David Chalmers on the "hard problem" of consciousness - The Consciousness Chronicles Vol. 1

[Cyanescia]

The brain= A physical organic unit made mostly of neurons and fluids.

The mind= The specific complex arrangements and patterns of these neurons.

Consciousness= The 'fountain' of electromagnetic activity within these networks.

The hard problem is solved, when you stop thinking about as a problem. If you just accept that all things subjectively feel like what they are, then it stands to reason that a complex mind of mental processes, feels like what it feels like to be those processes.

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia The question is how does the fountain function - how does the fountain generate consciousness - and we're back to the hard problem.

[Cyanescia]

@joevegan123 , th fountain doesnt 'generate consciousness... it is consciousness. The electromagnetic activity 'feels' like itself. You are that subjective quality of EM activity in the brain. the brain generates the activity. and that activity feels like you.

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia Why does the eletromagnetic activity feel that way? What is it about the electromagnatic field which results in subjective experiences? There is still an explanatory gap - even if your hypothesis is correct (which can be doubted)

[Cyanescia]

You dont need to ask why. Not at this point, its like asking why is there space. There just is. Each individual can vouch for the subjective experience of brain activity. Is it so hard to accept that things 'feel' the way they are. EM 'feels' like EM, more to the point, complex patterns of EM feel complex patterns of EM. The gaps are only in our knowledge of specific brain functions that produce these patterns... that they have a subjective quality to them is just how things are.

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia We don't have to ask any questions. We could have chosen to not ask why lighning follows thunder or why water is wet. But that's what science is about... I think you'll understand that your response doesn't satisfy me that the problem is solved. 

[Cyanescia]

I am not saying we shouldn't ask questions, but the hard problem is a special case. Even if we discover the exact physical workings of the brain in terms of processes, that will never explain why there is a subjective quality to those processes. The problem is in our thinking that there must be some specific mechanism which 'switches on' consciousness in the human mind, due to our view that everything around us is not conscious. Somehow we are different.

[Cyanescia]

The search for the mechanism which provides subjective experience is an infinite digress. There must be a central point which receives data and transforms brain function into consciousness, but this is like saying there is another brain within the brain that receives brain data as stimuli, then if this is required, then a further brain is need to receive that data and so on.

Even if we could replicate the EM activity of the brain we would never be able to prove it has a subjective experience.

[Cyanescia]

@Cyanescia Infinite regress sorry*

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia I think that we can hope to further explicate why a pain sensation is generated... I don't see a reason for giving up. I think your regress argument is suspect.

[Cyanescia]

Hang on... I didnt say we should give up studying the objective processes of the brain. How pain is produced is not in the scope of the hard problem. How that pain is subjectively 'felt' is the hard problem.

I am saying that we can easily discover and observe how the brain function and what activity coincides with the sensation of pain. We make the mistake by assuming we then need to find how that data then goes on to be turned into a subjective experience of pain.

[Cyanescia]

cont.... The fact is, the intitial brain activity IS pain. those interactions we would observe as pain ARE pain. we dont need to look any further. The subjective quality of brain activity is not a magic trick exclusive to humans, it is just a simple truth that all things feel as they are. A rock feels like a rock, that is also to say it doesnt 'feel' or think because it is not a physical representation of those processes.

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia Why is that a mistake? I really don't understand your point.

When we explain heat - we correlate molecular behaviours with the phenomena... but we also get an explanation of why that type of behaviour results in heat. I am suggesting that in order to explain pain sensation we need correlation and we need to further understand the process; further understand why this brain state results in that feeling...

[Cyanescia]

The hard problem refers to a specific phenomena. That is what we were discussing. I totally agree we need to do more to understand various brain processes and how they produce various sensations and levels of consciousness. But understanding the physical processes does not explain why they have a subjective quality to them. I say this is not a problem to be solved but simply how things are.

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia Would you mind giving me another example of "that's just how things are" so can't be explained?

[Cyanescia]

Ok. Why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia Science does attempt to answer these questions - with Multiverse theories for example... should they give up?

[Cyanescia]

Multiverse theory would only explain what preceded this universe and perhaps explain why the physical laws of this universe were set at particular values. You can never explain why there is something rather than nothing. Just as you can never explain why there is a subjective quality to physical processes. Even if you discover some little part of the brain that is solely responsible for subjective experience, it doesn't explain the subjectivity of the experience.

[Cyanescia]

@Cyanescia It is not about giving up, it is just being able to acknowledge that EM patterns of activity in the brain ARE consciousness. When that activity takes place in a patient, rest assured that the subject will report consciousness.

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia I don't think it would be a "little part", I imagine that it is systemic.

Maybe you have a point, maybe we'll never know.

Why there is something rather than nothing isn't something we can experimentally explore really. Conversely subjective experience is something we can examine empirically.

I find it hard to understand Qualia-phobes. I would like to understand why they are so dismissive... not sure I fully understand you. But thanks for taking the time to debate with me.

[Cyanescia]

Im not a qualia-phobe. I embrace the phenomena quite openly. But I think people try to create a problem where there isnt one. Its as if having a materialistic view of the world cause people to assume certain things.

Subjective experience cannot be examined empirically. We can only 'see' our own subjective experience. Like I was saying, even if we replicate the EM patterns of mind in a lab, all we would see in front of us is the objective results that normally indicate consciousness.

[Cyanescia]

Then lets say this device was able to communicate, and told us it was having a subjective experience. We cannot really vouch for that experience in others, though the EM activity would be the 'finger' that points to evidence of consciousness. Same in human subjects, we study consciousness in terms of EM activity in the brain. Specific regions and patterns correlate to specific modes of consciousness.

[Cyanescia]

I could be wrong though. Perhaps we discover some 'consciousness' field which exist exclusively as a result of higher brain function. In that case we will still be with the same question 'how does that field give rise to subjective experience' That's what i meant by infinite regress earlier. It would come a point where we would conclusively state that the field we observe IS consciousness and that it 'just does' have a subjective quality to it.

I just think that field IS the EM field.

[MrAquinoflavio]

@Cyanescia : EXACLTY. The hard problem is nothing but a fruitless mystery.

Just because we cannot conceve phenomenology arising from higher neuronal functions, it doesnt mean it cant.

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia I don't think we need to have direct access to a phenomena to test for it. If a postulate makes sense of a theory - then it is to some extent empirically justified. Dark matter, dark energy and prior to recent results this applied to the Higgs Boson.

But anyway, we all know deep down that we experience sensations. Maybe you're right - it's a brute fact and we're cognitively closed from understanding it. I am not totally convinced though...

[Cyanescia]

Yes, your right, we have 'indirect' access to consciousness because we see it as EM activity in the brain. Though of course we can never vouch for another person's subjective experience, hence it is called subjective for a reason. haha.

In fact this will interest you... the induction of outside EM activity to the brain of a patient, results in a change of consciousness.

Do you get what I mean that we are looking for 'something extra' when it may not be necessary?

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia I am trying to understand but I can't... it to my minds screams out for further explication..

[Cyanescia]

I know the feeling. It's like when you think of vision. We can pin point the exact processes involved in the visual response to red wavelengths of light, but then how is that 'I see red.'

All I am saying is that 'I see red' and 'my brain processing responding to red wavelengths of light' are just one in the same thing.

That specific activity 'feels' like that specific activity. Just as a rock 'feels' like a rock.

There is no 'ghost in the machine'.... the ghost IS the machine.

Happy days

[MrAquinoflavio]

@Cyanescia : The problem concerning qualia is an epistemological one, not an ontological one. From the third person we have an objective description of what it is, and from an 1st person we have a description of what it FEELS LIKE. Both are equaly valid, different descriptions of the same thing.

[Cyanescia]

Yes I agree with you. I think the problem arises in people searching to find some kind of 'physical' mechanism which produces the 'conscious' aspect of all that brain activity. Yet, the discovery of such a mechanism would never explain how it goes from objective machinery to subjective experience. Though, the search is false. The problem is in thinking we are something other than the collection of brain processes we observe. That those processes 'feel' like us is simply an intrinsic fact.

[joevegan123]

@Cyanescia PS i think 'Why there is something rather than nothing' is a good example - and I'll think more about it...

[mikkwik]

I prefer Dan Dennett

[edbingey]

@mikkwik Suck my unit.

[mikkwik]

@edbingey

Umm, no thanks

[plnthn]

Google " Consciousness Is Generated By The Entire Brain " and read Softpedia. This is fascinating for those who support scientifical researches that will help us to learn more about ourselves. This sounds like a very unethical approach by scientists, from the religious folks point of view, but it is also very irresistible for an investigative/curious mind of a true scientists to avoid. Will this decimate religion,I don't think so,.they probably will expand to include this new discovery as well.

