“Where is the experience of red in your brain?” The question was put to me by Deepak Chopra at his Sages and Scientists Symposium in Carlsbad, Calif., on March 3. A posse of presenters argued that the lack of a complete theory by neuroscientists regarding how neural activity translates into conscious experiences (such as “redness”) means that a physicalist approach is inadequate or wrong. “The idea that subjective experience is a result of electrochemical activity remains a hypothesis,” Chopra elaborated in an e-mail. “It is as much of a speculation as the idea that consciousness is fundamental and that it causes brain activity and creates the properties and objects of the material world.”
“Where is Aunt Millie's mind when her brain dies of Alzheimer's?” I countered to Chopra. “Aunt Millie was an impermanent pattern of behavior of the universe and returned to the potential she emerged from,” Chopra rejoined. “In the philosophic framework of Eastern traditions, ego identity is an illusion and the goal of enlightenment is to transcend to a more universal nonlocal, nonmaterial identity.”
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
50 Comments
Add CommentDear Dr. Schermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read once in a while your papers at Sci. Am. and realize that you are an atheist. Then I have a question: What do you think in the (a) sufficiente reason for the existence of the Universe? It is essentially Einstein's question, but more sophisticated philosphically. It would be a Leinizian question. I asked this an atheist, who happens to be a Nobel Prize Winner and his answer was: "There is no answer to this question and if you say that is God, I will ask you what is the sufficiente reason for God's existence". He did not prove what he said, I gave him a reply and he did not give me any reply for my argument. Well, then, what would be your answer to my question?
Best regards,
Please correct obviously in my comment: What "is" (and not "in")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoyed reading this article and especially your statement "[n]o one denies that consciousness is a hard problem." But what if there is more to consciousness than the brain - if the brain works with another organ, say - the heart. I liked all the dualism also: mind/body and consciousness/matter. Maybe we need to expand or exchange our dualisms. I don't subscribe to the approach of the reductionist (Cartesian?) walking-corpse theory. What if synthesis is the answer to dualism and evolution - including consciousness - and it is a forward-leaping enterprise and not a backward glancing sum-of-the-elements-from-which-it-was formed? Here I'm thinking of Teilhard de Chardin. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me, for so many years, this is THE question. What came first? I agree with you, we have so many more scientific evidences that personality and the mind is an emergent phenomenon (from the brain). But is consciousness is the same, I'm not sure of that. It seem to me that consciousness is more fundamental than the mind or the ego. It comes first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow consciousness could create reality? I'm not sure (of course) but my working hypothesis right now goes like that.
- Quantum physics have clearly demonstrated non-locality (Aspect experiences). It means that everything in the universe occupy the same point or, if you prefer, every quantum particles is entangled with all the other ones in the universe. Non locality also means that, on quantum level, every point of the universe contain the entire universe. So it's vice et versa. This is true until a mind look at it. The moment a Mind take a look at the result given by a device set up to measure a quantum object, disentanglement happen. It was proven that if no one looked at the result of such an experiment that is otherwise in function, the wave function those not collapse! Disentanglement does not happen. Let me be clear. The measurement takes place but only when a mind looks at it, does the wave function collapse. So, it's not the measurement that makes disentanglement happens it is the consciousness decision to look for the result. Wow, this is something. (see On Physics and Philosophy By Bernard d'Espagnat)
- If consciousness creates reality, this phenomenon is implicated and has to do with it.
For me, for so many years, this is THE question. What came first? I agree with you, we have so many more scientific evidences that personality and the mind is an emergent phenomenon (from the brain). But is consciousness is the same, I'm not sure of that. It seem to me that consciousness is more fundamental than the mind or the ego. It comes first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow consciousness could create reality? I'm not sure (of course) but my working hypothesis right now goes like that.
- Quantum physics have clearly demonstrated non-locality (Aspect experiences). It means that everything in the universe occupy the same point or, if you prefer, every quantum particles is entangled with all the other ones in the universe. Non locality also means that, on quantum level, every point of the universe contain the entire universe. So it's vice et versa. This is true until a mind look at it. The moment a Mind take a look at the result given by a device set up to measure a quantum object, disentanglement happen. It was proven that if no one looked at the result of such an experiment that is otherwise in function, the wave function those not collapse! Disentanglement does not happen. Let me be clear. The measurement takes place but only when a mind looks at it, does the wave function collapse. So, it's not the measurement that makes disentanglement happens it is the consciousness decision to look for the result. Wow, this is something. (see On Physics and Philosophy By Bernard d'Espagnat)
- If consciousness creates reality, this phenomenon is implicated and has to do with it.
