Jump to content

Hard problem of consciousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A.gee.dizzle (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 23 June 2023 (→Criticisms of Elimiative Materialism / Illusionism: the being deluded > the delusion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For other uses, see Hard problem (disambiguation).

The hard problem of consciousness asks why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experiences.[1] This is in contrast to the "easy problems" of explaining the physical systems that give humans and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, perform behavioural functions, or provide behavioural reports, and so forth. The easy problems are considered "easy" not because they are literally easy problems to solve, but because they are problems that are in principle amenable to functional explanations: that is, explanations that are mechanistic or behavioural, as they can be explained (at least in principle) purely by reference to the "structure and dynamics" that underpin the phenomenon in question.[2][3][4] Proponents of the hard problem argue that conscious experience is categorically different in this respect, since no mechanistic or behavioural explanation could explain the character of an experience, even in principle, because even after all the relevant functional facts are explicated, there will still remain a further question: "why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?"[5] To bolster their case, proponents of the hard problem frequently turn to various philosophical thought experiments, such as the concievability of philosophical zombies or inverted qualia, the ineffability of colour experiences or inability to know states foriegn states of consciousness, such as the experience of what is is like to be a bat.

Chalmers on stage for an Alan Turing Year event at De La Salle University, Manila, 27 March 2012

The terms 'hard problem' and 'easy problems' were coined by the philosopher David Chalmers in a 1994 talk given at The Science of Consciousness conference held in Tuscon, Arizona.[6] The following year, the main talking points of Chalmers talk was then published in The Journal of Consciousness Studies.[3] The publication gained significant attention from consciousness researchers, and became the subject of a special volume of the journal[7][8] which was later published into a book.[9] In 1996, Chalmers published The Conscious Mind: a book length treatement of the hard-problem, in which he elaborated on his core arguments and responded to their counterarguments.

The existence of the hard problem is disputed. It has been accepted by philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine,[10] Colin McGinn,[11] and Ned Block[12] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela,[13] Giulio Tononi,[14][15] and Christof Koch.[14][15] However, its existence is denied by philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennett,[16] Massimo Pigliucci,[17] Thomas Metzinger, Patricia Churchland,[18] and Keith Frankish,[19] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene,[20] Bernard Baars,[21] Anil Seth,[22] and Antonio Damasio.[23] According to a 2020 PhilPapers survey, 29.72% of philosophers surveyed believe that the hard problem does not exist, while 62.42% of philosophers surveyed believe that the hard problem is a genuine problem.[24]

Overview

David Chalmers first formulated the hard problem in his paper "Facing up to the problem of consciousness" (1995)[3] and expanded upon it in The Conscious Mind (1996). His works provoked comment. Some, such as David Lewis and Steven Pinker, have praised Chalmers for his argumentative rigour and "impeccable clarity".[25] Others, such as Daniel Dennett and Patricia Churchland, believe that the hard problem is best seen as a collection of easy problems that will be solved through further analysis of the brain and behaviour.[26][27]

Consciousness is an ambiguous term. It can be used to mean self consciousness, awareness, the state of being awake, and so on. Chalmers uses Thomas Nagel's definition of consciousness: the feeling of what it is like to be something. Consciousness, in this sense, is synonymous with experience.[28][25]

Chalmers' formulation

. . .even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience—perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report—there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?

— David Chalmers, Facing up to the problem of consciousness

The problem of consciousness, Chalmers argues, is two problems: the easy problems and the hard problem.

Easy problems

The easy problems are amenable to reductive inquiry. They are a logical consequence of lower level facts about the world, similar to how a clock's ability to tell time is a logical consequence of its clockwork and structure, or a hurricane is a logical consequence of the structures and functions of certain weather patterns. A clock, a hurricane, and the easy problems, are all the sum of their parts (as are most things).[25]

The easy problems relevant to consciousness concern mechanistic analysis of the neural processes that accompany behaviour. Examples of these include how sensory systems work, how sensory data is processed in the brain, how that data influences behaviour or verbal reports, the neural basis of thought and emotion, and so on. They are problems that can be analyzed through "structures and functions".[25]

Chalmers' use of the word easy is "tongue-in-cheek".[29] As Steven Pinker puts it, they are about as easy as going to Mars or curing cancer. "That is, scientists more or less know what to look for, and with enough brainpower and funding, they would probably crack it in this century."[30]

Hard problem

The hard problem, in contrast, is the problem of why and how those processes are accompanied by experience.[3] It may further include the question of why these processes are accompanied by this or that particular experience, rather than some other kind of experience. In other words, the hard problem is the problem of explaining why certain mechanisms are accompanied by conscious experience.[25] For example, why should neural processing in the brain lead to the felt sensations of, say, feelings of hunger? And why should those neural firings lead to feelings of hunger rather than some other feeling (such as, for example, feelings of thirst)?

Chalmers argues that it is conceivable that the relevant behaviours associated with hunger, or any other feeling, could occur even in the absence of that feeling. This suggests that experience is irreducible to physical systems such as the brain. This is the topic of the next section.

Chalmers believes that the hard problem is irreducible to the easy problems: solving the easy problems will not lead to a solution to the hard problems. This is because the easy problems pertain to the causal structure of the world while the hard problem pertains to consciousness, and facts about consciousness include facts that go beyond mere causal or structural description.

For example, suppose someone were to stub their foot and yelp. In this scenario, the easy problems are mechanistic explanations that involve the activity of the nervous system and brain and its relation to the environment (such as the propagation of nerve signals from the toe to the brain, the processing of that information and how it leads to yelping, and so on). The hard problem is the question of why these mechanisms are accompanied by the feeling of pain, or why these feelings of pain feel the particular way that they do. Chalmers argues that facts about the neural mechanisms of pain, and pain behaviours, do not lead to facts about conscious experience. Facts about conscious experience are, instead, further facts, not derivable from facts about the brain.[25]

The hard problem is often illustrated by appealing to the logical possibility of inverted visible spectra. Since there is no logical contradiction in supposing that one's colour vision could be inverted, it seems that mechanistic explanations of visual processing do not determine facts about what it is like to see colours.

An explanation for all of the relevant physical facts about neural processing would leave unexplained facts about what it is like to feel pain. This is in part because functions and physical structures of any sort could conceivably exist in the absence of experience. Alternatively, they could exist alongside a different set of experiences. For example, it is logically possible for a perfect replica of Chalmers to have no experience at all, or for it to have a different set of experiences (such as an inverted visible spectrum, so that the blue-yellow red-green axes of its visual field are flipped).

The same cannot be said about clocks, hurricanes, or other physical things. In those cases, a structural or functional description is a complete description. A perfect replica of a clock is a clock, a perfect replica of a hurricane is a hurricane, and so on. The difference is that physical things are nothing more than their physical constituents. For example, water is nothing more than H2O molecules, and understanding everything about H2O molecules is to understand everything there is to know about water. But consciousness is not like this. Knowing everything there is to know about the brain, or any physical system, is not to know everything there is to know about consciousness. So consciousness, then, must not be purely physical.[25]

Implications for physicalism

See also: Physicalism

Chalmers's idea contradicts physicalism (sometimes labelled materialism). This is the view that everything that exists is a physical or material thing, so everything can be reduced to microphysical things (such as subatomic particles and the interactions between them). For example, a desk is a physical thing, because it is nothing more than a complex arrangement of a large number of subatomic particles interacting in a certain way. According to physicalism, everything can be explained by appeal to its microphysical constituents, including consciousness. Chalmers's hard problem presents a counterexample to this view, since it suggests that consciousness cannot be reductively explained by appealing to its microphysical constituents. So if the hard problem is a real problem then physicalism must be false, and if physicalism is true then the hard problem must not be a real problem.[citation needed]

Though Chalmers rejects physicalism, he is still a naturalist.[25][importance?]

Historical precedents

Wikiquote has quotations related to Hard problem of consciousness.

The hard problem of consciousness has scholarly antecedents considerably earlier than Chalmers.[31][note 1] Among others, thinkers who have made arguments similar to Chalmers' formulation of the hard problem include Isaac Newton,[32] John Locke,[33] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,[34][32] John Stuart Mill,[35] and Thomas Henry Huxley.[36][32] Likewise, Asian philosophers like Dharmakirti and Guifeng Zongmi discussed the problem of how consciousness arises from unconscious matter.[32][37][38][39]

The problem's explanatory targets

Philosopher Raamy Majeed argued in 2016 that the hard problem is associated with two "explanatory targets":[40]

  1. [PQ] Physical processing gives rise to experiences with a phenomenal character.
  2. [Q] Our phenomenal qualities are thus-and-so.

The first fact concerns the relationship between the physical and the phenomenal (i.e., how and why are some physical states felt states), whereas the second concerns the very nature of the phenomenal itself (i.e., what does the felt state feel like?).

Wolfgang Fasching argues that the hard problem is not about qualia, but about the what-it-is-like-ness of experience in Nagel's sense—about the givenness of phenomenal contents:

Today there is a strong tendency to simply equate consciousness with the qualia. Yet there is clearly something not quite right about this. The "itchiness of itches" and the "hurtfulness of pain" are qualities we are conscious of. So philosophy of mind tends to treat consciousness as if it consisted simply of the contents of consciousness (the phenomenal qualities), while it really is precisely consciousness of contents, the very givenness of whatever is subjectively given. And therefore the problem of consciousness does not pertain so much to some alleged "mysterious, nonpublic objects", i.e. objects that seem to be only "visible" to the respective subject, but rather to the nature of "seeing" itself (and in today’s philosophy of mind astonishingly little is said about the latter).[41]

The mind-body problem

Main article: Mind–body problem

The mind-body problem is the problem of how the mind and the body relate. The mind body problem is more general than the hard problem of consciousness, since it is the problem of discovering how the mind and body relate in general, thereby implicating any theoretical framework that broaches the topic. The hard problem, in contrast, is often construed as a problem uniquely faced by physicialist or materialist theories of mind.

"What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"

Main article: What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

The philosopher Thomas Nagel posited in his 1974 paper "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" that experiences are essentially subjective (accessible only to the individual undergoing them—i.e., felt only by the one feeling them), while physical states are essentially objective (accessible to multiple individuals). So he argued we have no idea what it could mean to claim that an essentially subjective state just is an essentially non-subjective state (i.e., that a felt state is nothing but a functional state). In other words, we have no idea of what reductivism amounts to.[28] He believes "every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view."[28]

Explanatory gap

Main article: Explanatory gap
See also: Reductionism

In 1983, the philosopher Joseph Levine proposed that there is an explanatory gap between our understanding of the physical world and our understanding of consciousness.[42]

Levine's disputes that conscious states are reducible to neuronal or brain states. He uses the example of pain (as an example of a conscious state) and its reduction to the firing of c-fibers (a kind of nerve cell). The difficulty is as follows: even if consciousness is physical, it is not clear which physical states correspond to which conscious states. The bridges between the two levels of description will be contingent, rather than necessary. This is significant because in most contexts, relating two scientific levels of descriptions (such as physics and chemistry) is done with the assurance of necessary connections between the two theories (for example, chemistry follows with necessity from physics).[43]

Levine illustrates this with a thought experiment: Suppose that humanity were to encounter an alien species, and suppose it is known that the aliens do not have any c-fibers. Even if one knows this, it is not obvious that the aliens do not feel pain: that would remain an open question. This is because the fact that aliens do not have c-fibers does not entail that they do not feel pain (in other words, feelings of pain do not follow with logical necessity from the firing of c-fibers). Levine thinks such thought experiments demonstrate an explanatory gap between consciousness and the physical world: even if consciousness is reducible to physical things, consciousness cannot be explained in terms of physical things, because the link between physical things and consciousness is contingent link.[43]

Levine does not think that the explanatory gap means that consciousness is not physical: he is open to the idea that the explanatory gap is only an epistemological problem for physicalism.[43] In contrast, Chalmers thinks that the hard problem of consciousness does show that consciousness is not physical.[25]

Philosophical zombies

Main article: Philosophical zombie

Philosophical zombies are a thought experiment commonly used in discussions of the hard problem.[44][45] They are hypothetical beings physically identical to humans but that lack conscious experience.[46] Philosophers such as Chalmers, Joseph Levine, and Francis Kripke take zombies as impossible within the bounds of nature but possible within the bounds of logic.[47] This would imply that facts about experience are not logically entailed by the "physical" facts. Therefore, consciousness is irreducible. In Chalmers' words, "after God (hypothetically) created the world, he had more work to do."[48] Daniel Dennett, a philosopher of mind, criticised the field's use of "the zombie hunch" which he deems an "embarrassment"[49] that ought to "be dropped like a hot potato".[26]

Knowledge argument

Main article: Knowledge argument

The knowledge argument, also known as Mary's Room, is another common thought experiment: A hypothetical neuroscientist named Mary has lived her whole life in a black-and-white room and has never seen colour before. She also happens to know everything there is to know about the brain and colour perception.[50] Chalmers believes[48][page needed] that when Mary sees the colour red for the first time, she gains new knowledge — the knowledge of "what red looks like" — which is distinct from, and irreducible to, her prior physical knowledge of the brain or visual system. A stronger form of the knowledge argument[50] claims not merely that Mary would lack subjective knowledge of "what red looks like," but that she would lack knowledge of an objective fact about the world: namely, "what red looks like," a non-physical fact that can be learned only through direct experience (qualia). Others, such as Thomas Nagel, take a "physicalist" position, disagree with the argument in its stronger and/or weaker forms.[50] For example, Nagel put forward a "speculative proposal" of devising a language that could "explain to a person blind from birth what it is like to see."[28] The knowledge argument implies that such a language could not exist.

Philosophical responses

David Chalmers' formulation of the hard problem of consciousness provoked considerable debate within philosophy of mind, as well as scientific research.[43] Some accept the problem as real and seek to develop a theory of consciousness' place in the world that can solve it, while others seek to show that the apparent hard problem dissolves upon analysis. A third response has been to accept the hard problem as real but deny human cognitive faculties can solve it.

Different solutions have been proposed to the hard problem of consciousness. The section below taxonomizes the various responses to the hard problem. The shape of this taxonomy was first introduced by Chalmers in a 2002 literature review on the topic.[51]

Type-A Materialism

Strong reductionism

Further information: Reductive materialism and A priori physicalism

Many philosophers have disputed that there is a hard problem of consciousness distinct from what Chalmers calls the easy problems of consciousness. Some among them, who are sometimes termed strong reductionists, hold that phenomenal consciousness (i.e., conscious experience) does exist but that it can be fully understood as reducible to the brain.[43]

Broadly, strong reductionists accept that conscious experience is real but argue it can be fully understood in functional terms as an emergent property of the material brain.[43] In contrast to weak reductionists (see above), strong reductionists reject ideas used to support the existence of a hard problem (that the same functional organization could exist without consciousness, or that a blind person who understood vision through a textbook would not know everything about sight) as simply mistaken intuitions.[43][52]

A notable family of strong reductionist accounts are the higher-order theories of consciousness.[53][43] In 2005, the philosopher Peter Carruthers wrote about "recognitional concepts of experience", that is, "a capacity to recognize [a] type of experience when it occurs in one's own mental life," and suggested that such a capacity could explain phenomenal consciousness without positing qualia.[54] On the higher-order view, since consciousness is a representation, and representation is fully functionally analyzable, there is no hard problem of consciousness.[43]

The philosophers Glenn Carruthers and Elizabeth Schier said in 2012 that the main arguments for the existence of a hard problem—philosophical zombies, Mary's room, and Nagel's bats—are only persuasive if one already assumes that "consciousness must be independent of the structure and function of mental states, i.e. that there is a hard problem." Hence, the arguments beg the question. The authors suggest that "instead of letting our conclusions on the thought experiments guide our theories of consciousness, we should let our theories of consciousness guide our conclusions from the thought experiments."[55]

The philosopher Massimo Pigliucci argued in 2013 that the hard problem is misguided, resulting from a "category mistake".[17] He said: "Of course an explanation isn't the same as an experience, but that's because the two are completely independent categories, like colors and triangles. It is obvious that I cannot experience what it is like to be you, but I can potentially have a complete explanation of how and why it is possible to be you."[17]

In 2017, the philosopher Marco Stango, in a paper on John Dewey's approach to the problem of consciousness (which preceded Chalmers' formulation of the hard problem by over half a century), noted that Dewey's approach would see the hard problem as the consequence of an unjustified assumption that feelings and functional behaviors are not the same physical process: "For the Deweyan philosopher, the 'hard problem' of consciousness is a 'conceptual fact' only in the sense that it is a philosophical mistake: the mistake of failing to see that the physical can be had as an episode of immediate sentiency."[56]

The philosopher Thomas Metzinger likens the hard problem of consciousness to vitalism, a formerly widespread view in biology which was not so much solved as abandoned.[57] Brian Jonathan Garrett has also argued that the hard problem suffers from flaws analogous to those of vitalism.[58]

The philosopher Peter Hacker argues that the hard problem is misguided in that it asks how consciousness can emerge from matter, whereas in fact sentience emerges from the evolution of living organisms.[59] He states: "The hard problem isn’t a hard problem at all. The really hard problems are the problems the scientists are dealing with. [...] The philosophical problem, like all philosophical problems, is a confusion in the conceptual scheme."[59] Hacker's critique extends beyond Chalmers and the hard problem and is directed against contemporary philosophy of mind and neuroscience more broadly. Along with the neuroscientist Max Bennett, he has argued that most of contemporary neuroscience remains implicitly dualistic in its conceptualizations and is predicated on the mereological fallacy of ascribing psychological concepts to the brain that can properly be ascribed only to the person as a whole.[60] Hacker further states that "consciousness studies", as it exists today, is "literally a total waste of time" and that "the conception of consciousness which they have is incoherent".[59]

Eliminative materialism / Illusionism

Main article: Eliminative materialism

Eliminative materialism or eliminativism is the view that many or all of the mental states used in folk psychology (i.e., common-sense ways of discussing the mind) do not, upon scientific examination, correspond to real brain mechanisms.[61] According to the 2020 Philpaper survey, 4.51% of philosophers surveyed subscribed to eliminativism.[62]

While Patricia Churchland and Paul Churchland have famously applied eliminative materialism to propositional attitudes, philosophers including Daniel Dennett, Georges Rey, and Keith Frankish have applied it to qualia or phenomenal consciousness (i.e., conscious experience).[61] On their view, it is mistaken not only to believe there is a hard problem of consciousness, but to believe consciousness exists at all (in the sense of phenomenal consciousness).[19][63]

This stance has recently taken on the name of illusionism: the view that phenomenal consciousness is an illusion. Prominent philosophers that subscribe to this view include Daniel Dennett and Keith Frankish.[64][65]

Dennett argues that the so-called "hard problem" will be solved in the process of solving what Chalmers terms the "easy problems".[16] He compares consciousness to stage magic and its capability to create extraordinary illusions out of ordinary things.[66] To show how people might be commonly fooled into overstating the accuracy of their introspective abilities, he describes a phenomenon called change blindness, a visual process that involves failure to detect scenery changes in a series of alternating images.[67][page needed] He accordingly argues that consciousness need not be what it seems to be based on introspection. To address the question of the hard problem, or how and why physical processes give rise to experience, Dennett states that the phenomenon of having experience is nothing more than the performance of functions or the production of behavior, which can also be referred to as the easy problems of consciousness.[16] Thus, Dennett argues that the hard problem of experience is included among—not separate from—the easy problems, and therefore they can only be explained together as a cohesive unit.[66]

In 2013, the philosopher Elizabeth Irvine argued that both science and folk psychology do not treat mental states as having phenomenal properties, and therefore "the hard problem of consciousness may not be a genuine problem for non-philosophers (despite its overwhelming obviousness to philosophers), and questions about consciousness may well 'shatter' into more specific questions about particular capacities."[68]

In 2016, Frankish proposed the term "illusionism" as superior to "eliminativism" for describing the position that phenomenal consciousness is an illusion. In the introduction to his paper, he states: "Theories of consciousness typically address the hard problem. They accept that phenomenal consciousness is real and aim to explain how it comes to exist. There is, however, another approach, which holds that phenomenal consciousness is an illusion and aims to explain why it seems to exist."[19] After offering arguments in favor and responding to objections, Frankish concludes that illusionism "replaces the hard problem with the illusion problem—the problem of explaining how the illusion of phenomenality arises and why it is so powerful."[19]

In 2022, Jacy Reese Anthis published Consciousness Semanticism: A Precise Eliminativist Theory of Consciousness. The consciousness semanticism position, a formulation of eliminative materialism, highlights semantic ambiguity in discussions of consciousness. Anthis argues that while many philosophers have engaged in "intuition jousting," we can instead approach the hard problem with "formal argumentation from precise semantics." On this view, there is no hard problem because consciousness does not exist as a property beyond what can be understood through logical and empirical analysis.[69]

A complete illusionist theory of consciousness must include the description of a mechanism by which the illusion of subjective experience is had and reported by people. Various philosophers and scientists have proposed possible theories.[70] For example, in his book Consciousness and the Social Brain neuroscientist Michael Graziano advocates what he calls attention schema theory, in which our perception of being conscious is merely an error in perception, held by brains which evolved to hold erroneous and incomplete models of their own internal workings, just as they hold erroneous and incomplete models of their own bodies and of the external world.[71][72]

Criticisms of Elimiative Materialism / Illusionism

The main criticism of eliminative materialism and illusion hinge on the counterintuitive nature of the views. Arguments of this form are called Moorean Arguments. A Moorean argument seeks to undermine the conclusion of an argument by asserting that the negation of that conclusion is more certain than the premises of the argument.[73]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

The roots of the Moorean Argument against illusionism extend back to Augustine of Hippo who stated that he could not be decieved regarding his own existence, since the very act of being desceived secures the existence of a being there to be the recipient of that deception.[74] In his words:

But , without any delusive representations of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this. In respect to these truths I am not at all afraid of the argument's of the Academians, who say, What if you are deceived? For if i am decieved, I am. For he who is not, cannot be decieved...

