The three implausible presuppositions of the hard problem

The three implausible presuppositions of the hard problem

Georg Northoff - Philosopher, neuroscientist and psychiatrist who researches the relationship between the brain and the mind

Throughout all of the various layers of detachment, one feature remains consistent: the experience of one’s inner time and space relative to the outer time and space in the world. Consciousness can still persist even if devoid of the contents associated with perception and cognition.

In contrast, if one’s inner time and space can no longer relate to the world’s outer time and space, consciousness will cease to exist. This is the case in anaesthesia, deep sleep (except during dreams), and coma. I therefore conclude that consciousness is temporo-spatial, rather than cognitive.

...We experience the whole world and its various external events in our consciousness which by itself is part of that very same world. Moreover, we experience our own internal thoughts and their contents as part of that wider world. Given such an ecological nature, consciousness cannot be located and isolated at a specific point in time and space in either the brain, body, or world. Instead, it constitutes a relation between all three. Hence, consciousness is relational, rather than isolated and it is ecological, rather than locational: It is based on a world-brain relation, rather than on properties in the mind, brain, body, or world (Northoff 2016, 2018).

This is one where you really cannot do justice to the essay by quoting 3 paragraphs, as the argument seems far different to most...

I certainly find myself disagreeing with some of Northoff's assertions and conclusions. Indeed I seem to find self-contradictions there. Perhaps there was some conclusion he had already found it desirable to reach, but the steps along the way perhaps lead elsewhere.

I certainly find myself disagreeing with some of Northoff's assertions and conclusions. Indeed I seem to find self-contradictions there. Perhaps there was some conclusion he had already found it desirable to reach, but the steps along the way perhaps lead elsewhere.

If you could elaborate it would be much appreciated. I tried to access what I could of his book and found he ascribes to a "non-reductive neurophilosophy"...all to say I really cannot fathom what he is getting at so help would be appreciated!

If you could elaborate it would be much appreciated. I tried to access what I could of his book and found he ascribes to a "non-reductive neurophilosophy"...all to say I really cannot fathom what he is getting at so help would be appreciated!

Note: my reply below is very general, I'm not in the mood for taking another look at the article right now.

Well, I kept asking myself what I was reading - were the ideas described the ones he was arguing against, or the ones he was saying were his 'better' ideas to replace them. I felt rather uncertain, but decided it was likely it was these 'better' ideas. Here I found myself in disagreement with one of them, looked a bit further, didn't find anything I liked there, and ended up not really studying the thing in detail.

It has to be said though, I tend to be a bit sort of grumpy and finding fault in most proposed ideas in these areas, it may just be my contrariness (there's a word, 'cantankerous' which doesn't reflect my usual good nature, but sometimes emerges when I come across certain ideas).