Why Great Minds Can't Grasp Consciousness

At a physics meeting last October, Nobel laureate David Gross outlined 25 questions in science that he thought physics might help answer. Nestled among queries about black holes and the nature of dark matter and dark energy were questions that wandered beyond the traditional bounds of physics to venture into areas typically associated with the life sciences.

He wondered whether scientists would ever be able to measure the onset consciousness in infants and speculated that consciousness might be similar to what physicists call a "phase transition," an abrupt and sudden large-scale transformation resulting from several microscopic changes. The emergence of superconductivity in certain metals when cooled below a critical temperature is an example of a phase transition.

In a recent email interview, Gross said he figures there are probably many different levels of consciousness, but he believes that language is a crucial factor distinguishing the human variety from that of animals.

Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, believes that if a "theory of everything" is ever developed in physics to explain all the known phenomena in the universe, it should at least partially account for consciousness.

Penrose also believes that quantum mechanics, the rules governing the physical world at the subatomic level, might play an important role in consciousness.

It wasn't that long ago that the study of consciousness was considered to be too abstract, too subjective or too difficult to study scientifically. But in recent years, it has emerged as one of the hottest new fields in biology, similar to string theory in physics or the search for extraterrestrial life in astronomy.

No longer the sole purview of philosophers and mystics, consciousness is now attracting the attention of scientists from across a variety of different fields, each, it seems, with their own theories about what consciousness is and how it arises from the brain.

In many religions, consciousness is closely tied to the ancient notion of the soul, the idea that in each of us, there exists an immaterial essence that survives death and perhaps even predates birth. It was believed that the soul was what allowed us to think and feel, remember and reason.

Our personality, our individuality and our humanity were all believed to originate from the soul.

Nowadays, these things are generally attributed to physical processes in the brain, but exactly how chemical and electrical signals between trillions of brain cells called neurons are transformed into thoughts, emotions and a sense of self is still unknown.

"Almost everyone agrees that there will be very strong correlations between what's in the brain and consciousness," says David Chalmers, a philosophy professor and Director of the Center for Consciousness at the Australian National University. "The question is what kind of explanation that will give you. We want more than correlation, we want explanation -- how and why do brain process give rise to consciousness? That's the big mystery."

Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem.

The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless experience?

"Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're trivial, but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive sciences," Chalmers says.

"You have a different kind of experience -- a different quality of experience -- when you see red, when you see green, when you hear middle C, when you taste chocolate," Chalmers told LiveScience. "Whenever you're conscious, whenever you have a subjective experience, it feels like something."

According to Chalmers, the subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being explained in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in other areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible aspect of the universe, like space and time and mass.

"Those things in a way didn't need to evolve," said Chalmers. "They were part of the fundamental furniture of the world all along."

Instead of trying to reduce consciousness to something else, Chalmers believes consciousness should simply be taken for granted, the way that space and time and mass are in physics. According to this view, a theory of consciousness would not explain what consciousness is or how it arose; instead, it would try to explain the relationship between consciousness and everything else in the world.

"It's not very helpful," said Susan Greenfield, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University.

"You can't do very much with it," Greenfield points out. "It's the last resort, because what can you possibly do with that idea? You can't prove it or disprove it, and you can't test it. It doesn't offer an explanation, or any enlightenment, or any answers about why people feel the way they feel."

Greenfield's own theory of consciousness is influenced by her experience working with drugs and mental diseases. Unlike some other scientists -- most notably the late Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, and his colleague David Koch, a professor of computation and neural systems at Caltech -- who believed that different aspects of consciousness like visual awareness are encoded by specific neurons, Greenfield thinks that consciousness involves large groups of nonspecialized neurons scattered throughout the brain.

Important for Greenfield's theory is a distinction between 'consciousness' and 'mind,' terms that she says many of her colleagues use interchangeably, but which she believes are two entirely different concepts.

"You talk about losing your mind or blowing your mind or being out of your mind, but those things don't necessarily entail a loss of consciousness," Greenfield said in a telephone interview. "Similarly, when you lose your consciousness, when you go to sleep at night or when you're anesthetized, you don't really think that you're really going to be losing your mind."

According to Greenfield, the mind is made up of the physical connections between neurons. These connections evolve slowly and are influenced by our past experiences and therefore, everyone's brain is unique.

