Consciousness – our very subjective state of self-reflection and awareness – is among probably the deepest mysteries of philosophy and science. The issue of exactly how consciousness originates from physical processes in the brain remains mostly unresolved despite advancements in neuroscience, psychology and cognitive science. The “hard problem” of consciousness, coined by philosopher David Chalmers, is the “quest for answers as to why and how we encounter subjective experiences” (qualia, “like redness or pain for an apple). Although there are scientific explanations and theories for elements of consciousness, the nature of subjective experience might nevertheless remain unclear. Whether consciousness is going to always be considered a mystery and if science will ultimately unlock its secrets is debated.
Current scientific approaches to consciousness involve mainly the neuronal functions of the human brain. Scientists have started mapping away brain activity and determining neural correlates of consciousness (NCCs) – the patterns of brain activity which correlate with conscious experiences. For instance, scientific studies with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have demonstrated that areas just like the prefrontal cortex and also the parietal lobes are involved in conscious thought. These findings indicate that consciousness is linked with the capability of the brain to combine information out of many senses and cognitive methods.
A prominent scientific Theory of consciousness is the Global Workspace theory (GWT) of cognitive scientist Bernard Baars. GWT postulates that consciousness comes from information being broadcast out to the worldwide workspace of the brain, a system of information processing areas. Based on this viewpoint, conscious awareness happens when information is accessible to several parts of the brain to make introspection, reason, or a decision. GWT discusses a few elements of exactly how conscious information is produced by the mind but not why subjective experience results from these processes.
Another influential Theory is Integrated Information theory (IIT) by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. IIT proposes that consciousness depends on the degree of information integration in a system. Based on this particular theory, consciousness is a characteristic of any system highly complicated and linked, therefore even non-biological systems (such as advanced artificial intelligence) might hypothetically be conscious in case they possess the correct type of building. IIT attempts to measure consciousness mathematically as information integration in a system but hasn’t yet explained its qualitative, subjective nature.
These scientific theories provide compelling frameworks but are limited in explaining why consciousness feels how it does. For instance, determining the brain areas involved in consciousness doesn’t always describe exactly how all those neural actions lead to subjective experiences of seeing different colors, feeling feelings, or perhaps having feelings. This gap is the central point of Chalmers hard problem of consciousness and shows exactly why many think consciousness may remain unsolved.
A reason consciousness might resist scientific explanation is it is subjective. Science as an empirical discipline is derived from objective observation, measurement and experimentation. Consciousness is instead personal and first-person. Even when we measure brain activity precisely, we are able to not directly access another’s subjective experience. This raises a fundamental problem: Could objective science explain something so subjective?
Several philosophers propose that consciousness might call for an important shift in our scientific paradigms, like those in earlier revolutions in physics. For instance, the switch out of classical mechanics to quantum mechanics demonstrated that reality acts in ways that were previously unimaginable. Consciousness might similarly require new conceptual tools or frameworks beyond those presently understood about the brain and physical processes.
Other philosophical viewpoints, like panpsychism, state that consciousness is an essential characteristic of the universe as energy or mass. Consciousness might exist in some extent in all matter, not only in complicated brains, according to panpsychism. This idea questions the assumption that consciousness originates from certain biological structures and that the “hard problem” arises since we interpret consciousness wrongly.
Or other materialist thinkers hold that consciousness is explained ultimately by new science – but we aren’t there just yet. As we once lacked tools to understand electrical power or genetics, we might presently lack the knowledge or technology to understand consciousness. As neuroscience develops and our knowledge of the human brain gets better, we may reach a place in which the nature of subjective experience gets to be more explicit – even elusive -.
Finally, even though science has started to understand the neural correlates and features of consciousness, the nature of subjective experience – the “hard problem” – is still unsolved. Whether consciousness could be attributed to scientific methods or will always be a mystery remains debated. Others point out that understanding brain processes will in due course lead to the key to consciousness while others suggest new paradigms or maybe perhaps metaphysical perspectives are required to grasp its essence. For the time being, consciousness occupies a territory in between the known and the unknown, a concern which prompts both philosophy and science.