Forti Bruno
Department of Mental Health, Azienda ULSS 1 Dolomiti, Belluno, Italy.
Front Psychol. 2024 Mar 18;15:1329259. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1329259. eCollection 2024.
Loorits (2014) identifies the solution to the hard problem of consciousness in the possibility of fully analyzing seemingly non-structural aspects of consciousness in structural terms. However, research on consciousness conducted in recent decades has failed to bridge the explanatory gap between the brain and conscious mind. One reason why the explanatory gap cannot be filled, and consequently the problem remains hard, is that experience and neural structure are too different or "distant" to be directly compatible. Conversely, structural aspects of consciousness can be found in phenomenal experience. One possible alternative, therefore, is to seek the structure of seemingly non-structural aspects of consciousness not in the neural substrate, but within consciousness itself, through a phenomenal analysis of the qualitative aspects of experience, starting from its simplest forms. An essential premise is to reformulate the explanandum of consciousness, which is usually attributed to qualia and what it is like to be in a certain state. However, these properties do not allow us to identify the fundamental aspects of phenomenal experience. Sensations such as the redness of red or the painfulness of pain are inseparable from the context of the experience to which they belong, making qualia appear as phenomenal artifacts. Furthermore, the simplest qualitative aspects can be found in early vision. They are involved in perceptual organization and necessarily have relational significance. The unitary set of qualities found in early vision-such as those related to being an object, background or detail-constitutes the explanandum of the simplest forms of consciousness and seems to imply a justifying structure. Although early vision is characterized by interdependent qualitative components that form a unitary whole, we cannot find in it the structure of seemingly non-structural aspects of consciousness. Phenomenal appearance alone does not seem sufficient to identify a unitary structure of consciousness. However, the closeness of these characteristics to a unitary structure prompts us to delve into less explored territory, using the components of experience also as possible explanans.
洛里茨(2014年)指出,解决意识难题的方法在于能否从结构角度全面分析意识中看似非结构性的方面。然而,近几十年来对意识的研究未能弥合大脑与有意识思维之间的解释鸿沟。解释鸿沟无法填补、问题依然棘手的一个原因是,体验与神经结构差异太大或“相距甚远”,无法直接兼容。相反,意识的结构方面可以在现象体验中找到。因此,一种可能的替代方法是,通过从体验最简单的形式开始对体验的质性方面进行现象学分析,在意识本身内部而非神经基质中寻找意识中看似非结构性方面的结构。一个基本前提是重新表述意识的被解释项,通常它被归因于感受质以及处于某种状态时的体验。然而,这些属性无法让我们识别现象体验的基本方面。诸如红色的红度或疼痛的痛感等感觉与其所属的体验背景不可分割,这使得感受质看起来像是现象学上的人为产物。此外,最简单的质性方面可以在早期视觉中找到。它们参与感知组织,必然具有关系意义。在早期视觉中发现的一组统一的质性——比如那些与作为一个物体、背景或细节相关的质性——构成了最简单形式意识的被解释项,似乎暗示着一种合理的结构。尽管早期视觉的特征是相互依存的质性成分构成一个统一整体,但我们在其中找不到意识中看似非结构性方面的结构。仅凭现象外观似乎不足以识别意识的统一结构。然而,这些特征与统一结构的接近性促使我们深入探索较少被研究的领域,将体验的成分也用作可能的解释项。