One of the longest existing questions of science and philosophy is the nature of consciousness. I would like to take you to a jorney through the the ideas and different aspects from philosophers to scientists. First of all, this post is not about identity or self awareness. " Who am i? " is a whole other subject. I am going to talk about the common approaches that people take to tackle this phenomenon, consciousness. Oh by the way, if you are looking for a concrete answer, you will not get it here and don't waste your time here :) If you want to have questions (like is it knowing, is it feeling, is it acting, is it just awareness, is it a human invention, is it necessary, does it make us alive) or if you would like to have a view about the subject, then buckle up.
I think from the bottom line, most people would have this kind of approach. Consciousness is subjective result of cognition. I have cognitive abilities and therefore i have consciousness. But that breeds another question. What is cognition? When someone sticks a needle into your hand you quickly pull your hand back. You have a reception (cognitive ability) and a response mechanism for it. If you have some sort of deficiency to receive that event, let's say your hand is completely numb, you won't be feeling it therefore you won't take any action. From this perspective you don't have a consciousness for this spesific event. Let's make this example a lot bigger. You are aware of the whole world, people, buildings, your surrounding and the voices and etc. You bascially have an understanding of it all and this is a higher level of consciousness. This is what makes you say "I am living". In a completely empty space with no light or sound or air, without your heartbeat, you would feel like you are dead. Anyways, when we compare humans with animals, we have a higher complexity in our brains than animals thus we have a higher level of consciousness. But, i think all of this can be explained by simply "knowing". I mean we now needle hurts, we now there is light, sound, materials and etc. We have sensors for all of these interactions and we are supplied with some sort of information. In other words, being able to gain and store information results in your action. Well even computers can do that. Does this mean they are conscious. I don't think so. This subject is more deeper and complicated than that.
Don't worry, this was the first step. Becase if you want to talk scientifically or philosophically about something, you first need to start with defining yout terms. For example, if you want to talk about cars, you may basically define it on 4 or more wheeled mobile vehicles with engines. Or any object that carries humans or materials. But you can not just define the boundaries or nature of consciousness to begin with. This is the part that i want to show you. There are different views involved in this manner.
Let me give you some ideas from people from different backgrounds. Below is a video from Kurzgesact, a very informative youtube channel, and they are trying to answer the question: How did consciousness emerge? They are talking about the transition from unconscious to conscious
They are basically building their theory on evolutionary iterative processes. Beginning with the usage of energy and the search for energy. In the video it mostly says "it may be" because this is not a subject that anyone can define concretely. They are building up to humankind from evolutionary perspective (which i think is not that much profoundly consistent).
I have written a long comment under this video :D I will write my own view at the bottom. Let's stick with the subject now. Let's jump to a scientific view about this subject from PBS Digital Studios. They are bringing a problem with consiousness and asking, is it an illusion?
Here comes deep science. There is a fact called Quantum Physics. So if we go deeper in our brains, we come across with the laws of quantum realm. At this point you may want to check out famous double slit experiment before watching, but it is not mandatory. They are talking about the measurement problem which occurs when a quantum state is observed and it's wave function is collapsed, according to copenhagen interpretation. Then how can you pinpoint when the transition happened. In simpler words, how do you know it is actually happened or when? Can you dictate reality with your brain or cognition? Or is there a global consciousness? Does your individual perception of reality make it any real? Towards the end they claim reality must exists independently from your observation because otherwise quantum mechanics would not make any sense. Evidently, there are also quantum mind theories too. But they are way too metaphysical to talk about here :)
Correct me if i am wrong. I have heard from scientist, Brian Green, that there is no free will. No soul, no intention. Just special arrangement of particles. Particles are doing things i am just tagging along the ride. There are lots of scientists claims this too. Therefore they end up defining consciousness as just a physical processes in the brain. I think this simply removes the concept of "self". And i would ask, why does criminal capacity exists? I can do anything and accuse my hands or brain of doing it. I don't think this makes much sense either.
One final video. This one is from Closer to Truth series. This has philosophers and scientists in one video. It tries to understand and conceptualize from different aspects. Neurologically, philosophically and socially. They even ask the question, could it be all in my brain ? :) Am i making all this up? This small documentary is trying to find the right way to question and comprehend the concept of consciousness.
Descartes does not have a youtube video but he says je pense, donc je suis, (i think, therefore i am). This one is instinctive and i think it is kind of logical. Being able to process and produce meaningful information in your brain feels like consciousness. As i mentioned at the beginning, not just knowing things and having information. It is rather being able to process it and produce more of it. Another verion of this view is i doubt, therefore i think, therefore i am. They are basing their view on top of the awareness of your inner thoughts.
I know this subject is highly abstract and i may not be able to clearify thoroughly. But i realize after wathcing these videos, consciousness seems like the engine behind being alive and being able to interact. There is no one ingredient in our brains to make us conscious. It is not a physical stucture. It also involves social elements. And we may never know where it started or oiginated or why it exists or what is its boundaries. Is it just to survive? To live? Is it occured after living things began living? We will probably never come to same conclusions about these questions either. I hope at this point, you have more questions than you have started :) I have promised my view based on the Kurzgesact video. My original post ends here but i really appreciate if you here me out too.
In the video they are talking about concepts based on senses like smelling, hearing, seeing. They also use arguments like moving, searching or even feeling. They are following an evolutionary path from simple to complex. But even those one word concepts require vast amount of parameters to have been constructed beforehand. For example, they begin with energy and therefore the the search for food. How did you even define energy? I told you, a scientist begin the conversation by definitions. How did a concept of food emerge? What is deficiency of energy? I want to go deeper because you should be aware of that these terms and deficiencies too.
Even as a bacteria or a simple organism, you have to have a definiton of energy and the intention to acquire it. This still needs some form of consciousness involved. Let's go deep further. These all depends on some sort of vital information being interpreted in some way. If being alive is the key, you have to know what is energy, life and why do you need these. Then you would realize it is low and want to have more of it. Only then the need or search of food and survival becomes meaningful. The video directly skipped these parts and concluded that consciousness may be originated on the need of food and survival. I don't think occasionally having more food or energy has to end up creating some sort of consciousness. It is like you are forced to create some sort of consciousness. If i go back deeper on this scenerio, that ends up in a loop with an unanswerable question or some presumptions. They never define the source and the definiton of information. Practically all the video is based on some form of definition like energy or food or survival. I don't think consiousness is simple enough to have been emerged from coincidental interactions and predefined terms.
I am a believer in God. This part is far from science of course :) But if you believe in any kind of god, this whole concept might make a bit more sence, at least philosophicaly. I believe God created first humans and other leaving things and tought them about things at certain levels. This made them conscious enough to live on earth. This explains how the information became meaningful to living species. You cannot originate the information becoming meaningful, by looking at living things. Furthermore, from the quantum mechanics perspective, information is nothing but a result of causality and consciousness is the perception of causality. Time is percieved by us and we became conscious of it. In a complete empty space, without your heartbeat and breath, you can't say if time is moving. A cell can never be aware of energry situation without the chemical events. A bacteria can never have the urge to get food before it even understand what is food and why it needs that. All of these are interpretations of information. And this results in different levels of consciousness.
To summarize: Consciousness is a perception of causality at any level. Information can never be meaningful without perception. The urge of energy or survival cannot be born without the consciousness of life and death. Their evolutionary view lacks the basis and ends up in some kind of dead end. My view can explain the beginning by defining a creation that gives everything a go at the beginning. It explains the start and you can try to explain today. It lays out a foundation, you can roam around of its manifestation. See you at the next post :)
Leave a comment