The Morning After Dennett
In my last post, we explored Daniel Dennett’s world—a world where we are complex biological robots. In Dennett’s view, consciousness is essentially a biological computer running a sophisticated program. When you smell coffee or feel a breeze, your brain is simply executing “sub-routines” of data collection, self-monitoring, and linguistic reporting. To Dennett, once you’ve explained how the program runs, you’ve explained the mind. There is no “hidden magic” left over.
It’s a clean, scientific, and intellectually tidy view. But for many of us, it leaves a lingering, cold aftertaste. It feels like a “morning after” hangover where you realize that while Dennett has explained how the software works, he has ignored the most obvious fact of your life: The fact that it feels like something to be the computer. In 1994, at a conference in Tucson, Arizona, a young, long-haired Australian philosopher named David Chalmers walked into this functionalist factory and asked the question that would halt the Materialist parade: “If we are just programs, why does the program have to ‘feel’ like anything at all on the inside?”
The Great Divide: Easy vs. Hard
To understand the power of Chalmers’ insight, you have to understand his most famous distinction. He argued that when we talk about “consciousness,” we are actually talking about two very different things.
The “Easy” Problems These are the questions that occupy 99% of neuroscientists. How does the brain integrate information from the eyes? How do we categorize objects? How do we react to a loud noise? Chalmers calls these “easy” not because they are simple, but because we have a functional roadmap for them. In science, if you can explain how a system functions, you have explained the system. There is no “digestion-stuff” left over once you explain the stomach; there is no “weather-stuff” left over once you explain the atmosphere.
The Hard Problem The “Hard Problem” is the outlier. It is the question of Subjective Experience. When you look at a red apple, your brain processes light waves and triggers certain neurons. That is the “easy” part. But then, there is the redness of the red. There is the undeniable fact that it “feels like something” to be you in that moment.
Chalmers’ point is devastatingly simple: You could explain every physical vibration, every chemical spike, and every neural loop in the brain, and you would still have a glaring hole in your theory. You still haven’t explained why those physical movements are accompanied by a subjective “glow.”
The Anatomy of the Philosophical Zombie
To prove that the physical world and the mental world are not the same thing, Chalmers resurrected and modernized a classic thought experiment that had been gathering dust in the archives of philosophy: The Philosophical Zombie.
Imagine a being that is a perfect physical duplicate of you. It has your DNA, your brain structure, and your habit of squinting when it’s sunny. If you ask it how it feels, it says, “I feel great!” Because it is a biological robot running a sophisticated program, it reacts exactly as you would. If you prick it with a needle, it yelps “Ouch!” and pulls its arm away because its “threat-detection neurons” fired.
But there is a catch: Inside this creature, the lights are off. There is no “inner life.” It is a biological machine perfectly simulating a human being, but with zero subjective experience. It doesn’t feel the needle; it just processes the signal and moves the muscle.
The Ultimate Question: Why aren’t we Zombies? This is what truly “woke up” Chalmers. He realized that from an evolutionary or physicalist standpoint, we should have been zombies. A Zombie-you would survive just as well as the real you. Evolution only cares about what you do, not how it feels while you are doing it.
So why did the universe “turn the lights on”? If the physical machinery works perfectly fine in the dark, why is there a subjective “you” along for the ride? The fact that we actually experience our lives—the joy of a sunset, the sting of a needle—suggests that consciousness isn’t just a byproduct of survival; it is a fundamental fact that science cannot ignore.
The Structural Gap
The weight of Chalmers’ argument lies in a logical trap he calls the “Structural Gap.” He points out that all of physics is a description of structure and dynamics—how things move and interact. If you explain the structure of a car, you’ve explained the car.
But consciousness isn’t a structure or a movement. It is a state of being. You can map the “structure” of a brain forever, but you are effectively describing the map while ignoring the territory of the felt experience. For Chalmers, this means our current science isn’t just “missing a few details”—it is using the wrong language entirely. Physics describes things from the outside, but consciousness is the inside. You cannot logically arrive at an “inside” simply by rearranging “outsides.”
