ترجم الموضوع الى العربية
 ترجم محتوى الصفحة الى الانكليزية باستخدام خدمة كوكول - الموقع غير مسؤول عن الترجمة

david chalmers and consciousness

Abdelrahman Mostafa
2020 / 2 / 28

in his book for the consciousness (conscious mind) david chalmers seeks to discovering the consciousness and attempts to advancing an answers for the hardest questions which attached with the consciousness , david chalmers saw that both the scientists and philosophers have not treated with these quistions .and they conflated between the psychological aspect and the phenomenal aspect , chlmers illustrated the nature of consciousness which relates more with our every day life .or with the high physical level.
in attempting to rejection the reductive interpretations to materialists , and he saw that , we cannot search the conscious experience as when we treat with the learning topic´-or-adapting , behavior etc.

The behaviorism method and -function-alism are not useful in searching topic as consciousness ..
so in this artical advancing an important thoughts which adopted by david chalmers in his book (the conscious mind)


the logic background ..

in starting chalmers sought to establishing the background logic on his interpretation for conscious experience , that encompasses the definition to consciousness and kind of logic arguments , in this point chlmers put the couple possibilities , first one the logic possibility in this section it’s can conceive existing the other worlds opposite with our world , for example we can conceive the zombie’s world whose they identical with us in their physical properties , however they haven’t conscious experience . in fact this main evidence in conscious mind book for the different between consciousness and physical level .
the other possibilitie’s section an empirical possopilit in this section we cannot conceive the zombie’s world ,´-or-we cannot conceive exist the water differs for the water in our world , for example consists of carbon and hydrogen´-or-5H9O
in logoc possopilit,we can conceive the water differs of the water in familiar world .but by contrary in the empirical possopilit , in the empirical thoughts we can predict the specific event in future but indeed dose not penetrate the laws in our universe
so in this point the author reject the quin’s thought for the combination between the logic definition and empirical definition , quine saw that the positivism philosopher failed in understanding the complex relation between the analysis thoughts and empirical thoughts . but chalmers sought to distinction the everyday definitions and thoughts from the scientific topics ,so he returned the conscious experience to our common sense , he thought that the empirical conceptions associate with scientific field , the same thing there are a lot of thoughts and conceptions as our conscious experience which relates with our ever day life , but that’s not mean the our conscious experience abstracted of any scientific research , only we cannot reduce the consciousness to physical level exclusive
so the conclusion in this section , chalmers sought to distinguishing between the conscious experience as conception confirm more with the our common sense interpretation and the scientific thoughts , as last example , if we want to define the water by logic analysis´-or-the primary intension as chalmers called we say the water is drinkable and liquidity by contrary if we want to define the water by scientific method we say the water is H2O

the arguments for independent conscious experience of physical level

chalmers used some of thought experiments to proving his interpretation for consciousness ,first one the zombie’s world in this thought we can conceive existing the other world similar´-or-identical to our world in each thing the but their beings have not any conscious experience in this state the conscious experience dose not supervene on physical properties , but a lot of scientists and philosophers reject this thought experience ,so chalmers said that his thought refers to logic possibility .
might the thought experiences don’t compatible with the our empirical methods and this thought experiment closer to factional more than scientific thoughts , but chalmers saw that we cannot depend only on the inductive methods , because there’s the logic conception and simplicity standard
the other thought experiment neuroscientists , for example if assumed in the other world there is other beings and they have an absolute analysis to their brains , however they rely on the white and black sensations only they don’t know the redness for example´-or-yellowness in this state if assumed that these beings experience the new color red for example in this state they will connect with new sensation however they have an absolute ability to analysis their thoughts in their brains , with this thought experiment we treat with detaching between the our conscious experience and the physiological aspect ,these beings although their absolute ability to analysis their brains which they know each relation between any mind’s state and any behavior .
we reach to the multi aspects in our world after this thought experiment .but the author displayed some of objections on this thought experiment a lot of scientists´-or-philosophers reject this faction and they thought that the neuroscientists in other universe acquire on new capacity and not new experience , more extreme Daniel Dennett saw that they don’t acquire any new experience´-or-ability all of these new experiences saving in their brains but there isn’t necessary that they aware for these information !
the author relied on this thought experiment to his interpretation for conscious experience .

the way to evading the epiphenomenalism
the author saw any deeply understanding to consciousness should distinct with the awareness because the later refers more to -function-al aspects for example if we want to understand the nature of adapting´-or-learning´-or-our behaviors in the social life we rely more on the -function-al methods the awareness more closer to awakens for example the scientists use the causation interpretative in these fields , but the consciousness depends on the phenomenal method´-or-on the pure experience , chalmers detached the conscious experience for the cognitive ..
for example the beliefs relates more with awareness because we seek always to understanding causes our beliefs that’s might depend on our conditions´-or-the rational causes etc ..
but by contrary the sensations for example don’t need to causation interpretation because we don’t govern our sensations´-or-the our perceptual systems interact with stimulations in external environment without our will´-or-desire ,but the author emphasised on complex relation between the sensations and beliefs because there is dialectic relation between them but in often each of them attaches with specific perceptual system and at least in conceptual hand
the author detached between couple systems even he exclude the materialist attitude (the causation interpretative)

and even we evade the epiphenomenalism , chalmers saw that there are different ways to that but ,the best way adopting the monism , in this thought we cannot detach between psychological manifestations and the physical level there s combination between them ,chalmers adopted Bertrand Russell thought for the psychophysical law in our universe this interpretation considers the consciousness as essence value in universe which we cannot distinguish between the physical laws´-or-physical manifestation and psychological manifestation , and chalmers saw that the intrinsic properties considers as psychological aspect and extrinsic considers as physical aspect in our universe ,but the author saw that these properties both psychological and physical be as mix between each other ,and we cannot conceive the physical world without our cognition´-or-sensation ,we cannot discover the world in itself but only as appear to our self .of course this thought adopted by kant before that .(noumenon as it is in itself)
so as conclusion we only detach between our sensations and the external world by conceptual hand .but the author was very careful in evading any misunderstand to his standpoint he reject an absolute idealism which adopted by barkley eighteenth century he saw that of course the universe is independent of us but the our conscious experience is primary value in the universe .and as we shall see after that there is multi worlds in our universe according to author

the one person thought
chalmers saw that we don’t need to referent´-or-mediate side even we confirm of existing our conscious experience .because we interact with this experience by acquaintance
and there s not causation between us and our conscious experience we treat with this experience by -dir-ect knowing
this thought which adopted by author refused by a lot of philosophers as Dennett


the association between cognitive and consciousness
chalmers saw that we cannot deny the firmly relation between cognitive and consciousness
and the critical point to this relation is the -function-al aspect .of course there s association between each sensation whatsoever the auditory sensation´-or-visual etc ..and the responses on these sensations from our perceptual system for example the redness causes the warmness to us and by contrary the blueness causes the coldness to us , the other refused the objections on this associations from some of philosophers for example ,
the absent qualia
in this objection we can conceive existing the beings whose similar with us in their physical properties ,however they haven’t conscious experience! , the paradox in this thought´-or-the contradiction in this point the author proved on independent to consciousness from the physical laws ,after that the author reject the same argument in other point ! the author saw that we cannot conceive existing the same -function-s but without conscious experience , of course we can conceive absent the physical features which similar with us and absent the conscious experience of logic hand
for example we can conceive the beings of silicon and they have the same conscious experience to us but we cannot use this argument if we assume absent to the -function-s
the other objection the inverted qualia
in this thought experience we assume an inverted earth for example the color to sky in that earth seems as blue to the beings in that world ,so the -function- to redness will invert to -function- of blueness for example (the coldness) previous
but the author saw that in this state if we assume inverted qualia ,we should conceive an inverted in -function-s which the same colors relate with same -function-s
to more illustration the this thought in the inverted earh the sky seems as redness to beings and the same thing fire seems as blueness to beings in that earth the author saw if we assume that the -function-s will associate with their previous colors´-or-sensations the (the new color to sky redness with warmness -function- the same thing to fire which the -function-s stay to the same colors)

so the author said the -function-s relate with conscious experience by necessary association , but by contrary the physical properties might differ however there s the same conscious experience
we can create the being from silicon´-or-any other element and if they retain on the same -function-s to us they will have the conscious experience and identical to us´-or-our conscious experience
the author concluded to panpsychism
which he saw that there s a weakness experience in each being in the plants and trees and animals and thermostat ! he saw that for example the thermostat interacts with stimulations in it environment as the people interact with their environment ,the thermostat has an ability to simulation the human behavior in their recipient to stimulations and information in external environment ,,inputs and outputs and the computers for example develop in their treatment with inputs
so the artificial intelligent will produce the same behaviors to people in future

the author better the naturalistic dualism more than panpsychism ,because this thought might show the misinterpretation to his thoughts
because the author didn’t intend in his thought the spiritual conception
he didn’t believe in spirits´-or-souls´-or-and supernatural power .

the quantum theory and consciousness
the author saw that the schrodinger equation changed our thoughts for universe in this equation the world hasn’t a specific values for example ,or there s opposition between microscopic and macroscopic in previous world´-or-macroscopic there are a specific values to beings´-or-entities in their masses and locations and energies ,but by contrary the microscopic there wave -function-s which there not any particular values to particles ,mass´-or-energy etc ..
the famous example schrodinger s cat ,the cat when we control it out of its wave -function- to specific location in down´-or-up for example
before that ,cat was in superposition state to death and life´-or-down and up´-or-ing´-or-waking etc..
the author showed the different interpretation to this strange equation ..
for example the the literal interpretation to bohr in this interpretation we should detach between the microscopic and macroscopic and we should adapt with this strange distinction
the specific values to mass´-or-energy ..etc..exist in our high physical level only
but that’s not identical to microscopic
but chalmers reject this interpretation because it opposites with ubiquitous experience to consciousness in our universe ,because in this interpretation we should accept in absent the consciousness in microscopic
and he saw that this interpretation advances an arbitrary thought to influence which practice by our consciousness there s not convincible interpretation to this influence ,and the literal understanding opposites with relatively principle ,because the our control to particles influences on trajectory of these particles ,and if assume the interdependent relation between couple particles ,once of them will move its trajectory before the other particle ,however they were in interdependent state
the other interpretation revolved on consideration the particle state as essence in universe , but the important interpretation and which adopted by chalmers the evertt interpretation
in this interpretation the wave -function- is primary value in universe and the macroscopic consists of wave -function-s ,evertt saw that the quantum theory assumed that and the schrodinger equation because there is linear relation in microscopic
this theory is many-worlds theory
the author relied on this theory to proving his thought for consideration the consciousness as essence value in universe as the mass and planck constant etc ..
which we should treat with multi worlds once of them the world which appear to us


the summery
for me I think this interpretation to our conscious experience relied more on the logic arguments ,its very strange the author didn’t talk for evolution theory and its important relation with consciousness and he didn’t out of previous idealism thoughts to different philosophers as Bertrand russel and kant
he said that if we want to take the consciousness by serious way ,we should reject the materialism interpretation!
















Add comment
Rate the article

Bad 12345678910 Very good
                                                                                    
Result : 100% Participated in the vote : 1