We've got one more topic. It's not on the Landscape. It's about the Landscape. It's the meta-problem of consciousness. David Chalmers, its originator, explains: “The meta-problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why we think that there is a problem of consciousness.” (Chalmers, 2018). While the meta-problem is not a theory or explanation of consciousness, it gives insight into the ways of thinking of leading theorists and it probes the psychosocial structure of the field.
Chalmers continues: “The meta-problem is a problem about a problem. The initial problem is the hard problem of consciousness: why and how do physical processes in the brain give rise to conscious experience? The meta-problem is the problem of explaining why we think consciousness poses a hard problem, or in other terms, the problem of explaining why we think consciousness is hard to explain.” Equivalently, it is the problem of explaining why people have problem intuitions … including metaphysical intuitions (“consciousness is non-physical”), explanatory intuitions (“physical processes can't fully explain consciousness”), knowledge intuitions (“someone who knows all about the brain but has never seen colors doesn't know what it’s like to see red”), and modal intuitions (“we can imagine all these physical processes without consciousness”). There are also intuitions about the value of consciousness, the distribution of consciousness, and more (Chalmers, 2018).
In a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies dedicated to the meta-problem of consciousness, 39 colleagues respond to Chalmers. Following are several whose own theories are presented on the Landscape (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2019).
Andy Clark, Karl Friston, Sam Wilkinson: “The meta-problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining the behaviours and verbal reports that we associate with the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’. These may include reports of puzzlement, of the attractiveness of dualism, of explanatory gaps, and the like. We present and defend a solution to the meta-problem. Our solution takes as its starting point the emerging picture of the brain as a hierarchical inference engine. We show why such a device, operating under familiar forms of adaptive pressure, may come to represent some of its mid-level inferences as especially certain. These mid-level states confidently re-code raw sensory stimulation in ways that (they are able to realize) fall short of fully determining how properties and states of affairs are arranged in the distal world. This drives a wedge between experience and the world. Advanced agents then represent these mid-level inferences as irreducibly special, becoming increasingly puzzled as a result” (Clark et al., 2019).
Daniel Dennett: “David Chalmers underestimates the possibility that actually answering the ‘hard question’ will make both the hard problem and the meta-problem of consciousness evaporate” (Dennett, 2019).
Keith Frankish: “The meta-problem of consciousness prompts the meta-question: is it the only problem consciousness poses? If we could explain all our phenomenal intuitions in topic-neutral terms, would anything remain to be explained? Realists say yes, illusionists no. In this paper I defend the illusionist answer. While it may seem obvious that there is something further to be explained—consciousness itself—this seemingly innocuous claim immediately raises a further problem—the hard meta-problem. What could justify our continued confidence in the existence of consciousness once all our intuitions about it have been explained away? The answer would involve heavy-duty metaphysical theorizing, probably including a commitment either to substance dualism or to the existence of a mysterious intrinsic subjectivity. A far less extravagant option is to endorse the illusionist response and conclude that the meta-problem is not a meta-problem at all but the problem of consciousness” (Frankish, 2019).
Nicholas Humphrey (who offers “A Soft Landing for Consciousness”): “Problem reports result from several misunderstandings about the nature and functions of phenomenal consciousness. I discuss some philosophical and scientific correctives that, taken together, can make the hard problem seem less hard” (Humphrey, 2019).
David Papineau: “I am glad that David Chalmers has now come round to the view that explaining the ‘problem intuitions’ about consciousness is the key to a satisfactory philosophical account of the topic. I find it surprising, however, given his previous writings, that Chalmers does not simply attribute these intuitions to the conceptual gap between physical and phenomenal facts. Still, it is good that he doesn't, given that this was always a highly implausible account of the problem intuitions. Unfortunately, later in his paper Chalmers slides back into his misguided previous emphasis on the conceptual gap, in his objections to orthodox a posteriori physicalism. Because of this he fails to appreciate how this orthodox physicalism offers a natural solution to the challenges posed by consciousness” (Papineau, 2019).
