The ultra-modern view of consciousness turns science upside down, writes Colin Tudge

Thursday January 30, 2003
The Guardian

Is the brain simply a computer, and is consciousness merely the feeling we get when we think? Or is consciousness a primary component of the universe, which the brain can latch on to, like a radio receiver? A definitive answer will always be elusive, but scientists are making intriguing forays into the subject, and if they are not explaining consciousness, they are certainly telling us a great deal about the nature of science.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/science/s...,884678,00.html

i've read about Turing before, i can't help thinking he's wrong, tho i can't really say why other than its a feeling.
Those other ideas seem pretty far-out too.

thank you for posting the link.  The article is a nice point of departure into other theories of consciousness, even though nobody in the consciousness and neuroscience fields takes Penrose seriously.  You see, Penrose is a physicist/mathematician with a penchant for constructing absurd theories of consciousness that employ quantum mechanical effects.  Many physicists and laypeople like him because they don't know any better.  But the people who are actually qualified to make statements about consciousness do not like him, period, and many, like myself, find him laughable.  I'm not saying Penrose is a bad person.  I think he's a great person who has made great contributions to mathematics.  But his theories on consciousness are absolutely absurd and laughable.

Searle is respectable and has respectable ideas on consciousness, and I would recommend other people truly interested in consciousness read more about him.

About the Turing argument, it fails because it relies on the assumption that 'in judging the consciousness of others, appearances are all we have to go on', which is only true now because we don't know enough about consciousness to say with high certainty was is and is not conscious.  But this will most certainly be resolved in the future.

I whole-heartedly agree with the idea 'that philosophers and scientists have completely misconstrued the nature of consciousness and of the universe.'  But re-construeing the correct nature of consciousness and the universe will require new ways of looking at old problems, and so far, no-one has done a really satisfactory job, though this will inevitably change in the future.

Argh! that's all I can write for now.

take care,
Shawn

yeah, i didn't expect anybody to take these articles very seriously, as these "science articles" in magazines and newspapers never give enough information to let you really form any kind of opinion.
The part about replacing neurons with "functionally equivelent" microchips - i'd seen that pro-reductionist argument before and wondered - could an artificial neurone ever be built and sucessfully installed? Not any time soon i guess.
thanx for the word on Penrose and Searle.

yeah, I'd kinda like to see artificial neural network implants too.  

I've posted a good article by Searle at http://brainmeta.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl...;num=1045159593

The exact reference is  
Searle JR.  Consciousness. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2000;23:557-78. Review.

The pdf you should be able to download at http://neuro.annualreviews.org/cgi/reprint...nt/23/1/557.pdf

I hope you enjoy it.  :)

take care,
Shawn

thanx, man 8)
i'll be reading for a while, i'm still workin on that Iglowitz text you posted too.

I think we are living in the fall-out of a philosophical nuclear bomb: Darwinism. It is a
framework for investigation into material phenomenon which has yielded many results and
simplified the questions surrounding what Chomsky called the 'mystery' of consciousness.

I am fundamentally a materialist, which is why the neo-Darwinist framework for
investigating consciousness appeals to me.

I think the acceptance of consciousness as a highly complex but ultimately explicable
phenomenon, is likely to be the one to yield answers, rather than a frou-frou mystical
approach.

It lies squarely in the court of the 'Holism' camp to produce evidence to support an
explanation for phenomenon which can be adequately explained more simply. Occam's razor is
a principle of aesthetics in thought which has traditionally ruled the roost.

Science is nothing more than a set of rules for a game. What Penrose (and his adherents)
are suggesting is essentially that consciousness is somehow outside this game. But what
recent cognitive science suggests is that we are in the infancy of a science, but
ultimately on the right track.

Waving the quantum mechanics flag and its implications for the role of the observer in
determining the nature of the universe is a naive interpretation of the theory. I think
pragmatism will ultimately determine the outcome of this debate on the schools of thought
about thought

I've loved Darwinism since I was very young and read Kauffman's "The Origins of Order", where he talks about the incompleteness of Random Generation and Natural Selection (aka Darwinism) for producing much of the beautiful things, including life, around us, and suggests that to make it complete, one must also consider Self-Organization on the same level as Darwinism.

