[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Guys :

See here below "The conscious mind ..." By David J.Chalmers , especially the comments there below :

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/144960.The_Conscious_Mind

Which comment(s) in particular?

Again,  since you've read it, what is the empirical evidence for his theory about how consciousness works? How does he propose to test his newer ideas?

The only thing I saw in the comments that might be close to an answer to that question is:

"He goes onto argue that we ought to search for basic psycho-physical laws which would naturally govern how and when phenomenal experience arises and its structure. He argues that the structure of consciousness mirrors or is invariant with awareness, awareness being a psychology property describing how information is retrievable by the system. Chalmers ends the book on a speculative note exploring how information might give rise to elementary kinds of consciousness, wherever information might be found and goes onto apply his insights into arguing for the possibility of strong AI"

Which is interesting, but something you strongly argued against in your discussions with David Cooper.

[/quote]

I am interested only in his refutation of materialism : see the comments of people in that link regarding that book ,the latter i haven't read yet , even though the introduction pretty tells the story of the book : a non-reductionist naturalist attempt to explain consciousness ...

You did miss my statement here above , saying that even the non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature is also ...false .


See ya later , alligator .

[dlorde]

I am interested only in his refutation of materialism...  regarding that book ,the latter i haven't read yet...

Says it all really.

[Kryptid]

Why have you still not answered my question?

[cheryl j]

I haven't read it yet , i have read just the introduction which is displayed here above , as you can see : it was recommended to me by some friends on the field .

The introduction pretty summarizes up the content of the book : pretty demolishing for materialism,and that by an ex-materialist such as Chalmers  .

Oh, well, that settles it then. Thanks so much.

Did I mention I'm writing a book as well? Here's the introduction:

"In chapter one, I present a solution the Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics and solve the P vs NP problem. Then in chapter two,  I show how to detect gravity waves (it’s easier than you think!) Moving on to chemistry, I explain why some enzymes exhibit faster than diffusion kinetics. Chapter four  provides a quick and easy translation of the previously undeciphered  language of Rongorongo, and in Chapter five I predict the stock market returns for the next ten years. Chapter six explains the cause of Fibromyalgia (turns out it really is caused by garden gnomes – who knew?) and in chapter seven, I  disclose the location of Jimmy Hoffa’s remains, as well as all of the socks that go missing in the laundry and the unmatched lids to plastic containers. Finally, in chapter eight, I balance the budgets of several nations in a fair and equitable way, and solve world hunger."

If you don’t have time to read my book, don’t worry,  it’s all pretty much right there in the introduction.

[alancalverd]

Does Chalmers provide a single, unequivocal, testable definition of consciousness? If not, the book is a waste of paper, and of the reader's time.

On the other hand I'm looking forward to reading Cheryl's magnum opus - or at least the bit about missing socks. I've solved all the other problems, but can't reveal the solutions because it would upset the world zionist conspiracy in the Vatican.

[Ethos_]

And I am also writing a book entitled; What, on Earth, is Intelligence?

I'm anxious to examine the acute differences between Consciousness, which is missing from the equation in this thread, and Intelligence, which has been exercised by many contributors here but not appropriated by it's author.

...........................Ethos

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I haven't read it yet , i have read just the introduction which is displayed here above , as you can see : it was recommended to me by some friends on the field .

The introduction pretty summarizes up the content of the book : pretty demolishing for materialism,and that by an ex-materialist such as Chalmers  .

Oh, well, that settles it then. Thanks so much.

Did I mention I'm writing a book as well? Here's the introduction:

"In chapter one, I present a solution the Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics and solve the P vs NP problem. Then in chapter two,  I show how to detect gravity waves (it’s easier than you think!) Moving on to chemistry, I explain why some enzymes exhibit faster than diffusion kinetics. Chapter four  provides a quick and easy translation of the previously undeciphered  language of Rongorongo, and in Chapter five I predict the stock market returns for the next ten years. Chapter six explains the cause of Fibromyalgia (turns out it really is caused by garden gnomes – who knew?) and in chapter seven, I  disclose the location of Jimmy Hoffa’s remains, as well as all of the socks that go missing in the laundry and the unmatched lids to plastic containers. Finally, in chapter eight, I balance the budgets of several nations in a fair and equitable way, and solve world hunger."

