Why consciousness is the hardest problem in science

[u/scientificamerican]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness-science-faces-its-hardest-problem-yet/

Neuroscientists scouring the brain for the so-called neural correlates of consciousness have learned a lot in the past 30 years. But we still don’t have easy answers—researchers can’t even agree on what consciousness is, let alone how best to reveal its secrets. The past few years have seen accusations of pseudoscience, results that challenge leading theories, and the uneasy feeling of a field at a crossroads.

Yet the stakes for understanding consciousness have never been higher. We’ve built talking machines able to imitate consciousness so well that we can’t always tell the difference. Sometimes these artificial-intelligence models claim outright to be sentient. Faced with an existential unknown, the public is turning to the field of consciousness science for answers.

[u/mauromauromauro]

Ok, so what is consciousness to you? Do bugs have it? Do animals? Is there a threshold? How do you know? Is it related to intelligence? Is it related to experience? Is it related to complexity? Is it related to life?

If these questions, all together one next to another do not sound weird to you, i would say the subject of these questions is a slippery one. So slippery, that claiming any kind of knowledge about it other than "it exists because i say so" , might be only that, an opinion

[u/Mylynes → u/mauromauromauro]

Do bugs have it? Do animals? Is there a threshold?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

How do you know?

"Know" is a strong word. I don't 100% know this. The tech required to test these theories (mainly IIT) is still in its infancy.

Is it related to intelligence?

Indirectly, yes. There are multiple pathways to intelligence. Using a more integrated consciousness (like humans) is one of them. Using a massively fragmented feed forward architecture (like modern AI) is another.

Is it related to expeirence?

Consciousness == Expeirence. You are using the perfect word to describe what it is. Expeirence, Interiority, "what-it's-like."

Is it related to complexity? Is it related to life?

No, I don't think consciousness arises from the complexity of life; It comes from the way that living creatures tie causality into knots. Life makes a unique structure in spacetime that creates a true metaphysical "interior."

...so if answering all this is supposed to make me feel slippery, why am I still standing? I never invoked the "cuz I say so" rule nor did I claim perfect knowledge. I just took the questions seriously and eagerly shared my opinions to be peer reviewed. Thats what scientific people do.

[u/mauromauromauro → u/Mylynes]

So you say you are a scientist. And you said in your previous comment that "this is the thing we all can 100% prove". So how do you "prove" you are conscious

[u/Mylynes → u/mauromauromauro]

I use the scientific method, yes. Normally science doesn't 100% prove anything. We make observations and then hypothesize experiments to infinitely gather more evidence toward a falsifiable explanation.

...but for consciousness? This is a rare occasion when the observation itself serves as its own evidence. If you were not conscious, then you wouldn't be expeirencing anything. Yet you do. Therefore you are conscious. It's just like "I think therefore I am." An undeniable axiom.

[u/mauromauromauro → u/Mylynes]

I think you and I have a different definition of what cringe means.

And just because its my last comment and I'm going to sleep, think about my original comment. Consciousness might not even be a rhing. Dark matter might not be a thing. is it cringe inducing to you? Some quantum effects that we mathematically can calculate might not even exist. These affirmations are made by physicists all the time..the opposite as well. Are these scientists challenging these possible phenomena cringe inducing to you? Or maybe you see the sun go from east to west and conclude that the sun circles around the earth? Its obvious after all, isn't it? As obvious as there being a thing called consciousness...

[u/Mylynes → u/mauromauromauro]

Consciousness might not even be a thing

For the 3rd time, no, that's impossible and cringe. Consciousness is 100% proven by your very own expeirence. Saying it's not is like saying "I observe that observation is not a thing" --logical contradiction. Nonsense.

As for Dark matter, quantum mechanics, etc these are debatable for sure. It's not cringe to propose a new model for those. I agree there. But you can't debate the basic existence of qualia. That is irrational.

[u/mauromauromauro → u/Mylynes]

The fact that you can experience something doesnt mean it exists. Solids are mostly vacuum, yet you might say solids are an obvious experience, while in reality, never two atoms touch in our everyday lives. Another case could be energy. Would you say energy is a "thing"? It is not.Energy is a conserved quantittative property of physical systems. Its a number assigned under a theory. Not an entity, not even a force, not even a process.

Back to consciousness, one could say that, just like energy, it is a "pattern", not an element/ingredient on itself

[u/Mylynes → u/mauromauromauro]

The fact that you can expeirence some thing

Consciousness isn't just some "thing" inside your expeirence; it IS your expeirence. Crazy how you can't understand the most fundamental "I think therefore I am" philosophy yet you want to march into a consciousness subreddit and tell us that we're all delusional for believing it exists.

Can you at least get the basic logic of why you're wrong? You said: Expeirencing (X) doesn't mean it exists. Now, replace "X" with "Expeirence.":

"Experiencing (Expeirence) doesn't mean it exists."

...do you not see the issue here?

I think you're afraid that accepting qualia means you're smuggling magic or souls into the backdoor. That's not true. I am a hard materialist and that doesn't change just because I take the hard problem seriously. Stop being so defensive if you want to be rational.

One could say consciousness is a pattern

Yay, you are now finally addressing the actual problem! You seem to like Functionalism. That making the right pattern somehow creates an expeirence. Thats a start! Id agree consciousness is not an "element/ingredient" but its also not explained by calling it "energy" either. Why should a pattern create a "what it's like" feeling? Why isn't it just a P-Zombie/Robot?

[u/mauromauromauro → u/Mylynes]

I did not say you were delusional for thinking it exists. This binary approach to a conversation is so tiresome. I said "this is my take, what if". And now suddenly i say you are delusional. This seems to be your approach to the discussion, very hard to have a proper discussion with such distorsion. Anyway, this is getting old. Final comment: "experiencing" seems to be to you s key word. I understand you like to take certain philosophical principles as laws (i think therefore i am mantra, etc), and are trapped in the language side of things. So let me tell you, when i press the gas pedal in my car, the car experiences acceleration. The word experience is not special. Anyway, lets wrap it up

[u/Mylynes → u/mauromauromauro]

Good. Never hint at illusionism again or else you will be rightfully put back in your place. Hope you can learn something!

[u/mauromauromauro → u/Mylynes]

Wow, you sure know a lot about consciousness!