[plnthn]

Consciousness is genrerated by the entire Brian. Consciousness is more a question of of dynamics, than of a local activity. A new study conducted on people suffering from epilepsy MIGHT have just open the door to scientists. Why it has taken the scientists this long is because of the numerous obstacles in getting the readings and the best way of getting that, is to inplant electrodes deep within the brain.Another impediment was for ethical reason.(Consciousness is generated by the entire Brain)

[frontoparietal]

This is the real situation that must be addressed before any conclusions about free will can be made. This is not only the hardest problem to solve, but it is also the most important, by fucking far, question to answer, period. What is (the nature of) time, how and why did the universe and/or existence arise; these are indeed trivial in comparison to understanding who and what we are - what is me and what do I mean when I say, myself/the self that I am!?

MikeL

[Ko252]

@frontoparietal So since you have one hard question, you cant solve another in the mean while?

[gaurdian22]

Says a lot to say not much...

[SciTechExplained]

HOW do you get consciousness from a brain? Well, by following the same systemic principles that are used to get Vitalism out of trillions of cells. Is there Elan Vital? No, it just seems there is. Is there Magic Consciousness? No, it just seems there is.

Qualia freaks, qualia philosophers, you got to get your shit together! All your mumbling is just noise. By postulating something that you can't explain don't event dare to call yourself scientists.

[caitrin12]

@SciTechExplained: That's not really an argument. Also, qualia philosophers are philosophers, not scientists. You're accusing them of false authority where they claim none. Unless you want to jump on the positivism bandwagon, I'm pretty sure they have the epistemic licence to argue against elminativism.

[SciTechExplained]

@caitrin12 Well if science can't explain consciousness you can be sure Chalmers and Searle won't be able either! They postulate qualia, but that needs an explanation also so they both quit explaining consciousness before they even begin to define it. Fail for them!

[alliant]

@SciTechExplained

I don't understand how one postulates qualia. these seem to be very obvious primitive FACTS about our reality as human beings. Your 'scientific attitude' is more religious certainty then intelligent agnosticism. If you think you've somehow solved the mystery of consciousness, conclusively, then I see now what Voltaire meant by Infinity.

[joevegan123]

@SciTechExplained Because science only postulates on things it can already explain? Pah

[SciTechExplained]

@joevegan123 , What I was trying to explain, and I'm sure the more erudite did manage to understand it, is that science doesn't postulate complex mechanisms and structures without triyng to explain their details and intricacies of their functioning. Qualia is a incoherent concept used by superficial "phylosophers of mind" that doesn't explain anything, brings no new insight into the understanding scene.

PS: Rhetoric: Got it now ???

[joevegan123]

@SciTechExplained Qualia is not a complex mechanism. But anyway - forget about the word Qualia... a hard problem is explaining why the brain generates the sensation of a pain. This is surely a legitimate question?

[joevegan123]

@SciTechExplained Besides that is just flatly wrong - think about Dark Matter. That is a phenomena that scientists postulate - but they don't really understand much about it at all.

[SciTechExplained]

@joevegan123 , Lot's of math accounts for the reason to believe in dark matter and dark energy. so, partly, dark matter and dark energy have reasons for being postulated because they come out of the scientists' equations; more to it, scientists don't make stupid assumptions about what dark matter and dark energy might be as the qualophiles do regarding the supposedly misterious nature of the 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' of the brain that they superficially call qualia...

[SciTechExplained]

@joevegan123 , off the subject now; it sounds to me that you're not stupid, you just have an agenda. Get over it: Qualia is dead, only science can explain anything, quit being such a insecure mysterion! bye

[joevegan123]

@SciTechExplained is there such a thing as a "pain sensation"? If yes: do we have a good scientific model explaining how it is generated?

[whitenightf3]

Consciousness does not come from the brain it comes through it. The brain is just a receiver that taps into information. This accounts for all phenomena dubbed psi which materialist cannot explain so they pretend it does not exist.

[mehico33]

@whitenightf3 You say that Mr. Selfsatisfied but you have no means of accounting for your own assertions. "They" (scientists) are doing a lot better than you and your fantastical worldview.

Im not hating here, but you can't point your disapproving finger unless you can back it up.