If you don’t have time to read my book, don’t worry,  it’s all pretty much right there in the introduction.

[/quote]

Do you want me to display the whole book here , come on :
I gave you its introduction + a link which summarizes the content of that book + the comments of people there who actually read it ...

What do you want more ?

I can even give you a link where you can download that whole book for free and safely as well, if you want to .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why have you still not answered my question?

That was not a question , just a quiz

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I am interested only in his refutation of materialism...  regarding that book ,the latter i haven't read yet...

Says it all really.

Not really : i am just not interested in his property dualism , that's all .
What interests me in that book of his is the fact that he realises that materialism cannot account for consciousness , and hence materialism is false , which also means that the current  materialist mainstream  "scientific world view " is also false , logically : the latter fact has been my  main or core presented issue here , and therefore the assertion that  "the mind is in the  brain , or that the mind is just the product of the physical brain's activity" is just a materialist belief assumption that  is also false ....to mention just that .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

And I am also writing a book entitled; What, on Earth, is Intelligence?

I'm anxious to examine the acute differences between Consciousness, which is missing from the equation in this thread, and Intelligence, which has been exercised by many contributors here but not appropriated by it's author.

...........................Ethos

Well, genius ,your false sarcasm or irony might hit you back in the face ,  as a launched boomerang that misses its intended target(s) , as follows :

The fact that the false materialist conception of nature has been taken for granted as the "scientific  world view " for so long now , by the majority of scientists ,and by most people as well , including all of you here thus , is evidence enough for the fact that cognitive intelligence is certainly not the highest form of human intelligence or intellect .
You have to extend or develop your own consciousness ,especially your imagination,  as to be able to grasp that fact .

No wonder that Einstein said once :

" Imagination is more important than knowledge " .

Einstein knew  that fact  ,first hand,from experience  : without his great imagery imagination , he would never have been able to come up with his relativity theory .

His brain was preserved for more than 40 years ,after his death of course ,as to study it , in order to "understand" his exceptional intelligence , so it seems , but those silly  materialist scientists who were attempting to do just the latter were just assuming , materialistically thus ,  that "human intelligence is in the brain, as the mind is in the brain" , not knowing that there materialism was false , and hence neither human intelligence ( there are many forms of the latter : social, cognitive , mathematical, psychological, emotional  , existential, spiritual ,and other forms of human intelligence ) ,and hence neither human intelligence , nor human consciousness, the mind  or imagination are "in the brain " .

[Ethos_]

And I am also writing a book entitled; What, on Earth, is Intelligence?

I'm anxious to examine the acute differences between Consciousness, which is missing from the equation in this thread, and Intelligence, which has been exercised by many contributors here but not appropriated by it's author.

...........................Ethos

Well, genius

Well sir, I thank you for the compliment. Nevertheless, that comment only proves your inability to distinguish truth from error. I'm no genius and neither are you sir. I challenged you once before in this thread to convince us with repeatable evidence and you chose to ignore my challenge. Typical behavior from someone who is only seeking attention. I reiterate, offering you this attention is a waste of time and as a remedy, I suggest we all apply this cure to the question.

[cheryl j]

Do you want me to display the whole book here , come on :
I gave you its introduction + a link which summarizes the content of that book + the comments of people there who actually read it ...

What do you want more ?

Well,  one would expect you to have read it before deeming it a crushing blow to materialism. Just sayin'.

I can even give you a link where you can download that whole book for free and safely as well, if you want to .

