>I THINK A LOT ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS. I FOCUS INWARD AND FILL MYSELF WITH PRIVATE AWARENESS. NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONSCIOUSNESS. HERE'S WHY. EITHER CONSCIOUSNESS IS SOMETHING SPECIAL IN THE UNIVERSE, A CARRIER OF MEANING AND PERHAPS PURPOSE, OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ACCIDENTAL BY-PRODUCT OF EVOLUTIONARY SURVIVAL. A LIKELY ILLUSION. THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS, WITH NO PLANS TO STOP. MY HOPE IS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SOMETHING SPECIAL, BECAUSE ONLY IF SO, COULD WE IN ANY SENSE, SURVIVE DEATH. BUT BECAUSE I HOPE, I AM BIASED. WHICH IS WHY I MUST FRAME THE QUESTION AS A SKEPTIC. IS CONSCIOUSNESS AN ILLUSION? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY LONG JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. I BEGIN IN CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND WITH AN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST WHOSE WORK ON VISION SHEDS LIGHT ON CONSCIOUSNESS. NICHOLAS HUMPHREY. I AM INTRIGUED BY NICK'S CONTROVERSIAL IDEAS ON THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND BY HIS AUDACIOUS CLAIM THAT HIS NEW THEORY EXPLAINS CONSCIOUSNESS. NICK, YOU AND I WERE BOTH TRAINED IN NEUROPHYSIOLOGY AND HAVE HAD A FASCINATION WITH CONSCIOUSNESS OUR ENTIRE LIVES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH YOUR SENSE OF WHAT THIS REMARKABLE FEELING OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS. >>WELL, I THINK IT'S SURPRISING SOMETIMES, PEOPLE THINK THERE IS A PUZZLE ABOUT DEFINING CONSCIOUSNESS. IN SOME WAYS IT'S THE MOST OBVIOUS THING THERE IS FOR US. IT'S WHAT WE WAKE UP TO EVERY MORNING, WHEN WE OPEN OUR EYES AND WE SEE THE BLUE SKY OUT THE WINDOW AND WE HEAR THE BIRDS SINGING AND YOU SMELL THE AROMA OF COFFEE COMING UP THE STAIRS, PERHAPS. WE ARE SUDDENLY BATHED IN SENSATION. WE ARE LIVING IN WHAT I CALL THE "THICK MOMENT OF SENSATION". AND THAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS. >IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING SO DIFFERENT THAN EVERYTHING ELSE WE KNOW IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD. >>WELL, EXACTLY SO, SENSATIONS ARE POSSIBLY THE MOST MYSTERIOUS WHICH EXISTS IN OUR UNIVERSE. OUR EXPERIENCE OF SENSATION SEEMS TO HAVE QUALITIES WHICH MATERIAL MATTER COULDN'T GIVE RISE TO. AND THAT IS WHERE THE MYSTERY LIES. SOMETIMES I SAY THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ILLUSION AND THE REASON FOR SAYING THAT IS THAT IT SEEMS TO US THAT IT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE AND MATTER AS DEFINED BY PHYSICS. IT CAN'T BE SO. I'M A MATERIALIST. THIS IS BEING PRODUCED BY MY BRAIN OR YOUR BRAIN. AND SO I BELIEVE THAT IN THE END, THE EXPLANATION MUST COME DOWN TO WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE OUR HEADS. BUT CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE THOSE QUALITIES BECAUSE IT MAKES US THINK OF OURSELVES AS BEING SOMETHING OUTSIDE MATTER. OF HAVING METAPHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE PERHAPS, WHICH SETS US ABOVE AN OUTSIDE, MUNDANE WORLD. >BUT THIS IS AN ILLUSION? >>I HOPE IT'S AN ILLUSION, I SHOULD SAY. BECAUSE AS A SCIENTIST, I WANT TO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN EXPLAIN IT IN TERMS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, THE MATTER OF THE BRAIN. IF IT'S NOT AN ILLUSION, THEN WE ARE DEALING WITH SOMETHING PARANORMAL, BUT MY BELIEF OF COURSE IS, THERE IS NOTHING PARANORMAL ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO INVOKE NEW LAWS OF PHYSICS OR NEW LAWS OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA TO