Is your phone part of your mind? | David Chalmers | TEDxSydney
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- David Chalmers is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University.
Chalmers is interested in the relationship between mind, brain and reality. He is best known for formulating the "hard problem" of consciousness and for his arguments against materialism.
His 1996 book The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory was highly successful with both popular and academic audiences. In 2010 he gave the John Locke Lectures at the University of Oxford. These will shortly be published as his book Constructing the World . He also works on language, metaphysics, and artificial intelligence.
tedxsydney.com/site/newSpeaker...
anu.edu.au
-------------------
TEDxSydney 2011 took place on Saturday 28 May 2011 at CarriageWorks. Tens of thousands of people enjoyed the day: 800 in the theatre, over 1,000 via big screen simulcast in The Forum, up to 48,000 online via TH-cam ... and up to 80,000 tuning in to ABC Radio National. It was a grand day. About TEDx, x = independently organised event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organised events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organised events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organised TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organised.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
This ticks my main box for a great thinker:
Explain complex ideas in a simple manner ☑
we definitely need an update on this
Just for those who are interested in going back in time a tiny bit: I just read Marshall McLuhans "Understanding Media - The Extension of Man" (1964) and there are definitely some similar ideas to be found, which I found suprising coming from outside the philosophy of mind :)
Chalmers is an excellent philosopher. Not poplarized on any issue with full understanding of all prevailing ideas.
If your cellphone is an extension of your body then the state shouldn't ever be allowed to search it.
Wonderful TED Presentation!
"since i lost my mobile phone my other senses have become heightened"
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
amazing talk
The mind is a function of thinking processes and interactions. I've been telling people this for years, but the "extension" isn't just into technology. Our minds and bodies as individuals are extended into the mind and body of a society as we become augmentations of each other. It is mainly for this reason that I began work on the Pont language many years ago and have poured so much of that work into the Esper language, which is itself a regularized extension and dialect of the Esperanto language. Sign languages, facial expressions, songs, tonal qualities of verbal communication, and so much more, can work as tools which connect us to each other and extend our minds directly from our internal selves into our external selves. The direct extension of the mind into the external self of course partially extends the body into the external self as well. For example, a construction crew is a distributed working body with a distributed mind, functioning as an extension of the architect, which in turn may act as an extension of someone else who otherwise does not have the skills and knowledge necessary.
The mind is already fully extended beyond all time and experience- the fact we use new tools is not a new "extension" per-se; it is just another function of the mind within our already infinitely expanded minds.
not everything we use is part of our "mind." Note, Chalmers presentation is at a TED talk in which rigor is sacraficed for presentation purposes. Read the actual paper by Andy Clark and Chalmers. They set out a set of conditions for a real case of extension. Not just any old instrumental use of some external artifact can be counted as part of a cognitive system.
I suppose individuals subjected to extended periods of solitary confinement may be reasonably described as having "lost their mind".
The hard problem is this, HOW does SUBJECTIVITY arise out of matter? When we study and map out the brain, or (anything for that matter) all we are really looking at is structure and the behavior of structure. But we have no idea how structure, OR the complexity of structure, OR the behavior of complex structures give rise to subjective experience.
Sure we can manipulate experiences by manipulating the structure and behavior of the brain, BUT that says NOTHING about HOW subjectivity actually arises from the brain. Unless we somehow assume that all energy has some subjective component that is simply complexified by the structure of the brain.
Emergence
@Khuno2 This man is one of the most widely published, distinguished and respected philosophers in the academic world. Read one of him many papers on the matter (all available on his website), and if you can understand it, then you will realise this.
Interesting if it were a footnote - Chalmers has offered so much more.
Dude looks like a California 1970s hippie
I hope you'll forgive me for this, but consider yourself hugged :) LOL, so great to find such a reasonable discussion on YT on topics like this. So often people respond with anger if you just disagree.
Yes, I do love science, but today it lacks ethics and oversight. It's divorce from philosophy/consciousness has let it go down some very dark roads. As a society we've got to be careful. I think we all need to speak out when we feel we have something to say. It gets the discussion going :)
I know about Baxters experiments, and I do find his results to be fascinating, but I can't claim enough knowledge about it to be pushed one way or another. All I can say about it is that I'm very curious to find out the answer
I haven't seen that movie, but I think I know what you're getting at. If we reduce ourselves to purely mechanical processes, we might lose something precious to life that has been overlooked.
I'd like to see a talk on extended consciousness. There is plenty of scientific evidence of psi and even a few compelling theories. Psi is also compatible with what we know about space time. It might not be reliable and so practically useful, but its implications about what consciousness IS are extraordinary.
The issue is that we cannot subcontract critical tasks of the mind to body extensions. A stolen laptop or and erased important folder may serve as examples, my students getting less intelligent (to put it politely) because they do not train their minds (literacy) and memory any more: they only remember where information is stored - leading to a copy and share culture. There are undeniable advantages, but also a lot of downsides.
Look at the content by John Vervaeke on the kinds of Knowing... TOO much of the education system is focused on the propositional kind of knowing WHILE ignoring the other kinds, e.g., Perspectival, Participatory, Procedural, ETC. These are EACH very separate, distinct, different types of Knowing, YET they are ALSO interconnected, interrelating, and interpenetrating -- becoming a synergistic, dynamical system of learning, educing, teaching, and of knowledge making from better Sense Making -- via a much more holistic Mind Brain 🧠 developing and evolving process of in process phenomena. Namely of Recursive RELEVANCE Realization. Again, listen 👂 to content with AND by Dr. John Vervaeke, professor of Cognitive Science with a strong background in psychology as well as philosophy. ALL this other content is convergent upon his work over the last few decades, to be sure.
Drone strikes would be an example of using the extended mind/body for evil. Sadly, with the way the world is organised that kind of use will probably be common
That is a very interesting idea that plants are conscious, although I think that requires a very clear definition of what consciousness is. I'm certainly open to that possibility, but what I want to know is what you fear from mechanization?
I also agree that education does incorporate technology in the teaching process, but it cuts out most technology in the testing process. We tend to call using technology during a test cheating, but otherwise its called research.
Why didn't my Ad Blocker block this ad for iPhone?
My mind would be more predisposed to Chalmers if he didn't look like a former member of Slayer.
Your disposition is demeaning to slayer.
+Norman Ball Ha - my mind is predisposed toward Chalmers BECAUSE he looks like a former member of Slayer
+Norman Ball Good news for you! This is five years old, in some more recent videos he has cut his hair, looks more like a typical boring middle aged business man. newsexaminer.net/opinion/david-chalmers-ted-talk-on-how-do-you-explain-consciousness/
Bring back Slayer David Chalmers!!
OpieJohansen Lol Agreed! conformance is boring.
I don't think that's something to fear in regards to what David said because he made it a point to mention he isn't talking about changes to the brain or implants. His suggestion was that it isn't necessary because technology can work with the mind even if its external and not connected.
Thank you for including a philosophical sociological view. Yes, technology is definitely an extension to our actions and thoughts. It's miraculous, it really is!
For anyone interested, if you type in "Supersizing the Mind. PDF" you'll find a free copy online of Andy Clark's latest book detailing the idea Chalmers is expounding above.
also he mentions how we used to memorize phone numers, addresses, itinerary, driving directions. now the responsibility of those tasks have been moved to the iphone. this example is probably the easiest to grasp this idea. If this machine has taken over some of your cognitive functions, technically then isn't it being used as an augmentation to our physical mind? Its a tool we use daily, the same way hunters extended their abilities using armor and weaponry, the iphone does this for our minds
Also, saying a hammer is part of the "extended self" is not like what he was saying, but it is exactly what he was saying. Its also true in the sense he was saying it. If the mind wants to put a nail in the wall, it doesn't tell you to try to push the nail in with your hand, it tells you to look for a hammer in order to extend your capabilities. How is that view wrong or dangerous?
@ja524309 The more general concern is to give an accurate definition of mind. The extended mind hypothesis is then a claim about what an optimal definition of mind includes. Mind being muddy at the moment, it's more relevant to consider special cases like personal memory. As he said, this has implications for Law for instance. If someone steals your iPhone, should this be a case of damage to the owners memory? It might turn out that a good definition of personal memory includes some such things.
@moonfreak1993 Can you please elaborate? I'm not sure what you were responding to or what point you were trying to make.
I use to call my smartphone "brain prosthesis"
In extension (pun intended) this would mean that simply everything that interacts with your mind, is an extension of the mind. Which is basically the whole of the external world.
daeronb This is commonly referred to as the all or nothing objection. However, Clark and Chalmers refute this through their more specific stipulations. The parody principle, the necessity of trusting the extended object as much as your mind...there are some others I can't remember. But I too have sympathy with your objection. If the internal/external and organic/synthetic distinctions are arbitrary like Chalmers claims, then why are these other stipulations and requirements not considered to be arbitrary as well. C and C seem to want it both ways.
2019 - Neurolink. Perhaps his thesis is blatantly correct.
"i called" ??? hahahaha
I like the second, panpsychic idea better. It follows what we may think of consciousness embracing - perception, analysis, reaction. The first one puts consciousness alongside time, matter space, energy, all of which are external measurables. Consciousness, surely, is an innate. Whatchya think?
sorry, I was commenting on this link:
ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness?language=en#t-76977
that view is interesting. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive though. In fact, it seems Chalmers uses the extended mind thesis to support that our experiences are in fact of a subjective nature that neuroscience cannot completely explain at this time.
If we can use tools to extend our mind, then that supports the idea that our consciousness can be anywhere, (it does not have to be located in the brain) and is of a subjective nature, and thus potentially pan-psychic.
+NuggetOfBlueGold if you read david chalmers' work, you will find arguments much more nuanced than the simple blanket statement you made here. i recommend "the character of consciousness", one of his most up-to-date works discussing both consciousness and neuroscience. as is clearly presented in this book, the explanation of the mental is not a "black or white" issue.
+NuggetOfBlueGold Yes, I think all your points are extremely effective. I do think though, that I might have misunderstood what you meant.
I believe that neuroscience can help explain the qualitative sensations only through "bridging principles," that have a basis in the functionalizability of the causal roles of these phenomena. Then, it seems, that what is left after mechanistic descriptions are explained, are concepts and definitions that describe scientific research.
While I do not think this explains subjective experience, I think it can help. Also, there are others (I just got done reading some of Austen Clark) who think that we can "Ramsify" sensations according to their differences (mostly color). Do you think that theories like this- a Ramsey sentence that refers to the experience of a color sensation- can further an understanding of consciousness?
I personally do not know, and also find what Chalmers said about consciousness being proto-panpsychic interesting. One last thing I wanted to mention was that if consciousness and qualia are not explainable in physical terms, then consequently, they are rendered epiphenomenal, or causeless. I am taking this point from Kim who uses the causal closure of the physical world as the idea behind this claim. I am not sure what I think of this consequence. I will look at that link, and have not familiarized myself with Paul Davies enough, so thank you for the suggestion.
And, I also disagree with Dennett, since he essentially denies that there is any unique nature to qualitative experience at all!
mind is already an obscure term. I don't think chalmers or andy clark are making it anymore obscure. The point is, once a coupled system has become established (as in the case of a poised notebook) the competency of the system deteriorates once the external factor is eliminated.
This is almost all warmed over McLuhan. Most of Chalmers' argument is comprised in the title and subtitle of McLuhan's 1964 book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Would have been good if Chalmers at least name checked old Marshall at least once.
+George Mokray Then again .. a lot of McLuhan is based on Whitehead.
exactly what I was thinking the whole time. Philosophers, Sociologists and media scientists oughta work a lot more closely together. this is nothing new
So it is for the extended soul? I am you, you are I, in a different shade of the One reflection?
+David Chalmers does property dualism escape the hard problem?
I call it transcendence - johnny depp
we are the universe. We are made from every element that is the fabric of the universe. The universe is constantly evolving more intelligence. Building on more complexity. When we look up at the stars and wonder, who we are, or where we came from. It is the universe asking these very questions. We are complex beings, but machines are more complex and will one day be the most intelligent conscious beings within the universe. Evolution proves this.
If the mind is not just in the brain, but also includes things like notepads and smart phones, then what exactly is not part of our mind. In other words, where would you draw the line between something being part of your mind/brain or not?
The brain is extended mind.
And they say cartesian dualism is crazy...
CARALHO, PORTO, VOCÊ AQUI UAUUUUU
Fucking Chalmers is my hero.
not thinking about the iphone as a popular technology of our time and maybe even thinking back to before its invention, we might then realize how fantastical its creation was. Our minds used to be confined to our surroundings. Our physical selves had to complete each task our mind thought up. With the invention of the internet and now a mobile, nearly implanted technology, the iphone, we may have stepped into a new evolutionary stage. hive mind.
@Hockeyjason You know just as well as I do that "draw the line" was being used in a metaphorical sense and that your objection completely misses the point, which was, where does "the Mind" cease to exist? If you can do no better than telling me that my question is invalid without giving any convincing reason why this should be the case, do me a favor and stop wasting my time.
Look up cyborg anthropology :)
is 'iPhone' a general term for any smart-phone in australia ???
+NuggetOfBlueGold That's what 'Phone' means now - Portable computer.
ok, we can portable computer later.
Don't you dare steal his iPhone...
this guy;s stoned
@MGTGR123 I'm the opposite. I generally find Chalmers' ideas weak and unconvincing, but I completely agree with the extended mind thesis (which, by the way, was not his idea).
It's astounding that it took analytic philosophers more than a century to come close to viewing the mind as something in the world, embedded in the practical environment while continental philosophers like Marin Heidegger in his work "Being and Time" almost 86 years ago had already offered an insightful and thorough treatment of the extended mind mentioned by Chalmers here. It's embarrassing testimony that the analytic philosophical project of understanding the mind has gone astray and failed so miserably from the very outset.
How can you consider it failed miserably while stating simultaneously that it has reached a thesis which you agree with?
***** How can you be so dogmatic. I study both continental and analytic philosophy and to say either one of them is an embarrassment is a likely indicator that you never studied philosophy at university or spent too much time studying on Wikipedia.
***** Ah okay. In that case I would agree with you for the most part . I must say though, in many respects I don't like the back and fourth resentment between the analytic and continental traditions. They are both commendable.
All the best bro.
I bet he regrets using pistorius as an example now
I thought I would really like this video, but no, it didn't really impress me. I agree with those who commented on the fuzziness of the thinking and on the "showmanship". To me, we all start in consciousness ... and mind is a tool of consciousness that we (each individual 'part' or 'focus' of consciousness) use to create and allow experiences, to record and to think with experiences, and to assist in sharing experiences with the greater consciousness that IS.
thats evolution my friend. In the near future the lines that seperate man and machine will fade. human consciousness will be in the machine....and as a result the universe would have evolved a more faster way of understanding itself, both with faster computation in conjuction with feeling. The universe is evolving, it is self aware through us humans.
It sounds like he uses 15 minutes to say "I think we should call people communicating with the world The Extended Mind". Very deep.
Why is his attitude not healthy? Would you say that your hand, or eyes, or ears are merely tools? None of these things are conscious, but they are used by consciousness to accomplish tasks to reach goals that the mind desires. This is a matter of semantics though, and the important point he is trying to get across is that education needs to be done in a way that doesn't pretend technology doesn't exist because the full spectrum of the tools of the mind should be considered.
David Chalmers should ask his Executive Decision Maker if he needs a haircut and a shave. Just kidding :-)
mind does not equal consciousness. That's your bad. Extended mind, in the way chalmers and clark push, is about the extension of cognitive processes...it is not an account of phenomenal character.
Don't know if you exist. Tried to go to your channel and got a message "This channel is not available" ?? Are you a ghost in the machine ;)
So the hobo said 'wow, I can use a smart phone' I'm surprised he showed up sober.
The speakers speak in a giant puddle of blood? Nice.
google glass anyone?
lol, you're silly.
@ja524309 I contend that there are no limits of the mind and it is is inclusive of everything and everyone
@deborah_gabriel
I like someone who can disagree respectfully. I wish it would spread like a virus ;)
Next, I don't see it as semantics at all - it goes deeper. Cleve Baxter showed us that even plants are conscious - as are cells. So hand, eyes, body parts are indeed conscious - a direct part of my consciousness that I use & work thru - unlike a hammer or iPhone, quite.
Education is rife with technology - that's not a problem. By defining technology almost as body parts, we march to mechanization, which is.
Do you mean William Shatner?
Looks like he gets paid every time he says"iPhone". Screw this.
This is like saying a hammer is part of my "extended self." It is not. It is merely a tool, as is the iphone. When these things become conscious we can look into his thesis. Meanwhile, it's the incremental side-step into mechanization. I find his thesis cold and clouded with fuzzy logic. As others have pointed out, even using the term "mind" is questionable, since it has a fuzzy definition,as he straddles philosophy and science.
Technology is a tool NOT our friend - not a healthy attitude.
iPhone user. Yuck.
There iw nothing called mind body is also made of small particle and it just extended
He should get a new haircut
Not a new way. Definitely the more radical stuff, but not new.
I can't help but cringe at his jokes..... >.
Yup, and the more people realize this dependence on technology like google the more that technology will be controlled until we're all the same functional slaves of the world governments or whoever's actually pulling the strings these days.
This guy's already so in love with his iPhone though I think it's too late for him.
KhazWolf waooh tin hat
"whoa, tinfoil hat" said the sheep being herded to the abbatoir. "why would they spend all that time and money feeding and sheltering us just to kill us?"
Part of your cognitive function, perhaps. But not part of your direct conscious experience or "mind".
This guy took a lot of “Matrix pills” 💊
the mind has freedom and free will unlike the computer is a species or type of reflection not complete in remarkable spectra of human thought ordered a set of ordered patterns and somehow someone has invented the form of reflection spectra in understandable symbols . the answer to your question is that it depends on you if you accept the phone as an important part of you part of your soul part of your consciousness then what will you 're the one that will get you the value scale and correlation of how to value that in your inner world . I think the computer is a kind of incomplete reflection of our mind or thoughts spectra and we are the reflections of incomplete spectra of existence to skirt the freedom we have nothing . and informatics think the information but do not study the transmission of information in different and various techniques. philosophy studies the raison d'etre studies the information itself.
the mind is the interrelation of this reality to the whole. when they say open the open mind more likely to be infinite ways of living etc when they say open the can only get what is expected . the whole infinite infinities contains all kinds of existence you can imagine there and even more universe and impossible to coexist just have to open your mind and observe everything from a viewpoint where necessarily the mind of man is not the center and the most important of all creation. replace in the Bible the word God with the word all or everything and see that everything fits perfectly with the philosophy of science with everything. and to interrelate so we can be aware of the contradiction and think much more thing that the computer is not because I said nothing skirted the curvature is very similar to the number zero ,starting from the platform there, it can be infinite functions even contradictory functions etc.but we with infinite elements that we could imagine exist one platform bordering nothing you can imagine all kinds of stocks that are contradictory. freedom. the reason being is self contained and is made to be shared. man chooses as the world they want to build for the most important of itself.
so do not compare one with the little we know superficially know that part of the physical and technical without knowing the origin of matter skipping freedom reflection becomes very superfluous conception of mind.
? can u put all that simply :P
boring, boring
Get to the freaking point, is there one? This is such a nightmare talk get him off that stage hahahahahahaha goodness gracious !!!
He makes a great point, what is your point?
Now let’s address I just so happen to think about the most random thing in the world, no googling, no speaking about it, no texting friends just mere though alone, and I have TH-cam recommendations and “new to me” videos suggested with 12-24 hours of said unique isolated topic, I know I’m not the only one, when are people going to start asking questions as to why this is happening. It’s no longer coincidence.