Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Mystery of Consciousness

Categories
Intelligent Design
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The 1/29/07 issue of Time Magazine is captioned “Mind & Body Special Issue”, and starts out with a discussion of the brain’s geography, an endeavor well studied and categorized by now, but which is far overshadowed by the mystery of ‘consciousness’, often tagged as the ‘ghost within the neural machine’. Steven Pinker writes the centerpiece article, “The mystery of consciousness”, and indeed, consciousness is the centerpiece of the mystery regarding life itself.


In a cited case of a woman involved in an accident who had severe brain damage, and using a new and improved MRI technique, she nonetheless showed unexpected neural activity when certain words were spoken, and in the areas where that activity would normally occur. She displayed no outward cognizance, however, raising new questions concerning the Terry Schiavo case.

Within the emerging field of ‘cognitive neuroscience’ the study of brain functions have been characterized by Pinker as easy areas, like defining areas that do this or that, to the intrinsically hard problem of trying to figure out what consciousness is. The article cites a major precept that prevails today as well as in years past, the materialist view that:

“Consciousness does not reside in an ethereal soul that uses the brain like a PDA; consciousness is the activity of the brain.” (emphasis mine)

The article cites Swiss neuroscientists reporting that they were able to turn out-of-body experiences on and off through stimulation. A Google search using ‘out-of-body’, ‘neuroscience’ and ‘swiss’ produces conflicting reports, the scientists claiming that the effects were illusionary, but others feeling that the OBE experiences were genuine. Time will tell.

The article goes on to posit that much of what we perceive cognitively is illusional, and gives examples. One they cite, but that I take exception to, is that visual perception is faulted by seeing cognitively only a small central part of the visual field, and how by flitting from place to place, the brain thinks it’s seeing the whole field of vision, while it’s really only seeing parts of it. Although stated as a dilemma, the article later actually answers its own question by stating:

” … decision circuits inside the brain would be swamped if every curlicue and muscle twitch that was registered somewhere in the brain were constantly being delivered to them …”

Exactly, and in my view, this kind of data handling points to a kind of ‘specified’ or ‘engineered’ data handling, although scientists will state that it was merely due to beneficial mutations that improved survival.

Pinker also gets into philosophical areas like “How you could ever know whether you see colors the same way that I do”, and “What if I’m the only entity, and everyone else is only an illusion”. But the real question as to whether consciousness is external to the body, the brain being more of an interface device to body functions, and perhaps a shaper of earthly personality and a filter to earthly perceptions remains unanswered for now. Most researchers believe that consciousness is merely a function of neural activity. Sorry, but I have to disagree.

Link to article:

