviction).

Preposterous.

sinequanon:


Science has a relative truth. Science doesn't claim any empirical fact to be 100 per cent true.

Can you give a "relative truth" science offers?
And science does not claim an empirical fact to be 100% true because of cartesian philosophy(subset of science)..

Science defines a system and standard of "credibility" (which involves many human factors), by which it asserts a fact to be "scientifically true". It is a relative "scientific truth" and is particular to science except to the dogmatist, who will try to apply it universally.

Is there an accurate model of understanding where human factors are not involved?
And can you expatiate on the bolded?

The role of philosophy is to keep this in check. Philosophy is not trying to offer objectivity. It avoids the arbitrary leap from "confidence" to "universal objectivity" that science indulges.

Seeing that you understand that science never claims an empirical fact as 100% true...how can you say it makes a leap from confidence to universal objectivity?

Before modern scientific methodology was formalized, philosophers not only hypothesized about the "physical world", but established their asseertions.

Correct...and no method of verification was used to fact-check those assertions.

Yes we can.

Okay....all you have to do then is devise a method of verifying aristotelian gravity..

I have discussed the word true, which you are using in ambiguous ways. You originally defined it as "tested" -- in which case it is only as good as the imperfect testing mechanism. Now you are trying to use it in a more universal sense. Philosophy is there to prevent such creep in meaning.

I have not used those words ambiguously...we need to be able to test views so that they could be falsified...or proven true...that's it.
And can you identify any process that rivals the scientific method in predicting future data or verifying the validity of a subject?

Again, you have taken a scientific term outside of its domain. Accuracy in science is predicated on a number of assumptions (statistics is the most presumptive branch of applied mathematics). You are now applying the notion universally. Philosophy is there to prevent this misuse.

Then you misunderstood me....accuracy in the sense I used there was to indicate that a sufficient level of consistent points is needed to validate knowledge.

Philosophy probes the basis of any system of knowledge.

Correct...my point however is,can it accurately do so without an objective method of its own..

If you choose to accept the assumptions of a system, philosophy hands over to the system. But philosophy recognizes that it is a choice and ensures that you don't lose sight of the fact that your assumptions are not universal, and you cannot start applying your "knowledge" universally (e.g to discredit other forms of knowledge which may not be based on your assumptions)

Without philosophy, science becomes a religion.

How does philosophy ensure anything and with what method?
Can one use philosophy to revise scientific principles?
You haven't still explained what role a philosopher would have in giving an accurate account of the natural world?

But isn't Science a philosophy? Despite having made is own "beautiful" errors

davien:

sinequanon post=28642610:
I have discussed the word true, which you are using in ambiguous ways. You originally defined it as "tested" -- in which case it is only as good as the imperfect testing mechanism. Now you are trying to use it in a more universal sense. Philosophy is there to prevent such creep in meaning.

I have not used those words ambiguously...we need to be able to test views so that they could be falsified...or proven true...that's it.
And can you identify any process that rivals the scientific method in predicting future data or verifying the validity of a subject?

There comes a point in a debate where you just have to be prepared to agree to disagree.

I have explained what I find ambiguous in your usage of the word "true". You disagree, but you don't address my explanation. You simply reassert your position using bold font, as if that is some sort of argument. What follows, evades addressing the my explicit explanation of what is ambiguous. In fact, you just repeat the word under question ("true" ), which is circular . So further discussion is pointless, until you have addressed the point. We can't debate using words we don't agree on.

Is "scientifically true" equivalent to "universally true"?

If you think it is, then you are using true in a universal sense, which means it must be 100% true.

If not, you are using true in a contextual sense -- relative to, or in the context of, science.

Kay17:
But isn't Science a philosophy? Despite having made is own "beautiful" errors

Most Africans seem to have lost the understanding of what philosophy is, and why it is important.

The Europeans, Chinese, Indians etc. have a long tradition in philosophical discourse. Africans, have by and large lost touch with their own to the point that they don't even know what philosophy is.

There is philosophy of science that focuses on or deals with science. But science is not a philosophy.

When I first joined these forums, I asked why we didn't have a philosophy forum. Africa needs philosophy seriously. The only response was "what's that?"

sinequanon:


There comes a point in a debate where you just have to be prepared to agree to disagree.

I have explained what I find ambiguous in your usage of the word "true". You disagree, but you don't address my explanation. You simply reassert your position using bold font, as if that is some sort of argument. What follows, evades addressing the my explicit explanation of what is ambiguous. In fact, you just repeat the word under question ("true" ), which is circular . So further discussion is pointless, until you have addressed the point. We can't debate using words we don't agree on.

Is "scientifically true" equivalent to "universally true"?

If you think it is, then you are using true in a universal sense, which means it must be 100% true.

If not, you are using true in a contextual sense -- relative to, or in the context of, science.

You are providing a false dichotomy where truth either implies "scientific truth" or "universal truth"..despite that I had already given you how I used the term as....it is best I refrain from this discussion because you seem to either dodge questions or equivocate terms..

sinequanon:


Most Africans seem to have lost the understanding of what philosophy is, and why it is important.

The Europeans, Chinese, Indians etc. have a long tradition in philosophical discourse. Africans, have by and large lost touch with their own to the point that they don't even know what philosophy is.

There is philosophy of science that focuses on or deals with science. But science is not a philosophy.

When I first joined these forums, I asked why we didn't have a philosophy forum. Africa needs philosophy seriously. The only response was "what's that?"

Aristotle wouldn't have agreed with you on this point. To him and the ancient Greeks, science is part and parcel of philosophy. Philosophy is a thought inquiry into, about, over the world. The fact our universities find it convenient to declare "a philosophy of science" as a module does not negate the essence of science. I would look at science as dealing with the physical world physically but a branch off philosophy.

sinequanon:


Scientists can get trapped in the language they use, and naively argue round in circles. They frequently do.

This is shockingly arrogant.

Scientists can get trapped in the language they use, and naively argue round in circles
So the scientific nomenclatures are inadequate for whom, If I may ask?
Who is competent to judge the correctness or adequacy of scientific nomenclatures, scientists or non-scientists ?

And naively argue in circles with whom, about what ?

Has it ever occurred to you that science is a dynamic and open process of enquiry that is not shy about trials and errors , corrections and revisions ?

sinequanon:



Philosophers examine the nature of the problem and the assumptions and predicates.

Really ?
Does, or has philosophy ever solved, or even offered theoretical solution, a universal solution, to any of the numerous problems that have confronted humankind?
I admit, I may be ignorant.
Therefore, I beseech anyone to educate me on this.

sinequanon:


They can introduce supplementary questions and thought experiments to draw attention to inadvertent irrationality and circularity.

Supplementary questions and, ..... thought experiments ?

I will let that statement speak for itself.

sinequanon:



I'd say that philosophers, psychologists and anthropologists are far more important in this discussion than scientists.

The most shockingly thoughtless statement so far that, once again, speaks volumes and volumes about the thought processes we are dealing with here.


This is either a deliberate slight-of-hand trick, or an inadvertent irrationality and circuitry on glaring display

1. According wiki,
Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors.

2. According to wiki,
Anthropology /ænθrɵˈpɒlədʒi/ is the scientific study of humans, past and present,[1][2] that draws and builds upon knowledge from the social sciences and life sciences, as well as the humanities.

Now, if psychology and Anthropology are scientific disciplines, then psychologists and anthropologists are scientists.
This begs the question of which scientists is the op referring to?

This shows what I have said repeatedly, that this op is so irrationally biased, that he does not even understand much about the science he has been so vocally critical of.
This is grand folly.