David Chalmers - Why is Consciousness so Mysterious? 

Chalmers is a pure genius. It's remarkable. Probably one of the greatest philosophers alive

Jesus Christ those guys from def leppard are smart

Out of all the closer to truth videos I’ve seen, Chalmers is the best in my opinion. Great video.

One of the most interesting and significant 12 minutes on the Internet. Thumbs waaay up, kudos.

And David Chalmers is a part of my brain who keeps reminding me of everything is just made by myself :)

I can't believe the amount of haters here. Chalmers has with great conceptual clarity and without denying our scientific worldview brought back the immensely important issue of consciousness, a problem any human being can at least phenomenologically relate to. There's nothing 'funny' about his ideas.

It's as if Bertrand Russell joined Iron Maiden and somehow acquired an Australian accent.

In such a short video, this guy spoke of my past 5 year experience in philosophy! He simply SPOKE MY MIND!!! lol!

So many people don't get conciousness , it seriously make some wonder some are not conscious.

"If this is an illusion, then the illusion is consciousness" .....sweet. we can stop there.

Excellent! Talk about Consciousness .Thanx for bringing this back,on Y.T.

Great discussion on the most important subject. Subscribed.

A great interview. In my own metaphysics, mind creates mind. For that reason, the answers have been inaccessible.

I believe the entire universe is just one big conscious entity which has been spread all around. Each atom has the ability of being conscious. There is a lot more about the atom that needs to be discovered. A combination of these atoms in the form of a human brain creates consciousness. There is way more to reality than what our senses allow us to experience.

He was unconscious last time he went to his barber.

He speaks that consciousness should not be reduced to smaller parts like atoms etc. but to be fundamental (i.e. not being made of anything else) you need to be able to show that it cannot be broken into smaller parts. There is a lot of evolutionary evidence that consciousness is an "emergent" property of brain power. Evolution essentially gave rise to it.

Aside from the age-old "interaction problem" that has always plagued dualistic ontologies of this kind, this still leaves the following conundrum: we can easily image our universe developing in such a way that no life forms came to be, or that none achieved consciousness in the sense of first-person subjective experience. Surely our scientific theories of nature cannot be dependent on whether or not conscious life forms evolve.

Consciousness is fundamental. Nice.

Chalmers was smart to separate out the hard problem of consciousness. Thinking, perception, memory, emotions are all brain functions. Consciousness is a quality of matter that has been arranged in a specific configuration. In other words, it has to be alive to be conscious, but you have to have a brain in order to carry out cognitive functions.

You need consciousness to still be able to make a decision even though your desires are in conflict. And for that there have to be a "feeler" of emotions.

Self-awareness evolved as an audit system for intelligence. Intelligence is far more useful when the results of an individuals behavior (especially in a social setting) can be analyzed, remembered, and therefore adjusted for the next time.

When Chalmers says "I can't question my own consciousness, I am experiencing it directly" What does he mean by "I"? Isn't that what consciousness is, the experience of "I" and if it is is his consciousness conscious?

Everything is mysterious, not just consciousness, everything in life is mysterious

The reason the question about the nature of consciousness becomes hard, is because it really is easy in actuality. And if simplicity of something gets misunderstood, then it becomes hard. The thing is that, not everything in the world can be explained(in fact nothing can be really explained as to what its nature is). To be able to understand the existential nature of anything, it is needed to understand the fact, that phenomenon in the nature simply "ARE". For example, speaking about the nature of the consciousness, its just an inherent property of matter, there is no explanation needed(or possible) further than that. But, there is one caveat here, which really is the true subjective reason why a particular person might be not "getting" the consciousness,. And it is simply because, as our modern society stands, majority of people in it are unconscious or barely conscious(regardless of or even contrary to how intelligent and educated they might be).

The big question for me is: How do you come up with an experiment to test how consciousness interact with the rest of the elements?

Once conciousness is fundamental then the conscious observer effect in quantum mechanics fit together perfectly.

Consciousness as a fundamental building block and it is not reduceable. Hmm. I always pictured consciousness as something that can be reduced from a baser process, but it is a different avenue of thought. Food for thought.

Amazing Chalmers, thanks for sharing this video. I like philosophy of David Bohm, Jiddu Krishna Murthy and David Chalmers, they challenge the current scientific notions.

That Chalmers stare is hypnotic.

After watching, I felt I was a little bit closer to understanding consciousness. I think the tipping point was when Dr. Chalmers talked about the stream of consciousness that is running in our brains daily. Still, I keep thinking that consciousness must also be a physiological process, not something distinct from a physiological process.

One way of looking it is that just as space and time are containments of existence, perhaps consciousness is the third containment and there may even be different dimensions of consciousness just as there are many dimensions of space.

Physical EXPERIENCE (not existence) emerges from consciousness. If you were not conscious, you would not be aware of the experience of existing. At the same time, there is no way to tell if the physical world was before or after your consciousness itself emerged were you to be the only human on this planet. What is even more interesting, is that self awareness doesn't occur until 3-4 years of age. I love these thoughts.

Chalmer is such a savvy chalmer! Good on ya mate.

“The easy and hard problems” - 7:34

Still waiting for the guitar solo

It seems to me that the thing we know most about, only know about, and can be most sure of, is, what we call, qualia. Is it not the experiences that qualia presents to us that lures us into an hypothesis/story of consciousness, indirect realism, an I, a self, others, and a material world? If indirect realism is true, then it would be hard to find concrete evidence for anything beyond qualia because we are trapped within the realm of qualia.

Wow !! The guy is a super genius.

a little off topic but two days ago I had a dream I was sitting at table in a restaurant where I could see behind the counter and watch the staff at work, In the dream I saw the chef say to this blond waitress "repeat the order please"....he gets frustrated at her and I thought he was going to attack her. Its like where in the hell did this dream come from???? I could tell you what the waitress looked like...she was ablond about 50 with a pony tail (nice cheekbones) and dressed in like a upscale restaurants attire of black and white In real life I don't anyone that is this women but in the dream I felt empathy for her. Does the mind really just invent the things you see in dreams?

How do you develop a science of consciousness?

That’s one smart dude👍🏻

I always liken Consciousness to a screen upon which a film is projected. Our day to day reality represents the film upon the screen. And I credit Rupert Spira for this analogy.

What is the nature of consciousness in the multiverse? is it just random? does one occur more then once?

IMHO, if you can't imagine an experiment to distinguish a "zombie" as defined in this video from a "conscious" being, then the question of consciousness is permanently outside of science. You can still argue about whether conscience is a thing among philosophers, but it can't be science.

What a mind!

i think it is kind of implied that consciousness is a part of every equation in physics. The act of writing it down or representing a part of the universe in numbers and symbols says consciousness. The first statement of every book or solution is always, I am conscious. We just don't write it, because we all understand and assume that is the case.

The weaknesses in Chalmers' argument is on display in this interview. "I can't be 100% certain you are conscious, but the one thing I can be certain of is that I am." When confronted with the fact that there are a lot of independent streams or processes he just repeats that he is certain he is conscious.

if (at least some part of) the neuronal circuitry is still functional after 20 years of below minimal input, then yes, we can talk of of some form of consciousness. that's actually an interesting topic. will the brain reorganize and self stimulate or just become unusable? as far as i know we die in lack of stimulation...

what is connection between experience and consciousness?

Now if one accepts the explanatory gap as real, which is inevitable once one adopts the view that consciousness itself is irreducible, one surely would also have to agree that the above "experiment" is the best answer available *in principle* (and which is descriptive rather than explanatory), at least to the human mind. So yes, for all intents and purposes, it answers the young man's question, given the right experimental setting etc. etc.

Clever guy

CONSCIOUSNESS? I have a different perspective regarding consciousness. What I have discovered is that basically we are all PavlovIan creatures who have been programmed from the moment of conception. All of our life experiences form our view of reality and view of the world. That means we operate from a position which means our choices are not truly free but predetermined and based on the past. When I made this observation, I connected the dots and it changed my life dramatically. Admittedly, this is not easy to do because it means “seeing” how the past determines the present choices. This is particularly true regarding relationship choices. People keep making the same mistakes over and over again because your program is in charge of the choosing. Fortunately, I broke the code and what a difference it has made. No one does anything unless it fills a need. Once the true need is revealed, you are then in a position to make a better choice. Our quality of life is achieved by the choices that we make. But first you must unlock the programming codes.

