The Hard Problem of Qualia and Consciousness

Contents:

H.1 The Essence of the Problem

H.2 Qualia and Consciousness in Animals

H.3 Qualia and Consciousness in Computers and Robots

H.4 Consciousness after Conception

H5. Remarks

————————————-

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

The problems related to qualia and consciousness are among the most crucial puzzles of our lives, both from scientific and spiritual perspectives. They can be categorized into two major types. One concerns the physical machinery necessary and sufficient for their occurrence and functions, while the other is about why and how they occur in a physical system. The former is called the easy problem because, at least theoretically, it is possible to find answers. The latter is known as the hard problem [1–19] because, even in theory, no scientific knowledge seemingly exists to provide a solution. Some even believe this problem is inherently unsolvable, a belief known as Mysterianism [4,12,19,20].

The way to find the answers to the easy problem is straightforward. Basically, it is a matching process: by scientific methods, pairing occurrences and functions of qualia and consciousness with certain neural circuits and processes. Expectedly, this can be done with current or near-future technology. However, although named the easy problem, practically, it is one of the hardest scientific endeavors of mankind. Yet, again, the answers are theoretically achievable. On the other hand, existing theories and knowledge seem unable to explain how phenomenal qualia and consciousness can occur from phenomenon-less (phenomenality-less) physical systems and why they should occur at all. Even if we finally know the exact neural circuits and processes for qualia and consciousness, there is no prospect that we can answer these problems. Essentially, it seems to be the problem of our current fundamental theories of physics being unable to explain why and how something with phenomenality, such as qualia and consciousness, can and should occur from the elementary particles and their interactions. Thus, the problem is hard.

Nevertheless, the real root of this conundrum may not be the incompleteness of the fundamental physical theories but our lack of understanding of the physical nature of qualia and consciousness. Naturally, we cannot answer with existing theories why and how qualia and consciousness occur in physical systems if we do not know what they physically are. Physical laws apply only to physical entities. Without knowing their physical nature—what kinds of physical entities they are—no physical laws can ever be used to account for their occurrences. Theoretically, once we can ascertain what they are physically from empirical investigations, we will be able to resolve, based on existing physical theories, their problems, including how and why they occur, causing the puzzles to disappear. Therefore, if we seek parsimony, not adding physical laws unnecessarily, we must first strive to find their physical nature, which has not been established before. Only if this endeavor fails, will it be necessary to institute new physical rules.

Based on the physical properties of qualia and consciousness and on current scientific evidence, this theory has solved the problems of what qualia and consciousness are physically and ontologically, as carried out in Chapters 3 to 7, and the results are stated as Theorems IV and V. These theorems provide scientifically verifiable predictions. Up to the present time, they have not been invalidated by clinical or experimental findings and are thus sound. These sound, evidence-based theorems provide rational answers to the above and other related problems as follows:

H.1 The Essence of the Problem

H.1.1 What are qualia and consciousness?

Qualia: Physically and ontologically, qualia are signaling patterns of some neural processes (Theorem IV). Specifically, they are special signaling patterns (SSPs), which are a special type of signaling pattern with information that means qualia—mental phenomena that manifest what themselves are like, such as an image of a house, a sound of a song, and an odor of a flower—to the consciousness neural process. Therefore, when some neural processes produce SSPs and the consciousness neural process reads them, it interprets them as qualia, and qualia naturally and inevitably appear in the consciousness neural process, and thus in the brain. This is how qualia occur in the physical brain.

Consciousness: Physically and ontologically, consciousness is the signaling state of the consciousness neural process (Theorem V). Specifically, it is a composite of special signaling states (SSSs), which are signaling states of a special type with information that means consciousness—awareness and experiences of what qualia are like, such as awareness and experiences of what an image of a house, what a sound of a song, and what an odor of a flower are like—to the consciousness neural process itself. Therefore, when the consciousness neural process produces a composite of SSSs and then reads it through reentrant signaling, it interprets it as consciousness, and consciousness naturally and inevitably appears in the consciousness neural process, and thus in the brain. This is how consciousness occurs in the physical brain. 

Qualia and consciousness: It is essential to note that SSPs themselves are qualia and that SSSs themselves are consciousness. Because signaling patterns and signaling states are inherent in the neural processes, so are qualia and consciousness. Thus, no new entities emerge or are created from physical, neural processes to be qualia and consciousness. It is only that some signaling patterns do not mean qualia (but mean something else), while SSPs do, and that some signaling states do not mean consciousness (but mean something else), whereas SSSs do, that makes it seems as if qualia and consciousness emerge as novel entities in the brain. For example, when we are asleep, under generalized anesthesia, or in a coma, no neural processes produce SSPs or SSSs, and the signaling patterns and signaling states in these conditions mean something else, which is not qualia or consciousness; consequently, there are no qualia and consciousness in such conditions. However, when we wake up or recover from anesthesia or coma, qualia-producing neural processes change from producing signaling patterns that are not SSPs to producing those that are, and the consciousness neural process, from producing signaling states that are not SSSs to producing those that are. Accordingly, the meanings of the signaling patterns’ information change from not-qualia to qualia, and those of the signaling state’s information, from not-consciousness to consciousness. As a result, qualia and consciousness occur. Evidently, qualia and consciousness are not some new entities that emerge in the brain in these conditions but are simply changed signaling patterns and changed signaling states with changed information and changed meanings. The seeming emergence of qualia and consciousness is actually changes of signaling patterns and signaling states, together with changes of their information and meanings.

Therefore, when there are no SSPs or SSSs, there are neither qualia nor consciousness. Thus, qualia and consciousness do not always exist. These facts have always been true since the beginning of the universe. In the distant past, in the primordial era of the universe when there was no life and in the early period of evolution when there was life but the nervous system had not evolved to exist yet, there were neither SSPs nor SSSs. Even at present, SSPs and SSSs do not exist in entities that are not animals with a nervous system. Furthermore, in animals with a nervous system, SSPs and SSSs do not occur in a variety of conditions and diseases, such as those exemplified in the previous paragraph, and in the early fetal period, when the nervous system has not developed yet. Therefore, there were no qualia and consciousness in the distant past, and there are none in many entities at present.

Nevertheless, even though qualia and consciousness—or, equivalently, SSPs and SSSs—did not exist in the distant past and do not exist in many entities at present, patterns and information have always been present in physical entities. This is because, since the universe’s inception, all physical entities have always possessed patterns—specifically, patterns composed of their physical characteristics (please see Section I.4, Extra Chapter I: Information). For example, whether it is a living cell, an inert rock, or a molecule, each entity has a distinctive pattern formed from the physical attributes—spatial position, velocity, mass/energy, electrical charge, spin, etc.—of its constituents. This holds true even at the level of a single elementary particle, which also possesses a discernible pattern composed of its fundamental physical traits—spatial position, velocity, mass/energy, electrical charge, spin, etc. [21–24]. Further, because patterns are information (please see Section I.4, Extra Chapter I: Information), information always exists in all physical entities. Thus, both patterns and information are inherent in all physical entities. Again, this has been true since the origin of everything.