Thanks. At the moment, though, I'm busy reading the Table of Contents of several important novels. I much prefer the Table of Contents of Dostoevsky's works to Tolstoy's.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Do you want me to display the whole book here , come on :
I gave you its introduction + a link which summarizes the content of that book + the comments of people there who actually read it ...

What do you want more ?

Well,  one would expect you to have read it before deeming it a crushing blow to materialism. Just sayin'.

Be serious ,lady , ok ?
The introduction of that book i displayed here above + its summary as displayed in that link i did provide + the comments of people in the latter link + some of my friends ' comments on the book + Sheldrake's talk about Chalmers in some of his books on the subject of materialism + ....+....are reasons enough to assume that Chalmers has been devastating for materialism ,and he's not the only one who has done just that .

I just wanted to give you a  taste of that ,just to stimulate you in trying to find out about all the overwhelming evidence against materialism, yourselves  .

I can even give you a link where you can download that whole book for free and safely as well, if you want to .

Thanks. At the moment, though, I'm busy reading the Table of Contents of several important novels. I much prefer the Table of Contents of Dostoevsky's works to Tolstoy's.

Good read then .
Dostoyevsky  was one of my favourite writers ...once .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

And I am also writing a book entitled; What, on Earth, is Intelligence?

I'm anxious to examine the acute differences between Consciousness, which is missing from the equation in this thread, and Intelligence, which has been exercised by many contributors here but not appropriated by it's author.

...........................Ethos

Well, genius

Well sir, I thank you for the compliment. Nevertheless, that comment only proves your inability to distinguish truth from error. I'm no genius and neither are you sir. I challenged you once before in this thread to convince us with repeatable evidence and you chose to ignore my challenge. Typical behavior from someone who is only seeking attention. I reiterate, offering you this attention is a waste of time and as a remedy, I suggest we all apply this cure to the question.

Be serious : "genius " was no compliment ,if you haven't noticed yet already .
And...I am a free man haha , and hence i do decide myself to whom i might respond or not .
Sue me then haha .

P.S.: Try to say something relevant to this thread's subject , otherwise,  just have the decency to be silent then ,deal ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Can someone here try to tell me why physicists have been trying to come up with some sort of a  "theory of everything " = theory of nothing ?, since science is not about definite holistic knowledge , just about approximate conjectures,just about temporary knowledge ... .

Use your imagination then haha , since "Imagination is more important than knowledge " ...

Human imagination and creativity that have been behind many ...scientific discoveries,behind many great works of world literature  , music , philosophy ...................

Ask our friends Einstein, Shekespeare , Dickens, Dostoyevsky , Popper ,Cervantes ....William Golding ....Ask Alice in wonderland also ,if you do not believe me ,or just her brothers Marx, Freud , or just her little bros ...Dawkins ,Dennett .... : not to mention Frankenstein's monster ,or the modern ...Prometheus haha . .

Have fun, folks, life is too short .

Don't take yourselves too seriously as to become some weird odd  tragic-hilarious versions of Cervante's Don Quixote haha : i am not immune to the latter ...either .

That fictitious Don Quixote was / is and will  always be an endless source of inspiration , an endless sources of realising the fact we are all inclined to forget about : putting things into perspective ,an endless source of  fun at least ....you have no idea .
Don't become boring doll ,uninteresting , uninspiring , not-funny , unimaginative  or silly ,dry black-holes versions of Don Quixote then .

All the best then .

[Kryptid]

Why have you still not answered my question?

That was not a question , just a quiz

And that makes it impossible to answer?

[dlorde]

... The introduction of that book i displayed here above + its summary as displayed in that link i did provide + the comments of people in the latter link + some of my friends ' comments on the book + Sheldrake's talk about Chalmers in some of his books on the subject of materialism + ....+....are reasons enough to assume that Chalmers has been devastating for materialism ,and he's not the only one who has done just that .

Be sure to let us know when the 'devastation' of materialism produces something useful or interesting.

