Lahav Nir, Neemeh Zachariah A
Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Department of Philosophy, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, United States.
Front Psychol. 2022 May 12;12:704270. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704270. eCollection 2021.
In recent decades, the scientific study of consciousness has significantly increased our understanding of this elusive phenomenon. Yet, despite critical development in our understanding of the functional side of consciousness, we still lack a fundamental theory regarding its phenomenal aspect. There is an "explanatory gap" between our scientific knowledge of functional consciousness and its "subjective," phenomenal aspects, referred to as the "hard problem" of consciousness. The phenomenal aspect of consciousness is the first-person answer to "what it's like" question, and it has thus far proved recalcitrant to direct scientific investigation. Naturalistic dualists argue that it is composed of a primitive, private, non-reductive element of reality that is independent from the functional and physical aspects of consciousness. Illusionists, on the other hand, argue that it is merely a cognitive illusion, and that all that exists are ultimately physical, non-phenomenal properties. We contend that both the dualist and illusionist positions are flawed because they tacitly assume consciousness to be an absolute property that doesn't depend on the observer. We develop a conceptual and a mathematical argument for a relativistic theory of consciousness in which a system either has or doesn't have phenomenal consciousness Phenomenal consciousness is neither private nor delusional, just relativistic. In the frame of reference of the cognitive system, it will be observable (first-person perspective) and in other frame of reference it will not (third-person perspective). These two cognitive frames of reference are both correct, just as in the case of an observer that claims to be at rest while another will claim that the observer has constant velocity. Given that consciousness is a relativistic phenomenon, neither observer position can be privileged, as they both describe the same underlying reality. Based on relativistic phenomena in physics we developed a mathematical formalization for consciousness which bridges the explanatory gap and dissolves the hard problem. Given that the first-person cognitive frame of reference also offers legitimate observations on consciousness, we conclude by arguing that philosophers can usefully contribute to the science of consciousness by collaborating with neuroscientists to explore the neural basis of phenomenal structures.
近几十年来,对意识的科学研究极大地增进了我们对这一难以捉摸的现象的理解。然而,尽管我们对意识功能方面的理解有了关键进展,但在其现象层面上,我们仍然缺乏一个基本理论。在我们对功能性意识的科学认识与其“主观”现象层面之间存在着一个“解释鸿沟”,这被称为意识的“难题”。意识的现象层面是对“是什么样的”问题的第一人称回答,迄今为止,它已证明难以进行直接的科学研究。自然主义二元论者认为,它由现实中一种原始、私密、不可还原的元素构成,该元素独立于意识的功能和物理层面。另一方面,错觉论者认为,它仅仅是一种认知错觉,所有存在的最终都是物理的、非现象性的属性。我们认为,二元论和错觉论立场都存在缺陷,因为它们默认意识是一种不依赖于观察者的绝对属性。我们为一种意识相对论理论提出了一个概念性和数学性的论证,在该理论中,一个系统要么具有现象意识,要么不具有。现象意识既不是私密的,也不是虚幻的,只是相对的。在认知系统的参照系中,它是可观察的(第一人称视角),而在其他参照系中则不是(第三人称视角)。这两种认知参照系都是正确的,就如同一个观察者声称自己静止不动,而另一个观察者会声称该观察者有恒定速度的情况一样。鉴于意识是一种相对现象,没有哪种观察者立场能具有特权,因为它们都描述了相同的潜在现实。基于物理学中的相对现象,我们为意识开发了一种数学形式化方法,弥合了解释鸿沟并化解了难题。鉴于第一人称认知参照系也能提供关于意识的合理观察结果,我们最后认为,哲学家通过与神经科学家合作探索现象结构的神经基础,能够为意识科学做出有益贡献。