The Hard Problem of Consciousness

Kant’s craft was in shifting God out of consideration on wholly epistemological grounds. What cannot be discovered through a proper epistemology has no ontology according to this reasoning. What we cannot know must not exist.

Since we cannot “know” God in the technical sense of “reason” advocated by Kant, His “existence” is out of the question. It is a question of carefully restricting the questions that may be asked. If a place a taboo on questions, then some things will certainly be “out of the question.” Such was the mission of Kant.

Kant’s metaphysics are not only tinged with agnostic but even filled with atheistic overtones. His so-called philosophy of religion is really an attack on the religions of his time. He discovers that “moral sense” is somehow transcendental, since it has no rational basis. In his work “The Selfish Gene” Dawkins points out that it is suicide to be “altruistic.” Genes may survive and adapt only through selfishness, according to Dawkins who extends the idea to the species. As Darwin points out, “Survival of the fittest means only the strong survive. There is no room for any moral sense in the jungle.” If humans have moral sense it would contradict the very law of the jungle. Moral sense would seem to transcend the animal condition, since there is no room for morality when might makes right. So it was that Kant felt that our sense of morality somehow transcends the human condition and thought that this was a sufficient proof of a kind of God. But his conception of divinity was shallow and superficial. For Kant, God had no place in the universe. God was dead, but his ghost lingered on in the form of moral conscience as a kind of pale shadow.

But Kant really was intent on removing religion and theology from any serious academic discussion. His genius is shown in the fact that he was successful, especially in the West as seen in the teachings of atheists like Bertrand Russell.

Eastern philosophy has a different take. For Eastern philosophy, especially the points of view that flow from the Vedanta and Upanishads, consciousness exists before and after reason and transcends the purely rational. The atma, the self, is a self-evident fact that must be taken into consideration before any attempt at ratiocination.

The 19th century philosophers of reason headed by Kant hated the very idea of subjectivity. We live in an ordered world, they thought, whose order may be discovered through observation, study, and reason. Kant thought he had defined the limits of reason by denying any proofs for the existence of God. He points out that the supernatural is irrational. Since it is irrational it is therefore unreasonable, beyond reason, not worthy of discussion. But hold on a minute. What if reason is not the only way of knowing something? Then again if something is beyond knowledge is it nonexistent?

No one can see radio waves or electro-magnetic fields. We cannot see gravity. Simply because a problem is difficult to solve shall we vote it out of existence?

Rene Descartes posed what is called the “mind-body” problem which holds that mind and body are two entirely different substances. While Cartesian dualism has troubled philosophers since the 16th century, modern scientists believe that there is only physical substance: if the mind exists it is a property of physical substance, in other words mind is a byproduct or an “epiphenomenon” of the brain. Since consciousness cannot exist without a brain it is simple to prove that consciousness originates in the brain. Since both mind and body are aspects or properties of physical substance there is no duality. Only matter exists. Only physical substance exists.

Unfortunately consciousness has a strange way of intruding. In the analysis of subatomic particles there is no way to understand reality without reference to subjectivity. According to how an observation is made quantum reality is distinct. This opens a new set of problems. It is simple to dismiss the mind-body problem by saying it doesn’t exist, nothing to see here, move on. There is no mind-body problem because only matter exists. We explain mind as a kind of physical phenomenon. Since only matter exists there is no duality. This is called “physicalism,” or the attempt to explain all phenomenon physically.

But this is an extreme position. Modern philosopher Thomas Nagel points out “If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view and it seems inevitable that an objective physical theory will abandon that point of view.”

In other words, everything is subjective. We try to create an “objective” analysis when we pool our resources and eliminate personal points of view. “Objective” analysis is useful, but is never truly objective. By systematically eliminating all subjective factors from an analysis we must eliminate consciousness from the scientific method. But if the subject of our subjective analysis is consciousness, the attempt at objectivity will ultimately fail. We are all subjects. When we try to make a subject the object of study and attempt to apply “objectivity” to a subjective reality we find that measurement eludes us. It’s easy to say that “everything has a physical explanation.” More difficult to prove when it comes to consciousness. This is why it is intellectually dishonest to dispose of the question, simply because it is difficult. Descartes is not so easily dismissed. He holds that an immaterial mind and a material body are two completely different kinds of substances and that they interact with each other. Materialist philosophers reject this as supernatural. Since no supernatural explanations may be admitted at any time according to their point of view, Cartesian dualism must be defeated and rejected. But consciousness remains a “hard” problem in science.

Why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious is called the “hard problem of consciousness.” Usual methods of science involve explanation of function, dynamics, or structures. How does light work? How does electricity work? What is the nature of the dynamic flow from positive to negative charge? What is the structure of a crystal? These are all simple, albeit nontrivial problems. In modern psychology we may apply many of these scientific concepts to mental behavior. We know how different drugs provoke mental alertness or unconsciousness for example. But what is consciousness? We aren’t able to decide.

Even more difficult is the question “Why is it conscious?” If we could solve this question we would understand the distinction between life and death. No scientist will attempt to answer the question, since it involves going beyond the usual methods of science. This is why consciousness is considered a “hard” problem. It surpasses the limits of what science can explain. For this reason the question itself is taboo. Even considering the question may get one exiled from the halls of academe as a quack, nutjob, or weirdo.

Part of the challenge comes from the fact that the subjective world does not fit into the “physicalist ontology,” or one that posits that only matter exists and that we can only discuss the functions and dynamics of matter in a physical universe. But a physical description of consciousness is incomplete. Merely by discussing the “how and what” or the functions of consciousness we cannot understand the “why” of meaning. Science is intellectually dishonest when it claims to seek meaning. It does nothing of the sort: science is meant to describe states and functions, to explain dynamics and how the elements of physics interact over time. There is no consideration of meaning in science.

And yet a physical explanation of consciousness is not only impossible but fundamentally incomplete. Only I can feel the pain of a tooth being removed. The dentist whose pristine teeth show a lifetime of perfect hygiene has no idea of the exquisite torture involved in having a tooth extracted. Our subjective experience can be known by no one else.

As David Chalmers points out, no one else knows what it is like to be the subject for the subject.

"What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions. To see this, note that even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience—perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report—there may still remain a further unanswered question:  Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? "

(The Hard Problem of Consciousness 1995, 202, emphasis in original). http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/