The Solution: Naturalistic Dualism
So, if consciousness isn’t just “meat processing,” where does it come from? Chalmers is a man of science, so he doesn’t want to rely on supernatural souls. Instead, he proposes Naturalistic Dualism. To understand this, consider Isaac Newton. When he proposed “Gravity,” critics called him a mystic. They asked, “How can two planets pull on each other through empty space without touching?” Newton didn’t have a “physical” mechanism; he just accepted that gravity was a fundamental force.
Chalmers is doing the same thing for the mind. He believes there are Psychophysical Laws—nature’s own “bridge” that dictates: “When you have this specific physical information structure, you get this specific mental experience.” It’s not magic; it’s just a law of the universe we haven’t mapped yet. By treating consciousness as a fundamental pillar of reality—just like mass or charge—Chalmers provides the first framework that actually respects the data of our own lives.
The “Wild” Conclusion: Panpsychism
If consciousness is a fundamental building block—like gravity—it shouldn’t just magically appear for the first time when a human brain gets big enough. It should be there, in some form, at the very bottom of reality. This leads Chalmers to a conclusion that even he admitted was “wild”: Even electrons might have a tiny spark of consciousness.
It is important to be precise here. Chalmers does not think electrons are “thinking,” having conversations, or feeling “sad.” He distinguishes between Sapience (complex thought/emotions) and Proto-Consciousness (the raw “light” of experience).
- Human Consciousness: A high-definition IMAX movie where the pixels are so tightly integrated they form a seamless, meaningful reality.
- Electron Consciousness: A single, tiny pixel flickering in the dark. It doesn’t have a “story,” but it has the primitive property of being “lit.”
He proposes a Double-Aspect Theory of Information. He suggests that Information is the ultimate substance of the universe, and it has two sides: the Outside (what it does physically—the “program”) and the Inside (what it feels like—the “glow”). If an electron processes even a tiny bit of “information” about its environment, it has a tiny bit of “inside.”
The Reality of the Internal World
By placing consciousness at the center of his theory, Chalmers has achieved something historic. He has validated the fact that your inner life is the most real thing you possess. In a world of “biological robots,” he has given us back our humanity by proving that our experience isn’t a “trick” or a “user illusion”—it is a fundamental property of the cosmos.
He has moved consciousness from a “byproduct” to a “fundamental pillar.” He has shown that to understand the universe, we cannot just look through a telescope or a microscope; we have to account for the fact that there is someone looking through them in the first place. Chalmers has finally given the “glow” of existence the scientific status it deserves.
Conclusion
Chalmers’ view of the universe is one where the lights are always on. It is a world where information isn’t just dead data, but carries the potential for feeling and experience from the smallest atom to the largest brain. It is a rigorous, logical, and deeply satisfying answer to the most difficult question in science.
In my next post, we will keep this journey going. We’ve seen the world as a machine (Dennett), and we’ve seen it as a fundamental duality (Chalmers). But what if there’s a third way? Next week, we’ll meet Galen Strawson, the “Realistic Monist,” who takes everything Chalmers has taught us and uses it to redefine the very meaning of “matter” itself.
The Consciousness Library: Further Reading
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. If you choose to pick up any of these books through the links provided, it helps support the blog and keeps these deep-dives coming!
If you want to move beyond the blog post and engage with these ideas at their source, these five books are the essential starting points:
- 1. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory by David Chalmers (1996) This is the “Bible” of the Hard Problem. Chalmers lays out the Zombie argument and the “Easy vs. Hard” distinction with the clarity of a mathematician. If you want to see the “Master Draft” of the theory we just discussed, this is it.
- 2. Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy by David Chalmers (2022) Chalmers’ latest work applies his theories to the digital age. He explores whether a computer simulation could ever truly be “conscious” and argues that virtual reality is just as “real” as physical reality.
- 3. Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett (1991) To understand why Chalmers is such a radical, you have to read his greatest rival. Dennett argues that there is no “Hard Problem”—only a series of “Easy Problems” that we haven’t solved yet.
- 4. Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness by Philip Goff (2019) A brilliant, accessible defense of Panpsychism. Goff explains how the scientific revolution intentionally set consciousness aside to make progress in physics, and why we now need to bring it back into the fold.
- 5. The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness by Mark Solms (2021) A neuropsychologist’s take on the Hard Problem. Solms agrees with Chalmers that “data processing” doesn’t explain “feeling,” and he searches for the biological source of that “glow” in the deep structures of the brain.
Leave a Reply