Comments
Personally I feel the notion of a soul is not needed to explain consciousness, as it only raises more questions than it answers - and provides no new information or insights. How does the soul interact with the brain? If it interacts with the brain, why not other phycial objects? Science has been actively looking for the soul for a long time now, and every time, we find neural activity... The reliability of our minds in their knowledge is not a reason for believing in a soul, otherwise how do you explain people failing tests, making wrong turns, etc. Our knowledge is falible, and our minds are easily mislead or deceived by illusions and comfortable ideas; or is it suggested our souls are unreliable, easily mislead and deceived as well? I see above gpuccio indicates that the soul has memory, so this would mean people suffering from Amnesia or other issues with their memory have an imperfect soul? Or perhaps even lack a soul in some cases? In the discussion above, I also note people point to materialistic explanations being insufficient and biased... How do we build our knowledge of the world unless it is founded on principles grounded in our reality though? Hand-waving that a soul is "out-there" with no way of testing it (other than a humorous suggestion of hitting your thumb with a hammer), or carrying the idea of a soul through to a conclusion we could test in the real world just suggests an apriori commitment rather than an honest investigation.MarkC
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
You all might be interested in this article about the study of consciousness and near death experiences. The findings were published in The Lancet Journal.Lurker
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
I'm cancelling my subscription. You had a subscription to Time??? Are you a dentist?tribune7
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
jb: very good questions. Unfortunately, answers are not easy, and may be different according to one's model of things. Anyway, I'll try to say something from my personal point of view: 1) "What does your “soul” do when you sleep or are in a coma? (ok, maybe you dream, but the dreaming doesn't take place the whole time)" I wondered about that when I was a boy. Now I think that consciousness never stops, only expresses itself in various different "states". Our waking state is only one of the expressions of our consciousness. Dreaming state is another one. Deep sleep is still another. There is never total unconsciousness. Only, it is difficult to bring the memories of one state into another (like when you forget the dreams you have just made as soon as you awake). Each state of mind has its laws, its principles. You can see that for me consciousness and soul are similar concepts. The presence of a subjective "I", a "center" who perceives and unifies, is the basis of conscious phenomena. It is, in essence, transcendental. Another important point: with the word "consciousness" I do not mean, necessarily, self-consciousness, or rational consciousness, or thought as we conceive it. I just mean the presenc of a center of perceprion which refers to itself a set of modifications in the "body". 2) In my opinion, a newborn or a fetus is conscious (in the above sense), as are animals, or even plants. In my opinion, consciousness is a characteristic of life. Obviously, consciousness expresses itself in very different ways at the various stages of life. Obviously, many will not agree with that. 3) Nobody wants to deny that the expression of consciousness, in material life, is tightly bound to the body, and specially to the nervous system. I am always surprised by the excitement of "scientists" each time they discover some new connection between mind and body, consciousness and brain. I don't understand. Where is the new concept? If you want to know if body and consciousness are related, I humbly suggest an experiment which does not require any sophisticated imaging of the brain: just hit your thumb with a hammer, and see if it hurts. Obviously, consciousness perceives in itself the modifications in the body (it is called sensation, percepyion and so on). Obviously, consciousness can modify the body (it is called will, movement, and so on). That's no problem for nobody. The problem is: what is consciousness, what is the link between consciousness and the body, and the brain? I just state again that, if the brain were only a machine, although very complex, it would not be conscious. The most complex algorithms and calculations could go on in it forever, and still "nobody" would ever be aware of them. Searle has said some interesting things on this subject, but I still think that Penrose is a fundamental reading about that. And Eccles, obviously. 4)That said, it is perfectly obvious that any alteration in the working of the body and the brain can deeply affect consciousness, but never destroy it. As long as consciousness id tied to the body, it perceives mainly the modifications in the body. 5) Memory is a deeper subject. We usually think of memory as the "waking state" memory, the ability to recall the experiences of the waking ego. But if consciousness is more than waking consciousness, then memory is more than waking memory. More important than memory, in my opinion, is the "continuity" of the I: If I suffer during a dream, it is "me" who suffers, and not someone else, even if, once awake, I don't remember the dream. The consequences of my suffering in the dream are still in me, even if I don't remember. That's the difference between "continuity", which can be seen as a deep form of memory, and explicit waking memory. 6) "And what is a soul without memory and consciousness?" A soul always has some degree of memory and consciousness. No problem there.gpuccio
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Fross, Not that it would not be "special", but rather "special" would then have no meaning. It would only be "special" because the brain's material processes dictated its "specialness". So in the end our brains' are being manipulated into pondering itself and drawing conclusions about itself using its own processing. And all this as a result of capabilities supposedly gained through the filter of finding food, eluding predators, and precreating. Highly suspect, don't you "think"??? gpuccio, Excellent point. Consciousness is not required and does not add anything in regards to a system or program that must prioritize various swirling stimuli and potential thoughts. A non-conscious program can do it just as effectively, thank you very much. Besides, some of my best thinking is done unconsciously, and some of my most useless thoughts are done consciously. I will let you decide which category these expressed thoughts belong in!!Ekstasis
