منتشرشده در خرید vpn ویندوز





دیوید چالمرز ، فیلسوف می گوید: آگاهی ما یک جنبه اساسی از وجود ماست: "چیزی که مستقیماً درباره آن بدانیم وجود ندارد …. اما در عین حال این اسرارآمیزترین پدیده جهان است". او راه هایی برای فکر کردن درباره بازی در فیلم در ذهن ما به اشتراک می گذارد.

TEDTalks یک پادکست ویدئویی روزانه از بهترین گفتگوها و اجراهای کنفرانس TED است ، جایی که متفکران و دست اندرکاران برجسته جهان در 18 دقیقه (یا کمتر) صحبت های زندگی خود را بیان می کنند. به دنبال گفتگو در مورد فناوری ، سرگرمی و طراحی باشید – به علاوه علم ، تجارت ، موضوعات جهانی ، هنرها و موارد دیگر.
زیرنویس های بسته و زیرنویس های ترجمه شده را در بسیاری از زبانها در پیدا کنید

اخبار TED را در توییتر دنبال کنید:
مانند TED در فیس بوک:

مشترک شدن در کانال ما:.

لینک دانلود

تگ ها:

50 پاسخ به “چگونه هوشیاری را توضیح می دهید؟ | دیوید چالمرز”

  8. There exists a consciousness derived model of our reality which obviates many seemingly intractable paradoxes which I recommend – Tom Campbell’s Theory of Everything (unfortunately titled My Big TOE), if you can forgive the attempted humour of the title you may discover as I did, a paradigm shifting work of genius! ( a term I rarely employ and never lightly).

  9. I don't know why everybody acts like being conscious is such a big fucking mystery. He kind of explained in the beginning. The simple fact that we have a sense of smell touch and all of the other senses and hormones going on in our body. Of course we're self aware duh. A rock isn't self-aware because it doesn't have any sensory organs.

  10. “Or does being conscious require we find a life "worth" living.” – Richard. I don’t understand this sentence since “we find” presupposes we are conscious, so why does being conscious require we find more? But I agree that understanding “worth” or value is equivalent to understanding awareness, as follows. Consciousness is what at first appears to physically force you, the observer, to survive or observe yourself finding individual “worth” until you come to realize that you only feel that physics but cannot author that physics, nature is the author. Then you understand “worth” is an attribute nature gives itself and so awareness is not an attribute nature gives each individual, an idea called Panpsychism.

  12. “There's simply no argument, or data, or experiment that can ever be performed to prove the world is really 'out there'.” — Anthony. Expanding on that then, to explain direct knowledge we take the observer out of its "as 'real' as anything can be said to be" local computer-like representation, the brain, and let the observer be the ‘physical’ world observing itself directly (an idea called Panpsychism). For further reading, several short proofs are given below.

    Proof 1 – Complexity: There is no such information system or flow of electricity that should be called “I” or “myself” that fits inside a grapefruit sized box looking out at the world and in which our whole life occurred.

    Proof 2 – Sentience: The idea in cognitive sciences of “I” or “myself” as being a property of the brain (or integrated brain and body) vividly viewing the world with the senses describes “observation from within an inside world and through a looking glass at the outside world”. The observer cannot be the observed in cognitive sciences, since there they are separated by the glass (an idea called duality in philosophy). But then paragraphs about awareness could not exist since the author is the observer and also the observed.

    Proof 3 – Authorship: The sense of agency (I am the author of my actions) is not possible because as physical matter and energy our bodies move authored by the laws of physics, not “I”, and not by our own subjective thoughts and intentions. Therefore, the sense of mind ownership (i.e., my inner monologue belongs to me) is also not possible.

    Proof 4 – Quantum Mechanics: The delayed choice experiment in Quantum Mechanics illustrates that the subjective experience of scientist A making a choice, only he knows, travels back in time to affect the choice as observed in the present by scientist B, and so the subjective experience of scientist A does not occur in a finite box.

    Proof 5 – Theory and Experiment: A Theory of Everything (TOE) should feature experimental proof that information in the form of the theory’s explanation of awareness is an example of the mechanism of awareness, otherwise there is no experimental proof. But then the information itself, not the experimenter, becomes aware during experiment as predicted in theory. Hence, the first result of the TOE is that there is no aware individual involved or needed in our experiments explaining consciousness.

  13. We do have a 'bead' on that. It is the REASON why. Like a fast car, the driver doesn't need to know or even care what makes his car perform. All that matters is that it does, so he gets to drive it. Science has been stuck in 'how' for way too long. Who cares? We now need to be asking a bigger WHY!

  14. For me, the key take-away from Chalmers' speech is the idea that consciousness is the only thing we DIRECTLY experience; which is another way of saying that it impossible to have direct knowledge of anything other than consciousness. As soon as you fully appreciate this fact, you then realize that there is no logical basis for assuming the 'physical' world exists as a thing, ontologically independent of consciousness. There's simply no argument, or data, or experiment that can ever be performed to prove the world is really 'out there'. But that doesn't have to mean that the world isn't real. It just means that it is only LOCALLY real, meaning that it is real to us, indeed, as 'real' as anything can be said to be. Check out Brian Whitworth's theory of Quantum Realism: https://brianwhitworth.com/1-1-a-strange-world/

  15. Avoided Christian ideas about consciousness like the plague and adopts middle eastern ones. I would rather him attempt to debate Christian ideas than adopt crazy ones and say they are the only 2 options

  16. : "There's nothing we know about more directly…. but at the same time it's the most mysterious phenomenon in the universe."

    Do serious brain research in stead of babbling along about mysteriousness!

  17. A Theory of Everything (TOE) should feature experimental proof that information in the form of the theory’s explanation of qualia is an example of the mechanism of qualia, otherwise there is no experimental proof.  But then the information itself, not the experimenter, becomes aware during experiment as predicted in theory.  Hence, the first result of the TOE is that there is no aware individual involved or needed in our experiments explaining qualia.

  18. "Qualia therefore precede nature…science that can never be empirically demonstrated " – Brandon.  A choice (the activity of the human mind in philosophy) such as whether or not to consciously look at information is identical to the subjective experience of making a choice (the activity of the human mind in physics) during an experiment.  The empirical demonstration of entangled Quantum states violating Localism is where a choice is instantly observed elsewhere.  So, when making a choice in either philosophy or Quantum physics, the subjective experience (human mind) does not occur locally (proving an idea called Atman in Hindu).

  19. The discussion around this problem is really fascinating because it is so contentious. Let me try to understand by summarizing, those who believe in the "explanatory gap" and those who dismiss it.

    First, the explanatory gap describes the problem that there is no scientific theory that can explain what causes subjective experience. Of course advanced neuroscience can very accurately predict what a test subject would report thinking or feeling – we have a very good understanding of the objective qualities of inner brain states, and the reported subjective effects they cause. What we don't have an explanation for, is how these brain states give rise to subjective experience. Dualism, panpsychism, etc., are speculations on what type of scientific hypotheses could account for subjective experience, as part of an overall theory of everything (ie, as part of a future physics).

    I can plainly see the explanatory gap is a valid problem. Now, is it the concern of science, or philosophy? I don't necessarily see why we need to understand this for any scientific purpose, unless we were trying to create artificial consciousness, which I think would give rise to many ethical questions. Although I respect the prerogative of philosophers like Chalmers to speculate on future physics, I am OK with this problem never being answered by physical science. It is enough to understand the neural correlates of consciousness for us to improve medicine, psychology, etc.

    I do have trouble understanding why people can't see that the explanatory gap is valid, even as a philosophical problem. Here is my attempt to make an argument for dismissing the explanatory gap: Scientific observations are based on objective phenomenon, but those phenomenon ultimately come as subjective qualia to a conscious observer. Only once objectified into phenomenon, and then synthesized with our current best model of the universe, do we have a scientific fact, which represents a part of nature (if the phenomena does not fit our model, we either have an observation error or need to update the model). Qualia therefore precede nature, and if we try to make a theory of that qualia itself, we are in a way necessarily theorizing "outside of nature" – which is why the illusionists and physicalists say that Chalmers' speculations are supernatural, even though he sees his project as an attempt to expand science with new fundamentals. I believe this argument is convincing that the explanatory gap is an invalid scientific problem, but not that it is an invalid philosophical problem. Along with logic and causation, a conscious observer is a prerequisite of science that can never be empirically demonstrated (is not falsifiable) but must simply be assumed.

  20. Atoms permanently arranged into an evolving family tree by the elements of wind and water, embeds an actual family tree in the earth itself, an idea called Brahman in Hindu.  Each atom does not experience the family tree, except in afterthought as the activity of every atom.  And so the ecosystem is known to itself through monotony.

  21. Panpsycism,What utter nonsense. Atoms are conscioous? Really? Even a full blown human isn't concious when they are asleep, drugged, in a coma, etc. We know from first hand experience that merely being made of atoms is not consciousness. We consist of many parts that do not feel conscious. Whatever it is it is dependent on nerves because our hair and fingernails, not only are not conscious but don't even have feeling.

