The+Hard+Problem+of+Consciousness

**The Hard Problem of Consciousness**
Though recently codified by [|David Chalmers] as the problem of "how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience," (16) the mystery of how consciousness came about, what exactly it is, and why it exists is longstanding issue. This claim is substantiated by [|Julian Jayne's] argument that the various metaphors for consciousness reflects the time period in which such metaphors were created. In making this point, Jaynes also claims that these metaphors cannot in fact portray the nature of consciousness in a way that allows our understanding of it to progress. How exactly to understand the nature of consciousness is as controversial as the existence of the hard problem of consciousness itself.

Chalmers on the Hard Problem

"The hard problem is the question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. This puzzle involves the inner aspect of thought and perception: the way things feel for the subject. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations, such as that of vivid blue. Or think of the ineffable sound of a distant oboe, the agony of intense pain, the sparkle of happiness or the meditative quality of a moment lost in thought. All are part of what I call consciousness. It is these phenomena that pose the real mystery of the mind"(16). 

=**Arguments for the Hard Problem: Thought Experiments ** =

Philosophers often use thought experiments to demonstrate the hard problem of consciousness.

**[|The Problem of Mary] (Frank Jackson)**  Imagine a neuroscientist, Mary, who knows all the physical facts about color and the way the human brain processes it upon visual stimulation: e.g. its physical luminance and reflectance properties, the neural activation potentials involved in color processing, etc. However, imagine that she lives in a black and white room and is sheltered from all color experience. If it seems conceivable that if Mary were to leave her black-and-white room and see the color red for the first time and subsequently come to "know" or learn something new about reality, then it seems conceivable that the actual experience of "red" (and of color in general) is not a matter of purely physical facts, but rather a "psychophysical" fact about consciousness. In other words, if indeed Mary "learns" something new about red upon //seeing// it, then there exists a property of "red" or the experience of red which she was previously ignorant of, physical or otherwise (given that she knew every physical fact about color experience). This suggests that color experience is not a wholly physical phenomenon.

**The Brain Mass (Julian Jaynes)**

 Imagine a scenario where a neuroscientist has a brain stored in a vat filled with life-sustaining chemicals. Then suppose this neuroscientist possesses complete knowledge of the processes the brain. She knows which sections of the brain correspond to bodily functions, thought patterns, emotional responses, etc. She also knows everything about the location and sensitivity of stimuli and their effects on the processes of the brain. From this knowledge of the physical brain, it is conceivable that the neuroscientist may know whether or not the brain has conscious experience. However, the tools used in current-day neuroscience do not suggest that a knowledge of the physical brain, however complete, will include any knowledge of consciousness. In light of this scenario, Jaynes argues that consciousness is not a physical process of the brain and cannot be scientifically observed.

=Arguments for the Hard Problem: The "Open Question" Argument  = Though Chalmers is known for substantiating the hard problem using thought experiences, he may also be interpreted as using a particular kind of argument called the "open question" argument.

[|G.E. Moore] first used the open question argument to substantiate his claim that "the good" was a fundamental (and thus irreducible) aspect of reality. His argument claimed that the question of //why// an action is good is never answerable, as it is always open to a further "why" question. For instance, in asking why feeding the poor is good, an answer like "because the poor are dying without food" we can further ask (however counter-intuitive it may be) "why is it good that the poor are prevented from dying", and on and on. Consciousness, it might be argued, has the same irreducibility and hence is a "hard" problem.
 * 1) <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Since the question of how consciousness emerges is unanswerable, then the question of consciousness is "open".
 * 2) <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The subject of any open question is itself a fundamental component of reality.
 * 3) <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So, consciousness is a fundamental component of reality.

=<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** Criticism on the “Open Question” Argument: ** = <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Open Question argument states that if a question is unanswerable (when one can always ask “why”), then it is a fundamental part of reality. If these are the standards for the fundaments of reality, then every subject that can be put into question form is a fundament of reality; one can always ask “why” to any question. Take, for example, the area of a triangle. If one asks “how do you find the area of a triangle?” the appropriate answer is //“ ½bh”//. However, that does not need to be the end to the question. The questioner may further ask “why does that equal the area of a triangle?” and the answerer can explain in any mathematical way why the triangle’s area is //“½bh”//, but there never comes an end to why //“½bh”// is the area of a triangle. The answers may be //limited//, for there is only a certain amount of ways to explain math and area, but that does not mean that the initial question has a complete answer. The same can be true if one is asked “what is the color of this table?” Even though the answer is “black” one can still infinitely ask why the table is black, or what makes it so the table is black. Therefore, every question is subject to asking “why” forever. This being true, the “Open Question” argument is not exclusive, and if the argument is not exclusive, it does not bring us any closer to finding out what consciousness really is; it merely tells us it is a part of reality just like anything else. <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Response to the Criticism on the "Open Question" Argument:
2. The subject of any open question is itself a fundamental component of reality. The criticism above uses the example of the area of a triangle to attempt to disprove the "Open Question" Argument by asserting that the area of a triangle can be questioned "why?" //ad infinitum// and yet is not in itself a fundamental component of reality. This objection failed to take into account its own assertion that "there is only a certain amount of ways to explain math and area." This gets much closer to the fundamental component of reality: geometry, or more generally, mathematics. Why is //1/2bh// the area of a triangle? It's because theories of mathematics have determined that such geometrical formulas are accurate in determining area. Why? Because mathematics is a fundamental component of reality. Similarly, the color example can be reduced to wave lengths which can be reduced to the fundamental concept of physics (a least in a Newtonian understanding of the universe). Thus the question of how consciousness emerges fits the "Open Question" criteria listed above and is a fundamental component of reality.

