Do you believe that the hard problem does exist, and that it isn't being addressed properly? — Bird-Up

Consciousness came about through evolution. That doesn't explain why consciousness is the same thing as neural/biological activities.

Consciousness came about through evolution. That doesn't explain why consciousness is the same thing as neural/biological activities. — schopenhauer1

Why do we need to separate consciousness from neural/biological activities? What characteristic prevents us from grouping them together in the same category?

Why do we need to separate consciousness from neural/biological activities? What characteristic prevents us from grouping them together in the same category? — Bird-Up

Why does an organism with a brain have consciousness and not a single cell or a plant or a blade of grass. The kind of substance and the form of material doesn’t get at it. You take for granted we already know consciousness must pop out of the equation perhaps. Also, adding a sufficient amount of complexity doesn't just magically turn the water into wine either. Oh you see the eye does X, Y, Z.....The cortical layers of blah blah does X, Y, Z....The peripheral nervous system does X, Y, Z... Calcium and sodium ion gates, action potentials, do X, Y, Z... Keep heaping as much as you want.

Why does an organism with a brain have consciousness and not a single cell or a plant or a blade of grass. The kind of substance and the form of material doesn’t get at it. — schopenhauer1

As grass has proven, consciousness isn't strictly necessary for survival. So isn't a larger brain part of the substance and form? Couldn't it be possible that a brain past a certain size will inevitably spend more of its processing power on abstract thoughts (conscious sensations)? All the most simple and important functions could have been accomplished with a smaller neural network. In general, I would say you can estimate how much consciousness a creature possesses by looking at the size (or number of connections) of their brain.

I think that shows how nature considers abstract thought to be an expensive luxury of sorts. Does consciousness keep you alive a little longer? Yes. But is it worth the expense of more brain cells? No; according to the number of simpler organisms on this planet.

What if we discovered an animal that had twice as much processing power as a human. It would have to be using those larger neural-networks to accomplish something. I would expect such an animal to experience a deeper, more vivid sense of conscious existence compared to us.

Don't you think brain-size matters? Do you think it's physically possible for an animal to have a large brain, yet avoid experiencing any level of consciousness?

Don't you think brain-size matters? Do you think it's physically possible for an animal to have a large brain, yet avoid experiencing any level of consciousness? — Bird-Up

These are easy questions of consciousness. Not the hard question. So you are not asking the right question(s). You can point all day to brain sizes, neural activity, and information processing, and you will still not get at it. How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate.

These are easy questions of consciousness. Not the hard question. So you are not asking the right question(s). You can point all day to brain sizes, neural activity, and information processing, and you will still not get at it. How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate. — schopenhauer1

But by looking somewhere else for an explanation, you have already disqualified neural activity as one of the candidates.

You pointed out that not all lifeforms experience consciousness. So I pointed out that something like a plant lacks the cluster of nerve cells that we call a brain.

What if we limited the discussion to humans? What specifically disqualifies a human's conscious experience from being explained entirely by neural activity?

How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate. — schopenhauer1

Why can't the experience that we feel correlate to the substrate? The question assumes that conscious experience has already done something to distinguish itself apart from the substrate. What is that specific quality? (Other than to say it seems strange.) It's not that I don't see the question, but that I think the basis for asking the question is flawed.

You could say that consciousness is many steps removed from the raw input of our senses. So you are right to emphasize the distance between the two. But dramatically-different brain-activity still falls under the category of brain-activity. Unless there is a specific reason why it couldn't fall under that category?

Another way to look at it:
Is it right to assume that a system of awareness shouldn't experience consciousness? Isn't the side effect of consciousness unavoidable when you have a system juggling many different inputs and deciding between them? Chalmers' assumption that awareness should take place "in the dark" makes less sense the longer you think about it.

Why can't the experience that we feel correlate to the substrate? — Bird-Up

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that simply correlating X neural activity with Y subjective experience isn't the hard problem anymore. That is part of the easy problems. Rather, how is it that neural activity is one and the same as subjective experience is what is to be explained.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that simply correlating X neural activity with Y subjective experience isn't the hard problem anymore. That is part of the easy problems. Rather, how is it that neural activity is one and the same as subjective experience is what is to be explained. — schopenhauer1

What a shame. Your own existence demanding explanation. Neural activity can be one and the same without your blessing. What made you ban your subjective experience from the realm of reality? When did it become something less? Something that needs an excuse in order to exist?

You haven't illustrated much about human existence. But you have have illustrated the endless tunnel of human guilt. Or maybe a lack of imagination? Which sin has your reality committed? Why has your existence incurred a debt so quickly? Rest assured, you can see whatever you need to for as long as you want. If nothing else, you are confident that your sensation of reality is untrustworthy.

The hard problem no longer exists without guilt. Who told you that the physical brain alone was not enough? How does the hard problem help you sleep at night? What more do you want to be?