#David Chalmers

[thebardostate]

David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind (1996), pg 16-17:

It seems reasonable to say that together, the psychological [third person behavioral view] and the phenomenal [first person experiential view] exhaust the mental. That is, every mental property is either a phenomenal property, a psychological property, or some combination of the two. Certainly, if we are concerned with those manifest properties of the mind that cry out for explanation, we find first, the varieties of conscious experience, and second, the causation of behavior. There is no third kind of manifest explanandum, and the first two sources of evidence - experience and behavior - provide no reason to believe in any third kind of nonphenomenal, nonfunctional properties.

Chalmers makes two errors here.

Just as the psychological view is incapable of detecting the existence of the phenomenal view and vice versa, neither view should be capable of detecting the existence of any third kind of view. Just because the psychological and phenomenal views are ordinarily incapable of detecting any third view does not rule out its existence. Let's call this hypothetical additional view the zeroth person perspective (Z).

Is there empirical evidence for the existence of Z? Yes. Advanced meditators learn to quiet their sensory inputs (the psychological view) as well as their internal perception and cognition (the phenomenal view.) In this deep altered meditative state, it is possible to perceive another internal voice. This is not the familiar inner phenomenal dialogue, but rather a presence that communicates without words or conscious thoughts, via direct mind-to-mind communication. So Z is distinct from the ordinary phenomenal view. It takes years of meditative practice to achieve the deep mental state needed to discern the presence of Z. EEGs of advanced meditators have demonstrated that gamma brain wave patterns actually change during deep meditative states (Barušs & Mossbridge, 2017).

How do we know that Z isn't just the phenomenal or psychological view in disguise? Because advanced meditators report that it is difficult to articulate what happens when they are in Z, and they discern many things during Z only a fraction of which they can recall with clarity once they leave meditation and return to the normal phenomenal and psychological view. This is not an uncommon occurrence during altered states of consciousness that bypass the normal process of memory formation. We know that Z is not simply a dream state because it has a different characteristic EEG signature.

[girl4music]

Energy is both ever-present and ever-changing.

It is both permanent and fluctuating.

It is both stable and fluid.

Contradictory? Energy is contradictory because energy is never a specific solid thing. It’s a force. It’s immaterial. It’s something you cannot perceive of but interact and engage with always. Constantly. Forever.

It’s energy. Energy is never created, never destroyed. Energy never stays still and yet we perceive it as if it does because we slow it down ourselves. That’s how powerful our minds actually are. How complex it is to exist, to engage, to interact, to experience. To be. And our minds do all of that naturally, instinctually, easily.

We not only generate the information that we perceive and experience, we also edit it in real time. And we turn what is a split-second event/moment/experience into a memory. Into something that has passed but can still be engaged with through the filter thought and emotion. That’s all mental. Every single bit of it.

But reality itself - regardless what it looks, sounds, feels like - is fleeting. It is already something new as nature is nothing but the process of transformation.

Moving - always in movement. Always transforming.

Always in a state and position of there and not there at the same time. Simultaneously 0 and 1 together.

We naturally gravitate towards nature ourselves as human beings because we’re meant to move with it because we are no different to it. We ARE nature too.

We’re not supposed to stay static. A permanence. A “thing” specific from any other “thing” and have a unique identification of from it. We think that we do but that’s because we’re so used to having a dual perspective. It’s the first perspective we ever have when we’re born. To have an “I” and then an “other”, completely ignoring the fact we couldn’t have either without both there at the time working in tandem like a machine. Clockwork. The functionality of the cogs. That’s what we are because that’s what we do. But we forget that we couldn’t do any of it without each other.

As energy and nature we are as a unit of being. One. We put what we experience as “reality” here with us because the whole point is to experience it as real. We have a dual perspective immediately as soon as we’re born because we’re fundamentally not dual. It would be impossible to experience anything if we really were because energy and nature doesn’t ever work alone - separately. There’s always the force and the yield. And nothing ever is or gets done without both interacting.

That’s what “reality” is. It’s interaction and motion. Action and reaction. Cause and effect. There is always an experience of something because there is always a process of change. Ever-present change. Existence is not ever still. It can’t be or it won’t be. It couldn’t be.

But as soon as you place an identification on any part of it that you focus on and zero in on - then it is being. Then it suddenly exists. Because you’ve conceived it.

