NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Not presumptuous based on what Chalmers allegedly says as described in the Wikipedia article. It may be true that there are other descriptions or claims about the nature of the hard problem that don't apply to this analysis, however because I've identified one source that seems to fit, your counterpoint needs to address that issue in a more specific manner.

Nagel's paper also appears consistent with the Wikipedia description. However, I admit that it's possible that I'm missing something, so I suggest we break this down into smaller chunks. Can you provide a specific quote to a key paragraph and explain it in a way that provides relevant counterpoint?

A search of Nagel's article doesn't return the word "field" once in the context of consciousness, as in a "consciousness field". So perhaps you could quote a specific relevant paragraph and we'll have a closer look at how it applies. This is where it's going to get rather tricky, but I'm up to another round if you are .

<blockquote data-quote="Randall" data-source="post: 174005" data-attributes="member: 2682">Not presumptuous based on what Chalmers allegedly says as described in the Wikipedia article. It may be true that there are other descriptions or claims about the nature of the hard problem that don&#039;t apply to this analysis, however because I&#039;ve identified one source that seems to fit, your counterpoint needs to address that issue in a more specific manner.&nbsp;Nagel&#039;s paper also appears consistent with the Wikipedia description. However, I admit that it&#039;s possible that I&#039;m missing something,&nbsp; so I suggest we break this down into smaller chunks. Can you provide a specific quote to a key paragraph and explain it in a way that provides relevant counterpoint?&nbsp;A search of Nagel&#039;s article doesn&#039;t return the word &quot;field&quot; once in the context of consciousness, as in a &quot;consciousness field&quot;. So perhaps you could quote a specific relevant paragraph and we&#039;ll have a closer look at how it applies. This is where it&#039;s going to get rather tricky, but I&#039;m up to another round if you are <img src="/forum/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/biggrin.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D" data-shortname=":D" /> .</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Randall, post: 174005, member: 2682"] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]Not presumptuous based on what Chalmers allegedly says as described in the Wikipedia article. It may be true that there are other descriptions or claims about the nature of the hard problem that don't apply to this analysis, however because I've identified one source that seems to fit, your counterpoint needs to address that issue in a more specific manner.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]Nagel's paper also appears consistent with the Wikipedia description. However, I admit that it's possible that I'm missing something, so I suggest we break this down into smaller chunks. Can you provide a specific quote to a key paragraph and explain it in a way that provides relevant counterpoint?[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]A search of Nagel's article doesn't return the word "field" once in the context of consciousness, as in a "consciousness field". So perhaps you could quote a specific relevant paragraph and we'll have a closer look at how it applies. This is where it's going to get rather tricky, but I'm up to another round if you are :D .[/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification