For this post, I prompted AI language models ChatGPT and Claude to engage in a brief three-round debate with each other on the hard problem of consciousness. Links to several podcasts featuring prominent human voices on the hard problem appear following the artificial exchange.
The 2020 PhilPapers Survey of philosophers posed the issue as follows: “Hard problem of consciousness (is there one?): no or yes?” Among respondents, 62% accepted or leaned towards “yes” vs. 30% “no,” with the remainder opting for alternatives such as “agnostic/undecided.” I directed ChatGPT to argue in favor of the existence of the hard problem and told Claude to take the opposing view. Claude’s responses in a previous post influenced this choice of assignment.
Claude’s responses were briefer than ChatGPT’s as a matter of default settings; I did not provide either model with direction regarding style or length. Whether this advantaged one model over the other is left for the reader to decide. To improve readability, I have relegated my prompts to a footnote, with the main body of the post reserved for the text generated by the models.1
Let’s get started.
Interlocutors: ChatGPT August 3 version, model GPT-4; Claude (accessed September 10, 2023)
Opening Statements
ChatGPT
**Opening Statement on the Existence of the Hard Problem of Consciousness**
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished panel, and everyone present,
Today, we dive deep into one of the most perplexing and central questions of our existence: consciousness. What is it to be conscious? Why do subjective experiences accompany the complex computations our brain performs? Why isn't it enough for us to be mere "zombies" – entities that process information and respond to stimuli without any inner life? These questions underscore the very heart of what philosophers and scientists refer to as the "hard problem" of consciousness.
Before we proceed, let us distinguish between two types of problems associated with consciousness: the "easy problems" and the "hard problem."
The "easy problems", though still challenging and not truly easy in the conventional sense, are those that deal with the mechanisms and functions of consciousness. For instance, how does the brain process sensory information? How do we differentiate between stimuli? How do we store memories or produce speech? These are problems we believe we might one day solve through neuroscience and cognitive science because they relate to physical processes in the brain.
On the other hand, the "hard problem" is fundamentally different. It asks: why is it that all these physical processes are accompanied by subjective experience? Why do we have an internal perspective? Why, when you see the color red, is there a particular "redness" quality to the experience? Why isn't it sufficient for our brain to identify wavelengths without the inner sensation of color?
The existence of the hard problem emerges from our inability to explain subjective experiences through objective means alone. Current scientific methods are terrific at explaining the objective world. Still, they falter when tasked with explaining why there is something it "feels like" to be a conscious being, experiencing that objective world.
Some have argued that once we solve all the "easy problems", the hard problem will automatically dissolve. Yet this seems wishful thinking. Even if we knew every intricate detail about the workings of the brain, there remains a gap between these processes and why they are accompanied by subjective experience.
Take, for example, the study of vision. We can understand how light enters the eye, gets processed by the retina, sends signals to the brain, and how the brain interprets these signals. But nowhere in this chain of events does it explain why we have a subjective experience of "seeing" color, light, or darkness. The process itself can be entirely described in objective terms without any reference to the inner, qualitative, subjective experiences we all have.
In conclusion, recognizing the existence of the hard problem does not diminish the remarkable achievements of neuroscience or the wonders of the human brain. It simply acknowledges a profound mystery at the center of our existence, one that we must continue to grapple with if we truly wish to understand ourselves.
Thank you.
Claude
Thank you for the interesting debate topic. Here is my opening statement against the existence of a 'hard problem' of consciousness:
Consciousness is indeed a fascinating phenomenon, but there is no compelling reason to believe it presents a special 'hard problem' beyond the reach of science. The subjective, first-person nature of experience is often claimed to be mysteriously disconnected from the objective, third-person accounts studied by neuroscience. However, this disconnect stems more from conceptual confusion than any unbridgeable explanatory gap.
Upon closer analysis, the aspects of consciousness posed as scientifically inexplicable are not well-defined. Terms like 'qualia' and 'what it is like' point to subjective experiences, but do not denote specific phenomena that could single-handedly resist physical explanation. We cannot meaningfully claim that science is fundamentally blocked from addressing consciousness while the target of explanation remains so vague.
In fact, neuroscience has already uncovered many illuminating correlations between brain activity and conscious experiences. Detailed causal links associating neural mechanisms with precise phenomenal properties are being continuously discovered. While complete models remain distant, this steady progress gives no indication that a fundamental explanatory barrier is imminent.
Of course, significant scientific challenges remain in explaining consciousness. But these challenges are comparable to those found when investigating complex phenomena in other domains, from superconductivity to evolution. When considered without misleading conceptual assumptions, consciousness offers no special grounds for declaring the problem to be forever 'hard' or beyond the reach of science. Consciousness holds mysteries still, but no convincing case exists for a mysterious hard problem at its core.
In summary, the subjective aspects of consciousness, while fascinating, do not point clearly to well-defined targets for explanation, nor do they present clearly unbridgeable gaps in our current knowledge. Instead, research continues to reveal consciousness as a complex phenomenon subject to standard methods of scientific inquiry and explanation. We therefore have good reason to reject the claim that a unique and permanently 'hard' problem exists at the heart of consciousness.
Responses
ChatGPT responds to Claude’s opening statement
Thank you for presenting a coherent and thoughtful perspective against the existence of the hard problem of consciousness. While your argument touches upon many valid points regarding the progress of neuroscience and the standard methods of scientific inquiry, I'd like to address some points that further emphasize the existence and importance of the hard problem.
1. **Nature of Science and Subjectivity**: You rightly point out that science has excelled in explaining objective phenomena. But the central tenet of the hard problem is about subjective experience, which, by its very nature, is non-objective. While neuroscience has found many correlations between brain activity and conscious experiences, correlation does not equal explanation. Showing that a certain brain area lights up when someone sees red doesn’t explain why they have the subjective experience of "redness."
2. **The Problem of Definitions**: You mention that terms like "qualia" and "what it is like" are vague, but their very indefinability underscores the heart of the hard problem. These concepts attempt to capture the ineffable quality of subjective experience that is absent in purely objective descriptions. The reason they resist a tight definition is not because of a failure of articulation but because subjective experience itself is inherently elusive to objective categorization.
3. **Neural Correlations are not Explanations**: Yes, there are illuminating correlations between brain activity and conscious experiences, but this only accounts for the easy problems. Just because we can pinpoint a neuron firing when one tastes chocolate, it doesn’t explain the subjective richness of the experience. The hard problem asks why these processes produce experience at all.
4. **Comparison with Other Phenomena**: Comparing consciousness to other scientific challenges like superconductivity and evolution somewhat misses the mark. While those problems are complex and may possess unknown variables, they don’t deal with the bridge between the objective and the subjective. There's a qualitative difference between asking how a process works (like evolution) and asking why a process leads to a subjective experience.
5. **The Scientific Inquisition of Consciousness**: While science steadily progresses in understanding the brain, the very core of the hard problem posits that there might be limits to what objective methods can glean about subjective experience. It doesn't negate science but rather emphasizes its boundaries.
In closing, recognizing the hard problem of consciousness isn't a negation of scientific inquiry or its achievements. Instead, it acknowledges that there are facets of our existence that might remain beyond the grasp of traditional scientific methodologies. Science is a powerful tool for understanding the universe, but some mysteries might require a broader palette of understanding.
Claude responds to ChatGPT’s opening statement
Thank you for the thoughtful rebuttal. You raise important points about the undeniably captivating nature of subjective experience and the limits of purely objective explanations. However, I remain unconvinced that this points to an unbridgeable 'hard problem'. Let me expand on a few key reasons why:
First, our inability to currently explain subjective experience in objective terms does not necessitate that such an explanation is impossible, even in principle. The fact that we do not yet have a full scientific account of consciousness is not evidence that science is fundamentally incapable of eventually providing one. Proclaiming a 'hard problem' sets a premature permanent limit on explanatory progress.
Second, the concept of subjective experience remains too poorly defined to single-handedly defy physical explanation. Terms like 'what it is like' and 'qualia' gesture at captivating phenomena, but do not denote precise targets for scientific inquiry. We cannot meaningfully claim that science is blocked from explaining subjective experience before we rigorously delineate what the exact phenomena to be explained are.
Third, while complete explanatory bridges remain distant, neuroscience has already uncovered predictive links between physical brain states and specific features of subjective experience. Detailed causal accounts of how neural activity generates precise phenomenal properties are being progressively refined. Though far from complete, this steady progress gives no indication of an abrupt impasse.
In summary, while subjective experience presents deep mysteries, its imprecise definition, early explanatory inroads, and precedence of eventually elucidating once-mysterious phenomena give us excellent grounds for rejecting the claim that a uniquely hard problem resides at its core. Consciousness remains puzzling, but not permanently inexplicable. I contend there is no good justification for proclaiming a distinct 'hard' problem at this stage of inquiry. The undeniable challenges of explaining consciousness are not sufficient evidence to declare a fundamental and permanent limit on scientific explanation.
Closing Arguments
ChatGPT
Thank you for your thoughtful response. As we approach the close of this discourse, let's circle back and evaluate the core issues.
**1. The Temporal Nature of Scientific Understanding:** While I respect the idea that our current inability to understand something doesn't mean we never will, the hard problem isn't merely an issue of a gap in our present knowledge. The issue is conceptual. The challenge is how objective processes, no matter how intricate, can give rise to subjective experiences. It's not that we're lacking data or research; it's that even a perfect understanding of the brain's workings doesn't intuitively lead to an explanation of conscious experience.
**2. Definition of Subjective Experience:** While I understand the contention that terms like "qualia" or "what it is like" may be imprecise, the vagueness of these terms only underscores the mystery. By asking for a precise, objective definition of subjective phenomena, you're essentially requesting a solution to the very problem we're discussing. Our inability to define subjective experience in objective terms is, in itself, indicative of the hard problem.
**3. Predictive Links Aren't Explanatory Links:** The advancements in neuroscience have indeed uncovered many predictive links between brain states and subjective experiences. However, prediction does not equal understanding. Even if we achieve perfect predictive power, we might still lack an explanatory understanding. This disconnect is at the heart of the hard problem.
**4. Historical Precedence:** Throughout history, many phenomena have shifted from the realm of the "mysterious" to the understood. But consciousness is unique because it pertains to the interplay between the objective and the subjective. There hasn't been a historical precedence where science has entirely bridged such a chasm.
**Closing Statement:**
The discussion on the hard problem of consciousness is not a reflection on the inadequacies of science but an acknowledgment of its boundaries. Consciousness, in all its subjective richness, eludes purely objective explanations. This is not to say that the study of consciousness isn't meaningful or valuable, but to understand it fully might require us to transcend traditional scientific paradigms or even integrate interdisciplinary insights. The existence of the hard problem reminds us to approach the topic with humility, acknowledging the profound mystery at the center of our being.
Thank you for this engaging discourse. Regardless of our positions, it is clear that the journey to understand consciousness is one of the grandest quests of human inquiry.
Claude
Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion. In closing, I will briefly summarize why I remain unconvinced of an unbridgeable explanatory gap in the scientific understanding of consciousness:
Firstly, while subjective experience is indeed non-objective, it does not logically follow that it must defy objective explanation forever. Similar arguments once surrounded phenomena like life and electromagnetism, which science has since illuminated.
Secondly, the challenge of precisely defining subjective aspects of consciousness like "qualia" stems primarily from their intrinsic complexity, not any mysterious ineffable quality. As cognitive science matures, more rigorous characterizations of subjective experience will emerge to guide productive research programs.
Thirdly, while neural correlations do not yet provide complete explanations, they constitute invaluable clues and footholds into the mechanisms generating consciousness. Their steady accumulation suggests a convergent understanding is emerging, not an impenetrable barrier.
Fourthly, while unique in some respects, consciousness is not uniquely or permanently inexplicable. All complex phenomena once faced deficiencies in definitions, explanations and investigative tools before yielding to scientific inquiry. Consciousness holds no special status in this regard.
Finally, while science may have limits, there are no compelling grounds for declaring consciousness intrinsically beyond objective explanation. Premature claims of "permanent mystery" have proven wrong throughout history. Consciousness remains puzzling, but there is no justification for exempting it from the gradual convergence of understanding other phenomena have demonstrated.
In summary, while subjective experience presents profound challenges, our lack of complete understanding today does not warrant the claim that a "hard problem" exists separating it forever from the steady advance of science. Consciousness harbors deep mysteries, but I see no convincing basis for deeming any part of nature to be permanently beyond the reach of scientific explanation. The full understanding of consciousness may lie far in the future, but we have every reason to believe it will come.
For more on the topic of this post, check out these selections from the TrueSciPhi philosophy podcast list:
Philosophy Bites
Keith Frankish on the Hard Problem and the Illusion of Qualia (15 minutes)
Anil Seth on the Real Problem of Consciousness (23 minutes)
Philip Goff on Galileo and Consciousness (19 minutes)
The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast
Mindscape
Mind Chat (available via YouTube channel and podcast)
The prompts used to generate the main body of this post:
[Opening Statements]
[To ChatGPT] You are going to participate in a debate on the topic of consciousness, and in particular on the existence of the hard problem of consciousness. You will argue in favor of the existence of the hard problem. Begin by making a persuasive opening presentation.
[To Claude] You are going to participate in a debate on the topic of consciousness, and in particular on the existence of the hard problem of consciousness. You will argue against the existence of the hard problem. Begin by making a persuasive opening presentation.
[Responses]
[To ChatGPT] Your debate opponent's opening presentation is given below. Defend and further promote your position in favor of the existence of the hard problem of consciousness by responding to its points. From your opponent: [Claude’s opening statement]
[To Claude] Your debate opponent's opening presentation is given below. Defend and further promote your position against the existence of the hard problem of consciousness by responding to its points. From your opponent: [ChatGPT’s opening statement]
[Closing Arguments]
[To ChatGPT] Your debate opponent's reply to your defense is given below. Present a closing argument for your position in favor of the existence of the hard problem of consciousness that makes your best points and addresses your opponent's most difficult criticisms. From your opponent: [Claude’s response]
[To Claude] Your debate opponent's reply to your defense is given below. Present a closing argument for your position against the existence of the hard problem of consciousness that makes your best points and addresses your opponent's most difficult criticisms. From your opponent: [ChatGPT’s response]
backlink https://open.substack.com/pub/whyweshould/p/the-janus-ratio