On the first episode of "Casually Curious", Rob and I explore what's arguably the most mysterious question in the universe; what is consciousness? We begin by fleshing out some of the different ways one can talk about consciousness and then move towards the narrower philosophical notion which has defined the contemporary debates within philosophy of mind.
Why did we start our new podcast on the topic of consciousness?
Because it's CONSCIOUSNESS! It's the mystery of all mysteries. The problem which faces us, almost tauntingly so, in every waking moment of... yup, consciousness! To philosophers it represents a puzzle of special importance. But before we get to that, here is a breakdown of the conversation.
- 0:00 - 16:00 mins [General thoughts on consciousness]
- 16:00 - 23:31 [Preamble to Chalmers' paper]
- 23:31 - 26:18 [More preamble, we are easily sidetracked...]
- 26:18 - 36:05 [Easy problems of consciousness]
- 36:05 - 49:44 [Hard problem of consciousness]
Below are the direct quotations we discuss from the famous paper Facing Up To the Problem of Consciousness written by David Chalmers, a student of Douglas Hofstadter who rose to popularity shortly after the paper's presentation.
In this paper Chalmers was able to strike a chord at the heart of philosophy of mind, the hard problem. It was the elephant in the room, that pesky nuisance showing up when the brain scans least wanted it. I'll be writing more on this topic, so stay tuned if we've peaked your interest!
Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.
To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain.
The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. The hard problems are those that seem to resist those methods.
[The Easy Problems of Consciousness:]
- the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;
- the integration of information by a cognitive system;
- the reportability of mental states;
- the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
- the focus of attention;
- the deliberate control of behavior;
- the difference between wakefulness and sleep.
For example, one sometimes says that a mental state is conscious when it is verbally reportable, or when it is internally accessible. Sometimes a system is said to be conscious of some information when it has the ability to react on the basis of that information, or, more strongly, when it attends to that information, or when it can integrate that information and exploit it in the sophisticated control of behavior. Often, we say that an organism is conscious as another way of saying that it is awake.
There is no real issue about whether these phenomena can be explained scientifically. All of them are straightforwardly vulnerable to explanation in terms of computational or neural mechanisms.
In each case, an appropriate cognitive or neurophysiological model can clearly do the explanatory work.
If these phenomena were all there was to consciousness, then consciousness would not be much of a problem. Although we do not yet have anything close to a complete explanation of these phenomena, we have a clear idea of how we might go about explaining them.
The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.
It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state.
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
excellent stuff. you got a new follower!
Thanks! The content will keep coming so stay tuned and I'd love as much feedback as possible to improve on the content :)
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by distillationsbl from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
Now this is the kind of philosophy I've been hoping to see more of on Steemit! I won't have time to watch the video until tomorrow (Australian time), but in the interim, you've got an upvote, a resteem, and a new follower.
BTW, I'm a big fan of David Chalmers, as well as Frank Jackson, whose work deeply influenced him.
Thanks for the feedback!! We'll have to find some fellow enthusiasts of the more academic flavors of philosophy and form a community around that sort of content.
And no way! Then you'll love part 2 of this convo! We talk about Mary the Color Scientist, Jackson's famous thought experiment. I wrote my senior "thesis" (dissertation-lite) on the Knowledge Argument. I was fascinated by it... that thought experiment does maybe the best job I've ever encountered articulating the hard problem.
Thanks again for the feedback and follow! More to come :)
Forgot to resteem until this morning - oops!
Part of why I have a soft spot for Jackson is that he came to my uni to give a talk on consciousness, and we had a beer afterwards - he seems like a genuinely nice guy - but that's true of pretty much everyone I've met from ANU. He was also the honours supervisor for a friend and former student of mine, which I thought was pretty cool.
I nearly wrote my PhD on Chalmers' approach to the hard problem, as he put it forward in The Conscious Mind. But it was too late for me as I'd caught a bad case of Wittgenstein and ended up writing 85,000 words on why Saul Kripke was wrong about linguistic meaning.
I just saw your profile I didn't realize you were a professor! Now I have some reading assignments haha your dissertation looks very interesting. I just recently bought Naming and Necessity and I'm trying to slug through it, which requires relearning logic (I sort of went the "least amount of work sufficient to pass" route for that class). Also reading his bio and discovering he was a child genius does not do much for confidence haha
I was hoping I might find some real-life philosophers on Steemit... if you're open to it I'd be thrilled to interview you on my podcast Casually Curious!
Very jealous you met Jackson btw...
Ha! Thanks for the promotion! I've got a PhD, and lots of experience, but not tenure. I don't even have an ongoing position at the moment. I'm more at the level of precariously-employed sessional academic who should put more effort into writing for peer-reviewed publication!
That said, I hope I meet the threshold for 'real-life philosopher'. Happy to talk about doing something on your show, even if I'm not a giant of the field.
If you are looking for other philosophers, you might talk to @nobyeni too.