What problem is determining why or howWhat problem is determining why or how

What is consciousness?

Consciousness is a topic that millions of
people have tried to figure out over millions of years, but no human has come
to a definitive answer. One of
the problem is the fact that we cannot compare consciousness to anything
physical. It is like to see the colour blue, to taste sweets or to feel happy
or sad. Philosophers call this phenomenology. Unlike other stuff, it is not
something we can point to or hold in our hand. It is not something we have been
able to calculate or visualise using computer simulation or even our
imagination.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

David
Chalmers published a paper in 1994 explaining why understanding consciousness
was so hard. He was not the first to analyse these challenges but he
was the first to categorise them into easy and hard problems. The “easy
problem” was to explain how our mind receives and process our information from
our senses to create focus and attention. Explaining this is not easy as pie
but the nervous system and how it reacts in different conditions can determine
it. The “hard problem” in contrast is much harder to solve- near
impossible. The hard problem is
determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of
brain matter.

So why do people think that
the “hard problem is insolvable”. There are two arguments supporting
this view. The first argument is that our weak brains are not able to find a
solution because our brains do not have the ability to take in the vast amount
of information and then process it, which would then lead to an understanding
of consciousness. The second argument supporting the statement is that a
solution to a problem requires that you not be part of the problem. What does
that mean? To solve a problem, or the argument, you must have an understanding
of the facts and mechanisms that lead to the problem. But since that all of us
reading this are conscious, we can never come to a decisive conclusion that
isn’t bias.

But this
this argument fails to cover the fact that we can use inductive thinking to
find out. The dictionary definition for inductive thinking is Inductive
reasoning is a style of reasoning in which decisions are made and conclusions
are reached by a process of analysing available evidence and past experiences.
But in simple terms inductive thinking is the “bottom-up” logic we often use to
construct beliefs in our daily lives. One way we use induction every day is when choosing what to
wear. We choose a particular type of outfit to wear based on past weather. If
we know the outdoor temperature has been 25 degrees Celsius for the last 10
days, we can assume it will be hot outside, thus it is appropriate to put on a
short-sleeved t-shirt and even some shorts. Of course, you could be totally
wrong by using inductive thoughts. For example, this summer you might find that
a 25-degree day follows a 12-degree day. In that case the belief you arrived is
false. But induction seems to work in many most of the time. So, it’s unclear
why we could not use inductive reasoning to solve the hard problem.

Another idea called functionalism. This
theory says that the brain holds mental states which are then chosen by the
function or role they play in a given system. Under this theory, mental states
exist as causal relations to other mental states .Functionalism is especially
popular among a group called computationalists, those who believe the brain is
just a biological implementation of a computer. According to computationalists
the brain is a supercomputer which is physically able to realize mental states,

Descartes,
a French philosopher, proposed the idea of “cogito ergo sum” (I
think; therefore, I am), suggested that the act of just thinking demonstrates
the reality of one’s existence and consciousness. Today, consciousness is often
viewed as an individual’s awareness of their own internal states as well as the
events going on around them. If you can describe something you are experiencing
in words, then it is part of your consciousness.

In the last few decades, neuroscientists
have begun to attack the problem of understanding consciousness from an
evidence-based perspective. Many researchers have sought to discover specific
neurons or neural networks that are linked to conscious experiences. They have
been trying to look at patients in comas and differentiate their brain activity
to healthy humans

Modern
researchers have proposed two major theories of consciousness:

Integrated
information theory attempts to look at consciousness by learning more
about the physical processes that underlie our conscious experiences. The
theory attempts to create a measure of the integrated information that forms
consciousness. The quality of an organism’s consciousness is represented by the
level of integration. This theory tends to focus on whether something is
conscious and to what degree it is conscious.

The
global workspace theory suggests that we have a memory bank from which the
brain draws information to form the experience of conscious awareness.

An
Italian Scientist Dr. Giulio Tonoi introduced the system of phi in
2004, a scale of consciousness. Everything on earth has a phi scale. Our human
brains have a high phi; in contrast a computer hard drive has a low phi. You
might be wondering why a hard drive has a phi score, this is because of how phi
is calculated. Phi is a measure of the extent to which a given
system—for example, a brain—is capable of fusing these distinctive bits of
information. A hard drive can store information but cannot make any use with
it, while a human brain can store information and use it to calculate and/or
perceive emotions and senses.