This processing. This generating. This conceiving. It’s all natural. It’s so natural that we never notice we do it. Our natural state is of what everything else is - nature itself - but we possess a unique trait or skill that gives us dual perspective. Consciousness. Self-awareness. Self-enquiry. And as the theoretical physicist David Chalmers puts it - the hard problem is not figuring out what consciousness is or how any human being can possess consciousness. It is why are we conscious?

But if you ask me - not that you would - the answer is actually very simple. We are because we have to be. I say it’s that nothing would ever exist if we were not conscious. For me consciousness is a fundamental constant of reality. Of having a real experience. It’s a component that is so crucial to the computation of 0+1 that no equation would ever add up without it. You could spend an eternity trying to work it out from the outside looking in, but you’ll never reach a conclusion without the inside looking out. So let’s change the perspective. Not necessarily get rid of the paradigm but rearrange it somewhat. Try something new with it.

Consciousness is as fundamental as energy and nature. Not just in physics, but in every science. You simply cannot “science” without it, so why even try?

If you asked a reductionary classical and conventional physicist to even entertain the thought of combining the metaphysical with the mathematical, they would laugh at you. They would tell you that you’re insane. So it’s not that they can’t do it. It’s that they don’t want to do it because they’re so afraid of the truth. David Chalmers appears to be the only theoretical physicist and philosopher that will ask these questions where the metaphysics does have to be talked about. So, therefore, he is the only one worth my attention.

You know, being a neuroscientist really does sound incredibly exciting. But the restrictions man… the limited perceptions and understandings of the mind… it would drive me crazy to be in a field of science that’s so interesting but is ultimately boxed in lies. To study the brain and its infinite complex capabilities,… just to ignore the fact it is literally rendering itself along with everything else in its energetic field…

I couldn’t be apart of something so close-minded that’s meant to expand awareness of the Universe and that naturally, instinctually, easily does by default. Talking about the contradictions in the world - that’s a big one. I could not be apart of neuroscience because I’d be constantly questioning and challenging the intentions and purposes of studying the mind. I’d say things that were so far removed from the objective of the job that I know I would be fired on the spot for it. Even something as simple as “the mind isn’t in the brain, - the mind is omnipresent. It is everywhere.” Even that is too much for the current neuroscience because it’s too metaphysical. Too esoteric for it. No, I don’t belong in neuroscience. Nor even physics. In fact I don’t belong in any science. I’ll be interested in it, absolutely. But my views are just too unconventional and no scientist except this brave man would listen.

I’ve had a theory of everything for practically my whole life. I’ve been building on it more and more as I aged. But it’s too fucking OUT THERE to be heard. Even though it’s logical and based entirely on the information and evidence - both empirical and not - that we have already as well some strong predications from my claircognizance. It is ultimately very sound if one even dares to attempt to entertain metaphysics. Because until you can - it will always sound insane because unknown information is insane. People are afraid of what they don’t or can’t know. Well, I’ve never had the luxury of being able to deny what I shouldn’t know because my mind has never worked that way. I’ve always known shit I shouldn’t or couldn’t possibly know. I’ve always been aware but not of how or why. And it did always drive me crazy until I embraced it. Until I finally fucking accepted that yes, I am psychic. I do possess an expanded awareness than most people. Extra-sensory perceptive abilities very few people do. Abilities that have saved my life more times than I can count. That have led me down a path I couldn’t have possibly seen without it. That have always guided me. Eventually I had to accept that the shit that made me crazy was the same shit that made me able to be me. That only by getting lost could I ever be found again. That’s what a “spiritual awakening” is. A reckoning. And even someone like me - Miss INTP, that needs logic and facts and rationality - was metaphysical and therefore had to accept that the metaphysical exists. Because how the fuck can you deny your own being? I couldn’t deny any of that exists when it was who I am. I am metaphysical. I am spiritual. I am divine. I am multidimensional. There’s no way I can deny it when it’s literally my life every single waking second of it.

So yeah, consciousness is fundamental to me. The subjective is all I have. “Reality” cannot be without it. I don’t think Chalmers is “on to something”. I think he is fucking SPOT ON and people need to listen to him. And not just him. Robert Lanza. Alan Watts. Sadhguru. Spinoza. And even Albert Einstein to a degree as well. We’re all ultimately saying the same thing. Just differently. Majorly differently. Using different terms and definitions, metaphors and frames of reference.

