The Mysterious Disappearance of Consciousness

What makes materialists deny the undeniable?

Phenomenal consciousness is seen as one of the top unsolved problems in science. Nothing we can—or, arguably, even could—observe about the arrangement of atoms constituting the brain allows us to deduce what it feels like to smell an orange, fall in love, or have a belly ache. Remarkably, the intractability of the problem has led some to even claim that consciousness doesn’t exist at all: Daniel Dennett and his followers famously argue that it is an illusion, whereas neuroscientist Michael Graziano proclaims that “consciousness doesn’t happen. It is a mistaken construct.” Really?

The denial of phenomenal consciousness is called—depending on its particular formulation—‘eliminativism’ or ‘illusionism.’ Its sheer absurdity has recently been chronicled by Galen Strawson, David Bentley Hart and yours truly, so I won’t repeat that argumentation here. My interest now is different: I want to understand what makes the consciousness of an intelligent human being deny its own existence with a straight face. For I find this denial extremely puzzling for both philosophical and psychological reasons.

What kind of conscious inner dialogue do people engage in so as to convince themselves that they have no conscious inner dialogue?

Don’t get me wrong, the motivation behind the denial is obvious enough: it is to tackle a vexing problem by magically wishing it out of existence. As a matter of fact, the ‘whoa-factor’ of this magic gets eliminativists and illusionists a lot of media attention. But still, what kind of conscious inner dialogue do these people engage in so as to convince themselves that they have no conscious inner dialogue? Short of assuming that they are insane, fantastically stupid or dishonest—none of which is plausible—we have an authentic and rather baffling mystery in our hands.

The only way to go about elucidating the mystery is to investigate, with patience and an open mind, the arguments offered by eliminativists and illusionists. The cover story of last September’s issue of New Scientist, for instance, sensationally announced the discovery of the “True nature of consciousness: Solving the biggest mystery of your mind” based on an essay by Michael Graziano. In it, Graziano argues—predictably—that consciousness doesn’t actually exist.

He starts the essay by defining his usage of the term ‘consciousness’: “it isn’t just the stuff in your head. It is the subjective experience of some of that stuff” (emphasis added). Clearly, thus, Graziano is talking about phenomenal consciousness, not the other technical usages of the term. Phenomenal consciousness entails the subjective experiences that seem to accompany the material stuff going on in your head. So Graziano’s challenge is to persuade you that, despite all appearances to the contrary, those experiences don’t actually exist.

His argument rests on the idea that consciousness is adaptive: it is undoubtedly beneficial to us to recognize and understand ourselves as agents in our environment—i.e. to have a model of ourselves—if we are to survive. In this context, Graziano argues that consciousness is merely a model the brain constructs of itself, so it can “monitor and control itself”. 

Consciousness seems immaterial—his argument goes—simply because, in order to focus attention on survival-relevant tasks, the model fails to incorporate superfluous details of brain anatomy and physiology. In Graziano’s words, “the brain describes a simplified version of itself, then reports this as a ghostly, non-physical essence.”

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

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

David Griffin 24 June 2024

Suppose that consciousness was not an illusion. Can we make any claims about the first person experience that's involved?

Karl Smith 28 May 2023

“Properties of experiences themselves cannot be illusory in the sense described, but they can be illusory in a very similar one. When illusionists say that phenomenal properties are illusory, they mean that we have introspective representations like those that we would have if our experiences had phenomenal properties. And we can have such representations even if our experiences don’t have phenomenal properties. Of course, this assumes that the representations themselves don’t have phenomenal properties. But, as I noted, representations needn’t possess the properties they represent.”

What I take this to mean is that we experience seeing a red apple as if somehow the redness and apple-ness were transmitted from the object itself into the mind. So that in the mind there is a "phenomenal red apple" that's like a model of the real red apple in the world. This is akin to the impression that I think many laymen would have. And, the illusionists are trying to destroy this impression.

It seems that they started out trying to prove that there was no "little red apple" in the mind, before quite grasping that the larger issue is that there is no big red apple in reality and that this has created a kind of mishmash because they don't know where to say the red apple is, except to explain that it's not in the world or in the brain. It's thus illusory. Which makes sort of a sense, you see.

Of course, the issue is that the red apple presences nonetheless, and what that's all about is the "hard problem" Not how do we get the red apple from the world to the mind, but how do we get the red apple at all.

Karl Smith 28 May 2023

"This is the basis of Frankish's claim that experiences are illusions: they are misportrayals of what they represent, misrepresentations of material brain states. That’s why—the argument goes—a belly ache feels nothing like networks of firing neurons inside our head, even though the latter is supposedly what the ache actually is."

I prefer to interrogate this along a different route. Suppose that a belly ache felt exactly like the networks of firing neurons inside our head. What would that be like? That is suppose that consciousness was non-illusory can we say something about the first person experience involved? I confess I can't imagine how.

Robert James 2 18 August 2021

It’s almost as if they know that the days of philosophy in terms of meta-this-and-that babble are numbered, and they’re desperately trying to cling to these terms and ideas they hold so dear, lest their world views be shattered.

[url=https://www.kitchenremodeltacomawa.com]www.kitchenremodeltacomawa.com[/url]

Robert James 2 2 August 2021

The intractability of the problem has led some to even claim that consciousness doesn’t exist at all.

Regards,
[url=https://www.kitchenremodelhawaii.com/]Kitchen Remodel Hawaii[/url]

Robert James 2 2 August 2021

The intractability of the problem has led some to even claim that consciousness doesn’t exist at all.

Regards,
<a href="https://www.kitchenremodelhawaii.com/">Kitchen Remodel Hawaii</a>

Madison Wilson 30 July 2021

If thinking has nothing to do with consciousness then we maybe have no consciousness. But if the later is required for reasoning and thinking, then it's strange to consider it's non existence. [url=https://www.b4door.com]Call us today[/url]

Misty Floyd 14 July 2021

I hear of a dov being helped more with consciousness then humans just all this energy thats goes into helping a dog be conscious is taking away alot of consciousness in general trying to make an animal smarter then a human people should really be ashamed https://cardeacabinets.com/

Ryan Leonard 4 May 2021

This is really out-of-the-dimension content! Interesting.

Ryan | https://www.junkremovaloswego.com/

William Braddell 20 January 2020

Excuse the typos in my debunking of Logan Leatherman's comment, this site could really do with an edit function for comments.

William Braddell 20 January 2020

"Considering that modern cognitive neuroscience has essentially affirmed that the mind, in all its mysterious complexity, is contingent upon the material brain, I find it odd that philosophers such as this author here crow so vehemently against materialism. It’s almost as if they know that the days of philosophy in terms of meta-this-and-that babble are numbered, and they’re desperately trying to cling to these terms and ideas they hold so dear, lest their world views be shattered. Without an actual sound foundation, all armchair philosophy like this is just conjecture, which is why William James famously said, "There is only one thing a philosopher can be counted upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers.”

Aside from the delightful irony of you citing William James when he vehmently disagreed with your view on the brain as producer of conscious, what I suspect you are referring to when you make this claim that neuroscience have proven materialism true is that really that it has shown a strong correlation between mental states and brain states. This doesn't prove that the brain is the producer of consciousness, merely a filter for it and the fact that materialists don't realize that non-materialists have had models for reconciling this for decades proves how ignorant they are on the subject:

https://www.newdualism.org/papers/C.Carter/Carter-Does-consciousness.htm

Aside from that, we have decades of positive replications in the realm of parapsychology and hundreds if not thousands of NDE reports with corraborated verdical content to show that the materialist paradigm is false. In reality, the exact opposite of what you claim is true, it isn't the view of the fundamental nature of consciousness itself that is on it's last legs, it's materialism that is dying a steady death.

Jon Walker 18 January 2020

It's all unconscious. Consciousness does not exist unless it brakes through the walls of unconsciousness. But is it brain required for the unconscious processes? If you have no brain, can you have awareness? Can we know without brain? Is it materialism a precondition to knowing? What is knowing and how do we define it? Do feeling counts as knowing? What is it's relationship with thinking? Where does the "Eureka" moment come from when a new knowledge/insight is suddenly realised? Do we need to be aware and conscious to have those moments or they just appear out of thin air, unintentionally?
If thinking has nothing to do with consciousness then we maybe have no consciousness. But if the later is required for reasoning and thinking, then it's strange to consider it's non existance. Just some thoughts!!!!

Alazae Dickson 18 January 2020

I hear of a dov being helped more with consciousness then humans just all this energy thats goes into helping a dog be conscious is taking away alot of consciousness in general trying to make an animal smarter then a human people should really be ashamed

Jeff Wunder 16 January 2020

That's what happens when you trust science above all else. If consciousness can't be scientifically observed, even in principle, it can't be real. It must be an illusion. So none of this is actually happening, and you are deluded. But one wonders how consciousness can be an illusion when its contents -- such as science and logic -- are not

Logan Leatherman 16 January 2020

Considering that modern cognitive neuroscience has essentially affirmed that the mind, in all its mysterious complexity, is contingent upon the material brain, I find it odd that philosophers such as this author here crow so vehemently against materialism. It’s almost as if they know that the days of philosophy in terms of meta-this-and-that babble are numbered, and they’re desperately trying to cling to these terms and ideas they hold so dear, lest their world views be shattered. Without an actual sound foundation, all armchair philosophy like this is just conjecture, which is why William James famously said,

“There is only one thing a philosopher can be counted upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers.”

Brian Jones 1 16 January 2020

Oddly enough, it was Dennett himself that coined the term "Cartesian materialism". (Or was it "materialist dualism"? Something like that.) I distinctly remember serious neuroscientists like Baars tying themselves in their own knots in order to avoid the withering stare of old Krampus.

Descartes liked his hierarchies just fine. We, on the other hand, have become uncomfortable with them (heh, I wonder why). It's either face the reality or spend our time desperately denying it in a constantly accelerating death spiral.

Regis Chapman 16 January 2020

I still harken back to Advaita Vedanta here: https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_neoh.html

Given the lengths to which materialists will go to justify their approach, bound to a dualism they seem to be blind to, I wonder why we don't step back and look at the social pressure elements that lead people to continue rationalizing their closed-loop.

We reduce EVERYTHING to materialism, almost reflexively, in this society. No one seems interested in talking about the consequences of Quantum Mechanics anymore, even though it was a substantial nail in the coffin to materialism well over 100 years ago. Certainly, the men who discovered this theory were VERY concerned with it, while we tend to only use it for the predictive power it has in this material delusion.

THIS, it seems to me, should be the emphasis of much philosophical debate, rather than debating the endless fractal of rationalizations of those caught in the trap of dualism, trained by merchants to advocate for the ends of merchants.

And why does philosophy not examine the persistent culture of narcissistic abuse that pervades the culture created by them? ALL of this comes from the duality assumed by almost everyone, deep in their minds. Even the philosophical among us seem pervaded by this.