What is the nature of consciousness and how it arises from the physical processes of the brain?
Consciousness refers to our subjective experience of awareness, sensations, thoughts, and perceptions. It involves the integration of information from various sensory inputs and internal mental processes. Despite significant advancements in neuroscience and cognitive science, the exact nature of consciousness and how it arises from the physical processes of the brain are still subjects of ongoing investigation and debate.
Some of the key questions related to the nature of consciousness include:
Understanding consciousness has implications not only for neuroscience and cognitive science but also for philosophy, psychology, and even artificial intelligence. Exploring the nature of consciousness can potentially shed light on the fundamental nature of reality, the nature of the mind-body relationship, and our place in the universe.
Various theories have been proposed to understand and explain the nature of consciousness and how it arises from the brain's physical processes.
It's important to note that none of these theories currently explain consciousness fully and satisfactorily. This issue is often called the "hard problem" of consciousness, a term coined by philosopher David Chalmers. It refers to the challenge of explaining why and how we have qualitative subjective experiences, or 'what it is like' aspects of consciousness.
Understanding the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain remains one of the most intriguing challenges in neuroscience, cognitive science, and the philosophy of mind. As our scientific and philosophical tools evolve, we may gradually uncover more pieces of this fascinating puzzle.
I think there is so much confusion today about consciouness because the very concept is conceived in a contradictory way. The contradiction is between subjectivity and objectivity. For example, you wrote “Consciousness refers to our subjective experience of awareness, sensations, thoughts, and perceptions”. You said “subjective”. But then you treat it as something objective, when you write “the exact nature of consciousness and how it arises from the physical processes of the brain”.
To the extent that something is subjective, you cannot study it. You can study only the objective aspects of something.
Let’s consider, for example, a work of art, like Leonardo’s “Mona Lisa”. You can study about it only those things that can be expressed. If something is subjective, the moment you express it, you are turning, or trying to turn, it into an objective thing. If you try to express an emotion of yours, the moment you express it you are turning it into an external object accessible to other people. As a consequence, what other people are getting access to is not really your emotion, but an objectivated photocopy of it. You cannot let people enter inside your subjectivity so that they can experience your emotions from your point of view. This is the problem expressed by Thomas Nagel in his article “What is it like to be a bat?” and by David Chalmers’ concept of “hard problem of consciousness”.
This means that, when we talk about “consciousness”, we are not talking about the real subjective experience, but about a photocopy of it, that is, the translation of it into human words and expressible concepts.
You might ask, then, what I mean when I say “the real subjective experience”, or “subjectivity”, since, as soon as I write these words, they are automatically turned into objects.
I agree with this criticism: I don’t pretend being able to give a name to subjectivity. I just make an effort, trying to invite you to go beyond my words, if possible, and see the problem.
In this context, we can also notice that the very existence of consciousness cannot be demonstrated, the same way some people objected to Chalmers that a “hard problem of consciousness” does not exist, cannot be demonstrated.
So, in your question you are talking about something whose existence you will never be able to prove, you will never be able to say by words what you are exactly talking about. As a consequence, even if in the future you will be able to find something material, physical, neuronal or whatever, that you think explains consciousness, how would you give evidence that what it explains is really the subjective consciousness and not just our objectified photocopy, objectified concept, of something that is impossible to express and probably doesn’t even exist?
Intrinsicness can be referred to objective things only, otherwise it is extrinsicness. For example, 4 is an intrinsic result, an intrinsic property of 2+2, as it doesn't depend on my opinion. If I say that "red is a nice color", "nice" is not intrinsic of red, as it depends on my opinion, my personal taste. If I say that the ability to fly is intrinsic of winged horses, actually it isn't, because it depends entirely on my imagination; on the contrary, it is extrinsic.
The experience of consciousness depends entirely on our subjectivity, so much that it is even impossible to give any evidence of its existence, probably it doesn't exist at all. As a consequence, consciousness and anything we refer to it are extrinsic, that is, entirely dependent on our subjectivity, our personal experience, our imagination. Given this situation, it seems to me that the expression "the intrinsic nature of consciousness" is contradictory in itself.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Force