X-Message-Number: 25102 From: "Basie" <> Subject: Consciousness Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:22:05 -0500 I guess if qualia can only be experienced one would not exist while in suspension. If one does not exist can one be a patient? Consciousness and the boundaries of science P.Schweizer <> (Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, UK) In recent years there has been a dramatic surge of interest amongst scientists in the phenomenon of consciousness. This interest is naturally coupled with optimism that science can solve the `problem' of consciousness, and thereby cast an illuminating ray into an area that has long been shrouded in mystery. Accordingly, there is a confident expectation amongst many that, just as scientific investigation and theorizing have profoundly increased our understanding of the basic structure of matter and of living systems, so too it will next solve the mystery of conscious awareness. However, I think that this optimism must be contained within very sharp boundaries, and that much of the current enthusiasm flourishes in a climate of intellectual naivete with regard to the longstanding philosophical dimensions of the issue. The scientific treatment of consciousness seeks to to discover the underlying neurophysiological structures and processes that give rise to conscious experience. And, of course, this is the approach that science should follow. By ever more rigorous investigation of the brain, there is well founded hope that the neurophysiogical basis of consciousness will be understood. However, it is essential to note that this projected scientific achievement would not constitute a solution to the traditional problem of consciousness. Rather, it would simply fill in certain details within the conceptual framework that defines the problem. Suppose that the scientific project has been successfully completed, and that the neurophysiological basis of consciousness has been fully mapped out. Then, what has actually been established is an exact 1-1 correlation between brain events and conscious experience. But this leaves a notorious `gap' between the two types of phenomena on either side of the equation. In principle, this gap is not bridgeable by science, and its existence after the completion of the scientific project constitutes one dimension of the traditional philosophical problem of consciousness. The phenomenon of consciousness is radically asymmetrical with other topics of scientific research. Normally both the explanandum and the ingredients of the theoretical exegesis lie on the same side of the gap, i.e. within the objectively accessible realm of material particles and forces. But in the case of consciousness, the explanandum is intrinsically unobservable, and cannot be detected, as such, by any objective methods. Qualia are characterized by `privileged access'; they cannot be observed, but only experienced. The gap has standardly been taken to indicate that the physicalist theory of consciousness is incomplete: we apparently still need a bridge explaining the relation between subjective awareness and corresponding brain structure. However, I argue that there is no such bridge, because the `gap' is not a separation that could be filled by any intervening theory. The problem is not one of presently unknown mechanisms, processes or underlying structures which form the `missing link' between material brains and conscious minds; rather the physicalist correlation itself constitutes an absolute limit on the scope of theoretical explanation. The 1-1 correlation forms an explanatory horizon; it cannot be internally elucidated by further theorizing. Instead, the correlated subjective experiences constitute the interpretation of the theory. Thus `bridging' the gap is tantamount to mapping the theory to the actual phenomena it is intended to be a theory of. This view is not `mysterian', since it is not the claim that the problem is too deep or complex to be humanly soluble. The `gap' between matter and mind is not a causal, ontological or computational separation. Rather it is a seamless shift between first person awareness and the objective basis of first person awareness. Session ---- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25102