The bogus mysteries of consciousness

Explaining the supposedly unexplainable

Apparent mysteries

In Part 1 the concept of consciousness was elucidated. It is a widely ramified concept with multiple centres of variation. But there is nothing mysterious or arcane about it. Nevertheless it is widely held by neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers that, as Francis Crick (a neuroscientist and Nobel laureate) wrote, consciousness ‘is the most mysterious aspect’ of the mind/brain problem. Eric Kandel (another Nobel laureate) asserted ‘perhaps the greatest unresolved problem…in all of biology, resides in the analysis of consciousness’. Psychologists concur: Stuart Sutherland remarked ‘consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved’. John Frisby held that consciousness ‘remains a great mystery, despite considerable advances in our knowledge of perceptual mechanisms’. Philosophers, who

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

ida sanka 2 September 2021

Great! didnt know about this before, I had doubts but thanks for clarifying.   tattoo removal cost

Elizabeth Ann Curran 6 February 2021

Thank you, Ian Wardell.

The demystification section of this article amounts to, “it is this way because I say it is.”

Such hubris.

By the way, Peter Hacker, was “trapped in a vice” a typo, a pun, or did you mean “an immoral or evil habit or practice?” The device with jaws is a vise. Actually, it’s quite funny the way it is. ????

Ian Wardell 26 March 2020

Well, this article was great until about 60% of the way through until the heading "Demystification". But this first 60% was essentially an outline of the history of the mind body problem and why it's considered a problem. After that point, when it was his turn to provide his solution, he never said anything of any substantive nature at all. It was all just words without much, if indeed any, meaning. Philosophers and scientists always seem to do this when discussing the mind-body problem i.e a good description of the origins of the problem followed by meaningless twaddle when they propose their own "solution".

Consciousness is only a intractable mystery if we assume the brain (or the whole body) somehow produces it. Why do professional scientists and philosophers assume this? No-one has ever provided a satisfactory answer to this question.