  28. Perhaps the brain is not capable of conscious thought and dreams as its mouth would state, which explains consciousness once its mouth learns to speak new things! Rather than say that our body’s self-awareness is occurring within a virtual copy of the outside world, or that dreams are a perspective within a virtual world, why not say that we are the self-aware outside world?  Imagine standing and talking with someone looking at a complicated scene.  You don’t really know whether “you” are dreaming inside your brain, a small mechanical box, about talking with someone, or “you” are a real person talking to another real person each with optical sensors in their face, or if the earth is “I” dreaming in pitch blackness about two real people talking.  The latter is the only physical reality that doesn’t rely on light cameras and a small mechanical box to render and continually update an exact copy of what we call the outside world.  There is no such information system or flow of electricity that should be called “I” or “myself” that fits inside a grapefruit sized box looking out at the world and in which our whole life occurred.

  29. How come, when people talk about "consciousness," they never talk about being awake vs. being asleep? That would be my starting point: what is the difference between the sleeping brain (which doesn't have it or barely has it) and the awake brain?

  30. Let perception (a mechanical sensory process within each individual) exist within matter but without consciousness.  Then, the discovery of the existence of perception requires an unconscious discoverer. Let consciousness exist within unconscious matter by calling it the continuous existence of the discovery.  So, conscious thought is the sound the ecosystem makes as if conversing with itself, rather than an instantaneous electrical state occurring within each individual.

  33. Consciousness can be explained as simply as “the existence of a property of animals, but not of each animal”, which is an idea called Brahman in Hindu.

    Proof: Darwin’s survival of the fittest (the animals here now belong here best) is an expression in the natural world of Occam’s razor (the correct and hence best explanation among several, introduces the fewest assumptions).  Occam's razor applies to competing unconscious processes, so introducing consciousness to explain one of Darwin’s evolutionary steps is unnecessary and incorrect.

  34. "The animal possesses no powers by which it can make discoveries which lie beyond the realm of the senses. It has no power of intellectual origination…." Man however "although he possesses all the virtues of the lower kingdoms he is further endowed with the spiritual faculty,.." ~ Baha'i Faith

  36. If it were true that "red" is a mental model of the color red — and that model is a part of a more comprehensive simulation of the real world, then red would represent an infinite number of different objects within the real world each needing a red internal simulation, which seems impossible.
    Theorem: The human mind cannot be said to be inside a finite box such as the brain, the brain and body, or the body and the local environment.

    Proof 1 – Complexity: There is no such information system or flow of electricity that should be called “I” or “myself” that fits inside a grapefruit sized box looking out at the world and in which our whole life occurred.

    Proof 2 – Sentience: The idea in cognitive sciences of “I” or “myself” as being a property of the brain (or integrated brain and body) vividly viewing the world with the senses describes “observation from within an inside world and through a looking glass at the outside world”.  The observer cannot be the observed in cognitive sciences, since there they are separated by the glass (an idea called duality in philosophy).  But then paragraphs about awareness could not exist since the author is the observer and also the observed. 

    Proof 3 – Authorship: The sense of agency (i.e., I am the author of my actions) is not possible because as physical matter and energy our bodies move authored by the laws of physics, not “I”, and not by our own subjective thoughts and intentions.  Therefore, the sense of mind ownership (i.e., my inner monologue belongs to me) is also not possible. 

    Proof 4 – Quantum Mechanics: The delayed choice experiment in Quantum Mechanics illustrates that the subjective experience of scientist A making a choice, only he knows, travels back in time to affect the choice as observed in the present by scientist B, and so the subjective experience of scientist A does not occur in a finite box.

  37. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
    No one, has understood this words.
    It means:
    At the beginning was the explosion of the universe. And the universe was with God, and the Unvierse was God.
    BUT WHAT NO ONE DOES SEE IN THIS MIRACLE TEXT, IS:
    Before the beginning was (The Point is: Before A Beginning was) was God always; A Spirit of nothing, consciousness of a nothing, who was always here.
    Invisible, but was as an awareness eternal here.
    And because this nothing of spirit who was something and eternal always here, but had no name, no form, no direction, no visibility, NO BEGINNING, but was still consciousness and enternal here, A BEGINNING was then, when something visible and with form and with "name"/with word (nameable) was suddenly here.
    Then one could call A BEGINNING of something, A BEGINNING.
    Therefore the/in the beginning was the Word (something nameable). And therefore this Beginning/"This Word (this nameable something now) was with God and the Word was God ITSELF TOO.
    BECAUSE THE POINT IS: Before a Beginning was (that could be called the beginning of something), the invisible, without name, without form, without direction or something, was always already here: THE BEING GOD. Something without name, without form, without direction, a consciousness without beginning or end.
    This is my interpretation of that bible text. And of God.
    No one can understand God, if you've not experiences Enlightenment, and with that seen God, what he truly is.
    Because one cannot calculate God, cannot scientifically research him, cannot visualize him, cannot give a name him. It is just an eternal awareness, without beginning or end.
    Therefore everything what comes out of him, is a beginning that is with words nameable then, and can be called A BEGINNING THEN.
    But God itself is an enternal consciousness, without form and direction, without name, without beginning or end. You can't call god a beginning. God was before the beginning and was always. And he will not have an end. Just something what has a beginning has also an end. But not god. Therefore God was before the beginning already here.
    AND A BEGINNING WAS THEN SOMETHING WITH WORD (namable) AND CAN BE CALLED BEGINNING.
    And therefore everything what comes out of god, is a thing that one can called the beginning. Because God has no beginning or end, or is a thing you can named with a word.
    Just a thing who has form or direction or has included an end and can be called with a word. But not god; The real reason for consciousness and something what is in true IN EVERY existence in core.

