Since the Middle Ages, many philosophers, theologians (looking for the soul), and scientists (looking for the brain) have quarreled about \u2018qualia.\u2019 To this day, they haven\u2019t agreed although it is to many the most important of life’s conundrums. Let\u2019s dive and swim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no redness in the external world<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n You might know that there are only frequencies of light \u2015 science has come this far. The human brain has evolved to differentiate the environment into objects using many features, among which are light-related (visual) ones. Nature being a pragmatic wizard, we don\u2019t see infrared because we sleep at night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One step further, the input to the brain doesn\u2019t comprise any color, nor even frequencies. These are transduced in the eye\u2019s retina into nerve impulses that travel to the brain. Eventually, all the brain gets are these nerve impulses \u2015 the same with other senses such as smell and touch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, how do we see redness?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Redness is a state of brain<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n See my blog about the \u2018mind = body\u2019 breakthrough<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A pattern of neurons\/synapses being activated together \u2013 the brain view \u2013 IS, from the mind view, the experience-of-redness. From the mind metaphor, one can say to \u2018have redness in one\u2019s mind.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Redness is, therefore, not a content of the brain. It is in no sense something like an object in the brain. It is the brain state in which that specific (and very complex) pattern is active, ready to be described from the mind view as redness. Within the body=mind paradigm, this pattern is a mental-neuronal pattern (MNP)<\/a> with a potentially wide distribution. No part of the brain is looking at this pattern. The MNP stage is the end of the line towards the conscious perception of redness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The experience-of-redness is the being-with-this-pattern. If you look at something red, there is an organism (you) practicing the being-with-this-pattern. Take all your MNPs out, and there is no super-entity within you getting astonished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, your MNPs are also very much mutually intertwined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much more than redness<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In redness, we see the way our brain works. This is not only applicable to sensory data-information-experiences. The brain works this same way overall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ANY content of the mind is a state of brain\/mind, whether it be a perception, a thought, a feeling, or an emotion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This brings us to the following.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The hard problem<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u2018hard problem\u2019 is the problem of how we can be conscious of anything at all. Many researchers are still having heated discussions. Some say it is arguably the most challenging problem in the universe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We can be conscious of seeing red things. We can be conscious of redness itself if we see it and say meaningfully: \u201cThis object is a red object. One of its features is redness.\u201d Moreover, we can be conscious of anything we can \u2013 consciously \u2013 think of. The hard problem is how we can be conscious in the first place, then be conscious of something.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The hard solution<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <Being-conscious-of-X> is a concept that belongs to the mind view. Within this mind view, we can easily \u2013 and therefore we spontaneously do \u2013 take it apart into <being-conscious> and <X>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But this is an artificial deconstruction, even in the mind view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Being conscious is a state of mind.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Being conscious of redness is the state of mind that coincides with the neuronal patterns that are active any time we consciously see \u2013 or think of \u2013 redness. It coincides so much because it is the same thing \u2015 same pattern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One thing, two views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Likewise, being conscious of anything is the related state of mind of this anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cannot one be conscious without being conscious of anything?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, this is the immediate question of the highbrow critical person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It makes me think of a deeply meditative state. Even there, one is conscious of minimal content. Going deeper puts the meditator in a coma. I have no knowledge of this ever happening. So, I don\u2019t know. But I see no point in striving to be in a coma unless peri-operatively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In any worthwhile conscious state, there is something in the consciousness; there is a being-conscious-of-X. Being conscious<\/a> is being-conscious-of-X.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, no hard problem anymore.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The hard solution shows us that we are bound, as human beings, to our being human. That is OK to me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n