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