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Consciousness uses the brain, but is not generated by it. That is the simple truth. And its fact is primary evidence that Reality is beyond any kind of rational model. I often have a sardonic chuckle at materialsts because their whole take on these things exalt human reason while destroying its crediblility. It's a subtle and bizarre form of insanity.mike1962
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Not so long ago, I held reservations about accepting a nonphysicalist view of mind (even as a Christian theist). This is no longer the case. There are phenomena which are fundamentally irreducible to physical entities (e.g. qualia and intentionality), and the reliability of our cognitive faculties appears to necessitate that either naturalism, physicalism, or both are false. Pinker arrogantly presents the "hard problem" as a great mystery but one which he KNOWS has an underlying physical ontology. He offhandedly dismisses dualism as "soul-of-the-gaps" reasoning, claiming that it explains nothing while this very assertion presupposes that all explanations must be physical in character--an assumption he makes a priori without any justification. He then has the audacity to use his knowledge that mind=brain to assert not only that life after death does not exist but that morality is not dependent upon the belief in an afterlife and that such a belief "necessarily devalues life on earth", citing the 9/11 terrorist hijackers. Here, he most obviously oversteps his bounds because either he is unaware of or simply ignores the fact that there are theists who believe both that an afterlife exists and that the human mind has a physical ontology. His article is little more than religious indoctrination, and I am extremely disappointed that Time allowed it to be published in their magazine. I think this severs the tie between me and Time; I'm cancelling my subscription.crandaddy
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Is there any chance that the soul and the seat of consciousness are not the same? Now I realize that I need to tread lightly here but...there is clearly something that provides the impetus in all things living to simply not be dead, the will to live and keep making more living things in their image. Grass has it, amoebas have it, tigers, have it, and so on. And yet, I don't think that any of those things exhibit consciousness. I suspect that no one else does either. The soul (and, again, I know that many people hold the belief that the soul is a gift from god) might be that which causes things be organic while being composed of so many inorganic things while consciousness might be solely the by-product of a beings that are sufficiently intelligent or, dare I say, evolved. I'm just talking off the top of my head here but it's as well-developed or evidence-based as anything that's been said so far here.Pi Guy
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
I don't see why the brain, or more specifically the "soul" has to remain non-materialistic in order for it to be deemed "special". Just because something can be explained naturally, doesn't mean the magic is lost. I find it fascinating and wondrous that the universe has natural laws that allow for stardust to eventually become self aware organisms that can question the universe. (i believe Carl Sagan had that same sentiment)Fross
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
I admit this is WAAY too early, mea culpa. And as an aside, I am aware that not everybody is ready for the artistry of truly dubious limericks. As the fusion of jazz rolled over the night Was it my ‘maginations, or mystical flight? No, Lawdy, Lawdy, I'm still in my body! (Fleck's banjo is still outta sight!) Flecktones poured out creation as my mind a-wandered. Was I, me, or me it, or was it I that had pondered That ev/psych had the answers – No mere necromancers, And I hoped that "my" time wouldn't be squandered. So, I studied brain function from here to Ontario As Bela and mates jammed on my old stereo. That last study session Left a cool jazz impression Of yet another useless hand-waving-scenario!Tim
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Consciousness is not a ghost, it's a particular state of awareness that allows an agent to have subjective experience. The main problem of religious dualism, IMHO, it's the fact it is too greedy. A ghost or spirit, in folk psychology, is not reducible to merely the ability to have subjective experience. The popular mental image of a ghost or spirit requires it to have memories, personality, personal identity, emotions, sense of moral judgement and several other heterogeneous attributes that share physical, neural correlates to the brain of man and other life forms. If eliminative or emergent materialism ultimately fails to account for subjective experience, there are other kinds of dualism much simpler and economic than the religious version, such as the physicalist dualism of David Chalmers which considers subjective experience to be something as essential and fundamental as space-time or electric charge. However, the structure of the vastly complex neural architecture of 100 billion neurons is not a free lunch, it's a requirement for the existence of conscious agents.Tsathoggua
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
I am inclined to want to believe in the soul, mainly because I find the nihilistic alternative almost unbearable to consider (though I realize that doesn't mean it isn't so). There are many things that point to a non-corporeal soul, such as the fact that we can comprehend truth and maintain beliefs--if our consciousness is merely the result of some evolutionary biological process, how do we know that ANYTHING we know is truth? Perhaps our brains are so addled that none of us (atheist, theist, Darwinian, creationist, ID'er, Republican, Democrat, Marxist, what-have-you) are right about anything at all? I like Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against materialism, which uses the idea of true beliefs (a function of consciousness and rationality) as evidence against materialism. Even if you don't believe in evolution, it is still a useful argument because it maintains that evolution and materialism are mutually exclusive, and since evolution is an almost completely necessary component of materialism, it shows that materialism is self-contradictory. (IF, that is, I understand his argument--I have to read more of his material to wrap my mind around it). There are many more compelling arguments in favor of the soul. That said, however, there are some questions that trouble me, which seem to point in the other direction. Such as: - What does your "soul" do when you sleep or are in a coma? (ok, maybe you dream, but the dreaming doesn't take place the whole time) - How sentient is a newborn infant or fetus? (we have a six-week old baby in our house and I frequently think about this as I watch her just staring at the inside of her bassinette) At what point in a child's development does consciousness fully form? - I've heard of experiments done with sufferers of epilepsy who have had their corpus collossum severed which demonstrate some funny things about consciousness and free will. Like one in which the patient was given printed instructions in one eye to get up and walk to the door; when asked why he got up from the other side of his/her brain (not sure how they did that: maybe asked in the left ear?), the patient stated he/she got up because he/she wanted to go get a drink. The inferrence of the researcher being that one side of the brain willed to get up and walk, but the conscious part of them had no idea why and made up a plausible story to explain the behaviour. - Memory seems to be tightly tied to brain biology. A person can loose memories due to physical injury to the brain. Brain surgery patients can be made to relive certain memories by electrically stimulating certain areas of the brain. But memory seems to be a large part of "who I am." So what is a soul without memory? And what is a soul without memory and consciousness? And I ask, is the idea even coherent? But it seems that the idea of the soul's non-existence is equally incoherent. It is a mystery indeed. Fascinating and troubling at the same time. (BTW, I can't wait for the O'Leary/Beauregard book to come out).jb
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Great post gpuccio.shaner74
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
I disagree, too. I don't want to get too much philosophical, but everybody seems to forget a fundamental empirical fact: consciousness is the first thing we know, all the other things deriving from modifications in our consciousness. In that sense, of epistemological priority, we can say that consciousness is the only thing we are sure of. Another inportant point is that the consciousness perceived by each of us is our own consciousness. It is perceived in a different way than all other data (consciousness modifications). It is perceived as the fact that we are a subject, someone who perceives all the modifications and refers them to oneself. That's the intuitive perception of the subject as a simple and constant being, something that no theory of AI can ever explain. All the tentatives to explain consciousness as a byproduct of complexity of software are completely delusive. There is no reason at all that a computing hardware is not conscious if it computes, let's say, 2+2, and can become conscious at any more complex state of computing. Computing it is, anyway. The rules, the phenomena, are the same. In no way can consciousness suddenly come in, just because some further algorithm has been executed. The concept that parallel computing may generate consciousness is, at best, ridicule. Anyone who has any knowledge of computing knows well that, either you use a serial algorithm, or split the problem in parts and use a parallel strategy, nothing changes, in principle and in fact. The rules, the phenomena, are the same. In no way can consciousness suddenly come in, just because an algorithm has been split in parts. Consciousness uses the brain, but is not generated by it. That is the simple truth.gpuccio
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
I shall now retire to make tea while my computer self-organizes my day's computer programming task.SCheesman
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
In an stunning and heroic display of hand-waving, Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at UCLA, explains conciousness in a sidebar to the Time article: "All the natural history required to understand consciousness is now readily available in evolutionary biology and psychology. Gene networks organize themselves to produce complex organisms whose brains permit behavior; further evolution enriches the complexity of those brains so that they can create sensory and motor maps that represent the environments they interact with; additional evolutionary complexity allows parts of the brain to talk to each other (figurateively speaking) and generate maps of the organism interacting with its environment..." Next problem!SCheesman
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
I use the analogy of an automobile and its computer. The computer controls functions such as spark timing, air/fuel ratios, and shift points. I think of the car's computer as the brain. However, the computer is not the operator of the car – I am. All I see from materialists is hand waiving while screaming, “There is no soul!” Maybe I'm just ignorant, but how does the ability to monitor electrical signals in the brain prove there is no soul? Are those signals cause or effect?shaner74
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
Yeah, me too. If consciousness *is* the activity of the brain, then why only a subset of it's activity? Obviously not of all the brain is conscious or partains directly to consciousness. Where is the location of this special "unity of experience" and why is IT conscious and not the rest of the brain? There are no answers from the materialists. They only have bald assertions based on their materialist faith. Yawn.mike1962
January 24, 2007
January
01
Jan
24
24
2007
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply