[ExI] Chalmers

[Brent Allsop]

Sheesh.

Yes, Hermes, you nailed it with “philosophers try to explain their theories
in the most complicated way possible to obfuscate potential errors”.  It’s
so frustrating to spend years, trying to understand, and even canonize all
that “popular” consensus, only to find nothing there but ever more “hard”
problems and meaningless circular definitions.  To me, there are problems
with all theories that separate qualia (using separating terms like qualia
“supervene” on something) are problematic.



By the way, we’ve recently put-up new versions of the first 5 chapters on
our video. “Consciousness: Not a Hard Problem, Just a Color Problem.
<https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/>”  Hopefully, that is
something people can understand, and experimentalists can use to finally
falsify all the “crap in the gap” philosophies hiding in our ‘qualia
blindness”

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:44 AM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> That’s the problem with philosophers. They like making up their own
> terminology. It can be difficult to distinguish the gibberish from the
> coherent. In this case Chalmers is trying to say that something is
> reducible if the workings of the whole is explainable in terms of the parts.
>
>
>
> In my experience philosophers try to explain their theories in the most
> complicated way possible to obfuscate potential errors. Politicians use the
> same technique and seeing exactly where the error is can be difficult. I
> suggest you read something more intellectually honest such as a physics or
> mathematics book.
>
>
>
> *From: *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 2, 2021 10:29 AM
> *To: *extropolis at googlegroups.com; ExI chat list
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Cc: *William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *[ExI] Chalmers
>
>
>
> In my constant effort to keep my brain working, I am trying The Conscious
> Mind.
>
>
>
> "A natural phenomenon is reductively explainable in terms of some lower
> level properties if the property of instantiating the phenomenon is
> globally logically supervenient on the low level properties in question."
> "A phenomenon is reductively explainable simpliciter if the property of
> instantiating that phenomenon is globally logical supervenient on physical
> properties."
>
>
>
> Have I bit off more than I can chew?
>
> bill w
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210302/e719eac0/attachment.htm>