Modern philosophers: Chalmers, Nagel, Rosenberg, Pigliucci, Noë

Those available to standard covnitive science methods where a phenomenon can be explained in terms of mechanisms

According to Chalmers, what are the “easy problems” of consciousness?

• Ability to categorize, react to environmental stimuli

• Integrate info by a cognitive system

• Ability of system to access internal states

• Focus attention/control behavior

• Difference between wakefulness and sleep

Examples of “easy problems” (to explain)

The problem of experience: when we When we perceive there is the subjective aspect, something it is like to be an organism, differs for every person

According to Chalmers, what is the “hard problem” of consciousness?

It must expand to have theories that can explain the existence of mental phenomena in the universe and the subjective points of view they occur in. Physical sciences don’t capture subjective experience

According to Nagel, how must science change if it is to explain conscious life?

Eliminitavism: He is arguing we should question our ability to know our own minds because research has shown how wrong we can be about our real motivations and or thoughts

What is Rosenberg’s central argument?

They argued that consciousness could be explained if the physical sciences adapted, while Rosenberg is arguing the opposite that conscious experience is not possible because we do not know our minds. 

How do Chalmers and Nagel differ from Rosenberg?

He thinks that Rosenberg is wholly incorrect, that his argument that we can’t really think because we don’t know our minds is self-contradictory, because consciousness is a phenomenon of brain activity.

What does Pigliucci think of Rosenberg’s approach?

Consciousness science can’t be just neuroscience, because consciousness is not just a neural phenomenon. We can only begin to understand how it makes consciousness by realizing it functions in the setting of our bodies and broader environmental situation.

According to Noë, how should we approach the study of consciousness?

We try to find the answer from inside ourselves with the belief that consciousness is internal, but it’s a dynamic process so instead we should look outwards. We are not our brains, separate entities.

What does Noë argue is the mistaken assumption at the root of much contemporary neuroscience?

The view that everything is in some way mental or experiential. It asserts that consciousness should be seen as a fundamental scientific building block.

What is panpsychism?