‘The hard problem of consciousness’: A lecture by Professor Mark Solms at the Freud Museum London

[@alexpetrov1969]

A clarification for those who comment, correctly, that Mark Solms did not really address Chalmers' hard problem: Yes, he didn't IN THIS TALK. However, in his recent (2021) book "The Hidden Spring" he devotes an entire chapter to proposing an answer to Chalmers' concern. His proposal is nuanced, complex, and requires certain background knowledge, but if I may presume to summarize it with a few sentences, Solms writes: "To explain psychology in relation to physiology, we must abstract ourselves from the observed phenomena of BOTH kinds (i.e. we must infer functional mechanisms, of both kinds) -- and then abstract ourselves from the two sets of abstractions to see the unifying common denominator." (p. 256) He also writes that "subjectivity is merely an observational perspective, where a subject is simply the being of a certain kind of object" (p. 261). Also, he argues that Chalmers' famous "explanatory gap" conflates two distinct kinds of explanatory gap. The first is "one located between TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF EXPERIENCE associated with two different observational perspectives. This is analogous to HEARING thunder with your ears and SEEING lightning with your eyes." (p. 252). "The second explanatory gap is located between experiences (of both kinds) and their underlying causes. ... It is, in short, the gap betwen the first-person and third-person perspectives. To take a third-person perspective on my own experience is to experience it no longer. This perspective concerns neither the brain as it looks nor the mind as it feels, but rather the forces that EXPLAIN why and how it looks and feels as it does. This is the perspective I (Solms) have taken in the book." (p. 252)

[@tomrasky]

I agree it’s essential to define what we mean by consciousness when discussing the hard problem. For me, Thomas Nagel’s definition -a being is conscious just if there is “something that it is like” to be that creature, (i.e. it has some sort of inner experience), is the kind of rudimentary definition that makes the most sense. Most of us can agree that a dog has inner experience but a rock does not. For the physicalist, the mystery of the hard problem is how matter/energy can transform from something that does not have inner experience into something that does.

[@austinthornton3407]

A rock doesn't have self awareness because it has no nervous system. But it does have experience which is its inherent quality of relationship. So it is composed in essence, of a dynamic energy fixed in a specific form, so fixed that we dismiss it as a rock. But its fixed nature is a product of its relationship with the whole universe which individuates it. So a rock is a product of a universal low level self organising system. The difference between humans and a rock, is that we are higher level self organising systems that have developed to the point that we have awareness. But as I set out separately in these comments, awareness is not consciousness. Consciousness is the quality of the relationship between the brain and the world. We can say that the universe becomes conscious through our awareness, as vice versa. Which means interestingly, that the rock become conscious of itself, through our awareness.

[@tomrasky]

I respectfully feel the speaker misses the point of the “hard problem”. That certain functions can operate unconsciously does not in any way explain away the hard problem or give further insight. Nor does the fact that consciousness has evolutionary value in survival of the organism. The hard problem in its essence asks “how can matter/energy of which the human body is composed (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, electrical flows and fields etc.) which we do not feel (in it’s rudimentary form) has inner experience, give rise to sentience. Physicalists will argue this is the result of emergent complexity, but this explanation has many problems, as too does a panpsychist explanation whereby fundamental particles have some type of proto-consciousness. The hard problem continues to be a mystery.

[@TheDudeKicker]

I don't think he was trying to. His point was to say we are looking in the wrong place when we start to try and answer that question.

[@johnwilsonwsws]

The problem is the “matter/energy” is not well understood. There is no term in the Schroedinger equation for the collapse of the wave function, yet we know that collapse happens. What do you think of the Roger Penrose / Stuart Hameroff theory that the wave collapse is a “proto consciousness”. This seems like the most fruitful line of inquiry. Ref: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rnjFmHecaa12frcsi=HDA9SCzBitkTdGiv

[@idonotlikethismusic]

I think you mean "panpsychist," not "pantheistic."

[@christopherhamilton3621]

The claim is oversimplified: scientists are not saying that exactly. Try listening to what he’s really saying.

[@santacruzman]

You don't really say what the problems are with emergent complexity. Boundary conditions are real. What does knowledge of the spin and knowledge of the momentum of all particles in a ham sandwich say about bread, mayonaise, cheese, lettuce, or smoked, cured pork? Absolutely nothing.

[@tomrasky]

I fail to see how looking at qualia other than visual perception will be any kind of breakthrough in solving this greatest of mysteries.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Why privilege the visual? I think that’s a mistake…

[@richardnunziata3221]

While we can't point to a direct equivalent of the parabrachial nucleus in octopuses, their unique nervous system architecture likely supports consciousness through different mechanisms. It is interesting that many species have similar variation and are considered conscious. Is there a necessity here and what about insects.

[@TheAdrian2882]

Interesting point of view but during the whole talk Professor Solms is confusing the term Unconscious with Subconscious.

[@user-pu5tl5px6g]

Holy moley. Imagine you're some rando on the internet and you're in any kind of position to be correcting arguably the most brilliant living psychologist/neuroscientist living today on such a basic thing. Unreal.

[@tomrasky]

Yes, my mistake!

[@Arunava_Gupta]

When will the intellectuals and scientists realise that in order to solve the hard problem of consciousness there has necessarily to be a non-neuronal feeling entity separate from the brain but connected to it that's the real enjoyer of subjective conscious experience and the (true) feeler of the sensory signals conveyed by the neurones.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

You should be asking them that and question any presuppositions in your question. Why do you think this ‘escapes them’? They’re not stupid…

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@christopherhamilton3621 if you knew the history of science and the opposition to certain ideas, you would not have been making this statement.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

@@Arunava_Gupta Really? I actually understand more than you assume. Why wouldn’t there be a reasonable opposition or do you just assume opposition for oppositions sake?

[@Arunava_Gupta]

@@christopherhamilton3621 forgive me if my statement sounded rude. Apologies. But it was a mildly rhetorical response to your assertion that "they are not stupid. " Yes, some legitimate opposition is justified but some ideas are opposed not on merit but due to mental biases, insecurities and agendas. And yes also due to plain stupidity.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Chinese philosophy has it that nothing happens without three. If this is accurate our minds should be triune. Carl Jung dealt with this to some extent with the conscious mind; the subconsciousness mind; and the superconscious mind which could be seen as what he called the transcendent function. Consciousness could be seen as similar to electricity in how it operates; how electricity works and enables computing in the computer and light in the lamp; electricity not being endemic to either but operating through them and enabling them to function. In a similar fashion consciousness operates in the brain while there is no evidence that brain function produces it. That consciousness is found to be fundamental is more than likely and it is also likely that mind will be found to be elemental; emerging with quantum events. Materialism is now called physicalism taking in more than just matter; a nod to forces as physics brings more information into the mix. It is difficult for physicalists to think of the intangible as the tangible has played a role; the only role so far in material science considering the elemental or matter. Science is now beginning to consider forces all still material. Anything not tangible is unheard of but consciousness if fundamental would be the exception as the only non-tangible in existence. Will the hard problem be solved? It is unlikely and it will remain with some physicalists seeing it as arising from the tangible and others seeing it as not proved and therefore still intangible; the hard problem. In this lecture the tangible is discussed at great length but is not convincing; how the physical by function can produce awareness. If we are not consciousness we would not feel. It is a given that consciousness enables everything; anything else is absurd.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

And your credentials are?

[@ALavin-en1kr]

@@christopherhamilton3621 Common sense (greatly underrated) and the thinking of great minds down through the ages going back to the ancient philosophers.

[@santacruzman]

Yeah, common sense! You had me at threeness. 😂