David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel are known for their controversial definition of what is conscious and what is not. They refer to consciousness as being 'the hard problem.' The phrase 'hard problem of consciousness' was coined by the two scholars given their agreement that it is difficult to know how and why the mind is able to perceive phenomenal experiences such as tastes and colors. As such, Chalmers and Nagel define consciousness as the ability to experience phenomena in one's environment. This paper is aimed at resolving the ethical issue of whether the approach taken by Chalmers and Nagel is more magical than scientific. The position of the paper is that the two scholars are not rejecting a scientific approach for a magical one.
In his book titled Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness, Chalmers stated that it is a wonder that the when mind engages in the processing of auditory and visual processing, the individual has auditory and visual experience respectively. This aspect presented the hard problem of consciousness given that physical processing, which had been the main explanation of consciousness, was not practical in this case. The author agrees that experience arises from a physical basis but states that no explanations are given to justify this reasoning. This is the main reason that brings up the issue of revisiting from the scientific point to view to an almost magical one. The problem of consciousness, according to Chalmers, is the problem of experience. The subjectivity of the thinking and perception process complicate the issue of defining consciousness in Chalmers' view.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The argument at hand is that the conventional way of accepting how people or organisms attain consciousness is being challenged by Chalmers and Nagel. The two scholars are of the opinion that the accepted approach is wrong given that there is more to how people interact with experiences than simply saying that experiencing a sound or site is enough to create consciousness (Nagel, 2012, p. 27). Their seemingly lack of scientific explanations to the missing parts of the link between experience and consciousness has led to the perception that they could be approaching the issue with more of a magical than a scientific and practical basis. According to the two scholars, creating an experience is more than a physically based activity given that experiences are what lead to consciousness.
Chalmers and Nagel have employed a method to the understanding of the mind which places a high level of thought on the realization of consciousness. To this end, the idea that the storage and and processing of information in the mind is a physical aspect has been countered by Chalmers and Nagel's point of view. I personally agree with this stand given that, although memories come from physical or sensory sources, once in the mind, they cannot be said to be in a physical form anymore. The solution given by the two authors to the issue of consciousness not being of a physical nature is that the mind could simply be information itself. One passes along information to another one through the mind which then stores it to create an experience.
The standpoint held by Chalmers and Nagel have received opposing views from the work of Jaegwon Kim which are focused on reductionism. Kim states that materialism is false and thus a lot of ideas that are based on having a single conscious world are false. According to Kim, there could be another world where earthly logic does not hold meaning. Such an idea, although it may be true when viewed from another point of view, does not auger well with the issue of consciousness given that it further introduces mysticism to an already complex issue without giving concrete and provable solutions (Horwich, 2922, p. 194).
The point of view held by Chalmers and Nagel carries an element of vagueness which has been exploited by some people who say that it is difficult to to disapprove of a scientific approach to an issue and give an almost magical reasoning for them same issue. The truth with the approach taken by Chalmers and Nagel is that it still uses scientific methods to prove that experience and consciousness are not physical in nature. The fact that Nagel and Chalmers approach the issue basing on the easily understood fact that an object in memory is not in its physical state unlike previously assumed (Chalmers, 2010, p. 40). The basis used by the two scholars in question focuses on disapproving the conventional approach by disputing the notion that the human mind is as simplistic as being an object that records and recalls objects, sounds and other sensory items. Indeed, the mind is way more complex than that.
The hard problem consciousness has been what defined the work by Chalmers. Most of his ideas base on the fact that the human mind needs more exploring than what has already been done so far. Some assumptions that underlie the consciousness of the mind may be proved wrong with further studies into how the mind carries out various tasks such as the storing, processing and retrieving of information. Indeed, the issue of physical experience being linked to consciousness is faulty given that the mind works without most physical interaction with objects or sounds. In my opinion, consciousness is basically awareness. However, as observed above, the definition of the word goes way beyond a simplistic awareness of the mind. Therefore, Chalmers and Nagel based their point of ire on science.
References
Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos. London, Oxford University Press.
Horwich, P. (2012). Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy. London, Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J. (2010). The Character of Consciousness. London, Oxford University Press.
