![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I landed here when looking for David Chalmers of oil for food. We need to clarify that this is not the greedy tycoon. See this page for more information. [1]
Does it seem absurd to anybody else that the German version of Chalmers' site [2] is much larger than the English? And does anyone feel up to bringing this one, in his native language no less (!) up to scratch? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.2.85 ( talk) 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is extraordinarily THIN, to say the least. You have more than enough room to add anything (accurate and well-sourced, of course) without controversy. There's just nothing here but a bare outline.
Also, found this contradiction: Instead, Chalmers argues that consciousness arises from any information-bearing system (in the sense of information theory), leading him to adopt a form of panpsychism, believing that even thermostats are somewhat conscious. Chalmers has elsewhere said ("Consciousness and the Philosophers: an Exchange") that he is agnostic on the issue of panpsychism, but that it is not nearly as indefensible an idea as some think.
Either one adopts a view or is agnostic about such a view. Which is it? Having read the book and several articles by Chalmers, it is clear that he does not adopt panphysicm, but simply entertains that possibility, along with a form of Russellian neutral monism in various places. He is much more committed to property dualism. The little article almost leaves the impression that THIS central aspect is not important, while his brief condisreations on pansphysicism are definitive conclusions. Backwards.
I see one footnote.............I would basically start from scratch and write a real article.
-- Francesco Franco ( talk) 09:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand that there is much I have not yet learned by experience still is it wrong to have a section on Cholmers flamed on wikipedia for editing? I ask here so as not to vandal again! Much love for the New Year! Linguistixuck ( talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
ONE FOOTNOTE!? This article needs to be deleted until it is properly sourced...not to mention that it is poorly written. Dmjanssen ( talk) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So Chalmers espouses libertarian free will, correct? Amit@ Talk 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Far too few independent reliable sources, most of this article is written from Chalmers' sources as interpreted by editors. Also, is there really no worthwhile criticism of his work? Dougweller ( talk) 14:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that there is nothing in this article on Chalmers' work on two dimensionalism, a relatively new theory in philosophy of language. There definitely should be some stuff here on that.
Furthermore, there are sources aplenty on all things Chalmers, namely on his website, consc.net. He has links to many of his papers there. 76.84.159.195 ( talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is a piece of work. I just edited it because it was badly worded, got some facts about his position wrong, and so forth. I don't have time to add a discussion of his work in related areas (semantics, metaphysics, and mental content), which all strike me as more important than his defense of dualism. He became well-known with that defense, but he's done a lot of other work which has been pretty influential, and if this is going to be an authoritative encyclopedia article, in addition to getting the basic facts right, it needs to include a lot more. 68.88.237.14 ( talk) 16:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning that Chalmers is also a Visiting Professor of Philosophy at New York University. I don't have time to update this or any other sections of the article, but this can be easily verified by looking at the faculty page of NYU Philosophy. Shadowice ( talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that neutral monism can be count as Chalmers idea (or concept that he introduced in philosophy of mind). Similar view is quite old - it roots go probably to Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer and Donald Davidson.-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added a link to the unreviewed page Toward a Science of Consciousness. If anyone could add to this page, especially to increase notability, I would be very happy. (11:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2PeterElls ( talk • contribs)
Any sources for this? (for now I've removed the mention for that). Ben-Natan ( talk) 20:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
From the section "Life" -
(My bold for emphasis.)
- Should we consider that to be original research? ( WP:OR)
Why or why not?
- 189.122.198.138 ( talk) 05:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
i was thinking we could add a picture instead of talking about his hair. Obviously the queensrythe must go (or atleast add a source?). i couldnt find a creative commons picture so i emailed him and he replied:
i just took a look at the entry. i suppose i shouldn't comment much, but i did notice that one occurrence of "australian" is misspelled, and the "center" i direct is actually a "centre". also, the bibliography is now up to over 8000 entries. i've never heard the queensryche claim before!
cheers,
dave.
I added a picture from his website.
Spencerk
00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Who the fuck cares about his hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.55.188 ( talk) 09:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Chalmers is not a cognitive scientist; he's a philosopher. He has no training or credentials in science and has never done any scientific research and certainly has not published any such work in any peer reviewed science journal. -- Jibal ( talk) 23:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Chalmers has a PHD in cognitive science. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:644:600:3A78:BDF8:8B79:4BB9:381E (
talk)
08:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess that is like being an astrological scientist. Where are the theories (and note that without the ability to make predictions for falsification, it is not only philosophy (that is opinion, no matter how well reasoned) not a scientific theory)?
