The Hard Problem of Consciousness: What Science Still Can’t Answer

Harpal Singh
Sep 8
4 min read

1. Five Questions Science Still Cannot Answer

Neuroscience has mapped the brain in dazzling detail, but when it comes to the inner world of mind and awareness, the gaps are astonishing. Consider these unanswered questions:

Why does physical processing create inner feelings? We know neurons fire when we see red, but why does it feel red and not just wavelength data?
Who is the observer of dreams? When you dream, the brain is active—but who is watching the dream as if it were a movie? Science can track REM patterns, but not the “dreamer.”
How does meaning arise from chemistry? Thoughts are electrical and chemical signals, yet they carry love, fear, and hope. How does sodium and potassium exchange in neurons become Shakespeare’s poetry?
Why does awareness persist near death? Recent near-death EEG studies found bursts of organized brain activity after cardiac arrest, even when consciousness should have ended. Patients often report vivid experiences, suggesting awareness may not vanish with the brain.
Why does AI process without experience? AI models (like GPT or image recognition systems) can replicate human-like problem solving, but they feel nothing. They process input and output—like the brain’s “easy problems”—but no “inner movie” plays inside them. This highlights the gulf between computation and consciousness

2. Easy vs Hard Problems of Consciousness

Chalmers divides consciousness into two domains:

Easy Problems: Explaining how we discriminate stimuli, integrate information, focus attention, and control behavior. These are like mechanical questions—science can solve them with brain scans, experiments, and computational models.
The Hard Problem: Why does all this processing feel like anything? Why is there an inner movie at all? Neuroscience can measure brain activity, but it cannot explain why sadness hurts, why sugar tastes sweet, or why music moves us.

This “explanatory gap” is at the core of consciousness studies.

The Brain as Processor, the Mind as Player

Science often assumes the brain is the mind. But what if this is like mistaking the hardware of a computer for the gamer playing it?

The brain is the processor—like silicon chips.
The body is the character—the avatar moving in the world.
The world is the playground—the stage where experiences unfold.
The mind is the player—the one who actually feels, chooses, and learns.

This metaphor explains why science struggles. You can dissect the console, but you will never find the gamer hiding inside the circuits.

4. Science on the Edge

To bridge the gap, several bold theories have been proposed:

Orch-OR Theory (Penrose & Hameroff, 1994): Suggests quantum processes in microtubules might connect brain activity to consciousness—hinting that mind is more than computation.
Panpsychism (Strawson, 2006): Proposes that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, present in all matter at some level.
Near-Death & Out-of-Body Studies (Borjigin, 2023; Parnia, 2014): Indicate that awareness can appear even when brain activity is minimal, suggesting the mind may extend beyond the neural substrate.

None of these are final answers, but they signal a paradigm shift: consciousness might not be reducible to brain mechanics.

5. Why AI Shows Us the Separation

Artificial Intelligence offers a living demonstration of the distinction:

AI systems like GPT process language, recognize patterns, and even simulate reasoning.
They replicate the easy problems—attention, learning, decision-making.
But AI has no feelings. It does not taste sweetness, feel sadness, or know it exists.

This is exactly the mystery: If brains are just machines, why do we feel anything at all? AI proves that information processing alone is not enough to create consciousness.

6. Consciousness as Observer

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Instead of asking “How does the brain produce consciousness?” we might ask: “How does consciousness use the brain?”

The mind is the player, using the brain as its processor.
Behind the mind lies consciousness—the pure observer, the light that witnesses all experiences but is untouched by them.
Neuroscience studies the actors (neurons firing, chemicals flowing), but cannot yet grasp the stage-light that makes the play visible.

7. Why This Matters for Humanity

Reducing mind to machine risks stripping human life of its depth. If we see ourselves only as biological robots, we risk creating soulless systems—technologies without wisdom, education without meaning, medicine without compassion.

But if we acknowledge the mystery, new horizons open:

Science: A paradigm where subjective experience is as real as objective matter.
Education: Teaching children not only knowledge, but how to be aware of awareness.
Healing: Addressing emotional and spiritual wounds, not just physical ones.
Technology: Building machines that serve human flourishing, not replace it.

8. Conclusion: A Call to Awareness

Science has explained the machinery, but not the experiencer. The brain is a magnificent organ, but it is not the mind. Mind may be the player—and consciousness the eternal witness.

The unanswered questions at the heart of neuroscience are not failures; they are invitations. They remind us that reality is deeper than equations, and that we are more than flesh and code.

One day, when science dares to see consciousness as fundamental, a new chapter of human evolution will begin. Until then, we are called to live consciously—aware that we are not just characters, but the players, and perhaps even the light itself.

Final Thought

Your brain processes. Your body acts. But you—the one who feels, observes, and knows—are something more. That mystery is the real frontier of science and the real adventure of life.

References (for students and credibility):

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Borjigin, J., et al. (2023). Surge of gamma activity in the dying brain. PNAS.
Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424.
Penrose, R., & Hameroff, S. (1994). Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation.
Strawson, G. (2006). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies.