Is the human brain biologically incapable of solving the mystery of consciousness?
In short: We often assume that with enough data and better technology, we will eventually decode how matter produces subjective experience. But a growing school of thought suggests our brains might be physically limited by evolution—much like a mouse cannot solve a prime number maze, we may simply lack the hardware to understand ourselves.
New mysterianism is a philosophical position asserting that the 'hard problem' of consciousness—explaining how subjective qualia arise from physical processes—is fundamentally unsolvable by human intelligence. Unlike 'old mysterians,' who argued consciousness was supernatural or non-natural, new mysterians are typically nonreductive physicalists. They believe consciousness is a natural phenomenon, but one that exceeds our cognitive reach. This view is often framed as anti-constructive naturalism, suggesting that some hard problems are not just currently unsolved, but permanently beyond human comprehension.
The argument rests on biological and epistemological limits. Noam Chomsky distinguishes between 'problems' (solvable in principle) and 'mysteries' (unsolvable even in principle), noting that cognitive capabilities are bounded by biology. Similarly, psychologist Steven Pinker suggests our brains, as products of evolution, have inherent limitations; we may lack the intuitive capacity to grasp how neural processing creates internal experience. This perspective is echoed by neuroscientist Sam Harris, who describes the impasse as a total failure of human terms to explain consciousness.
The implications are profound for the future of science and our understanding of existence. William James suggested that just as certain human activities are closed to a dog's mind, parts of the universe may be forever closed to ours—a concept he found liberating because it suggests meaning can exist without accessibility. Conversely, some 'pseudo-mysterians' hold hope that future technological advances might eventually bridge this gap. However, for many new mysterians, like Colin McGinn, the conclusion is firm: consciousness remains a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel.
This debate also intersects with historical views on life and matter. Some scholars compare the 'unintelligibility' of consciousness to historical theories like vitalism, exploring whether our inability to explain certain phenomena stems from a lack of data or a fundamental epistemic boundary where the psyche cannot know its own psychical substance.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: New mysterianism
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/health-new-mysterianism.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Consciousness · More in Health · Latest · A–Z · All topics
