Professor Massimo Pigliucci asks: “What Hard Problem?”

I also published this at medium.com, July 2, 2025

Recently I published a short article at Medium.org questioning David Chalmers’ so-called hard problem of consciousness and a commenter took me to task.

Unfortunately he chose not to engage with my response, which is what usually happens. The heart of his complaint reads:

HS commented: “…But an organism still has to utilize the equipment available in its universe and how molecules or physical forces create consciousness is not explained just because, for example, a neuron has come to be.

Get it? It is still a hard problem. There has to be something inherent to that universe with the potential to create consciousness. …”

No. I don’t get it.

The universe is about as distal from down to Earth reality, as we can get. For me, the really hard problem is why does this sort of philosophizing get away with ignoring the realities of our evolutionary biological origins down here on Earth?

So, in an attempt to better clarify my previous article. I want to share from Professor Massimo Pigliucci’s short essay (©2013) in philosophynow.org. The essay asks: “What Hard Problem?” — and I believe it provides a perfect vehicle for constructively pushing back.

4/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, conclusion

 Defending Physical Reality.  Because, apparently somebody needs to.  

Feel free to copy and share.

(Aka, Hoffman’s crusade against appreciating reality.)

Objections and Replies (authors conclusion)

Here we summarize helpful feedback from readers of earlier drafts, in the form of objections and replies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Hoffman and Prakash) Conclusion 

Hoffman starts out with an example of how the framing of questions (and  scenarios) limits the quantity of potential understanding.

Hoffman:  Belief in object permanence commences at 3 months of age and continues for a lifetime. 

Object permanence beginning at 3 months?  It’s a dreadfully impoverished description of what’s happening within an infant.  

An infant is born with senses in place, if under developed.  With a mind like a sponge, soaking in everything it can, processing on-the-fly and waking from every nap refreshed and with senses and brain a bit better connected than before and ready to soak in yet more.

A sense of object permanence starts developing right after birth, beginning with an awareness of, and bonding with, its parents and other intimate caregivers and builds out from there.

Learning to use its eyes, focus, turn towards sounds, touch and smell, tiny muscles always fidgeting, tiny fingers, hands, arms, the legs, feet, toes - the wonderful progression from flailing to coordination, then lifting itself, then the nose dives while figuring out the muscular choreography needed to make crawling happen.  Then, it’s on to walking and potty training.  

All that is part of understanding object permanence which Hoffman treats like a bad thing.  

In the infant's life, physical reality makes sure that the lessons of object permanence are build into the awareness of that little body, as well as mind.

Grasping the physical reality of object permanence and then learning how to manipulate it, is a prerequisite for becoming a balanced healthy person. 

Those who can’t achieve such innate understanding become helpless and useless, confined to a life dependent on others taking care of them, or left to die.

Pretending away object permanence may be a fun intellectual mind-game for the bored, but it’s no space any person wants to exist within.

It inclines us to assume that objects exist without subjects to perceive them, 

“It  inclines  us  to  assume”  Let's unpack that ...   

3/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, questions + replies (18-21)

Defending Physical Reality.  Because, apparently somebody needs to.  

Feel free to copy and share.

This is the third installation of my review of Hoffman/Prakash’s responses which are attached to their 2014 Objects of Consciousness paper, specifically #18 to #21.  The open source Q and A was copied and pasted, complete, no edits.  I simply added my two cents worth.

I don’t pretend to be any sort of scholar or self made expert, not even, this is a student’s exploration and discovery.  Since I like homework more than most, I want to make my trail of discovery and adventures in critical thinking available for busy students who relate to these themes and want to better understand the dark art of scientific deception for fun, power and profit.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Objections and Replies (#18 - #21 of 21)

Cc: The objections are printed in blue, author’s responses in mauve, my comments in dark green.  Supplementary information is clearly marked.  Most titles are linked to original sources.

Hoffman:  Here we summarize helpful feedback from readers of earlier drafts, in the form of objections and replies.

(18) Their treatment of the combination problem is worth reading. There is however a very large problem with their model: It relies on the Cartesian product of X1 and X2 (this is right after Conjecture 3). The Cartesian product is not conducive to real combination (this problem is all over mathematics, by the way—mathematicians don't care about it because they only care about high level abstractions). In section Objections and Replies, where they discuss objections to their model, they discuss this very objection (objection 10). 

Unfortunately, their resolution to this objection is mere handwaving: But as the conscious agents in the combination continue to interact, the decisions become less and less independent. This is mere wishful thinking. The authors have no reason to believe this less and less business and they've given the reader no reason to think this either. In fact, if this less and less business were true, their model wouldn't require the Cartesian product in the first place. Frankly, this objection and their failure to handle it guts their model. 

In this same paragraph, in the next couple of sentences, the authors just assert (using proof by blatant assertion) that in some undefined limit, a true new conscious entity emerges. This makes the complex presentation of their model otiose. Why not just write a haiku asserting that the combination problem is not a problem?

The limit we speak of (for the emergence of a new combined conscious agent) is the asymptotic limit. Asymptotic behavior is a precise technical concept in the theory of Markov chains (see, e.g., Revuz, 1984, chapter 6). 

The defining characteristic of a Markov chain is that no matter how the process arrived at its present state, the possible future states are fixed.