In a similar vein, I respect Materialism, but think it's incomplete.

First off, the success of Materialism has been confined to the "objective world", which is nothing more than a creation of the "subjective mind", and so to think that Materialism will also prove useful for explaining the "subjective mind" seems unwarranted, and I hope you see why.  It's like trying to explain the creator by explaining his creations.  Just because Materialism is good at explaining the "subjective mind's" creations (i.e., the objective world), doesn't mean it will ever be sufficient to explain the "subjective mind" itself.

Second off, because the "objective world" is a creation of the "subjective mind", what do you think happens when you change the "subjective mind"?  Do you think the "objective world" will stay the same?  Granted, it's stays the same for the vast majority of humans who have very similar "subjective minds", but what do you think happens if the "subjective mind" is dramatically changed, for example if it was expanded drastically, do you think the "objective world" will remain invariant under a dramatic transformation of the "subjective mind"?  No, it does not.  The "objective world" is but a creation of the "subjective mind", and if you change the "subjective mind" enough, then its creation, the "objective world", will also be changed.  

Third is the explanatory gap.  Mental states are not reducible by materialism, and in fact, it's inconceivable how they could ever be reducible even in principle.  At the very least, you must have some sort of pan-psychism, which would mean that materialism is incomplete.  But even pan-psychism is overly simplistic and does not do justice to the problem.

Fourth is the fact that according to materialism, in principle, physics should be the basis of all the sciences, including neuroscience and sociology, but this is clearly not the case.  Neuroscience and sociology have their own entities which are not found in the domain of physics, entities like neurons and people, and to my knowledge, physics has never reduced these higher entities (like neurons and people) into the entities of physics (like atoms and molecules, or quantum mechanical wave functions), nor does there exist any need to have them reduced.  Hence, Emergentism is better suited than Materialism for explaining phenomena.

Fifth is the fact that quantum mechanics does away with Materialism altogether, unless you consider wave functions to be material things, which they aren't because they aren't directly observable.  While I think Penrose is incredibly naive about how our brains work and made a fool of himself by suggesting consciousness was a Bose-Einstein condensate, nonetheless, I think that quantum mechanics has something interesting to say about consciousness and the "subjective mind".  Why is it that we can't directly observe the wave function, and that when we try, it inevitably collapses into a particle?   Is this phenomena (of wave function collapse) saying something profound about the nature of consciousness?  And if not, then what is it saying?

In summary, I think Materialism is hopelessly incomplete.  Maybe in the 17th century, after the advent of Newtonianism, there was reason to believe in it, but I think even Newton was aware of its limitations, or at least he implies it in his writings.  

I'd be curious to hear what other people have to say about this topic.

take care,
Shawn

[quote]I've loved Darwinism since I was very young and read Kauffman's "The Origins of Order", where he talks about the incompleteness of Random Generation and Natural Selection (aka Darwinism) for producing much of the beautiful things, including life, around us, and suggests that to make it complete, one must also consider Self-Organization on the same level as Darwinism.

[i][/i]
Shawn :In a similar vein, I respect Materialism, but think it's incomplete.

First off, the success of Materialism has been confined to the "objective world", which is nothing more than a creation of the "subjective mind", and so to think that Materialism will also prove useful for explaining the "subjective mind" seems unwarranted, and I hope you see why.  It's like trying to explain the creator by explaining his creations.  Just because Materialism is good at explaining the "subjective mind's" creations (i.e., the objective world), doesn't mean it will ever be sufficient to explain the "subjective mind" itself.

Steve: bah humbug!

This is nothing more than solipsism dressed up for a party. There is a limit to the
applicability of such an approach to defining the 'external' world. Descarte ran into this
wall too.

Trying to seperate the internal from the external world is the source of all of your
paradoxes. If you suppose instead that there is nothing 'but' material. That your
'subjective' mind is a product of the objective world you are trying so hard to seperate
yourself from, then your argument runs aground. You are re-stating the mind/body problem,
and I tell you the two are one.