The crucial point is evolution. Patterns and information, similar to everything else, evolve. Primitive physical patterns evolved into more complex physical patterns, then biological patterns, then neural patterns, and finally special kinds of neural patterns, the SSPs and SSSs, which have information that means qualia and consciousness, respectively, to the consciousness neural process, without any new entity emerging to be qualia and consciousness.

This explains the hard problem of how phenomenal qualia and consciousness emerge in physical systems. Really, qualia and consciousness are not novel entities and do not emerge from anything; they are evolved forms of the ever-present basic entities—patterns and information—which have always existed inherently in the physical systems since their beginning.

H.1.2 How can patterns and information, which do not seem to have phenomenality, be phenomenal qualia and consciousness?

This problem is answered in detail in the chapter: The Explanatory Gap. Briefly, patterns and information that mean phenomenal qualia and consciousness do not display phenomenality when they are observed from the third-person point of view, which is the point of view we usually have when we think about them or examine them in laboratories. However, when they are read, not merely observed, from the first-person point of view, which is the natural point of view of the consciousness neural process, they naturally and inevitably appear as phenomenal qualia and consciousness to the consciousness neural process. The discrepancy in their manifestations occurs because, when they are observed from the third-person point of view, their information meanings are not interpreted and thus cannot and do not reveal themselves; by contrast, when read from the first-person point of view, their information meanings are interpreted and thus can and do reveal themselves.

H.1.3 Why do qualia and consciousness exist?

Qualia and consciousness exist in this universe because it is fundamental to the nature of this universe that they exist. And they exist in the nervous system—in the SSPs and SSSs—because, in this universe, it is fundamental to the nature of neural signaling patterns and signaling states that some of them are qualia and consciousness. To the consciousness neural process, some types of neural signaling patterns, the SSPs, mean mental phenomena that manifest what themselves are like or qualia, and some types of neural signaling states, the SSSs, mean awareness and experiences of what qualia are like or consciousness. This is a brute fact. 

H.1.4 Why did qualia and consciousness occur, and why do they still occur?

At first, qualia and consciousness occurred because, at some evolutionary stage about 520 million years ago, it was possible for the nervous system, which was advanced enough then, to evolve new kinds of neural processes that could produce SSPs, which were qualia, and SSSs, which were consciousness. Thus, qualia and consciousness occurred at some time in the past simply because the nervous system was advanced enough then and because, given time and appropriate conditions, certain variations eventually occur.

(Life began approximately 3.5 billion years ago [25], and primitive nervous systems arose in coelenterates (Cnidaria and Ctenophora) about 700–650 million years ago (mya)[25–27]. Then, more complex nervous systems evolved in primitive deuterostomes 635–540 mya [28] and even more complex nervous systems evolved in primitive vertebrates 560–520 mya [29]. Between 550 and 525 mya, the first fossils of many animal innovations, including eyes, appeared [29–31], and a nervous system complex enough to generate qualia and consciousness arose around 520 mya (in primitive vertebrates) [11,29].)

At present, qualia and consciousness still occur because there still are some kinds of neural processes producing them. Evidently, that these kinds of neural processes have endured since their inception signifies that they have been preserved in the evolutionary process. This, in turn, indicates that they and their products—qualia and consciousness—must yield some effects that help increase the survival chances of the species that possess them. Thus, qualia and consciousness still occur today because they must somehow help increase the survival chances of the species that possess them [32–47].

H.1.5 When do qualia and consciousness occur?

First, as discussed in H.1.4, qualia and consciousness began to occur in this world around 520 million years ago. After that, qualia and consciousness occurred whenever neural processes produced SSPs and SSSs. It is important to note that it is impossible for qualia and consciousness to not occur when neural processes produce these signals, because these signals themselves are qualia and consciousness.

H.1.6 How do qualia and consciousness occur?

Qualia and consciousness occur by the functioning of neural processes. Specifically, they occur by neural processes producing SSSs and SSPs, respectively. The SSPs themselves are qualia, and the SSSs themselves, consciousness—no additional entities emerge or are created to be qualia and consciousness.

H.1.7 How do we know that qualia and consciousness did not occur in some primitive animals before the time asserted in H.1.4, and is it possible that there are qualia and consciousness in some primitive or less advanced animals today?

Qualia and consciousness as we know them are defined as mental phenomena that manifest what themselves are like and awareness and experiences of what qualia are like, respectively. These complex phenomena require two complex neural structures: one for qualia and the other for consciousness. We have learned from various neuroscientific studies and experiments that such neural structures are exclusively located in the latest evolved parts of the brain—the neocortices of the brain (see neural correlates of consciousness in Section 6.6). When these cortical areas function, qualia and consciousness occur; when they change their functions, qualia and consciousness change their manifestations; when they stop functioning, qualia and consciousness disappear. Thus, qualia and consciousness as we know them never occur without functions of these areas. Therefore, qualia and consciousness as we know them must have occurred in this world only when these neural structures had evolved to exist and function in the brain, which was around the time estimated in H.1.4.

It is highly unlikely that qualia and consciousness as we know and define them occurred in primitive animals in the past or exist in present-day primitive animals because these animals did not or do not have advanced-enough neural structures to support occurrences and existence of the two phenomena. However, this question can be definitively answered if we know the exact minimal neural structures that can create qualia and consciousness, which, to date, has not been the case.

H.1.8 Why can there not be just mental processes without qualia and consciousness?

There can be just mental processes without qualia and consciousness, and this had been the case for a long time—hundreds of millions of years—from the moment the nervous system appeared on this planet to the time when evolving neural processes became advanced enough to be able to produce qualia and consciousness. When that time came, qualia and consciousness came into existence simply because it was possible. It is only since that time that mental processes with qualia and consciousness exist. However, it should be noted that, even nowadays, mental processes without qualia and consciousness still far exceed those with them in number—all the sub- or non-conscious mental processes of the cerebral cortex and all the mental processes of the basal ganglia, thalamus, brainstem, cerebellum, and other parts of the nervous system are mental processes without qualia and consciousness.

H.1.9 Do qualia and consciousness have physical effects?

Qualia and consciousness have physical effects, as discussed in Sections 5.3 and 7.3 (in Chapters 5 and 7). However, at present, we still do not know what their exact effects are, but the overall effects must be beneficial because qualia and consciousness have been preserved in the evolutionary process.

H.1.9a Why did the nervous system evolve qualia and consciousness to gain beneficial effects; could it not have evolved something else?

     It could, and it has done so. In fact, before the nervous system evolved qualia and consciousness, it had been evolving and improving itself by other means since it appeared in primitive animals 700–650 million years ago [25–27]. From a pre-nervous system with scattered neuron-like cells (such as in sponges) to a primitive nerve net (such as in cnidarians), then a primitive nerve cord with primitive nerve ganglia (such as in flatworms), then a nervous system with a primitive brain (such as in mollusks), then a nervous system with a primitive cerebral cortex (such as in lampreys), and ultimately a nervous system with a more and more developed cerebral cortex (such as in reptiles, birds, mammals, and finally, humans) [25,29,48–59], the nervous system has been evolving to be more complex and more capable throughout time. Even after qualia and consciousness had evolved to exist by evolving new kinds of neural processes with SSPs and SSSs, other parts of the cerebral cortex that functioned without qualia and consciousness in their processes have not stopped evolving. They have been continuing to evolve to be more complex and more capable, resulting in higher intelligence, more language capacity, more manual abilities, etc. [50,52,60].* Even the cerebellum and other parts of the brain have proved to continue to co-evolve with the cerebral cortex [50,62] all the time, despite not having qualia and consciousness in any of their neural processes. Thus, the nervous system has always been evolving to be more complex and more capable, regardless of the absence or presence of qualia and consciousness.

(* These abilities do not need qualia and consciousness to function, as evidenced by their unconscious function without qualia and consciousness—we know only the results of their functions, but we do neither consciously control nor know how they function [10,61]. Also, they are anatomically and functionally separate from qualia and consciousness. Evidently, they can be interfered with or destroyed without affecting qualia and consciousness.)

     The creation of qualia and consciousness is just one possible path in the nervous system’s evolution. It remains to be seen whether creating qualia and consciousness is the end of this evolutionary path or whether neural processes with qualia or consciousness can evolve further into new kinds of neural processes with new kinds of mental phenomena that may be even more fascinating than qualia and consciousness. Also, it remains to be seen whether no-qualia and no-consciousness super-intelligences (i.e., super-intelligences without qualia and consciousness) rivaling or exceeding human intelligence (which has qualia and consciousness) can evolve into existence in some animals in the future. Indeed, this kind of development is already progressing rapidly in non-living entities: supercomputers without qualia and consciousness, which are now able to solve many complex mathematical problems that humans can never finish in their lifetimes. They are also able to beat their own creators at complex, intelligent games, such as chess, Go, and bridges [63–67]. Someday, such supercomputers, which do not have qualia and consciousness,** may become the ultimate entities that are superior to their creators—humans, who have qualia and consciousness—in every way. Regarding animal intelligence without qualia and consciousness, if we consider the powerful capabilities of the cerebellum, which can process billions of signals and control millions of muscle fibers accurately in milliseconds without qualia and consciousness in their processes but can result in such marvelous motor feats as those performed by skillful gymnasts and master musicians, it is reasonable to speculate that some animals can possibly develop no-qualia and no-consciousness intelligence and capabilities. Even today, it is possible that some animals that demonstrate intelligence but have quite different brain structures from ours, such as octopuses and bees, may not have qualia and consciousness in their systems. 

(** This point will be discussed in detail in Section H.3.1.)

     To enhance its functions, the nervous system has evolved many kinds of neural processes, signaling patterns, and signaling states. The generation of qualia and consciousness is not the necessary or most effective path but merely one possible path for enhancing the nervous system functions.

     H.1.9b Why does the nervous system not enhance all mental processes with qualia and consciousness; why does it enhance only some of them?

     The cerebral cortex has evolved to be a broadly adaptable system that does not depend on fixed hard wiring of neural circuits alone but can also make use of information processing. However, this system requires an integration center that can coordinate information communications between several cortical modules, most importantly those that function for the final-stage perception of all external sensations and some internal sensations, cognitive perceptions (of space, time, self, non-self, etc.), other cognitive and executive functions (thinking, recalling past events, planning, deciding, language processing, etc.), emotion, and volitional motor control. Such a system can certainly operate without qualia and consciousness, as evidenced by the fact that computers and the cerebellum can also perform these kinds of functions very effectively without qualia and consciousness. However, as shown in Sections 5.3 and 7.3, qualia and consciousness have effects, and such effects can be beneficial. Thus, creating qualia and consciousness for all these important processes can yield critical advantages to the organism. It can enhance perception, cognition, emotion, memory, volitional motor functions, etc. [11,41,44,68–79]. It is probable that, because perceiving situations in the outside world correctly, analyzing them and forming responses to them effectively, and executing purposive responses appropriately, all to the greatest possible extent, are crucial to the being, it is beneficial and advantageous to enhance the mental processes that perform these important functions with the combined novel functions: qualia and consciousness. This is why qualia and consciousness evolved to occur in these mental processes. On the other hand, the lower mental processes, such as those in the basal ganglia, brain stem, and cerebellum, can perform their routine functions efficiently without qualia and consciousness. Qualia and consciousness in those mental processes are thus unnecessary and may even be disadvantageous because some resources would have to be diverted to create, operate, and maintain them. Therefore, the answer to this question is that enhancing some mental processes with qualia and consciousness is beneficial, but enhancing others is not.

H.2 Qualia and Consciousness in Animals

Do animals have qualia and consciousness?

Because similar neural processes have similar signaling patterns and signaling states, any animals that have neural processes similar to ours have similar signaling patterns and signaling states to ours. Consequently, because qualia are signaling patterns and consciousness is a signaling state, these animals should have qualia and consciousness similar to ours. Animals with brain structures, neural circuits, and neural processes fairly similar to ours, such as mammals (chimpanzees, elephants, dogs, dolphins, whales, etc.), are likely to have qualia and consciousness fairly similar to ours. Animals with brain structures, neural circuits, and neural processes less similar to ours, such as birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, are likely to have qualia and consciousness less similar to ours. Animals with brain structures, neural circuits, and neural processes very different from ours, such as arthropods (ants, bees, flies, etc.) or cephalopods (octopus, squid, nautilus, etc.), may have qualia and consciousness that are of different kinds from ours or may not have qualia and consciousness at all.*** At present, this is still under debate, but theoretically, it could be answered with more certainty if the kinds of neural circuits, neural processes, signaling patterns, and signaling states for qualia and consciousness in humans and those corresponding ones in other animals could be identified and compared.