But we are all ultimately saying the exact same thing.

That we have had it all very wrong to begin with. Classical physics. Newtonian physics. Darwinism.

We’ve got it all wrong as a collective consciousness.

And because we’re ultimately stuck for answers in science currently…. We have to do what scares us.

We have to start involving consciousness and talking about metaphysics seriously. It’s a philosophy of physics. A whole new paradigm of getting to the truth of how it all works. Nature. Energy. Us. Everything.

We’re at a standstill. Yes, we’re making discoveries and progress in everything else but the fundamental problem - the umbrella of the whole thing - is ?????.

We don’t know. Except we do - we just can’t face it.

We have to make consciousness a fundamental constant. As fundamental as gravity and electromagnetics. the strong and weak nuclear forces. We have to because we’re getting nowhere without it.

They’re afraid. They’re all fucking afraid. Cowards.

The only one that doesn’t seem to be is Chalmers.

[raffaellopalandri]

Book of the Day - Reality +

Today’s Book of the Day is Reality + written by David Chalmers in 2022 and published by Norton & Company. David Chalmers is a professor of philosophy and neural science and co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness at New York University. He wrote The Conscious Mind, The Character of Consciousness, and Constructing the World, and lives in New York. Reality +, by David J.…

[eldritchanchovy]

[ID: The Nicki Minaj “So There’s This Guy” meme (which is a photo of her smiling and looking downwards) modified to say “So There’s This Wavelength Of Light”]

OH IT’S TIME TO SHOUT IN ALL CAPS ABOUT PHILOSOPHY, IS IT?

WELL

THE MARY’S ROOM THOUGHT EXPERIMENT AS A SUPPOSED ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF DUALISM IS UTTER HORSESHIT

“OH, WE CAN’T AGREE ON HOW TO BUCKET THESE ASPECTS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE INTO NICE NEAT CATEGORIES, I GUESS THAT MEANS THE SUPERNATURAL MUST LITERALLY EXIST”

THAT’S LIKE SAYING “THE EARTH CAN’T BE PERFECTLY ROUND BECAUSE THERE ARE MOUNTAINS &C, SO WE MUST LIVE ON A FLAT EARTH ON THE BACK OF A GIANT TURTLE”

The concept of a “favorite color” is so funny

[wickedzeevyln]

Am I Real?

”Am I real?” By the time I came to, the seconds on the clock had already counted me out. Those three words hit me as if I were a sandbag inviting Bruce Lee’s iron fist to a kick-butt buffet when they were uttered in a song back when FM radio was a thing. My mind went, “Huh—what do you mean am I real? Of course I am, or am I ? Right?” That was bad, my mind was stuttering like Porky. I could…

[dreams-of-mutiny]

“How does the water of the brain turn into the wine of consciousness?”

― David Chalmers

[aioleis]

★Conscious Exotica

⋆ 𝔇𝔦𝔠𝔱𝔦𝔬𝔫𝔞𝔯𝔶 ⋆ The term "conscious exotica" refers to hypothetical forms of consciousness that are different in fundamental ways from human and non-human animal consciousness as we currently understand it. This concept is often explored in the context of philosophical discussions about the nature of consciousness and its potential variations across different kinds of life forms or even artificial entities.

The exploration of "conscious exotica" involves considering entities that might have very different sensory inputs, cognitive structures, or forms of self-awareness than those found in earthly life forms. This could include, for example, hypothetical alien life forms with a fundamentally different biological makeup, or advanced artificial intelligences that experience the world in ways that are hard for humans to imagine.

The term also points towards a broader question in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science: What are the possible forms of consciousness, and how might they differ from the human experience? This inquiry challenges our understanding of consciousness by pushing the boundaries of what is considered conceivable or perceivable.

The term "conscious exotica" was coined by philosopher David Chalmers.

He uses it to discuss and categorize types of consciousness that are unusual, unknown, or differ significantly from human and animal consciousness as commonly observed. Chalmers is well-known for his work on the philosophy of mind, particularly regarding consciousness and the hard problem of consciousness—the question of why and how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience.

By introducing the concept of "conscious exotica," Chalmers invites exploration into the vast potential diversity of consciousness, which could include forms that are not observed on Earth and are perhaps not even currently imaginable by humans. This concept serves as a useful tool in theoretical discussions about the nature and limits of consciousness.

[younes-ben-amara]

التقنية تتغير والعالم يتطور لكن البشر يظلون بشرًا✨

ما هذه المجموعة من المختارات تسأ��ني؟ إنّها عددٌ من أعداد نشرة “صيد الشابكة” اِعرف أكثر عن النشرة هنا: ما هي نشرة “صيد الشابكة” ما مصادرها، وما غرضها؛ وما معنى الشابكة أصلًا؟! 🎣🌐 🎣🌐 صيد الشابكة العدد #25 رمضانكم كريم، ✔️ أتفق 👇🏽 قصص المتسولين أصحاب العقارات والأملاك والأرصدة البنكية ليست خرافات وأساطير بل وقائع حقيقية تداولتها الصحافة وتناقلها المجربون في المجتمع المغربي، لكن المؤكد أن محترفي…

[wayti-blog]

“Here’s my view of these things. Our minds are part of reality, but there’s a great deal of reality outside our minds. Reality contains our world and it may contain many others. We can build new worlds and new parts of reality. We know a little about reality, and we can try to know more. There may be parts of it that we can never know. Most importantly: Reality exists, independently of us. The truth matters. There are truths about reality, and we can try to find them. Even in an age of multiple realities, I still believe in objective reality.”

David J. Chalmers

[mesokosminen]

Onko dualismi realismia? Entä tekoälyn vallankumous?

David Chalmersin esitys Taorminassa 2023 Jatkan tässä artikkelissa katsausta toukokuussa 2023 pidettyyn tietoisuustieteen konferenssiin Sisilian Taorminassa. Nostin edellisessä artikkelissa esiin neurotieteilijä Anil Sethin pääpuheenvuoron sekä tietoisuuden teoriat. Nyt käsittelen David Chalmersin dualistista filosofiaa sekä hänen pääpuheenvuoroansa “Could a Large Language Model be…

[where-your-eyes-dont-go]

It is true that we have no idea how a nonbiological system, such as a silicon computational system, could be conscious. But the fact is that we also have no idea how a biological system, such as a neural system, could be conscious. The gap is just as wide in both cases.

David Chalmers, Uploading: A Philosophical Analysis.

[iryomito]

Finally, it's finished! 

[dipnotski]

David J. Chalmers – Bilinçli Zihin (2024)

Bu kitap, felsefe dünyasında bilinci anlama arayışında önemli bir dönüm noktası olarak kabul edilir. Kitap, bilinci fiziksel dünyanın bir parçası olarak açıklamanın yetersizliğini savunarak, bilincin temel bir özellik olarak ele alınması gerektiğini öne sürer. David J. Chalmers, bilinci açıklamanın zorluğunu “zor problem” olarak tanımlar. Fiziksel dünyanın yasalarıyla bilinci açıklamak, tıpkı…

[uniqueartisanconnoisseur]

Carl and the Ferris Wheel!

Keith and I both love the Ferris Wheel. It has been my favorite ride since I was a kid. Since Keith and I have been together, when we have the opportunity to ride the Ferris Wheel we take advantage. “I love seeing the view of the town from the top,” Keith said when we took a ride last weekend during the Pawnee Prairie Days. When we think of Ferris wheels, we think of our friend Carl Davis…

[sameteeth]

ai stuff to me is scary bc as soon as we stop running human interference between ai + the real world whats Actually happening stops mattering. we literally have no way of understanding consciousness rn and the idea that LLMs or other ai could develop smthn that appears to be consciousness without us understanding how/why and then Letting ai take the reigns . .... scary. a black box indeed. also important to consider the "evolutionary pressures" we put on ai - some ppl think a super persuasive ai will happen quicker than a super intelligent/efficient ai. and when u get people who dont think before they jump. well idk it makes me nervous

[eannpatterson]

A conversation about a virtual world and global extinction

I went for a haircut a week or so ago and my barber asked me about the books I had been reading recently.  He always has a book on the shelf next to him and sometimes I find him reading when I arrive and the shop is quiet.  So it is not unusual for us to talk about our current books.  I told him about ‘Reality+: virtual worlds and the problems of philosophy’ by David Chalmers which led into a…