David Chalmers - Are There Things Not Material?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2016
- Is the natural, material, physical world all there is? Or is there something more-a supernatural, nonmaterial, nonphysical existence?
Click here to watch more interviews with David Chalmers bit.ly/1MtKy4p
Click here to watch more interviews on whether there are things that exist that aren't material bit.ly/1nwieK3
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
![เปิดบ้าน เปิด Supercar อั๋นโอกิ เคยเอา rolls Royce เเลกพระ องค์ละ 100 ล้าน l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeGwJwXauZ0/mqdefault.jpg)
Kohn asks the same damn questions 50,000 different ways, gets the same damn 50.000 answers every time and here I am still watching every single damn episode.
Douglas Adams wrote:
"The world is divided into two types of people: those who believe the world is divided into two types of people and those who don't."
A witty aphoristic way for Douglas Adams to out himself as the former type.
Do I detect a strange loop of a tautological nature in that statement?
I think he copied that fro wh Auden
I think what David is saying that it's a matter (excuse the pun) of perspective, but to him, the fundamental aspects are what's important. For example, take a Lego house as an analogy for stuff in the universe. A Lego house is:
1) A house (human perceived object)
2) A bunch of blocks (particle physics perspective)
3) Plastic (fundamental property)
They are all "correct" depending on your view.
I think it was Ernest Rutherford's line, “all science is either physics or stamp collecting,” not Lord Kelvin. But David makes the point that stuff is not reducible to one explanable reality.
I think he makes a great point. There's a big difference between experiencing something and explaining something.
Very true. It's quite impossible to describe an experience to someone else.
maybe consciousness is related to how much info you can explain
As a father with small kids, it really took me a while to get that by refering to the existence of "the number two" he was actually literally talking about to the numeric value...
Great video!!! I've been hooked on this channel the past couple of days.
I don't know what kind of music David Chalmers likes, but I like to think he's a massive metal-head.
actually hes a huge fan of Hansen and the Backstreetboys
I was thinking the exact same thing. I see him as a big Iron Maiden fan.
loser
whale song me thinks
my boi be rockin the 94 Dave Mustaine look
I wonder what kind of shampoo he uses: Hadroncollider 2in1
Hahahs love that
Accelerate, smash, repeat.
Out of all these guys on this show, I think my views are a mixture of Chalmers (50%), Paul Davies (40%), and even a smidgeon on Rupert Sheldrake (10%). Consciousness is fundamental, quantum theory is spooky, and we run up against a wall when we reason back before the Big Bang. Seems there may be a Mind that permeates existence.
I believe that without some initial mind/entity/God/whatever, we would enter into some weird atheistic/materialistic retro-eternalism, we would always have some pre-Big Bang material existence that would not answer the question at all.
@@emmanuelmedeiros7 although I agree with you I wonder if this could be argued for on anything but aesthetic grounds?
I'm not sure Liam. I believe that question is impossible to access at all. Or at least during our lives.
@@emmanuelmedeiros7 A mind/entity/God/whatever is not needed because this would take us one step back as these need explanation in itself in the direction of infinite regress..
@@GeoCoppens My definition of God is something that exists by itself, not needing to be created by a previous entity, if that was the case, it would not be God, but a secondary entity created by God. I think this is logical. Attention: God existing does not mean eternal life for us or some of us. My reason to believe in God is not Fear of Death as it might be argued by some. I respect other views, but for me this seems very logical AND aesthetical. Not only that, an ethical system could be demostrated to be logical, but being logical by itself is not enough to be imperative. For ethics to be imperative and good it needs to be based on absolutes; logical propositions are true or false regardless of the existence of the universe, but conscious bodies able to perceive truth and falsehood are posterior to the existence of the universe. if we reach the philosophical conclusion that God created the universe, and we have other non-materal truths, we can mix them up to TRY reaching an ethical truth that could have applications on politics. God not existing makes it impossible to have a political argument based on purely logical arguments, and people will bring on feelings and willful desires to be seen on society. That's why I believe a constitution should separate religion from politics, but not God from politics.A constitution who rests only on self-declared assertions does not make a case for the rightfulness of itself, therefore making a coup to replace it not something morally wrong by its own logical definition. A constitution that rests on the freedom of speech and on logical justifications, will be judged by its citizens on those same bases, and if it is proven to be illogical, it would be only logical to be replaced.
