Philosopher David Chalmers divided the problems of consciousness into \u2018easy\u2019 and \u2018hard.\u2019 How does the brain process the stimuli that reach it from our surroundings? How does it connect the dots? How do we find out what we actually feel?\u2014all these questions cover the easy problems, although the term \u2018easy\u2019 is not entirely appropriate. After all, researchers often need much time to solve them; still, science is (or will be) able to provide answers, and this is a\u00a0crucial conclusion here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The hard problem of consciousness is the claim that we still haven\u2019t adequately explained why the processing of information by the brain is accompanied by experience. Couldn\u2019t these functions operate in the background, without us knowing? Chalmers believes that science will remain unable to answer this question until it changes its methods of studying consciousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The subjective inner experiences that accompany sensations are referred to as qualia. For example, looking at the color green evokes a sensation of green\u2014in other words, when we look at green, we \u201cfeel green.\u201d Consequently, the definition of consciousness can be provisionally simplified as follows: to be conscious means to have qualia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Qualia may be worthy of research if we want to explore the nature of human consciousness and finally solve the hard problem. However, the matter is much more complicated than it seems because qualia do not always provide an accurate reflection of reality in the brain. In one experiment, the participant\u2019s arm was covered from their sight and a rubber hand was inserted in the sleeve of their shirt. A few tricks later, the participant started to treat the rubber hand as their own. You can view this incredible illusion here: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=sxwn1w7MJvk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, qualia aren\u2019t even necessary to use senses, as proved by patients with blindsight. Although the eyes of such people work normally, their visual cortex is damaged, and they claim they cannot see anything\u2014in other words, they don\u2019t experience any visual qualia. However, when asked to go through a corridor with scattered boxes, they bypass the obstacles. Similarly, they are able to put a letter in a mailbox with the light turned on but not in a dark room. According to the current scientific explanation of this phenomenon, two visual pathways are at work in the brain: one processes objects, while the other deals with location. In blindsight, only the object pathway is damaged, so patients are still able to perceive the outlines of things, especially during movement, but they cannot see any details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consciousness is a tough riddle: researchers still struggle to find a method capable of solving the hard problem without oversimplifying the matter. Philosophy, however, has developed an approach known as mysterianism, according to which contemporary science cannot solve the mystery of consciousness. One of its representatives, Thomas Nagel, has attempted to prove this thesis by formulating a famous question: what is it like to be a bat?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We may try to imagine how it feels to fly in the forest after dusk and catch insects in our mouths, hang from trees upside down, or move in the world using echolocation. Still, all of this will only indicate what we would feel as humans if we behaved like bats. Nagel points out that people can never understand how a bat perceives being a bat. We will always be limited by our own point of view and our human notions regarding the lives of other creatures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chalmers doesn\u2019t lay down his arms either, putting forward a\u00a0postulate that consciousness is a\u00a0fundamental property of matter and as such cannot be simplified. Another example is mass: we cannot explain why objects have mass, and we just have to accept this as a\u00a0fact. According to Chalmers, consciousness works in a\u00a0similar way: it\u2019s a\u00a0basic feature which emerges wherever matter and energy merge to form complex structures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We recommend:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n