The Recognition Problem in consciousness research
Reading | Philosophy
Anoop Kumar, MD, MMgt | 2024-05-05
To complement the well-known Hard Problem of consciousness, Dr. Kumar introduces the Recognition Problem: one implicitly recognizes and defines consciousness only as completely as one is meta-cognitively aware of it. This is critical in the field of consciousness studies, for that which one is trying to account for—namely, consciousness—is implicitly defined by the limits of one’s introspective self-awareness. Claims of success in reductively accounting for consciousness are thus entirely pre-conditioned on one’s introspective apprehension of the challenge at hand. This may explain why, to some, there isn’t even a Hard Problem at all: they are simply incapable of introspectively recognizing that which the Hard Problem refers to.
David Chalmers framed the Hard Problem of consciousness, which asks why there should be anything like consciousness at all: given that the physical world supposedly has no consciousness, why should any particular configuration of it—such as a brain—yield something as foreign as consciousness? Why would there be such a thing as consciousness that arises from unconsciousness?
It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that, when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?
Anil Seth partially responded to this by saying that the Hard Problem doesn’t really help us solve anything. Seth points to what he calls the Real Problem, which is the work of bringing together conscious experience and unconscious objects.
…tackling the real problem of consciousness depends on distinguishing different aspects of consciousness, and mapping their phenomenological properties (subjective first-person descriptions of what conscious experiences are like) onto underlying biological mechanisms (objective third-person descriptions).
In other words, the real work to be done is the work of bridging consciousness and unconsciousness. It’s hard to disagree with that. But how exactly do we build this bridge without tying ourselves in a knot, especially when third-person descriptions are, after all, noted by first-person cognition? To address this question, we need to declare a third problem underpinning the Hard and Real ones: the Recognition Problem.
The Recognition Problem states: I implicitly recognize and define consciousness only as completely as I am aware of it.
This may seem obvious or redundant, but in the field of consciousness studies it most definitely is not. With every other subject other than consciousness, one’s own consciousness is studying and analyzing something else. But in consciousness studies, one’s own consciousness is trying to study itself through objectifying processes. The depth of bias here is impossible to overstate, therefore it would be fundamentally unscholarly to not state. Put another way, there is no greater bias than an experience of consciousness writing a paper about itself without declaring its bias. I too am guilty of not declaring this bias in a related paper.
Accounting for the Recognition Problem, the solution to the Hard Problem may be that consciousness is fundamental, and therefore the very separation of conscious from unconscious is merely a projection of my own state of consciousness. Similarly, the solution to the Real Problem may actually be developing my own consciousness, which then correlates with the apparently external work being done to bridge what seem to be unconscious and conscious experiences. Or maybe not. Either way, the Recognition Problem immediately offers a broader perspective and new strategy for a more complete account of consciousness.
Another critical benefit of the Recognition Problem is that it initially places all consciousness researchers on even footing. One researcher may be seen as senior in terms of experience in the field, but the state of their consciousness may not be as subtle as that of an undergraduate student or even the graduate student they are guiding. Explicitly declaring the Recognition Problem as a bias in all consciousness studies gives everyone an equal starting point with every paper, even if those that are more experienced in the field are highly likely to be more methodologically proficient.
This brings up a challenge the Recognition Problem presents: does it open the door to a free-for-all in terms of what counts as good research? No. Methodology has to be sound, but assumptions, definitions, and experiments remain subject to new formulations.
One of the questions I received from Anil Seth about this was: “How is this different from recognising anthropocentric bias? Also reminds me of the Garland Test: knowing that X is a machine, does a human feel that X is conscious?”
The Recognition Problem is different from anthropocentric bias in that, (a) if there is a shift in consciousness, the very definition of “anthropo-” changes. “Anthropocentric” gives the false impression that the bias is due to being human in our society. It is not. It is a bias due to culture and conditioning of society itself, not humanness. Human experience can easily go beyond a society, a lifetime, a planet, and a species. We must bring this subtle yet paramount clarity to consciousness research. (b) Anthropocentric bias is applicable to all fields of study—indeed to all activity one can do in any area of life. It is so ubiquitous and nonspecific that it is easily overlooked. In consciousness research, however, anthropocentric bias is, by its very nature, magnified to such an extent that it could actually be the central theme of a paper without ever being named. This cannot stand in research.
Moreover, the Recognition Problem is different than Garland because (a) the Recognition Problem questions the premise, “Knowing that X is a machine…” How do we know it’s a machine to begin with? Who or what is it that knows? Garland goes in circles without arriving at the origin of the problem. We cannot start with an external assumption in formal consciousness studies. We start with our own level of awareness. (b) The Recognition Problem is much more direct and demanding than Garland, challenging established researchers and encouraging new ones to proceed with rigor by presenting obstacles to rigor up front.
When we acknowledge the Recognition Problem, research will be infused with new life, opening up the field of consciousness studies to rigorous new perspectives that afford us key insights into the nature of consciousness. We may even find out that consciousness never had a problem at all.
So here is my ask: every research paper referencing consciousness must acknowledge the Recognition Problem, lest it remains an elephant of undeclared bias giving research an extra air of validity that may not be warranted.
Essentia Foundation communicates, in an accessible but rigorous manner, the latest results in science and philosophy that point to the mental nature of reality. We are committed to strict, academic-level curation of the material we publish.
Recently published
|
Prof. Moreira argues that reason cannot generate intrinsic value; it merely operates on existing human needs and emotional commitments. While reason can expose contradictions, refine desires, and structure society, it cannot logically compel anyone to care about existence, honesty, or reciprocity. True human value begins with felt needs—most fundamentally, the recognition of the “Other” and their inner life. Ultimately, reason and need must work together to build a pluralistic society where individuals can coexist without needing universal agreement on what makes life meaningful.
|
Dr. Goodwin argues that, under Idealism, all illnesses, not only mental health conditions, are a result of abnormal dynamics in the medium of mind. This includes infections, cancers, and even broken bones. The implications, he argues, open up new horizons for the expansion of effective treatment strategies, provided that we find ways to keep the nonsense—such as considering all illnesses merely psychosomatic—away.
From the archives
|
David Lloyd returns with another captivating analysis of the isomorphisms—the correspondences of form—between the patterns and regularities of inner experience and those of the physical world. His writing is informed by both deep introspection and hardcore physical science. In this essay, he discusses isomorphisms that allow teleology—a certain sense of purpose and direction—to exist in nature in a spontaneous, science-treatable manner, without need for deliberation from an anthropomorphic divinity.
|
Brian Stafford, MD, is a psychiatrist, board member and training director at the Animas Valley Institute, the organization founded by depth psychologist Bill Plotkin PhD and known for its work on nature-based human development. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Stafford reflects on his remarkable transition from a successful academic career in psychiatry to guiding wilderness-based practices aimed at what he calls an “eco-awakening”: a shift from an ego-centric to an eco-centric mode of consciousness.
Drawing on the work of Plotkin, Carl Jung, and his own clinical and personal experience as a wilderness guide, Stafford argues that many forms of psychological suffering are rooted in a deeper ecological disconnection. Rather than viewing the psyche primarily through the lens of pathology and symptom reduction, he proposes that psychiatry should recover a richer understanding of the psyche as a living reality embedded within both nature and the symbolic life of dreams, imagination, and meaning.
|
Through a simple, direct, and very effective thought experiment, Nilsson helps us develop a very concrete and explicit understanding of where events take place: the realm of mind. He further demonstrates the fundamental independence between this realm and spatial location.
Reading
Essays
|
Renowned physicist and nanoscientist Anirban Bandyopadhyay presents a radically different picture of the human brain: not as a computer processing bits, but as a nested architecture of clocks, resonances and shifting geometric patterns. At Japan’s National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), Bandyopadhyay and his team developed the dodecanogram, or DDG: a high-frequency brain-measurement technique designed to detect electrical and electromagnetic activity far beyond the reach of conventional EEG. Their findings include megahertz signals associated with microtubules, structures inside neurons that may host quantum effects. This research leads Bandyopadhyay to view consciousness quite literally as a universal symphony making music that is both everywhere and nowhere. Yet, while unequivocal in rejecting the computational view of consciousness, he remains cautious about the implications of his own findings: “The time has not yet come for a true theory of consciousness.”
|
In this short and accessible essay, Karina Firme uses an idealist metaphysics to explain why integrating rejected aspects of our own personalities discharges the emotional load we normally associate with other people, thereby quietening the world. Her ideas offer a compelling example of the explanatory power of metaphysics: of how it can both elucidate and ground facts of clinical observation that, although described, couldn’t be quite explained before.
|
David Lloyd returns with another captivating analysis of the isomorphisms—the correspondences of form—between the patterns and regularities of inner experience and those of the physical world. His writing is informed by both deep introspection and hardcore physical science. In this essay, he discusses isomorphisms that allow teleology—a certain sense of purpose and direction—to exist in nature in a spontaneous, science-treatable manner, without need for deliberation from an anthropomorphic divinity.
|
Brian Stafford, MD, is a psychiatrist, board member and training director at the Animas Valley Institute, the organization founded by depth psychologist Bill Plotkin PhD and known for its work on nature-based human development. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Stafford reflects on his remarkable transition from a successful academic career in psychiatry to guiding wilderness-based practices aimed at what he calls an “eco-awakening”: a shift from an ego-centric to an eco-centric mode of consciousness.
Drawing on the work of Plotkin, Carl Jung, and his own clinical and personal experience as a wilderness guide, Stafford argues that many forms of psychological suffering are rooted in a deeper ecological disconnection. Rather than viewing the psyche primarily through the lens of pathology and symptom reduction, he proposes that psychiatry should recover a richer understanding of the psyche as a living reality embedded within both nature and the symbolic life of dreams, imagination, and meaning.
|
Through a simple, direct, and very effective thought experiment, Nilsson helps us develop a very concrete and explicit understanding of where events take place: the realm of mind. He further demonstrates the fundamental independence between this realm and spatial location.
Seeing
Videos
|
Steven Wolfram claims that the “ruliad,” the space of all possible computational states in nature, is reality—a structure so complete it contains every possible way of processing information. Our universe emerges from how observers with particular computational bounds sample this infinite structure. In this profound essay, Proulx argues that the ruliad is best understood under an idealist framework wherein each observer’s perspective isn’t merely a partial representation of underlying states, but a rendering of reality itself; just as a frame in a computer game is a rendering generated on-the-fly, not a partial representation of underlying states.
|
In this conversation, cognitive scientist John Vervaeke joins Hans Busstra to examine the historical roots of the modern meaning crisis through the lens of psychotechnologies: culturally developed mental tools and practices that transform how human beings think, perceive and make sense of reality. Vervaeke describes how psychotechnologies such as shamanism, Socratic dialogue and the Christian notion of agape profoundly shaped Western thought.
|
In less than 2000 words, Brian Fang shows that ‘substance’ does not define existence; structure does. What a thing is cannot be separated from the structure that remains stable as everything else changes, particularly at the quantum level. If we look closely at what things actually are, we cannot help but realize that they are far removed from our classical intuition of mere blocks of “stuff.” Instead, to understand an object is to understand its specific pattern of invariance.
Let us build the future of our culture together
Essentia Foundation is a registered non-profit committed to making its content as accessible as possible. Therefore, we depend on non-financial contributions from people like you to continue to do our work.
