>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.
