The first topic that they discussed was about Qualia. Qualia is a term that refers to the subject of our mental state and what it is like to experience everything in our everyday lives. For example, seeing the color red, hearing music, and having a conversation with someone, or feeling a sharp pain in my finger. In all of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character.
David Chambers went on to discuss his theories on consciousness. He explained that there has to be more to consciousness than just the physical brain. God had to have put consciousness into us and it just so happens that we have a body to go with it. He then explained that there are two issues that we encounter when trying to explain consciousness. The first issue, the easy one, is that we can explain how the brain works. We know that we have synapses and nerves in the brain that interpret everything, etc. The hard issue is explaining why everything is always accompanied by a "conscious experience". He explains that the hard problem of science cannot be solved by neuroscience alone.
Periodically through the interview I noticed that he would refer to God. When explaining consciousness he said, "God put consciousness into us and then put a body with it." I'm thinking that when he thinks about consciousness he could be using consciousness as an alternative to the soul. But then when I think about the soul I don't usually think that my soul is the reason why I experience consciousness.
This topic is really interesting for me and I feel like I have to continue following David Chalmers to see what else he thinks about consciousness.
I wonder, what has Mr. Chambers discovered about consciousness that the human brain cannot explain? I mean, surely, to make the claim that our consciousness is not purely dependent upon the physical brain; that there is something supernatural at work here, he has had to experience a state of consciousness that was contradicted by the brain; otherwise, he would be making a blind, unsupported claim.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how such claims would react to the Phineas Gage case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage); In other words, if our consciousness is malleable, as in it can drastically change due physiological trauma, then how can there be one underlying "God given" person. So, if Gage was given who he is, as in the way his consciousness views the world (and I agree that it seems like we may be talking about the nature of the soul here), and this changes in one sudden event, then how can there be continuity in this theory? or is it merely the fact that we are conscious?
ReplyDeleteI think Chambers is simply following a tradition here, which includes Descartes and many others, who saw consciousness and the mind, as opposed to the brain, as the soul of the person. This is, after all, how Descartes tried to prove the existence of God, and therefore reality. I didn't realize that there were still philosophers who held this point of view, as the soul is also proven not to be in the pineal gland. However, when people think of a particular soul, they do seem to incorporate the personality of the person and the idea that we are conscious in some way after death along with the ethereal part. I do know that the physical structure of the brain matters to these components, but I don't know that it is too far- fetched to say that what makes a person a person in most people'e minds, which by some is called their soul, is the personality that comes with their consciousness and physical make- up of the brain.
ReplyDelete