But whereas the mind is rooted in the physical connections between neurons, Greenfield believes that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, similar to the 'wetness' of water or the 'transparency' of glass, both of which are properties that are the result of -- that is, they emerge from -- the actions of individual molecules.

For Greenfield, a conscious experience occurs when a stimulus -- either external, like a sensation, or internal, like a thought or a memory -- triggers a chain reaction within the brain. Like in an earthquake, each conscious experience has an epicenter, and ripples from that epicenter travels across the brain, recruiting neurons as they go.

Mind and consciousness are connected in Greenfield's theory because the strength of a conscious experience is determined by the mind and the strength of its existing neuronal connections -- connections forged from past experiences.

Part of the mystery and excitement about consciousness is that scientists don't know what form the final answer will take.

"If I said to you I'd solved the hard problem, you wouldn't be able to guess whether it would be a formula, a model, a sensation, or a drug," said Greenfield. "What would I be giving you?"

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Okay, some of you asked for it. This topic really needs a good sized essay; I'll just write a little something and see where it goes from there. I'll start off with the story of the frog in the well (we can call him Professor Frog for good measure.)

Professor Frog lived in a nice, dark, wet well, he'd spent his whole life there, as had his daddy and granddaddy frogs. He was happy, he know all about the well, it was his world. One day another frog hopped over to the well to see him, and told him about the ocean he had just seen. He told Professor Frog that there was a body of water so big, that it was much, much bigger than the well - couldn't even compare the two.

Professor Frog said: "Bigger than my well? Nothing could be bigger than my well."

Second frog: "Oh, so much bigger. Way bigger. Huge."

Prof. Frog: "Was it twice as big as my well?" (And as he imagined that vastness of a body of water twice as big as his well, his belly puffed up a little with air.)

Second frog: "Oh, it's so much bigger than that - it's WAY bigger than twice as big!"

Prof. Frog: "Okay, let me think about this. Was it THREE times as big as my well?" (And his stomach grew bigger as he puffed it out more, attempting to figure out the hugeness of the unseen body of water.)

Second frog: (Laughing) "Oh, Prof. Frog, it is so much bigger than three times your well - you can't even imagine."

Prof. Frog: "Then, it must be FOUR times as big as my well! Nothing could be bigger than that." (And with that immensity, he swelled so big that he popped.)

The moral of the story is varied. One moral is that if we take the limit of our own mind to be the standard of all that is knowable, we are a relative of Prof. Frog, who never even climbed out of his well to see the ocean. If we take our own limited knowledge as the limit of all that can be known, we are doomed to darkness. If we insist that our present vision is the only standard, we will never see beyond the limits of our own little well.

Another example is a person standing on the edge of the ocean at the beach can only see a few miles out to sea. His vision is very limited. So if he gets a few friends, say 20 or 40 people, and they all stand at the edge of the shore, can they see any farther? Heheheh. Nope. They can all see collectively only a few miles out.

So joint conferences and collective efforts by a large number of Professor Frogs do not further the advancement of understanding of a subject which is beyond the ken of each of them.

So that brings us to the point of how CAN one know the origin and limit of consciousness, and its purview? I'll get to that in my next installment.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

Second installment*:

Every living being is composed of three parts:

1. The eternal atma/self/soul, which is spiritual in essence. It is often compared to a spark of the fire, the fire being God, and the small spark being the soul. The spark exists only because of the fire, has the same qualities of eternity, knowledge, and blissfulness, but it is very small and has the tendency to lose its firey quality. The analogy isn't perfect, because sparks go out and become nothing, whereas the spiritual sparks called "souls" just temporarily "go out" and forget their spiritual/eternal nature.

2. The physical body which is the temporary vehicle or house for the soul/atma. The phsyical body is compared to a tent or house in the Bible, and as a chariot in the Vedas. The soul lives in it for a while, and the body shows life symptoms solely due to the presence of the soul, which is the source of life. The influence of the soul is spread throughout the body (Note this) AS CONSCIOUSNESS. IOW, consciousness is the energy emnating from the soul, as light comes from a candle or lightbulb. But those analogies aren't perfect either, as the light or candle can be extinguished. But you get the idea. The soul is described as always conscious, always existing, not breakable, can never be slain.

