Consciousness
____________________________________________________________

 

Consciousness is knowing or experiencing. It is the "Self", the "I".You may know that you exist, but you still don't know what that thing is that knows this.    Let us begin with the concept of Self.  It is Ego in the most basic sense. It is what we call by the name of me. But it should be made clear that the me, of which we speak, is not that physical form that others perceive as me, but trather is that which perceives itself, i.e. and materialism.
     While there are many versions of each, the dualists generally hold that consciousness is non-physical in some sense, i.e. spiritual. On the other hand, materialists hold that the mind is the brain, or, more accurately, that conscious mental activity is identical with neural activity. It is important to recognize that by non-physical, dualists do not merely mean “not visible to the naked eye.” Many physical things fit this description, such as the atoms which make up the air in a typical room. For something to be non-physical, it must literally be outside the realm of physics; that is, not in space at all and undetectable in principle by the instruments of physics. It is equally important to recognize that the category “physical” is broader than the category “material.” Materialists are called such because there is the tendency to view the brain, a material thing, as the most likely physical candidate to identify with the mind. However, something might be physical but not material in this sense, such as an electromagnetic or energy field. One might therefore instead be a “physicalist” in some broader sense and still not a dualist. In Cotard’s syndrome, the feeling of existence corrodes but something more fundamental does not ven though people with this rare condition feel they don’t exist, there is still an “I” experiencing that feeling. What is that “I”? One answer is that it may be a by-product of consciousness itself. though how this can possibly happen is the biggest problem in neuroscience. But how? That is a raging debate. At its heart is what philosopher David Chalmers at New York University termed the “hard problem” of consciousness: how can physical networks of neurons produce experiences that appear to fall outside the material world?  As Thomas Nagel, also at New York University, put it in the 1970s: you could know every detail of the physical workings of a bat’s brain, but still not know what it is like to be a bat. "You may know beyond a  doubt that you exist, but your ‘I’ could still be an illusion“ Broadly speaking, those trying to solve the hard problem fall into two camps, according to psychologist and philosopher Nicholas Humphrey. There are those who think that consciousness is something real and those who believe it is hard to define             .

     The prevailing worldview in scientific consciousness studies has to be the source of the ‘hard’ problem and its associated metaphysical problems; solipsism, freewill, scepticism, knowledge, origins, ethics and so on. Its failure as a solution to predict if the brain metaphysics is there for all to see. It is logically flawed such that according to reason it must be wrong. It describes a universe that is incomprehensible to us. If it is ‘scientific’ or ‘naturalistic’ then it would only be in the same sense as is the theory of philostogen. It renders consciousness ‘hard’ in exactly the way that Chalmers proposes and demonstrates. Not necessarily intractable, but having no solution that can be reconciled with the worldview that currently prevails in the natural sciences and mainstream western metaphysics.