Consciousness
Introduction
A great debate has ensued among philosophers on the definition and description of consciousness. The biggest challenge of consciousness is explaining how a physical state in conscious instead of nonconsciousness. Ideally, scientific explanations can depict a physical state’s structural, dynamic, and functional features – expounding on how it is created, the changes it undergoes over time, and its particular functions. While several scholars have tried proposing some of the structural, dynamic, and functional features of consciousness, they simply cannot accurately state/describe, why is it conscious? Hence, this proves that consciousness is far much beyond the standard approaches of science. It creates a great challenge for entire science community. Perhaps, it is the end point of what science can explain. The only viable explanations maybe rest in some of the crazy ideas presented by scholars and people alike. Therefore, this study will explain, discuss and analyze some of the idea advanced by several philosophers regarding consciousness.
Explanation and discussion
In one of Ted Talks, David Chalmers, a renowned philosopher in the field of consciousness refer to the mind/consciousness as a fundamental concept/fact of human existence. Normally, scientific fundamental concepts provide a wonderful chain of explanation, i.e., physics explains chemistry, chemistry explains biology, biology explains some parts of psychology. However, consciousness cannot be explained in terms of scientific fundamental concepts. Though a number of scholars have tried, consciousness does not seem to fit into this picture. Dan Dennett, also a renowned philosopher agrees that it is not easy to explain consciousness. He reasons that the human body comprises of over one hundred trillion little cellular robots. However, not a single cell of the body cares or know who you are, as they are devoid of consciousness. Yes, we are indeed conscious, but we cannot accommodate it into our scientific view of the world. Thus, it is not possible to accommodate consciousness into the scientific view of the world, it essentially exists as an anomaly.
One of the reasons as to why consciousness cannot be integrated into science lies in the simple fact that science is objective while consciousness is subjective. While it is quite possible for a scientist to conduct experiments and observe the reaction. In the cases where scientists deal with unobservable, i.e., electrons and atoms, they propose well-supported postulates about these unobservable entities to illustrate what people observe. However, this cannot be said for consciousness. It is not possible to observe a person’s brains in order to see their experiences and feelings. therefore, when it comes to consciousness, the thing to be explained cannot even be observed since the only sure way of proving consciousness is through our experiences and feelings, but not through scientific experiments (Payne). Therefore, Chalmers description of consciousness makes it the most mysterious phenomenon in the universe.
David Chalmers and other similar-minded philosophers believe in substance dualism. Substance dualism states that the world comprises of two major constituents – the body and mind. The body consists of physical matter/bodies that have mass and occupies space. On the contrary, the mind/consciousness is not made of physical matter/substance, nor is it extended in space. This makes the mind/consciousness is akin to a ghostly accompaniment to physical reality. It becomes somehow impossible to accurately define consciousness/the mind since it is not made up of a physical substance nor does it occupy space. As a result, David Chalmers and other like-minded philosophers are firm believers in panpsychism – the idea that consciousness evades all logic. It (consciousness) simply accompanies physical objects but cannot the reduced to them. This statement is what makes Chalmers describe/liken consciousness to “a film playing inside of our heads.”
In Chalmers description of the mind/consciousness as movie running in our heads, he recognizes it as being multitrack since it consists of taste, touch, hunger, orgasms, happiness, and memories such as scenes from childhood. However, Chalmers identifies that at the center of this movie is the individual that is directly experiencing the events (Chalmers). The film is one’s stream of consciousness and the subjective experience of the mind and world. Each and every one has his own inner movie, which makes life worth living. He argues that the absence of consciousness (or the movie in our head) would make life have no meaning at all. Chalmers puts it this way, “Consciousness does not dangle outside the physical world, but its right at its heart.”
Consciousness presently exists as an anomaly that should be integrated into our view of the world. Psychologists have advanced radical ideals aimed at performing this integration. Chalmers, refers to these radical ideas as “crazy ideas.” One of Chalmers’s “crazy ideas” that is aimed at integrating consciousness into the view of the world is his proposal that consciousness is fundamental. By stating that consciousness is fundamental, he meant that it is like space, time and mass. Just like how physics postulates a number of fundamental laws, philosophers ought to study the fundamental laws governing consciousness, i.e., laws that connect consciousness to other fundamentals like space, time, mass, and physical processes.
Reinforcing his idea on panpsychism, Chalmers argues that to a huge degree consciousness might be universal. He proceeds to states that every physical object might have some degree of consciousness in it. Even a light photon, an atom or an electron might have some degree of consciousness. Chalmers proposes that the simplest and powerful way to uncover the fundamental laws connecting consciousness to physical processes and objects is to link consciousness to information. Wherever information processing exists there is consciousness. The level of advancement of information processing determines the level/intensity of consciousness. For example, complex information processing leads to complex consciousness, i.e., in humans. On the other hand, simple consciousness exists where there is simple information processing.
Dan Dennett, opposes the general perception/idea that consciousness is a mysterious phenomenon that cannot be explained using basic methods of cognitive science. In his analysis, Dennett introduces concepts of magic and tricks to better explain his stand. Dennett is of the idea that most people consider consciousness as a kind of mystery. An amazing magical display with an unending fleet of special effects that exceed human explanation (Dennet). However, Dennett strongly opposes this assumption, stating that most people are mistaken. In his defense, consciousness is both a biological and physical phenomenon – similar to processes such as reproduction or metabolism – that is indeed an amazing functionality, but not mysterious nor miraculous. People think of consciousness as this extremely special and magical event, more than it actually is. Hence, they simply refuse to be fooled that is an individual who can understand or explain what consciousness is. Dennett argues that, people who try to study and explain consciousness and held in high contempt by the society. They are scorned against and highly resented by most people, and even considered as party-poopers or even spoilers. indeed, the is the general feel among people that the mysterious nature of consciousness makes life worth living, and attempts by any particular individual explain consciousness diminishes the high status of humans to that of mere robots or physical things. This is what Dennett means when he states that people prefer to think of consciousness as an unexplainable magic.
Similar to how a magician pays a bribe to TV companies to make magic appear real, the brain/ mind cheats. Dennett is confident that consciousness is indeed a bag of tricks. Magicians exploit the weakness in our ability to recall what we see during performances. Dennett argues that the greatest assistant to the magician during performances is not their skill, but rather the audience memory. In short, it is our own memory that tricks us. If it didn’t, we would see right through the magical acts. The audience is often caught in outraged disbelief upon hearing Dennett’s proposal. Dennett advises people to think of cognitive neuroscience as reverse engineering of magical performances. Rather than explain what happened on stage, it is more fruitful to discuss how their memory interpreted what happened. Dennett refers to this as heterophenomenology. Hence, Dennett argues that consciousness can be explained when people appreciate that the mind forms benign “user-illusions” non-mysteriously. This is the very first step towards realizing how the mind creates consciousness. Dennett proceeds to explain what happens in the brain when it takes a suggestion. The brain makes you think you have the details. Thus, you think the details there but they are not. The brain is not actually putting the details in your head it’s just making you expect the detail.
Analysis of ideas on consciousness
David Chalmers provides a rather convincing description of consciousness. His belief in substance dualism is also very reasonable. Anyone could easily agree that the world comprises of physical substances and non-physical entities. The physical substances are made up of elements such as electrons, neutrons, atoms, etc., and occupy space. On the other hand, the non-physical entities comprise of things that do not have mass not occupy space. They include the things such spirits, ghosts, emotions and the mind/consciousness. Hence, Chalmers is correct to state that the mind/consciousness is a physical entity that cannot be measured or occupy any physical space. However, i beg to differ with his idea of linking consciousness to information. It is indeed true that consciousness is a non-physical entity. Similarly, information can be classified as a non-physical entity. But his proposal that where information exists there is consciousness, it not quite accurate. For instance, a computer or flash disk might contain a lot of information. However, this does not imply that the computer or flash disk has consciousness. Hence, i agree that consciousness is a nonphysical entity, however, not every non-physical entity is conscious.
Reacting to Dan Dennett argument that consciousness is a bag tricks, i find his claim poor supported. Dennett provides a lengthy discussion about magicians exploiting weaknesses in memory to perform tricks on audiences. In one of his examples, he states how a certain magician could initiate a trick long before people expect it. However, he does not provide clear details on the specific weaknesses of the mind or consciousness that allow magicians to trick audiences. While listening to his discussion I expected him to go into the detail of how consciousness performs the bag of tricks that he talks about. Instead, he speaks endlessly about magic and magicians, one might even think they are in a magic class rather than a philosophy class. In end, i find he argument on consciousness as a bag of tricks rather weak and unconvincing. One might be tempted to think that, the explanation of consciousness was also as confusing to him as the magic he was endlessly speaking about.
Conclusions
Fhfh
Work Cited
Chalmers, David. How do you explain consciousness? March 2014. <https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness?language=en>.
Dennet, Dan. The illusion of consciousness. 2003. <https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_the_illusion_of_consciousness/transcript?language=en>.
Payne, W. Russ. An Introduction to Philosophy. 2015. <https://commons.bellevuecollege.edu/wrussellpayne/an-introduction-to-philosophy/>.