Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The Hard Problem (experience): Why can't the world's greatest minds solve it?

#1
C C Offline
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/...sciousness

EXCERPT: One spring morning in Tucson, Arizona, in 1994, an unknown philosopher named David Chalmers got up to give a talk on consciousness, by which he meant the feeling of being inside your head, looking out – or, to use the kind of language that might give a neuroscientist an aneurysm, of having a soul. Though he didn’t realise it at the time, the young Australian academic was about to ignite a war between philosophers and scientists, by drawing attention to a central mystery of human life – perhaps the central mystery of human life – and revealing how embarrassingly far they were from solving it.

The scholars gathered at the University of Arizona – for what would later go down as a landmark conference on the subject – knew they were doing something edgy: in many quarters, consciousness was still taboo, too weird and new agey to take seriously, and some of the scientists in the audience were risking their reputations by attending.

Yet the first two talks that day, before Chalmers’s, hadn’t proved thrilling. “Quite honestly, they were totally unintelligible and boring – I had no idea what anyone was talking about,” recalled Stuart Hameroff, the Arizona professor responsible for the event. “As the organiser, I’m looking around, and people are falling asleep, or getting restless.”

He grew worried. “But then the third talk, right before the coffee break – that was Dave.” With his long, straggly hair and fondness for all-body denim, the 27-year-old Chalmers looked like he’d got lost en route to a Metallica concert. “He comes on stage, hair down to his butt, he’s prancing around like Mick Jagger,” Hameroff said. “But then he speaks. And that’s when everyone wakes up.”

The brain, Chalmers began by pointing out, poses all sorts of problems to keep scientists busy. How do we learn, store memories, or perceive things? How do you know to jerk your hand away from scalding water, or hear your name spoken across the room at a noisy party? But these were all “easy problems”, in the scheme of things: given enough time and money, experts would figure them out. There was only one truly hard problem of consciousness, Chalmers said. It was a puzzle so bewildering that, in the months after his talk, people started dignifying it with capital letters – the Hard Problem of Consciousness – and it’s this: why on earth should all those complicated brain processes feel like anything from the inside? Why aren’t we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life? And how does the brain manage it? How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience of being that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?

What jolted Chalmers’s audience from their torpor was how he had framed the question. “At the coffee break, I went around like a playwright on opening night, eavesdropping,” Hameroff said. “And everyone was like: ‘Oh! The Hard Problem! The Hard Problem! That’s why we’re here!’” Philosophers had pondered the so-called “mind-body problem” for centuries. But Chalmers’s particular manner of reviving it “reached outside philosophy and galvanised everyone. It defined the field. It made us ask: what the hell is this that we’re dealing with here?”

Two decades later, we know an astonishing amount about the brain: you can’t follow the news for a week without encountering at least one more tale about scientists discovering the brain region associated with gambling, or laziness, or love at first sight, or regret – and that’s only the research that makes the headlines. Meanwhile, the field of artificial intelligence – which focuses on recreating the abilities of the human brain, rather than on what it feels like to be one – has advanced stupendously.

But like an obnoxious relative who invites himself to stay for a week and then won’t leave, the Hard Problem remains. When I stubbed my toe on the leg of the dining table this morning, as any student of the brain could tell you, nerve fibres called “C-fibres” shot a message to my spinal cord, sending neurotransmitters to the part of my brain called the thalamus, which activated (among other things) my limbic system. Fine. But how come all that was accompanied by an agonising flash of pain? And what is pain, anyway?

Questions like these, which straddle the border between science and philosophy, make some experts openly angry. They have caused others to argue that conscious sensations, such as pain, don’t really exist, no matter what I felt as I hopped in anguish around the kitchen; or, alternatively, that plants and trees must also be conscious. The Hard Problem has prompted arguments in serious journals about what is going on in the mind of a zombie, or – to quote the title of a famous 1974 paper by the philosopher Thomas Nagel – the question “What is it like to be a bat?” Some argue that the problem marks the boundary not just of what we currently know, but of what science could ever explain. On the other hand, in recent years, a handful of neuroscientists have come to believe that it may finally be about to be solved – but only if we are willing to accept the profoundly unsettling conclusion that computers or the internet might soon become conscious, too....
Reply
#2
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:Why aren’t we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life? And how does the brain manage it? How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience of being that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?

It was a crucial phenomenal distinction that needed to be made. But not one that is so obvious until you think about it. One might even say that, as with most really important philosophical insights, it was too obvious to be seen. It relies on a powerful introspective observation, much as Descartes and Sartre used, which is then fleshed out in terms of its logical implications. It takes as given the direct access each mind has to its own states, and in this case the most primal of all--of being thrown into qualitative experience. Whitehead said that "philosophy is either self-evident, or it is not philosophy.. The aim of philosophy is sheer disclosure." and the Hard Problem is philosophical disclosure at its best.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Yes, AI is using brain scans to literally read people’s minds C C 0 67 Apr 14, 2023 03:16 PM
Last Post: C C
  A “quantum brain” could solve the hard problem of consciousness, new research suggest C C 3 157 Dec 10, 2022 04:58 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Why facts don’t change minds + Eating this food is a sign you are extraverted C C 1 106 Sep 7, 2022 06:48 PM
Last Post: Yazata
  Body frozen, but their minds are not (catatonia) + Secret of disordered smell found C C 1 74 Jun 1, 2022 03:18 AM
Last Post: stryder
  Tononi’s "integrated information theory" might solve neuroscience’s biggest puzzle C C 1 551 Mar 30, 2019 02:13 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Carlo Rovelli on our psychological experience of time C C 2 818 Jun 11, 2018 05:41 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Possible psychology of a Matrioshka Brain + Possible architectures of group minds C C 0 586 Jun 23, 2016 11:43 PM
Last Post: C C
  Inside the minds of terrorists + 22 ancient shipwrecks found in Greek archiplelago C C 0 398 Nov 15, 2015 03:35 AM
Last Post: C C
  Do Corporations Have Minds? C C 1 576 Jul 1, 2015 10:25 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Is there more to our experience of time than the foibles of memory? C C 0 717 Nov 24, 2014 03:37 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)