(*** Although many kinds of animals, especially those in these three clades—vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopod mollusks—exhibit complex cognitive functions [11,33,36,41,44,80] and although they have neural structures and dynamics that are functionally equivalent to ours (such as the visuotopic, tonotopic, and somatotopic maps in the cerebral cortices; the thalamus; thalamo-cortical loops; cortico-cortical loops; and reentrant signaling in these loops), which are the basis of consciousness’s existence and functions in humans [11,36,60,81,82], these findings are not definitive evidence that consciousness exists in them. Although many authors argue for the possible existence of consciousness in some of such animals because of these findings [11,33–35,40, 41,44,80,81,83–90], others think that this issue is still unsettled [91–94]. Thus, it is still not unanimously accepted that some animals have consciousness.)

H.3 Qualia and Consciousness in Computers and Robots

H.3.1 Do computers and robots have qualia and consciousness?

As computers and robots have parts that function similarly to parts of animal nervous systems—sensors (camera, microphone, mouse/keyboard, radiation sensor, chemical sensor, etc.), central processors and controllers (computer motherboard, robot mainboard, etc.), and effectors (monitor, speaker, printer, broadcast antenna, robotic arms/legs, etc.)—and as they use electrical signals in processing and communicating information between these parts, thus having electrical signals representing various kinds of information circulating in their circuits, it is logical to speculate that qualia-like phenomena (like an image of a red color or a sound of note C, which manifests what itself is like in our mind) may occur in their systems because some parts of their signaling might be qualia-like phenomena in the same way that some parts of human signaling, the SSPs, are qualia. At present, whether qualia-like phenomena occur in their signaling processes cannot be conclusively answered because we still do not know the specific characteristics of the signaling that can be qualia and qualia-like phenomena.

However, even if qualia-like phenomena do occur in computers and robots, they certainly do not have physical effects on any of the computers’ or robots’ circuits and functions because, evidently, all the circuits always function in the expected way that they are designed to do. It has never been found that circuits in computers or robots unexpectedly execute some programs because of something unidentified or that some unknown, non-preinstalled functions, such as processing information about hypothetical qualia-like phenomena being discussed, take place in them. Thus, even if qualia-like phenomena occur in computers or robots, they have no physical effects and hence are unlike qualia occurring in us, which have physical effects (see H.1.9 above). Moreover, it is definite that present-day computers and robots, operating with present-day hardware and software, do not have consciousness—they are not aware of and do not experience any qualia-like phenomena that may occur in them. This is because awareness and experiences of anything, including qualia-like phenomena, are additional functions and have additional information. Therefore, computers and robots would need at least some specific, dedicated software and potentially some specific, dedicated circuits to perform these new functions and manage the new information, specifically the information about awareness and experiences (of the hypothetical qualia-like phenomena) that is to occur in the processes. However, there are no such software and circuits in present-day computers and robots—all the software and circuits in present-day computers and robots are created to do some predetermined, specific tasks, such as word-processing or spreadsheet operations, picture- or video-editing/displaying operations, and peripheral device (e.g., disc drive, monitor/printer, robotic arms/legs, etc.) controls. None is developed to be aware of and experience qualia-like phenomena that may occur in their circuits, and none is designed to be aware of and experience what these phenomena are like,# because at present, we, their creators, simply do not know how to construct such software and circuits. Therefore, it is absolute that present-day computers and robots, with their current circuits and software, do not and cannot have conscious awareness and conscious experiences of anything; that is, they do not and cannot have consciousness—awareness and experiences of what things are like. Similarly, this conclusion is true for all other present-day electronic devices and machines (mobile phones, automatic vending machines, automated industrial machines, etc.) and all current devices and machines that process information in other (non-electronic) ways (analog thermometers, analog barometers, analog odometers, etc.)—these present-day devices and machines, with their existing machinery and operating mechanisms, are not aware of and do not experience what things are like and thus do not and cannot have phenomenal consciousness. To repeat, this is simply because they do not have anything that supports occurrences and functions of conscious awareness and conscious experiences, which are consciousness.

(# A similar concept was discussed before by De Sousa (2013) [95].)

At this point, some may argue that consciousness is a non-material phenomenon and thus may occur in a computer from something that is not the function of its electronic circuits, such as heat, moisture, chemicals, or some unknown non-material entity, or even from nothingness. However, if such is the case, then the consciousness that occurs will not have physical effects at all or will have just nonspecific instead of specific effects, which are information-based, on the computer. This is because, even though nonspecific effects on a computer’s system can result from things that are not the information-processing part of its electronic circuits, such as heat, moisture, or chemicals (which can cause unplanned effects, such as glitches or more serious malfunctions in the computer’s system), specific effects, which must result from registering, processing, storing, retrieving, and utilizing information, occur only from information processing by specific electronic circuits in the computer system. Moreover, in the case of consciousness that supposedly occurs from some unknown non-material entity or nothingness, this kind of consciousness will not and cannot have any physical effects on a computer because it would be a non-physical entity, which cannot have physical effects. Therefore, all these hypothetical kinds of consciousness cannot have specific effects on the computer system. Such consciousness cannot result in computers or robots having awareness and experiences of what things are like, registering its occurrence in their systems, reporting its presence to others, storing its information in memory, processing its information for other activities, and so on. Such hypothetical consciousness is thus different from our consciousness, which has specific effects and results in various physical activities, such as, in addition to the just mentioned activities, talking and writing about, having conferences on, and doing research and experiments on it. 

In conclusion, although some non-material phenomenon may occur in computers or robots from something that is not part of their electronic circuits’ functions and although some may call it consciousness, it cannot have specific effects on the computers or robots or cannot have physical effects at all; thus, it is not and cannot be the kind of consciousness that we mean when we think or talk about consciousness in people and that is defined in this theory.

H.3.2 How do we build computers or robots that have consciousness as we do?

To have consciousness as we do, computers and robots must be able to be aware of and experience what things are like. However, the ability to perform these two functions needs specifically arranged circuits with specifically designed software to create electronic processes with this ability. 

Theoretically, to have consciousness in an electronic system, some electronic circuits in the system must create signals that have information that means awareness and experiences of what things are like (such as what an image of red is like) to relevant circuits. In detail, this means that some circuits must create signals that have specific physical effects on signal-receiving circuits, causing them to have information that means awareness and experiences of what things are like in them. This would make the receiving circuits subsequently function with this information. For example, the reporting circuit will report that awareness and experiences of what things are like have occurred in the system, the information-storing circuit will be able to store that information in the system’s memory, and the memory-recalling circuit will be able to retrieve the stored information to the central processing circuits for subsequent utilization. However, the present major obstacle is that we do not know the characteristics of a) the electronic signals that mean awareness and experiences of what things are like to the receiving circuits and b) the circuits and their processes that can create such signals.##

(##Please see related discussions about this matter in Chapter 8, Subsection 8.1.2: “What is the mechanism for a physical signal to mean a quale?” and Extra Chapter I, Section I.8: “The Mechanism for Information to Mean A Certain Thing.”)

Another possibility is that, instead of trying to create the needed circuits, processes, and signals from nothing, we could try to imitate human consciousness and qualia-producing neural circuits, their processes, and their signals (SSSs, and SSPs). Although the exact characteristics of these components remain largely unknown, theoretically, there is nothing to indicate that it is not possible for us to discover them eventually. In theory, if we have this knowledge and if the possibility of creating such circuits, processes, signaling patterns, and signaling states is not restricted to carbon-based biological systems but also applies to silicon-based electronic ones, then computers and robots with phenomenal qualia and consciousness can be built by such imitations. This concept is in accordance with Chalmers’ principle of organizational invariance [3,4,96–98].

H.3.3 Can there be robots that behave identically to us but do not have qualia and consciousness?

No, there cannot. If robots do not have qualia and consciousness, they will lack information about these phenomena. Consequently, they will not be able to behave identically to us in the activities that depend on or are related to information about these phenomena. For example, they will not be able to think or talk about, have conferences on, write articles or reports about, conduct research and experiments on, and perform other activities regarding their qualia and consciousness, while we obviously can and do.

H.4 Consciousness after Conception

When does consciousness appear in a being?

Because consciousness is a composite of SSSs, it cannot appear when there are no SSSs. Accordingly, it does not appear at the moment of conception, the earliest formation of the nervous system, or the beginning of fetal brain development. Only when the consciousness neural circuit has been formed and begins producing a composite of SSSs will consciousness begin to appear. Obviously, consciousness cannot appear suddenly in the fetus but develops gradually as the consciousness neural circuit, its process, and the composite of SSSs that it produces mature little by little.

According to Stiles and Jernigan (2010) and Mashour and Alkire (2013), the developmental anlage of the thalamus, one of the necessary structures for consciousness, is present from around day 22 or 23 post-conception, and the thalamocortical connections, another necessary structure, are thought to be formed by week 26 of gestation [45,99]. Around the same time, week 25–29, electrical activity from the cerebral hemispheres shifts from an isolated to a more continuous pattern, with sleep-wake distinctions appreciable from week 30. Thus, both the structural and functional prerequisites for consciousness are in place around week 30 [45]. According to Zelazo (2007), the onset of minC (minimal consciousness) may be tied to a series of anatomical and behavioral changes that occur during the third trimester of prenatal development—between about week 24 and 30 of gestation [100]. Also, according to Lagercrantz and Changeux (2009), after week 24, thalamocortical axons grow into the somatosensory, auditory, visual, and frontal cortices, and the pathways mediating pain perception become functional around week 29–30 [101]. In addition, according to Lagercrantz (2014), consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established; thus, the limit of legal abortion at week 22–24 in many countries makes sense [102]. Therefore, it can be concluded from these findings that consciousness, at least in some rudimentary form, plausibly begins to appear in the fetus around week 24–30 of gestation.

H.5 Remarks

Until now, numerous scientists and philosophers have proposed various theories and concepts to address the hard problem; for example, please see References 6, 13, and 103–111. However, none seems to be accepted as the conclusive answer probably because none seems to satisfactorily answer how and why phenomenal qualia and consciousness can and should arise from the physical system. This theory offers a new approach. It first identifies, based on their physical properties, what qualia and consciousness are physically. Once they have been found to be informational entities in the form of neural signals, the hard problem dissolves. Signals and their information can mean anything, including phenomenal qualia and consciousness. When some neural processes evolved to produce signals with these types of information, phenomenal qualia and consciousness naturally and inevitably began to appear in the nervous system, a physical system. And they should occur at some evolutionary stage because, given time and opportunities, variations yielding new functions eventually occur. Finally, they still exist at present likely because they can help increase the survival chance of the species that possess them. Thus, the hard problem can be solved with current scientific knowledge of signals, information, and evolution.

In the past, the sun seemed like God.
We could not answer how and why it occurred,
how and why it created its powerful light … and other puzzles
until we knew what it was physically.

Consciousness is like the sun … and everything else.
We cannot answer how and why it occurs,
how and why it has phenomenality … and other puzzles
until we know what it is physically.

The hard problem of consciousness can be solved
by first solving the ontological problem.

> Go to The Explanatory Gap

< Go to Homepage “The Basic Theory of the Mind”

The Hard Problem: References

  1. Brogaard B, Electra Gatzia DE. What can neuroscience tell us about the hard problem of consciousness? Front Neurosci. 2016;10:395. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00395. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5013033/
  2. Chalmers DJ. Consciousness and its place in nature. In: Chalmers DJ, editor. Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. ISBN-13: 978-0195145816 ISBN-10: 019514581X. http://consc.net/papers/nature.html
  3. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200–219. http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
  4. Chalmers DJ. Moving forward on the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1997;4(1):3–46. http://consc.net/papers/moving.html
  5. Chalmers DJ. The puzzle of conscious experience. Sci Am. 1995 Dec;273(6):80–86. http://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/2382142/9247d5f1a845e5482b1bd66d82c3a9bf.pdf?1530582615
  6. Chis-Ciure R, Ellia F. Facing up to the hard problem of consciousness as an integrated information theorist. Found. Sci. 2021:1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10699-020-09724-7. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/20787/1/Chis-Ciure%20%26%20Ellia%20-%20Facing%20up%20to%20the%20Hard%20Problem%20as%20an%20Integrated%20Information%20Theoriest%20%28final%20preprint%29%20%282021%29.pdf
  7. Cohen MA, Dennett DC. Consciousness cannot be separated from function. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Aug;15(8):358–364. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.06.008. http://www.michaelacohen.net/uploads/5/9/0/7/59073133/1-s2-0-s1364661311001252-main.pdf
  8. Crick F, Koch C. A framework for consciousness. Nat. Neurosci. 2003;6:119–126. doi: 10.1038/nn0203-119. https://zenodo.org/record/852680/files/article.pdf
  9. Crick F, Koch C. Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness. Seminars in the Neurosciences. 1990;2:263–275. https://authors.library.caltech.edu/40352/1/148.pdf
  10. Dennett DC. Facing up to the hard question of consciousness. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018;373(1755):20170342. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0342. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6074080/?report=classic
  11. Feinberg TE, Mallatt J. The nature of primary consciousness. A new synthesis. Conscious Cogn. 2016;43:113–127. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.05.009. https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/2016-feinberg.pdf
  12. Gennaro RJ. Consciousness. In: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/consciou/
  13. Loorits K. Structural qualia: A solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Front Psychol. 2014;5:237. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00237. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3957492/
  14. Peters F. Consciousness should not be confused with qualia. Logos and Episteme. 2014 Jan;5(1):63–91. doi: 10.5840/logos-episteme20145123. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266390829_Consciousness_Should_Not_Be_Confused_With_Qualia
  15. Syamala H. How vedanta explains conscious subjective experience. Scientific GOD Journal. 2015;6:194–207. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313870517_How_Vedanta_Explains_Conscious_Subjective_Experience
  16. Van Gulick R. Consciousness. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/consciousness
  17. Velmans M. Chapter 1. How to separate conceptual issues from empirical ones in the study of consciousness. In: Banerjee R, Chakrabarti BK, editors. Progress in brain research. Vol. 168. Models of brain and mind physical, computational and psychological approaches. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.; 2008:1–10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28764945_HOW_TO_SEPARATE_CONCEPTUAL_ISSUES_FROM_EMPIRICAL_ONES_IN_THE_STUDY_OF_CONSCIOUSNESS
  18. Velmans M. Understanding consciousness. 2nd ed. Hove, East Sussex: Routledge; 2009. https://dl.uswr.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/130278/1/0415425158.Routledge.Understanding.Consciousness.Second.Edition.Apr.2009.pdf
  19. Weisberg J. The hard problem of consciousness. In: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/
  20. McGinn C. Can we solve the Mind-Body Problem? Mind, New Series. 1989 Jul;98(391):349–366. https://www.newdualism.org/papers/C.McGinn/McGinn_1989_Mind-body-problem_M.pdf
  21. Elert G. The Standard Model. In: The Physics Hypertextbook. https://physics.info/standard/
  22. Gasiorowicz SG, Langacker P. Elementary particles in physics. https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pgl/e27/E27.pdf
  23. Martin SP, Wells JD. Introduction. In: Elementary particles and their interactions. Graduate texts in physics. Springer, Cham; 2022
  24. The Open University. Particle physics: Understanding the basics. The Open University. Kindle Edition. Edition 1.1; 2023.
  25. Roth G, Dicke U. Evolution of Nervous Systems and Brains. In: Galizia CG, Lledo P-M (eds.). Neurosciences—From Molecule to Behavior: A University Textbook. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2013:19–45. ISBN: 978-3-642-10768-9. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-10769-6_2. https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8mLLz0KTWAhXJOY8KHTNcD7MQFggnMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9783642107689-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1404406-p174537886&usg=AFQjCNEP_Y0Wv_J0fF_haYNFzYbTn95w2A
  26. Galliot B, Quiquand M, Ghila L, de Rosa R, Miljkovic-Licina M, Chera S. Origins of neurogenesis, a cnidarian view. Dev Biol. 2009 Aug 1;332(1):2–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.05.563. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160609008756?via%3Dihub
  27. Moroz LL. Phylogenomics meets neuroscience: How many times might complex brains have evolved? Acta Biol Hung. 2012;63 Suppl 2(0 2):3–19. doi: 10.1556/ABiol.63.2012.Suppl.2.1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4024470/
  28. Budd GE. Early animal evolution and the origins of nervous systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Dec 19;370(1684):20150037. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0037. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4650121/
  29. Feinberg TE, Mallatt J. The evolutionary and genetic origins of consciousness in the Cambrian Period over 500 million years ago. Front Psychol. 2013;4:667. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00667. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790330/
  30. Kristan WB, Jr. Early evolution of neurons. Curr Biol. 2016 Oct 24;26(20):R949–R954. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216304894
  31. Monk T, Paulin MG. Predation and the origin of neurones. Brain Behav Evol. 2014;84:246–261. https://doi.org/10.1159/000368177. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/368177
  32. Baars BJ. Subjective experience is probably not limited to humans: The evidence from neurobiology and behavior. Conscious Cogn. 2005 Mar;14(1):7–21. https://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/assets/papers/2005/Baars-Subjective%20animals-2005.pdf
  33. Birch J, Schnell AK, Clayton NS. Dimensions of animal consciousness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(10):789–801. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116194/?report=classic
  34. Boly M, Seth AK, Wilke M, et al. Consciousness in humans and non-human animals: Recent advances and future directions. Front Psychol. 2013;4:625. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00625. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3814086/
  35. Butler AB. Evolution of brains, cognition, and consciousness. Brain Res Bull. 2008 Mar 18;75(2–4):442–449.
  36. Butler A, Manger P, Lindahl BIB, Århem P. Evolution of the neural basis of consciousness: A bird-mammal comparison. BioEssays: News and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology. 2005 Sep:27(9);923–936. doi: 10.1002/bies.20280. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7652731_Evolution_of_the_neural_basis_of_consciousness_A_bird-mammal_comparison
  37. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009 Mar 17;198(2):267–272. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.11.028. https://cogs.sitehost.iu.edu/spackled/2009readings/The%20emergence%20of%20consciousness%20in%20phylogeny.pdf
  38. Edelman DB, Baars BJ, Seth AK. Identifying hallmarks of consciousness in non-mammalian species. Conscious Cogn. 2005 Mar;14(1):169–187. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.83.4676&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  39. Edelman DB, Seth AK. Animal consciousness: A synthetic approach. Trends Neurosci. 2009 Sep;32(9):476–484. http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~anils/Papers/EdelmanSethTiNS2009Preprint.pdf
  40. Griffin DR, Speck GB. New evidence of animal consciousness. Anim Cogn. 2004 Jan;7(1):5–18. doi: 10.1007/s10071-003-0203-x. http://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/dornhaus/courses/materials/papers/Griffin%20Speck%20consciousness%20cognition.pdf
  41. Irwin LN. Renewed perspectives on the deep roots and broad distribution of animal consciousness. Front Syst Neurosci. 2020;14:57. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2020.00057. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7438986/?report=classic
  42. Klein C, Barron AB. Insects have the capacity for subjective experience. Animal Sentience. 2016;100:1–52. https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=animsent
  43. Low P. The Cambridge declaration on consciousness. Panksepp J, Reiss D, Edelman D, Van Swinderen B, Low P, Koch C, editors. Publicly proclaimed in Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012, at the Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
  44. Mallatt J, Feinberg TE. Multiple routes to animal consciousness: Constrained multiple realizability rather than Modest Identity Theory. Front Psychol. 2021 Sep;12:732336. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732336. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8497802/?report=classic
  45. Mashour GA, Alkire MT. Evolution of consciousness: Phylogeny, ontogeny, and emergence from general anesthesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 18;110(Suppl 2):10357–10364. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301188110. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690605/
  46. Mather JA. Cephalopod consciousness: Behavioural evidence. Conscious Cogn. 2008 Mar;17(1):37–48.
  47. Seth AK, Baars BJ, Edelman DB. Criteria for consciousness in humans and other mammals. Conscious Cogn. 2005 Mar;14(1):119–139. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.317.8149&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  48. Arendt D, Tosches MA, Marlow H. From nerve net to nerve ring, nerve cord and brain–evolution of the nervous system. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016 Jan;17(1):61–72. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2015.15. https://moodle.unifr.ch/pluginfile.php/771848/mod_folder/content/0/Arendt_2016.pdf?forcedownload=1
  49. Bräuer J, Hanus D, Pika S, Gray R, Uomini N. Old and new approaches to animal cognition: There is not “one cognition.” J Intell. 2020 Jul 2;8(3):28. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence8030028. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7555673/
  50. Hofman MA. Evolution of the human brain: When bigger is better. Front Neuroanat. 2014;8:15. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2014.00015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3973910/#B110
  51. Jorgensen EM. Animal evolution: Looking for the first nervous system. Curr Biol. 2014 Jul;24(14):R655–R658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.036  http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(14)00752-0
  52. Kaas JH. The evolution of neocortex in primates. Prog Brain Res. 2012;195:91–102. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00005-2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787901/
  53. Kelava I, Rentzsch F, Technau U. Evolution of eumetazoan nervous systems: Insights from cnidarians. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Dec 19;370(1684). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0065. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1684/20150065
  54. Martinez P, Sprecher SG. Of circuits and brains: The origin and diversification of neural architectures. Front Ecol Evol. 2020 Mar 27:8. Sec. Evolutionary Developmental Biology. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2020.00082/full
  55. Mather JA, Dickel L. Cephalopod complex cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2017;16:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.06.008 https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=cogeth
  56. Moroz LL. On the independent origins of complex brains and neurons. Brain Behav Evol. 2009 Dec;74(3):177–190. doi: 10.1159/000258665. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855278/
  57. Rakic P. Evolution of the neocortex: Perspective from developmental biology. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Oct;10(10):724–735. doi: 10.1038/nrn2719. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913577/
  58. Roth G. Convergent evolution of complex brains and high intelligence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Dec 19;370(1684):20150049. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0049. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4650126/
  59. Sousa AMM, Meyer KA, Santpere G, Gulden FO, Sestan N. Evolution of the human nervous system function, structure, and development. Cell. 2017 Jul 13;170(2):226–247. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.036. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5647789/
  60. Roth G, Dicke U. Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 May;9(5):250–257. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.005. https://scholar.google.co.th/scholar_url?url=http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~inmanh/adsys10/Readings/Roth_n_Dicke_-_Evolution_of_brain_and_intelligence_-_TrendsCogSci_2005.pdf&hl=th&sa=X&ei=9G4EY4nmFoLgyASrlKfQBQ&scisig=AAGBfm1gDAJKdQir8TShQrJv2f-FZkQfTw&oi=scholarr
  61. Velmans M. How to define consciousness—and how not to define consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 2009;16(5):139–156. http://cogprints.org/6453/1/How_to_define_consciousness.pdf
  62. Herculano-Houzel S. Coordinated scaling of cortical and cerebellar numbers of neurons. Front Neuroanat. 2010;4:12. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2010.00012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839851/
  63. Cadell C. Google AI beats Chinese master in ancient game of Go. Reuters. May 23, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-intelligence-go-idUSKBN18J0PE
  64. Guinness World Records. First AI to beat a 9-dan professional Go player. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/523455-first-ai-to-beat-a-9-dan-professional-go-player
  65. Guinness World Records. First computer to beat a world chess champion under regular time controls. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/100873-first-computer-to-beat-a-world-chess-champion-under-regular-time-controls
  66. Petkauskas V. Rise of the machines: when a computer beats a chess master. Cybernews. May 16, 2022. https://cybernews.com/editorial/rise-of-the-machines-when-a-computer-beats-a-chess-master/
  67. Spinney L. Artificial intelligence beats eight world champions at bridge. The Guardian. Mar 29, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/29/artificial-intelligence-beats-eight-world-champions-at-bridge
  68. Baars BJ. Chapter Ten. The functions of consciousness. In: A cognitive theory of consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988. http://bernardbaars.pbworks.com/f/++++Functions+of+Consciousness.pdf
  69. Dehaene S. Chapter 3. What is consciousness good for? In: Consciousness and the brain: Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. New York, New York: The Penguin Group; 2014:89–114.
  70. Earl B. The biological function of consciousness. Front Psychol. 2014;5:697. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00697. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122207/
  71. Edelman GM. Naturalizing consciousness: A theoretical framework. PNAS. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5520–5524. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0931349100 https://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5520
  72. Frigato G. The neural correlates of access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness seem to coincide and would correspond to a memory center, an activation center and eight parallel convergence centers. Front Psychol. 2021;12:749610. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749610. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8511498/?report=classic
  73. Kanai R, Chang A, Yu Y, de Abril IM, Biehl M, Guttenberg N. Information generation as a functional basis of consciousness. Neurosci Conscious. 2019;2019(1):niz016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6884095/
  74. Koch C. The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Roberts & Company Publishers; 2004. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232296537_The_Quest_for_Consciousness_A_Neurobiological_Approach
  75. Lamme V. The crack of dawn: Perceptual functions and neural mechanisms that mark the transition from unconscious processing to conscious vision. In: Metzinger T, Windt JM, editors. Open mind: 22(T). Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. 2015 10.15502/9783958570092. https://open-mind.net/DOI?isbn=9783958570092
  76. Mudrik L, Faivre N, Koch C. Information integration without awareness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Sep;18(9):488–496. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24933626
