The Hard Problem of Accepting Physical Reality

Philosophers are endlessly challenged with the Hard Problem of consciousness: “Why does processing feel like anything?” - “Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?” - “Why is any physical state conscious rather than nonconscious?”

They call it the “Explanatory gap problem” - here I strive to flag the missing something between “no awareness" and “felt like something.”

Looking at this from a science-respecting, Earth-centrist perspective I don’t think it’s that complicated. Though it requires some evolutionary background.

It starts with subatomic particles that exist at the very boundary between matter and energy.

From there the progression of atomic structure methodically evolves with increasing complexity following a specific defined gradient. Step by measured quantum step of exquisitely exacting configurations, eventually forming some 92 different (naturally occurring) atomic “entities”. With a rigid consistency that follows all the way through to yet more exotic atoms, including 24 “manmade” elements.

These atoms are entities. This is based on observations that they communicate, influence, and cooperate with other entities. Of course it’s all on a quantum level.

Awareness has nothing to do with it. Nor is it “panpsychism.” It is simply acknowledging that fundamental particles are in constant association, including communicating - a term physicists use. This recognizes that particles are already influencing each other, which indicates a capacity for interaction.

Philosophers will suggest that “Continuity of mechanism is not the same as continuity of what it’s like.” But, the point is, it is the biological mechanisms working hand in glove with environments that morph "what it’s like” to be something into something meaningful.

Then came unimaginable eons’ worth of deep-time, unfolding moment to moment. Atoms evolved into complex aggregates of increasing size and complexity. Gravity entered the equation, and together with Time, atomic elements grew into a bewildering variety of forms.

Stars, planets, galaxies of mind-boggling sizes, engaged in a variety of dynamics that never cease to amaze. What we do know is that each object influences the whole, implying there is an awful lot of communicating going on. A cosmos filled with entities, each entity constrained within its particular physicality (bandwidth).

Each oblivious to its Self, because there was no need for it, and no means to it.

After all, consciousness is fundamentally all about interaction. Creatures are in constant feedback loops with prediction, observation, evaluation, reaction, all unfolding within their unique dynamic environments.

The point is, the pre-biotic world was full of entities, not selves in any aware manner, but embodiments nonetheless. On Earth, stuff like crystals, mineral lattices, metals, etc. Out in the cosmos, all sorts of extreme atomic realities unfolded, thanks to interacting with gravity. Each entity is unique and projects itself to the outside, interacting with some of that world.

Point being, it was a simple physical reality where “consciousness” had no place or means.

Then came the Krebs cycle, when CHNOPS (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur) captured and harnessed electricity, energy.

This injected a motive force that exploded molecular complexity to previously inconceivable elaborations and interactions. Thus sending Earth’s Evolution down an absolutely unique path, enabling life to take hold and build upon those beginnings towards ever more amazing levels of complexities and abilities.

Biotic molecular arrangements found themselves within a significantly different environment, with interactions becoming more involved and specific. This in turn required new communication strategies and the hardware to enable it.

The increasing complexity of molecular systems created the differentiation that evolved specialized units for handling the various tasks required to accommodate increasing complexity, including inner-cell, later inner-creature, communication systems.

These new layers were built upon the nuance of already existing atomic/quantum interactions, communication, and cooperation systems - as witnessed by the latest evolutionary biological and neuroscientific evidence that is peering ever deeper into the physical reality of thought and consciousness beyond anything imaginable as recently as the pre-2000s.

My point being that the world was always populated with entities, incredibly complex molecular entities that were something, simply by virtue of their composition and specific dynamic interactions. But nothing was at home to perceive, or care.

Evolution was a process of exploration, experimentation, and culling; inevitably efficiency and motivation became important players in the survival game. There was never a switch turned on, biological or mythical. Connecting with one’s “Self” evolved over eons, and to different degrees.

As for some philosopher’s ability to imagine a Zombie - what’s that worth? We can imagine anything we want. The standard reply is that imaginability alone isn’t the point — what matters is whether the imagined scenario contains a hidden logical contradiction.

I find the weak link in the Zombie argument’s assumption that we have complete understanding of our body’s exquisite complex biological functions.

Presuming conceivability without contradiction isn’t the same as a demonstrated possibility. The Hard Problem simply assumes, for argument’s sake.

When I look at Evolution’s fantastical pageant, it’s filled with extraordinary creatures that were consistently pushing the envelope of what was previously possible, and coming up with mind-boggling strategies and mechanisms that elevated them to new heights in the so-called biological-arms-race. This isn’t about introspection, it’s about awareness informing action.

————————

The Hard Problem tries to make something magical out of “feeling like something” when feeling like something was the only route for increasing living complexity to go, if it was going to succeed on an Earth that was getting faster, more complex, more dangerous and unforgiving.

“Feeling like something” was the survival advantage with everlasting payback!

The drive to thrive. One day at a time, day after day, that’s what creatures require to prosper, I can’t conceive of a Zombie mustering the grit it takes to survive.

It feels like something to be something, simply by virtue of Evolution’s ever so slowly increasing mechanical complexity that philosophers don’t care to discuss.

What’s going on here? History suggests that Descartes’ establishment of dualism was a result of appeasing both the Catholic Church and our Western sense of human exceptionalism and business interests - with its explicit understanding that Earth was ours to master and consume with no consideration beyond our own interests. It’s distasteful, but that’s how it really was. Our history books make that clear as a bell.

That’s why I find it easy to see the Hard Problem as an example of thinkers clinging to human exceptionalism - a matter of deep emotional and spiritual bias, and not a matter of fact-based understanding built upon scientific knowledge, along with a respect for down-to-Earth physical reality.

I tried looking further into this and mostly find stuff that’s just too deep, like

That is, physical facts plus “acquaintance knowledge” logically imply qualia.

There are four concepts in that that require plenty of study on their own.

That sentence was followed up by a reasonable explanation

Of course, this “change of who you are” is fundamentally an incoherent notion, because if Person A becomes Person B, then Person B is not Person A, and there’s no sense in which Person A is still somehow present in Person B. You can never get inside someone else’s head without being that person. So we should be extremely wary of attempts to presume that we can coherently imagine anything concerning a mind that we are not—which includes imagining that it lacks subjective experience. I might go so far as to say we can’t imagine anything from another perspective than our own—at least not in a way that has metaphysical import. Third-person imagination is legitimate because it’s done from our own perspective.

By extension, not being able to get inside the head of another is the same as not being able to know what it is to be a bat, or a rock, or a single cell of anything. We can generalize, but I can’t know enough about, for example, what it’s like to grow up in an abusive home surrounded by gangs of violent people, to say I understand that experience.

If we can’t know that, what can we know?

Here’s the whole article for citation.

I’m going to hold off on commenting on your link. I have looked at it, a couple times now. Since it seems to me the Zombie argument’s fine print is dispense with via appreciating the human mindscape, physical reality divide. Although it does invite a repeat of the closing paragraph.

Although on another front I’ve had to face up to a long standing substantive error, which Lisa Feldman Barrett finally set me straight on.

Yes, okay, the Brain does create Consciousness, period.
As opposed to my long standing suggestion of mind as body-brain interaction.
That is factually false! - however it is not metaphorical false,
since the brain is in constant communication and consultation with the body, also the state of our brain is dependent on how well the body is doing its job.

Important point being, it seems certain that the hardware that actually broadcasts the mind to our body is within the brain, independent of our body.

Which still leaves us with Dr. Solms’ seminal summary of a basic theory of consciousness that holds that consciousness is the reflection of our body communicating with itself. (With our brain being HQ)

As I mentioned, I put it there for citation. I didn’t intend it to an argument for or against anything. I think Chalmer’s fame is one of those accidents of scientific communication. He coined a phrase so he keeps getting referred to. I didn’t think he added a whole lot to the conversation. So, I really don’t care about the details of his p-zombie thoughts. I was just using that as a spring board for my own thoughts.