In what sense have you ever experience a "material" object? All I experience is my own conciousness.
I agree! But consciousness has different qualities. Suffering or pleasure at the basic level. It seems to me that consciousness has content -- but I'm not sure. Perhaps a follow-up talk would be:
"David Chalmers - Are There Things Material?"
Spinal Tap David Chalmers is my favorite David Chalmers.
When you remove the noise that exists around us and separate the I from the self, what remains is a oneness between everything and it’s core, simply love.
Oh you one of these goofs
Mmmmmm
I'm inclined to think that the fundamental/absolute nature of reality is simply self-knowing awareness. This fundamental nature would have to be something that was there all along, if it was something that was discovered then that would imply that it was relative rather than absolute. This absolute nature would also suggest that carving up experience into separate entities with distinct identities is to take a misstep into potentially labyrinthine confusion.
You should read Hegel then :)
@@jesusfernandez3247 funnily enough I emailed a philosophy professor asking for guidance on reading Hegel, just a couple of hours before your reply .. I've never reached out like that before
@@TH-nx9vf That’s funny lol, check him out and don’t be intimidated, just take your time approach his ideas critically. He is very worth knowing (Hegel I mean).
The question is important because we simply do not have a complete description of reality. In fact it is woefully inadequate. We can explain how some things work. But we do not understand any of the "why". And the only thing we can do is work off of assumptions.
Why consciousness? Because there is life?
Or
Why life? Because there is consciousness?
This is David Chalmers being free and easy towards philosophy. At least that's how it seems. But when you read his technical work on consciousness and even on other subjects, it doesn't really seem that way at all.
Again, in this discussion Chalmers seems to becoming across as a philosophical (or ontological) pluralist. However, I don't think his neat distinction between properties and things (or between properties and categories) does the work he think it does. And the interviewer spots that.
Matter is just a process. It is not permanent. It's just a name and form. Just like a gold bracelet. In reality it's just gold, the underlying fundamental reality is gold, the bracelet is just a name and form.
Where can I see this full interview?
You can carve up the world in any ontological way you like, so long as Jaffa Cakes aren't biscuits.
+Phil Hibbs That's hilarious!
Huh?
You'd have to orange the molecules into a total eclipse pie chart to understand this.
There is a profound idea underneath this seemingly flippant statement.
loser
LIGHT UP ANOTHER ONE MAN!!!
feat. Parmenides and Heraclitus
"Both perspectives are equally right and equally wrong, there's no choosing between them."
This is very "Nagarjunian" hahah
Just as number can be viewed as interpretative, so can "Stuff", "Physical", which is sense datum.
Yes...
2:17 "You want to talk about unicorns, well maybe you can't, so maybe there are some rules", but you just did!
You've removed the context, smartarse! But your point IS amusing. :-)
missed his point
The sound volume is too low.
Volume is a bit low.
I agree. With him but not platonic which he's not a platonist
what kind of t-shirt is that? I think my mother used to have one with that motif and shes been dead for 14 years
Roger Syversen maybe some aboriginal art? Chalmers seems to like the stuff and he is Australian
What about abstract truths?
I think therefore I am hungry.
I want his hair
Is that Cat MRI in the back ? :D
I wondered if anyone else noticed that.
Ladies and gentleman.....The lead singer of the metal band, Tokamak!
Whats the point of this conversation
Wait, Chalmers is a nominalist?
I'll continue to categorize a golf ball as a material object. Just works for me. If someone takes issue they are entitled to their own perspective.
"The question of whether numbers exist is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim" - Edsger Dijkstra
I think they are rambling and not lacking in clarity of anything
Science is physics or stamp collecting was a quote from Lord Rutherford of Manchester University in England, not Lord Coleman.
