It took 25 years, but the philosopher finally got his booze. A case of fine wine, in fact. The philosopher’s name is David Chalmers, and he won it on a bet with a neuroscientist.
The subject of their wager concerned some of the consciousness-related material we’ve been exploring here. The neuroscientist, Christof Koch, claimed in 1998 that researchers would soon discover the biological substrates behind consciousness. Its neural markers would become “clear” by then, and well defined.
Chalmers, famous for coining the phrase “the hard problem”, told Koch to go take a hike. No way would such a feat be accomplished so quickly. In 2023, he declared he’d be back to pick up his booze.
And indeed, in June 2023, Chalmers picked up his booze. In my view, he deserved every fluid ounce.
To understand why the philosopher won, and perhaps expose my own prejudices, we need to define two terms: Chalmer’s previously mentioned hard problem and something called “qualia.”
WE’RE CLUELESS, BUT NOT HOPELESS
Chalmers’ hard problem of consciousness concerns the connective tissue between subjective experience and objective biochemistry. How can everyday perceptions of conscious experiences arise from physical neural processing, he asks? No easy task, this. “The hard problem is really hard,” Chalmers observed.
His writings have stimulated much discussion, as you might imagine.
The second term, qualia, is a concept many professionals cite in their investigations of Chalmer’s hard problem. Qualia references the subjective, experiential component of perception. It’s what we are aware of when we taste yummy food, for example, or feel irritated and want to punch someone in the nose, or want to make a bet with a scientist we think might be a bit too self-confident.
To date, there is no solution to the hard problem. We have no firm grasp on the neurobiology behind concepts like Living Identity and Bodily Self-consciousness. Indeed, we’re still arguing about what these concepts mean. I’ve spent this entire unit showing the jury is still way out concerning any neurobiological verdict, using phenomena like Walking Corpse Syndrome and Invisible Doppelgängers as star witnesses.
That doesn’t mean things are hopeless, happily. In fact, a commonly-held explanation may already be present. It’s remarkably straightforward, and probably something of a cop-out. It’s time for me to tip my hand and tell you what I think.
I begin with an assumption. In my view, every conscious experience can or eventually will be explained by the underlying electrical activity of the brain’s neural circuits. I’m hardly alone in this physical bias, embraced by people ranging from Judeo-Christian scholars to outspoken atheists.
How then are experiences like Living Identity and Body Self-consciousness explained? As I write this entry, I know it is not being authored by my ghostly twin or some foreign hand that doesn’t belong to me. And except when I don’t sleep well, I feel very much alive while I’m writing.
In my perspective, we must turn to the notion I mentioned last entry, the concept of emergent properties. As also discussed, it might best be explained by babies. With my glass of wine held high, it is to this, my last entry on this subject, that we turn finally.
REFERENCES
Horgan, J. "A 25-year-old bet about consciousness has finally been settled." Scientific American (2023).
Chalmers, D. "Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness." J Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 200-19.