EXPLAIN IT. IN THE END, WE MUST BE ABLE TO BRING THIS ALL BACK TO EARTH WITH AN EXPLANATION IN TERMS OF THE CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS OF THE BRAIN. THE BRAIN HAS SET US UP TO EXPERIENCE THESE PHENOMENA IN THE WAY A MAGICIAN CAN SET UP A MYSTERY SHOW ON STAGE TO IMPRESS US WITH THE STRANGENESS OF THE PHENOMENA, WHICH HE'S DEMONSTRATING. IN THIS CASE, IT'S OUR OWN BRAIN WHICH IS IMPRESSING US WITH WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR HEADS, IN THE WAY WHICH MAKES US FEEL SPECIAL AND TRANSCENDENT. THAT IS WHAT THE POINT OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS AND IN THE END, WHY IT EVOLVED. >SO NICK HOLDS CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ILLUSION. BECAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS SEEMS TO EXIST OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE AND INDEPENDENTLY OF MATTER. IF THIS NON-MATERIAL SENSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS WERE NOT AN ILLUSION, THEN TO EXPLAIN IT, ONE WOULD NEED VENTURE BEYOND THE PHYSICAL. AND BECAUSE NICK IS A MATERIALIST, HE NATURALLY DECIDES THAT OUR NON-MATERIAL SENSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS MUST BE AN ILLUSION. TO NICK, CONSCIOUSNESS IS A MAGIC TRICK, PLAYED ON US BY OUR OWN BRAINS. CONSCIOUSNESS IS A MAGICAL MYSTERY SHOW THAT WE LAY ON FOR OURSELVES. BUT WHY THE MAGIC SHOW? TO GIVE LIFE MORE MEANING? MORE TO ENJOY? MORE TO FIGHT FOR? MORE TO STAY ALIVE FOR? WHICH IS WHY, I SUPPOSE NICK SAYS, CONSCIOUSNESS EVOLVED. IT'S A NEAT STORY, BUT STILL AT BEST, NICK EXPLAINS THE FACT OF CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT THE FEELING. THE WHY, NOT THE HOW. ARE THERE OTHER FACETS OF OUR MENTAL LIFE THAT MAY BE ILLUSIONS? I GO TO LONDON TO PURSUE MENTAL DECEPTIONS WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE EGO TRICK, PHILOSOPHER JULIAN BAGGINI. >> CONSCIOUSNESS ISN'T AN ILLUSION. I MEAN, CLEARLY THERE IS AN AWARENESS OF THE WORLD. WHAT IS AN ILLUSION IS THE IDEA THAT WITHIN EACH OF US IS THIS UNITARY FIXED CONSTANT SELF THAT THERE IS IN EACH OF US, A KIND OF CORE OF BEING. A SINGLE ENTITY WHICH IS THE SAME AND PERSISTS THROUGH TIME. I THINK THAT IS AN ILLUSION, BECAUSE ACTUALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT AND YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF INTROSPECTION OR YOU LOOK AT IT THROUGH NEUROSCIENCE OR YOU LOOK AT IT THROUGH VEGETATION, WHICH BUDDHISM DOES, YOU FIND ACTUALLY THERE IS JUST AN ARRANGEMENT, A COLLECTION OF THOUGHTS, FEELINGS, MEMORIES AND SO FORTH. AND IT'S THE WAY THAT IT'S ALL COME TOGETHER THAT GIVES US A FEELING OF BEING UNITARIAN ENTITIES. BUT THERE ISN'T A SINGLE THING THERE AT THE CORE OF IT. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND ENOUGH ABOUT HOW THE SENSE OF SELF EMERGES FROM THE WAY THE BRAIN OPERATES, TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS PROPERLY. BUT THERE ARE ALSO METAPHORS THAT CAN HELP US. I MEAN, MOST ESPECIALLY WANT TO BE LIKE AN ORCHESTRA, I GUESS. WHEN YOU LISTEN TO AN ORCHESTRA, YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THERE BE A SINGLE PIECE OF MUSIC. YOU HEAR IT AS ONE THING. BUT WE KNOW THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF INSTRUMENTS DOING THEIR BITS. AND IN A WAY, BRAIN AND CONSCIOUSNESS IS LIKE AN ORCHESTRA OF THE MIND. THERE ARE ALL THESE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS WORKING TOGETHER AND THEY CREATE A SENSE OF ONENESS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY HARMONIZE. >WHAT WOULD BE THE ANALOG OF THE CONDUCTOR OF THE ORCHESTRA? >>WELL, YOU KNOW, ORCHESTRAS DON'T ALWAYS NEED CONDUCTORS. JUST THINK OF YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THINK FOR EXAMPLE ABOUT AN ACT OF CREATION, WHEN YOU HAVE AN IDEA. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU ARE SITTING THERE CONDUCTING EVERY STEP OF THE ARGUMENT IN CONSCIOUS WAY. YOU KIND OF STEW THINGS OVER AND - A SOLUTION POPS UP. A CONCLUSION EMERGES. SO I THINK OUR OWN EXPERIENCE REALLY, TELLS US THE MIND KIND OF GENERATES CONCLUSIONS. THEY ARE NOT BEING GENERATED BY THE EQUIVALENT OF A CONDUCTOR. >SO DO YOU HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT THERE WILL BE A PHYSICAL EXPLANATION FOR THE INNER SENSE OF AWARENESS, THIS CONCEPT OF QUALIA IN CONSCIOUSNESS? >>I'M AGNOSTIC ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN FEELING, SENSATION, QUALIA, SCIENTIFICALLY. I JUST DON'T THINK - I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BEING TOO CONFIDENT IN SAYING SCIENCE COULD NEVER EXPLAIN THIS OR SCIENCE WILL EXPLAIN IT. THERE ARE GOING TO BE LIMITS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE ALL HAVE TO ACCEPT. LOOK AT US, WE ARE JUST OVERGROWN APES OR UNDER GROWN APES, I SHOULD SAY. >JULIAN SAYS THAT WHILE OUR UNIFIED SENSE OF PERSONAL IDENTITY IS AN ILLUSION, CONSCIOUSNESS IS REAL. BUT WHETHER CONSCIOUSNESS CAN EVER BE EXPLAINED IS NOT YET KNOWN. FAIR ENOUGH. WE HAVE MUCH MORE TO LEARN ABOUT THE BRAIN. BUT AN ARGUMENT THAT APPEALS TO LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE IS HARD TO REFUTE. I DO NOT LIKE LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE ARGUMENTS. WE ARE EITHER WAY TOO EARLY OR WAY TOO SMART AND I SHALL NOT RETREAT FROM THE BATTLE TO EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS. PERHAPS A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON CONSCIOUSNESS CAN HELP. I GO TO BOSTON TO VISIT A MIND-BODY PHILOSOPHER AND A NOVELIST, WHO WORKS HER IDEAS THROUGH THE MENTAL LIVES OF HER FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. REBECCA NEWBERGER GOLDSTEIN. REBECCA, WHEN I START FOCUSING ON CONSCIOUSNESS, I SEE A DRAMATIC BIFURCATION OF MY FRIENDS. MANY OF THEM ARE BRAIN SCIENTISTS AND THEY SAY THAT WHAT WE IMAGINE CONSCIOUSNESS TO BE IS REALLY AN ILLUSION. >>AS A NOVELIST, I SPEND SO MUCH OF MY LIFE TRYING TO IMAGINE WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE OTHER PEOPLE AND WHAT THE WORLD SEEMS LIKE FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. AND I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME IMAGINE ONLY THAT POINT OF VIEW. AND A LOT OF TIMES, IN THE HISTORY, IN OUR PROGRESS, WE HAVE ELIMINATED CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE BELIEVED EXISTED. I MEAN, PEOPLE USED TO BELIEVE WITCHES EXISTED AND MILK GOING SOUR AND BABIES DYING FOR NO REASON, WOULD EXPLAIN BY THAT CACKLING LITTLE OLD LADY LIVING IN THE HUT. AND THEN OF COURSE WE FIND ANOTHER EXPLANATION THAT ELIMINATES ANY REFERENCE TO THE WITCH. WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT GERMS AND THEN FERMENTATION. WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT INSTANT DEATH SYNDROME IN BABIES AND WHATEVER. I TRY TO IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO HAVE AN EXPLANATION IN TERMS OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, OR WHATEVER THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE WE HAVE AT THAT TIME IS. IT ONLY SEEMED TO US THAT WE WERE CONSCIOUS AND WE - IT SEEMING TO US THAT WE ARE CONSCIOUS IS A DESCRIPTION OF A CONSCIOUS STATE. I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE WE CAN GET A DESCRIPTION DOWN AT THE PHYSICAL LEVEL, WHICH IS SO REFINED THAT WE HAVE A ONE TO ONE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN EVERY CONSCIOUS STATE AND EVERY PHYSICAL STATE SO THAT BY GIVING THE PHYSICAL STATE DESCRIPTION, WE SAY, OH YES, YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU ARE NERVOUS. YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU ARE LONGING FOR YOUR HUSBAND. OR THAT THEY WOULD KNOW THAT THERE WAS THIS CORRELATION. BUT THAT TO GET A DESCRIPTION THAT WOULD SAY, NO IT ONLY SEEMS TO YOU THAT YOU ARE LONGING FOR YOUR HUSBAND. YOU ARE NOT. THE PHYSICS IS WHAT'S GOING ON. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. PEOPLE USED TO THINK THAT HEAT WAS CALORIC FLUID OR THAT FIRE WAS PHLOGISTON. THOSE THINGS WERE ELIMINATED, THEY DON'T EXIST. IT'S NOT THAT WE'VE SHOWN WHAT THEY CONSIST OF, THEY HAVE NO EXPLANATORY USE WHATSOEVER AND THEY SIMPLY HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. AND ONE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS OR OUR KNOWLEDGE OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND PHLOGISTON AND CALORIC FLUID, IS THOSE THINGS - WE THOUGHT THEY EXISTED BECAUSE THEY WERE INFERRED TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING. WE DON'T INFER CONSCIOUSNESS TO EXPLAIN. I MEAN, IT DOES EXPLAIN THINGS, BUT THAT IS NOT WHY WE KNOW THAT CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTS. WE KNOW IT EXISTS. IT'S SO INTIMATE AS DESCARTES SAID, "THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAN I KNOW, THEN MY OWN MIND." >TO REBECCA, NOTHING IS MORE REAL THAN CONSCIOUSNESS. IT CHARACTERIZES HER PHILOSOPHY AND ENRICHES HER NOVELS. BUT THEN, WHAT FOLLOWS? HOW TO MAKE PROGRESS. BECAUSE REAL IS ONE THING, EXPLANATION, QUITE ANOTHER. IN FACT, THE MORE CONSCIOUSNESS IS REAL, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT IS TO EXPLAIN. SO I TURN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. I SEEK A RARE PHILOSOPHER WHO BELIEVES THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SO REAL THAT IT'S A BUILDING BLOCK OF REALITY. IN OXFORD, I SPEAK WITH THE BRITISH PHILOSOPHER OF MIND, GALEN STRAWSON. GALEN, WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? IS IT AN ILLUSION? >>NO, IT'S NOT AN ILLUSION. AND IT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY NOT AN ILLUSION. IF THERE SEEMS TO BE EXPERIENCE OF VIOLINS AND GOLDEN SUNLIGHT, THAT JUST IS THE EXPERIENCE OF GOLDEN SUNLIGHT AND VIOLINS. THIS IS A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN'T OPEN UP THE IT SEEMS GAP. SO I CAN FRAME THE OBJECT I COULD SAY THAT "IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I'M SITTING IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT I MIGHT BE DREAMING, YOU MIGHT NOT REALLY BE THERE." BUT IF YOU TRY TO SAY, "IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I'M SEEING SOMEBODY THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE YOU." OR, "IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I'M IN FRONT OF A RED WALL." BUT EVEN THE SEEMING IS AN ILLUSION. THAT WOULD BE SAYING, "IT SEEMS TO SEEM - " BUT WHAT WOULD THAT BE LIKE? THAT WOULD BE THE SAME AS IT SEEMING. >YOU CAN NEVER GET RID OF IT. >>YOU CANNOT GET AWAY FROM THE SEEMING AND THE SEEMING JUST IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE MEAN BY CONSCIOUSNESS. >THE CLAIM IS THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT BRAIN SYSTEMS THAT ARE COMPETING TOGETHER, THAT HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER EXCEPT THAT WE BRING AN ARTIFICIAL UNITY. >>I DON'T MIND WHAT STORY I TELL ABOUT HOW IT'S PRODUCED IN THE BRAIN. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT IT'S EXTREMELY COMPLICATED. WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT THE END PRODUCT IS THERE. SO WHATEVER THE TRUE STORY AND TRUE NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL STORY ABOUT HOW IT IS CAUSED TO ARISE, THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE AN ARGUMENT FROM SAYING, LOOK IT ARISES IN THIS INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED WAY INTO GREATLY INDEPENDENT SYSTEMS, THEREFORE, IT'S NOT REALLY REAL. THERE IS JUST NO ARGUMENT THERE. WE KNOW THAT IT'S REAL. >SO HOW WOULD YOU THEN CLASSIFY CONSCIOUSNESS? >>I INVENTED THE VERB, WHICH IS CALLED TO LOOKINGGLASS - A WORD. SO A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE LOOKINGGLASSED THE WORD CONSCIOUSNESS, TO WHERE I DEFINE THAT AS, YOU USE IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT WHATEVER YOU MEAN BY IT, IT EXCLUDES WHAT THE WORD ACTUALLY MEANS. >WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF CONSCIOUSNESS? >>YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK - I THINK WE JUST DON'T NEED TO GET VERY COMPLICATED. WE JUST STAY WITH COLORS, SIGHTS, SOUNDS, TASTES AND SMELLS AND BODILY FEELINGS INCLUDING PAIN. THAT IS ENOUGH. IT'S ALL THOSE THINGS OF WHICH WE SAY AND THIS FAMOUS PHRASE, THERE IS SOMETHING IT'S LIKE - IT'S LIKE SUBJECTIVELY OR QUALITATIVELY OR EXPERIENTIALLY TO FEEL THEM. >HOW IMPORTANT IS CONSCIOUSNESS FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT REALITY IS ALL ABOUT? >>WELL, YOU ARE INCLINED TO GO ALL THE WAY. I WOULD SAY CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE MOST CERTAINLY KNOWN FACT. ALL OUR FUNDAMENTAL DATA IS A MATTER OF CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCES. SO ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL. FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT ALL OUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE IS JUST A MATTER OF BRAIN PROCESSES GOING ON. BUT I WISH I COULD BET A THOUSAND YEARS INTO THE FUTURE. I - BET THAT WE WILL NEVER EXPLAIN THAT. >SO STRONGLY DOES GALEN BELIEVE IN THE PROFOUND UNIQUENESS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, GOING ALL THE WAY WITH CONSCIOUSNESS, HE SAYS, THAT HE MAKES THE RADICAL MOVE TO PUT FEELING AT THE BOTTOM OF THINGS. SUCH THAT ALL MATTER HAS OR IS A KIND OF EXPERIENCE. THIS MEANS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS WOULD BE FUNDAMENTAL. IT WOULD NOT DEPEND ON ANYTHING ELSE. IT WOULD NOT EMERGE THROUGH EVOLUTION. CONSCIOUSNESS WOULD SIT AT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD. THAT A SERIOUS PHILOSOPHER DECIDES TO FLOUT SCIENCE AND BE INTELLECTUALLY PILLORIED, TESTIFIES TO THE EXTREME DEPTH OF MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESS. BUT CAN CONSCIOUSNESS BE EXPLORED BY SCIENCE WITHOUT MAKING RADICAL DEPARTURES FROM NORMAL KNOWLEDGE? STILL IN ENGLAND, I GO TO LONDON. I MEET THE TOUGH MINDED PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL AND NEW ATHEIST, PHILOSOPHER ANTHONY GRAYLING. >>THE FACT OF CONSCIOUSNESS SEEMS TO BE INDISPUTABLE. WE EXPERIENCE IT ALL THE TIME. WE ARE INHABITING THE CALL OF OUR OWN CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE. WE HAVE LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SELECTIVE, IT IS A VERY SMALL PART OF OUR MENTAL ACTIVITY, VERY SMALL COMPUTATION, IT'S NON-CONSCIOUS. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT TO FEEL THE PAIN, TO SEE A BEAUTIFUL ARRAY OF FLOWERS, THAT THE QUALIA ASPECT OF THINGS IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY VIVID, VERY REAL AND OF COURSE OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE TO US. IT'S ALSO THE CASE THAT WE KNOW TWO OTHER THINGS. THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE PRESENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN NON-HUMAN ANIMALS AS WELL. IN DOGS AND PRIMATES AND - SO WE CAN SURMISE THAT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE RICHNESS OR FULLNESS OF CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT IF YOU TAKE AN ICE PICK AND YOU DIG IT DEEP ENOUGH IN SOMEBODY'S HEAD, THAT CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE IS GOING TO BE RE-ARRANGED OR TERMINATED. AND ALL THE EVIDENCE SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE A FUNCTIONING BRAIN, HIGHER CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, YOU DON'T GET CONSCIOUSNESS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. CONSCIOUSNESS MAY VERY WELL NOT BE ONE SINGLE THING. IT MAY NOT BE ONE COORDINATING CENTRAL CONSCIOUSNESS, IT MAY BE A MULTIPLE PHENOMENA. IT MAY BE DIFFERENT LEVELS AND KINDS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. BUT THE FACT OF IT IS INDISPUTABLE AND ITS IMPORTANCE IS SUPREME. >SO THE QUESTION COMES UP, IS - CAN YOU TAKE THE CATEGORY OF NERVE IMPULSES WITH THAT FEELING OF THE INTERNAL EXPERIENCE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO SEE A SUNSET OR HEAR A SYMPHONY? ARE THOSE CATEGORIES SO DISTINCT THAT IT PUTS A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE TO MAKE THE CORRELATION INTO CAUSE OR SOME WOULD THINK, INTO IDENTITY. TO WHERE THOSE NEURAL EVENTS LITERALLY ARE THOSE QUALITY OF THOSE INTERNAL EXPERIENCES. >>I THINK THE POWERFULLY JUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION IS THAT THOSE TWO APPARENTLY VERY DIFFERENT KINDS OF PHENOMENA ARE IN SOME SENSE THE SAME THING OR IN SOME SENSE CAUSALLY RELATED. AND SO THE GOAL HAS TO BE TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT EXPLANATION IS THAT WE CAN GIVE OF THAT. ANY INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT OF A MOTORCAR CAN'T BE DRIVEN FROM CHICAGO TO NEW YORK, BUT PUT THEM TOGETHER IN THE RIGHT WAY AND THEN YOU CAN. THIS IS AN APPEAL TO THE IDEA OF EMERGENT PROPERTIES. CONSCIOUSNESS MAY BE A PROPERTY OR A SET OF PROPERTIES THAT ARISE FROM THE RIGHT CONFIGURATION AND INTERACTION OF ELEMENTS IN OUR BRAINS >TO ANTHONY, CONSCIOUSNESS MUST BE EXPLAINED ENTIRELY BY PHYSICAL BRAIN. BRAIN AND MIND MUST BE, IN SOME SENSE, THE SAME THING. IDENTICAL. OR AT LEAST CAUSALLY CONNECTED. NO OTHER OPTIONS CAN HE CONSIDER. I RESPECT ANTHONY'S PHYSICALIST VIEWS, WHICH FIX THE FACTS OF BRAIN SCIENCE. BUT I REMAIN SUSPICIOUS THAT SOMETHING BIG IS MISSING. CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE AND BRAIN ELECTRICITY SEEMS SO SUPREMELY DISTINCT, I WOULD BE DUMBFOUNDED IF THEY WERE IDENTICAL. THAT'S WHY, STILL IN LONDON, I SEEK OUT THE POLYMATH PHILOSOPHER ESSAYIST, HUMANIST AND RETIRED DOCTOR, RAYMOND TALLIS. I HAVE READ RAY FOR YEARS. I'M TAKEN BY HIS SURPRISE REJECTION OF MATERIALISM AND BRAIN MIND IDENTITY AND HIS FEARLESS INSISTENCE ON HUMAN UNIQUENESS. ALL WITHIN HIS ATHEISTIC WORLD VIEW. >RAY, LET'S START AT BASICS, WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? >>THAT'S NOT AS BASIC AS IT SOUNDS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR THE GROUND FOR CONSCIOUSNESS. QUALIA. THESE ARE SENSATIONS, FEELINGS. FEELINGS OF WARMTH, FEELINGS OF COLD, SENSE OF BRIGHTNESS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THIS IS THE GROUND FOR CONSCIOUSNESS THAT MANY PHILOSOPHERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS TRY TO IGNORE OR TO ELIMINATE, BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST DIFFICULT PART OF CONSCIOUSNESS, ACTUALLY, TO ASSIMILATE INTO A MATERIALIST WORLD PICTURE. INTO THE IDEA THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS DUE TO BRAIN ACTIVITY. >NOW SOME PHILOSOPHERS WILL ELIMINATE THAT BY CLAIMING THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ILLUSION. >>CONSCIOUSNESS CAN'T BE AN ILLUSION OF COURSE, BECAUSE TO HAVE THE ILLUSION OF BEING CONSCIOUS, IS BEING CONSCIOUS. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST A VARIANT, BASICALLY OF DESCARTES' COGNITIVE ARGUMENT. BUT THE THINGS THAT THEY TEND TO REGARD AS A ILLUSORY, ARE GROUND FLOOR BITS OF CONSCIOUSNESS LIKE QUALIA OR EVEN ITEMS SUCH AS BELIEFS AND THOUGHTS AND SO ON. THEY THINK THAT THESE ITEMS BELONG TO A FOLK PSYCHOLOGY THAT A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS WILL EVENTUALLY DO WITHOUT. BUT THEIR ATTEMPTS TO GET RID OF THESE THINGS SEEMS TO ME, HAVE PROVED ENTIRELY UNSATISFACTORY. >WHY DO SO MANY FIRST GRADE PHILOSOPHERS THAN BELIEVE THAT? >>I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL AND VERY COMMON ERROR OF CONFUSING METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS WITH AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT IS THERE. IF YOU CAN'T MEASURE SOMETHING OR IF YOU CAN'T SUBJECT IT TO SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, SO THEY FEEL, THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY EXIST. BUT THAT OF COURSE IS NONSENSE. TO ARGUE THAT SOMETHING THAT FUNDAMENTALIST. THE FEELING OF WARMTH THAT I'M HAVING NOW, DOESN'T EXIST, IS A PRETTY DESPERATE REMEDY TO TRY AND INCLUDE ALL OF CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN THE METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC PSYCHOLOGY. >THE FOCUS OF THE ILLUSION IS THE "I" THAT SENSES THAT. THAT IS THE ILLUSION. >>IT IS INTERESTING THAT THOSE WHO TRY TO DISPOSE OF THE "I", ARE QUITE REMARKABLE EGOS THEMSELVES, BUT EVEN RATHER NON-EGOCENTRIC CHARACTERS LIKE DAVID HUME, RUN INTO A LOT OF TROUBLE WHEN THEY TRY TO DISPOSE OF THE "I". WHEN YOU THINK OF THE FAMOUS PASSAGE IN HIS TREATUS US ON HUMAN NATURE, HE SAYS, WHEN I LOOK INTO THE FLOW OF MY CONSCIOUSNESS, I SEE A SUCCESSION OF PERCEPTIONS, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING CORRESPONDING TO I. THAT SENTENCE HAS GOT AT LEAST THREE INSTANCES OF "I" IN IT. SO CLEARLY THE "I" THAT IS DAVID HUME IS A REAL THING, BUT THIS "I" THAT I AM, IS AN ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL INTUITION. IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS REDUCIBLE TO ANYTHING ELSE. THAT I AM, OR THAT I AM THIS, THIS PERSON TALKING, THIS BODY FROM WHICH I AM TALKING - IS SOMETHING THAT I CANNOT WITHOUT SELF REFUTATION, DENY. >CONSCIOUSNESS SEEMS TO EXIST BEYOND THE MATERIAL WORLD, THE LESS THIS IS TRUE, THE EASIER TO EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS IN PURELY PHYSICAL TERMS. MAYBE OUR NON-MATERIAL SENSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ILLUSION. A RANDOM ACCIDENT SELECTED FOR BY SURVIVAL SEEKING EVOLUTION. IF SO, A LAST BASTION OF SUPERNATURALISM WOULD FALL, IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS ALL PHYSICAL, THEN THE MATERIAL WORLD IS LIKELY ALL THAT EXISTS. ULTIMATELY, CONSCIOUSNESS MAY BE EXPLAINED BY BRAIN ACTIVITY ALONE. BUT IF NOT, THERE WOULD REMAIN ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES. ONE - CONSCIOUSNESS EXCEEDS THE LIMITS OF HUMAN INQUIRY. OUR BRAINS EVOLVED TO ESCAPE WILD ANIMALS, NOT TO COMPREHEND CONSCIOUSNESS. TWO - CONSCIOUSNESS BREAKS THE BOUNDARIES OF PHYSICAL LAWS. THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS THAT GOES BEYOND TODAY'S PHYSICS. HERE I AM AN EXTREMIST. I THINK THAT ONLY THE POLAR OPPOSITE POSITIONS MAKE SENSE. EITHER OUR NON-MATERIAL SENSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS IN AN ILLUSION, OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS A GLIMPSE OF NON-PHYSICAL REALITY. FOR ME, THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. TO COMPROMISE ON CONSCIOUSNESS, IS NOT CLOSER TO TRUTH.