I really like the intent of the term ‘essent’, Ralph Manheim’s English coined word/translation for the German ‘seiend’ / ‘ seiendes’ employed by Heidegger in his book ‘Einführung in die Metaphysik’ (Introduction to Metaphysics). Why are there essents (things that are) rather than nothing? Essent, doesn’t denote, describe, define, chronicle, or categorize the nature of things that are-they could be anything at all-as long as they are, rather than nothing. The word ‘beings’ has traditionally invoked a more materialistic connotation.
The set design made it so that I assumed Chalmers was the man in glasses. Oops.
What things exist? What kinds of stuff exists in the world? I can tell you, David's hair definitely exist.
I can't get past the fact that he looks like he's in Spinal Tap.
he looks like he can sing some van halen
What if entities are the only THINGS and other concepts we entertain are abstractions from those THINGS. Abstractions that reference a relation between the things. Someone more philosophically literate might be able to help me here. *looks around nervously. lol
Iron Maiden consciousness
"Truth" is contextual, it depends on the frame of reference one is using to a large degree
From the singularity which one could also label as "the information prime" (absolutely non diverse), emerged the basic four physical properties of the universe. These properties were created from exponentially increasing diversity of information. Information became more and more diverse and multi distinctive over time. The changing diversity of information occurred without sentient (conscious) interaction to the human observable frame of reference for billions of years. The diversity of information which existed before humans became conscious beings, (observing the universe as diverse and multi distinctive information) was nearly the same amount of informational diversity as it is today irrespective of our existence as sentient conscious beings. The information humans have acquired was always present in physical properties, much like the Michelangelo's David in the stone, we merely chipped away that which was concealing the underlying information present. We've simply manipulated the information in form and function, or in other words adding a slight measure more to universal information diversity, but not in physical or existential presence.
Quantum physics seems to suggest that conscious observation is fundamental to physical reality, however. I’m more inclined to believe that the philosophy of Metaphysical Idealism is the closest thing we have to a theory of everything.
David, won't you please go back to your rock star look? To my mind, philosophers are the rock stars of our times, and they ought to look the part.
The human understanding,, circumscribed by the senses, is too crude a device to make any pronouncement as to what exists.
i think Deepak Chopra is better at this, Chalmers plays it so safe, he never manages to say anything at all
Chopra just says mumbo jumbo pseudoscience nonsense though
Consciousness and the feeling of being you belong to your brain. Without it, nothing exists.
you only exist in my brain...….as far as I now
If we are not aware that we are conscious we might exist but not know it.
th-cam.com/video/p7eI9bxYaOU/w-d-xo.html
(Dave's not a moral philosopher, and iM calling the alien signals ectoplasm, to signal humour, and necroplasm, to signal evil. Causal responsibility is all iCARE about, whereas the Intelligent Designer has totally different moral beliefs. )
Dudes been puffin’ the magic dragon.
Two revolutionary propositions of _New Realism,_ states: _"The World does Not Exist."_ & _"To Exist is to Appear in a Sense of Field."_ These cleverly derived claims create a level playing field. No aspect is considered more fundamental than any other. No more categories. Just infinitely different fields of context. Everything is soley defined by it's proper properties and it's context. Ontology without Metaphysics. Realism & Idealism merged into a pluralistic monoism.
yeah, but the world do exist, so it's irrevelant
No, realism didn't merged into jack shit. Idealism is BULLSHIT been proved thousands of times and idiots still preaching it, and monism is a flawed philosophy, so I don't get what youre trying to insinuate here
"What is, is not. What is not, is."
So happy Frodo is doing well!
if I see something, and 5 or 6 other people sees it at the same time, then this prove's there is no Santa Claws!! yes
Can you imagine Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Peter, Paul or I being interviewed by this guy? Do you think he would believe our stories that are radically different than what liars tell him?
+Brad Holkesvig
Moses - not a real person; Abraham - almost certainly not a real person; Jesus - not sure. But why would anyone believe you especially when you casually call respected people liars for self serving reasons.
claudiaquat
Liars are respected by liars but the Truth is not respected at all.
Brad Holkesvig
That's really, really deep, Brad.
claudiaquat
I figured it was too deep for you.
Brad Holkesvig
No. You didn't . And you never will. Good luck thinking you're important.
I absolutely love Chalmers, but this is one of the very few instances where I have a hard time agreeing with him. The plurality about world-views, scientific models, and the like, that he's claiming seems self-defeating. If there are multiple ways of carving up reality, then how can we adjudicate between different scientific models that purport to explain reality as it is in itself, as closely as possible, for example? If all views of carving up the world are equally right and wrong as he says, then that seems to undermine philosophy and science greatly. We're then not ascertaining knowledge of the world on both fronts - we're just cataloguing different ways of carving it up, which undermines what we think of as the special epistemic characteristic of these two enterprises. And like Kuhn points out, he's carving up reality at the fundamental level - but, how does he know that that's the fundamental level, and if everything is equally right and wrong like he says, then what reason could he have for carving it up that way?
Moreover, he claims that we can't really talk about entities beyond the fundamental level of reality, and he wants to relegate talk of what exists to this level - yet, his area of expertise would commit him to high order emergent phenomena (and thus the entities he doesn't want to talk about) because consciousness seems to only emerges after a sufficient and complex order of information/matter has developed. Consciousness doesn't seem to be fundamental, or else we would have already seen in at the fundamental level (perhaps it is, but we have yet to find any conclusive evidence that particles have any kind of conscious properties). As Searle claims, consciousness is even above the biological level, which is far removed from the fundamental level of particles and physics. So, it does seem like entities, such as consciousness, can come into being at higher levels beyond the fundamental, so we have reason to care about "entities" in the world. Moreover, they wouldn't be arbitrary things - the result of different ways of carving up the world. They would be entities in their own right and another level of reality as equally important as any other.
Another quick point: how does he know that physics and consciousness are the fundamental levels of reality? It could be that there are levels and levels of "gunk", and what we cut up now as fundamental, are high order features of reality comprising entities that are no more basic than even high order systems like biology or psychology. Maybe particles are infinitely divisible? If that's the case, why posit them as fundamental? We may argue that they have a kind of explanatory power that other things don't have; however, what if there is an even more basic level that explains even more?
I'm a big fan of Chalmers. I'm just surprised at his claims here.
Good thoughts, though I tend to agree with him about plurality. Everything we use to navigate the world are models, approximations, of the "stuff" that is the universe. The difference with science is that some models return more reliable (probable) results than others, and these become our facts and theories about all the "stuff."
@Marian Kotúč Can't dismiss that possibility out of hand, as stated. I prefer dualism though as a provisional framework for considering the world--not necessarily representative of the "actual substance," if that there be.
" Consciousness doesn't seem to be fundamental, or else we would have already seen in at the fundamental level (perhaps it is, but we have yet to find any conclusive evidence that particles have any kind of conscious properties)."
How would we find evidence of consciousness in other things if we cannot even prove it exist in another human? I mean consciousness in the sense of experience.
$20 for a mumble-rap remix from 0:46, go
I said before, "rather man or bird, life gives the universe meaning", therefore man gives numbers existences. yet even a bid uses math in a way. as he builds his nest he will get to a point whereby he tells himself in his own mind, in his own thoughts and language that he needs only 1 more twig.
A "thing" is in itself material.
A ghost on the other hand can not be a material substance.
We can sometimes come across expressions like " his ghost materialised", but this cannot be.
A ghost is like a "Fata Morgana", a mirror image that has no substance.
Ghosts exists.
You're right, he is asking, are there material, not material, how stupid can a man be.
Well, yeah, there is a logical explanation for ghosts, they are 'coupling-bodies', dis-carnated or left, but they surely is 'material' and why we dont see that with our physical senses, is because they consists of 'above-physical' material, of 'fine-physical' material. Our thoughts is also 'fine-physical' material.
Substance dualism has never managed to put together a valid reason to believe in it. In fact most of its arguments are laughably bad.
The way you slice up the world is good or bad depending on what you want to be true. Truth is certainly not relative but if building a house, Newtonian mechanics is the way to go. If denotting a nuclear warhead on your neighbor's house, go for quantum mechanics or field theory.
This one goes to eleven.
So divorced from any consideration of evolutionary theory. NOT all categorizations are equally good. Some are better adapted to survival.
this guy looks like hes smokeing that ooooohhhh wwwwwwwwwweeeeeeee but hes kool to :)
This is what we're talking about now.
iM saying necroplasm is alien to the timelike universe of astrophysics, etc, but, as Is evident from My Divine Power, very much material in a sense useful to fundamental physics.
The mind is an emergent property of the brain, but the "brain" is also an emergent property of the mind.
he speaks like he is stoned..
unlike where he talks about his work, he's pretty wishy-washy here
David smoked waaaay too much weed.
I like his shirt, but not his pantheism.
Panpsychism is not the same as pantheism.... He doesn't believe in God..... Also like any good philosopher he doesn't corner himself into anyone view, he only raises the question about panpsychism since its view is logically consistent and by all current accounts accords with all observations we have so it stands to reason that it is worthy of Inquiry just as much as the other current projects that exist.
inaudible
This is why philosophy has done little to advance knowledge.
Philosophers who don’t do science are largely just spouting an opinion and doing nothing to advance our underdog reality.
"Philosophy has done little to advance knowledge."
Um.. what? Science STEMS from philosophy, sir. The sciences comprise just a single branch of epistemology.
I disagree. Science can only gather empirical data on that which has mass and volume. The rest of everything is the realm of philosophy. Check out the video below, and let me know what you think. Cheers ~
th-cam.com/video/p7eI9bxYaOU/w-d-xo.html
I met a homeless Druggie that TALKED like Him. 🚬☁️
I might think more about this guy if he weren't trying to sell us substance dualism, apart from endless waffling. Rather unimpressed.
I don't see where he is trying to sell it, more like he is proposing it as a possibility. It is not my personal favorite either, but no one knows for sure so...
property dualism*
He never answer any question, always slippery.
That is because he is answering in the only way a thoughtful and honest person can. No one can know the ultimate nature of reality, certainly not through physical science, and if anyone claims differently they are full shite.
Don't get me wrong, science is a very useful tool for understanding and manipulating our reality, to a point. However, science can only explain a thing as it relates to another thing, and that creates a very profound inherent limitation. When we get down to the ontological primitives, science hits the proverbial brick wall. Make no mistake, when so called "scientists" start trying to discuss the ultimate nature of reality, they are delving into pure speculation and philosophy.
The response David gives is the only honest answer anyone can give, but perhaps you don't like to hear this answer? You would prefer some quantitative explanation that wraps all reality into a nice package with a bow on top? This is what happens when scientists think they are also philosophers, they end up creating a whole new belief system that may appear rational, but when you look closely, it is no more empirical or rational than most religions.
Thanks for the reply, it makes sense now.
I have been watching Chalmers in other videos and i believe he is one of the greatest thinkers of our time.
Eric Michel It is possible to _know_ the true nature of reality. It just isn't possible to _ say_ what it is.
I have no doubt there are some who have faith and think they know, however believing and knowing are not the same. Believing but not actually knowing is an inherent condition of the human experience. So unless you claim to be something else, I say enjoy your mushrooms.
Eric Michel I certainly do claim to be something else. I have no beliefs, only knowledge, and if that makes me non-human according to you, then so be it.. There is nothing I can do to give this knowledge to you, however, nor would I even if it were possible. If you cannot understand this, don't even try. It's probably best for your health to simply believe me to be crazy.
the homeless are getting smarter
Who says we are not machines? Our Consciousness? We are machines made by our Creator, my Jesus. He tells us that in our Living Guide *the BIBLE. We are here to 'Create' Good stuff, or suppose to, again according to our living guide. We are G*Ds, my Jesus told us that. We will be able to create all we want in 'TIME' which is also an illusion. Let us just try to 'Create' the good stuff. Everyone also asks where was your G*D during a school shooting or WW2 etc. G*D created the Cosmos, we created the machine gun. GET IT NOW PEEPS. We are G*Ds. We made our own roads now. I hope peeps get it. This is part one, of a game that never ends. The living guide tells us that, and now the Physics Blokes are saying the same thing, ATOMS never die, well my Jesus says, our Consciousness never dies either, the Physics Blokes are still working on that Math Equation.