I've been meaning to write on this topic for the longest time now but just kept procrastinating. A big reason I delayed talking on this particular topic was that I didn't want it to be just brushed over; I wanted it to be something that, after reading it, a whole new way of seeing the world would "awaken", something "spiritual" in a sense. Whether or not I achieved this is completely up to you to decide.
Another reason—or excuse if you'd prefer—, for my procrastinating was the sense of "Can I really talk on this topic effectively?", in more personal terms, a sense of inadequate knowledge on the topic or, at least, not to the extent that I deemed reasonable for the endeavour.
So what makes me feel "capable" now?
I don't know... Should we spend the whole day discussing why my mind chooses to do what it does when it does? A discussion of free will and the likes? Is that what we're about to do right now?
Nah.
We're here to discuss something a lot more "magical". I mean, discussing whether or not we have free will is an interesting philosophical ponder in its own right (Spoiler Alert: Free will is an illusion no matter your world view. Don't bother too much about it, learn to accept it.), but that isn't our focus today; maybe at a later date we'd discuss why I'm right and why you're, at best, a very delusional crybaby about not having any true control — who knows, I might be able to cheer you up with a cosmic ideological lollipop.
Now on to today's topic. The first part of a two-part series: What is Conscious Experience?
Yep, I'm about to answer the question no philosopher, scientist, guru, religious clergyman, etc. knew the answer to before today!
...
What's that?
...
You want to know the price? Well, it's a bit costly, not gonna lie.
...
You don't have any money? Lol. We don't take paper as a means of exchange here. If you want occult knowledge you're going to have to sacrifice something with a lot more value...
Your earwax!
...
Ew, no. Throw that shit away, just listen closely to what I'm about to say.
Before I give the secret away though, let me properly introduce you to the wrong answers of consciousness that thousands of "thinkers" (feels like I should strip them of that title for not being able to solve this easy problem. I mean it's quite embarrassing in my opinion) have pondered over for centuries.
(Note: You don't have to read through all the different models in the picture, I'll be explaining them in a quick summary within the post.)
(Note: The image is a huge oversimplification)
Makes sense? ... You didn't read it all? Good, you don't need to bother yourself with all that wrong jargon anyways.
In my personal opinion, there are really only two models when it comes to thinking about consciousness and conscious experience:
- Spirit Models (Emergent/Tether Phenomenom Models)
- Fundamental Phenomenom Models
There is a third model that's really popular amongst the scientific community nowadays that does deserve some attention. I call it:
Illusion Models (The "Right now there's no really good explanation for conscious experience within the generally accepted scientific models and theories established thus far, plus the whole "consciousness" thing sounds a bit "supernatural" and we want no part in anything that sounds remotely "unscientific". Please pay no mind to the fact that the scientific model of knowledge acquisition is woefully inadequate when it comes to explaining subjective phenomena and we currently have no way around that; for that reason let's make the topic of "consciousness" sound as insignificant as possible and tag it as an "illusion" even though it's the single thing we're all familiar with" Models)
If I'm being brutally honest here... It's a pretty full-proof model, no problems anywhere. Deny anything that doesn't fit into the current model and the model stands firm... on a foundation of clouds. If you couldn't tell, that was a quick rant. It's infuriating to see physicists constantly denying the importance of conscious experience when, in reality, it is the only thing we know actually is, in the sense that, until something enters conscious awareness, whether through data from sophisticated tools or basic senses, it exists in the world of less than the blackness you see when you close your eyes.
Before we go on, let's clarify what conscious experience is. We'll start with a time-old question that has been asked for millennia.
If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one around, does it make a sound?
Yes? No?
Maybe only on Tuesdays?
If there are other trees around, maybe? Or maybe it'll try to be a hard guy.
Well, the answer is... — drum roll, please —
... no (It does in a way, but not in a human way, we'll talk about that later).
If you're at odds with this answer, you're not getting it. If you do agree with the answer, you're probably also making some mistakes; it's not a question that is reasoned out. Here's a simple meditative exercise for you to get the right answer the right way (It's not perfect, but will be good enough):
This exercise won't take more than 10 seconds
(If you do it right, you can realize something profound)
- First, empty your mind of thoughts other than the task at hand as best you can
- Use both of your index fingers to block both of your ears as best you can
- Close your eyes for as long as you want (Note: It is of utmost importance you don't count, simply open your eyes when you feel like)
That's (approximately) your forest where a tree fell.