Beautiful, perceiver and percived - all along that question of "when a tree falls in the forest . . . "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo brains cause minds? Michael Shermer's Skeptic column, "Aunt Millie's Mind," sets up a false dichotomy by presenting Deepak Chopra's assertion that consciousness is fundamental to the cosmos, i.e., consciousness gives rise to matter, as the sole alternative to his own rationalist view that "brains create mind." Nothing in his article speaks to the objection that once "brain" is identified as strictly material and "mind" as strictly spiritual, the question of how one could influence the other, by definition, will forever remain a paradox, reducing what is perhaps the most enduring existential question to a matter of semantics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is not whether mind or brain causes the other. Instead, there is this question: Why are otherwise intelligent inhabitants of the 21st century debating this 17th century problem?
Consciousness still remains a mystery (and if mystery implies wonder, always will) but the line of attack has greatly shifted since Descartes. More relevant to the updated version of the old mind/body problem is the 20th century field of study that can be generalized as "semiotics." In his many books mathematician Brian Rotman has interpreted semiotics for technologists by pointing out that "self" and "mind" (as well as "number" and "infinity" and "continuum") are constructs whose content is largely influenced by the medium of communication. In Descartes' time growing literacy gave rise to an idealized sense of self as an independent perceiver (Rotman at one point calls this "reading mind"). Modern science challenges many of the premises of classical mathematics and science. Rotman has argued that, along with the paradigm shift of modern science, in our own time that traditional sense of walled-off personhood is being eroded as forms of disseminated or dispersed intelligence emerge at the intersection of technology and the body. (The dual aspect of this process --paradigm shift in science and technology accompanied by change in consciousness --is also close to the subject of quantum pioneer Michael Nielsen's book Reinventing Discovery on the new era of networked science.) Shermer evades the historical complexity and real interest of the mind/body question by introducing it as a chicken and egg problem. In doing so, he misinforms his readers about the true state of the philosophical study of consciousness and overlooks the important insight that both the idea of mind and physical structures of the body --as extended by technologies --are "created" by culture.
Michael O'Connell
Michael O'Connell
Dear Mr. Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent piece, as always.
The problem with the non-physicalist approach to consciousness is deeper than you say. It isn’t just that physicalism hasn’t been given a fair chance. (You say, “…let’s give [physicalism] more time. Because … consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness.”)
The deeper problem with non-physicalism is the simple fact that consciousness, whatever it is, causes things in the material world – people writing about consciousness, for example.
For consciousness to cause things in the material world, it must communicate with the material world. Therein lies the fatal vulnerability of the non-physicalist hypothesis. If Deepak Chopera says, “I know I am conscious right now,” that information has to show up in his brain somehow and somewhere. His brain would need what I call “antenna neurons” to receive the information from his hypothesized ‘non-physical reality’ – and observably violate known physics in the process. Electrodes on an antenna neuron would show information being output without any corresponding (physical) input. Megawords of armchair philosophy cannot trump this direct testability by ordinary science.
Adam L. Carley, Ph.D.
Windham, NH
While I found the article interesting, there are several flaws in the author's thinking, namely the idea that our 'tools' for measuring consciousness are perfect and will never advance beyond their current stage. While I agree that the neural network of the brain is likely needed to create a distinct personality, our inability to quantify consciousness is analogous to studying a radio but being oblivious to the presence of the battery. No matter how much we learn about the wires, if we are oblivious to the power source, all we will ever be able to do is describe the function of the wires. We may even come to believe that the wires generate the current which makes them function. Another poster mentioned above that the brain would have to have "antenna neurons" if consciousness interfaced with it; I submit that this thinking shows the same flaw as the author's argument-we are basing our assumptions simply on our existing knowledge, without addressing the possibility that entirely new discoveries will turn our current understanding upside-down in the future. Quantum physics tells us that consciousness has a role in the universe at the subatomic level, yet we continue to view it as somehow "outside" of the universe, something "separate", while evidence exists that thought can affect the motion and trajectory of subatomic particles, implying a connection to consciousness on a more fundamental level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike the tendency of metaphysics to relegate unknowns to the realm of the supernatural, the fact that our ability to measure the physical function of the brain far outstrips our ability to quantify the more mysterious elements of consciousness does not automatically imply that the epiphenomenalist view of consciousness is automatically the correct one. Both views suffer from the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" trap. What is needed is an open mind, and reductionist thinking for its' own sake does the field of consciousness research a major disservice.
Hopefully in the future, consciousness studies will become more of a multidisciplinary approach, as I believe physicists as well as neuroscientists potentially hold the key to better explaining this still unsolved mystery. The collaborative efforts of Dr. Stuart Hammeroff and Sir Roger Penrose come to mind, for example, as a model of how quantum mechanics, quatum computing, and the brain can be tied together.
The answer to the question "Where is the experience of red in your brain?" is very simple. It is in the same place that an eye or an ear are in your DNA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is consciousness that gives rise to brain. Brain then gives explicit resource to consciousness, which is expressed beyond all prior measure through the facility, brain. From within this facility we, as people, are emergent as the life we know each other to be.
Consciousness is first, brain develops (through eons) as response to consciousness. Brain dies, consciousness lives.
Before concluding otherwise, try reading the work of Raymond Moody, Kenneth Ring, and dozens of others well-grounded in their antecedence.
Thank you,
Ken Meyer
I agree that we should stick to the supported evidence that brain creates consciousness. But what I think the Conscious Realism supporters should be trying to articulate is that if a brain emerges from nature and it produces consciousness, then some aspect of "consciousness" maybe present for our brains to evolve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think of consciousness as spectral. There are varying degrees of it, (viewed from my conscious based and therefore biased perspective) in nature. "Unconsciousness could therefore imply the potential for consciousness;sub consciousness, the instinctive intuition of the body, (which has a mind by the way) and our consciousness as the human brain reflecting on the aforementioned. If the statement, "to the degree there is choice, there is consciousness" has any basis in fact, then natural selection could be viewed as unconscious/subconscious choice leading to animals with brains such as ours.
All that said, I still agree that unless there is a scientific method of testing this hypothesis, then it remains in the realm of philosophy. Thanks to natural selection I can consciously say, "ah... to be Great Ape and Proud of it!"
Sincerely,
P. Habib
It seems to me that this article is comparing an orange with an apple here. Human conciousness (the brain) is very limited comparing the universal conciousness. If you think about the process of creating a human, from miosis to mitosis, how can any reasonable mind deny that there must be some sort of amazingly intelligent conciousness and self-awareness on the cellular level with the two tiny cells (male and female)that we and our minds are made from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAttacking dualist thinking on consciousness is a lot like denying climate science by poking fun at Al Gore. Why not take on a serious thinker, like David Chalmers? Or respond to what Julian Barbour has to say about consciousness in "The End of Time"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReductionist explanations of consciousness stand or fall with presentism. And presentism died when Special Relativity was born. We need an explanation not just of consciousness, but of the 'present', and the 2 are obviously intimately linked.
A process in the brain can't create its own present.
Human perceptions of the physical universe depend totally on consciousness. These perceptions begin, on an individual basis, when our human senses transmit applicable information to our brain. Now, we are conscious of the physical universe, but only to the extent of the validity of such stored information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf consciousness is a product of the evolutionary development of brains, then we must assert that the universe is a self-defining process. That is, the universe exists because the universe reports that it exists (through one of its creations, namely, consciousness). But scientific investigations would reject any self-defining process, wouldn’t they?
Now, let’s consider the possibility that consciousness is a facility distinct from the brain. One consideration is to ask whether the physical universe actually exists. We are all conscious of it, to be sure, but this consciousness can only make use of information that has been stored, individually, in our brain regardless of how it got there. Note, for example, that the colors perceived by a color-blind individual derive only from the falsely encoded color information that exists in the brains of those persons. Supposing it should be true (and I present this only as a possibility, not as fact) that information about the universe is stored in a holographic form as presented in Jacob D. Bekenstein’s article in Scientific American, August 2003, titled “Information in the Holographic Universe”. I do not understand the physics of that presentation; there seems to be the implication, however, that information, not physical reality, may be the basis for our perceptions of the universe. In this regard, it could be helpful for there to be a proof that the physical universe actually exists, independent of consciousness.
My conclusion is that the concept of consciousness as a facility distinct from the brain is worthy of serious consideration.
Harold W. Simons
Consciousness is everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are the awareness that thinks.
The brain follows the mind.
There are no right or wrong answers just perceptions.
Not two, not one. suzuki roshi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, Consciousness is the nature of our Mind/Brain that becomes a global perception. That is, we don't see red and green and a chair -but the whole room with a sense of isolation or of the great world outside. If it were only the senses and the brain that gave rise to perception , how would a perception of vastness and complexity of the entire world and cosmos arise for a man in a room with the drapes closed? How can a perception of vastness be encoded in the brain? And beyond perception who is it that says "i got that right" or 'this cannot be'. I'll take -i got that right- over -it cannot be- anytime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPredictions of human choices, from brain scanning, do not necessarily lead to establishing that one is measuring a causation process. Is it possible that subjects had taken decisions on a subconscious level first? For the same token, when subjects realize they just have taken decisions, what other changes in the brain were uniquely detected ,that point to the awareness or realization dynamics int the brain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile few of us are small hibernating rodents and there's likely little support for considering arctic ground squirrels to be conscious, I think we might learn a great deal about how much of our intellect and indeed consciousness are solely the product of brain tissue by studying small hibernating mammals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs stated in http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-ground-squirrel-brain
"Neurons from squirrels that were in the middle of hibernation were shrunken and had far fewer dendrites—branches that receive signals from other neurons—compared with brain cells from fully awake and aroused squirrels. The dendrites in hibernating brains also had fewer dendritic spines, which jut out from the main branch like thorns on a rose stem and increase the number of possible synapses with nearby cells."
The ground squirrels seem to completely recover from the brain damage suffered during hibernation:
"Whereas neurons in hibernating brains looked like barren tree limbs in the dead of winter, brain cells from squirrels that had just emerged from hibernation into a period of arousal sported dense crowns of overlapping dendrites. In only two hours the squirrels' brains had not only compensated for all the synapses lost during hibernation—their brain cells now boasted many more links than those of an active squirrel in the spring or summertime. One day later, however, their brains had pruned many of these ties, probably recognizing them as superfluous, much the way the developing mammalian brain shears its blooming neural forest."
This cellular damage suffered during hibernation, even with the interconnection replacement therapy, seemingly must reflects on the permanence of whatever extent of acquired knowledge, individual personality or conscious awareness that small hibernating mammals might possess...
Then again, a recent Nature article describes the revival of patients that had previously thought to be in deep comatose states, leading to questions regarding what we consider to be human consciousness. Please see http://www.nature.com/news/neuroscience-the-mind-reader-1.10816
You note that arctic ground squirrels may not be conscious. I suggest that it is only humans who possess consciousness, simply because of the enormous differences in technological achievements between humans and any other species, including primates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read with interest the reference you cited in Nature. Thank you.
You're welcome - thanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy interest in these posts is not the depth of thought about the subjects posed but, the grammatical and semantic errors that acrue in the replies. I have to wonder if all these remarks are an indication of careless practice in typing or an underlying revelation of ego superceding knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsciousness, Mind and Brain are three distinct entities, having distinct functions but at the brain level, which serves as the outermost physical apparatus for projecting all the thought process, 3 entities work in conjunction and project a single coherent integrated output. Comparing the analogy with a TV, brain serves the function of outer screen of TV on which all the outputs are projected. Network of circuits, hidden from screen, which process the signal transmitted are equivalent of Mind. Software signals received from satellite are equivalent to seeds of memory and other mental functions and these seeds are seated in Mind. Despite the best screen and all the network of circuits, there will be NIL output on screen until circuits and screen are energized by power. Similarly, brain shall show no output unless mind and brain are activated by consciousness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way network of circuits and power are hidden from screen, similarly mind and consciousness are also in realms hidden from mind. Mind being a product of subtle nature, is located in astral planes beyond the physical plane of brain. Consciousness being not any product of nature lies in plane beyond the plane of astral nature.
Main hurdle which come in the way of interpretation of consciousness is that Physicists and Neurologists are unaware of the realities of mind and consciousness in any plane beyond physical plane of brain. But somehow they tend to have forced interpretations for all the mental and conscious activities in the brain itself. This is akin to BB theory of universe creation wherein Physicists do not recognize any existence before point of singularity but tend to have forceful interpretation from singularity only
Any forceful or imposed interpretation shall result in irrational and sometimes even senseless interpretation. Both Physicists and Neurologists are becoming victims to this fallacy.
But are there any scientific clinching evidence for the existence of Mind and consciousness in planes above the physical plane of brain - so asks the skeptik. Candidly speaking, there are no full proof evidences. But non-existence of evidence, due to inadequecy of scientific tools does amount to non-existence of Mind and Consciousness in planes over and above physical plane of brain.
Further to comment 24
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiterature of Mysticism and Spiritualist is replete with recordings since millennia that there exist planes of reality of nature and consciousness located above the 3 D plane of the physical world we reside and within which brain is also seated. Even during the current age, there have been people who have had seen studied and described the realities of astral plane wherein mind is located and plane of consciousness beyond astral plane. These experiences result from the subjective experiences in Samadhi (deep meditational stage) for years -- a sort of subjective empiricalism.
But a change in the electro-chemical properties of brain arising from artificial manipulation in Lab or from accident projects different output in brain - so encounters the Neurologist to support the creation of mind and consciousness in brain. Little wonder in the contention of Neurologist. Relying on analogy of TV (comment 24) , a change in the characteristics of screen brings about a change in the output on screen, an artificial temporary or permanent manipulation in brain characteristics shall project different output on brain. Despite change in brain characteristics, Mind, seeds of thinking process (unit of thought) and consciousness remain intact. Death destroys brain and physical body, but mind, astral body and consciousness survive -- so declares the spiritualist and mystic for centuries
One cannot escape the feeling that physicalists like Shermer are philosophers, not scientists. What kind of "Proof"? Where is the evidence for the statements like "The brain creates the concsious mind", when the terms "conscious mind" are left undefined?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe subject becomes much more scientific if one identifies the conscious mind with information. The equivalence of information and energy is discussed in the physics of t'Hooft and Bekenstein. In SciAm (2003), Bekenstein says "Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told "matter and energy." Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient."
Physicalists must study the scientific description of information physics before coming to the (merely philosophical) conclusion that the color red, or Aunt Millie's brain, or even the flame of a snuffed candle can be dismissed as non-existent.
I am in agreement with this article, but I think Descarte also has it right. The original "I think, therefore I am." implies that the only reason I can assert that "I am" is because I think. (Descarte should have stopped right there.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, I cannot assert much beyond that. I BELIEVE the universe exists independently of myself, but I can't really prove it. My senses could be creating everything I experience, and the universe might be a fiction of my imagination. I happen to have a deep faith that this is not the case - I do think the universe is real, and I think that I am one small part of it. I am certainly conscious, and it is reasonable to expect that to expire when my brain stops functioning. But all of this is taken on faith - it can't be proven. (Note that use of the word "proven" embroils us in semantics. I am using the term with extremely high standards - proven with "no doubt" as opposed to proven "beyond reasonable doubt".)
The phrase "I am, therefore I think." must be dealt with carefully. A rock "is", but there is no evidence that rocks think. However, if the rock were to ASSERT that "I am", we would conclude that it thinks. So the statement "I am" cannot be regarded as a statement of existence - it must be reqarded as an active claim of existence by the entity which exists. And the act of claiming existence requires thought. And this essentially reverses the phrase to the original Descarte.
I continue to read Michael Shermedr's articles in SA, but I have come to the conclusion that it is because he is so easy to pick on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore than once he implies that it is a choice that the brain creates consciousness or that consciousness creates brain. One of these statements must be true! Although there is no proof that eithor creates the other, it is much more likely that the brain creates consciousness. There is really no scientific evidence that eithor is true. We, the human race, scientists, and even Mr. Shermer are too ignorant to do more than create theories. Then we get on our high horse and spout our ideas. Of course, if you are an Atheist, it is as easy to be traped by this as is the Bible Thumper.
George Snyder
sorry about my spelling and typos
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does there need to be a reason that the Universe exists? Why does it have to be so large? why does it have to be so hostile to life?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy if there is a God did he not just have us on our world and a pretty sky to look up at and nice weather and so on. NO God alas.
Why does there need to be a reason that the Universe exists? Why does it have to be so large? why does it have to be so hostile to life?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy if there is a God did he not just have us on our world and a pretty sky to look up at and nice weather and so on. NO God alas.
Is the universe hostile to life? We are here! Maybe the universe is so large and old so that it can make room for all possibilities, including the evolution of biological life. What a beautiful thought. Everything else, other life, other knowledge, is out there waiting for us to discover and appreciate. If only we can learn to get out of our self centered laziness and get to work. But first, we have to stop this self pity, and start working to make things better. Then maybe we can earn a place in this vast universe, instead of waiting for it to be handed to us on a platter. If we don't start studying the universe, and adapting, we just might deserve to be the victims of its violent cleanup of evolutionary mistakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo God? It seems like a very efficient way to create responsible beings. But are we responsible beings if all we want is a pretty sky to look up at and nice weather? That sounds more like robots. Like Isaac Asimov said, I'd rather have the freedom, the challenge, even though I know I'll have to pay the price of our ignorance some day. But maybe on some future day, if we teach everyone this lesson, perhaps our children won't have to pay such a high price. So get to work! Maybe if we work together we can make a difference for everyone.
I liked your emphasis on individual, unselfish responsibility
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks. It just seems illogical that God would do all the work to create a whole universe so that we can just sit back and do nothing in response except look up at the sky and wish we had it easier. I'd rather believe that we are here to get out of this gravity pit called earth before the ultimate stir fry from the universe hits it. But we only have a limited time to get our act together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have free will; and we can choose the great challenge of life. We have to learn to cooperate, overcome disease and old age, to heal each other, and then get about the business of escaping before a charred planet becomes humanity's epitaph: "They just couldn't get along!"
If evolution says anything, it's not that free will is an illusion! Rather it says: "Here it is! Do you want to use it, or selfishly squander it by just looking around and wishing God did ALL the work for you?!" We don't need evolutionary biologists or neuroscientists to show us evidence of this. We just have to choose to work, together. Science has shown us the alternative: do nothing, and it will be decided for us... by the universe.
Is death a dreamless sleep where time and space cannot be experienced? One might infer that this is true because without a living brain the usual inputs to awareness will stop.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlternatively the soul has senses of its own that are independent of the brain. This seems unlikely because, in this perception, the brain would never be needed and would not evolve.
I realize the implications of what I write: The senses evolved to empower awareness. What is the point of sound without awareness? Without awareness there is no one to hear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout awareness there is no one to feel pain.
All the senses are experienced by awareness and without awareness there is no one to experience them. The senses must have evolved after awareness.
While still in the speculation department….
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy is All…..All is Energy
It doesn't take much courage to accept that any human is deeply involved in the Energy Game; the workings of Entropy over time is visible to everyone.
The whole organism is in the grip of the Entropy process; maybe the brain to a higher degree….it is using 20 % of all Energy used by the body.
More is getting clear if we use Freeman Dyson's definition of life ( in his book: A Many-Colored Glass, 2007. Life is "a material system that can acquire, store, process and use information to organize its activities): Life, Energy, Entropy, Information and Temperature are closely connected and interdependent.
If we use the word Information processing instead of the word Consciousness many a thing gets a new shape. The word Consciousness (used w/o a definition) could really be blamed for much of the confusion around how the brain is working.
Let's look at the brain from an Energy/Information processing viewpoint.
Information is constantly fed to the brain, unconsciously, about how all different parts of the body are faring; this is called Proto Consciousness by Damasio; clearly an Information acquiring and processing happening. Damasio also has very believable descriptions of how, then, Core Consciousness and Extended and Autobiographical Consciousness are created. His book 'The Feeling of What Happens' (1999) offers clarity instead of the usual confusing consciousness discussion.
Damasio's definitions connects the whole complex of Consciousness and Information , to Dyson's definition of life.
Aunt Millie's Mind can be explained under the information processing headline. When Alzheimer's destroys the processing capacity of her brain the result is visible to everyone.
But what about the Information that was usually processed? Is some of it still available….nobody knows.
But some of the information is, for sure, available in brains of persons close to Aunt Millie; through knowledge of how Aunt Millie was thinking and reacting. And processed in a similar way; that could lead The Believing Brain (Shermer) to the assumption that Aunt Millie's mind had a transient capacity. And that it exists in a more universal non-local, non-material identity?
It doesn't have to be more complicated; this whole mystery about how Eastern philosophic traditions got underway?
Or…..?
It might be appropriate to compare a mars rover and a human brain. The rover has local control of functions but consciousness is on Earth with the scientists who make decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rover is not conscious. Possibly the brain is not conscious either. This leaves open the possibility that consciousness is not a function of the brain.
Conclusions about consciousness are untested hypotheses.
Also, the death of the rover does not mean death of the scientists' consciousness on Earth. We don't know if the death of the human body necessarily means the death consciousness. The question is still open for debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI quite agree with you that there is a possibility that consciousness is not a function of the brain. Please see my comments above, #15 dated 6/25/12. I will appreciate your observations regarding what I say there. I will be particularly interested in the rationale for any contrary opinions you might have. (Our understanding of what consciousness is is meager to say the least.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it useful to consider our conscious perceptions of the universe to be a most remarkable formatting of the data describing the universe our individual brains contain.
Yes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, consciousness gives meaning to the universe. Without consciousness meaning does not exist.
Dear Dr Schermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease answer my questions.
You ask where is Aunt millie's mind when her brain dies of alzheimer's.
First we do not need to think to that extent. First we will find where am I or you during deep sleep? Where does our mind go during deep sleep? Where will be the mind during the time when a patient is under anesthesia or coma? How does the mind come back from unconsciousness? Is the patient not in a state of non experiencing?
Why Neuro Scientists do all the researches to heal the damaged brain?
If the damaged brain is healed wouldn't the lost mind come back? If a Alzheimer patient is cured can't the mind of the patient come back again? If not why Scientists do all the researches to heal the brain? If they can't heal the brain why do we need a Neuro Science at all?
A.Sriskandarajah
Thank you, 'Bummer'! What has recently been discovered is that humans have a 'location' (pathway) in their neural network that drives us to look for 'meaning' in coincidence. In every independent tribe on the planet for millions of years, ever since the evolutionary emergence of our unique human consciousness, humans have invented religions -- repetitive, regular religious rituals and stories that help explain what our consciousness allows us to see the effects of, but was inexplicable at the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs our collective knowledge base has grown and the tools for measurement we develop have become more sophisticated, that which has been inexplicable is shrinking, yet WITH EVERY NEW (or remaining) INEXPLICABLE CHALLENGE, there are those amongst us, including many with very big brains (like Deepak Chopra) who immediately activate that 'spiritual/seeking-meaning-in-coincidence' part of their brains and imagine elaborate, complex theories to 'explain' the currently inexplicable. They are seeking rational explanations (theories) NOT to the existence of consciousness, per se, but for the existence of their brain's spontaneous desire to see meaning in coincidence, for the existence of "God" inside their thoughts (and indeed, we're never going to explain why/how matter came to exist in what appears to be an infinitely large universe).
I believe that this same brain area/pathway is responsible for the fascination that many otherwise strictly rational physicists have in non-locality (aspect experiences) in quantum physics and their fanciful notions that the mysterious behavior (inexplicable) can only be explained by a universe existing in every particle, or that "every point of the universe contain the entire universe". No, we can't explain the behavior of some things yet, but 'believing' that there are Gods living on the heights of Mount Olympus, or that sailing over the horizon will land you out in space, may satisfy that peculiar part of our complex human brain, but some of us don't have over-activity in that neural pathway. We are content to keep searching for the rational, scientific answer to the currently inexplicable, even while engaging the 'spiritualists' amongst us in enthusiastic mental gymnastic debates in the realm of metaphysics.
What I find interesting is the discovery of another neural pathway/structure that causes us to defend our beliefs/imaginings, often to the death, even in the face of scientific proof to the contrary. THAT is a product of human consciousness called "ego". ;-)
Dear Dr. Schermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also ask this question.
How does consciousness cause matter to materialize? We are not told. Where (and how) did consciousness exist before there was matter? We are left wondering.
Same questions I am asking you sir, but the other way around. We are also not told and we are also left wondering due to lack of scientific knowledge in the field of consciousness. There are many fundamental questions Scientists are unable to answer and Science has failed to solve the problem of sorrow of death.
How does matter cause consciousness? How does matter cause pain sensation? Please do not escape by saying brain neural net work and neurochemical activity. Please explain the final activity that makes us to feel a subjective experience. Where did matter exist before there was consciousness? How matter came into existence? Please do not say it came from energy or x. Then I have to ask again how energy or x came into existence. So please give a complete answer.
You say that thousands of experiments confirm the hypothesis that neurochemical processes produce subjective experiences. Then why should Scientists are unable to produce a sensation in the test tube?
