An interview with Australian philosopher and professor David Chalmers discussing his theory of consciousness, the hard problem, and the explanatory gap.
Chalmers also has a wonderful online collection of academic papers, philosophical essays, and scientific articles over at Consc.net/online: a incredible resource for anyone interested in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, or philosophy of mind.
I have also written about my personal thoughts on this subject in some of my articles. In particular I recommend:
1. The Hard Problem Of Consciousness: Is Science In Need Of Another Cognitive Revolution?
2. The Epistemic Gap, Psychology, and The Scientific Method.
3. Thoughts On The Nature of Reality, Experience and Meditation
October 27th, 2009
Hard problem of consciousness, from Wikipedia:
"The term hard problem of consciousness, coined by David Chalmers, refers to the difficult problem of explaining why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences. Chalmers contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he assumes that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".
June 14th, 2011
Interesting views. I agree that consciousness ultimately depends on the physical. However, we're a long way from proving this and I have yet to see a sound explanation of why this must be true. We have only scratched the surface and it is best to remain agnostic and open minded to alternative possibilities, even if these possibilities are strange and insult our intellectual foundations.
<a href="http:// http://www.andersonstudioarchitects.com/custom-homes-tu... target=”_blank”> custom homes Tucson
June 20th, 2011
i do agree with the idea of consciousness depending on the physical aspec, but like the person above i'd like to point out we're so far from proving this!!
July 2nd, 2011
What's behind all this interest to find correlations between brain processes and consciousness? Is it just curiosity on the part of some researchers? If so, is there ever any thought that this kind of knowledge can also be used to manipulate people? To me that is a rather frightening idea.
July 4th, 2011
Sutay, I can sympathise with your concerns over manipulation through these practices, but I am reluctant to argue against any research that seems to provide us with a more detailed understanding of human psychology. Surely enhancing our knowledge of the mind can only be a positive step with regards to treatment of some diseases and medical advances. I would be inclined to take the same stance as Tuscan when he says that ‘we have only scratched the surface and it is best to remain agnostic and open minded to alternative possibilities, even if these possibilities are strange and insult our intellectual foundations.’ It is only through more detailed research into the mind that we will achieve any knowledge that lies ‘beneath the surface’ and for this reason I believe Chalmers’ work should be pursued.