  77. Pennartz CMA, Farisco M, Evers K. Indicators and criteria of consciousness in animals and intelligent machines: an inside-out approach. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2019;13(25). doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2019.00025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6660257/
  78. Pierson LM, Trout M. What is consciousness for? New Ideas Psychol. 2017;47:62–71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X15300039
  79. Seth AK, Baars BJ. Neural Darwinism and consciousness. Conscious Cogn. 2005 Mar;14(1):140–168. http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/assets/papers/2004/Seth%20&%20Baars,%20Neural%20Darwinism-2004.pdf
  80. Ponte G, Chiandetti C, Edelman DB, Imperadore P, Pieroni EM, Fiorito G. Cephalopod behavior: From neural plasticity to consciousness. Front Syst Neurosci. 2022;15:787139. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2021.787139. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9039538/?report=classic
  81. Barron AB, Klein C. What insects can tell us about the origins of consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 May;113(18):4900–4908. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1520084113. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4983823/pdf/pnas.201520084.pdf
  82. Butler AB, Cotterill RMJ. Mammalian and avian neuroanatomy and the question of consciousness in birds. Biol Bull. 2006;211(2):106–127. doi: 10.2307/4134586. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/4134586
  83. Corballis MC. Chapter 21. The Evolution of Consciousness. In: Zelazo PD, Moscovitch M, Thompson E, editors. The Cambridge handbook of consciousness. Cambridge University Press; 2007:571–595. http://perpus.univpancasila.ac.id/repository/EBUPT181231.pdf
  84. Fabbro F, Aglioti SM, Bergamasco M, Clarici A, Panksepp J. Evolutionary aspects of self- and world consciousness in vertebrates. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Mar 26;9:157. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00157. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374625/
  85. Koch C. Is consciousness universal? Sci Am Mind. 2014;25:26–29. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/
  86. Mallatt J. A traditional scientific perspective on the integrated information theory of consciousness. Entropy (Basel). 2021;23(6):650. doi: 10.3390/e23060650. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8224652/?report=classic
  87. Mallatt J, Feinberg TE. Sentience in evolutionary context. Animal Sentience. 2020;5:14. doi: 10.51291/2377-7478.1599. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=animsent
  88. Mather JA. What is in an octopus’s mind? Animal Sentience 2019. 209:1–29. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/What-is-in-an-octopus’s-mind-Mather/08630369d367734bfb2fb1f6bef0e1de0a0ceeef
  89. Premack D. Human and animal cognition: Continuity and discontinuity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Aug 28;104(35):13861–13867. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706147104. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955772/
  90. Shea N, Heyes C. Metamemory as evidence of animal consciousness: The type that does the trick. Biol Philos. 2010 Jan;25(1):95–110. doi: 10.1007/s10539-009-9171-0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837231/pdf/10539_2009_Article_9171.pdf
  91. Birch J. The search for invertebrate consciousness. Nous. 2022;56(1):133–153. doi: 10.1111/nous.12351. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7612530/?report=classic
  92. Harley HE. Consciousness in dolphins? A review of recent evidence. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2013 Jun;199(6):565–582.
  93. Key B, Arlinghaus R, Browman HI. Insects cannot tell us anything about subjective experience or the origin of consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jul 5;113(27):E3813. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606835113. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4941505/
  94. Schnell A, Vallortigara G. ‘Mind’ is an ill-defined concept: Considerations for future cephalopod research—Commentary on Mather on octopus mind. Animal Sentience. 2019;267:1–6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334390670_’Mind’_is_an_ill-defined_concept_Considerations_for_future_cephalopod_research-Commentary_on_Mather_on_Octopus_Mind
  95. De Sousa A. Towards an integrative theory of consciousness: Part 2 (an anthology of various other models). Mens Sana Monogr. 2013;11(1):151–209. doi: 10.4103/0973-1229.109341. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653220/?report=classic
  96. Chalmers DJ. Absent qualia, fading qualia, dancing qualia. In: Metzinger T, editor. Conscious Experience. Imprint Academic; 1995:309–328. http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html
  97. Chalmers DJ. Absent qualia, fading qualia, dancing qualia. In: The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996:247–275. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Chalmers_The_Conscious_Mind.pdf
  98. Chalmers DJ. Consciousness and information—some speculation. In: The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996:276–310. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Chalmers_The_Conscious_Mind.pdf
  99. Stiles J, Jernigan TL. The basics of brain development. Neuropsychol Rev. 2010 Dec;20(4):327–348. doi: 10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989000/
  100. Zelazo PD, Gao HH, Todd R. The development of consciousness. In: Zelazo PD, Moscovitch M, Thompson E, editors. The Cambridge handbook of consciousness. Cambridge University Press; 2007:405–432. http://perpus.univpancasila.ac.id/repository/EBUPT181231.pdf
  101. Lagercrantz H, Changeux JP. The emergence of human consciousness: From fetal to neonatal life. Pediatr Res. 2009 Mar;65(3):255–260. doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181973b0d. https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950.pdf
  102. Lagercrantz H. The emergence of consciousness: Science and ethics. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Oct;19(5):300–305. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2014.08.003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25160864
  103. Dubrovsky DI. “The Hard Problem of Consciousness.” Theoretical solution of its main questions. AIMS Neurosci. 2019;6(2):85–103. doi:10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.2.85. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179338/?report=classic
  104. Feinberg TE. Neuroontology, neurobiological naturalism, and consciousness: A challenge to scientific reduction and a solution. Phys. Life Rev. 2012;9:13–34. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2011.10.019. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Todd-Feinberg/publication/51772873_Neuroontology_neurobiological_naturalism_and_consciousness_A_challenge_to_scientific_reduction_and_a_solution/links/624b0a617931cc7ccf15868c/Neuroontology-neurobiological-naturalism-and-consciousness-A-challenge-to-scientific-reduction-and-a-solution.pdf
  105. Grossberg S. Towards solving the hard problem of consciousness: The varieties of brain resonances and the conscious experiences that they support. Neural Netw. 2017 Mar;87:38–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2016.11.003. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0893-6080(16)30180-0
  106. Hunt T, Schooler JW. The easy part of the hard problem: A resonance theory of consciousness [published correction appears in Front Hum Neurosci. 2020 Sep 04;14:596409]. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13:378. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00378. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6834646/?report=classic
  107. Leffler TR. The hard problem of consciousness: A mathematical approach. 2019 Aug 25 (version 4). arXiv:1704.01148v4 [q-bio.NC] https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1704/1704.01148.pdf
  108. McFadden J. The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (Cemi) Field Theory. The hard problem made easy? J Conscious Stud. 2002;9(8):45–60. https://philpapers.org/archive/MCFTCE.pdf
  109. Mindt G. Integrated Information Theory and the hard problem of consciousness. https://www.academia.edu/12294774/Integrated_Information_Theory_and_the_Hard_Problem_of_Consciousness
  110. Tononi G. Consciousness, information integration, and the brain. Prog Brain Res. 2005;150:109–126. http://www.brainnrg.org/files/publicationmodule/@random4824abb32cfea/Tononi_2005_Progress_in_Brain_Research.pdf
  111. Tononi G, Koch C. Consciousness: Here, there and everywhere? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 May 19;370(1668):20140167. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0167. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4387509/

> Go to The Explanatory Gap

< Go to Homepage “The Basic Theory of the Mind”

Keywords: The hard problem, The hard problem of qualia, The hard problem of consciousness