=Argument against the Hard Problem= Perhaps it is that I am missing something. I can not grasp this concept of the hard problem. If science can not answer it then we must rely on introspection. This seems to not answer it for me. If Introspection is faulty then how can we use it to find the answer to Consciousness. This may lead us to an answer, but how can we be certain that it is the right now because we have used a faulty source. It appears that introspection is too private and subjective to answer the problem of consciousness. I am not saying that it is an easy problem. I am saying that it deserves it's own category. A category of problems that will never be solved. I believe the answer for consciousness will never be found because it isn't something that can be described. There seems to be a language barrier. Along with this, there are a number of things that seem to be subjective to each consciousness. One consciousness found does not mean it will lead to all consciousnesses being found.
 * 1) Introspection is used to answer the hard problem
 * 2) Introspection is faulty
 * 3) The answer to the hard problem may be flawed
 * 4) There will be no way to know if it is correct
 * 5) Thus, we will never know if the problem of consciousness will ever be answered correctly

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Examples of "easy" problems <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Easy problems of consciousness provide claims as to which neural activations correlate with which conscious experiences. In other words, "easy" problems do not provide a necessary causes for consciousness, but rather sufficient conditions.

====<span style="display: block; font-size: 1.06em; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** The case of Phineas Gage  **  ====

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"> [|Phineas Gage] was a railroad foreman who had a horrible but scientifically monumental accident. On September 13th, 1848 he was struck with a rod (approximately 4ft) through the skull. He survived but suffered severe damage to his brain, particularly the left frontal lobe. (The frontal lobe is primarily associated with high-level mental activity.) After the accident his personality changed; he went from being level headed to short tempered. This change in personality shows a clear correlation between behavior and the brain. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Phineas Gage case lead to an increased interest in and implementation of psycho-surgery, including the notorious lobotomy. This could be seen as a precursor to the debate concerning the physical correlates of consciousness. The surgeons' reasoning can be summarized (and contemporized) in the following argument:  <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1) Humans have both a brain and consciousness. 2) When one modifies the brain, the consciousness is also changed. 3)Therefore there is a connection between the human brain and the human consciousness.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> =<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Religious Response =

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Man is made in the image of God. Surely God has consciousness. Clearly however, man is not capable of fully understanding God. Perhaps consciousness is one aspect of existence that we share with God, yet at the same time something that we cannot fully understand. (If this is true, then the hard problem of consciousness will remain indefinitely.)

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> Following Chalmer's statement that "not all entities in science are explained in terms of more basic entities," (pp. 19) it seems to follow that his intimation of consciousness' being an irreducible feature of reality is accurate. This suggestion may speak poignantly to religious folk, who already believe that there are some things (i.e., goodness and truth) that exist as non-physical features of reality, albeit in an uncomfortably inexplicable way. If consciousness //is non-physical//, the possibility arises that the hard and easy problems might indeed require a reverse in names. ====<span style="display: block; font-size: 1.06em; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** Religious Experience: The God Helmet ** ====

====<span style="display: block; font-size: 149.24%; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">media type="youtube" key="8YPOTaUyvA0?fs=1" height="251" width="422" align="left" ====

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Neuroscientist Michael Persinger discovered a way to stimulate the temporal lobes to induce a "mystical experience." A majority of participants felt a presence which many called a religious experience. Persinger's study, however, only presents sufficient conditions for religious experience, not a necessary cause of how such experiences arises or why we are capable of consciously experiencing this "other".

=Religious Experience: The Soul= If we take the viewpoint that objective data is closely tied to the body (e.g sight, sounds, tastes, etc.) then perhaps consciousness is closely tied to the soul. This connection would reinforce the idea that consciousness is indeed non-physical. The reason we don’t understand consciousness is because we don’t really understand the soul. Where does the soul come from? Does the soul give life or is the soul life itself? Has a particular soul always lived, or does it have a beginning? Does the soul indeed live forever (whether it has a beginning or not).

If the soul and consciousness are connected, how can we understand consciousness without a better understanding of the soul? It takes a good understanding of the body and its mechanisms to really understand objective observations. Likewise, it would seem to follow that we must understand the soul to be able to grasp our consciousness.

One final thought: if the soul is thought to be eternal, and if consciousness is hypothesized to be closely related to the soul, then does one’s consciousness live forever as well? Just as no one can undeniably prove that the soul does or does not exist forever, neither can it be proved that consciousness does or does not live eternally. So, once again, we have another possible aspect of consciousness that we cannot fully understand.