The Hard Problem of Consciousness

[Foreigner]

https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-one

What is the best way to understand consciousness? In philosophy, centuries-old debates continue to rage over whether the Universe is divided, following René Descartes, into ‘mind stuff’ and ‘matter stuff’. But the rise of modern neuroscience has seen a more pragmatic approach gain ground: an approach that is guided by philosophy but doesn’t rely on philosophical research to provide the answers. Its key is to recognise that explaining why consciousness exists at all is not necessary in order to make progress in revealing its material basis – to start building explanatory bridges from the subjective and phenomenal to the objective and measurable.

Let’s begin with David Chalmers’s influential distinction, inherited from Descartes, between the ‘easy problem’ and the ‘hard problem’. The ‘easy problem’ is to understand how the brain (and body) gives rise to perception, cognition, learning and behaviour. The ‘hard’ problem is to understand why and how any of this should be associated with consciousness at all: why aren’t we just robots, or philosophical zombies, without any inner universe? It’s tempting to think that solving the easy problem (whatever this might mean) would get us nowhere in solving the hard problem, leaving the brain basis of consciousness a total mystery.

But there is an alternative, which I like to call the real problem: how to account for the various properties of consciousness in terms of biological mechanisms; without pretending it doesn’t exist (easy problem) and without worrying too much about explaining its existence in the first place (hard problem)

Please read the whole article before participating in this thread. It's very fascinating.

The author, via neuroscience, paints some interesting conclusions about the assumptions we make regarding consciousness. One of his most interesting points is that our experience of having a body and a static self is a sort of controlled hallucination based on past beliefs and expectations, when the truth is that nothing is static. Even what one thinks of as ones self is not 'one thing' but a huge variety of inputs and reactions being measured and reassessed every moment. It's all a regulatory process that arises from the meat trying to maintain itself in orientation to other objects in the world.

Ironically, predictive models explain consciousness better than sensory models for this reason. Rather than I think therefore I am, it's more like I predict myself and therefore I am. You assume you're a you and that you're in there somewhere, so it continues to arise in a self-affirming way, even though it has a fluidic, mutable nature.

The author ends up reducing consciousness to the brain and materialism only, but I thought it could be fun to have a consciousness discussion based on these principles because the 'hard problem' is pervasive in all of philosophy. In materialism, this author's theory makes a lot more sense to me than anything I've heard previously.

 

[Volsam]

I like theorize how in the future, when 3D printers will be able to replicate living beings (I guess there would be simple organisms first) down to nM and even smaller detail (as some scientists theorize that nanotubules or something small enough could be a seat for consciousness), would it be enough to "provide a vessel" for consciousness to reside in, would that "printed" organism become alive on its own right away?..

As for predictive models and our sense of "self": IMO merely observing is enough to create an outcome - I guess that's how we ultimately as consciousness bearers create and sustain this Universe, or at the very least, our lives.

Interesting topic for conversation...8)

 

[motiv311]

I see us as one consciousness existing in many bodies , a network in and of itself... The body is not real, but is a good way to experience seemingly real physical things, and to also seperate the conscious universe from its connection to itself, so we can play make believe with each other that we are different entities. not just one

 

[Foreigner]

I see us as one consciousness existing in many bodies , a network in and of itself... The body is not real, but is a good way to experience seemingly real physical things, and to also seperate the conscious universe from its connection to itself, so we can play make believe with each other that we are different entities. not just one

That doesn't answer the hard problem though. Why do we have an inner universe as opposed to just being pure biological robots? Or are we robots? How do we distinguish the two? The easy problem is just ruling that we are the sum of our parts, our brain is our consciousness, etc... but it doesn't explain why I'm me and you're you.

 

[motiv311]

In a way we are robots.... programmed by creation to form an identity and somehow manage your way through life in a overall pleasant as possible manner .... beat the competition if possible and fuck and procreate... to seek love and vengeance against ones enemies

 

[hail_satan]

the earth is flat and we are all one

 

[FnX]

I think it would be a rational approach, poking the easy problem hard enough so that it doesn't make sense to explore that angle any further. It's valuable information nevertheless, even if it doesn't end up unraveling the mystery of consciousness. I do get this sort of 'elephant in the room' feeling when people are trying to explain consciousness as a biological mechanism originating from the brain, because if we could have a brain in a completely isolated system with absolutely no input, would we still say it's conscious? Consciousness via the brain kind of depends on some sort of input. A brain without any input from it's surroundings is essentially a dead brain. Therefore I would be inclined to think that the brain is only a part of our consciousness and by looking at the brain alone we probably can't explain consciousness in it's entirety. If we could map the brain and understand it completely, it should provide us with insight what aspects of consciousness can't be explained by biological mechanisms alone, if any.

"I think therefore I am" or any variation of it, I don't think I would think at all if there was no division of internal and external. Perhaps that is exactly where consciousness as we know it actually lies (if it makes any sense to try pinpoint it at all), somewhere between the internal and external. Dependent on both, yet neither of them by itself. I like the 'real problem', to me it feels like an attempt to get around the dualistic thinking regarding this issue. Mind and matter are awfully vague concepts the deeper we start probing them.

 

[Vastness]

if we could have a brain in a completely isolated system with absolutely no input, would we still say it's conscious? Consciousness via the brain kind of depends on some sort of input. A brain without any input from it's surroundings is essentially a dead brain.

I don't think this is true. What about people who are in a coma, sleeping, or under the influence of a powerful general anaesthetic? In all 3 cases, to some extent, sensory input has been switched off, but in all 3 cases there is probably measurable brain activity and in some cases people will remember things that happened in their "inner universe" while their external inputs were switched off.

I could posit an interesting thought experiment as well in answer to the question posed in this sentence - suppose we have the technology to remove the brain from a living person, perfectly sever the spinal cord and all input sensory neurons, and then immerse it in an oxygenated, sterile biological fluid which provides all nutrients and energy needed for it to remain alive and continue functioning, yet with zero sensory input... I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that the consciousness contained within this brain is going to continue experiencing something despite the unnatural and artificially absolute sensory silence... much like some kind of far future (and admittedly slightly dystopian) sensory deprivation tank. Of course it's entirely open to speculation what exactly would happen to the brain when entirely left to its' own devices for an extended period and whether this isolation would result in some kind of madness or dysfunction that was eventually sufficient to snuff out the light of consciousness within it, but even then I'm inclined to think that it would still be in some sense very much alive.

 

[El Vapo]

The conclusions reached in this theory are not at all dissimilar to those which result from the hypothesis of bicameralism, which argues that cognitive functions are divided between one part of the brain which speaks - and a second part which appears to be listening and obeying

 

[FnX]

I don't think this is true. What about people who are in a coma, sleeping, or under the influence of a powerful general anaesthetic? In all 3 cases, to some extent, sensory input has been switched off, but in all 3 cases there is probably measurable brain activity and in some cases people will remember things that happened in their "inner universe" while their external inputs were switched off.

I could posit an interesting thought experiment as well in answer to the question posed in this sentence - suppose we have the technology to remove the brain from a living person, perfectly sever the spinal cord and all input sensory neurons, and then immerse it in an oxygenated, sterile biological fluid which provides all nutrients and energy needed for it to remain alive and continue functioning, yet with zero sensory input... I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that the consciousness contained within this brain is going to continue experiencing something despite the unnatural and artificially absolute sensory silence... much like some kind of far future (and admittedly slightly dystopian) sensory deprivation tank. Of course it's entirely open to speculation what exactly would happen to the brain when entirely left to its' own devices for an extended period and whether this isolation would result in some kind of madness or dysfunction that was eventually sufficient to snuff out the light of consciousness within it, but even then I'm inclined to think that it would still be in some sense very much alive.

I won't disagree with you here about sleep, coma etc and I find that thought experiment interesting. When I wrote the previous post apparently I left out a crucial detail that I thought I had mentioned, I meant to say 'a brain that has never received any kind of input, living in a completely isolated system. The fact that this is physically impossible (and it's hard to think it could be possible in the future either) speaks for itself I think. Just the simple fact that this brain would receive oxygen at fluctuating intervals means it's getting input of some kind to which it will react, depending on for example the amount of oxygen. Think of nurture vs nature, I'm sure nobody would argue that the effects of previous nurture would have a lasting effect even if that a person was 100% isolated at a later point in their life.

For me, to have no division of internal and external would require that there was no previous exposure to the external at all.

 

[cyberius]

Ah this was a good one, read about this in the past.

Papers like these are why I'm getting a neurobiology degree.

I'd call it extremely sophisticated reacting using logos and patterns to decode and encode "conscious thought". Why do we act the way we do? Our behavior evolves as a baby and we apply invisible layers of psychological processing to empirically compete. Executive function is the most inquisitive thing of all because it seperates us from animals. Our ancestors must of gotten pretty fucking self conscious or devestated to have developed such a mental perversion that can only be described as "thought"

I don't think it'll be long before we figure this out personally.

 

[cyberius]

That doesn't answer the hard problem though. Why do we have an inner universe as opposed to just being pure biological robots? Or are we robots? How do we distinguish the two? The easy problem is just ruling that we are the sum of our parts, our brain is our consciousness, etc... but it doesn't explain why I'm me and you're you.

Why does the inner universe exist, and where does it get it's inspiration from? Is the inner universe not just filtered data from our sensory input bouncing around because it was subconsciously relevant to your survival

 

[Econometric]

Thanks for sharing this. It has been a fascinating read. I will have more to say once I process it all, but all I can think of at the moment is that the article seems to be boiling down consciousnesses to a mathematical problem - I've only read half, I know bad me, but I couldn't help myself. I just can't see how we as humans can be boiled down to such a simple calculus. I fully agree that it will happen, that the substitution for capital over labour will continue in ways we have not seen to date. But I just don't know if a network of softmax regressions can answer the question why I feel so bad when my relationship fails - sure it might answer the problem of optimal choice so there is no failure. But part of the human condition is these blips...

Will follow up

 

[protovack]

The easy solution to this hard problem is actually to just flip it upside down--assume that consciousness is actually the primary active force in the universe and that everything else arises from it. As in, whittle away the body piece by piece and even with no matter left, the consciousness remains, albeit diffused into the rest of everything. So, the true nature of consciousness is that it is universal and exists everywhere at all times. But with biological life, it becomes condensed and filtered through a physical body which lasts just a few short years before breaking down and releasing the consciousness back into the ocean again. It will indeed be the climax of my existence when my brain finally, gradually, shuts down system by system, wondering if "I" will continue existing after my last neuron dies. What if I DO?
Or what if you die quickly in an accident, will you have enough time to figure it out? Will there be a time where you aren't really sure if you are dead or alive?
This is why we are afraid of death

 

[drug_mentor]

^ You're talking about panpsychism, and it isn't really a solution to the 'hard problem' of consciousness. From the article:

The 'easy problem' is to understand how the brain (and body) gives rise to perception, cognition, learning and behaviour. The 'hard' problem is to understand why and how any of this should be associated with consciousness at all: why aren't we just robots, or philosophical zombies, without any inner universe? It's tempting to think that solving the easy problem (whatever this might mean) would get us nowhere in solving the hard problem, leaving the brain basis of consciousness a total mystery.

(My emphasis.)

It's true that the panpsychist can give a (fairly superficial) answer to the hard problem as it is posed in the above quote, namely: 'because everything is conscious, there is no special mystery about human consciousness'. I see this less as a 'solution' and more a way of making the question a bit more general, it seems the panpsychist is faced with the following version of the hard problem: 'why should elementary particles be associated with consciousness at all?'. Perhaps the panpsychist can more plausibly reply that this is just a 'brute fact' than those who adopt other theories of mind, but this seems like a bit of a cop out. Moreover, since any plausible version of panpsychism will say that elementary particles are only minimally conscious (i.e. do not have complex thoughts and experiences like humans do) the panpsychist still has to answer the 'combination problem': why should a bunch of minimally conscious elementary particles organised into a brain give rise to a unified, complex form of consciousness? It seems to me that the 'combination problem' for panpsychism is very similar to the 'hard problem' for other theories of mind, consequently, I fail to see how panpsychism offers the explanatory benefits that its proponents claim.

 

[protovack]

I see the "hard problem of consciousness" not as a hard problem at all, more like the people framing it as such on some level want it to be unsolvable, and thus it is framed as such. People who can't, or don't want to admit that in all likelihood, consciousness is not directly rooted in or tied to physical matter, or sensory experiences, much as it might appear that way to our limited perceptions. Neuroscience will cover the easy problem. The so called "hard problem" is in a different realm and if you want to truly address it you have to be willing step up a level of abstraction, to the things unseen, to the world of belief. And I find it funny that this is called a "cop out" as if it's somehow the easier part of the journey. Spending years struggling to understand your consciousness, then having to give it all up and engage with the unseen world for which we have no reference at all. "Cop out". Moral of the story--don't make the rookie mistake of assuming the so called "soft" and "hard" problems can be solved in the same way. Otherwise, like the author cited in the OP, you'll just end up at the dead end of materialism, and isn't that what we were trying to avoid in the first place?

 

[Yourbaker]

Ive given this suject a lot of thought.

Consciousness to me is like a controlling app for the higher functioning apps in my brain that control the lower functions I don't have to control. If I was evolving a functioning brain I would see the inherent use in putting things like heart beat and organ functions on regular schedules needing no thought control. The question though for me is why do we have thought control at all. When I'm in crisis it helps but when I'm in safety it seems to be able to explore anything at all.

In today's society despite rumours of impending doom I am in safety nearly 100% of the time so my conscious brain is able to be creative. My natural human tendency is to use my free time while safe to realize new concepts to enhance my life further. Despite not being able to understand consciousness properly I can see the direct need for it and I'm certain I see it in some animals as well.

Our brain is a super computer and consciousness is only a small percentage of what is going on. Realizing that much more important human functions are not in my conscious control I wonder about the nature of me. Not why don't I control my heart beat but rather why can't I? This is where consciousness starts to look like a ghost in the machine and the argument begins "am I me or am I Just guiding me"?

After years of deep meditation I can slightly alter my body temperature.... by forcing my thinking into certain loops i can jncrease and decrease my heart rate... in the end it seems consciousness has very little control over me but allows control only over my actions.

My consciousness is really for interaction outside of my body more then for looking internally. We are an outward facing animal in a social setting with little to no control over our own internal functions. Thanks to consciousness we can discuss this but our lower brains just don't seem to give up the answers.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Yes.

 

[JK25]

Very interesting analogy.

 

[Yourbaker]

I wanted to bring this topic back from the dead if possible and ask what your opinions really are on the root of consciousness.

Does consciousness rise from a specific brain function (ie found only in animals that have brains) or is it a function of all living cells and is only self aware in animals that have high brain functions?

Personally I can't see it as a brain dependant issue simply because I see what appears to be consciousness in nature. I can argue that I am only observing instinct from my own predictive modeling brain, so it appears as conscious action when observed by my conscious thinking. If I use that same line of reasoning I can no longer hold my definition of consciousness when I consider my own consciousness. I simply can be explained as like all other life, having a much higher instinctual ability allowing even for self denial in favour of the larger organism of humanity. All my human good will and belief that I control my free will can slip away and I'm not really more then a plant. This becomes a somewhat depressing view but the opposite view leave me with the problem of consciousness springing from all life.

So my current opinion is that consciousness is a function of a living organism and I can't say how the predictive modeling of consciousness occurs in plants as they don't seem to have a 'seat of consciousness'.

Any thoughts?