[whitenightf3]

@mehico33 The experiments are being done by the Scientists who are not fettered by the system. What we are now in the midst of is a paradigm shift materialism is breaking down because using Cartesian mechanics is only going to take us so far. Its a known fact that we have people born without brains in the medical literature so consciousness cannot be a epiphenomenon of the brain. The idea that the brain is a transmitter goes back to William James and he was no slouch, it accounts 4 psi events.

[mehico33]

@whitenightf3 Born without brains and still conscious?! Holy shit

[TheAccidentalMonk]

The brain is a conduit for consciousness, not the source of it.

People stuck on the latter being the case, are doomed to flail about in vain for any 'final answers'.

[Eric090307]

song?

[elephantmang]

@joetheli0n Dennett is a philosophical zombie and if you find him even remotely convincing then you must be too

[joetheli0n]

Chalmers is to Dan Dennett as Phlogiston is to the Standard Model.

[copernicus633]

@joetheli0n I hope you meant the opposite: Chalmers is to Dennett as the standard model is to phlogiston.

[StarOfFortune]

the mind is like a box, you can put things in it but you cant put the box in the box

[ClamCrunchy]

This guy looks like he's in a metal band.

[Seras6]

@ClamCrunchy he is :p its called "Zombie Blues"

[1simonmatthews]

If consciousness is a product of the brain, then I think there must be something in the brain that goes beyond our knowledge of nature - something that would seem supernatural to our current knowledge. When will our computer technology advance to a point where they are conscious? Well, with the current methods of computing at least, I think never. However, if anyone knows otherwise, I'm open to learning new things and I won't start calling people "retarded", like so many do on here...

[copernicus633]

@1simonmatthews I think that is correct. I think we have to postulate that some proto-consciousness is a fundamental property of matter. This material substrate "brings to life" the processes in the brain.

The unity of consciousness poses the "binding problem" which is the problem of spatial and temporal separation of subsets of the whole. Each neuron only "know" it's immediate boundary conditions. Somehow the totality must be merged into the unified experience. Perhaps quantum non locality.

[1simonmatthews]

@copernicus633 Well put :-)

[cunnidvd]

we don't get consciousness from a brain. consciousness is the ghost in the machine. it can and does exist apart from a brain.

[chulo113]

@cunnidvd wrong

[lsbrother]

@cunnidvd very wrong!

[onemealperdaynow]

conciousness is beyond the mind. The mind is beyond the brain. Brain is merely the phisical aspect of the mind , same as the body is the material anchor for the awareness point we are. My view from my own experience.

[SecularNumanist]

@onemealperdaynow

your view from your own experience?

so youre making a claim about something that must be verified outside of consciousness and youre going to base it on something you experienced in your own consciousness?

Thats retarded

[onemealperdaynow]

@SecularNumanist all i can speak from is experience and share that. we each must learn for ourselves however retarded you are you will learn.if you try. mentalizing does not help.

[JohananRaatz]

@SecularNumanist I think what he's getting at is that the mind/body problem must necessarily include things from both the empirical and mental categories of experience, and that you can't simply test one from the category of the other.

Remember the mind/body problem is unique in that unlike other problems which can be addressed purely with science, it has to be analyzed both a priori and a posteriori at once.

[Ko252]

@onemealperdaynow You proof is what? 

[MultiUniv3rsal]

This is Spinal Tap.

[polyphonicpoi]

@MultiUniv3rsal This consciousness goes up to 11!

[AlgeKalipso]

Someone get me 64 thousand dollars, Quick!

[ShitJustGotReal69]

im a Zombie and only act conscious

[daleshankins]

I would like to hear Chalmers specifically discuss Dimasio's definitions of consciousness. Emotion and reason are inextricably linked. We "feel" that there must be more to our subjective reality than the physical structure of the brain. Feeling that there should be more does not make it so. We do not know everything. Perhaps we never will, but in order to assert that consciousness is more than brain processes we need evidence of some sort, not just feelings.

[lookatmepleasesir]

@daleshankins do we feel that way or is it more like a direct perception? I wouldn't say we neccessarily feel that there is more to our subjective reality then the brain, we know that we are more then the physical structure of the brain. That doesn't mean our subjective reality isn't caused by the brain, but subjectivity itself has nothing to do with the brain - the brain is an abstraction within our consciousness or subjective reality. Intuitivley we know relatively nothing about the brian

[BeardedBill86]

@lookatmepleasesir Some people "know" that Thor exists, doesn't really prove anything.

[lookatmepleasesir]

@BeardedBill86 what does this have to do with anything

[BeardedBill86]

@lookatmepleasesir

It's not about what you know, it's about what you can prove.

The brain is not full proof by ANY standard, it can and does get it wrong, or what it receives is misinterpreted, everything you see is just a virtual reconstruction of the world around you taking place inside your brain, it is not infallible, none of your senses are.

I think the above make it clear why your statement "we know that we are more then the physical structure of the brain" needs backing up.

[lookatmepleasesir]

@BeardedBill86 we are conscious without knowing anything about the physical structure of the brain

[BeardedBill86]

@lookatmepleasesir And? If you could elaborate on your point there I'd appreciate it.

[lookatmepleasesir]

@BeardedBill86 we are still conscious whether or not we know anything about the brain. Being conscious does not give us an automatic or intuitive knowledge of the brain. Instead we have an automatic and intuitive knowledge about the outside world and the mental life.

[BeardedBill86]

@lookatmepleasesir To go further still, it's becoming fairly obvious conciousness as we understand it evolved in stages, we are brains upon brains upon brains each one a relic of some time period yet all working together and in many cases conflicting, this manifests itself in our behaviour.

So at what point did this "non-physical" conciousness "appear" in our evolutionary path? I put it to you it never did, that we are no more incorporeal than our limbs.

[lookatmepleasesir]

@BeardedBill86 are you asking me when consciousness appeared in our evolutionary history?

[daleshankins]

@lookatmepleasesir "we know that 'we' are more than the physical structure of the brain"; "subjectivity itself has nothing to do with the brain"; "the brain is an abstraction within our consciousness". I do not understand these statements. I agree that we do not have evidence for precisely how consciousness works and when/where it occurs in the brain. But the work of Dimasio, Harris and others shows that the subjective 'we' does in fact reside in the brain. Where else would it exist?

[fishybishbash]

@daleshankins You don't need evidence to postulate what is probably the case.. Chalmers is a scientist and is putting forward ideas which are based on scientific enquiry and reason, not just 'feelings'.

[daleshankins]

@fishybishbash You assert that "You don't need evidence to postulate what is PROBABLY the case..." Precisely how do you propose that we select "what is PROBABLY the case", if not based on evidence? Persuasive philosophy must always take a back seat to evidence. If Chalmers truly is a 'scientist' he must agree mustn't he? Scientists postulate, or generate hypotheses but always modify them based on evidence, not philosophy - no matter how persuasive it may be. Evidence surely trumps philosophy?

[fishybishbash]

@daleshankins Of course. You can think what you like but facts are facts. However, in the period between our experimentation and our gaining full possession of the facts, its necessary to put forward theses as to what may be the case (otherwise nobody would be bothering to find out anything). If you're serious about your subject, you extrapolate based as far as possible on evidence. His conclusion is that, for systematic reasons, neurobiology alone can never fully describe consciousness.

[daleshankins]

@fishybishbash "Facts are facts" yes, facts are evidence. "Necessary to put forth theses", yes, precisely what I meant about hypotheses. Asserting that "neurobiology alone can NEVER fully describe consciousness" implies that neuroscience will NEVER increase its current levels of technology and descriptive power. This is a bit of a stretch in my humble opinion. If anything, science has shown us that we often achieve things that once were thought to be impossible or that we could NEVER do.

[fishybishbash]

@daleshankins "neurobiology alone can NEVER fully describe consciousness"'...implies that neuroscience will NEVER increase its current levels of technology and descriptive power. '

No. It implies that if you're looking to neuroscience to fully describe the phenomenon of consciousness, along with its 'hard problem', you're probably looking in the wrong place.

[daleshankins]

@fishybishbash "you're probably looking in the wrong place" Where should we look? What "facts" (i.e. evidence) support looking there? Sounds like we have come full circle. Where's the evidence for the existence of consciousness somewhere outside of the brain? All the facts that I am aware of (admittedly I am ignorant of many things!) indicates consciousness exists in the brain (i.e. the work of Dimasio, Ramachandran and others at Dana.org).

[fishybishbash]

@daleshankins I'm not quite sure why you're so vehement in your dismissal of what seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposal by Chalmers. Consciousness is after all bound up with our perception of reality, establishing the substance of which is the leading edge of scientific endeavour. Lack of evidence, you say; there's no evidence that proves that consciousness is produced by the brain. No doubt eminent scientists have their opinion about this matter; Chalmers is one.

[daleshankins]

@fishybishbash "there's no evidence that proves consciousness is produced by the brain" Yes there is; beginning with the simple fact that brain damage affects consciousness. The seminal case of Phineas Gage provides more insight the links between the brain and consciousness. Antonio Dimasio's book "Descartes Error" is a good starting point for insight into Gage's case and the neuroscience of consciousness. Nature often is counterintuitive and doesn't care about what "seems" reasonable.

[fishybishbash]

@daleshankins 'the simple fact that brain damage affects consciousness' is not proof that consciousness is produced by the brain. Obviously the brain is the mechanism by which consciousness in a sentient being comes about, but again that does not prove that consciousness is 'produced' by the brain and you're entirely wrong in your belief to the contrary. If there was proof, Chalmers would not be postulating otherwise, Obviously not.

[daleshankins]

@fishybishbash "brain is the mechanism by which consciousness...comes about" Comes about = produced? "If there was proof, Chalmers would not be postulating otherwise, Obviously not." I must wait for verifiable evidence other than metaphysical arguments regardless of the titles/degrees of those offering them. I lack the talent for believing a "postulation" or hypothesis without such evidence. I wish you and Chalmers well my friend. I truly do. Peace.

[fishybishbash]

@daleshankins I know exactly where you're coming from on this and understand your reasons for wishing to adhere to the cold hard facts. I realise this is an esoteric area of enquiry prone to some of the more fanciful and romantic imaginings of the human mind. I'm an advocate of science and if there's one thing that it has achieved its showing that the basis of 'reality' is proving to be elusive and confusing, even absurd at quantum levels. All bets are off, basically. Thanks for chatting -

[invanorm]

@daleshankins You are aware that science itself is based upon its own metaphysical assumptions, and that sometimes it is important to think logically rather than dogmatically scientific. Consciousness 'occurs' with the brain: Fact. Consciousness is produced by mechanisms in the brain: Hypothesis. That hypothesis is based upon its own philosophical assumptions that are perfectly reasonable to question.

[invanorm]

Of course, that doesn't mean that the floodgates are open and any explanation will go. You don't want any religious dogma entering into the discussion either, nor some lofty new-age nonsense. All it means is that we need to explore the logical possibilities. Analysis of the validity of our concepts (like Qualia) and how they relate to the overall phenomenon within our brains. Don't discount philosophy wholesale, as an enterprise it helps clear up ambiguities within our working concepts.

[daleshankins]

@invanorm "science itself is based upon...metaphysical assumptions" I guess that's true if you want to say that everything is based metaphysical assumptions and thus is uncertain. However, if you use that line of reasoning then there is very little point in discussing anything since everything would remain "metaphysical". As for questioning, I totally agree. Science requires that all hypotheses be questioned and tested empirically. Is it dogmatic to require empirical evidence? If so, BOW WOW.

[JohananRaatz]

@fishybishbash Agreed, the intersection between physics and metaphysics is categorically the appropriate place to be searching for the answer to the hard problem -not merely neuroscience.

[Ko252]

@fishybishbash Based on what? Do have you have any reliable data that consciousness is more than a construct of the complex biological network constituting our brain?

[fishybishbash]

@Ko252 There's no proof either way. Neuroscience is nowhere near proving that consciousness is 'a construct of (a) complex biological network'. Qualia does not equal consciousness. Subjective experience is subtle and esoteric and there is no data that states that its emergence is the direct result of the mechanism of the brain.

[Ko252]

@fishybishbash "There's no proof either way". Yet, it doesnt stop you from making a conclusion. The complexity and conjoinment of qualia might constitute consciousness, and thus be the result of the different assosciation centres of the brain.

[JohananRaatz]

@Ko252 "Based on what?"

Actually, they found these in 2010 -qubits in microtubules:

watch?v=VQngptkPYE8

Which makes sense as Wigner's friend already told us that was what consciousness was: watch?v=crzgOuUtvrg

[shyan042688]

provided that "consciousness" is wholly embodied within this physical device called the brain, it is difficult to see how there will be anything left to understand about "consciousness" once the brain is understood at the neural implementational level...of course, it is not possible to achieve this kind of understanding with current neuroimaging techniques...but that would only amount to an epistemological problem (hopefully only temporary), not a metaphysical one, as Chalmers appears to claim

[fishybishbash]

@shyan042688 I suppose this all hinges on how you conceive of consciousness, of how it appears to you. The hard problem of consciousness is hard because its difficult to assimilate that which is without physical attributes, in this case subjective experience, into the process which brought about the physical universe. It has no substance, but self evidently exists.

