Chalmers' New TedTalk on Explaining Consciousness



If he's right, then Russellian monism looks to be the closest match to perhaps the leading theory in the science of consciousness. Also, if he's right, then naturalists should take the base-expanding approach to accounting for consciousness, and not the shoehorning approach. Finally, if the leading theory is also the correct theory, then the argument from substance dualism has not only an undercutting defeater, but also a rebutting defeater in Russellian monism. Liberal naturalism FTW!

No comments:

Two Naturalistic Arguments for Why There is Something (Concrete) Rather Than Nothing (Concrete)

Here is a sketch of two arguments for why there is anything (concrete) rather than nothing (concrete), which are based on, or at least inspi...