1:50-2:20 right there, that is it. That is the answer. I study ancient literature, character development is relatively new. Most stories centered around a plot, the development of action. Not the human being and it's intrinsic thoughts, feelings, consciousness. most people are not conscious, I probably did not start truly examining my consciousness till my late 30s. Evolution does not need consciousness, in fact it might do better without it, at least till now.

WOW.

I could hang out with this guy

Even this does not go far enough, though. Even if consciousness is fundamental, there persists the hardest question, "So why am I *me* and not someone else?" In other words, how did it come to pass that my experience in this world is associated with THIS brain over here and not a different one over there? There are 8 billion human consciousnesses wandering this planet, yet I am exactly one of them. Why? No one ever seems to address this.

How could consciousness bring about physical reality? Is information of physical reality programmed; and might such programming be done by consciousness?

My dog exercises abstract thought (tries to second guess my actions), nudges me into his future (afternoon walk), is intuitive and has varying moods, does he not have consciousness? Could it be just for a variety of reasons our big heavy complex brains were naturally selected and an unnecessary side effect is the ability to naval gaze until we disappear up our own back passages?

Damn, Chalmers. Just damn.

What is the source of consciousness?

How about looking at Drg Drashti Viveka theory of the Vedanta. Maybe of interest to some of you

A smart person explains difficult concepts in way so that people say well yeah, obviously-no matter how long their hair is

The science of conscioness integrates with technology through people who's brain's have been studied. People with Temperal Lobe epilepsy for example. They tend to be artist, poets and special people. They live the life of hi technology, medications and a different perspective than their family members.

Chalmers looks more like Charmers.. a rock star, not a professor.. excellent discussion, thanks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn.

Look up the ventro medial prefrontal cortex.

But what if the areas of the brain that give rise to the experience of qualia in regards to conscious color “experience” get destroyed , thereby losing the ability to experience that particular qualia? What would that say about consciousness?

Perhaps then you should be working withStuart Hameroff who as an anesthesiologist understands nixting of gap junctions that correspond (correlate)with unconsciousness but still admits science's lack of understanding of how that could be.Then there is the NDE phenomena which sometimes presents when a patient is anesthetized and shouldn't be having a conscious experience at all comparable to something similar under coma

wow someone gets it

true. and in that noble quest for knowledge the main difference between scientists and philosophers would be that while scientists discover hidden marvelous secrets of this world and of this universe philosophers invent new words. and nothing else. peace.

He really goes to the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Are scalar consciousness is accurate to its limited sensory input, we have a narrow view and understanding of our reality...

it's Mac De Marco clever twin.

I think it perfectly answers the young man's question ("how does consciousness interact with matter?"), if done in a proper experimental setting. Changes in conscious state X correspond with changes in states of matter Y, and vice versa. But of course, you're alluding to the infamous explanatory gap, which is defined as the gap that exists between mechanistic explanations on the one hand and conscious experience on the other.

Mr. Chalmers makes some very good points. :)

Even if you read every book about the color red, you will never "feel" to color red as presented to your eyes. That prove that consciousness is ... what? Your see red when 1 of 3 specific cone in the retina transmit pulse to a specific location in the visual area. If a mad scientist open your scull then insert an electrode in that brain area and sent a gentle electric current (assuming he don't want to destroy part of you), you would see red. Mary living in her boring black and white room would see red. A blind person would see red for the same reason. A more realistic scenario than Mary with the impossible black/white room is you, anybody reading this, try to imagine the smell of some meal made of ingredients that you never heard about. A good writer will find a way to describe a color by comparing it to other color that he knows the reader may have seen. Similarly, a good writer will use different linguistics artifacts to help to come close to the flavor/smell of a given meal. He may describe the smell of sand after rain, the burning of matches, etc

do perceptions in physical brain need to have energy?

the youtube video can give you the illusion that two people are right there in front of you ,making that conversation at this very moment ,alive and have conscious , but the video is just individual frames (still images) played in a row with some audio (wave sounds) played simultaneously , similarly the human conscious could be just like that , some signals coming from the eyes ,ears , skin , nose ,along with sophisticated chemical reactions going on in your brain ,that gives you the illusion that you are conscious .

Love the long hair. Bring it back.

