Hilarious Reverse Debate on Consciousness with David Chalmers and Carlo Rovelli


  1. kerry trax

    kerry trax2 bulan yang lalu

    is chalmers sad seeing rovelli's portrayal?

  2. This Is

    This Is9 bulan yang lalu

    I think chalmers was funny while rovelli was hurtful. But they represent the thinking in the larger war between science and philosophy, whereby scientists DO think that consciousness is just bullshit and reducible to evolution/cog sci/neurosci, philosophers don't think that the great work of Newton/Galilleo is bullshit or reducible to subjective idealism. Rovelli's joke about communism was funny because there are those philosophers who want to explain science in a political context.

  3. Manas Kumar Sahu

    Manas Kumar SahuTahun Yang lalu

    Wonderful punch line to the atheist

  4. Joshua

    JoshuaTahun Yang lalu

    I'd prefer a serious debate, not a reverse role debate.

  5. Ryan G

    Ryan GTahun Yang lalu

    Is Chalmers mocking Dennett at the beginning? 😂

  6. Sonia Higgins

    Sonia HigginsTahun Yang lalu

    Carlo Rovelli is obviously a zombie

  7. Benson Bear

    Benson BearTahun Yang lalu

    Non-Bizaaro Chalmers's primary argument is that the existence of phenomenal consciousness is not analytically entailed by a complete microphysical description of the world. Where does Bizarro Rovelli employ any version of this argument? The main argument against this, I think, is the argument from the paradox of phenomenal judgement, and Bizarro Chalmers does not bring that up, but he doesn't have to since he was so badly straw-manned by Rovelli. Instead he just gives the usual argument, which is not a straw man, which confuses psychological with phenomenological consciousness. Maybe this would be a semi-decent thing if that had a serious physicalist philosopher, such as Kirk or Jackson, in the place of Rovelli, but as it is, it's pretty embarrassing.

  8. Jairo Fonseca

    Jairo Fonseca2 tahun yang lalu

    Chalmers is a true genius ...

  9. Anubhav Mishra

    Anubhav Mishra2 tahun yang lalu

    This is a reverse debate people. They have switched their view points and arguing {bullshiting (just for fun)} about it.

  10. Juan Manuel Jones Volonte

    Juan Manuel Jones Volonte2 tahun yang lalu

    consciousness and matter are aspects of the same thing. Dualism is a confusion, or at the best, a sometimes useful concept.

  11. Joshua Nicholls

    Joshua Nicholls2 tahun yang lalu

    lol what the heck?

  12. Lord Retro

    Lord Retro2 tahun yang lalu

    Chalmers is funny, the other guy is annoying.

  13. resiktd

    resiktd3 tahun yang lalu

    materialist,atheist,communism haha

  14. Ilyass Bouada

    Ilyass Bouada17 hari yang lalu

    @Young hustler no, atheist

  15. Young hustler

    Young hustler2 tahun yang lalu

    resiktd is rovelli a catholic

  16. Hamid

    Hamid3 tahun yang lalu

    I hope they upload the whole conference, I mean all talks and lectures...

  17. spalje vina

    spalje vina3 tahun yang lalu

    this is just a version of egg and chicken problem - does matter create conciousness or counciousness creates matter. And if universe is simulacrum, it can be counsciousness first, but god is just guy who pays the eletricity bill

  18. ርዐጠቿዕሃ ኗዐረዕ

    ርዐጠቿዕሃ ኗዐረዕ3 tahun yang lalu

    𝓒𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓭𝔂 𝓖𝓸𝓵𝓭

  19. erin drake

    erin drake3 tahun yang lalu

    this is amazing

  20. Frank Jaeger

    Frank Jaeger3 tahun yang lalu

    Wait, does Carlo actually believe that Dave is some kind of retarded Berkeleyan theist idealist? And he is the one who says that physicists should know about contemporary philosophical developments? Still better than Lawrence Krauss' logic-denying bullshit, I have to say..

  21. Luis R. G.

    Luis R. G.Tahun Yang lalu

    Well, you got everything wrong. a) Michael Jones (aka Inspiring Philosophy) and derezzed are not Berkeleyan idealists. They support objective idealism which is very different to Berkeley's subjective idealism. In fact I think derezzed supports Dual-aspect idealism rather than Quantum Idealism. b) Relational Quantum Mechanics does tell us that there are no absolute physical quantities. All physical quantities are relative to the observer, but it does not lead us automatically to Idealism. However, it is easy to integrate this interpretation of QM to an idealistic model like Bernardo Kastrup did in his article for Scientific American. Rovelli's interpretation was developed with mathematical rigor, dismissing it just because it reminds you to something you dislike... is not a smart decision.

  22. Young hustler

    Young hustler2 tahun yang lalu

    Frank Jaeger that is probably the truth ha ha it's complicated looking from the outside

  23. Frank Jaeger

    Frank Jaeger2 tahun yang lalu

    terkishdelight I know he is, but probably Carlo doesn't, since he seems to believe that property dualists are some kind of anti-science theists (I don't think Carlo understands property dualism at all).

  24. Young hustler

    Young hustler2 tahun yang lalu

    Frank Jaeger Dave is an atheist

  25. Frank Jaeger

    Frank Jaeger2 tahun yang lalu

    Canadian Apistevist Nope, just pseudo-philosophers on youtube. That's why I criticize Carlo for thinking that Dave could actually be that retarded..

  26. Jefferson Góes

    Jefferson Góes3 tahun yang lalu

    Nice debate

  27. Joana Rigato

    Joana Rigato3 tahun yang lalu

    Clearly Carlo Rovelli hasn't understood Chalmers' arguments (in the real debate).