We all know consciousness. It's that ridiculously complex
infinity: thinking, experiencing, perceiving, hearing, tasting, feeling,
dreaming... our everything. Learning is embedded in
consciousness, and vice versa. But what is consciousness? And can brain science
really explain it?
According to neuroscience the brain alone produces consciousness. This is a
pretty standard view in scientific circles and among members of the wider
pubic. But there are a number of leading thinkers and scientists who
aren't so sure.
|
|
 |
| Oh man! Am conscious? |
Mysterianism is
a philosophical position that says consciousness is a problem that cannot
be resolved by humans. It's held by quite a number of scientists, including
Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky. Just recently Edward Witten, a physicist compared
with Einstein for his brilliance, came out as a mysterian.
Witten is the guy who popularised string theory (think multiple
universes per Netflix's Stranger Things) and has highlighted
the limits of science throughout his writing.
Some believe consciousness is irreducible, like space and time and mass,
and so potentially non-local. Erwin Schrödinger, a founder of
quantum theory, and winner of the 1933 Nobel Prize for Physics, said "Although
I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of
consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For
consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of
anything else."
Who knows what neuroscience's stance on consciousness will
be in 100 years time. Who knows what neuroscience will be. But
if we cast an eye back over history, we can conclude that practically
everything we know today will be proved wrong at some stage in the future. This
isn't a new idea. To quote philosopher Michel de Montaigne (16th century) “The
only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.”
While it makes sense to declare facts based on logic, the universe couldn't
care less about what makes sense. Is knowledge, like Schrodinger's cat,
simultaneously dead and alive?
 |
| Schrodinger's elephant, it's dead and alive |
R U M M A G E
----------------
- Blog post: Philosopher and scientist Bernardo Kastrup's lucid writing on consciousness from an idealistic (rather than materialistic) perspective deserves attention.
- Video: Here's a fascinating talk on consciousness and neuroscience from Morten Overgaard, who studies the relationship between conscious experience and brain processes from a combined experimental, philosophical and neurorehabilitation perspective.
- Video: Susan Blackmore makes for a convincing advocate of the neuroscientific approach to consciousness. Which might explain her status as a former paranormal researcher ;-)
- Video: Schrödinger's cat explained in 4 minutes.
- Video: 6 minutes on Montaigne by the fabulous School of Life.
Cool stuff! Schrödinger's cat has me scratching my head, to say the least. I love the way the information on this blog is presented in such a well-rounded fashion. The view that the brain is fully responsible for generating human consciousness is given fair treatment. The view that human consciousness is brought about by factors that go beyond the physical is a presented in a neutral way. There is no clear bias, which I liked a lot. And the links lead nicely into some pretty awesome more in-depth information, from simple youtube clips to quite complex explanations of consciousness, such as that given by Bernardo Kastrup. Ultimately, whether you're a mysterian, or whether you're with Blackmore or Kastrup, what's left abundantly clear is that there is a great deal still to be figured out. I do think, though, that anyone who imagines we'll figure out the nature of human consciousness in the next one or two hundred years is probably being a bit premature. I mean the guys in ancient Greece were dealing with this stuff over two thousand years ago, and I suspect we'll probably still be scratching our heads in another two thousand years! (Just like I'm still scratching my head about Schrödinger's cat.)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this fantastic engagment and input, Pablo! Sounds like you really got through the Rummage section - I'm so happy about that. Absolutely agreed on the eternal head-scratching! BTW "If a tree falls in the forest..", which no doubt you've heard before, is a good way of exploring the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
ReplyDelete...this piece arguably argues that Schrodinger's cat is much ado about nothing: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07986
ReplyDelete