Mystery of Consciousness

Each day I post a new MCAT CARS Passage. This is for anyone who wants to practice for the CARS Section. Every article is selected to meet the AAMC MCAT criteria.

Subscribe by email to receive a new practice passage each morning.

February 23, 2017 – MCAT CARS Passage

Question: What is your summary of the author’s main ideas. Post your own answer in the comments before reading those made by others.

One spring morning in Tucson, Arizona, in 1994, an unknown philosopher named David Chalmers got up to give a talk on consciousness, by which he meant the feeling of being inside your head, looking out – or, to use the kind of language that might give a neuroscientist an aneurysm, of having a soul. Though he didn’t realise it at the time, the young Australian academic was about to ignite a war between philosophers and scientists, by drawing attention to a central mystery of human life – perhaps the central mystery of human life – and revealing how embarrassingly far they were from solving it.

The scholars gathered at the University of Arizona – for what would later go down as a landmark conference on the subject – knew they were doing something edgy: in many quarters, consciousness was still taboo, too weird and new agey to take seriously, and some of the scientists in the audience were risking their reputations by attending. Yet the first two talks that day, before Chalmers’s, hadn’t proved thrilling. “Quite honestly, they were totally unintelligible and boring – I had no idea what anyone was talking about,” recalled Stuart Hameroff, the Arizona professor responsible for the event. “As the organiser, I’m looking around, and people are falling asleep, or getting restless.” He grew worried. “But then the third talk, right before the coffee break – that was Dave.” With his long, straggly hair and fondness for all-body denim, the 27-year-old Chalmers looked like he’d got lost en route to a Metallica concert. “He comes on stage, hair down to his butt, he’s prancing around like Mick Jagger,” Hameroff said. “But then he speaks. And that’s when everyone wakes up.”

The brain, Chalmers began by pointing out, poses all sorts of problems to keep scientists busy. How do we learn, store memories, or perceive things? How do you know to jerk your hand away from scalding water, or hear your name spoken across the room at a noisy party? But these were all “easy problems”, in the scheme of things: given enough time and money, experts would figure them out. There was only one truly hard problem of consciousness, Chalmers said. It was a puzzle so bewildering that, in the months after his talk, people started dignifying it with capital letters – the Hard Problem of Consciousness – and it’s this: why on earth should all those complicated brain processes feel like anything from the inside? Why aren’t we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life? And how does the brain manage it? How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience of being that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?

What jolted Chalmers’s audience from their torpor was how he had framed the question. “At the coffee break, I went around like a playwright on opening night, eavesdropping,” Hameroff said. “And everyone was like: ‘Oh! The Hard Problem! The Hard Problem! That’s why we’re here!’” Philosophers had pondered the so-called “mind-body problem” for centuries. But Chalmers’s particular manner of reviving it “reached outside philosophy and galvanised everyone. It defined the field. It made us ask: what the hell is this that we’re dealing with here?”

Two decades later, we know an astonishing amount about the brain: you can’t follow the news for a week without encountering at least one more tale about scientists discovering the brain region associated with gambling, or laziness, or love at first sight, or regret – and that’s only the research that makes the headlines. Meanwhile, the field of artificial intelligence – which focuses on recreating the abilities of the human brain, rather than on what it feels like to be one – has advanced stupendously. But like an obnoxious relative who invites himself to stay for a week and then won’t leave, the Hard Problem remains. When I stubbed my toe on the leg of the dining table this morning, as any student of the brain could tell you, nerve fibres called “C-fibres” shot a message to my spinal cord, sending neurotransmitters to the part of my brain called the thalamus, which activated (among other things) my limbic system. Fine. But how come all that was accompanied by an agonising flash of pain? And what is pain, anyway?

Questions like these, which straddle the border between science and philosophy, make some experts openly angry. They have caused others to argue that conscious sensations, such as pain, don’t really exist, no matter what I felt as I hopped in anguish around the kitchen; or, alternatively, that plants and trees must also be conscious. The Hard Problem has prompted arguments in serious journals about what is going on in the mind of a zombie, or – to quote the title of a famous 1974 paper by the philosopher Thomas Nagel – the question “What is it like to be a bat?” Some argue that the problem marks the boundary not just of what we currently know, but of what science could ever explain. On the other hand, in recent years, a handful of neuroscientists have come to believe that it may finally be about to be solved – but only if we are willing to accept the profoundly unsettling conclusion that computers or the internet might soon become conscious, too.

Adapted from theguardian.

Review

Leave a comment below with what you understood to be the author’s main ideas. Ask about this daily passage in office hours/workshops for help.

Subscribe to my Daily CARS mailing list by entering your email.

The full list of daily articles is available here.

This was an article on Psychology.

Have a great day.
Jack Westin
MCAT CARS Instructor.
Contact Information

35 Comments


  1. MIP: Hard Problem = consciousness +border betn sci and phi (chalmers)

    Reply

  2. MIP: Chalmer’s hard question = why do we have consciousness, scientists can’t explain it without settliing for nondefinitive conclusion

    Reply

  3. MIP: mind-body problem revival=endless arg. of phil vs. sci.

    Reply

  4. conscious = debate. Chalmers interesting

    Reply

  5. I believe the author main idea’s Is the mind ability to be Conscious. a mystery to both philosophers and scientists

    Reply

  6. The hard problem and solves questions on consciousness…ideas and wonders still exist however.

    Reply

  7. Despite recent advances in understanding AI and neuroscience, questions about the nature of consciousness remain amongst philosophers. Scientists shun the idea.

    Reply

  8. MIP: Consciousness = Noticeable Problem

    Reply

  9. Understanding concisousness = Hard Problem, Science vs. Philosophy

    Reply

  10. When it comes to the brain, a philosopher named David Chalmers defines two types of problems, easy and hard. The easy problems are probed in laboratories every day. Which brain regions process pain? Which neurotransmitters associate with a behavior? The hard problem is figuring out why all of these processes have any sort of subjective experience attached to them. We could function perfectly well (feed ourselves, bathe, reproduce, etc) without consciously being aware of these actions. Some people argue the hard problem will never be answered. However, specifically in reference to artificial intelligence, others claim that the answer lies just on the horizon. Our search for the source of consciousness will emerge with intelligent machines.

    Reply

  11. MI: HP debate science vs phil= Davis talk, neut tone

    Reply

  12. Hard Problem of Consciousness = unsolved, Chalmer speech = unique and interesting.

    Reply

  13. Brain = known, while consciousness = unknown
    “Hard Problem” between science ≠ [not equal] philosophy

    Reply

  14. MI = what does consciousness mean, science conflicts with philosophy, know lot about brain

    Reply

  15. Consciousness hard problem = unsettled + debate

    Reply

  16. MIP: Mind-body problem still exists and causes division.
    Tone: neutral

    Reply

  17. The hard problem, mystery of consciousness, have created arguments and widened the border between phil and science

    Reply

  18. Central mystery of human life and how far we are from discovering it- the hard problem of Consciousness

    Reply

  19. MI: C=biggest myst>>debate started by D
    tone=neut

    Reply

  20. ‘why do we feel anything’ is a hard/intriguing question and is still a mystery

    Reply

  21. Consciousness=mystery +hard problem

    Reply

  22. Consciousness= hard probs remain (CW) ; philo vs science

    Reply

  23. Dave Chalmers thinks consciousness = Hard Problem= still a mystery = discussion among scientists vs. philosophers

    Reply

  24. Consciousness = hard problem; still remains as mystery.

    Reply

  25. Hard question on consciousness = why feeling/consciousness exist + science & philosophy debate + remains (RTA: Chalmers)

    Reply

  26. MI: Debate in the idea of consciousness in existence, esp after Chalmer’s talk

    Reply

  27. consciousness= difficult to understand + hard problem
    Calmers= captivating

    Reply

  28. consciousness = debate bet phil. & sci

    Reply

  29. Consciousness’ “hard problem” –> unsolved & cause debate

    Reply

  30. the topic of conciousness between philosophers and scientists strikes a angry debate
    conciousness = complicated brain process

    Reply

  31. Hard problem = difficult + push boundaries science/philosophy

    Reply

  32. MI: Consciousness = a hard problem to solve

    Reply

Leave a Reply