Consciousness must have an understanding of the facts and

Consciousness is a topic something that millions of people have tried to figure out, but no human has come to a definitive answer. The problem lies on the fact that we cannot compare consciousness to anything else. It is like to see the colour blue, to taste sweets or to feel happy or sad. Philosophers call this phenomenology. Unlike other stuff, it is not something we can point to or hold in our hand. It is not something we have been able to calculate or visualise using computer simulation or even our imagination. David Chalmers published a paper in 1994 explaining why understanding consciousness was so hard. He was not the first to analyse these challenges but he was the first to categorise them into easy and hard problems. The “easy problem” was to explain how our mind receives and process our information from our senses to create focus and attention. Explaining this is not easy as pie but the nervous system and how it reacts in different conditions can determine it. The “hard problem” in contrast is much harder to solve- near impossible. The hard problem is determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter.  So why do people think that the “hard problem is insolvable”. There are two arguments supporting this view. The first argument is that our weak brains are not able to find a solution because our brains do not have the ability to take in the vast amount of information and then process it, which would then lead to an understanding of consciousness. The second argument supporting the statement is that a solution to a problem requires that you not be part of the problem. What does that mean? To solve a problem, or the argument, you must have an understanding of the facts and mechanisms that lead to the problem. But since that all of us reading this are conscious, we can never come to a decisive conclusion that isn’t bias.