Galen Strawson: “Many hold that (1) consciousness poses a uniquely hard problem. Why is this so? Chalmers considers 12 main answers in ‘The Meta-Problem of Consciousness’ … This paper focuses on number 11, and is principally addressed to those who endorse (1) because they think that (2) consciousness can't possibly be physical. It argues that to hold (2) is to make the mistake of underestimating the physical, and that almost all who make this mistake do so because they think they know more about the physical than they do. When we see things right, we see that there is nothing in physics nor in our everyday experience of the physical that gives us any good reason to hold (2). This leaves us free to embrace the overwhelmingly strong reasons for accepting that (3) consciousness is wholly physical. The correct general response is the same as the response to wave–particle duality: acceptance without expectation of understanding” (Strawson, 2019a).
Joseph Levine: “The key to understanding both consciousness itself and addressing the meta-problem is to understand what acquaintance is and what its objects are …. First, treat conscious experience as the holding of a basic, intentional relation of acquaintance between the conscious subject and a virtual world of objects and properties. In a sense I would endorse the almost universally deplored ‘Cartesian theatre’ model of experience. What it is to have conscious experience, on this view, is just to stand in a primitive or basic acquaintance relation to the objects of experience …. We still need a way of making the cognitive immediacy of experience explicable in the nature of the relation between the cognitive states about acquaintance and the phenomenon of acquaintance itself. One possible line of investigation is to employ the notion of cognitive phenomenology. After all, it is when one is occurrently entertaining thoughts about one's experience that one gains knowledge of this acquaintance relation … Unfortunately …, it is unclear how our acquaintance with the contents of experience can serve as data for our theory of conscious experience” (Levine, 2019).
Chalmers responds to his respondents in-depth (Chalmers, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Here is how he organizes his responses. “The commentaries divide fairly neatly into about three groups. About half of them discuss potential solutions to the meta-problem. About a quarter of them discuss the question of whether intuitions about consciousness are universal, widespread, or culturally local. And about a quarter discuss illusionism about consciousness and especially debunking arguments that move from a solution to the meta-problem to illusionism … As a result, I have divided my reply into three parts, each of which can stand alone. This first part is ‘How Can We Solve the Meta-Problem of Consciousness?’ The other two parts are ‘Is the Hard Problem of Consciousness Universal?’ and ‘Debunking Arguments for Illusionism about Consciousness’” (Chalmers, 2020a).
“How can we solve the meta-problem? As a reminder, the meta-problem is the problem of explaining our problem intuitions about consciousness, including the intuition that consciousness poses a hard problem and related explanatory and metaphysical intuitions, among others. One constraint is to explain the intuitions in topic-neutral terms (for example, physical, computational, structural, or evolutionary terms) that do not make explicit appeal to consciousness in the explanation … I canvassed about 15 potential solutions to the meta-problem. I expressed sympathy with seven of them as elements of a solution: introspective models, phenomenal concepts, independent roles, introspective opacity, immediate knowledge, primitive quality attribution, and primitive relation attribution …” (Chalmers, 2020a).
How does Chalmers view developments in consciousness studies since he highlighted, or ignited, the hard problem? “One thing that's really nice to see now is a lot of people are taking the problem a lot more seriously. And there has been a panoply of ideas, left and right, philosophers and scientists trying to address the problem of consciousness in a way that doesn't reduce consciousness to something else or try to deflate it, whereas in the past, all the predominant approaches were reductionist. Now, that's not the case” (Chalmers, 2016b).
As for Chalmer's own thinking, he says, “I've gradually evolved toward trying to focus on constructive theories of consciousness. For a while, it was a matter of fighting battles with materialists; I still enjoy that, but I think we're at the point where it's more worthwhile to focus on getting the details of constructive theory right. So, I've thought a lot about panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is fundamental in the universe—and how you can overcome the problems for that kind of view. I've thought about the idea that consciousness might play a role in quantum mechanics, and how that might help provide a role for consciousness in the universe. In general, although my hair has gotten shorter, my tolerance for wild ideas has gotten higher: I'm prepared to entertain all kinds of crazy ideas when it comes to a theory of consciousness. I think one thing we've learned is that we're just not going to have a good theory of consciousness without a wild idea or two in there. If you try to make it all common sense, it's just not going to work. But I think we've also learned we can be rigorous at the same time (Chalmers, 2016b).