Ned Block - Is Consciousness Irreducible?

Why is consciousness so contentious? Neuroscience can increasingly explain many facets of consciousness, but what about conscious awareness itself? Some philosophers claim that although facets of consciousness—such as how we see edges or colors—can be explained, we have no possibility of explaining, in purely physical terms, the experience of consciousness.



Ned Block is an American philosopher working in the field of the philosophy of mind who has made important contributions to matters of consciousness and cognitive science.


Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[-by-_Publishing_LLC]

(3:00) *NB: **_"I see absolutely no reason to think that the mystery of consciousness needs to be brought in to explain the mystery of the beginning of the cosmos or to explain quantum mechanics."_* ... Consciousness, at its core, is *information.* It's a highly evolved form of information that is able to acquire, process, and assimilate preexisting information while generating new information via our many diverse _"value assessments."_

*Example #1:* "Predator and Prey" is a fundamental interaction process found within nature. Whereas "Predator and Prey" can be easily viewed prima facie as a benign, natural process that feels no pity, compassion, or remorse, our human consciousness can render value judgments that transcend nature. Some consciousnesses may judge nature as cruel, primitive, and something that we need to rise above. Other consciousnesses may judge nature as a flawlessly balanced template to which other areas of human existence should follow (i.e., business, sports, investing, colonization, government, etc.).

*Example #2:* One information processor (consciousness) might judge a spider's information as a hideously ugly, fear-instilling abomination that needs to be squashed, whereas another information processor (consciousness) might judge this same spider as a beautiful, ingeniously designed specimen of self-sustaining architecture deserving of humble praise and research.

After 14 giga-annum of evolution, this is all just "Information" (consciousness) adding higher tier "information" to an ever-evolving database of "information" known as *Existence.*

[Mirf]

the entity is illusion it's all about memories, so when we die it feels like 5 second then you will find your self living and try surviving somewhere else, because conscious when it cease to exist it doesn't subject to the time, so it feels like 5 seconds, the proof of that is that patents when they go into comma for decades and then awake they feel it's about 5 seconds, so I think it's very daunting and painful to live for example for 1 million year, so super intelligent beings might choose to die in order to allow their universe get advanced and they will given a chance again and again.

[francesco]

Consciousness is a too refined/important/fundamental thing to be here "by chance". Saying that the universe does not care if there are conscious beings in it is like saying that a car does not care if there is a driver. Is irrelevant without it.

[susanmaddison]

The probabalistic formulation for the question is, "How many mysteries could we expect to find, (a) if the universe were consciously created (esp. if with us in mind), or (b) if it were without conscious creator? That's what would indicate whether the presence of the multiple mysteries that we've run into constitutes evidence for or against the existence of a conscious creator.

[Beevreeter]

We are anthropocentric to the degree that we look at ourselves and our consciousness and say 'Hey, this MUST be a model for the entire Universe!' ... forgetting all the while that billions of years elapsed before 'us' and billions more will elapse after our species is long gone. We are just an insignificant blip in spacetime.

[njeyasreedharan]

The more I listen to the experts the more I realise how confused and lost we are. Therein the mystery or mysteries.

[frankkockritz]

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, that our subjective consciousness is not emergent from our brain’s highly developed complex neural network, becoming more acute through evolution, I agree with Ned and his logic. I believe as he does, that the materialistic universe would still exist whether it contains observers or not. To me, Eternal inflation theory in addition to subjective consciousness evolving as a survival advantage is the answer to fine tuning and the anthropic principle. Unfortunately, when we fade to black at our life’s end, we simply cease to exist. I even think Occam’s Razor applies to this choice. The logic being that though it is not the desired answer, because a large percentage of people having religious or other spiritual beliefs think they will survive death, but ceasing to exist is undeniably a simpler explanation because it stops right there. There is no need to go further. BTW, The only comfort is to know that you will never experience any disappointment and those you leave behind will grieve your death either way, so there is no changing that particular sad part at the very end of our finite lives

[PaulHoward]

In sat-cit-ānanda, consciousness is sat (relation), cognition and conation are cit, and emotion is ānanda. Experience is produced by the interaction of the three aspects of sat-cit-ānanda, which are fundamental.

[andrewferg]

First line in Mr. Block's response: "I don't think that is true..." non sequitur

[Lexmillion]

Took Ned's course on consciousness in college. One of the coolest courses I took!

[melgross]

I completely agree with Ned. Some people just find it hard to believe that the universe is “just here”. They need to believe that something mindful created it, no matter what they nay want to call it. I understand that. It’s similar to the impossibility if thinking about your own demise and total dissolution. That’s truly impossible, you can’t think about you not existing. It can’t be done, other than intellectually. But emotionally, no.

The same thing us happening here. It seems so hard to imagine a universe that may have existed infinitely through the past without a beginning, which may be true. But the solution proposed using consciousness as a cause, solves nothing, it just moves everything back a level.

[kmonsense]

The first step is to define consciousness. What does he mean by consciousness? Without definition, there could not be any coherent answer. I think by consciousness, he means awareness.

[MBarberfanlife]

Aristotle thought the physical universe had qualitative features. Perhaps that's the solution to the hard problem of consciousness.

[richardfinlayson]

I think the people that think consciousness is fundamental don't always come to that conclusion through an intellectual process, rather some sort of experience of a different perspective.

[Corteum]

Without consciousness, nothing happens and nothing is known or experienced. The only way we ever know or experience anything in the universe is through consciousness. So consciousness (subject) is king and matter is just another object.

[jamesruscheinski]

Is quantum field mechanics considered to be physical or naturalistic?

[QuicksilverSG]

TL;DW: Ned Block dissects Robert Kuhn's diehard mysticism.

[dadsonworldwide]

Should've asked him how this line of thinking has worked out for the parents who followed this and bred these woke youth.

[anthonycraig]

Before we had an explanation about heat and cold, ancient philosophers use to shoe horn it into everything with some bizarre beliefs. Now everyone understand temperature, heat and hold isn’t no longer used by them. This will happen to Consciousness.

[uncommonsensewithpastormar]

Mind and matter are not different substances, but just two categories of the same substance, namely experience. We call a rock matter, because we experience it while awake and as consistently “there”. We call a dream mind, because we experience it while asleep and as not so consistently “there”. Both are, however, fundamentally and irreducibly “experience”. Experience is, therefore, not a mystery. It is what is given and presupposed. It is mind and matter that are second order abstractions and, therefore, must be explained.