(The experience of the world less than the blackness you see when you close your eyes, would be most accurate, but that is nonexperience... Nibbana?)
Still at odds with the answer given? Don't worry, I'll be explaining better throughout this post. Let me talk more about what exactly I mean when talking about "conscious experience":
Sight
Let's talk about what it means to see. What is sight? What is the conscious experience of sight? Let's start with the "objective" form of sight in terms of visible light.
So, what is the objective form of visible light? A few examples:
 |
| Figure 1.1: Plot representation of visible light |
Another "objective" representation:
 |
| Figure 1.2: Numerical representation of visible light |
(Note: Black, white and grey are still subjective experiences of colour. For best results, please close your eyes; though the subjective experience of black is still persistent).
So. What is the subjective experience of visible light? I think a single example would suffice:
 |
| Figure 1.3: Qualistic (pertaining to qualia) representation of visible light |
When you look at a rainbow, you don't see waves, you don't see numbers, you don't see "representations"; you experience the subjective experience (qualia) of a rainbow; you see a "rainbow". That is (the human) conscious experience of sight.
Personally, I feel sight is the most "obtrusive" of all the senses. Every other sensation we can chalk up to "I'm just hearing things", or "I thought I felt something", but when you "see" something, it's hard to doubt its actual reality — What is real? Just some food for thought.
Sound
So. Does the tree make a sound when no one is around? To quote Alan Watts "Noise is a state of affairs which requires vibrations in the air, and an ear with an appropriate nervous system behind it". But still, what is "objective sound":
 |
| Figure 1.4: Spectrogram representation of the sound of a fallen tree |
Sounds wonderful, doesn't it... No? Hmm...
Try this:
It worked? What a miracle!
(Side note: Why it is the scientific community loves portraying data on an x-y axis is something we take for granted and should think about a little, this isn't the only possible representation. Though it is seemingly simple (although this could just be our familiarity to this representation))
So, what's the point I'm trying to drive home? Nothing more than the importance of conscious experience. In the absence of conscious experience, everything exists in less than the darkness you experience when you close your eyes.
Communication being the most difficult aspect of subjective experience, I plan on having more reflective exercises to make these concepts all the more communicable.
Now, back to the models. I think the illusion model's alternate name amply explains it; that leaves only the two other models, The Spirit Model and The Fundamental Phenomenon Model.
Spirit Models: I see these as models of consciousness that take the approach of viewing conscious experience as a phenomenon that arises (emerges) due to certain physical conditions and or states within a body, most commonly in the brain. These models view the presence of a brain — or some organ with semblance to a brain — as a necessity for the presence of conscious experience.
A sort of "Spirit" arises due to these conditions; remove these conditions, remove conscious experience.
From the image above, I'd put the following theories in this category: Emergent Dualism, Identity Theory, Functionalism, Epiphenomenalism, Quantum Consciousness.
Fundamental Phenomenom Models: These are models that view conscious experience/consciousness as a fundamental, a thing which isn't necessarily "caused". Something, in some shape or form, that's a part of the fabric of the universe. Does not require a brain, sometimes not even a "body".
In this category: Substance Dualism, Property Dualism, Pan Psychism, Buddhism.
Gray-Areas: Cognitivism, High Order Theory.
So, which model is correct? Or at least, closest to being correct.
Well, for an issue like this it might be easier through a negation/elimination method; finding an answer by cancelling what conscious experience is not. Lumping these theories into two models makes this all the easier.
Starting with Spirit Models, any issues? If there are, is there any logical means of reconciling them? Let's see.
Spirit Model Problems:
1. Phenomenon from complexity: A lot of spirit models see conscious experience as a result of complex physical brain states; without a certain level of complexity, no experience.
A good analogy would be the phenomenon of fire; an unexpected result of the presence of three component parts, fuel, oxygen and heat. Spirit models see this as the sort of events that take place to create conscious experience, but there's a huge flaw in this sort of thinking.
Fire is an "unexpected physical" phenomenon of complex events that, with the simplifications of conceptual models of chemistry, wasn't understood for centuries, but with the advancements in chemistry and quantum theory, we now have a better grasp on the complex situations that generate the phenomenon of fire.
The human conscious experience can be seen as something similar, in the sense that it is not a single phenomenon in itself, but likely a complex phenomenon from simple phenomena, but some phenomenon of this simple phenomena has a none tangible qualistic (pertaining to qualia) aspect. That basic phenomenon is what we mean by the broad term "conscious experience".
2. Teleportation Paradox (Spin): It's the year 2178 (video of a similar thought experiment), scientists have just created a teleporting device that functions by dematerializing you via converting all your matter into energy, storing this energy in its battery and rematerializing you elsewhere; in effect destroying your body then recreating it.
Does your conscious experience continue within that new body or did it end in your previous body after you dematerialized?
Spirit Models would conclude that wherever the conditions/states that made your conscious experience in your dematerialized body appear, your conscious experience would appear where they do. In a sense, these theories believe in a sort of "tether"; if we see the same arrangements and conditions in another body we should expect the same conscious experience(r) within that body. But there's an issue:
Dealing with our teleporter again.
Consider what would happen if the teleporter malfunctioned and while rematerializing you, makes a second copy. Which body does your conscious experience continue within? Both bodies have the same configurations and states, which body does the original conscious experience(r) exist?
Both? What then happens? Would a sort of overlap occur for the conscious experience(r), sort of like two films playing on top of each other?
In this case, the hypothetical "tether" is attached to two separate bodies.
I view this as a subset of a larger topic I call: "The Localization Problem of Conscious Experience", which I'll be covering in part 2 of this series. To briefly speak on the topic, I view it as the issue of, why is it "you" having the conscious experience of this body and not having the conscious experience of another body, and why is there an experience of continuity in an everchanging body (The correlation between "Personal Identity" and conscious experience)?
Back on topic...
3. Product of Evolution: Another perspective that has a large market share of the scientific community is the idea that conscious experience is a product of evolution by natural selection, something advantageous developed for that exact reason. This false claim is easily refuted. Let me share an image I found that explains this conclusion clearly:
In evolutionary terms, if existence were possible without the qualia of conscious experience, or if conscious experience required extra effort (energy demand) to create, evolution would opt against it. But since we aren't philosophical zombies (I assume), it goes to show having conscious experience is likely cheaper energy-wise than not having conscious experience.
Spirit Model Pro(s):
Even though the teleportation paradox still occurs, the idea of there being a tether seems to be necessary for the experience of continuity in personal identity and conscious experience within a particular body. Fundamental Models fall into the same problem and even worse so because of lack of "tether" concept; why is it "me" in my body if nothing, in particular, is linking me to this body?
Fundamental Phenomenon Model Problems:
1. The Combination Problem: Most models under this category have a belief that all matter (maybe even energy) has conscious experience, this leads to an issue called the combination problem. The combination problem goes something like this, "If all matter is conscious, then how does a human, having a conscious experience in its own right, be composed of atoms that supposedly also have conscious experience? How does that arise? And how about the skin of the human, would that also have a separate conscious experience? Then what of the flake of skin cut off from a scab that finds itself separate from the whole, does it too have a separate conscious experience?". So far I haven't seen any good counter-arguments to this problem. It is indeed a pressing issue... Until today!
Oh, you want the solution? Read on g.
2. Undetectability Through Physical Means: So far, scientists have been having a hard time detecting the phenomenon if it is, in some way, fundamental to the nature of the universe — well, unless it's the measurer associated with the measurement problem (Scientists hate that conclusion to hell and back). It could also be the elusory dark matter that scientists have been pondering on for the whole century and last; I doubt this, but it's nice to think about either way.
Fundamental Phenomenon Model Pro(s):
1. It's a lot more F.U.N: If you can't already tell, I personally have a bias towards the fundamental model if for no reason other than the fun of imagining different forms of existence. Suddenly, from this perspective, the whole world becomes "alive" (but probably not in the sense we'd likely see "alive" — more on that soon).
2. Solves the Hard Problem Of Consciousness: Which is the philosophical question of why we have conscious experience at all. If conscious experience is a fundamental, something that comes "buy one get one free" with a universe filled with matter, there's no issue as to how it arises or why. It's a thing like gravity and is accepted as is, only to ponder on how it works and interacts with the rest of the universe.