[dlorde]

Can someone here try to tell me why physicists have been trying to come up with some sort of a  "theory of everything " = theory of nothing ?, since science is not about definite holistic knowledge , just about approximate conjectures,just about temporary knowledge ... .

The label 'Theory of Everything' was a somewhat sarcastic description for a theory that would reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, in much the same way as 'The Big Bang' was a mocking description for the start of the expanding universe. They both caught the eye of the media and the public imagination. I'd be surprised if any intelligent person take 'Theory of Everything' entirely literally.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

In short :

Once again , old Popper's extremely visionnary,inspiring , enlightening and far reaching writings do whisper to us the fact that any metaphysical theory of nature in science   , including materialism thus+  its extensions  , should be just temporary untill they get falsified successfully by another alternate competitive theory of nature ,with more explanatory power ,the same  process would go for the latter also eventually , and so on .

Materialism cannot account for consciousness, and hence materialism is ...false, not to mention the fact that materialism has been becoming so unfalsifiable ,as to be 'confirmed or corroborated verified predicted " by everything , that it cannot but be ,not only unscientific , but also ...false  .

That there seems to be no alternate serious competitive better falsifiable theory of nature with more explanatory power out there yet , does not mean there is none : it is just that the very nature of consciousness is so challenging and difficult that current humanity is not yet able to come up with any seriously faslifiable theory of consciousness : there is in fact no seriously falsifiable theory of consciousness out there yet with more explanatory power than the rest ,including the materialist one that's obviously false  .

Let's hope some genius , in the future, would come up with such a revolutionary theory then, that might revolutionize our own understandings of ourselves and the universe as a result ,simply because consciousness is nowadays both THE obstacle and THE key to any revolutionary understanding of ourselves and the universe : there is nothing more important than understanding our own consciousness thus, understanding or lack of it that do have serious implications for us all ,as everybody can see , even in this thread  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Can someone here try to tell me why physicists have been trying to come up with some sort of a  "theory of everything " = theory of nothing ?, since science is not about definite holistic knowledge , just about approximate conjectures,just about temporary knowledge ... .

The label 'Theory of Everything' was a somewhat sarcastic description for a theory that would reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, in much the same way as 'The Big Bang' was a mocking description for the start of the expanding universe. They both caught the eye of the media and the public imagination. I'd be surprised if any intelligent person take 'Theory of Everything' entirely literally.

You're either not using your  own God-given  imagination or you do have almost ...none , sorry :

I have been also sarcastic and ironic regarding that theory of "everything " , that's why i have been equating it with ...nothing , all along,if you haven't noticed just that already  .

But ,at the other hand ,  ironically and paradoxically spaking : does the current materialistic science , thanks to materialism thus , does it not try to explaing

everything

just in terms of phyics and chemistry then ? Does it not ? : "everything " that cannot explain in fact ...anything : i hope that you would be able to detect the subtlety of the latter .

Since " all is matter ,including the mind " ,as materialistic science , and hence as the materialist mainstream "scientific world view " has been assuming , then , it's pretty logical to try to explain "everything " = nothing( Try to detect the subtle relative meaning  of the latter as well, while you are at it then ) ,just in terms of physics and chemistry alone thus ,which means that materialism cannot but "explain everything = nothing " via just matter as the presumed only reality out there = any theory of nature that  "intrinsically can explain everything = nothing " is thus unfalsifiable and thus ...unscientific , not to mention ...false .

Materialism that's no better than religious dualism ,the latter that tries to explain "everything =nothing " also ,just in terms of ...God .
Materialism is in fact much lower than religious dualism ,simply because materialism is intrinsically a half blind freak of nature haha , metaphorically and amusingly speaking then, as to be looking at reality just through a key hole , it has been taking for the whole ...real thing out there : how freakish haha , kidding ,odd weird absurd surreal implausible , idiotic .... can materialism ever be indeed , the more when we see how materialism has been taken for granted for so long now, without question, as no-less ...wao ....than the "scientific world view " ..