Consciousness is a wide area that remains a mystery of how various events take place on earth. On most occasions when trying to understand the scientific view of the universe, consciousness has remained to be one of the biggest obstacles. The term consciousness can be used in various ways. In most cases, it is used to report information, for the ability to discriminate, to control behavior, or to monitor internal states (Chalmers, 2017). Currently, the science of the physical world is not yet complete. Chalmers states that many ancient mysteries were surrounding the nature of the universe have been removed by the science of biology (Chalmers, 2016). To date, there is still a huge gap between the science of physics and the science of biology in trying to understand the nature of life. However, the gap in understanding these fields does not seem to be intractable. According to Chalmers, human beings already have a sense of what the solution to the consciousness issues look like and it is only details that need to be got right.
Consciousness is a process of the brain that is fitting uneasy into the natural conception of the world. On one hand, Chalmers explains that the natural world is the physical world according to the common conception of nature. This is how we simply understand the universe without bringing various aspects and details which involve thinking or the conscious mind (Chalmers, 2017). For example, thinking into details on how certain phenomena happen on earth, the rising and setting of the sun, and many more concepts. On the other hand, it is not an easy task to see how the natural world is part of the physical world according to the common conception of consciousness (Chalmers, 1996). From these statements that seem to be confusing and complex to understand, Chalmers advises that we must either revise our conception of nature or revise our conception of consciousness.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The gap and dilemma that exists in understanding consciousness and how it fits into the conception of the natural is also represented by C. D. Broad in his book titled “Mind and its Place in Nature.” According to this book that was published by Broad in 1925, the phenomena of consciousness are the phenomena of mind. Broad further states, that the major issue is that of locating the mind concerning the physical universe. In trying to solve this problem, Broad uses the taxonomy style where 17 different views of the mental-physical relation are examined. From the taxonomy results, Broad gives his views that the mentality is an emergent characteristic of either neutral or physical substance where the physical may be delusive or emergent.
In trying to solve the puzzle of consciousness and understanding various phenomena in the world, Chalmers argues against materialism. In this argument, he explains the major difference that exists between hard problems and easy problems. Hard problems in consciousness are the problems that human beings encounter when they are trying to explain how and why we have certain phenomenal experiences or have qualia (Chalmers, 2017). Qualia in human beings mean the individual instances of subjective conscious experience. Examples of qualia may include; trying to explain why the sky appears to be red in the evening, the taste of a wine, or perceived sensation pain brought by headache (Chalmers, 2020). In this manner, a hard problem is a problem of why we have a first-person or personal experience referred to as experiences that feel like something. It is assumed that there are no such experiences for inanimate things such as a toaster, thermostat, and even the sophisticated artificial intelligence developed in the modern world.
The philosopher Chalmers contrasts hard problems with “easy problems.” The easy problems are problems that explain the physical systems that give not only human beings but also other animals the ability to integrate information, discriminate, focus attention, report mental states, and many more. Problems are defined to be easy because what is needed for their solution is to give a specification of a mechanism that can perform a given function (Chalmers, 2017). Some examples of the easy problems include how the sensory organs are operating in the human body, how data are processed in the brain, the verbal reports or how the processed data can influence the behavior of an individual, the emotions, neural basis, and many more.
Richard Dawkins is another great philosopher who supports Chalmers’ argument regarding the concept of “easy problems” in psychology. According to Richard, easy problems are those that concern the explanation of cognitive and behavioral functions. However, Richard gives two more explanations that are not clarified by Chalmers. For instance, Richard comes out clearly to explain that “hard problems” are not concerned with cognitive and behavioral functions. Richard further explains using the same words that were used by Chalmers stating that understanding of the brain is still at the preliminary even though we can solve some of the easy problems (Chalmers, 2020). The solution to the questions of simple problems can be understood by entirely relying on standard scientific strategies. Chalmers digs deep in the explanatory argument to state that even after being able to solve some of the simple problems about experience, brain, and nature, the hard problems will still be met even after explaining the performance of relevant functions of life. Thus, the existence of a hard problem is controversial in nature and has been accepted by various philosophers of mind like Ned Block and Colin McGinn.
