The Hard Problem

[ygolo]

Just this to be clarified.

Are you suggesting that the experiment is measuring and can only measure certain similarities with certainty, and thus is possibly not measuring all of the similarities? Meaning, it might be a perfect measurement of qualia, or it might simply be a perfect measurement of certain properties of qualia?

Measuring here being used in the sense of paralleling one set of qualia to another.

I am not really sure what you mean here. I was trying to say that the measurement only relies on similarities of one bit of qualia and another bit of qualia for the same person (the scientist).

I am still confused as to the whole difference between the hard problem and the soft problem. You mentioned there was some cross-over. If that is the case, then where exactly does the demarcation between the two happen?

Or to put in terms of my diagrams, what, exactly, makes the links inadequate?

 

[Thisica]

I just think that the 'hard problem' isn't a problem. It's rather a symptom of our desire to make mystery and paradoxically, at the same time, to explain the mystery. Consciousness is just not a problem to solve; at some stage, like the fact of the earth revolving around the sun, we just have to accept it as given. Neither fundamental [as in being part of the fabric of spacetime] nor superficial [like people who think that philosophical zombies could exist]. It just is. How consciousness arose is a more feasible question to ask. Consciousness, after all, is not a thing. It has a history, which means that there will never be a complete picture of how 'it' exists.

 

[Mole]

The Unconscious

The interesting thing about consciousness is that it is such a tiny part of our mind as almost all of our mind is unconscious. Almost all of our bodily functions are controlled by our unconscious mind, and now we are discovering that even our emotions and will are controlled by our unconscious mind.

But the comedy is that we identify with our conscious mind and not with our unconscious mind. Sigmund Freud tried to alert us to this but he is routinely dismissed.

Our unconscious has been left out in the cold for so long so that we could have the illusion we are in control.

 

[Thisica]

The interesting thing about consciousness is that it is such a tiny part of our mind as almost all of our mind is unconscious. Almost all of our bodily functions are controlled by our unconscious mind, and now we are discovering that even our emotions and will are controlled by our unconscious mind.

But the comedy is that we identify with our conscious mind and not with our unconscious mind. Sigmund Freud tried to alert us to this but he is routinely dismissed.

Our unconscious has been left out in the cold for so long so that we could have the illusion we are in control.

This was the subject of an interesting chapter called "The Zombie within" in the book "The quest for consciousness" by Francis Crick and Chris Koch. Essentially, we are on autopliot [animated by the laws of physics, I fancy at times], only aroused to consciousness when things go wrong. But that's good for the life of the organism, or otherwise it would have been toast if it were too self-aware evolutionarily speaking.

 

[erm]

I just think that the 'hard problem' isn't a problem. It's rather a symptom of our desire to make mystery and paradoxically, at the same time, to explain the mystery. Consciousness is just not a problem to solve; at some stage, like the fact of the earth revolving around the sun, we just have to accept it as given. Neither fundamental [as in being part of the fabric of spacetime] nor superficial [like people who think that philosophical zombies could exist]. It just is. How consciousness arose is a more feasible question to ask. Consciousness, after all, is not a thing. It has a history, which means that there will never be a complete picture of how 'it' exists.

I'm not going to reread the thread but...

We barely understand consciousness. Yes the hard problem may or may not exist (I don't think anyone has the knowledge to answer that), but it certainly will be explored in more detail, like everything else either has or will be.

"How consciousness arose" sounds like the hard problem to me.

I guess the Earth revolves around the Sun if you use the centre of mass or gravity as the reference frame. Otherwise it's like saying, if you drive a stadium around a fleck of dirt, the dirt is revolving around the stadium. Quite arbitrary whichever reference frame you use.

 

[Mole]

Terrified of their own unconscious.

This was the subject of an interesting chapter called "The Zombie within" in the book "The quest for consciousness" by Francis Crick and Chris Koch. Essentially, we are on autopliot [animated by the laws of physics, I fancy at times], only aroused to consciousness when things go wrong. But that's good for the life of the organism, or otherwise it would have been toast if it were too self-aware evolutionarily speaking.

Sure, and as our unconscious is unknowable to our conscious mind, the only appropriate response is to adore our unconscious mind. Or we might say, the only appropriate response is to worship our unconscious mind.

Of course there are the conscious atheists who deny the existence of the unconscious mind, but they are flying in the face of reality.

And to worship the unconscious means to dethrone the conscious mind. So it eventually becomes a power struggle.

Just as there was a power struggle between those who believed the Earth was the centre of the universe and those who didn't, so there is now a power struggle between those who believe the conscious is the centre and those who know better.

Those who believe consciousness is the centre naturally like to promote argument between conscious minds in order, they tell us, to arrive at the 'truth'. But the only truth they are interested in is that the consciousness is king.

But the king has no clothes. So they are left naked, terrified of their own unconscious.

 

[Thisica]

Sure, and as our unconscious is unknowable to our conscious mind, the only appropriate response is to adore our unconscious mind. Or we might say, the only appropriate response is to worship our unconscious mind.

Of course there are the conscious atheists who deny the existence of the unconscious mind, but they are flying in the face of reality.

And to worship the unconscious means to dethrone the conscious mind. So it eventually becomes a power struggle.

I think, though, that we can appreciate the unconscious by understanding its natural history, obscure that can be. It's difficult, I know, but how can consciousness arise other than unconscious parts?