Consciousness (Pg. 96 #2)

The study of consciousness is, as proven by Dr. Hazen’s article “The Great Unknown,” both a philosophical and scientific question. It is a scientific question because in today’s world people will not accept any claim unless it has numbers, statistics, and other empirical data to back it up. In short, our society today makes every question into a scientific question because, in the minds of many, the scientific method is the only sure way to know anything. However, it is also a philosophical question because currently the amount of science that can be applied to the study of consciousness is so limited that people must theorize and hypothesize if they wish to blaze new trails in the field. Dr. Hazen discusses this need for the philosophical element of consciousness when he speaks of the views of scientists Terry Winograd and Richard Feynman asserting, “They contend that since a clear research strategy is lacking, consciousness must for the time being lie outside the domain of science” (Hazen 94). Clearly, it is not possible to neatly place consciousness into a specific category as it is comprised of various elements.

The complexity of the issue of consciousness is further revealed when one delves deeper into the specific characteristics that enable consciousness to find a home in numerous academic departments. Philosopher David Chalmers separates the scientific portion of this study from the more psychological aspects, “…by dividing the question ‘What is consciousness?’ into what he calls the ‘easy problem’ and the ‘hard problem’” (Hazen 94). Furthermore, in Chalmers’ opinion, science can be applied to the “easy problem” while one must use non-scientific methods for the “hard problem.” Thus, the areas in which science can be useful are the “mechanics of consciousness” (Hazen 94). Memory, specifically, can be studied very thoroughly by scientists and makes up the bulk of scientific knowledge regarding consciousness. However, aspects such as, “self-awareness, emotion, perception, and reasoning” (Hazen 94-95) can currently only be probed via non-scientific means. Thus, for the time being, these various schools of thought and study must attempt to work in harmony in order to paint a more vivid picture of consciousness.

It is this belief in the necessity of science and philosophy to operate in conjunction with one another that places me in the reductionist camp. I claim an affiliation with this particular group because they believe that in order to get to the bottom of an issue it must first be broken up into smaller parts. It is this division of the whole of consciousness into smaller units that makes me a reductionist. Furthermore, it is only logical that such a complex and multi-faceted problem would be best solved by breaking it down into smaller, more manageable pieces. Through the use of deliberate and specific work an answer can finally be found for this age-old question.