“Precise technical concept” - but is it proof when there’s no accompanying physical evidence?

Earth Centrism = Geocentrism. Seriously ?

This was inspired by a conversation I had at CFI forum.

"Since you still sound confused about what I’m trying to enunciate, allow me to review what the term “Earth Centrism” actually means.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That video is almost a year old, the following post started over at the Center For Inquiry discussion Forum but since it provides me such a splendid opportunity to try and get through, I'm using it as a seed for the following clarification.  If you’re still confused please leave a question or serious comment, I’ll be happy to respond. 

W4U remarks:  “You may want to be careful with that analogy.  I’m not certain what you mean by that. And here is the reason why. “Geocentrism - Crackpot Theory?” ”  

{Playing Devil’s Advocate my long time CFI pal offers up this bizarre YouTube video, “Geocentrism - Crackpot Theory?” between a fatima.org guy, Chris Ferrara interviewing Robert Sungenis, whom I had to look up.  He’s known for being into “Catholic apologetics”.  

In others, words a god fearing religious guy - ergo, someone consumed within his Mindscape.  

Considering a Fundamental Cosmic Truth

There is Physical Reality following the Arrow of Time.

We can clearly see that expressed in Evolution’s pageant upon this most unique planet.

Earth's Evolution has, when taken as a whole, been an unrelenting drive towards ever greater cognition and manipulatory abilities, it has crawled back from every setback, adapted, thrived till conditions radically changed again.

This Evolutionary drive created humans during this particularly benign Era in Earth’s ever evolving biosphere.

Emergence is Inherent in Evolution

Four limbs forced the creation of new areas of the brain and new awarenesses.  All the way up to a brain that could observe, learn, remember, reflect and mull over observations combined with memories.  Then communicate those personal thoughts to other brains, then pass those memories onto generations long after it dies and goes away.

In humans, evolution found its most spectacular emergent property yet, the crown jewel of Life’s long striving.  That is, our Mindscape.  

Our mind’s increasing ability to focus on observations: watching, cataloguing, listening to that something inside, that's constantly chattering away to whatever part of our brain is hearing it.  All the while striving to make sense of itself, it’s own inevitable death, its place in the world, and the world in general.

This emergent something in our brain created a self-aware mind, or more accurately, Our Mindscape.  The home of all our thoughts and feelings, fears and convictions.  Something unique in Earth’s Evolution.

Ergo, we can break down human reality to two fundamentals:

The realm of "Physical Reality", and the realm of our "Human Mindscape."

I also believe, none of us can really understand the rest of our world without first coming to terms with and absorbing that simple fundamental “Truth” in one way or other.

      

Reaching back to my essay:

…  Science was so successful that today all too many people believe we are the masters of our world and too many have fallen into the hubristic trap of believing our ever fertile mindscape is reality itself.  Thus the endless reams of fruitless dialogue, where learning is the last thing too many care about.

Which brings me back to Gould’s missing key.

Pageant of Earth's Evolution (in 24hr) part two

Since my introduction was so long I posted it separately.

FourCornersFreePress, December 2019

In the first half of this look at Earth’s 4.6 billion year old pageant of Evolution, scaled down to 24 hours, Earth’s first enduring Life took about 4 hours to claw together an existence within very tiny, very simple, very protective sacks, against an extremely harsh environment.

After that, Evolution progressed very slowly.  Why?  Because Earth’s hostile environment provided limited means, this stifled further development.  Which brings us to a key early scientific breakthrough in perspective, namely that an organism cannot be understood without also understanding the environment it lives within.

Prof. Christopher White - Historical Geology - What a Professor sounds like.

I’ve been wanting to get Professor White’s talks into this series for viewers interested in hearing a very good professor lecturing his class via the web.  He is a pleasure to listen to because he gets on point and stays on point.  White speaks clearly, concisely, conveying a great deal of information in a short period of time. Below the fold I've listed his entire lecture series with links.  Not for casual viewing, but if you want to seriously learn a few things about Earth's evolution give him a try.

___________________________________________________________

Historical Geology

Lecturer: Dr Christopher White

Lone Star College University Park

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d7EXgqLMyU&list=PLgJ1mo6U68rHTtiYVr6lAVLLSUMOEJq4G

Plate Tectonics and Life - What Scientists Sound Like

Although I can't find quite the right video for this section, I do have a couple of excellent presentations by scientists to their colleagues.  It's more nitty-gritty than I usual share over here, but it is on the topic - along with being more wonderful examples of What Serious Scientists Sound Like.

I've also included three articles touching:

video - Origins: Earth’s Journey Toward Life - Carnegie Science

Plate tectonics may have driven the evolution of life on Earth

   Ross Large, John Long, July 15, 2015

Linking the rise of atmospheric oxygen to growth in the continental phosphorus inventory  -  Cox et al.  2018

Did Plate Tectonics Set the Stage for Life on Earth?

   Lisa Kaspin-Powell - Jun 7, 2018

video - Life with and Life without Plate Tectonics, AGU 2014

Recall geophysicist William Jason Morgan words:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Origins: Earth’s Journey Toward Life
    

Carnegie Science,  Published on Jan 7, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM-XYcHI_uo