CONSCIOUSNESS: TOWARDS A SOLUTION TO THE ‘HARD PROBLEM’?

The “hard problem of consciousness” was formulated by David J Chalmers in 1996. Simply stated it concerns the issues; what is consciousness; why do we have it and how do patterns of neuronal firing in the brain generate the subjective experience of being conscious?

I think of consciousness quite simply as our subjective awareness of ourselves, our surroundings and the relationship between these two entities. I believe that consciousness evolved because it provided an adaptive integrated model of reality from the, individually evolved, sensory inputs we are able to receive from outside the body and from the body itself. Such a model is adaptive since it speeds up our evaluation of confirmatory/ contradictory evidence when making conscious decisions about the actions we need to take in response to the state of world and/or our physical needs. It is also an essential tool in making adaptive moral judgements. See Marc D Hauser, ‘Moral Minds’, p29.

In a moving, talking picture, the fact that the dynamic visual image is synchronized with the sound results in consilience between the words heard and the lip movements produced by the actors. This results in an emergent subjective experience that seems to the viewer to be an acceptable model of our usual real-life subjective model of reality. My hypothesis is that there is a similar relationship between our sensory inputs, which are, to all intents and purposes, also experienced in a synchronized fashion, and objective reality.

This emergent model of reality that we call ‘consciousness’ also enables us to take ‘snapshots’ of states of the world associated with emotionally charged experiences. These may then be stored in long-term memory and used, unconsciously, to pattern-match to real-time experiences and thus enable very fast, unconsciously mediated and adaptive actions to be generated when similar states of the world are encountered.

But how do we explain our subjective experience of being conscious in terms of its neurological basis? In other words, how do we explain the translation from a pattern of electro-chemical pulses in neural brain tissue to the subjective model of reality that we call our consciousness?  I have described consciousness as an integrated model of reality based on our sensory inputs. Since our experience of each of these inputs (sight, for example) is understood by science in terms of specific neuronal activity and the physiology of the sensory organs, the ‘hard problem’ seems to disappear when described in this way.

So, what is consciousness? It is a subjective model of reality. Why do we have it? We have it because it proved to be an adaptive facility that emerged spontaneously with the phylogenic development of the senses. How does neuronal activity generate subjective experience? Sensory input, the functionality of the sensory organs combined with appropriate neural activity generate synchronized sensory experiences that result in the subjective, integrated, emergent model of reality that we call ‘consciousness’. Where does this analysis leave the concept “unconsciousness”?

If one accepts the notion that neural activity mediates both my conscious processes such as deciding to write this note, and my unconscious processes, such as those controlling my somatic-homeostatic functions, I see no problem in hypothesizing that consciousness is a sub-set of brain processes. There appears to be constant movement, however, between the conscious sub-set and the unconscious sub-set; as when we suddenly become conscious that someone within ear-shot has mentioned our name. I accept that the explanation of consciousness I am putting forward in these notes leaves the neuronal source of ‘attention’, as yet, unexplained.

The question arises, “What distinguishes the conscious sub-set of neuronal activity from the unconscious sub-set?” I would hypothesize that the conscious sub-set is a logically distributed module within neuronal architecture that contains the results of synchronized sensory processing as previously described which has access to long-term memory/ reasoning and which allows input from emotional circuits. The unconscious sub-set also has access to emotional circuits in order to produce fast responses by pattern-matching. Any particular emotional event may, unconsciously, trigger a match with previous emotionally-laden memories. These memories will there-by be etched deeper. The emotion generated by the event will also be consciously experienced as ‘feeling’ thus allowing later reflection on the event, any action/inaction taken in response and the result.

Dawkins v Sacks: Science v Religion: A False Dawn?

Did you see the discussion between Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Sacks; "Rosh Hashanah: Science v Religion", 11:15 pm, BBC1, Wednesday 12 September 2012?

This was a very interesting and amiable discussion between two very intelligent men of goodwill. However, it ended on a note of false harmony that reminded me of the written 'agreement' between Chamberlain and Hitler immediately prior to World War 2. The only difference was that, in this case, both parties were being suckered into believing they had achieved 'peace in our time', not just the one.

During the discussion, Dawkins accepted that the application of science is capable of doing as much harm as religion. He affirmed that " Science can be hideously misused. Indeed, if you want to do terrible things, you need to use science to do it ---". Straight into the philosophical trap of confusing 'means' with 'motivation'. Yes, science has provided the means to inflect hell-fire and brimstone on one's enemies but religion has often provided the motivation to do so. The 'Social Darwinism' that, to a degree, underwrote the misdeeds of the Third Reich was the exception that proves the rule. Admittedly, this was a genuine motivational misuse of 'science'. However, it was not just a misuse of science; it was also a misinterpretation of science. It was incorrect science. So-called 'Social Darwinism' interprets the evolutionary theory, incorrectly, as meaning that nature works on the principle of 'the survival of the fittest'. The word 'fittest' in the last sentence is the usual one; the strongest, the best, the ones that can vanquish the weak. Natural Selection doesn't use the word 'fittest' in this way. In Natural Selection, the fittest refers to the individuals best suited to surviving and reproducing in the relevant environment. This makes all the difference since the ability to cooperate becomes at least as important as the ability to enforce. There is nothing truly Darwinian in so-called Social Darwinism. Dawkins is, of course, well aware of this. He should have ensured that the distinction was apparent to Sacks and thus cleared correct science - unlike correct religion - of the charge that it has ever been implicated in the motivation of harm.

During the programme, Sachs said "Belief in god doesn't require a suspension of our critical faculties". However he also said "My view is that god made us in his own image. He marked us out from other animals by giving us freewill, morality and conscience". I suggest that the claim of the first of these three sentences is 'called out' by the second and third sentences. Faith always involves a suspension of one's critical faculties. Of course, theologians can argue with each-other about the real meaning of bits of scripture; and that requires them to engage their intellect. However, this always takes place within the questionable epistemology of an unquestioning faith.

This brings us to the nub of the matter. At the end of the programme, Sachs claims that he and Dawkins have agreed that they can collaborate in a common pursuit of truth for the common good. He speaks of a breakthrough; even "an epiphany". Poppycock! However well-meaning and charming the proponents, science will never be able to cooperate with those that pursue truth with a methodology, an epistemology, that is based on faith rather than evidence. Sorry; no deal!

DTR IS BETTER THAN ATW

Think about all the disagreements you've ever had with a partner, friend, colleague, relation, fellow internet-poster or even the bloke behind you in the queue. What proportion of these exchanges could best be described as 'Arguing to Win' (ATW) and what proportion would be better described as  'Discussions to Reveal' (DTR)? My guess is that your ATW figure is far higher than your DTR figure. Right?

We are all familiar with the ATW strategy. You put forward your view; then back it up with all the sub-arguments, examples/ illustrations and supporting evidence you can muster. You sidestep any good counter-arguments from your 'opponent' and rubbish his/her evidence. You are operating as an advocate rather than as a judge. We have all done it. It's such a familiar procedure that I don't think I need to give you examples.

The DTR strategy may be less familiar. Once again you state your opinion. But this time you are less dogmatic. This is your opinion at this time; you're prepared to modify or even change it completely if given relevant counter-evidence. You listen carefully to your 'opponent' and give him/her credit for points made that you believe to be correct. He/she does the same for you. You are on a joint enterprise to find the truth/ fairness. Of course, in due course, you may have to agree to disagree. This may not be a blanket disagreement. You may  well agree on some points, disagree on others and need more information on yet others. You have both been operating as judges rather than advocates.

I want to suggest to you that this is a very important distinction. Just imagine a world in which everyone used the DTR rather than the ATW strategy. What do you see? More harmony/ happiness or less harmony/ happiness? I see much more.

I think we would do well to teach DTR to our children. Of course, you may well have different ideas. I'm listening    --------------

The Day My Mum and I Nearly Copped It!

World War II was beginning to turn in favour of The Allies by mid-1943. However, the Whitehall cinema and several other buildings in London Road, East Grinstead were hit by a cluster of bombs from a lone German raider on 9 July 1943 and I witnessed the attack at close hand.

I was exactly five and a half years old that day. I had been evacuated with my mother from the east-end of London two years earlier after our home had taken some bomb damage. My father had stayed in London to work and my elder brother had been evacuated with his school to Cambridgeshire. We had a room above a shop in London Road opposite Woolworth’s – part of the site now occupied by W H Smith.

All afternoon I had been nagging my mother to buy me a toy cardboard clock that I had seen earlier in Woollies. It was now almost 5pm and the shop was about to close. Persuaded by her irascible and tearful child she went to buy the toy while I watched from the window. I stared at the entrance to Woolies until my mother emerged a few minutes later. Just as she did so the sound of a low-flying aircraft could be heard coming our way and I saw my mother look up at the plane while running back across London Road to our street-door next to the shop. The sound of the plane became a roar and by the time my mother had mounted the stairs to our room the plane must have been overhead. Just as the bombs started to explode she flew into our room and launched herself at her precious son, knocking him to the floor and covering him with her body. Terrified by the noise and my mother’s strange actions, I was shouting ” It’s nothing Mummy, it’s nothing”. It was several minutes before she allowed me to emerge from underneath her. In 1944 the shop where we had lived opposite Woolworth’s took a direct hit from a ‘flying bomb’. Lightning did strike twice in the same place on that occasion.

Why Hitler wanted to get rid of my mother and I so particularly isn’t clear. However he was thwarted. We had returned to London earlier that year, only to be evacuated again, this time to Leeds, when Hitler began his ‘last-ditch’ flying-bomb campaign. I went to school in a Roman Catholic school and was taught by nuns. The local kids taught me to say "Ee by gum". The end of the war saw us back again in London and we were allocated a council flat in Hackney. My experience of peace-time had begun. 

Don't Spend! Invest for Growth!

Just suppose, I'm married with three young kids. I've lost my job and I'm heavily in debt. I sold my car some time ago. A fabulous job opportunity comes my way but I need a car to get there. Should I get into more debt in order to buy a new car. You're darn tootin' I should!

Dear Cameron/ Osborne. Please apply my little parable to the present state of the UK economy. What is your conclusion?

When an action IS racist!

Let me suggest a definition. "An action against another person is racist if it constitutes a verbal or physical attack that would not have been made if that person had been of the same race/ethnicity as the attacker." Fair enough? Now, simply apply the principle to the recent events in Salford/ Manchester.

What do you get? Finkabowdit.

Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and the 'Cuts'

Of course Ed and Ed were right about the cuts. In mid-2010, the Coalition committed themselves to a programme of cut-backs that were too deep and too fast. It was impossible to avoid stifling any nascent recovery with such a programme. The tragedy is that 'the market', at that point, would have accepted a more sensible cut-back programme over a longer period; interest rates would have stayed low. Now it is too late. Any 'Plan B' that eases the planned cuts at this stage will  be punished by 'the market'.

The Eds say that they will not commit to reversing the cuts if and when they are returned to power. The tabloids and some Trade Union leaders are, predictably, interpreting this as two-faced. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. Such a promise of action in 2/3 years time would be nothing less that irresponsible, stupid and an obvious hostage to fortune since it is quite possible that the fiscal position of the UK will be worse in 2014 than it is now.

Although the Eds have made this point in the media, they have used the wrong language to do so and are bound to be seen as inconsistent by the electorate. They should have said:-

"In Goverment, we will give priority to the reversal of these cuts and, in particular, to those that are unfair to those on low and middle incomes. The speed of such a programme will, of course, depend upon the fiscal position that we inherit."

Did they say that? No. They simply said that they could not commit to reversing the cuts because, at this stage, it was impossible to foresee the fiscal position at the next election. By omitting the first part of my suggested statement they put their heads fairly and squarely into this obvious trap.

Silly boys. They will pay the price.