PICK ONE WORD TO
CHARACTERIZE HUMAN EXISTENCE? I DO NOT HESITATE. CONSCIOUSNESS! THE INNER SENSE OF
AWARENESS - SIGHTS, SOUNDS, THOUGHTS, FEELINGS. THE INTIMATE PRESENCE OF
SELF-AWARENESS - AWARE OF YOURSELF BEING YOURSELF. THAT'S THE "HARD PROBLEM"
OF CONSCIOUSNESS - INTERNAL SENTIENCE - OUR INNER
MOVIE - THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER OF HUMAN EXPLORATION. I MARVEL AT ALL THE DIVERSE
WAYS IN WHICH CONSCIOUSNESS CAN BE EXAMINED. I KNOW CONSCIOUSNESS
CARRIES GREAT IMPORT. HERE'S WHAT I DO NOT
KNOW: WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. HOW TO EXPLORE CONSCIOUSNESS? USUALLY, PHILOSOPHERS TALK TO
PHILOSOPHERS, BRAIN SCIENTISTS TO BRAIN SCIENTISTS. LOTS OF INTERESTING
IDEAS, BUT NO BREAKTHROUGHS. CAN WE ENLARGE THE DISCOURSE? VIEW CONSCIOUSNESS - INCLUDING
THE "HARD PROBLEM" OF INNER EXPERIENCE - THROUGH
DIFFERENT CONCEPTUAL FILTERS? BREAK BOUNDARIES? EMANCIPATE OUR THINKING? HOW TO START CLEAN WITH MINIMUM
INTELLECTUAL BIAS OR BAGGAGE? DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS - LAY
OUT THE ISSUES - GO FROM THERE. I GO TO CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, TO
MEET A PHILOSOPHER KNOWN FOR HIS TOUGH-MINDED REALISM. FORMER EDITOR OF THE PRESTIGIOUS
JOURNAL MIND, SIMON BLACKBURN. SIMON, I'VE BEEN OBSESSED WITH
CONSCIOUSNESS MY WHOLE LIFE. I DID A DOCTORATE
IN NEUROPHYSIOLOGY. HOW DO YOU
DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS? WHAT'S YOUR UNIQUE
APPROACH TO CONSCIOUSNESS? PROBABLY, I WOULDN'T TRY
AND APPROACH IT BY DEFINITION. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO
BE JUST A CAN OF WORMS. I'M NOT SURPRISED
THAT YOUR LIFE AS A NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST DIDN'T HELP. LEIBNIZ SAID THAT IF WE
COULD BLOW THE BRAIN UP TO THE SIZE OF A MILL AND
WALK AROUND INSIDE IT, WE STILL WOULDN'T
FIND CONSCIOUSNESS. I MEAN, WE'RE CONSCIOUS OF
THINGS AND OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE WORLD WE DESCRIBE IN
TERMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. I THINK THAT THE HARD PROBLEM
AS IT'S SOMETIMES CALLED ISN'T ACTUALLY WHAT FOR EXAMPLE DAVID
CHALMERS CALLS THE HARD PROBLEM. PEOPLE THINK THE HARD PROBLEM
IS "GOSH THERE'S A BIT THAT PHYSICS MISSES OUT. THERE IS THE PURPLE
HAZE INSIDE US'" SMELL OF CHEESE. THE SMELL OF CHEESE, THE SIGHT
OF THE DAFFODILS AND SO ON. AND SCIENCE DOESN'T FIND THAT. SCIENCE CAN RUMMAGE AROUND IN
THE BRAIN BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO FIND THE SMELL OF CHEESE OR
THE SIGHT OF THE DAFFODILS. AND THAT'S SUPPOSED TO
GENERATE A HARD PROBLEM. NOW I THINK THE REALLY HARD
PROBLEM IS TRYING TO CONVINCE OURSELVES THAT THERE IS NO
HARD PROBLEM - THAT THIS IS, AS IT WERE, AN ARTIFACT
OF A BAD WAY OF THINKING. I THINK THE PHILOSOPHER WHO DID
THE MOST TO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF THAT WAS LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN,
A GREAT AUSTRIAN PHILOSOPHER WHO WORKED IN CAMBRIDGE. AND THE CENTRAL EXHIBIT IN HIS
ARMORY WAS A THING CALLED THE PRIVATE LANGUAGE ARGUMENT. YOU'VE GOT THIS EPISTEMOLOGICAL
PROBLEM: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS
IN THE SAME WAY AS YOU, BUT AT LEAST YOU THINK
THAT YOU YOURSELF ARE TRANSPARENT TO YOURSELF. YOU KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE FOR YOU. WITTGENSTEIN ASKED WHETHER THAT
WAS JUSTIFIABLE AND SAYING, WELL, WHAT ABOUT YOUR OWN PAST? MAYBE YOU ARE CERTAIN YOU ARE
CONSCIOUS NOW, BUT WHY ARE YOU SO CERTAIN YOU WERE
CONSCIOUS TEN MINUTES AGO? AND YOU SAY WELL I CAN REMEMBER
IT, BUT THAT'S JUST ANOTHER ASPECT OF YOUR
PRESENT CONSCIOUSNESS. WHY SHOULD WE SUPPOSE
THAT THAT MEMORY IS VERIDICAL? WHY SHOULD WE SUPPOSE THAT
REMEMBER THINGS AS THEY WERE? IF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS AS IT
WERE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF ANYTHING ELSE, IT'S YOUR OWN
PRIVATE POSSESSION - THERE IS NO REASON TO BE CERTAIN OF IT. WHY SHOULD YOU SUPPOSE THAT THIS
IS THAT YOU'VE GOT AN ADEQUATE CONCEPTION OF HOW THE
WORLD APPEARED TO YOU FIVE MINUTES AGO? AND WITTGENSTEIN DRAWS
THE CONCLUSION THEREFORE CONSCIOUSNESS ISN'T THIS GASEOUS
INTERNAL THING WHICH SOMEHOW YOU'VE GOT PRIVILEGED ACCESS
TO, BUT WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC FOR EVERYONE ELSE. IT'S JUST AS
PROBLEMATIC FOR YOUR OWN PAST. AND ONCE YOU'VE SEEN THAT I
THINK YOU MIGHT BE JERKED INTO A SLIGHTLY MORE REALISTIC WAY OF
THINKING ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A
BEHAVIORIST ANALYSIS. I THINK BEHAVIOR
RULES THE ROOST HERE. BUT WE'VE GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL
ABOUT HOW WE THINK OF IT. WE KNOW ABOUT OURSELVES
IN RATHER SPECIAL WAYS. YOU KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE
ENJOYING SOMETHING AND YOU KNOW YOU CAN CONCEAL IT, MAYBE
NOT VERY SUCCESSFULLY OR WHOLLY SUCCESSFULLY AND SO, OUR MENTAL
LIVES, OUR COGNITIVE LIVES, DUE TO SOME EXTENT
FLOAT FREE OF BEHAVIOR. SUPPOSING FOR EXAMPLE YOU
ARE ENJOYING YOURSELF BUT IT'S IMPORTANT SOCIALLY
TO CONCEAL THAT FACT. YOU WOULD BE DISPOSED TO
SNIGGER OR LAUGH OR WHATEVER IT IS PERHAPS AT SOMEBODY'S
MISFORTUNE OR SOMETHING, BUT YOU MAINTAIN
A STRAIGHT FACE. SO YOUR BEHAVIOR DOESN'T
EXPRESS WHAT YOU ACTUALLY FEEL. YOUR FEELING THOUGH MIGHT BE
NOTHING MORE THAN A DISPOSITION - HERE A DISPOSITION WHICH YOU
SUCCESSFULLY MASKED TO LAUGH OR TO SNIGGER OR TO TAKE
PLEASURE IN SOMETHING FORBIDDEN OR SOMETHING YOU
SHOULDN'T BE TAKING PLEASURE IN. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY CONCEAL
OUR BEHAVIORS BUT WE HAVE THE DISPOSITION TO BEHAVE. IN THAT CASE A MORE
SOPHISTICATED KIND OF BEHAVIORISM, SOMETIMES CALLED
FUNCTIONALISM OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO FREE US I THINK FROM THE
IDEA OF THE PRIVATE EXEMPLAR OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS ONLY
PROBLEMATICALLY THERE IN OTHER PEOPLE, PROBLEMATICALLY
THERE IN CHAIRS AND TABLES FOR ALL WE KNOW. I THINK THAT KIND OF
HARD PROBLEM YOU'VE GOT TO GET RID OF. AS I SAY THE HARD PROBLEM IS
GETTING RID OF THE HARD PROBLEM. I THOUGHT I HAD
ONE "HARD PROBLEM" OF CONSCIOUSNESS -
INNER EXPERIENCE. SIMON PROVIDES ANOTHER:
WE CAN'T BE SURE THAT OTHER MINDS ARE CONSCIOUS. WHAT'S MORE, HE SAYS, WE CAN'T
EVEN BE SURE THAT ONE MINUTE AGO, WE OURSELVES
WERE CONSCIOUS! MUST WE BECOME
SKEPTICS ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS? RESIGNED TO NOT KNOWING
ANYTHING ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS? IS THIS REALITY? OR IS THIS 'PHILOSOPHY'
MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE? I SHOULD LOOK BEYOND PHILOSOPHY. HOW TO GET AT THE
SUBSTRATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS? I GO TO THE BRAIN AND
THE SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY IT. I GO TO OXFORD, I VISIT THE
BRITISH NEUROSCIENTIST AND WRITER, SUSAN GREENFIELD. SUSAN, WHAT IS IT ABOUT
CONSCIOUSNESS THAT DRIVES PHILOSOPHERS,
SCIENTISTS ABSOLUTELY CRAZY? I THINK THAT ANY ACADEMIC,
WHETHER THEY'RE A SCIENTIST, WHETHER THEY'RE PHILOSOPHERS,
YOU ALWAYS START OFF BY DEFINING YOUR TERMS, AND AS SOON AS YOU
DO THAT THEN YOU RUN INTO THE PROBLEM BECAUSE HOW DO
YOU DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS? WE DEFINE FLYING, FOR
EXAMPLE, AS DEFYING GRAVITY. OR, YOU COULD HAVE REFERRAL TO
WHAT WE'D CALL A HIGHER SET; YOU COULD SAY A TABLE IS A PIECE OF
FURNITURE; LOVE IS AN EMOTION. NOW LET'S TRY
EITHER OF THOSE TWO STRATEGIES WITH CONSCIOUSNESS. CONSCIOUSNESS IS
WHEN YOU DO WHAT? YOU CAN BE SITTING PERFECTLY
STILL, NOT DOING ANYTHING, NOT SAYING ANYTHING, YET
YOU CAN STILL BE CONSCIOUS. SO THAT OPERATIONAL
DEFINITION DOESN'T WORK. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER STRATEGY? CONSCIOUS IS A WHAT? WHAT'S HIGHER THAN THAT? NOW SOMEONE COULD GET OUT OF IT
AND SAY IT'S A PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN, BUT THAT'S WHAT
SOMEONE ONCE CALLED AN ANESTHETIC EXPLANATION,
IT'S NOT AN EXPLANATION AT ALL. WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO IS TO
BE VERY PICKY AND ONCE WE CAN'T SAY WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS,
WE CAN CERTAINLY SAY WHAT IT IS NOT. SO WHAT WE HAVE
TO DO IS DISTINGUISH CONSCIOUSNESS
FROM UNCONSCIOUSNESS. SO, CONSCIOUSNESS CAN BE DEFINED
AS WHAT YOU LOSE WHEN YOU GO TO SLEEP, LET'S SAY, OR PERHAPS
A LITTLE BIT MORE FORMALLY YOU COULD SAY IT'S THE INNER
SUBJECTIVE STATE THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN HACK INTO. SO, LET'S THEN GET
TO THE CORE, WHICH IS THIS INNER SUBJECTIVITY. AND THAT INNER SUBJECTIVITY
CAN BE EXPRESSED WITH LOTS OF DIFFERENT CONTENT. SO, THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
IS, IS CONSCIOUSNESS JUST THE ABSOLUTE SUM OF WHATEVER
THE CONTENT IS AT THE MOMENT? OR IS THERE SOMETHING ADDITIONAL
IN CONSCIOUSNESS THAT WE ARE UNAWARE OF TO MAKE
THE INNER SUBJECTIVITY? YEAH, OKAY - - YOU CAN'T GET AWAY
FROM THIS QUESTION. IT IS THE SUBJECTIVITY
THAT REALLY IS THE NUB OF THE PROBLEM, BECAUSE I THINK
THAT'S WHERE SCIENCE FLOUNDERS. SCIENCE IS ALL
ABOUT MEASURING THINGS, IT'S ALL ABOUT QUANTIFICATION. NOW TAKE CONSCIOUSNESS. WE'VE JUST SAID IT'S
QUINTESSENTIALLY SUBJECTIVE AND WHAT IS THERE TO QUANTIFY? SO LET'S JUST PUT IT BACK SQUARE
ON, BECAUSE CLEARLY IT DOES POSIT THAT THERE'S SOME LITTLE
MAN OR LITTLE WOMAN INSIDE YOUR HEAD, SOME FACT CONTROLLER AND
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S CRAZY, AND THE QUESTION I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU
BACK, IF I SAID TO YOU NOW, "RIGHT, GUESS WHAT? IT'S YOUR LUCKY DAY, TODAY
I WOKE UP AND I'VE DISCOVERED HOW THE BRAIN
GENERATES CONSCIOUSNESS. AND I NOW KNOW HOW IT HAPPENS." WHAT WOULD YOU
EXPECT ME TO SHOW YOU? WOULD YOU EXPECT TO SEE
A BRAIN SCAN, A FORMULA? WOULD YOU EXPECT YOU
TO SUDDENLY FEEL LIKE ME? UNTIL WE CAN EVEN ARTICULATE
WHAT KIND OF ANSWER, HOW CAN WE DELIVER IT? NOW, MY OWN VIEW WITH THE
SUBJECTIVITY IS THERE'S TWO FALLACIES THAT I THINK WE RUN UP
AGAINST: THE THING FALLACY AND THE READOUT FALLACY. THE READOUT FALLACY IS
SIMPLY, WHAT DOES IT READOUT TO? THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE BRAIN. AND SO WHEN PEOPLE ENCODING,
IMPLIES THAT THE CODE IS DECODED BACK, THAT'S A FALLACY BECAUSE
A CODE IS SOMETHING THAT'S TRANSLATED BACK AGAIN;
WHAT'S IT TRANSLATED BACK TO? SO NOTHING IS ENCODED. THE WORD IS WRONG TO USE, YEAH? THE OTHER IS THE THING. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE GOT
CONSCIOUSNESS THEY REIFY CONSCIOUSNESS AS THOUGH IT'S
SOMETHING YOU CAN HOLD AND DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, WHEN REALLY
IT'S A PROCESS; IT'S NOT A NOUN. IT'S SOMETHING, IT'S A VERB, IF
YOU LIKE, IT'S BEING CONSCIOUS. AND I THINK THIS IS
THE OTHER PROBLEM. SO CLEARLY, AS A SCIENTIST,
ONE'S FACED WITH THIS REAL PROBLEM OF HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH
SOMETHING, WHICH IS AN ANATHEMA TO OUR TRADE, YOU KNOW,
IT'S JUST SUBJECTIVE AND WHICH YOU CAN'T MEASURE. TO MAKE PROGRESS ON
CONSCIOUSNESS, SUSAN SAYS, FIRST WE NEED A CLEAR
DEFINITION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. FOLLOWED BY SPECIFIC INSTANCES
OR EXPRESSIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. WHAT WOULD THEN FOLLOW? BRAIN ACTIVITIES THAT
CORRELATE WITH CONSCIOUSNESS. I GO TO PASADENA, CALIFORNIA,
TO CALTECH, TO MEET THE NEUROSCIENTIST WHO HAS
PIONEERED THE SEARCH FOR "NEURAL CORRELATES OF
CONSCIOUSNESS," CHRISTOF KOCH. CHRISTOF, I WOULD HAVE NEVER
IMAGINED THAT A PROFESSOR AT CAL TECH WOULD BE
WORKING ON CONSCIOUSNESS. CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE
CENTRAL ASPECT OF MY LIFE. AS RENE DESCARTES IN THE MOST
FAMOUS DEDUCTION OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY SAID
ESSENTIALLY MODERN LANGUAGE. I AM CONSCIOUS THEREFORE I AM. SO I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE
SUBJECT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. IF WE REALLY WANT TO HAVE
A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE WE HAVE TO
ACCOUNT FOR CONSCIOUSNESS, GIVEN ITS CENTRAL ASPECTS. AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT
OF PROGRESS OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES. FRANCES CRICK, THE
CO-DISCOVERER OF DNA AND WITH WHOM I
WORKED FOR 15 YEARS. HE WAS A PROFOUNDLY INTERESTED
IN CONSCIOUSNESS AND WE MADE A PREDICTION. SO A CORTEX IS A SHEET OF
NEURONS AT THE TOP OF OUR BRAIN. IT'S REALLY ESSENTIALLY FOR OUR
LANGUAGE AND INTELLIGENCE AND PERCEPTION AND CONSCIOUSNESS
IS DIVIDED INTO MANY DIFFERENT REGIONS, PERHAPS AT LEAST A
HUNDRED DIFFERENT REGIONS. THE BEST UNDERSTOOD ONE IS THE
ONE AT THE BACK OF THE BRAIN. IT'S CALLED
PRIMARY VISUAL CORTEX. IT'S A TERMIOUS
FOR THE OPTIC NERVE. SO ESSENTIALLY THE VISUAL
INFORMATION LEAVES THE EYES AND THROUGH A RELAY STATION
THE THALAMUS GOES TO THE BACK OF THE HEAD. AND IT'S CLEARLY INVOLVED IN
VISUAL PERCEPTION AND I CAN STICK YOU IN A MAGNET AND WHEN
YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THIS PART OF THE BRAIN LIGHTS UP. BUT NOW YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE NEURONS
IN THIS PART OF THE BRAIN ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
GENERATING VISUAL CONSCIOUSNESS. AND WE HYPOTHESIZED AT THE TIME,
16 YEARS AGO THAT THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
GENERATING CONSCIOUSNESS. SO IT TURNS OUT THAT THE
EVIDENCE SEEMS TO BE IN FAVOR OF THAT WHETHER IT'S FOR
THE REASONS WE ADVOCATED, WE DON'T KNOW, BUT YOU CAN
NOW DO BEAUTIFUL EXPERIMENTS. WHAT YOU CAN DO, YOU
CAN PUT PEOPLE IN A MAGNET. AND IT'S SORT OF A
COMPLICATED EXPERIMENT. WHERE THE PERSON IS LOOKING AT
SOMETHING, BUT SOMETIMES THE PERSON IS SEEING IT AND
SOMETIMES IT'S NOT SEEING IT AND WHAT YOU CAN SHOW THAT WHETHER
OR NOT YOU ATTEND TO SOMETHING MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE
TO THE NEURONS IN PRIMARY VISUAL CORTEX. BUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU
CONSCIOUSLY SEE IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE SIGNAL
IN PRIMARY VISUAL CORTEX. IN OTHER WORDS, YES, PRIMARY
VISUAL CORTEX IS INVOLVED IN PROCESSING AND TAKING IN THE
VISUAL INFORMATION AND IF YOU ATTEND OR NOT ATTEND MAKES A
DIFFERENCE TO THE NEURONS THERE. BUT WHETHER YOU ARE CONSCIOUS OR
NOT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE JOB OF NEURONS IN
PRIMARY VISUAL CORTEX. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CONSCIOUS
EXPERIENCE I HAVE WHEN I SEE YOU OR WHEN I SEE THE RED
OF THIS TABLE, THAT SEEMS TO BE GENERATED IN A DIFFERENT
PART OF THE OF CORTEX. SO IT SEEMS THEN THAT
CONSCIOUSNESS IS GENERATED ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE BRAIN? WE DON'T KNOW HOW SMALL. I MEAN, IT MAY TURN OUT TO BE
THAT THE TOTAL PART OF THE BRAIN THAT'S INVOLVED MAY BE LARGE. IT MAY BE AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN
TIME A SMALL NUMBER OF NEURONS. THE GENERAL POINT IS NOT ALL
PART OF YOUR BRAIN ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT FOR CONSCIOUSNESS. SOME PART OF THE BRAIN
HAVE A MUCH MORE PRIVILEGED RELATIONSHIP WITH
CONSCIOUSNESS THAN OTHERS. AND B, THAT YOU CAN MAKE
GENUINE CONSCIOUS PROGRESS ON THESE ANCIENT QUESTIONS. YOU'RE NOT CONDEMNED FOR, YOU
KNOW, FOREVER TO SIT AROUND AND DO YOUR ARM CHAIR - - PHILOSOPHY. PHILOSOPHY, CORRECT... WE ARE LEARNING WHAT IN
THE BRAIN IS NECESSARY FOR CONSCIOUSNESS - BECAUSE
WITHOUT THIS BRAIN ACTIVITY, CONSCIOUSNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE. BUT IS THIS BRAIN ACTIVITY
SUFFICIENT FOR CONSCIOUSNESS? MEANING THAT THIS BRAIN
ACTIVITY, BY ITSELF, IS, OR CAN GENERATE, CONSCIOUSNESS. I REMAIN WITH THE QUESTION
THAT HAUNTS ME: WHETHER IT'S CHRISTOF'S "BRAIN CIRCUITS" OR
SOME OTHER NEURAL MECHANISM, CAN CONSCIOUSNESS BE EXPLAINED
BY BRAIN FUNCTION ALONE? AM I REASONING IN A CIRCLE? TRYING TO EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS
BY THE BRAIN AND ANSWERING THE "WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?" QUESTION BY BRAIN ACTIVITY? HOW ELSE TO
TACKLE CONSCIOUSNESS? WHAT ABOUT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS? WHAT CAN WE LEARN
FROM THE EMERGENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN CHILDREN? I GO BACK TO OXFORD, TO MEET
A DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST FROM THE UNIVERSITY
OF BRISTOL, BRUCE HOOD. BRUCE, YOU TALK TO CHILDREN,
YOU DO RESEARCH ON CHILDREN. WHAT CAN WE LEARN ABOUT
CONSCIOUSNESS FROM CHILDREN? WE TALK ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS
USUALLY AS ADULTS AND WE MAKE THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT CHILDREN
ARE JUST LITTLE ADULTS BUT THAT'S NEVER REALLY BEEN TRUE. I THINK IN THE WORK I DO WE TRY
TO LOOK AT THE EMERGING MIND. BUT OBVIOUSLY CONSCIOUSNESS IS
PART OF THE MIND AND THEN THAT'S WHAT WE ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH. SO, THERE ARE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF CONSCIOUSNESS. THERE'S A CONSCIOUSNESS
IN THE MOMENT. OKAY, THAT'S THE EXPERIENCE
YOU'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW AS YOU'RE LISTENING TO ME. IT'S FRAGMENTARY AND ONLY LASTS
FOR A COUPLE OF SECONDS AND THEN IT FADES, OKAY. UNLESS YOU REALLY ACTIVELY TRY
TO REHEARSE IT IN YOUR MIND AND THEN IT BECOMES A MEMORY. BUT IF I ASKED YOU TO REFLECT
UPON THINGS AND BRING INTO CONSCIOUSNESS EXPERIENCES,
THEN THAT'S DRAWING UPON YOUR PERSONAL HISTORY. NOW, I DON'T REALLY THINK
IT'S PLAUSIBLE THAT A VERY YOUNG INFANT CAN HAVE MUCH
OF A PERSONAL HISTORY. THAT MUST BE AN
EMERGING PROPERTY. IN FACT, VERY FEW CHILDREN
HAVE ANY MEMORY BEFORE THEIR SECOND BIRTHDAY. BUT FROM ABOUT 3 YEARS ONWARDS,
THEN YOU'VE GOT MORE LITTLE BITS OF SCRIPT ABOUT THINGS
THAT HAPPENED AND EVENTS. I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE
A SENSE OF A SELF, OKAY? I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE A SENSE
OF WHO YOU ARE AS A PROTAGONIST, AS A CHARACTER, IN ORDER TO
WEAVE TOGETHER ALL THESE EVENTS INTO A MEANINGFUL STORY. YOU MAKE THE CLAIM THAT EVEN
INFANTS CAN HAVE SENSATIONS. THIS FIRST ELEMENT OF
SO CALLED CONSCIOUSNESS. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? WELL IN THE WAY
THAT THEY RESPOND. WE CAN DO EXPERIMENTS TO
SEE WHETHER THEY HABITUATE. THAT'S THIS BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE
SAY IF YOU ARE EXPOSED TO A STIMULUS, YOU INITIALLY SHOW
THIS ALERTING REACTION TO IT. BUT IF YOU REPEAT THE EXPOSURE
THEN YOUR BEHAVIOR EVENTUALLY JUST SORT OF FLATTENS OUT. SO THIS IS A WAY THAT
YOU'RE ACTUALLY LEARNING THINGS. BUT THIS NOTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS
OF WHO AM I, WHERE AM I GOING WHAT DO I DO - THESE ARE
OBVIOUSLY MUCH MORE ELABORATED SORT OF NOTIONS OF SELF AND
IDENTITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. BUT MOST PEOPLE WHEN THEY TALK
ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS, IT'S ALWAYS AS AN ADULT IN IT'S FULLY
FORMED WAY AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS HAPPENS,
BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT IT MAYBE AS YOU HAVE DONE AND
DEVELOPMENTALLY AND YOU SEE THESE PIECES COMING TOGETHER,
MAYBE IT'S LESS MYSTERIOUS. THAT'S RIGHT. AND OF COURSE THE WAY THAT
YOU INTERPRET THINGS OF COURSE DEPENDS ON THE WAY
THAT YOU SEE THE WORLD. NOW A CHILD OF 2 OR 3 YEARS
OF AGE TYPICALLY HAS A VERY EGOCENTRIC VIEW OF THE WORLD. THEY DON'T HAVE A VERY
ELABORATE NOTION OF OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSPECTIVES SO IF I
WAS TO ASK YOU TO TELL ME ABOUT AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED, YOU SAY,
WELL I DID THIS, THEY DID THAT. I THOUGHT THIS
AND SHE THOUGHT THAT. SO YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A VERY
ELABORATED KIND OF SOPHISTICATED NOTION OF OTHER
PEOPLE'S STATES OF MIND. SO IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE ALL THAT
MACHINERY IN PLACE THE WAY THAT YOU CONCEIVE THE WORLD
WOULD INFLUENCE THE WAY OF WHAT YOU REMEMBERED. SO IT MUST BE CHANGING BECAUSE
WE KNOW THAT CHILDREN DON'T PERCEIVE THE WORLD IN
THE SAME WAY AS ADULTS. WHAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF A
DESCRIPTION OF AN EVENT IN ONE AGE AND ANOTHER AGE AND
YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? THERE IS A PHENOMENON
CALLED THEORY OF MIND. YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE THE CASE
THAT IF YOU LACK A THEORY OF MIND, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE
THE CAPABILITY TO TAKE ANOTHER PERSON'S PERSPECTIVE,
THEIR MENTAL PERSPECTIVE. ANYONE WHO'S EVER TALKED TO A
2 OR 2 AND A HALF YEAR OLD THEY HAVE THIS KIND OF VERY
EGOCENTRIC VIEW OF THE WORLD. NOW AROUND ABOUT 3 TO 4 YEARS
OF AGE THERE IS THIS VERY MARKED TRANSITION WHERE CHILDREN START
TO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT MENTAL STATES. THEY ACQUIRE
THIS THEORY OF MIND. NOW WITH THAT KIND OF SUDDEN
TRANSITION YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE THINKING. THAT THEY MAY
HAVE A FALSE BELIEF. THEY MAY THINK SOMETHING IS
TRUE BUT YOU KNOW IT'S NOT. AND THEN OF COURSE IF YOU CAN
READ SOMEONE ELSE'S MIND, THEORY OF MIND, THEN YOU CAN MANIPULATE
THEM AND YOU CAN ANTICIPATE WHAT THEY MIGHT DO NEXT. THE MORE YOU UNDERSTAND
THE WORLD AROUND YOU, THE MORE INFORMATION YOU'VE GOT TO
ORGANIZE IT INTO MEANINGFUL STORIES AND MEANINGFUL
PATTERNS AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS. CHILDREN ARE LITTLE LABS
OF BUDDING CONSCIOUSNESS. IT'S REMARKABLE TO SEE 3
AND 4 YEAR OLDS DEVELOP THIS "THEORY OF MIND" -
RECOGNIZE OTHER MENTAL STATES - TAKE ANOTHER
PERSON'S PERSPECTIVE. ADULTS, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE MORE
MENTAL ELEMENTS WITH WHICH TO MAKE A MIND. BUT ARE THESE ELEMENTS OF
CONSCIOUSNESS SPECIFICALLY? OR OF COGNITION GENERALLY? COGNITION IS THE FULL SPECTRUM
OF MENTAL FACULTIES - WHEREAS CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE SUBJECTIVE
EXPERIENCE OF 'WATCHING' OUR INNER MENTAL MOVIE
WITH OUR MIND'S INSIDE EYE. BUT IS CONSCIOUSNESS
WHOLLY SOLITARY? CAN CONSCIOUSNESS
GO BEYOND THE SELF? CAN CONSCIOUSNESS BE
ROOTED IN SOCIAL INTERACTIONS? I GO TO TALLAHASSEE,
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, TO MEET SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGIST,
ROY BAUMEISTER. ROY, THE CONCEPT OF
CONSCIOUSNESS HAS OBSESSED ME FOR DECADES. NORMALLY I TALK TO PHILOSOPHERS
AND NEUROSCIENTISTS, WITH A THEOLOGIAN THROWN
IN THERE ONCE IN A WHILE. BUT I'VE NOT TALKED TO A
SOCIAL SCIENTIST BEFORE. HAVE I BEEN ERRING? I THINK THE WAY WE'VE APPROACHED
IT, THE PEOPLE WHO'VE DEALT WITH IT, THE PHILOSOPHERS AS
YOU SAY, THE NEUROSCIENTISTS, THE COGNITIVE PEOPLE;
THEY'RE MISSING SOMETHING. THEY TEND TO THINK ALMOST
LIKE IF I WERE BUILDING A ROBOT, WHAT WOULD I NEED TO
ADD CONSCIOUSNESS FOR? WHAT IS ITS FUNCTION THERE? WHAT I THINK IS CRUCIAL AND THAT
IS MISSING IS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS PROBABLY EVOLVED FOR SOCIAL
REASONS, TO ENABLE US TO RELATE TO EACH OTHER. THERE ARE MANY CREATIVE
BEHAVIORAL STUDIES DEBATING, WHAT DO WE NEED CONSCIOUSNESS
FOR, SHOWING THAT WELL YOU CAN GET SOME BEHAVIOR, THIS
OR THAT BEHAVIOR WHEN PEOPLE ARE NOT CONSCIOUS. WE USED TO THINK YOU NEEDED
TO BE CONSCIOUS FOR EVERYTHING. THAT'S CLEARLY NOT TRUE ANYMORE. BUT NOBODY'S BEEN ABLE
TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITHOUT BEING CONSCIOUS. WHAT REALLY SET OUR SPECIES OFF
ON ITS UNIQUE PATH, THE TRAIT THAT DEFINES US AS HUMAN WAS NOT
INTELLIGENCE, THE FIRST THING LOOKS LIKE IT WAS COMMUNICATION. AND COMMUNICATION STARTED
WITH GESTURE RATHER THAN SPEECH. SOME OF THE ANIMALS DEVELOPED
THE CAPACITY TO INFER WHAT EACH OTHER WAS DOING FROM
HOW THEY MOVED THEIR ARMS. IT'S LIKE MOTHER NATURE
SAID, HEY, THAT COULD REALLY GO SOMEWHERE, AND
OUR SPECIES WE STARTED COMMUNICATING TO OURSELVES. THAT I THINK IS WHAT
CONSCIOUSNESS IS FOR, 'CAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS IS A
PLACE WHERE YOU CAN BUILD SEQUENCES OF THOUGHT. SO WE START
COMMUNICATING MUCH BETTER. IT'S A PLACE WHERE YOU
CAN REPRESENT THE MENTAL STATES OF OTHERS. THERE'S LOTS OF LEARNING. LEARNING EVERYWHERE IN NATURE. BUT NOT TEACHING, BECAUSE
TEACHING YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT I KNOW SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T,
AND I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT. SO IT MEANS ME KNOWING THAT
YOU HAVE A MIND LIKE MINE EXCEPT THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE
THIS INFORMATION AND SO... LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY:
SOONER OR LATER, EVERY THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS BUMPS
UP AGAINST THIS PROBLEM. THOUGHTS IN THE MIND CAN CAUSE
BEHAVIOR; WHY DO THOSE THOUGHTS HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS? WHAT'S THE BENEFIT? I CAN THINK, DON'T PUT MY HAND
IN A FIRE, AND THEN I DON'T PUT MY HAND IN THE FIRE,
THAT'S GOOD FOR ME, OKAY? BUT WHY DOES THAT
HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS? UNCONSCIOUS THOUGHTS
COULD DO THAT AS WELL. A ROBOT CAN SAY,
"DON'T PUT HAND IN THE FIRE." SO, THAT'S A VERY HARD PROBLEM
AND A LOT OF GOOD THEORIES FAIL ON THERE. BUT, IT'S VERY EASY TO MAKE AN
EVOLUTIONARY CASE FOR IF I CAN TELL OTHERS MY THOUGHTS. SO I CAN TELL MY CHILDREN DON'T
PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE FIRE, THEN MY REPRODUCTIVE
FITNESS HAS IMPROVED. I PASS ON MY GENES. SO THE VALUE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
BECOMES MUCH EASIER TO ESTABLISH ONCE YOU ESTABLISH AN
INTERPERSONAL DIMENSION, THAN WHEN YOU'RE TRYING
TO DO IT ONE MIND AT A TIME. WE CAN'T REALLY IMAGINE WHAT
IT'S LIKE TO HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT CULTURE, AND IT'S A DEEP
QUESTION OF EVEN WHETHER YOU WOULD HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS BECAUSE
YOU NEED LANGUAGE FOR EXAMPLE TO REPRESENT THINGS
THAT ARE NOT THERE. YOU CAN'T GET
LANGUAGE BY YOURSELF. YOU HAVE TO HAVE
THAT FROM YOUR CULTURE. SO YOUR ABILITY TO THINK
ABOUT THINGS AWAY FROM THE HERE AND NOW. MOST ANIMALS JUST LIVE IN THE
HERE AND NOW, RESPOND TO WHAT THEY SEE, AND
SMELL AND SO FORTH. WE CAN RESPOND TO THINGS
FAR BEYOND THE HERE AND NOW. AND CONSCIOUSNESS
IS CRUCIAL FOR THAT. CONSCIOUSNESS ENABLES US TO
THINK BEYOND THE PRESENT AND THUS TO ACT IN
VERY DIFFERENT WAYS. FOR CENTURIES, THE TERRITORY OF
CONSCIOUSNESS WAS PATROLLED BY PHILOSOPHERS WHO DEFENDED
OPPOSING POSITIONS WITH VIGOR, PRECISION AND OCCASIONAL FURY. THEN NEUROSCIENTISTS ARRIVED,
TAKING THE HIGH GROUND OF EXPLANATION WITH THE
NEW WEAPONS OF SCIENCE. BUT STILL, THE MYSTERY OF
CONSCIOUSNESS REMAINS UNSOLVED. HOW ON EARTH CAN INNER
EXPERIENCE LITERALLY BE BRAIN SPARKS AND CHEMICALS? SO OTHERS MOVED IN. DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGISTS. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGISTS. HERE'S A CURRENT STATUS REPORT:
CONSCIOUSNESS BATTLES REVEAL UNCERTAINTY AND AMBIGUITY -
AND THAT'S THE EXCITEMENT. SURELY, THE COMPLEXITY
AND RICHNESS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS REQUIRES
PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL INTERACTION. BUT, UNLESS WE CAN EXPLAIN
THE "HARD PROBLEM OF INNER AWARENESS" - WE CANNOT FULLY
ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION - "WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?" AND WE ARE NO... CLOSER TO TRUTH. FOR COMPLETE INTERVIEWS
AND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT
WWW.CLOSERTOTRUTH.COM.