We receive experiences through the brain. If the brain is damaged we could not receive any experiences. We will be in a state of non experiencing. We may feel many experiences with our brain. But we dot not feel all experiences together at a time. We may hungry at a time. Another time we do not feel hungry. At that time we are in a state of non experiencing of hungry. When we eat something we feel the taste sensation. Otherwise we remain not experiencing the taste sensation. We do not always touch memory. When need arises we tap some information from memory. Otherwise memory is intact. We need external and internal factors to receive an experience. Brain is an internal factor. Food is an external factor.We may remain without sensing any experiences. It doesn't mean that I am dead. Still I exist but without experiencing any thing. So an Alzheimer patient may not sensing all experiences. Its all. But who knows the patient is conscious or not. May be there is still an existence in a state without experiencing any sensations.
A.Sriskandarajah
What is mind?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA complete scientific explanation of mind
http://www.whatismind.com/
During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we see as brain is in our consciousness. Can anyone see their brain outside their consciousness? Never! Then how can we say that brain formed first and then consciousness. These are the misleading statements being said by the evolutionists and materialistic Neurologists. To see the truth we should go beyond consciousness.Is that possible? We cannot say which is first while we are in a conscious state. Really nobody knows what was before consciousness. Only with consciousness you all say brain formed first. Only after you are conscious you are able to say that. What we see as brain cannot be separated from what we understand as consciousness. It appears as true and rational that we should need a brain to have conscious experiences. But that brain is also in our consciousness. Brain is also a conscious experience.
We see the existence of brain. We touch the brain and recognize its existence. But seeing and touching are our sensations like smell or hungry. There is no other evidence of the existence of brain except seeing and touching. We see the brain in our conscious mind and then we make it separate by thought and say brain creates the conscious mind. This statement is a myth in scientific world. This statement is similar to saying sun rotates the earth. There is some other truth. Being unable to find that truth, only seeing the changes in experiences caused by damages in brain , many Neurologists express such misleading statements.
A.Sriskandarajah
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we see as brain is in our consciousness. Can anyone see their brain outside their consciousness? Never! Then how can we say that brain formed first and then consciousness. These are the misleading statements being said by the evolutionists and materialistic Neurologists. To see the truth we should go beyond consciousness.Is that possible? We cannot say which is first while we are in a conscious state. Really nobody knows what was before consciousness. Only with consciousness you all say brain formed first. Only after you are conscious you are able to say that. What we see as brain cannot be separated from what we understand as consciousness. It appears as true and rational that we should need a brain to have conscious experiences. But that brain is also in our consciousness. Brain is also a conscious experience.
We see the existence of brain. We touch the brain and recognize its existence. But seeing and touching are our sensations like smell or hungry. There is no other evidence of the existence of brain except seeing and touching. We see the brain in our conscious mind and then we make it separate by thought and say brain creates the conscious mind. This statement is a myth in scientific world. This statement is similar to saying sun rotates the earth. There is some other truth. Being unable to find that truth, only seeing the changes in experiences caused by damages in brain , many Neurologists express such misleading statements.
A.Sriskandarajah
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we see as brain is in our consciousness. Can anyone see their brain outside their consciousness? Never! Then how can we say that brain formed first and then consciousness. These are the misleading statements being said by the evolutionists and materialistic Neurologists. To see the truth we should go beyond consciousness.Is that possible? We cannot say which is first while we are in a conscious state. Really nobody knows what was before consciousness. Only with consciousness you all say brain formed first. Only after you are conscious you are able to say that. What we see as brain cannot be separated from what we understand as consciousness. It appears as true and rational that we should need a brain to have conscious experiences. But that brain is also in our consciousness. Brain is also a conscious experience.
We see the existence of brain. We touch the brain and recognize its existence. But seeing and touching are our sensations like smell or hungry. There is no other evidence of the existence of brain except seeing and touching. We see the brain in our conscious mind and then we make it separate by thought and say brain creates the conscious mind. This statement is a myth in scientific world. This statement is similar to saying sun rotates the earth. There is some other truth. Being unable to find that truth, only seeing the changes in experiences caused by damages in brain , many Neurologists express such misleading statements.
A.Sriskandarajah
Maybe we can't fully understand the concept of consciousness until we have a more complete view of our universe (Or the infinity number of universes that may exist). Maybe it has something to do with dark matter or some other undiscovered subatomic particles. I think the discovery of the Higgs Boson, or "god particle", is a start. But to understand a concept as huge and encompassing as consciousness - I think we need to better know the medium that consciousness operates in (the universe).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this