Shawn :Second off, because the "objective world" is a creation of the "subjective mind", what do you think happens when you change the "subjective mind"?  Do you think the "objective world" will stay the same?  Granted, it's stays the same for the vast majority of humans who have very similar "subjective minds", but what do you think happens if the "subjective mind" is dramatically changed, for example if it was expanded drastically, do you think the "objective world" will remain invariant under a dramatic transformation of the "subjective mind"?  No, it does not.  The "objective world" is but a creation of the "subjective mind", and if you change the "subjective mind" enough, then its creation, the "objective world", will also be changed.  

Third is the explanatory gap.  Mental states are not reducible by materialism, and in fact, it's inconceivable how they could ever be reducible even in principle.  At the very least, you must have some sort of pan-psychism, which would mean that materialism is incomplete.  But even pan-psychism is overly simplistic and does not do justice to the problem.

Steve: I don't see that there is such a gap. The gap that does exist lies within our mind being
screened off from the lowest level of thought (the hardware layer if you will).

But I don't think that this mental state is  what you're talking about. Perhaps you could
illustrate what states you believe are not reducable?



Shawn : Fourth is the fact that according to materialism, in principle, physics should be the basis of all the sciences, including neuroscience and sociology, but this is clearly not the case.  Neuroscience and sociology have their own entities which are not found in the domain of physics, entities like neurons and people, and to my knowledge, physics has never reduced these higher entities (like neurons and people) into the entities of physics (like atoms and molecules, or quantum mechanical wave functions), nor does there exist any need to have them reduced.  Hence, Emergentism is better suited than Materialism for explaining phenomena.

Steve: Physics as it stands is incomplete. This does not imply that it will not be possible for
it finally to arrive at a unified theory which can roll up to explain the detail of high
level interactions. I fail to see how this bankrupts materialism as a whole

Shawn :Fifth is the fact that quantum mechanics does away with Materialism altogether, unless you consider wave functions to be material things, which they aren't because they aren't directly observable.

Steve: Stars are not directly observable, we infer distant stellar objects from indirect
observation. This does not 'do away' with materialism. In the same way; we can infer the
existence of wave functions by observing their interactions. (I think, I'm hazy on this
point)

Shawn:While I think Penrose is incredibly naive about how our brains work and made a fool of himself by suggesting consciousness was a Bose-Einstein condensate, nonetheless, I think that quantum mechanics has something interesting to say about consciousness and the "subjective mind".  Why is it that we can't directly observe the wave function, and that when we try, it inevitably collapses into a particle?   Is this phenomena (of wave function collapse) saying something profound about the nature of consciousness?  And if not, then what is it saying?

Steve : Is it not perhaps that the 'explanation' offered by quantum mechanics is an analogy, which
while very accurate in its predictions, is not the explanation of what actually happens.

I think the voodoo behind quantum is probably the result of the fact that the only way we
could explain what is happening is to impute intentionality to the universe. This does not
mean that this is what is really happening. If you think about a motion sensor light, it
seems to know when someone is approaching. To someone who does not understand the
mechanism of its operation, it appears to exhibit evidence of observation.

But this behaviour is the result of a mechanical/electrical operation.

On a conceptual level I think this is what is happening within quantum.

Shawn :In summary, I think Materialism is hopelessly incomplete.  Maybe in the 17th century, after the advent of Newtonianism, there was reason to believe in it, but I think even Newton was aware of its limitations, or at least he implies it in his writings.  

I'd be curious to hear what other people have to say about this topic.

take care,
Shawn

Steve:I think that in Newton's time there were many things which seemed impossible for science
to explain. And while sometimes it seems that science makes more questions than answers, I
don't think that there is anything that it can't eventually explain.

What I would like to see is an example of what you think is a concept that is
fundamentally a non-material phenomenon. I suspect that because we are material
phenomenon, we can't really come up with anything that isn't.

