what is consciousness?
The idea that we each inhabit a personal space somewhere within our brains, yet somehow distinct from it, is the cause of the ongoing mind/body duality debate that has been dominant in philosophy for thousands of years. And despite the remarkable neuroscientific insights that have been forthcoming over the past few decades, many think that an explanation for the phenomenon of being conscious is beyond the limits of science. It is the illusive nature of consciousness that is the main polemic that defines the ‘hard problem of consciousness’: How does matter produce conscious experience? It is still a very difficult concept to comprehend and the lack of a conclusive explanation for what ‘consciousness’ is, means that we still refer to it in vague terms like the soul, spirit, essence, ego, inner self, and the mind.
Whenever we refer to ourself, the I we each believe we are, it is because we are conscious of something that directly experiences what is happening to us. That something is also aware of the subsequent responses that result from those experiences. The often accepted, but erroneous, conclusion is to assume that that conscious self is actively engaged in the process of responding to those experiences, as if it were the author of those responses.
However, there is nothing that can support such an irrational leap from merely witnessing – being conscious of – an action, and having caused it.
Just like the notion of free-will is an illusion – being merely a perception of choice, because we’re not fully aware of all the determining factors that ultimately direct our decisions – what if consciousness is merely tricking us into believing that we are each an independent self, along with the feeling that that self is also in charge?
The neurological system that is responsible for creating consciousness, though just another facet of our very sophisticated brains, does allow us to make better decisions. The problem is that we do not fully recognise the causal chain that gives rise to that self-awareness and how it contributes to that decision-making process.
To start with, we need to replace those misleading interpretations of the self with the term ‘passive conscious observer’, because that is what the self really is; I am the observer of both the experiences that happen to me, and also of my responses to those experiences, but I cannot proactively contribute to that dynamic. We, the observer, have no means to wilfully engage in any decisions which may be taken, we are just cognisant of some aspects of how our brain responds to the myriad of stimuli it’s presented with, and the actions which are taken by the brain thereafter. The self is really just the name we give to our conscious state, one that is aware (to some degree) of the experiences and processes that our body/brain system engages in. The use of I is therefore nothing more than a useful pronoun with which to communicate that state to others.
However, the source of conscious experience, although passive, just by its existence, does have an influence on how the brain makes decisions. Although that may seemingly present a contradiction, this capacity for self-reflection is not separate from our normal fundamental brain function, but an integral component of it…
The brain creates it’s perception of the world via the senses, and combined with its accumulated experience, knowledge, and the skills it has learnt, responds to those incoming signals with a view to best satisfy its current needs or objectives. The more information it receives, the more successful it will be in that endeavour. The senses which feed the brain the information from without, have no volition of their own; skin can report on the ambient temperature, our eyes on the geography of the world around us, our hearing can inform the brain of any audible signals, etc., but they do not have the agency, for example, to choose not to inform the brain. They are merely tools for the brain to exploit.
But information gathering is not limited to our five senses. We have an additional sense, which, unlike the others, informs the brain from within, affording the brain an opportunity to view itself; an insight that might necessitate, or at least trigger, the brain into re-evaluating an impending action.
It is this self-referential feedback which creates our sense of conscious experience, and is analogous to how looking in a mirror might compel us to adjust ourselves on seeing our own reflection, something we may not have done were that mirror not there; we might tidy our hair, adjust our shirt collar, or wipe some food off our chin. It was certainly the mirror, or rather its reflectivity, that caused a particular response in us, but the mirror itself had no desire or incentive to make us do so. When we see ourselves in a mirror, we don’t imagine that there’s another physical version of us being created on the other side, unless we’re unfamiliar with the properties of reflective surfaces.
A mirror, although passive, has an effect on us; it shows us a perspective we otherwise wouldn’t have had, which ultimately provides us with an advantage. That’s why we use them.
The brain’s ability for self-reflection and the subsequent phenomenon of conscious experience, has historically been wrongly attributed to a distinct, but elusive entity, not only credited with autonomy, and, as such, having control over the brain, but also being something separate from the physical brain. This is, of course, pure fantasy, and we should be concerned that this naive view still persists.
All the information that the brain receives from the world outside and from its ‘internal mirror’, form the substance of that which influences us. We cannot think for ourselves or decide for ourselves, because we don’t exist as something that can exert influence on our brains. We are our brains, and our brains are merely the servants of that which motivates us as an organism.
The information conveyed through our eyes to the visual cortex generates an adequately detailed construct of the outside world within our brains. Nobody thinks there’s a physical three dimensional model replica of what the eyes see, one that’s being continuously updated somewhere in another reality. We accept that ‘seeing’ is contained within the confines of the brain. So why, when the brain, which has the ability to self reflect – a process that generates conscious experience – do we need to credit it to something other than the brain?
There’s compelling evidence that consciousness arises because of the unique neurological complexity of the thalamacortical system and the distinct way that information is exchanged and processed therein, which permits for that feedback loop, giving rise to self-awareness and also the ability for deliberation. We need to define consciousness within the context of those physical and causal parameters and not with fanciful descriptions of metaphysical deviations. Experience, as described by the ‘hard problem’ may be erroneous, just like god is no longer required when explaining how the universe came to be.
Our social evolution advanced at a greater rate than our physical evolution, and as we developed skills like empathy and compassion, there was no opportunity for the brain to create new regions specific to those attributes, and so it appropriated other areas, forming complex connections between them as a solution. Feelings are what we experience because we have those empathetic sensitivities. Just like our physical eyes allow the brain to see, and our ears provide us with an impression of external sounds, the ‘physical’ neural networks which allow us to be empathetic, give our brains the experience of feeling.
Religions impose restrictions on how one might engage with the world, and a belief in the mind being distinct from the physical body, (dualism), is equally oppressive, and limits our potential to that of one concerned primarily for our own ‘self’, rather than recognising that we are interdependent elements, bound together across all time and space; a realisation that we evolved as a feature of the universe, not as the reason for it.
Our anthropocentric bias, which relies on consciousness as the measure for us having a uniquely significant status, is therefore also inappropriate, because it has been the justification for us exploiting and disrespecting the other life forms and the integrated life supporting ecosystem of the planet, one that we are absolutely dependent upon for our survival.
In our pursuit to satisfy the delusion that we are special, that we have autonomy, and a soul that transcends the physical reality of the universe, that desperation has necessitated so much suffering and destruction over the past millennia, all in an attempt to make those beliefs real. Our limited imagination and ignorance has created a grotesque and dysfunctional parallel world which we now inhabit, one built on the foundation of exploitation, injustice, inequity, and violence.
The sooner we can reconnect with the living world, the one that brought us here, and could support us indefinitely, and start making use of the wonderful potential expressions of our highly evolved brains, the sooner our home can repair itself, and we can all live in alignment with all which defines life on this unique living planet, rather than be the unnatural disaster that is threatening to be its executioner.
To survive, we need to stop investing in the repressive and mythical claims of spurious beliefs, and start managing ourselves with the understanding that there is no ‘actual’ self. We are organisms, albeit complex ones, but still organisms, bound by the deterministic nature of the universe, and who are completely dependent on all of the organic and inorganic interactions that make life possible on this planet.
Dec 2022