Defending the Hard Problem

[petestrat07]

Being a stand up guy. I'd probably want to put your balls in the blender.

Jokes aside, yes there is a hard problem of consciousness that cannot be explained by solving the easy problem.

[otakurocklee]

Hi SpiritualAtheist. Great video and thought experiment. What you've pointed out in this video is so ridiculously obvious and true... I find it so strange that some philosophers so strongly claim that an experience is "equivalent" to a brain state...

[SpiritualAtheist]

otakurocklee - Thanks for getting this. My whole point was to simply point out the paradox so as to demonstrate that something needs to be explained. If people don't acknowledge the paradox then they won't think anything needs to be explained.

[belly0like0buddha]

I don't think a blender is to a car what a neural correlate is to its corresponding conscious state; a blender and a car may both be made from plastics and metals, but the compositions of these things have no correspondence to one another. A better analogy I believe would be to say that a neural correlate of conscious is to its corresponding conscious state as a computer code is to that of which it produces on the screen.

[belly0like0buddha]

I agree that there's a hard problem of consciousness but I think it lies in both overcoming the neural signal to qualia 'language barrier' (AND of course resolving the paradox how how two languages of this sort can exist in the same universe.)

[Gnomefro]

I find your argument a bit like arguing that a jpeg image of a car is the same thing as a car, and then being confused about the fact that its highly compressed binary format seems, at a glance, to be unrelated to the car in every conceivable way. Yet, properly interpreted, their relationships are clear.

(The materialistic solution to experience would likely be the virtual machine paradigm anyway. "You" are a recursive reality model living in a virtual machine running on wetware.(Matrix))

[Gnomefro]

Hm, I think there's a lot of confusion in this argument. The blender and the brain are not the same thing. What's stored in the brain is a partial model of the blender.

They may look different to an observer, sure, but the only reason for this would be that the observer's visualization software did in fact not interpret the model data the same way the brain does when it causes subjective experience.

[earth5worker]

Fascinating. What mechanism determined that I (the inner me) would be associated with my particular physical body.  Of the billions of people on the earth today I'm on the inside of one of them. But what determined that I would be on the inside of this specific body? Why did I not develop, for example, within my identical twin's body (if I had a twin) and he in mine? If my parents had not had me, would I have been manifested in some other body? Or perhaps not at all? Why/How?

[Promatheos]

What you're referring to as the "I" or the "inner you" is not a separate thing from your physical body that could have arisen in any other body. We can't think of the human body as merely a car that the ego drives.

This is a ridiculous, but powerful illusion. Any serious practitioner of meditation would attest to this.

[Corestore16]

@earth5worker I TOTALLY know what you mean. This question bugs me so much. Why is my consciousness attached to this body and not someone elses?? Very weird

[otonanoC]

I disagree that the "core" of the Hard Problem is emergence. I personally beleive that the core of the consciousness topic has to do with the emergence of SYMBOLS in nature in particular.

Generally biologists agree that even bacteria use "symbols". And I think it is this problem of symbolic emergence in life forms in particular that will be the key to unraveling the Hard Problem. Biology is totally confused as to why nature creates symbols, even (especially) in bacteria.

[b4skin]

This reminds me of the problem of logic, being that it is dependant on the rules according to assertions proposed by itself (humans) as a system which fleshes out wrong or inconsistant thoughts/behavior though it is proposed by that same self (humans) who are known to be illogical, in many ways, themselves. Great Video discussion!

[b4skin]

Funny, my favorite ?point? in your video is the use of BLENDER for exemplifying the 'blending' of object/thought/internal/extern­al sense experience. The hard question is how you were able to fit a car in a blender, but I think you did so quite well...thanks.

[kimrathbone]

I think that sometimes the answers to hard problems are simple so I wouldn't dismiss Dennett out of hand. (evolution is quite a simple idea as was copernicus)

I haven't watched all your videos but I got a hold on philosophy from Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance.

I liked Kant because from a historical perspective I think his was a powerful insight.

I can see that if he had knowledge of the quantisation of energy, he could take his idea further.

[kimrathbone]

My point of view is that an individual possesse a 'self' but unlike Kant - this self is not God given but arises with all life - i.e self and life are inseparable.This 'self' is a phenomenon of the interaction of quanta with matter. Particulaly -certain molecular structures are able to interact with quanta in a non random way. So the phenomenon of life itself and so consciousness is inextricably linked to the problem of what constitutes a measurement of an elementary particle.

[kimrathbone]

I suppose one could posit that because all particles were once entangled and because of 'spooky action at a distance' it is theoretically possible to know the thing in itself. As that which happens externally is capable of being mirrored and recreated internally. Intuitively one might say that this is what is happening. As the universe is created externally the quantum state of the internal world changes correspondingly. We are in the gap between the spooky particles and their logic.

[kimrathbone]

In other words -you can be both subject and object exactly simultaneously. That sounds illogical but then perhaps thats what consciousness is and exactly why it defies investigation.

[kimrathbone]

I suppose almost by definition that we cant see things which are illogical. If as dennett says the brain is a computer then illogical things dont compute,

[Censeo]

Great video! I was wondering also, why is a philosophical zombie and a human the exact same thing in our world view? Why would I be the same thing to ppl even though I didn't have any experience but just acted the same way? This means A = not A and that means our world view is false.

[Beardedyoungman]

This was great! I've been thinking a lot about the brain again recently. About the symbol part of the brain and how it could have formed as a sense of self-internal patterns(or I guess after this, as the hard problem? the symbols or forms we see things as) as nervous systems got more complex. Maybe its the hard problem that emerged then not conscious? I have lots of budding thoughts on it but I'm still a horrible researcher and know nothing of the subject.

Really looking forward to your vids:)

[EverettsVLOG]

im the type of person you are referring to in the end of this vid, i tend to treat 'emergence' as an empirical fact; i think of conscious experience as 'caused' by neural relationships, much like electromagnetic fields are 'caused' by moving charges... looking forward to your next vid

[SpiritualAtheist]

Hey Everett - Thanks for watching. I think there are a lot of you out there (emergence = empirical fact). And I think it makes perfect sense to view consciousness as an emergent property of brain functions just as wetness is an emergent property of zillions of h2o molecules. I will however be arguing against this - sort of. Stay tuned.

[2bsirius]

It is great to hear from you again. I've missed listening to your deep and intellectual think-aloud monologues. Great stuff!

[SpiritualAtheist]

2b - Thanks! I hope to make more videos here in the near future. I've got a lot of weird ideas I've just got to get out of me.

[2bsirius]

Hey, SpiritualAtheist, you've come to right place...I'm looking forward to hearing these ideas.

[0ThouArtThat0]

argh, I gave you three instead of five stars accidentally! I enjoyed being a part of your experiment, and I agree that the hard problem is one that cannot be ignored or dismissed.

[SpiritualAtheist]

I forgot to warn you beforehand that you were "starring" in this video. I didn't think you'd mind. I look forward to exchanging more ideas with you on this subject. I know I've been out of touch for a while. I hope to be back on a more regular basis.