Did I mention I LOVE THIS FORUM !!!

hi Steve,
I appreciate your reply and am glad you're enjoying this forum.  Please do not consider the following a complete reply to all the points you brought up, but let me try to formulate at least a partial reply in the following.

First, about the explanatory gap which I argued is beyond the reach of materialism.  You responded, "The gap that does exist lies within our mind being screened off from the lowest level of thought (the hardware layer if you will)," but I'm not sure how that explains how materialism is supposed to explain consciousness.  How will materialism ever explain to the person who's been blind from birth what a circle looks like?  Or how will materialism ever explain to the person who's been deaf since birth what Mozart sounds like?  It can't.  Materialism fails to explain consciousness and what it's like to experience anything.  And this is not just a temporary problem for materialism since it's inconceivable, even in principle, how materialism could ever explain consciousness and what it's like to experience things.    

I would like to state that I'm not a naive solipsist, and I wasn't in any way trying to dress up solipsism for a party (though your phrasing of it was humorously put).   I escape solipsism because I believe our ideas subsist not in the mind of the individual thinker but in the Absolute Mind, the Cosmic Consciousness.  That is, everything is consciousness, and this is not just nominalism dressed up for a party, either.  

Sentient is the Universe.  

We experience consciousness (sentience) directly and is what we know most intimately.  Indeed, the entire universe is consciousness.  This thing we've been calling the "objective world", which is the only domain where materialism has proven useful, is but a beautifully harmonious creation of consciousness, and consists of nothing but forms that other people largely concur with.  These forms are themselves products of consciousness.  It's all consciousness.  

Sorry to cut things off short, but I'll try to take them up later.

Namaste,
Shawn

Shawn wrote
First, about the explanatory gap which I argued is beyond the reach of materialism.  You responded, "The gap that does exist lies within our mind being screened off from the lowest level of thought (the hardware layer if you will)," but I'm not sure how that explains how materialism is supposed to explain consciousness.  How will materialism ever explain to the person who's been blind from birth what a circle looks like?  Or how will materialism ever explain to the person who's been deaf since birth what Mozart sounds like?  It can't.  Materialism fails to explain consciousness and what it's like to experience anything.  And this is not just a temporary problem for materialism since it's inconceivable, even in principle, how materialism could ever explain consciousness and what it's like to experience things.      
 
Steve
I don't believe the explanatory gap you're arguing for constitutes a fundamental failure
of materialism. What it illustrates is your standpoint that you believe in a seperation of
world and mind. I'm not convinced that this is so.

The only reason that it seems materialism must fail is because of this seperation.

If non-material objects do exist, how can we know about them? If they interact with
material objects then they have some material representation and can be apprehended
materially.

What I guess I am asking is:
do you believe that human consciousness evolved?
do you believe human consciousness is a material phenomenon?

If you disagree with either of these then there can be no basis for our discussion,
because by definition then, we fundamentally cannot resolve our difference.

Shawn
We experience consciousness (sentience) directly and is what we know most intimately.  Indeed, the entire universe is consciousness.  This thing we've
been calling the "objective world", which is the only domain where materialism has proven useful, is but a beautifully harmonious creation of consciousness, and consists of nothing but forms that other people largely
concur with.  These forms are themselves products of consciousness.  It's all consciousness

Steve
It's a beautiful sentiment; powerful. But ultimately meaningless, a semantic oddity, to
impute complex, predictive behaviour to the universe.

The level of awareness that we describe as consciousness I find difficulty in imagining
how it would manifest at a universal level.

Would we be considered sentient then. By analogy, do we consider our gall bladder to be
sentient?

I dunno. I'm sceptical, or maybe just lack imagination.

Please note this is not a bait for a flame war, just nice to have good discussion

hi Steve,

I do not believe consciousness is a material phenomenon, unless we play the game of nominalism.  Nonetheless, I believe we still have a basis for discussion, and perhaps it would help if you first clarify what you mean by 'materialism', since there are multiple different types.

For example, materialism in its reductionistic form is the view that in the end the only things that actually possess properties and therefore the only things that are real are the tiny, individual components that make up the physical universe.  If true, this thesis would imply that phenomena such as consciousness, value, love and so forth aren't "real" because they aren't present in the individual components.

An alternative form of materialism states that although all phenomena are grounded in physical reality, certain phenomena emerge in complex systems that have properties, and therefore a reality, of their own.  Thus, consciousness would be an emergent property since it's grounded in physical reality but clearly has different properties.

Now, I'd like to leave off from materialism and take up some of your other points.  You say, "The level of awareness that we describe as consciousness I find difficulty in imagining how it would manifest at a universal level," but I would deny that 'universal consciousness' or 'cosmic consciousness' would require awareness that most people would normally describe as everyday consciousness.  Why would we expect 'cosmic consciousness' to be anything like the consciousness that we normally experience?  It helps to have experienced dramatically different states of consciousness here, though even normal people can get some idea when they compare drowsy states of consciousness with lucid dreaming.  Human consciousness is reflective, whereas the vast majority of 'cosmic consciousness' is not reflective.  Hence, at one level, it's very different from the consciousness that most of us are used to, unless we've experienced states of consciousness in which our ego was completely nonexistent.  

Also, I think it's important to reflect on the following.  What we know is consciousness.  We infer that others like us also possess consciousness like ours, and we further infer that there exists an "objective world" because it's something that's persistent and that many others agree with us on.  But all I'm saying is that this "objective world" is a fiction, an illusion, and has no reality except that which is granted to the forms in our consciousness.   But the substance, consciousness, is omnipresent, is everywhere.

And further, I would say that every other is a projection (or reflection) of one Self.

take care,
Shawn

As I begin to survey the plethora of responses, I cannot help but be a little overwhelmed. Yet, I hope my comments can add at least a modicum of substance to the discussion.

First, I agree with those of you who feel that the concept of "materialism" is almost too vague to even attack anymore.  What exactly are we talking about?  Yes, I suppose I understand the reduction of mental phenomena to their material correlates as a proposition of materialism, but as Shawn and others point out, are quantum waves also to be included within the rubric of materialism?  

Although I believe we are far from understanding the dynamics of consciousness, there has to be, at least in my mind, a quantum, biological, electrical, chemical, and even 'cosmic' account of consciousness.  The problem seems to be the daunting complexity of integrating these levels into a coherent understanding of consciousness.  The mind is a quantum phenomenon, or dynamic quantum process.  It is also biological in structure, electrical in its processes, and chemical in its informational transfers.

I am not an expert in quantum physics nor a wiz at neurobiology, but despite my naivete, I feel and sense a strong connection that may eventually be revealed through the integration of the sciences.  What this may come to look like in the future is beyond my comprehension.  The mere complexity that we are dealing with here is in itself mind-blowing.  I am not so sure that the mind can ever truly understand itself.  It seems to me almost like the heart knowing how it transfers blood.  Yet, I certainly don't think the pursuit of self-understanding should stop.  Socrates would be disappointed.

I am simply not sure if anyone can adequately pull the complexity together into an adequate account.  We seem to each point to something beyond ourselves in an often meagre attempt to understand the majesty of consciousness.  Perhaps the end of consciousness studies is not much different from what we are finding at the beginnig, namely, beyond rationality.  Or perhaps better yet, super-rational in character.

hello Psi,

It's nice to have you join us.  Please let me welcome you to our humble little forum!   Your postings at the godconsciousness forum are intriguing and interesting, and so I'm looking forward to your posts here.

Unfortunately, I won't be around as much as I'd like to be in the near future since my attention is needed elsewhere, but it would've been nice to have had an intelligent exchange of ideas.  Hopefully, there will be a time for that.

About consciousness studies, what I find really fascinating are the identity theories, particularly for one in the neuroscience field, because you always find yourself interpreting neural activity and brain functional and anatomical distributed networks in terms of psychological functions and conscious experience, and our way of transforming, constructing, and analyzing information.  I don't think many people in neuroscience see the forest from the trees, unfortunately, and get lost in the details.  Details are necessary, of course, but the primary motivation for undertaking such rigorous study and experimental determination of the details derives from seeing the forest, I think.

