too philosophical, how about figuring out first how we identify objects, parse sentences or recall things from memory before talking about consciousness
There is also the profound mystery of how individually 'unconscious' physical constituents of our nervous system can give rise to our conscious experience of the world.
The domain of the first is neuroscience and will yield its mysteries to us in time.
As for the Hard Problem of Consciousness as I've described it above, I have resigned myself to the belief that we will never be able to peel back that fundamental mystery. One could (and many have) write volumes on why this is the case, but I believe the simplest explanation of why the Hard Problem is Hard is that we are unable to even state the nature of the problem in a satisfactory way. Our language (our comprehension) fails when we try to probe at the root of consciousness.
Or the nature of our perceptions simply fools us into thinking there's actually a problem to solve.
But subjectivity could very well be an illusion. Like how single CPU computers simulate multitasking, the maelstrom of conflicting signals constantly vying for dominance could create an illusion of "inner" and "outer" that we mistake for subjectivity, because we don't have a lens with which to observe this inner process.
See the following for a possible mechanistic explanation of subjectivity: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0050...
This sounds like a contradiction. What is being illuded? If there is no subject, there can't be an illusion.
> If there is no subject, there can't be an illusion.
A common misconception, but incorrect. An illusion is simply a fact that, when taken at face value, entails a false conclusion. There is no reason a computer system can't be deceived by an illusion too, even one without "consciousness".
Perhaps the reason you see it so frequently is because it's obvious?
> An illusion is simply a fact that, when taken at face value, entails a false conclusion.
An illusion is simply what fact? What does it mean to take it at "face value"? What "false conclusion" does it entail?
> There is no reason a computer system can't be deceived by an illusion too, even one without "consciousness".
I think you're equivocating here. What definition of illusion are you using?
A fact is an observation, a sensory input, a measurement, etc. The observation of a pencil in water [1], if taken at face value, entails a false conclusion.
If instead such a fact were integrated into a larger set of facts from which we infer a coherent picture of reality, a very different conclusion emerges.
No part of the above depends upon any sort of subject.
> I think you're equivocating here. What definition of illusion are you using?
I'm not. I'm using the same definition that I provided to you, namely that an illusion is a fact that naively entails a false conclusion. If you want a dictionary.com definition, "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality".
Of course, you could jump on "deceives" again with some unnecessary appeal to subjectivity, which is why I say "entails a false conclusion" instead.
[1] https://pixabay.com/en/pencil-bent-pencil-pencil-in-water-24...
A complete physical understanding of the structure and dynamics of the brain and all of its parts would never indicate some subjective experience of consciousness. We only assume that because we know from our own experience that consciousness exists (for ourselves).
Saying it's not a problem is hand wavy. Go touch a hot stovetop and tell me that consciousness does not have a quality and value all its own, beyond the electrochemical correlates of the experience of pain.
Good old brain-in-a-jar experiment applies.
The intriguing part here is to consider if a person in a sensory deprivation apparatus is actually conscious.
In this very specific instance (and others like it) our consciousness might only be reacting to the world around us and comprehending the current state of ourselves and the immediate environment, as opposed to taking a conscious action.
It seems unlikely that your statements have nothing to do with your consciousness, and you just happen to accidentally tell the truth.
Something like this: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jonathan-edwards/publications/conscprop...
If this is true (I personally believe so), we need to focus on individual cells/bacteria for the answers.
In the introduction is a proposal/suggestion that "every neuron has at least some form of sentience."
The author describes this word "sentience" as a more primitive (primary, basic, ancestral) kind of consciousness. Something that has:
"simultaneous access to many elements of information in defined inter-relationships, i.e. access to a pattern"
"in which the accessible pattern includes a useful map of some other 'outer' environment, normally the outside of a human being, with a sense of time and, in its fullest form, adult consciousness, a sense of self"
..which seems like a range/spectrum from sentient to fully conscious.
With such a definition, a cell could be considered "sentient", and organisms from molds, plants, animals to humans all demonstrate higher sentience.. I wonder how low it can go: since patterns and relationships are mentioned, could a standing wave be considered to have a low level of "sentience"?
The simplest explanation is that consciousness is a sort of fundamental field.