4. Can Consciousness Be Explained? Buddhist Idealism and the “Hard Problem” in Philosophy of Mind

2021 ◽  
pp. 97-128
Author(s):  
Dan Arnold
Author(s):  
Daniel Stoljar

According to the epistemic view of the hard problem of consciousness, we are ignorant at least for the time being of something important and relevant when it comes to the hard problem, and this fact has a significant implication for its solution. This chapter outlines one version of the view before considering two objections. The first is that, while we may be ignorant of various features of the world, we are not ignorant of any feature that is relevant to the hard problem. The second is that, even if the epistemic approach is true, properly understood it is not an answer to the hard problem; indeed, it is no contribution to that problem at all. The chapter concludes with some brief reflections on why the epistemic approach, despite its attractiveness, remains a minority view in contemporary philosophy of mind.


2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M. Miller

Objective:In the past decade, much has been written about ‘the hard problem’ of consciousness in the philosophy of mind. However, a separate hard problem faces the scientific study of consciousness. The problem arises when distinguishing the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) and the neural constitution of consciousness. Here, I explain this correlation/constitution distinction and the problem it poses for a science of phenomenal consciousness. I also discuss potential objections to the problem, outline further hard problems in the scientific study of phenomenal consciousness and consider the ontological implications of these epistemological issues.Methods:Scientific and philosophic analysis and discussion are presented.Results:The correlation/constitution distinction does indeed present a hard problem in the scientific study of phenomenal consciousness. Refinement of the ‘NCC’ acronym is proposed so that this distinction may at least be acknowledged in the literature. Furthermore, in addition to the problem posed by this distinction and to ‘the hard problem’, the scientific study of phenomenal consciousness also faces several other hard problems.Conclusion:In light of the multiple hard problems, it is concluded that scientists and philosophers of consciousness ought to (i) address, analyze and discuss the problems in the hope of discovering their solution or dissolution and (ii) consider the implications of some or all of them being intractable. With respect to the latter, it is argued that ultimate epistemic limits in the study of phenomenal consciousness pose no threat to physicalist or materialist ontologies but do inform our understanding of consciousness and its place in nature.


Studia Humana ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
Alexander Boldachev

Abstract This article demonstrates that certain issues of philosophy of mind can only be explained via strict observance of the logical law of identity, that is, use of the term “consciousness” in only one meaning. Based on the understanding of consciousness as space in which objects distinguished by the subject are represented, this article considers problems such as the fixation of the consciousness level, correlation between consciousness and thought, between the internal and the external, and between consciousness and the body. It demonstrates the insufficiency of the reactive conception of action for the resolution of the hard problem of consciousness and the necessity of a transition to an active paradigm in which many issues in philosophy of mind would be formulated differently.


2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Dries

AbstractThis article examines what Nietzsche might mean by the proposition that “values are created”. It further raises the issue whether there is a “hard problem of value” analogous to the “hard problem” in the philosophy of mind. Nietzsche could be seen as a philosopher who tried to shift people’s views about values away from any realist-objectivist intuitions. He was optimistic that these views could be eliminated, and that eventually most or all would come to conceive of values as perspectival and created. It is shown first that Nietzsche rejects value realism in favour of a compelling anti realist conception of value, which he takes to be superior due to one specific property of values, their “aliveness”. If there is a “hard problem of value”, however, i.e. that for the realist any created value simply does not count as a value, it is unclear if Nietzsche’s conception is constructive.


Author(s):  
Marina Paola Banchetti-Robino ◽  
Jean-Pierre Noël Llored

CHEMIST AND PHILOSOPHER of chemistry Joseph E. Earley has recently argued that, in order to resolve some of its most seemingly intractable problems, philosophy of mind should take into consideration the work currently being done in philosophy of chemistry. This is because there exist obvious parallels between questions that inform philosophy of chemistry and the so-called hard problem of consciousness in philosophy of mind. As David Chalmers describes it, the hard problem of consciousness is that of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain states, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, mental states, or events with phenomenal qualities or “qualia”). The “hard problem” is related to the problem of the reduction of mental states to brain states and of the emergence of mental phenomena from physical phenomena. Similar issues are encountered in philosophy of chemistry, such as the reduction of higher-level chemical phenomena to lower-level physical states and the emergence of the higher-level phenomena from the lower-level states. An important and related concern that arises in both philosophical subfields, particularly when dealing with emergence, is the question of “downward causation,” that is, the question of whether the higher levels, such as chemical properties or mental states, exert downward causal influence over the lower levels, such as fundamental physical states or brain states. Given the parallels between these two fields, Earley argues that there are three different ways in which philosophy of chemistry can be of assistance to philosophy of mind. The first is by “developing an extended mereology applicable to chemical combinations.” The suggestion is that, if successful, such an extended mereology may also be applicable to the whole-parts relationships between complex systems such as the brain (and its associated mental phenomena) and individual brain states. A second way is by “testing whether ‘singularities’ prevent reduction of chemistry to microphysics.” If chemical “singularities” indeed prevent such reduction, one might extrapolate that mental “singularities” might also prevent the reduction of mental states to electrochemical interactions in the brain.


Author(s):  
Jason Tougaw

The introduction examines contemporary debates in neuroscience and the philosophy of mind, demonstrating the conceptual impasses inevitable when writers adopt extreme rhetorical positions about the so-called “cerebral subject”—for example, “you are your brain” or “you are not your brain.” Literary works, literary criticism, and the neurohumanities respond to such debates by eschewing reductive rhetorical positions in favor of representing the complex questions that arise when they ask what philosophers call “the hard problem” of identifying roles the brain plays in the making of identity, consciousness, and self.


2012 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-122
Author(s):  
Andrija Soc

In the first part of this paper I will outline the debate in philosophy of mind between those who, to borrow from Chalmers (Chalmers 1996) recognize the existence of the hard problem of consciousness and between those who do not. I will call the two groups non-reductivists and reductivists, respectively. The second part will put forward a specific type of criticism against reductivists - in short that its proponents incorrectly assume the resolution of another dispute, the one between the so-called pessimistic and optimistic inductivists. It will be claimed that such an assumption should not be made, and that until the latter debate is settled, or at least until a specific solution is offered within the context of the philosophy of mind, we have every right to be skeptical towards reductivist attempts. In the third part of the paper I will propose a possible solution which might offer some hope of finding the middle ground between the two sides.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Prentner

Abstract In this article, we look at the hard problem of consciousness from the perspective of process metaphysics. We thereby identify three problematic premises of the problem that pertain to the constitution of consciousness and its causal relation to the world. We argue for the necessity of re-thinking the corresponding phenomena in terms of internally-structured processes. The hard problem would then cease to be an insurmountable obstacle to a science of consciousness. Furthermore, this line of reasoning is shown to be continuous with philosophical projects from the early 20th century that preceded the contemporary philosophy of mind. Specifically, we investigate the relationship of parts and wholes, and translate metaphysical problems of consciousness into mereological language. Despite this being a philosophical project, we frequently note and discuss links to the empirical sciences, in particular those of quantum mechanics, systems theory and the embodied cognition framework.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document