Open forum debate by several major philosophers on nature of consciousness

[Stillwater]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB_RtFV-l-A

This is an interesting debate/exploration taking place between several major representatives of theories of consciousness. I found it quite relevant to this site, since it outlines many of the discussions taking place on the astralpulse, and the viewpoints they corespond with. It was exciting to me, since it deals with the area of mind-body philosophy I specialized in, but I think it should be meaningful to most others here too, since it gives a basic overview of what the major issues being thought about in area are today..

The speakers:


Robert Kuhn- The mediator. I think he has a balanced approach, while not letting any of the panelists get away with unsubstantiated nonsense.

Barry Beyerstein- Was not familiar with this one. "Straight arrow" reductive materialist... doesn't really have much to say, and doesn't really engage the ideas being thrown around by the others.     

John Searle- Big name mind-body philosopher; we read his books in school. He is an important figure, since his views are well-defined and thus easy to engage, and he makes up the majority opinion. I think that although he claims distance from reductive materialism, since he accepts that consciousness is a first-person, non-material phenomenon, he is best thought of as a reductive materialist by another name, since he still feels that neuroscience will reveal how matter can cause awareness. I tend to disagree with his main views, since he entirely ignores (and pig-headedly in my opinion) an idea called the Hard Problem of consciousness, which in a nutshell is the idea that it remains to be seen how a material substance like the brain can be causally responsible for the existence of our non-material first-person awareness; there is no logical explanation materialists have given so far as to how this should be possible, and until this is addressed, materialism must be an incomplete picture (most of us here would say incomplete because it does not address the full nature of reality).             

David Chalmers- Another big name mind-body philosopher. The philosophical creator of the "Hard problem of consciousness
mentioned above, and other ideas regarding the specturm of awareness, and it's scientific consequences. I tend to like Chalmer's ideas alot, since while he acknowledges anecdotal and research evidence suggesting properties of consciousness not possible under materialism, he attempts to refute reductive materialism at the most fundamental level, trying to show that, as his hard problem states, no causal link has been demonstrated between material states and first-person experiences, merely correlations between brain states and experiences. Chalmers feels this trend in knowledge of consciousness only as a correlation will continue, and he believes that in order to avoid this problem, your worldview must on some level incorportate conscioussness as a primary feature of reality, be it a fundamental feautre of matter (panpsychism), or as a fundamental substance of the universe (dualism or immaterialist monism). This is necessary since he believes he has demonstrated that it cannot directly be reduced to material states, and I tend to agree.
                                 

Marilyn Schlitz  - She is an anthropologist, and probably the one on the panel who best approximates most visitors of this site. She integrates the anecdotal evidence of altered and new states of conscioussness, and reasons about what the consequences for accepting this data as factual must be for the scientific community. She get's into a little discussion with Searle about this, and in conjunction with the mediator, flatly shows him somewhat thick in my opinion, as well as exposing the fundamental lack of will of most modern materialists to engage all relevant data today.   

             
Alan Wolf - Theoretical physicist. His ideas about metaphysics are somewhat airy-fairy, since he does not go about giving explanations for what he thinks, but I think he still have important things to say about the possible construction of the universe.

[Stookie]

I saw this on PBS one Saturday afternoon and couldn't shut it off. I turned it up while cleaning house. Also, I recently watched a lecture where it was explained how many of the top thinkers in the world had a lot of good ideas, but it wasn't until they came together with other like-thinkers to share ideas (like this video) did the major world-changing ideas and concepts really arise. I know many inventors and authors' best work came after meetings like this.

I suppose a forum like this can have similar effect. And a good reason to have different viewpoints and not just agree with everything.

Thanks for sharing Stillwater!

[personalreality]

that's really interesting that you say that stookie.

i'm reading a John C. Lilly book right now that mentions this concept.

Lilly discussing the collaborative mathematic efforts of a group who published papers under the single pseudonym Dr. Nicholas Bourbaki

"Whether or not this group was greater than or lesser than a single human mind, operating in isolation on similar materials, will not be known for some time.  It may be that the human biocomputer interlock achieved among these mathematicians created a new entity greater than any one of them in regard to modes of thinking, complexity of thinking, and creative new ideas."

[Stillwater]

I remember that I knew a mathematics major... he went on a retreat one summer where he literally spent 7 weeks working with 10 or so other students and professors trying to find a solution to a single kind of linear algebra problem about what sets of matrices are closed with respect to a certain kind of functional operation.

It is amazing that so many people can collaboratively devote so much effort to a single small idea, and even more amazing to me that they work so long at it; it must have been the sort of problem you can make progress towards and get gradually "closer" to a solution, otherwise they would have been doing the same thing for 7 weeks straight....

These people clearly thought something was to be gained through intellectual collaboration.

[Stookie]

Here's the lecture I watched, "Where Good Ideas Come From". It's about 20 minutes. There are a lot of really good TED presentations.

http://www.wimp.com/goodideas/

[Xanth]

That was a pretty good debate.
Found it very enlightening. 

[CFTraveler]

Very interesting- I enjoyed it very much.
A sidenote:  Most anthropologists I met when in school had a similar viewpoint to (Dr?) Schlitz- I think most field anthropologists are exposed to a lot of 'weird' reality in general, and this makes them more openminded.
Just an observation from my limited experience.

[Stillwater]

Very interesting- I enjoyed it very much.
A sidenote:  Most anthropologists I met when in school had a similar viewpoint to (Dr?) Schlitz- I think most field anthropologists are exposed to a lot of 'weird' reality in general, and this makes them more openminded.
Just an observation from my limited experience.

I was thinking the same. I mean, as an antropologist, you must end up studying tons of indigenous and aboriginal type civilizations, and they all have their own shamanistic and mind-altering rituals as the backbone of their belief system; it is not out of the question to take things from the perspective of those societies you are studying, or even participate at times.

[personalreality]

Anthropology was the first major I declared.  It seemed to be the only way to go and now I'm still kind of feeling like it would have been a better choice.

[CFTraveler]

I did one year of postgraduate work in it and quit, never got my master's.  That's because I decided to go with physical anthropology and studied under the town coroner.  All was well until we had to macerate a cadaver.  That's when I realized it was not for me.