[shyan042688]

*in the different regions of the brain are encoding

[shyan042688]

haha...these philosophers like to make something out of nothing...once we understand precisely what all the individual neurons in the different brain are encoding, what they are communicating through the synapses (i.e., the content), and what specific codes they are using to transmit the different kinds of information through the dendrites (i.e., by firing rates, temporal patterns, or through specific neurotransmitters), then we will have achieved a comprehensive understanding of the brain...

[SimKoning]

@shyan042688 Which will still leave the problem he described. There is no logical reason why an extremely complex chemical reaction should manifest as anything beyond that, yet it does in the form of qualia such as the *experience* of color, sound, pain etc. Why should photons, which hit my retina, which then cause nerves to fire in my occipital lobe, manifest as *anything* beyond that process?

[shyan042688]

@SimKoning your last question is not clear to me...because i don't see why the overall functioning of an organization could not result from the individual contributions of its members...we don't yet know what specific information any particular neuron is encoding at any given moment, how it is communicating this information to other neurons, and how this communication is influencing processing in other neurons...for example, how do we distinguish red from blue at the neural level? we can't "yet"

[n920gl]

The neurobiolgical explanation is answering the question..Our species specific enormous angular gyrus and self-organizing system of neuronal connections in language centers; Broca and Wernicke area(s)..The bigger question for me anyway, is, "How do these neurons collectively substantiate meaning?"..It will come down to neuronal circuitry and the connections in Broca's and Wernicke's areas....

[Otody]

@hfhadi Qualia is not another term for conciousness, i don't think they can be interchanged like that. Qualia are the feeling of an experience (hence why sometimes they are called 'raw feels', conciousness is a broader term for the subjective part of the mind, the bit that allows you to be self aware.

[lookatmepleasesir]

@Otody but qualia are conscious, they're like subjective data, so it allows consciousness to be brought into a more scientific framework. We could process all information unconsciously, but we have information which is raw subjectivity

[MartinMouseBrave]

You are claiming there is no "consciousness". Are we to infer that you have successfully defined consciounsess (since, in order to negate something, one must presumably know what it is that is being negated).

[glenorchyair]

There's no such thing as 'consciousness'.  It's just another religion in disguise from the people that brought us moral philosophy.

[hfhadi]

@glenorchyair You obviously don't know what "consciousness" is. Another term for it is "Qualia". There are philosophical discussions about humans without consciousness. They are called: "Philosophical zombie"

[klarkolofsson]

@hfhadi Consciousness and qualia are not terms for the same "thing". Though qualia is a very basic feature of our consciousness. Talking about zombies, I like the idea of "inverse zombies".

[berettaNZ]

@hfhadi Qualia is not another term for consciousness. Consciousness is what *enables* us to experience qualia.

[JohananRaatz]

@glenorchyair You're being sarcastic right? (I'm presuming there is a CONSCIOUS mind that wrote that comment)

[IcaroVolera]

@JohananRaatz

The fact that you "feel" your consciousness, and you can see his effects on the physical world doesn't mean that "consciousness" is a concept that has a physical equivalent. Just like the "concept" of soul the concept of consciousness might not be the most useful or economic (or even the most correct: think about the newton's concept of gravity after the relativity's theory). It's not so foolish claiming that there is not consciousness, probably it's just too radical.

[JohananRaatz]

@IcaroVolera Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not a dualist. And I agree the solution will have to be radical -which is why I'm a neutral monist, I think we live in something akin to a mind-independent version of an abstraction but don't realize it. Information is the key neutral thing with aspects of both physicality and mentality,

[Ko252]

@JohananRaatz Maybe Turings test has been solved?

[JohananRaatz]

@Ko252 Turing's test isn't something that needs solving, it's just a means to see if a computer appears to be conscious or not.

[Ko252]

@JohananRaatz I know what it means, and it implies a problem that needs to be solved.

[JohananRaatz]

@Ko252 True, the Turing test only tells us if something seems conscious, it doesn't let us figure out if it actually is. The hard problem is one tough nut to crack -though philosophically it is a lot of fun.