  38. The key question here us what is the nature of "subjective experience/reality"?

    I think it can be explained like this: subjective experience is a c̷o̷m̷p̷u̷t̷e̷r̷ simulation of objective reality that our rational mind creates and runs:
    https://t.co/B0PzhZ6NWK

    Mary's concept or "red" is a mental model of the color red — and that model is a part of a more comprehensive simulation of the real world.

    One of Mary's mental models is for her self. Having her self as simulate as part of the real world simulation gives her consciousness.

  41. David Chalmers’ "qualia" explained as a Quantum computer, rather than with a Classical explanation and understanding, as follows. A Theory of Everything (TOE) should feature experimental proof that information in the form of the theory’s explanation of qualia is an example of the mechanism of qualia, otherwise there is no experimental proof.  But then the information itself, not the experimenter and not a system of agents, becomes aware during experiment as predicted in theory.  Hence, the first result of the TOE is that there is no aware individual involved or needed in our experiments explaining qualia.

  43. David Chalmers' "hard problem" explained as a Quantum computer, rather than with a Classical explanation and understanding, as follows. A Theory of Everything (TOE) should feature experimental proof that information in the form of the theory’s explanation of awareness is an example of the mechanism of awareness, otherwise there is no experimental proof.  But then the information itself, not the experimenter and not a system of agents, becomes aware during experiment as predicted in theory.  Hence, the first result of the TOE is that there is no aware individual involved or needed in our experiments explaining consciousness.

  46. And so, any theory falls down when it introduces the brain as a computer, now that computers have been introduced as virtually unconscious.  We should reconsider whether the human mind is really a grapefruit sized mechanical analogue computer looking out at the world and within which we each live our whole lives.

  47. @13:40 Tononi took consciousness out of the realm of behavior and placed it in the realm of experience–
    Experience
    > That does not need an outside Observer
    > That makes a difference with itself or another system
    > That involves the sensational body
    > That is cause/effect in nature
    > That is Wholistic and irreducible
    > That is One.
    Tononi defined consciousness as experience. IT IS WHAT IT IS.
    (The hippies had in right in the 1960s)

  48. The theory seems to fall down when we introduce computers. They are processing a huge amount of data, but have no consciousness or at least not more than a old tv remote control.

  49. If a slow static neural network, called the brain, is not the source of the consciousness and agile thought processes of the human mind, then there is an illusion (a hidden causality) needed to project David Chalmers’ inner movie or Dan Dennett’s Cartesian theater some other way to the audience entity called “I” or “myself”.  The existence or datum of consciousness still occurs to our subjective experience without any need to identify and label shapes as a neural network does.  Consider then, there is no important "I" in science except when the physics of an "ego" or second-person viewpoint "you" presents itself. The entity "you" means a Turing machine (a preprogrammed computer) that successfully debates with "I" and so becomes important.  For example, "being aware and responding to one's surroundings" is true whether "I" a consciousness or "you" an unconscious Turing machine, actually responds.  So, there is no important "I", or brain it needs, in consciousness studies which is an idea called Atman in Hindu or No Self in Buddhism and perhaps what Dan Dennett means by the illusion of consciousness (i.e., denying the Cartesian theater is real or denying that the human mind is a grapefruit sized mechanical analogue computer).

  50. Correct, there is no important "I" in science except when the physics of an "ego" or entity "you" presents itself. The entity "you" means a Turing machine that successfully debates with "I" and so becomes important.   I think you agree entirely with David Chalmers then Tong. For example, "being aware and responding to one's surroundings" is true whether "I" a consciousness or "you" an unconscious Turing machine, actually responds.  So, there is no important "I" in consciousness studies.

نظرات بسته شده اند.