3. Here is they key third ingredient or constituent of the living being - the mind. It is considered a type of body, as it also covers the soul/atma. It is a subtle body, meaning it can't be seen with the eyes. It consists of thoughts, desires, feelings, memories, perceptions, and so on. It is also like a recorder, it keeps records of everything the senses perceive, and plays back at the right time (and sometimes at the wrong time). It seems to have a life of its own. It is not the soul but we identify with it as though it were our very self. It is not the self/soul or source of consciousness; think of it like this: If you hold up a candle behind a thin cloth, the cloth appears lit itself. But it is the candlelight that gives the cloth its illumination. It is NOT the self/soul. This can be understood by these statements, we've all said them or heard them:

"I just can't control my mind!" "I can't stop thinking about her, I wish I could." "My mind just won't work today." "I'm supposed to study but my mind won't concentrate." "I am so angry I can't control it." Etc etc.

One mistake scientists and thoughtful people often make is they mistake the mind for consciousness itself. The mind needs to be controlled by the intelligence - and I don't mean smarts like what is measureable by IQ tests. Intelligence means that function of the will that acts like reins on the mind. Here's an example - suppose the mind comes up with a desire (that's one of its main functions)- for instance, for chocolate cake with whipped cream on it. The mind dangles this in front of you, so to speak. You have the option of indulging in the cake - going to buy some, cook it, or you have the option of telling your mind - "No, not now, I'm trying to lose weight. Forget it." The intelligence is supposed to direct the mind - tell it where to go (often in no uncertain terms!)

The soul/atma who is entrapped in the mortal world, covered by the physical body and the mind, has, according to the Vedic understanding, four defects. There is no one in existence, except for saints who have overcome all earthly taint, who is free from these defects; but we all have them in varying degrees according to our type of conditioning (more on that in the next installment).

These defects are:

1. Imperfect senses. I think this needs no explanation. I can't see the back of my head, I need glasses and can never find them, can't see or know what is happening two miles away, etc.

2. Tendency to commit mistakes. No one alive can say that he or she has never committed a mistake or two. Some of us could write novels about our mistakes.

3. Cheating tendency. Who among us can say "I have NEVER lied"? Or tried to present ourselves in a different light than the truth? Or deceived ourselves? What to speak of outright scam artists.

4. Tendency to be in illusion. We've all been deceived, either by ourselves or others, have false understandings, false ideas, and the like. Think of those on DU!

Now here's the crux - if we all have those four defects, to one degree or another, how can anyone know the truth - the truths of God, the soul, and the soul's purpose?

Answer - compare the defects to an illness. Is health the natural condition of the body, and sickness the unnatural condition? Similarly, the covered, defective condition of consciousness is the unnatural state, so in order to rid ourselves of these 4 defects we need to regain our spiritual health.

This is a separate energy than matter (which I guess in scientific lingo would be the energy, mass and time as described above). Spiritual energy has different characteristics than matter, and that is why Prof. Frog cannot imagine the ocean. He can only imagine the well that he is familiar with. The soul/atma, although not material (IOW, not limited by time, space and mass), is covered by the physical body which includes the mind, and by identifying with the body and mind, is mistakenly limited.

This can be compared to the sun, which although shinining always in the sky, is often obscured to our vision due to cloud cover, night time, or fog.

To backtract to the soul/atma being the source of consciousness - the current pet scientific theory that the brain is the source of consciousness (and they didn't describe exactly what they mean by consciousness, btw) is not consistent with not only Vedic understanding, but doesn't make sense. There are reams of literature about out of body experiences (likely some of you reading this may have had one); I've read some accounts, and have had at least one myself. If I "am" the brain, I can't possibly exist away from it. And the idea that out of body experiences are phantasms created by the brain I won't even condescend to address. There is too much evidence to entertain it, it's just clutching at straws.

There are cases of people born with defects such that there is virtually no brain, just fluid. I've read about them. Sometimes they exhibit normal behavior and intelligence. Even without any recognizable brain. The brain is like a computer that the soul, using the mind and intelligence, works. Some of us have fast, expensive computers and some of us have old, junk, slow computers. Sometimes we get computer viruses! Similarly, the brain is used - as a filing cabinet, spelling list, calculator and so on. Haven't you had the sensation of "looking" through your brain for something?

Who is doing the looking?

Next installment: Processes of regaining spiritual health; to see beyond the well.

*(This is from the conclusion of the Vedas and related Vedic scriptures, but the information is not a sectarian teaching, but rather a universal philosophical approach to understanding what is the soul, what is God, and what is the universe in which we find ourselves. Take it as you wish, and apply in your own way.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.