Consciousness is something that is experienced on the daily basis, whether we are describing our awareness or perception of the physical world. David Chalmers provides his insight on consciousness by first identifying the easy problems presented by consciousness, then the hard problem that is puzzling and one that can’t be fully explained. The hard problem serves as crucial topic has sparked many philosophers to attempt to provide a solution for this problem. To Chalmers, the hard problem involves our experience. Ned Block responds to hard problem by providing his ideology of the epistemic gap that exists between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness.
The explanation of how the mind can discriminate towards stimuli, report information or even control behavior can easily be reduced with science. These are practical problems that can be solved and even be given a structure. Through the study of cognitive process, these problems can be solved systematically and mechanistically. However, what cannot be fully explained through cognitive process is our first person experience.
Our experience is subjective, therefore we each develop a different experience from each other. In the mind, activities can be seen when a person is experiencing a phenomena, yet the question remains as to how physical sensation and experience are connected. We are phenomenally conscious of our experience, and that experience is personal to us. Our mind enters a particular state when experiencing different emotions or sense pain. Our phenomenal consciousness called qualia accompanies our senses, and as a result we gain our first person experience.
Using the conceivability argument, Chalmers distinguishes between cognitive and subjective experienc...
... middle of paper ...
...property.
In conclusion, Block fails to give an answer to Chalmers’ hard problem. While both Block and Chalmers hold the idea that there is a separation between the physical access to the world and phenomenal consciousness, Block’s account fails to escape the invalidation of his argument with the example of Mary’s case through the knowledge argument. However, an insightful explanation of the access consciousness and how it work provides us a better understanding of cognitive properties, and certainly separates it from phenomenal consciousness. Though this essentially becomes categorized under the easy problem, and leaves the hard problem at bay.
Works Cited
Block, Ned. "Consciousness, Philosophical Issues about." The Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Web.
Chalmers, David J. "Consciousness and Its Place in Nature." Research School of Social Sciences. Print.
While Descartes believes this to be incredibly fundamental to human knowledge, there have been several critiques of this over the years. One example that goes against mental transparency is Freud’s idea of the unconscious min...
When it first appeared on the scene in the philosophy of mind, the concept of supervenience was warmly embraced. Supervenience was thought to capture the idea of dependence without reduction and thus promised to provide a useful framework for discussions of mental causation, phenomenal experience, and, more generally, the relation between the mental and the physical. Since then a great deal has changed. Much careful work has been done to show that philosophical applications of supervenience do not, in fact, achieve what they were thought to. For example, Jaegwon Kim, whose name is closely associated with the concept, has shown convincingly that the standard formulations of supervenience in the philosophy of mind (weak, strong, and global) do not capture the idea of psychophysical dependence. (1) Many philosophers believed that supervenience could express a form of physicalism, but since the concept of dependence is a minimal req...
Many refinements of this concept have been put forth by various authors. One simple one that appears to improve greatly upon the original formulation is that knowing what it is like to have an experience is equivalent to the ability to recognize that experience by its phenomenal quality.
American philosopher; Daniel Dennett stated that “One of the deepest and most penetrating of errors about consciousness is the idea that it is something that divides the universe in two, that there are the things that have it and the things that don’t and it’s this utterly amazing, nearly magical property.” Dennett emphasizes on how consciousness shouldn’t be
Rosenthal D 2002, 'Explaining Consciousness', in Philosophy of mind classical and contemporary readings,Chalmers D J (eds), Oxford University press, New York
The mental and physical processes that work together is what creates the ability for the mind to properly perceive the information that is received. The brain and the senses interact in such a way that gives the mind freedom to interpret this information into the individual’s own reality. Without this combination of influences, it would mean that the mind does not go beyond the information given because it would simply be a biological function and the unique interpretation of events could not happen. But since the mental and physical processes do work together the mind takes the information that is received and the mind constructs different interpretations of the sensory information. There are many ways where this can be advantageous. In one way, the mind creating interpretations of information is what allows for individuality and for different opinions in situations. Without the interpretations it would seem that human perception of events would be identical in every way. But besides the advantages there are also disadvantages, such as the fact that there are many ways in which th...
A question that continues to puzzle scholars (and Honors students, alike) is that of what defines human consciousness. It would be simple to say that it is defined by one’s awareness of itself and of its surroundings. What makes the question so difficult to answer, though, is that consciousness is much more than an acute awareness; it is the process of becoming aware, finding the purpose of our consciousness, and building morals and intelligence from that awareness that entangles those who search for answers in a web of utter confusion.
It all comes down to the mechanics of our senses and nature of our awareness. The self and the mind constitute a superposition of possibilities. The mind has many instruments with which to perceive, interact with, and interpret the world. The profound potential of these instruments are often exceeded by their limitations. The capacity of these instruments, and accuracy with which they interpret the world, to the mind, depend on the cognitive development and mindfulness of the individual; as well as that which is being observed. This constant input of data, happens at a conscious and subconscious level. This information informs emotions, behaviors, and world views. This system is analogous to a computer with many peripherals; necessarily limited, but sufficient to solve the average problem. Like the computer, our peripherals are governed by software; the sophistication of which, would appear to have many iterations, if observed at different points in history. Furthermore, this range of sophistication can also be observed within the lifetime of the individual. It is the neural sophistication of the human brain, which allows for, and institutes, the compartmentalization of this cavalcade of information, to help the individual navigate this reality. The brain both instructs and learns from its instruments. Our eyes distinguish light, determine depth, and assign color to the world. Our sense of smell allows for us to further identify and associate with our world. Ad to these, our hearing and sense of touch, and what we have is an experience; an ongoing image of
Mind-body interaction and the problems associated with it lie at the heart of much of modern philosophy, despite having been discussed for many centuries. A formal definition for mind-body interaction is hard to establish, but it generally implies the existence of communication or an interface between the immaterial mind and material body. The idea of mind-body interaction and its obstacles are virtually only of concern for dualists since, “dualism and the mind/brain identity theory share the assumption that the mind is a thing, a non-physical Cartesian substance…” (1). Physicalists are unconvinced that the mind is anything but physical; therefore, they see no problems with a physical-physical interaction.
Functionalism is a materialist stance in the philosophy of mind that argues that mental states are purely functional, and thus categorized by their input and output associations and causes, rather than by the physical makeup that constitutes its parts. In this manner, functionalism argues that as long as something operates as a conscious entity, then it is conscious. Block describes functionalism, discusses its inherent dilemmas, and then discusses a more scientifically-driven counter solution called psychofunctionalism and its failings as well. Although Block’s assertions are cogent and well-presented, the psychofunctionalist is able to provide counterarguments to support his viewpoint against Block’s criticisms. I shall argue that though both concepts are not without issue, functionalism appears to satisfy a more acceptable description that philosophers can admit over psychofunctionalism’s chauvinistic disposition that attempts to limit consciousness only to the human race.
“Consciousness is defined as everything of which we are aware at any given time - our thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perceptions of the external environment. Physiological researchers have returned to the study of consciousness, in examining physiological rhythms, sleep, and altered states of consciousness (changes in awareness produced by sleep, meditation, hypnosis, and drugs)” (Wood, 2011, 169). There are five levels of consciousness; Conscious (sensing, perceiving, and choosing), Preconscious (memories that we can access), Unconscious ( memories that we can not access), Non-conscious ( bodily functions without sensation), and Subconscious ( “inner child,” self image formed in early childhood).
Perception is the process by which we grasp useful information about the external world through the senses. Armstrong argues in ‘Perception and Belief’ that perceptual experience is a disposition to form beliefs about the real world. The argument from illusion shows that perceptual knowledge is a misrepresentation of the world because external objects may have qualities they do not really possess. This is due to various experiences that are caused by hallucinations or by the influence of drugs. Given that reality can easily be altered by such cases, perception does not seem to represent a direct window onto the world. To overcome this problem, some philosophers like Russell postulated the sense datum theory as an object that stands in relation between the perceiver and an external object. Moreover, this view asserts that the perceiver is never in direct contact with reality but is in a continuous mental state that prevents him to see the world as it is. Hence, the perceiver is not deceived by the illusory cases because there is no objective world to be derived from. Armstrong rejects this theory by appeal to the indeterminacy principle and raises claims to support the reliability of perception as the acquisition of potential belief. On Armstrong’s view, the number of background inferences justifies the validity of perceptual beliefs with respect to providing knowledge of the external world. In ‘Sensation and Perception’, Dretske argues that perception and belief are not inextricably bound simply because belief requires a cognitive refined process of informational input while perception involves the casual flow of raw data not yet processed by the cognitive mechanisms. On Dretske’s view, a sui generis conception of perception tha...
With each of our senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, and hear), information is transmitted to the brain. Psychologists find it problematic to explain the processes in which the physical energy that is received by the sense organs can form the foundation of perceptual experience. Perception is not a direct mirroring of stimulus, but a compound messy pattern dependent on the simultaneous activity of neurons. Sensory inputs are somehow converted into perceptions of laptops, music, flowers, food, and cars; into sights, sounds, smells, taste ...
However, predispositions form attachments as someone is using their own past experiences to define present moments. Due to this conditioning, we are thinking and seeing and feeling the world in terms of self. But if we perceive the world in terms of “self” then how is it that humans all experience the world similarly? This is because we all possess the commonality of ālaya awareness and have a similar karma to one another. We all have similar karma because all humans have a similar type of body so the rebirth was brought along by similar actions, karma. Thus, we experience a similar world which is specific to our
While the main problem for dualism is explaining how two distinctly different properties of mind and body enter into causal relationships, the ongoing mind-body debate has spawned many more problems relating to subjective experience and free will (Hardnad, 1992; Jaworski,