Maybe it is our understanding of the physical basis of perception and our understanding of the nature of consciousness that are different to each other, rather than each themselves being different. Our experience of physical perception could be what consciousness is, pure and simple. Neurochemistry cannot be separate from consciousness otherwise what purpose does it have apart from our subconscious processes. If physical neurochemistry 'enables' mental consciousness, then is the rest just not semantics? Is it not just our labelling tendency to grasp concepts that makes us distinguish them as separate entities, rather than they actually being separate from each other.

for physical information to be transmitted to neurons requires energy?

John Eccles refers to that as "promissory materialism" which is no less a faith system than religion.

Everything has a life cycle: Plants, People, Governments, Civilizations, Nations, Species, Planets, Stars, Galaxies, The Universe. We all have a Birth, a Life, and a Death. The Universe is going through its life cycle. It is currently in its Life Development stage. It has just recently gained self consciousness and is working to dig into the fabric of reality.

If we dont know what about 95 per cent of our universe is made of, consicousness could be a basic element or molecule that we cannot perceive. It may come into our body and create our sense of experience. Just like other basic elements come into our body and create things like blood and cells generally. Like our lungs process the elements of "air", the brain may process the unkknown elements into consciousness.

What does conciousness have to do with "Spinal Tap"? Is there a medical connection?

thing is with sensory deprivation there is still dna that perhaps leads to some level of conciosusnsies

Chalmers was amazing in Led Zeppelin

If only at the end of the conversation Chalmers had stage dived onto the unsuspecting producers sipping coffee in directors chairs behind the camera.

This show reminds me a lot of Thinking Allowed with Jeffery Mishlove. Both are brilliant.

Where are they?

Am I weird for noticing Chalmers never blinks and never breaks eye contact?

How are they showing besides through personal revelation?

Philosopher or member of Def Leppard?

without consciousness how would you know virtual from actual, figuratively from literal? If consciousness did not exist nothing could truly be real. true reality is consciousness

The question is " Where does it exist?" Yesterday - Tomorrow? Entirely non-existent quantities both. Same for the last and next second. Neither existential in any way, shape or form. Where is now, between the non existent last and next pico-second? Reality must be a might thin slice of some thing- but what- and how thin? A Plank time duration? 10 to the minus 43 of a second?

But does it go to eleven though? And more importantly... does it have infinite sustain????

I think the dichotomy of basics and composites, of which consciousness must be either one or the other, that Chalmers put forward is a reasonable way to define the hard problem. Should we treat consciousness like space and time or fundamental particles and say there is no deeper explanation to be found beyond a certain point? Chalmers is correct that for much of science it is efficient and generally safe to assume these brute facts of the universe exist. However, these assumptions are only valid when the object of study is not the thing being assumed as basic. When we actually looked at space and time, we found they weren't independent phenomena without deeper levels of meaning underlying them; they are in fact a unified phenomenon. Likewise, several particles have been assumed to be fundamental and then turned out to be composite when they became the direct objects of study. When studying behavioral science, the classical theory of the mind is very useful and might be a valid assumption for the purpose of studying some behavioral phenomenon. But the usefulness of an assumed model in one field of study should not be considered conclusive evidence for the model without corroboration from the studies that test the assumed model as directly as possible. In other words, we should never assume we have reached the bottom level of explanation of any phenomenon or we run the risk of cutting off further avenues of inquiry that could prove us wrong. What gives Chalmers license to simply assume consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe? How can he know we will never arrive at a scientific description of what it feels like to see color, whether through neuroscience or some other field of study? We should take note of the general trend of science to confound our historical intuitions about reality and be open to ways of thinking about consciousness that make the most sense of the data and not cling to old ways for their own sake.

We are pure consciousness having a material experience at the moment. We are supposed to be doing good things, writings, paintings, music, etc,etc, somehow man screws that up, choose door #1 my yolk is easy, that's Jesus's saying.

does consciousness experience subjectivity? awareness?

For one second I thought this might be a scene from Spinal Tap.

after 20 years of sensory deprivation that brain will be anything but normal.

Our brains seem to transmit and receive information.. why is it so hard to believe that consciousness is maybe another field out there that hasn't been accounted for thats just as real as the electromagnetic field and our brains receive consciousness just as our brains receives information from our nerves.