Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The problem of consciousness is understood by some people very deeply, by others it is interpreted as the greatest riddle, by others as a far-fetched problem.
SCIENCE is moving very slowly in this difficult direction.
THE reason for the very slow development of understanding is the very low level of development of both science and education.
If we are talking about a difficult problem of consciousness (hard problem) in the sense that it is understood by modern analytical philosophers (Chalmers, Dennett, etc.), then I think the point is as follows. Every philosopher, when analyzing some fundamental problem, is guided in one way or another by some primary intuitions that incline him to look for arguments in favor of this or that concept.
In the case of the difficult problem of consciousness, the critical watershed is the problem of qualia (mental facts and subjective experience), namely, the problem of reducing qualia to the physicalist (materialist)one the language.
So, it seems that some philosophers have a certain primary intuitive attitude towards qualia, according to which qualia should be taken seriously and the problem of their reduction should be considered meaningful. Hence Chalmers 'thought experiments with” philosophical zombies ” and so on. Other philosophers have such an intuition about qualia that they do not take them seriously as something that requires some special analysis (such as Dennett). Accordingly, they do not see the point in the formulation of the reduction problem itself, considering it a pseudo-problem.
I suspect that the situation here is somewhat similar to that of Euclid's famous fifth postulate. After thousands of years of trying to prove it, it has been shown that this postulate is an independent (unprovable) proposition, and can only be accepted as an axiom. And depending on whether you accept it or not, you get Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry, respectively. And it may well turn out that in the case of a difficult problem of consciousness, accepting or not accepting qualia as something fundamental and requiring explanation is also a kind of independent postulate, a certain a priori option, the necessity of which cannot be empirically or rationally justified. Its acceptance or rejection is due to the philosopher's purely psychological intuitions, which automatically sets the whole subsequent philosophical perspective, under which this philosopher will be inclined to treat the “difficult problem” either as a problem or as a pseudo-problem. And this will mean choosing two completely different ontologies, which, like Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry, will be completely independent, closed and consistent.
But, unfortunately, unlike mathematics, where the optional nature of the Euclidean postulate is proved, in the case of a difficult problem of consciousness, the described possibility of an optional interpretation of the qualia problem is also doomed to be one of the unprovable philosophical attitudes.
To summarize: in my opinion, there are at least three logical possibilities for the difficult problem of consciousness:
As far as I'm concerned, point # 1 is close to me, but possibility #3 should always be kept in mind.
These people look at the issue from different angles: in one perspective it seems resolved, in another it is unresolved, and in the third it does not exist. Reflection of self-consciousness is not necessary for a developed reflexive cognition of the surrounding reality, so in our population there are many intelligent researchers who describe the surrounding world with sufficient depth and detail, but who remain in childish naivety about the nature of consciousness, it seems to them an accidental and annoying epiphenomenon.
Figuratively speaking, the TPS looks just as absurd as the proposal to calculate the power of the PTS engine taking into account only the mass of passengers and luggage, that is, without taking into account the mass of the engine itself, transmission, fuel and body… the efforts of enthusiasts of such a hopeless case are doomed to failure, but no one is forbidden to believe that they are smarter than they really are…
Consciousness is determined not only by feelings, but also by will and thought. Coarser matter cannot produce finer matter. For those who believe that the brain generates consciousness, the problem is “Difficult”.
The brain is just a physical instrument of the mind, which is not yet all consciousness. The brain does not generate, i.e. it does not generate either consciousness or mind, because it is the physical carrier of “its” essence (mind). Human consciousness is a transformer that lowers the energies of higher vibrations. The coarsening of energies by human consciousness distorts them, which leads to a large loss and inefficient use of subtle energies.
“Others” who refuse to accept the “difficult problem” may have different views, or even opposite ones. For example, Eastern philosophy considers Fire to be the carrier of consciousness. But not physical, which we perceive with our physical senses, but a more subtle type of matter of the “subatomic level”. Any matter has its own level of consciousness, be it cellular, molecular, atomic, or much finer. The finer the matter, the more refined the consciousness.
The “difficult problem of consciousness” will be solved when science learns to see duality in everything.
Probably because consciousness is a category of the abstract and is a category of the Subjective. Anything that is not subject to the fact of its existence and the Object of scientific research Automatically falls under the category of suspicious.
The evolutionary purpose of the nervous system is actions based on prognosis.
Even bacteria can move purposefully toward food or away from hazards – they take advantage of the fact that a movement that has produced a favorable result in the past will continue to produce it for some time in the future. As soon as the result becomes undesirable, the bacterium turns in the other direction.
Similarly, consciousness begins to manifest itself in our childhood – the child first follows the toy, then turns in the direction of the sound, predicting the position of the source. Well, the apotheosis, of course – “I'm rushing not to where the puck is, but to where it will be.”
Gradually, the knowledge of the world for the purpose of anticipatory actions extends to all spheres, including someone else's consciousness. The problem arises only with your consciousness: here recursion occurs: you can't predict the process of forecasting in detail.
And here people are divided into two types: those who are fixated on the importance of their own personal consciousness (victims of recursion) and practitioners who do not engage in introspection and do not encounter this problem, including when analyzing someone else's consciousness. These are just the types given in the question.
Given the futility of chasing your own tail, I'm glad that the first ones are vanishingly small.
The problem is difficult because CONSCIOUSNESS and SUBCONSCIOUSNESS are not products of the material body,but are components of the non-material SOUL(matrix of consciousness,subconsciousness, matrix of time, matrix of qualities, matrix of concepts, matrix of words, matrix of laws, etc.)That's when our scientific fraternity comes to this, everything will be formed.This is difficult for me,but those who study these topics are able to understand better.Unfortunately, then it is necessary to accept the presence of an immaterial SOUL, revising the approach to the HUMAN device.So, maybe it's time to wander in the dark and listen to the KNOWLEDGE of the Higher Mind?
Because on the one hand, our intuitive model of reality, formed by the social environment, language and culture, tells us that “there is something there” in our head that is separate from the world around us, and philosophers of various kinds try to formalize this very something, using vague concepts from the same language. But you can't formalize it, because it doesn't have any direct meaning anywhere else, except in this very model.
To begin with, I had to look at what kind of problem this is. It turns out that this is a question of why a physical object (the brain) generates subjective experience. And it is “difficult”, they say, because it cannot be solved using “standard” scientific methods.
I agree that the question of mind generation by the brain is interesting, but its connection with biophysical/chemical processes is poorly understood. In other respects, the “difficult problem”, in my opinion, is an object of philosophical speculation that has nothing to do with science.
That's one thing. If you want to learn the natural-scientific basis for generating consciousness, study the brain using natural-scientific methods (first of all). If you don't get “standard” ones (regardless of the definition of “standardness”), invent “non – standard” ones-also natural science ones. If you don't get it right, study more simple effects – build up your knowledge base about the brain. This is the only program of action that has a chance of success (possibly large). At least, you will definitely learn something (a lot of things).
And to pour from empty to empty without the slightest chance of a result (for an increase in real knowledge) or checking the profound conclusions of the participants of verbiage is not science.�
If we return to the question posed… The problem of generating consciousness by the brain is poorly understood and complex, but not (yet?) There are no reasons to consider it unknowable by natural science methods. Here, for science, there is an interesting object of study, not a “problem”. And outside of science , it's a reason to talk with a smart look.