The conceivability argument is another form of argument that is used by Chalmers to explain more about consciousness. In this argument, Chalmers state that there is a system that is physically identical to conscious human beings. They resemble each other in physical look but the difference only exists in the manner in which they think, reason, and behave. These systems are called “Zombies” and are defined as creatures that are identical to conscious human beings. The only difference that exists between zombies and conscious human beings is that zombies lack consciousness entirely. Chalmers further explains that there might also be invert zombies who have some original human beings’ experiences replaced by various experiences, or in other words, they can be referred to as partial zombies (Chalmers, 2016). From the third party perspective, both the zombies and partial zombies will look identical to normal conscious human beings. However, things will be very different from the first-person perspective where what it means to be a partial or invert zombie will be very different from what it means to be an original human being.
From the conceivability of the zombies' system, some people question their metaphysical possibility. With the lawsuits of nature, zombies cannot exist in our world. However, there are some arguments that zombies could have existed in a different universe. For instance, it is suggested that God could have created a zombie world if He wished. From the argument of zombies and partial zombies, Chalmers asserts that consciousness is non-physical. In this manner, if there is the possibility of a metaphysical universe that is identical to ours but lacks consciousness, then consciousness is a non-physical component of our universe.
The concept of zombies is also used by other famous philosophers such as Francis Kripke and Joseph Levine. These two philosophers used philosophical zombie experiments in the discussion of the “hard problems.” The arguments that they give are the same as what Chalmers used stating that zombies are just hypothetical beings that are physically identical to human beings. The only difference given by these two authors is that zombies lack conscious experience. Joseph Levine comes out to give a deeper explanation that the concept of zombie means that facts about the experience are not entailed by the physical facts in a logical manner (Chalmers, 2020). From this argument by Levine, it can be deduced that consciousness is irreducible.
On the other hand, there are a few philosophers who have come out strongly against the arguments given by Chalmers in philosophical zombies. Daniel Dennett, a renowned philosopher of mind criticized the use of “zombie hunch” in explaining various aspects of consciousness. Dennett states that the concept of zombie philosophy is an “embarrassment” that needs to be dropped like a hot potato.
In conclusion, consciousness is a big mystery that is an obstacle in the quest to scientifically understand the universe. Chalmers believes that consciousness is fundamental since it is irreducible. This is because the only things that are irreducible to facts are fundamental laws of nature such as time and space. By the nature of human beings, some people may be reluctant to accept the conclusion about consciousness being irreducible, but Chalmers explains that this is not new since people were also reluctant to accept the fundamental nature of electromagnetism. Indeed, the issue of consciousness posses no more mystery compared to the brute nature of gravity, electromagnetism, and other fundamental laws. Consciousness in the field of psychology is a wide and complex topic that still needs more research to fully answer the questions of mind and how certain phenomena such as the universe operates.
References
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory . Oxford Paperbacks. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0fZZQHOfdAAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=david+j+chalmers+the+conscious+mind&ots=qnw3bcDURM&sig=8-R4LkUCZZHM5VNWi5ZtxZfepxM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=david%20j%20chalmers%20the%20conscious%20mind&f=false
Chalmers, D. J. (2017). Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings. https://philpapers.org/rec/JCHPOM
Chalmers, D. J. (2020). Is the hard problem of consciousness universal?. Journal of Consciousness Studies , 27 (5-6), 227-257. http://consc.net/papers/universal.pdf
David J. Chalmers (2016): The Conscious Mind, In Search of Fundamental Theory. Series Editor: Owen Flanagan, Duke University. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS New York Oxford Copyright © 1996 by David J. Chalmers. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Chalmers_The_Conscious_Mind.pdf
