4 ms·

Consciousness exists. Science either can explain it, or it cannot.

simonh 10y ago
Presumably you're not familiar with the term the 'Hard Problem' of conciousness [0]. It's a specific supposition that there's something special about 'qualia' of experience that can't be explained by a physical model (or scientific explanation as you term it) of conciousness. There is considerable dispute as to whether the idea makes any sense or not and therefore if the 'Hard Problem' is even a thing. Which IMHO it isn't. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousnes...
- tomhoward 10y ago
  We're getting off topic, but it is at least worth considering just why it's described as a "hard problem", which is that science involves the observation (via human consciousness) of things in relation to other things. But because consciousness is the medium of observation, it can't be independently observed relative to other things, thus the ultimate nature of consciousness can only ever be postulated, not objectively proven.
  - faktorialas 10y ago
    Objectivity doesn't have anything to do with observation, it is orthogonal.
- TaupeRanger 10y ago
  It is a thing. We know how to study correlations between brain activity and conscious experience. The hard problem involves figuring out how brain activity causes conscious experience. Once we explain it (or, as in physics, have a convincing theory) it won't be a problem at all anymore. Saying that something that everyone experiences all the time "doesn't exist" is not a convincing theory.
  - rspeer 10y ago
    You are the first one in this thread to say "doesn't exist", yet you put it in quotes. No one is trying to tell you that consciousness doesn't exist. The question is whether the "hard problem of consciousness" is a thing: that is, a well-formed topic of scientific inquiry.
    - TaupeRanger 10y ago
      "Isn't a thing" is synonymous with "doesn't exist". Pedantry aside, the existence of the hard problem and the existence of consciousness entail the same questions. The general question is simply this: how can we explain our subjective conscious experiences in terms of physical processes?
  - simonh 10y ago
    You are implicitly drawing a distinction between brain activity and conciousness. But if the brain activity is the conciousness, then there is no distinction. I'm not saying that our experience of things isn't a thing. I'm saying that it's not a distinct thing that's separable from the brain activity.
    - TaupeRanger 10y ago
      You said that you don't think the hard problem is a thing. The "hard problem" is simply a general question: how can we explain our subjective conscious experiences in terms of physical processes? That's a question which is well formed, interesting, and probably has an answer which we simply haven't been clever enough to find yet.
      - simonh 10y ago
        There's more to it than that though. David Chalmers who formulated the Hard Problem does not believe that subjective experience can arise from physical processes. Really. He calls it the Hard Problem because he thinks it's distinct from the Easy Problem of explaining how physical processes can constitute a thinking being. We haven't solved either problem yet, but Chalmers is distinguishing between them before we know what the answer even looks like. It his position that you can solve one (the Easy Problem) but that won't and can't lead to a solution to the Hard Problem. I think it will.
saynsedit 10y ago
Consciousness exists as much as the color blue or the soft hum of a clean sine wave — it's qualia. Our interpretation of the physical world doesn't necessarily exist anywhere but in our minds.
kanzure 10y ago
> Consciousness exists. Science either can explain it, or it cannot. More specifically, people claim the existence of consciousness. It can't be held as an absolute irrefutable by investigation. To do otherwise would be violating several basic concepts of epistemology, science and thinking.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Bingo.
- faktorialas 10y ago
  I mean, this sort of scepticism is applicable if you don't have consciousness yourself. Do you not see, hear, smell, think or otherwise perceive? Surely experiencing that yourself adds more weight to others' claims?
  - naasking 10y ago
    > I mean, this sort of scepticism is applicable if you don't have consciousness yourself. Do you not see, hear, smell, think or otherwise perceive? The OP is suggesting that experience isn't first-hand knowledge the way it appears to be. Certainly he agrees that we appear to have first-hand knowledge, but this appearance is only a cosmetic illusion, a trick that lends some adaptive advantage. Something like: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00...

Presumably you're not familiar with the term the 'Hard Problem' of conciousness [0]. It's a specific supposition that there's something special about 'qualia' of experience that can't be explained by a physical model (or scientific explanation as you term it) of conciousness. There is considerable dispute as to whether the idea makes any sense or not and therefore if the 'Hard Problem' is even a thing. Which IMHO it isn't. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousnes...

tomhoward 10y ago
We're getting off topic, but it is at least worth considering just why it's described as a "hard problem", which is that science involves the observation (via human consciousness) of things in relation to other things. But because consciousness is the medium of observation, it can't be independently observed relative to other things, thus the ultimate nature of consciousness can only ever be postulated, not objectively proven.
- faktorialas 10y ago
  Objectivity doesn't have anything to do with observation, it is orthogonal.
TaupeRanger 10y ago
It is a thing. We know how to study correlations between brain activity and conscious experience. The hard problem involves figuring out how brain activity causes conscious experience. Once we explain it (or, as in physics, have a convincing theory) it won't be a problem at all anymore. Saying that something that everyone experiences all the time "doesn't exist" is not a convincing theory.
- rspeer 10y ago
  You are the first one in this thread to say "doesn't exist", yet you put it in quotes. No one is trying to tell you that consciousness doesn't exist. The question is whether the "hard problem of consciousness" is a thing: that is, a well-formed topic of scientific inquiry.
  - TaupeRanger 10y ago
    "Isn't a thing" is synonymous with "doesn't exist". Pedantry aside, the existence of the hard problem and the existence of consciousness entail the same questions. The general question is simply this: how can we explain our subjective conscious experiences in terms of physical processes?
- simonh 10y ago
  You are implicitly drawing a distinction between brain activity and conciousness. But if the brain activity is the conciousness, then there is no distinction. I'm not saying that our experience of things isn't a thing. I'm saying that it's not a distinct thing that's separable from the brain activity.
  - TaupeRanger 10y ago
    You said that you don't think the hard problem is a thing. The "hard problem" is simply a general question: how can we explain our subjective conscious experiences in terms of physical processes? That's a question which is well formed, interesting, and probably has an answer which we simply haven't been clever enough to find yet.
    - simonh 10y ago
      There's more to it than that though. David Chalmers who formulated the Hard Problem does not believe that subjective experience can arise from physical processes. Really. He calls it the Hard Problem because he thinks it's distinct from the Easy Problem of explaining how physical processes can constitute a thinking being. We haven't solved either problem yet, but Chalmers is distinguishing between them before we know what the answer even looks like. It his position that you can solve one (the Easy Problem) but that won't and can't lead to a solution to the Hard Problem. I think it will.

saynsedit 10y ago

Consciousness exists as much as the color blue or the soft hum of a clean sine wave — it's qualia. Our interpretation of the physical world doesn't necessarily exist anywhere but in our minds.

kanzure 10y ago

> Consciousness exists. Science either can explain it, or it cannot. More specifically, people claim the existence of consciousness. It can't be held as an absolute irrefutable by investigation. To do otherwise would be violating several basic concepts of epistemology, science and thinking.

duaneb 10y ago
Bingo.
faktorialas 10y ago
I mean, this sort of scepticism is applicable if you don't have consciousness yourself. Do you not see, hear, smell, think or otherwise perceive? Surely experiencing that yourself adds more weight to others' claims?
- naasking 10y ago
  > I mean, this sort of scepticism is applicable if you don't have consciousness yourself. Do you not see, hear, smell, think or otherwise perceive? The OP is suggesting that experience isn't first-hand knowledge the way it appears to be. Certainly he agrees that we appear to have first-hand knowledge, but this appearance is only a cosmetic illusion, a trick that lends some adaptive advantage. Something like: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00...