SO... With the formality of discussing the problems and pros of the established models, it's time to dive head-first into the truth!
The Truth!
Let me start by saying if you think I actually had the solution to a problem that's been pondered since Ancient Greece, you're either very gullible or you have a faith in me that should be rethought — I'm flattered, I truly am, but that sort of faith should be reserved for yourself and nothing/no one else.
Now:
My Opinion (Still probably "The Truth"): I'd consider this view to sit in the Fundamental Phenomenon camp, but with some "kinks". I'd say it's similar to both Pan Psychism and Property Dualism, but radically different in a crucial way; conscious experience is the experience of any physical interaction, not a property of a thing in itself. It sounds so simple, but I'm yet to see anyone phrase it like this.
"You can't have a front, without a back; they both come into existence together"-Alan Watts
In other words, there is an experience accompanied with every physical interaction; bond break, bond form, temperature rise, push, pull, synapse interacted with by chemical, electrical firing, each and every physical interaction is accompanied with a conscious experience of that interaction. Now, going on to complex experiences (the combination problem), at every level of an experience, for example, pain, there are several levels at which this experience occurs; the atomic level (if a bond is formed or broken), the molecular level of weak electrostatic forces holding the structure together, the interaction of stress and strain, the neuroscientific level of electrical impulses to the brain creating an effect of a body avoiding the same stimulus (accompanied by the conscious experience of that interaction).
Notice how in-depth the final interaction was, this is because of the special case I feel biology and evolution play in the whole thing. Like everything else in the physical world, evolution, if possible, will harness it in order to further its agenda. When creating a physical interaction that leads a body to want or avoid a certain stimulus, by way of a nervous system, proto-nervous system, or chemical-based interactions, a conscious experience of that "avoidance" or "want" accompanies, and the same thing for all experiences in between. The "want" for food, has to be physically different for the "want" for water, so in this way, a myriad of conscious experience is created. The same thing for the experiences of the senses; a physical interaction of the nervous system "sensing" the environment through physical means is accompanied by a conscious experience of that "sensing". No physical interaction, no conscious experience. This is the idea I was trying to get at in my "The Ball" post that I've finally, somewhat, put justice to.
Any issues? No? Well, I have one.
"The Localization Problem of Conscious Experience".
Even with this model, it doesn't explain why it is "me" experiencing "my body" and not some other body or some different level of conscious experience, i.e. why am I "awake" in this body and not a different body. Another way of stating this problem is "the issue of separate conscious experiences".
For this reason, I do believe there is some sort of "tether", but it's likely really simple. I'll discuss my ideas on how to solve the problem in part 2.
So that's it. Conscious Experience in a nutshell. Comment any objections or additions you have.
Endnotes:
Roger Penrose, a Nobel Laureate in physics, has taken a big risk by delving into the philosophy of mind and consciousness as a physicist and mathematician. He personally wasn't convinced with the idea of consciousness arising from complex computational phenomena, and so chose to approach the question of consciousness in a unique way; "How does the nervous system shutdown consciousness when we go to sleep". This, in my opinion, is an ingenious way to approach the question of consciousness. If it is truly pervasive and all-encompassing, how does the body manage to "switch it off" for a few hours— not including time spent dreaming (REM sleep)? If through this method conscious experience is seen not to be fundamental, then all is fair in love and war and we learn something new about the universe and ourselves.
On Time: I was about to publish this and remembered the importance of conscious experience in relation to time. If there is no conscious experience, there is no passage of time in a sense. Everything happens instantly, like sleeping and waking up. I've heard some ideas about consciousness being light, most of the time the grandiose claim is followed without much backing. Thinking a bit on the nature of light, light is the smallest quanta of energy, it determines the passage of time (or is the limit of how slow time can be experienced— spoiler alert: photons don't experience time in a special relativity sense of time), what else? I don't know, vague connections, but still interesting to think about.
On Magic and the Occult: It seems to me that a lot of new-age magic and occult movements have this sort of view or at least a sense of a "conscious field" sort of thing that's accompanied by the physical world. The goal seems to be to try to cause an "excitement" in this conscious field leading to a physical creation or interaction. Whether this is possible or not, I don't know. I doubt, but who am I to try and dash your dreams of being a sorcerer. Good luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment