I think chalmers was funny while rovelli was hurtful. But they represent the thinking in the larger war between science and philosophy, whereby scientists DO think that consciousness is just bullshit and reducible to evolution/cog sci/neurosci, philosophers don't think that the great work of Newton/Galilleo is bullshit or reducible to subjective idealism. Rovelli's joke about communism was funny because there are those philosophers who want to explain science in a political context.
Are you implying that all philosophers are dualists like Chalmers whereras all "scientists" deny any importance to the notion of consciousness? No, that's not true. What does even "scientist" mean in this context? Rovelli is a physicist and a cognitive psychologist might have a different opinion.
Non-Bizaaro Chalmers's primary argument is that the existence of phenomenal consciousness is not analytically entailed by a complete microphysical description of the world. Where does Bizarro Rovelli employ any version of this argument? The main argument against this, I think, is the argument from the paradox of phenomenal judgement, and Bizarro Chalmers does not bring that up, but he doesn't have to since he was so badly straw-manned by Rovelli. Instead he just gives the usual argument, which is not a straw man, which confuses psychological with phenomenological consciousness. Maybe this would be a semi-decent thing if that had a serious physicalist philosopher, such as Kirk or Jackson, in the place of Rovelli, but as it is, it's pretty embarrassing.
this is just a version of egg and chicken problem - does matter create conciousness or counciousness creates matter. And if universe is simulacrum, it can be counsciousness first, but god is just guy who pays the eletricity bill
Clearly Carlo Rovelli hasn't understood Chalmers' arguments (in the real debate).
Chalmers hasn't understood Chalmers argument.
Carlo didn't understand Chalmer's position.
Yeah he didn't even strawman Chalmer's beliefs
Chalmers fanboys love to just speak incoherently then claim nobody understands their genius.
I hope they upload the whole conference, I mean all talks and lectures...
This is a reverse debate people. They have switched their view points and arguing {bullshiting (just for fun)} about it.
Is Chalmers mocking Dennett at the beginning? 😂
Chalmers is funny, the other guy is annoying.
Is that Max Tegmark acting as Chalmers wardrobe assistant ?
Chalmers is a true genius ...
this is amazing
The funding line is so funny.
God I love Chalmers
Nice debate
consciousness and matter are aspects of the same thing. Dualism is a confusion, or at the best, a sometimes useful concept.
I think chalmers was funny while rovelli was hurtful. But they represent the thinking in the larger war between science and philosophy, whereby scientists DO think that consciousness is just bullshit and reducible to evolution/cog sci/neurosci, philosophers don't think that the great work of Newton/Galilleo is bullshit or reducible to subjective idealism. Rovelli's joke about communism was funny because there are those philosophers who want to explain science in a political context.
Are you implying that all philosophers are dualists like Chalmers whereras all "scientists" deny any importance to the notion of consciousness? No, that's not true. What does even "scientist" mean in this context? Rovelli is a physicist and a cognitive psychologist might have a different opinion.
is chalmers sad seeing rovelli's portrayal?
Sadly Rovelli came unarmed, very superficial and is far from being a competitor, right?
This is 😆
lol what the heck?
If you have really some knowledge you will find them both funny and logical.
If you can't then I urge you to study some Advaita Vedanta.
Non-Bizaaro Chalmers's primary argument is that the existence of phenomenal consciousness is not analytically entailed by a complete microphysical description of the world. Where does Bizarro Rovelli employ any version of this argument? The main argument against this, I think, is the argument from the paradox of phenomenal judgement, and Bizarro Chalmers does not bring that up, but he doesn't have to since he was so badly straw-manned by Rovelli. Instead he just gives the usual argument, which is not a straw man, which confuses psychological with phenomenological consciousness. Maybe this would be a semi-decent thing if that had a serious physicalist philosopher, such as Kirk or Jackson, in the place of Rovelli, but as it is, it's pretty embarrassing.
I feel like Rovelli wasn't in the proper spirit. Chalmers, as always, was a boss.
Yes Chalmer's clearly won because his dualist mumbo wasn't understood. Definitely.
Too bad the other guy isn't funny like Chalmers is...
this is just a version of egg and chicken problem - does matter create conciousness or counciousness creates matter. And if universe is simulacrum, it can be counsciousness first, but god is just guy who pays the eletricity bill
Wonderful punch line to the atheist
I'd prefer a serious debate, not a reverse role debate.