Ichafe (
talk)
18:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Towards the end of this article, there is a note saying that Chalmers does not have any religious or spiritual views. It could refer to Philip Goff's book "Galileo's Error", in which Goff says he once asked Chalmers whether he has any religious views, and Chalmers said "Only that the universe is cool". Vorbee ( talk) 15:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Chalmers has said many times he is an atheist, can the IP editor please stop removing him from the category. Edge interview FFRF article Mramoeba ( talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I landed here when looking for David Chalmers of oil for food. We need to clarify that this is not the greedy tycoon. See this page for more information. [1]
Does it seem absurd to anybody else that the German version of Chalmers' site [2] is much larger than the English? And does anyone feel up to bringing this one, in his native language no less (!) up to scratch? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.2.85 ( talk) 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is extraordinarily THIN, to say the least. You have more than enough room to add anything (accurate and well-sourced, of course) without controversy. There's just nothing here but a bare outline.
Also, found this contradiction: Instead, Chalmers argues that consciousness arises from any information-bearing system (in the sense of information theory), leading him to adopt a form of panpsychism, believing that even thermostats are somewhat conscious. Chalmers has elsewhere said ("Consciousness and the Philosophers: an Exchange") that he is agnostic on the issue of panpsychism, but that it is not nearly as indefensible an idea as some think.
Either one adopts a view or is agnostic about such a view. Which is it? Having read the book and several articles by Chalmers, it is clear that he does not adopt panphysicm, but simply entertains that possibility, along with a form of Russellian neutral monism in various places. He is much more committed to property dualism. The little article almost leaves the impression that THIS central aspect is not important, while his brief condisreations on pansphysicism are definitive conclusions. Backwards.
I see one footnote.............I would basically start from scratch and write a real article.
-- Francesco Franco ( talk) 09:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand that there is much I have not yet learned by experience still is it wrong to have a section on Cholmers flamed on wikipedia for editing? I ask here so as not to vandal again! Much love for the New Year! Linguistixuck ( talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
ONE FOOTNOTE!? This article needs to be deleted until it is properly sourced...not to mention that it is poorly written. Dmjanssen ( talk) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So Chalmers espouses libertarian free will, correct? Amit@ Talk 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Far too few independent reliable sources, most of this article is written from Chalmers' sources as interpreted by editors. Also, is there really no worthwhile criticism of his work? Dougweller ( talk) 14:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that there is nothing in this article on Chalmers' work on two dimensionalism, a relatively new theory in philosophy of language. There definitely should be some stuff here on that.
Furthermore, there are sources aplenty on all things Chalmers, namely on his website, consc.net. He has links to many of his papers there. 76.84.159.195 ( talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is a piece of work. I just edited it because it was badly worded, got some facts about his position wrong, and so forth. I don't have time to add a discussion of his work in related areas (semantics, metaphysics, and mental content), which all strike me as more important than his defense of dualism. He became well-known with that defense, but he's done a lot of other work which has been pretty influential, and if this is going to be an authoritative encyclopedia article, in addition to getting the basic facts right, it needs to include a lot more. 68.88.237.14 ( talk) 16:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning that Chalmers is also a Visiting Professor of Philosophy at New York University. I don't have time to update this or any other sections of the article, but this can be easily verified by looking at the faculty page of NYU Philosophy. Shadowice ( talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that neutral monism can be count as Chalmers idea (or concept that he introduced in philosophy of mind). Similar view is quite old - it roots go probably to Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer and Donald Davidson.-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added a link to the unreviewed page Toward a Science of Consciousness. If anyone could add to this page, especially to increase notability, I would be very happy. (11:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2PeterElls ( talk • contribs)
Any sources for this? (for now I've removed the mention for that). Ben-Natan ( talk) 20:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
From the section "Life" -
(My bold for emphasis.)
- Should we consider that to be original research? ( WP:OR)
Why or why not?
- 189.122.198.138 ( talk) 05:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
i was thinking we could add a picture instead of talking about his hair. Obviously the queensrythe must go (or atleast add a source?). i couldnt find a creative commons picture so i emailed him and he replied:
i just took a look at the entry. i suppose i shouldn't comment much, but i did notice that one occurrence of "australian" is misspelled, and the "center" i direct is actually a "centre". also, the bibliography is now up to over 8000 entries. i've never heard the queensryche claim before!
cheers,
dave.
I added a picture from his website.
Spencerk
00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Who the fuck cares about his hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.55.188 ( talk) 09:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Chalmers is not a cognitive scientist; he's a philosopher. He has no training or credentials in science and has never done any scientific research and certainly has not published any such work in any peer reviewed science journal. -- Jibal ( talk) 23:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Chalmers has a PHD in cognitive science. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:644:600:3A78:BDF8:8B79:4BB9:381E (
talk)
08:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess that is like being an astrological scientist. Where are the theories (and note that without the ability to make predictions for falsification, it is not only philosophy (that is opinion, no matter how well reasoned) not a scientific theory)?
Ichafe (
talk)
18:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Towards the end of this article, there is a note saying that Chalmers does not have any religious or spiritual views. It could refer to Philip Goff's book "Galileo's Error", in which Goff says he once asked Chalmers whether he has any religious views, and Chalmers said "Only that the universe is cool". Vorbee ( talk) 15:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Chalmers has said many times he is an atheist, can the IP editor please stop removing him from the category. Edge interview FFRF article Mramoeba ( talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)