The Link #26 - Toward Understanding Consciousness

Dr. John H. Hidley works as a psychiatrist in Ojai, California. He was one of the participants in the 1982 discussions with Krishnamurti, along with Prof. David Bohm and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, recorded on video and available under the title "The Nature of the Mind".

In response to Mind, Brain, and Behaviour, by Lloyd Williams (No. 24, pp. 32–33), I would like to jump into the dialogue, if that’s ok.

It seems to me that the current literature within the field of the neuroscience of consciousness says something quite different from that understood by Prof. Williams.

Genetics, molecular biology, neurology and psychology are making rapid and decisive strides toward understanding consciousness and the self. A variety of powerful new technologies – from brain imaging and direct brain stimulation to chemical studies and computer modeling of brain circuitry – are being brought to bear. In the last 10 years there has been an explosion of research. There are now several international journals devoted exclusively to this research and many other prestigious scientific journals include papers on this area. There are two scientific societies devoted exclusively to scientific and philosophical work on consciousness. At this year’s annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (at the California Institute of Technology) more than 250 scientific papers were presented. The reigning paradigm for all of this work is materialistic throughand- through.

Prof. Williams’ reading of the literature is that ...

The lack of real success has led neuroscience into fragmentation with the various researchers pursuing their individual ideas about which body processes might link the body to the mind and behavior. The resulting profusion of diverse weak findings should disquiet those who find materialism convincing.

Whereas this may have been the state of affairs many years ago, it is certainly not the case now. Although cutting edge science is always characterized by a profusion of approaches, the current neuroscience of consciousness does not want for an overarching, unifying paradigm. The field is not fragmented, nor are the findings weak.

To the contrary, my reading of this literature is that consciousness and the self will be successfully explained as (non-magical, non-spiritual) emergent properties of matter. This will happen incrementally (consciousness and the self being non-unitary phenomena), but it will happen during the lifetime of people who are alive today.

If this turns out to be true, it will be the end of the notion of “the spiritual” as something separate and distinct from matter. It will be the end of the duality that permeates Williams’ essay, the notion that two things exist: a brain and a mind.

the self will be explained as (non-magical, non-spiritual)emergent properties of matter

Historically, science has been a corrosive acid on man’s sense of his own centrality and importance. Just consider the current political struggle in the US over the theory of evolution and the religious Right’s attempts to subvert science education with the doctrine of Intelligent Design. And if you think this is a hot issue, just wait until science proves that the self is nothing but the complex activity of chemicals and neurons.

Until now, people have been free to believe that consciousness and the self are essentially spiritual. Such beliefs are comfortable. They provide a sense of meaning to one’s life, an explanation of suffering, the possibility of continuity after death and confirmation of one’s “spiritual” experiences. Unfortunately, in this century science will foreclose this freedom. Soon, such beliefs will be relegated to the status of historical superstitions, and an educated person will no longer be justified in holding them and maintaining that he is a rational human being.

The psychological and sociological consequences of a thoroughly materialistic explanation of consciousness and the self will be tremendous. Perhaps these consequences are what Prof. Williams is resisting. But I think to resist them is a mistake that will prove as counterproductive as was the Medieval church’s resistance to the emerging notion that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

A more productive approach will be to direct our efforts at generating a coherent and humane way of understanding the state of affairs with which science is confronting us: the realization that mind and brain are one.

And what an interesting and challenging state of affairs it is!

If the “outside” world exists somehow inside my brain, what then is its reality?
If my self is fundamentally a neurological phenomenon, what is its importance and validity?
If the spiritual is actually material, what is its value?
For that matter, what is the basis and validity of any of our values?
Is meaning merely an illusion?

I would be very interested to learn how your readers feel about these issues: if tomorrow they woke up convinced that there was no such thing as “spirit,” that they had no “sacred essence” and were actually “nothing more” than the meat between their ears, and that when that meat died there would be nothing left of them. Just entertain this possibility for a moment: the brain may make you think religious thoughts and have religious experiences, but these are just a natural byproduct of how it functions.

If you became convinced of this, what loss (or gain) would it entail for you?
How would you deal with it?
Would it be possible for you to maintain your optimism and persevere in the face of likely or certain defeat without the idea that your suffering has meaning?
Would it be possible for you to live a meaningful life without the support of the idea that you are, in essence, a spiritual being?
Would it be possible for you to live a virtuous and humane existence without the idea that virtue and values are somehow transcendental?
If there is no survival of the individual after death, would the materialistic culture this view entails be able to survive and thrive?
What values would it have to evolve to remain healthy?

2005 by John H. Hidley, MD
john.hidley@sbcglobal.net
May be reprinted with credit and email address of the author