An important development in the field of philosophy blogging, as I learn via Alina Stefanescu that that philosopher of mind Dave Chalmers now has a blog. Lately, he actually seems to be blogging mostly about "two dimensionalism" with is something I know absolutely nothing about, but perhaps mind will return to the scene. Of course, for all I know the site I've linked to is merely a perfect functional isomorph of a weblog written by David Chalmers, and not an actual Chalmers-authored blog. . . .
January 23, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chalmersblog:
» David Chalmers has a blog...maybe from Yezbick.com: sideblog
fragments of consciousness [via matthew yglesias] Chalmers wrote The Conscious Mind, In Search of a Fundamental Theory. It was one of the required texts for my class, Philosophy of the Mind - as taught by Stephen Rieber. As I recall... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 24, 2005 12:23:36 AM
» Blaine's Stunt Sheds Light on Limits of Human Body from ow Long Can You
ow Long Can You Hold Your Breath? [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 9, 2006 9:05:33 AM
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 8:19:08 PM
Tracked on Jul 24, 2006 11:18:14 AM
Tracked on Jul 31, 2006 8:10:36 PM
My lay understanding of Chalmers' position is that he thinks he has something but he really doesn't -- he thinks he has found things that require something outside of epiphenomenalism, but that his own examples of 'zombies' rather obviously provide an argument against his conjectures.
Posted by: theCoach | Jan 23, 2005 10:29:50 PM
Well, an eidetic isomer of Matthew's blog would certainly produce some strange spellings..........
Posted by: serial catowner | Jan 24, 2005 8:59:54 AM
This reminds me of matthewyglesias.com days: zombies this, zombies that. Golden age, then.
2D-ism = two dimensions to meaning: intension & extension. Soames is a 1D-ist or direct reference theorist: reference exhausts meaning.
What theCoach said!!
Yes! Why doesn't everyone see that Chalmer's contradicts himself with his own examples???
yeah, in general it's hard to see how any physical explanation of how matter is supposed to give rise to consciousness could be convincing, because no matter what the explanation looks like, it is always conceivable that there could be a physical system that instantiates that organization of matter but in which the consciousness is missing. But an interesting wrinkle there concerns the weight to be given to conceivability arguments of that sort ... there are reasons to think that we can be fooled as to what we think is conceivable; in other words, some things that seem conceivable to us really aren't, or wouldn't be if we had a clearer understanding of the concepts involved. No doubt Chalmers has subtle and sophisticated ripostes to all this.
Posted by: liver | Jan 24, 2005 5:43:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.