Anyway, it was nice hearing from you, psi, and I hope you'll enjoy our forum here.

namaste,
Shawn

Shawn,

You have done a fine job with your site and its awesome to see your forum board take off.  I have a feeling I will enjoy your work for some time to come.

I know too well about the time constraints.  I am juggling several activities as well.  I try to follow my passions though.

I have been posting regularly on a forum I recently started at JOY (the journal of yoga) http://www.journalofyoga.org I don't get near the traffic you enjoy here, but I love being able to post content so effortlessly.

Congrats on the marriage.  I hope that is going well for you.

You know..  I was kind of wondering how your thoughts about cosmic consciousness developed.  I get the feeling that much of your education at Johns Hopkins in the neurosciences would be fairly "materialist" in nature.  Am I wrong?  I am just curious how your studies have reflected and been integrated into some of your wider interests.  How do faculty members generally feel about some of the ideas you propose?  Just curious.

many blessings to you and your work,
psi

thank you, Psi, for the kind, thoughtful words over this site, my work, and my marriage, all of which are going well, and I would like to wish you luck with your yoga forum, which is very nice and comprehensive indeed.   Many don't appreciate that yoga deals with union with the divine thru meditation or self-inquiry, and is not just about stretching and breathing exercises.  Certainly, I would like to expand the yoga material on this site someday, though now it's mainly limited just to the bhagavad gita's discussion of it.  Nonetheless, it's a very important topic, and it's inspiring to think of the ideals and longing that drove sages hundreds of years before the time of Christ to inquire within themselves about the meaning of 'I' and the nature of reality, which they concluded was identical to themselves (or their higher self) thru the atman=brahman equation implicitly contained in the gita and upanishads.  I am now reading the 'concise yoga vasistha' in my spare time, and which i regard as a very interesting work indeed, that's on the same level as the gita, but not nearly as well known.

But I seem to be digressing, so let me turn to address your questions at the end of your post.

My thoughts about cosmic consciousness developed early on thru my exposure, thru access to my grandfather's library, to eastern philosophical works, like the dhammapada and the gita, as well as western, like from Schopenhauer and Spinoza.   When my grandfather died, when i was around 12, my thoughts started to turn towards consciousness and the possibility of a soul, and all that.  Sometime soon after, I read Richard Restak's "The Brain" and was amazed since the brain, besides being the most complicated thing in the universe, was also the seat of consciousness, and so I acquired early an interest in the brain and its relation to consciousness, which has lasted until this very day, and no doubt will continue to last until either I resolve the problem to my satisfaction or I die trying.   About my interest in 'cosmic consciousness', while this had its origins in my early philosophical exposure, it really took hold only when I began to experience dramatically different states of consciousness, some mystical, others far beyond mystical.  But I speak of these things throughout my site.

"I get the feeling that much of your education at Johns Hopkins in the neurosciences would be fairly "materialist" in nature.  Am I wrong?"

No, you're very correct.

"I am just curious how your studies have reflected and been integrated into some of your wider interests."

my wider interests provide (or help me construct) the 'big picture' which, directly or indirectly, motivates my studies.   Indeed, I find it hard to see how one could pursue science effectively and happily without being motivated by some quasi-religious, mystical feeling that's supported, in part, but not completely, by the 'big picture' one has of things.

"How do faculty members generally feel about some of the ideas you propose?"

For the most part, I speak to faculty in the language of neuroscience.  That is to say, in their own language.    And so I'm not sure what they'd think about some of the ideas I propose.  No doubt some would be surprised, and others would perhaps recognize similar tendencies and thoughts, perhaps more veiled, in their youth, and others wouldn't care so long as it didn't undermine the quality and rigor of the science.

I say 'for the most part' above, however, there are some exceptions, a few people in the field that have wider interests like me, and that I can (and do on occasion) converse with more philosophically or unconventionally.

Anyway, thank you for inquiring, Psi, and I hope I answered some of your questions.  Please, enjoy this forum, and I look forward to talking with you again sometime.

take care,
Shawn