In the Early-Modern era, these arguments were repopularized by Rene Descartes, who coined the now famous phrase "Je pense, donc je suis" ("I think, therefore I am").[75] Descartes argued that even if he was maximally deluded (because, for example, an evil demon was munipulating all his senses) he would still know with certainty that his mind exists, because the delusion requires a mind as a prerequisite.[76]

This same general argumentative structure is still in use today. For example, in 2002 David Chalmers published an explictly Moorean argument against illusionism. The argument goes like this: since reality of consciousness is more certain than any theoretical commitments (to, for example, physicalism) that may be motivating the illusionist to deny the existence of consciousness. The reason for this is because we have direct "aquaintence" with consciousness, but we do not have direct acquaintance with anyting else (including anything that could inform our beliefs in consciousness being an illusion). In other words: consciousness is more certain than any philosophical or scientific theory that says otherwise because consciousness is the only thing we have direct knowledge of (according to the argument).[77] Chalmers concludes that "there is little doubt that something like the Moorean argument is the reason that most people reject illusionism and many find it crazy."[78]

Elimative materialism and illusionism have been the subject criticism within the popular press. One highly cited example comes from the philosopher Galen Strawson wrote an article in the New York Review of Books titled The Consciousness Deniers. In it, Strawson describes illusionism as the "silliest claim ever made", next to which "every known religious belief is only a little less sensible than the belief that the grass is green."[79] Another notable example comes from Christof Koch (a neuroscientist and one of the leading proponents of Integrated Information Theory) in his popular science book The Feeling of Life Itself. In the early pages of the book, Koch describes eliminative materialism / illusionism as the "metaphysical counterpart to Cordard's syndrome, a psychatric condition in which patients deny being alive" and as evidence that "much of twentieth-century analytic philosophy has gone to the dogs".[80]

Type-B Materialism

Further information: Reductive materialism, Phenomenal concept strategy, and A posteriori physicalism

Weak reductionism, is the view that while there is an epistemic hard problem of consciousness that will not be solved directly by scientific progress, this is due to our conceptualization, not an ontological gap.[43] There is a split among those subscribing to reductive materialism between those who hold there is no hard problem of consciousness—"strong reductionists" (see below)—and "weak reductionists" who, while remaining ontologically committed to physicalism, accept an epistemic hard problem of consciousness.[43][52] Put differently, weak reductionists believe there is a gap between two ways of knowing (introspection and neuroscience) that will not be resolved by understanding all the underlying neurobiology, but still believe that consciousness and neurobiology are one and the same in reality.[43] For example, Joseph Levine, who formulated the notion of the explanatory gap (see above), states: "The explanatory gap argument doesn't demonstrate a gap in nature, but a gap in our understanding of nature."[81] He nevertheless contends that full scientific understanding will not close the gap,[43] and that analogous gaps do not exist for other identities in nature, such as that between water and H2O.[82] The philosophers Ned Block and Robert Stalnaker agree that facts about what a conscious experience is like to the one experiencing it cannot be deduced from knowing all the facts about the underlying physiology, but by contrast argue that such gaps of knowledge are also present in many other cases in nature, such as the distinction between water and H2O.[83][12]

To explain why these two ways of knowing (i.e. third-person scientific observation and first-person introspection) yield such different understandings of consciousness, weak reductionists often invoke the phenomenal concepts strategy, which argues the difference stems from our inaccurate phenomenal concepts (i.e., how we think about consciousness), not from the nature of consciousness itself.[84][85] Thus, the hard problem of consciousness stems from a dualism of concepts, not from a dualism of properties or substances (see next section).[43]

Type-C Materialism

Type-D Dualism

Main articles: Dualism (philosophy of mind), Interactionism (philosophy of mind), and Epiphenomenalism

Dualism views consciousness as either a non-physical substance separate from the brain or a non-physical property of the physical brain.[86] Dualism is the view that the mind is irreducible to the physical body.[86] There are multiple dualist accounts of the causal relationship between the mental and the physical, of which interactionism and epiphenomenalism are the most common today. Interactionism posits that the mental and physical causally impact one another, and is associated with the thought of René Descartes (1596–1650).[52] Epiphenomalism holds the mental is causally dependent on the physical, but does not in turn causally impact it.[52]

In contemporary philosophy, interactionism has been defended by philosophers including Martine Nida-Rümelin,[87] while epiphenomenalism has been defended by philosophers including Frank Jackson[88][89] (although Jackson later changed his stance to physicalism).[90] Chalmers has also defended versions of both positions as plausible.[52] Traditional dualists such as Descartes believed the mental and the physical to be two separate substances, or fundamental types of entities (hence "substance dualism"); some more recent dualists, however, accept only one substance, the physical, but state it has both mental and physical properties (hence "property dualism").[86]

Type-E Dualism

Type-F Monism

Main articles: Panpsychism and Neutral monism

Meanwhile, panpsychism and neutral monism, broadly speaking, view consciousness as intrinsic to matter.[52] In its most basic form, panpsychism holds that all physical entities have minds (though its proponents take more qualified positions),[91] while neutral monism, in at least some variations, holds that entities are composed of a substance with mental and physical aspects—and is thus sometimes described as a type of panpsychism.[92]

Forms of panpsychism and neutral monism were defended in the early twentieth century by the psychologist William James,[93][94][note 2] the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,[94] the physicist Arthur Eddington,[95][96] and the philosopher Bertrand Russell,[91][92] and interest in these views has been revived in recent decades by philosophers including Thomas Nagel,[94] Galen Strawson,[94][97] and David Chalmers.[91] Chalmers describes his overall view as "naturalistic dualism",[3] but he says panpsychism is in a sense a form of physicalism,[52] as does Strawson.[97] Proponents of panpsychism argue it solves the hard problem of consciousness parsimoniously by making consciousness a fundamental feature of reality.[43][98]

Idealism and cosmopsychism

Main article: Idealism

A traditional solution to the hard problem is idealism, according to which consciousness is fundamental and not simply an emergent property of matter. It is claimed that this avoids the hard problem entirely.[99] Objective idealism and cosmopsychism consider mind or consciousness to be the fundamental substance of the universe. Proponents claim that this approach is immune to both the hard problem of consciousness and the combination problem that affects panpsychism.[100][101][102]

From an idealist perspective, matter is a representation or image of mental processes. Supporters suggest that this avoids the problems associated with the materialist view of mind as an emergent property of a physical brain.[103] Critics point out that you then have a decombination problem[clarification needed], in terms of explaining individual subjective experience. In response, Bernardo Kastrup claims that nature hints at a mechanism for this in the condition Dissociative identity disorder (previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder).[104] Kastrup proposes dissociation as an example from nature showing that multiple minds with their own individual subjective experience could develop within a single universal mind.

Cognitive psychologist Donald D. Hoffman uses a mathematical model based around conscious agents, within a fundamentally conscious universe, to support conscious realism as a description of nature—one that falls within the objective idealism approaches to the hard problem: "The objective world, i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a particular conscious agent, consists entirely of conscious agents."[105]

David Chalmers calls this form of idealism one of "the handful of promising approaches to the mind–body problem."[106]

New mysterianism

Main article: New mysterianism

New mysterianism, most significantly associated with the philosopher Colin McGinn, proposes that the human mind, in its current form, will not be able to explain consciousness.[107][11] McGinn draws on Noam Chomsky's distinction between problems, which are in principle solvable, and mysteries, which human cognitive faculties are unequipped to ever understand, and places the mind-body problem in the latter category.[107] His position is that a naturalistic explanation does exist but that the human mind is cognitively closed to it due to its limited range of intellectual abilities.[107] He cites Jerry Fodor's concept of the modularity of mind in support of cognitive closure.[107]

While in McGinn's strong form, new mysterianism states that the relationship between consciousness and the material world can never be understood by the human mind, there are also weaker forms that argue it cannot be understood within existing paradigms but that advances in science or philosophy may open the way to other solutions (see above).[43] The ideas of Thomas Nagel and Joseph Levine fall into the second category.[43] The cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has also endorsed this weaker version of the view, summarizing it as follows:[30]

And then there is the theory put forward by philosopher Colin McGinn that our vertigo when pondering the Hard Problem is itself a quirk of our brains. The brain is a product of evolution, and just as animal brains have their limitations, we have ours. Our brains can't hold a hundred numbers in memory, can't visualize seven-dimensional space and perhaps can't intuitively grasp why neural information processing observed from the outside should give rise to subjective experience on the inside. This is where I place my bet, though I admit that the theory could be demolished when an unborn genius—a Darwin or Einstein of consciousness—comes up with a flabbergasting new idea that suddenly makes it all clear to us.

Relationship to scientific frameworks

Most neuroscientists and cognitive scientists believe that Chalmers' alleged hard problem will be solved in the course of solving what he terms the easy problems, although a significant minority disagrees.[30][108][better source needed]

Neural correlates of consciousness

Further information: Neural correlates of consciousness

Since 1990, researchers including the molecular biologist Francis Crick and the neuroscientist Christof Koch have made significant progress toward identifying which neurobiological events occur concurrently to the experience of subjective consciousness.[109] These postulated events are referred to as neural correlates of consciousness or NCCs. However, this research arguably addresses the question of which neurobiological mechanisms are linked to consciousness but not the question of why they should give rise to consciousness at all, the latter being the hard problem of consciousness as Chalmers formulated it. In "On the Search for the Neural Correlate of Consciousness", Chalmers said he is confident that, granting the principle that something such as what he terms global availability can be used as an indicator of consciousness, the neural correlates will be discovered "in a century or two".[110] Nevertheless, he stated regarding their relationship to the hard problem of consciousness:

One can always ask why these processes of availability should give rise to consciousness in the first place. As yet we cannot explain why they do so, and it may well be that full details about the processes of availability will still fail to answer this question. Certainly, nothing in the standard methodology I have outlined answers the question; that methodology assumes a relation between availability and consciousness, and therefore does nothing to explain it. [...] So the hard problem remains. But who knows: Somewhere along the line we may be led to the relevant insights that show why the link is there, and the hard problem may then be solved.[110]

The neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Eric Kandel wrote that locating the NCCs would not solve the hard problem, but rather one of the so-called easy problems to which the hard problem is contrasted.[111] Kandel went on to note Crick and Koch's suggestion that once the binding problem—understanding what accounts for the unity of experience—is solved, it will be possible to solve the hard problem empirically.[111] However, neuroscientist Anil Seth argued that emphasis on the so-called hard problem is a distraction from what he calls the "real problem": understanding the neurobiology underlying consciousness, namely the neural correlates of various conscious processes.[22] This more modest goal is the focus of most scientists working on consciousness.[111] Psychologist Susan Blackmore believes, by contrast, that the search for the neural correlates of consciousness is futile and itself predicated on an erroneous belief in the hard problem of consciousness.[112]

Integrated information theory

Further information: Integrated information theory

Integrated information theory (IIT), developed by the neuroscientist and psychiatrist Giulio Tononi in 2004 and more recently also advocated by Koch, is one of the most discussed models of consciousness in neuroscience and elsewhere.[113][114] The theory proposes an identity between consciousness and integrated information, with the latter item (denoted as Φ) defined mathematically and thus in principle measurable.[114][115] The hard problem of consciousness, write Tononi and Koch, may indeed be intractable when working from matter to consciousness.[15] However, because IIT inverts this relationship and works from phenomenological axioms to matter, they say it could be able to solve the hard problem.[15] In this vein, proponents have said the theory goes beyond identifying human neural correlates and can be extrapolated to all physical systems. Tononi wrote (along with two colleagues):

While identifying the "neural correlates of consciousness" is undoubtedly important, it is hard to see how it could ever lead to a satisfactory explanation of what consciousness is and how it comes about. As will be illustrated below, IIT offers a way to analyze systems of mechanisms to determine if they are properly structured to give rise to consciousness, how much of it, and of which kind.[116]

As part of a broader critique of IIT, Michael Cerullo suggested that the theory's proposed explanation is in fact for what he dubs (following Scott Aaronson) the "Pretty Hard Problem" of methodically inferring which physical systems are conscious—but would not solve Chalmers' hard problem.[114] "Even if IIT is correct," he argues, "it does not explain why integrated information generates (or is) consciousness."[114] Chalmers agrees that IIT, if correct, would solve the "Pretty Hard Problem" rather than the hard problem.[117]

Global workspace theory

Further information: Global workspace theory

Global workspace theory (GWT) is a cognitive architecture and theory of consciousness proposed by the cognitive psychologist Bernard Baars in 1988.[118] Baars explains the theory with the metaphor of a theater, with conscious processes represented by an illuminated stage.[118] This theater integrates inputs from a variety of unconscious and otherwise autonomous networks in the brain and then broadcasts them to unconscious networks (represented in the metaphor by a broad, unlit "audience").[118] The theory has since been expanded upon by other scientists including cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene.[119]

In his original paper outlining the hard problem of consciousness, Chalmers discussed GWT as a theory that only targets one of the "easy problems" of consciousness.[3] In particular, he said GWT provided a promising account of how information in the brain could become globally accessible, but argued that "now the question arises in a different form: why should global accessibility give rise to conscious experience? As always, this bridging question is unanswered."[3] J. W. Dalton similarly criticized GWT on the grounds that it provides, at best, an account of the cognitive function of consciousness, and fails to explain its experiential aspect.[120] By contrast, A. C. Elitzur argued: "While [GWT] does not address the 'hard problem', namely, the very nature of consciousness, it constrains any theory that attempts to do so and provides important insights into the relation between consciousness and cognition."[121]

For his part, Baars writes (along with two colleagues) that there is no hard problem of explaining qualia over and above the problem of explaining causal functions, because qualia are entailed by neural activity and themselves causal.[21] Dehaene, in his 2014 book Consciousness and the Brain, rejected the concept of qualia and argued that Chalmers' "easy problems" of consciousness are actually the hard problems.[20] He further stated that the "hard problem" is based only upon ill-defined intuitions that are continually shifting as understanding evolves:[20]

Once our intuitions are educated by cognitive neuroscience and computer simulations, Chalmers' hard problem will evaporate. The hypothetical concept of qualia, pure mental experience, detached from any information-processing role, will be viewed as a peculiar idea of the prescientific era, much like vitalism... [Just as science dispatched vitalism] the science of consciousness will keep eating away at the hard problem of consciousness until it vanishes.

The meta-problem

In 2018, Chalmers highlighted what he calls the "meta-problem of consciousness", another problem related to the hard problem of consciousness:[70]

The meta-problem of consciousness is (to a first approximation) the problem of explaining why we think that there is a [hard] problem of consciousness.

In his "second approximation", he says it is the problem of explaining the behavior of "phenomenal reports", and the behavior of expressing a belief that there is a hard problem of consciousness.[70]

Explaining its significance, he says:[70]

Although the meta-problem is strictly speaking an easy problem, it is deeply connected to the hard problem. We can reasonably hope that a solution to the meta-problem will shed significant light on the hard problem. A particularly strong line holds that a solution to the meta-problem will solve or dissolve the hard problem. A weaker line holds that it will not remove the hard problem, but it will constrain the form of a solution.

In other words, the 'strong line' holds that the solution to the meta-problem would provide an explanation of our beliefs about consciousness that is independent of consciousness. That would debunk our beliefs about consciousness, in the same way that explaining beliefs about god in evolutionary terms may provide arguments against theism itself.[122]

British playwright Sir Tom Stoppard's play The Hard Problem, first produced in 2015, is named after the hard problem of consciousness, which Stoppard defines as having "subjective First Person experiences".[123]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Chalmers (1997) states: "Any number of thinkers in the recent and distant past – including a number of contributors to this symposium – have recognized the particular difficulties of explaining consciousness and have tried to face up to them in various ways. All my paper really contributes is a catchy name, a minor reformulation of philosophically familiar points, and a specific approach to dealing with them."
  2. ^ There has been debate over how best to characterize James' position. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "James’s commitment to panpsychism remains somewhat controversial, since he also advanced a cogent set of objections against a version of the view, which he labelled the 'mind dust' theory, in chapter six of The Principles of Psychology ([1890] 1981). These objections are the inspiration for the so-called 'combination problem', around which much of the twenty first century literature on panpsychism focuses."

References

  1. ^ Harnad, Stevan (1995). "Why and how we are not zombies". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 1: 164–167. See also Harnad, Stevan (April 2000). "How/why the mind-body problem is hard". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 7 (4): 54–61.
  2. ^ Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness". Jounral of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219.
  4. ^ See Cooney's foreword to the reprint of Chalmers' paper: Brian Cooney, ed. (1999). "Chapter 27: Facing up to the problem of consciousness". The place of mind. Cengage Learning. pp. 382 ff. ISBN 978-0534528256.
  5. ^ Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness". Jounral of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219.
  6. ^ [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lWp-6hH_6g%7CHard Problem of Consciousness (Tuscan 1994)
  7. ^ JCS vol. 4, pp. 3-46, 1997
  8. ^ Chalmers, David (1997). "Moving forward on the problem of consciousness". Jounral of Consciousness Studies. 4 (1): 3–46.
  9. ^ Shear, Jonathan (1997). Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262692212.
  10. ^ Levine, Joseph (2009-01-15). "The Explanatory Gap". The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind: 281–291. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199262618.003.0017. ISBN 978-0199262618.
  11. ^ a b McGinn, Colin (20 February 2012). "All machine and no ghost?". New Statesman. Retrieved 27 March 2012.
  12. ^ a b Block, Ned (2002). "The Harder Problem of Consciousness". The Journal of Philosophy. 99 (8): 391–425. doi:10.2307/3655621. JSTOR 3655621. S2CID 111383062.
  13. ^ Varela, F.J. (1 April 1996). "Neurophenomenology: a methodological remedy for the hard problem". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 3 (4): 330–349.
  14. ^ a b Tononi, Giulio; Boly, Melanie; Massimini, Marcello; Koch, Christof (July 2016). "Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 17 (7): 450–461. doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.44. PMID 27225071. S2CID 21347087.
  15. ^ a b c d Tononi, Giulio; Koch, Christof (March 2015). "Consciousness: here, there and everywhere?". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 370 (1668): 20140167. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0167. PMC 4387509. PMID 25823865.
  16. ^ a b c Dennett, Daniel C. (2013). "The tuned deck". Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 310 ff. ISBN 978-0393240689. and also "Commentary on Chalmers": Dennett, Daniel C. (1996). "Facing backwards on the problem of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 3 (1): 4–6.
  17. ^ a b c Massimo Pigliucci (2013). "What hard problem?" (PDF). Philosophy Now (99).
  18. ^ Churchland, Patricia (1996). "The Hornswoggle Problem" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 3 (5–6): 402–408. Retrieved 10 January 2021.
  19. ^ a b c d Frankish, Keith (2016). "Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 23 (11–12): 11–39. Retrieved 20 December 2018.
  20. ^ a b c Dehaene, Stanislas (2014). Consciousness and the brain: deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. Viking Adult. pp. 259–266. ISBN 978-0670025435.
  21. ^ a b Edelman, Gerald; Gally, Joseph; Baars, Bernard (2011). "Biology of Consciousness". Frontiers in Psychology. 2 (4): 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00004. PMC 3111444. PMID 21713129.
  22. ^ a b Seth, Anil (November 2016). "The real problem". Aeon. Retrieved 22 April 2018.
  23. ^ Sean Carroll (29 April 2019). "Sean Carroll's Mindscape". Preposterousuniverse.com (Podcast). Sean Carroll. Event occurs at 1:04.46. I'm just saying that the idea of a hard problem that you cannot transpose, I think is wrong.
  24. ^ "PhilPapers Survey 2020". survey2020.philpeople.org. Retrieved 2022-05-26.
  25. ^ a b c d e f g h i Chalmers, David (1996). The Conscious Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. xii–xiii, 95–106, backcover.
  26. ^ a b Dennett, Daniel; commentary on T. Moody, O. Flanagan and T. Polger. "The Unimagined Preposterous of Zombies", Journal of Consciousness Studies vol. 2, no. 4, 1995, pp. 322–326.
  27. ^ Churchland, Patricia Smith (2005). "A neurophilosophical slant on consciousness research". Cortical Function: A View from the Thalamus. Progress in Brain Research. Vol. 149. pp. 285–293. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(05)49020-2. ISBN 9780444516794. PMID 16226591.
  28. ^ a b c d Nagel, Thomas (October 1974). "What is it like to be a bat?". The Philosophical Review. 83 (4): 435–450. doi:10.2307/2183914. JSTOR 2183914. S2CID 49125889.
  29. ^ "Episode 83, The David Chalmers Interview (Part I - Consciousness)". The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast. Retrieved 2020-09-05.
  30. ^ a b c Pinker, Steven (29 January 2007). "The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness". Time. Retrieved 19 December 2018.
  31. ^ Chalmers, David (January 1997). "Moving forward on the problem of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 4 (1): 3–46.
  32. ^ a b c d Chalmers, David (2020). "Is the hard problem of consciousness universal?" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 27 (5–6): 227–257. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
  33. ^ Locke, John (1722). The works of John Locke: in three volumes. Vol. 1. London: Printed for A. Churchill, and A. Manship, and sold by W. Taylor in Pater-noster-Row. p. 293.
  34. ^ Leibniz, Monadology, 17, as quoted by Aranyosi, Istvan (2004). "Chalmers's zombie arguments" (PDF) (draft ed.). Central European University Personal Pages.
  35. ^ Mill, John Stuart. A System of Logic (1843), Book V, Chapter V, section 3
  36. ^ Huxley, Thomas Henry; Youmans, William Jay (1868). The elements of physiology and hygiene: a text-book for educational institutions. New York: D. Appleton and company. p. 178.
  37. ^ Arnold, Dan (2021). "Philosophy of Mind's "Hard Problem" in Light of Buddhist Idealism". In Emmanuel, Steven M. (ed.). Philosophy's Big Questions: Comparing Buddhist and Western Approaches. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 97–128. ISBN 978-0231174879.
  38. ^ Bryan Van Norden, Buddhism Comes to China, retrieved 2021-12-29
  39. ^ Tiwald, Justin; Van Norden, Bryan W. eds. (2005), Readings in Later Chinese Philosophy, p. 101. Hackett Publishing.
  40. ^ Majeed, Raamy (September 2016). "The hard problem & its explanatory targets". Ratio. 29 (3): 298–311. doi:10.1111/rati.12103.
  41. ^ Fasching, W. Prakāśa. "A few reflections on the Advaitic understanding of consciousness as presence and its relevance for philosophy of mind." Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09690-2
  42. ^ Levine, J. 1983. “Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64: 354–361.
  43. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Weisberg, Josh. "The Hard Problem of Consciousness". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  44. ^ Seager, William. "Are Zombies Logically Possible?". www.utsc.utoronto.ca. Retrieved 2020-09-03.
  45. ^ Kaszniak, Alfred W.; Scott, Andrew C. (2007). "Zombie Killer". Association of Scientific Studies of Consciousness. S2CID 14891432.
  46. ^ Polger, Tom. "Zombies: Entry". host.uniroma3.it. Retrieved 2020-09-03.
  47. ^ Kirk, Robert (2019), "Zombies", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-09-03
  48. ^ a b David Chalmers (1996) The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory, pp. 153–56. Oxford University Press, New York, ISBN 0-19-511789-1 (Pbk.)
  49. ^ Dennett, Daniel (1999), "The Zombie Hunch: Extinction of an Intuition?", Royal Institute of Philosophy Millennial Lecture
  50. ^ a b c Martine Nida-Rümelin; Donnchadh O Conaill (2019). "Qualia: The Knowledge Argument". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2020-09-03.
  51. ^ Chalmers, David. "Consciousness and its Place in Nature". In S. P. Stich & F. Warfield (eds.), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell. pp. 102--142 (2003). Retrieved 2023-06-22.
  52. ^ a b c d e f g Chalmers, David J. (2003). "Consciousness and its Place in Nature" (PDF). In Stich, Stephen P.; Warfield, Ted A. (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind (1st ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-0631217756. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 October 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2018.
  53. ^ Carruthers, Peter (2016). "Higher-order theories of consciousness". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  54. ^ Carruthers, Peter (2005). "Phenomenal concepts and higher-order experiments". Consciousness: essays from a higher-order perspective. Oxford University Press. pp. 79 ff. ISBN 978-0191535048.
  55. ^ Carruthers, Glenn; Schier, Elizabeth (2012). "Dissolving the hard problem of consciousness" (PDF). Consciousness Online fourth conference. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
  56. ^ Stango, Marco (Summer 2017). "A Deweyan assessment of three major tendencies in philosophy of consciousness". Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 53 (3): 466–490. doi:10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.53.3.06. S2CID 148690536.
  57. ^ Harris, Sam. "Making Sense #96". SamHarris.org. Sam Harris. Retrieved 27 August 2020. (25.45) TM:I think it will not be a mystery. Life is not a mystery anymore, but a hundred and fifty years ago many people thought that this is an irreducible mystery. (25:57) Harris:So you're not a fan anymore, if you ever were, of the framing by David Chalmers of the Hard Problem of Consciousness? Metzinger: No, that's so boring. I mean, that's last century. I mean, you know, we all respect Dave [Chalmers], and we know he is very smart and has got a very fast mind, no debate about that. But conceivability arguments are just very, very weak. If you have an ill-defined folk psychological umbrella term like "consciousness", then you can pull off all kinds of scenarios and zombie thought experiments. It doesn't really… It helped to clarify some issues in the mid 90's, but the consciousness community has listened to this and just moved on. I mean nobody of the serious researchers in the field thinks about this anymore, but it has taken on like a folkloristic life of its own. A lot of people talk about the Hard Problem who wouldn't be able to state what it consists in now.
  58. ^ Garrett, Brian Jonathan (May 2006). "What the History of Vitalism Teaches Us About Consciousness and the 'Hard Problem'". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 72 (3): 576–588. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2006.tb00584.x.
  59. ^ a b c Hacker, Peter (2010). "Hacker's challenge". The Philosophers' Magazine. 51 (51): 23–32. doi:10.5840/tpm2010517.
  60. ^ Schaal, David W. (2005). "Naming Our Concerns About Neuroscience: A Review of Bennett and Hacker's Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 84 (3): 683–692. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.83-05. PMC 1389787. PMID 16596986.
  61. ^ a b Ramsey, William (2019). "Eliminative Materialism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  62. ^ "PhilPapers Survey 2020". 2020. Retrieved 2023-06-22.
  63. ^ Dennett, Daniel (2016). "Illusionism as the Obvious Default Theory of Consciousness" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 23 (11–12): 65–72. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  64. ^ Dennett, D. (2016). "Illusionism as an obvious default theory of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 23 (11–12): 65–72.
  65. ^ Frankish, K. (2016). "Illusionism as a theory of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 23 (11–12): 11–39.
  66. ^ a b Dennett, Daniel C. (2003). "Explaining the 'magic' of consciousness". Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology. 1 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1556/jcep.1.2003.1.2. S2CID 144560246.
  67. ^ Dennett, Daniel C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0316180658.
  68. ^ Irvine, Elizabeth (2013). Consciousness as a scientific concept: a philosophy of science perspective. Studies in brain and mind. Vol. 5. Dordrecht; New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 167. ISBN 9789400751729.
  69. ^ Anthis, Jacy (2022). "Consciousness Semanticism: A Precise Eliminativist Theory of Consciousness". Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 2021. Studies in Computational Intelligence. 1032: 20–41. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96993-6_3. ISBN 978-3-030-96992-9. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
  70. ^ a b c d Chalmers, David (2018). "The Meta-Problem of Consciousness" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 25 (9–10): 6–61. Retrieved 6 February 2019.
  71. ^ Graziano, Michael (2013). Consciousness and the social brain. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0190263195.
  72. ^ Michael Graziano (10 July 2015). "Build-a-brain". aeon.co. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
  73. ^ Scarfone, Matthew (2022). "Using and Abusing Moorean Arguments". Journal of the American Philosophical Association. 8 (1): 52–71.
  74. ^ Augustine of Hippo. "Book 11, Chapter 26". City of God.
  75. ^ Descartes, René (1637). "4". Discourse on the Method.
  76. ^ Descartes, René (1641). "Second Meditation". Meditations on First Philosophy.
  77. ^ Chalmers, David (2002). "Debunking Arguments for Illusionism". Journal of Consciousness Studies.
  78. ^ Chalmers, David (2002). "Debunking Arguments for Illusionism". Journal of Consciousness Studies: 20.
  79. ^ Strawson, G. (2018). "The Consciousness Deniers". The New York Review of Books.
  80. ^ Koch, Christof (2019). The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness is Everywhere But Can't be Computed. MIT Press. pp. 2–3.
  81. ^ J. Levine, "Conceivability, Identity, and the Explanatory Gap" in Stuart R. Hameroff, Alfred W. Kaszniak and David Chalmers (eds.), Towards a Science of Consciousness III: The Third Tucson Discussions and Debates, The MIT Press, 1999,. pp 3–12.
  82. ^ Gennaro, Rocco J. "Consciousness". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  83. ^ Block, Ned; Stalnaker, Robert (1999). "Conceptual Analysis, Dualism, and the Explanatory Gap" (PDF). The Philosophical Review. 108 (1): 1–46. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.693.2421. doi:10.2307/2998259. JSTOR 2998259.
  84. ^ Stoljar, Daniel (2005). "Physicalism and Phenomenal Concepts". Mind & Language. 20 (5): 469–494. doi:10.1111/j.0268-1064.2005.00296.x.
  85. ^ Chalmers, David (2006). "Phenomenal Concepts and the Explanatory Gap" (PDF). In Alter, Torin; Walter, Sven (eds.). Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195171655. Retrieved 27 March 2019.
  86. ^ a b c Calef, Scott (2014). "Dualism and Mind". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  87. ^ Nida-Rümelin, Martine (2006). "Dualist Emergentism" (PDF). In McLaughlin, Brian; Cohen, Jonathan (eds.). Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind (1st ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-405-11761-6. Retrieved 1 February 2019.
  88. ^ Jackson, Frank (1982). "Epiphenomenal Qualia". The Philosophical Quarterly. 32 (127): 127–136. doi:10.2307/2960077. JSTOR 2960077.
  89. ^ Jackson, Frank (1986). "What Mary Didn't Know". The Journal of Philosophy. 83 (5): 291–295. doi:10.2307/2026143. JSTOR 2026143. S2CID 19000667.
  90. ^ Jackson, Frank (2003). "Mind and Illusion". Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements. 53: 251–271. doi:10.1017/S1358246100008365. S2CID 170304272. Retrieved 6 February 2019.
  91. ^ a b c Chalmers, David (2016). "Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism". In Bruntrup, Godehard; Jaskolla, Ludwig (eds.). Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 19–47. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199359943.003.0002. ISBN 9780199359967.
  92. ^ a b Stubenberg, Leopold (2016). "Neutral monism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  93. ^ Koch, Christof. "Is Consciousness Universal?". Scientific American. doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0114-26. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  94. ^ a b c d Goff, Philip; Seager, William; Allen-Hermanson, Sean (2017). "Panpsychism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  95. ^ Brüntrup, Godehard; Jaskolla, Ludwig (2016). "Introduction". In Bruntrup, Godehard; Jaskolla, Ludwig (eds.). Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–16. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199359943.003.0001. ISBN 9780199359967.
  96. ^ Skrbina, David. "Panpsychism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  97. ^ a b Strawson, Galen (2006). "Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 13 (10/11): 3–31. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  98. ^ Goff, Philip (2017). "The Case for Panpsychism". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 3 October 2018.
  99. ^ Kastrup, Bernardo (2018). "The Universe in Consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 25 (5–6): 125–155.
  100. ^ Shani, Itay; Keppler, Joachim (2018). "Beyond combination: how cosmic consciousness grounds ordinary experience". Journal of the American Philosophical Association. 4 (3): 390–410. doi:10.1017/apa.2018.30. S2CID 125246376.
  101. ^ Shani, Itay (2015). "Cosmopsychism: A holistic approach to the metaphysics of experience". Philosophical Papers. 44 (3): 389–437. doi:10.1080/05568641.2015.1106709. S2CID 146624784.
  102. ^ Albahari, Miri (2019). "Perennial Idealism: A Mystical Solution to the Mind-Body Problem". Philosophers' Imprint. 19 (44): 1–37. S2CID 211538796.
  103. ^ Kastrup, Bernardo (2018). "Conflating abstraction with empirical observation: The false mind-matter dichotomy". Constructivist Foundations. 13 (3).
  104. ^ Kastrup, Bernardo (2019). Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology (PhD Thesis). Radboud University Nijmegen.
  105. ^ Hoffman, Donald D. (2008). "Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem". Mind and Matter. 6 (1): 87–121. S2CID 3175512.
  106. ^ Chalmers, David J. (2020). "Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem" (PDF). In Seager, William (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1138817135. Retrieved 2 December 2019. Overall, I think cosmic idealism is the most promising version of idealism, and is about as promising as any version of panpsychism. It should be on the list of the handful of promising approaches to the mind–body problem.
  107. ^ a b c d McGinn, Colin (1989). "Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?". Mind. 98 (391): 349–366. doi:10.1093/mind/XCVIII.391.349. JSTOR 2254848.
  108. ^ Dennett, Daniel (2014). "The Hard Problem". Edge.org. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
  109. ^ Koch, Christof; Massimini, Marcello; Boly, Melanie; Tononi, Giulio (April 2016). "Neural correlates of consciousness: Progress and problems". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 17 (5): 307–321. doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.22. PMID 27094080. S2CID 5395332. Retrieved 14 April 2018.
  110. ^ a b Chalmers, David (1998). "On the Search for the Neural Correlate of Consciousness" (PDF). In Hameroff, Stuart; Kaszniak, Alfred; Scott, Alwyn (eds.). Toward a Science of Consciousness II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262082624. Retrieved 17 April 2018.
  111. ^ a b c Kandel Eric R. (2007). In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 380–382. ISBN 978-0393329377.
  112. ^ Blackmore, Susan (2014). "The Neural Correlates of Consciousness". Edge.org. Retrieved 22 April 2018.
  113. ^ Krohn, Stephan; Ostwald, Dirk (2017). "Computing integrated information". Neuroscience of Consciousness. 2017 (1): nix017. doi:10.1093/nc/nix017. PMC 6007153. PMID 30042849.
  114. ^ a b c d Cerullo, Michael A. (September 2015). Kording, Konrad P. (ed.). "The Problem with Phi: A Critique of Integrated Information Theory". PLOS Computational Biology. 11 (9): e1004286. Bibcode:2015PLSCB..11E4286C. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004286. PMC 4574706. PMID 26378789.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  115. ^ Mørch, Hedda Hassel (2017). "The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 22 April 2018.
  116. ^ Oizumi, Masafumi; Albantakis, Larissa; Tononi, Giulio (May 2014). "From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (5): e1003588. Bibcode:2014PLSCB..10E3588O. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003588. PMC 4014402. PMID 24811198.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  117. ^ Mindt, Garrett (2017). "The Problem with the 'Information' in Integrated Information Theory" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 24 (7–8): 130–154. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
  118. ^ a b c Baars, Bernard J. (2005). "Global workspace theory of consciousness: Toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience". The Boundaries of Consciousness: Neurobiology and Neuropathology. Progress in Brain Research. Vol. 150. pp. 45–53. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.456.2829. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50004-9. ISBN 9780444518514. PMID 16186014.
  119. ^ Dehaene, Stanislas; Naccache, Lionel (2001). "Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework" (PDF). Cognition. 79 (1–2): 1–37. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00123-2. PMID 11164022. S2CID 1762431. Retrieved 5 April 2019.
  120. ^ Dalton, J. W. (1997). "The unfinished theatre". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 4 (4): 316–318.
  121. ^ Elitzur, Avshalom C. (1997). "Why don't we know what Mary knows? Baars' reversing the problem of qualia". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 4 (4): 319–324.
  122. ^ The Meta-Problem of Consciousness | Professor David Chalmers | Talks at Google, retrieved 2022-01-11
  123. ^ Stoppard, Tom (28 January 2015). "First Person". Programme notes. London: Royal National Theatre.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_problem_of_consciousness&oldid=1161577221"