Posted for Kenneth

The substantive facets of the topic currently under discussion is somewhat akin to an argument presented by David Chalmers in his book “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness,” originally published in 1995. He is noted for separating any and all questions pertaining to consciousness into categories of either “easy” or “hard problems”. The “easy problems” consist of differentiating between the various brain functions of a person that take place while they are asleep versus the processes that take place while they are awake (and the neural relationships to sensation, etc.). The “hard problems” consist of why and how these particular neural processes take place. His argument identifies an explanatory gap which exists between the two approaches to understanding the mind, and is particularly critical of any physical explanations which attempt to clarify a physiological relationship between the two concepts. Although I do not share Chalmers lack of faith in science, his theory does bring up an important prerequisite for discussing consciousness: Neurologists are unable to identify the precise biological processes that cause and explain our conscious experience. Does this mean that neurologists will never be able to explain why or how our conscious experience occurs on a cellular level?
Chapters 1 and 3 of Hughes were fairly interesting except for the sections on transpersonal and paranormal activity. The section concerning creativity is particularly interesting, especially as it pertains to the artistic genius exemplified by certain artists, musicians, etc. throughout history and the unique masterpieces that they generated. As for Tart’s essay…Tart’s discrete states of consciousness are somewhat comparable to the reward and punishment approaches taken in behavioral psychology, yet his theories concerning the adaptive nature and interaction of “systems” and “subsystems” are somewhat analogous to the psychic structural model of Sigmund Freud (i.e. the id, ego, and superego). His repetitive ranting about “structures “ and “substructures” needs some further elaboration of particulars if Tart seeks to have his theories and concepts more accessible. Due to the subjective nature of Tart’s inquiries into the human psyche and the train of thought (or lack thereof) that supplies such theories, I am highly skeptical of the validity of such conjecture.