Except that…..I’ve found myself writing poetry and drawing pictures. I enjoy it - I find it a good form of meditation and it helps focus my thoughts. There’s even a part of me that wants to show it off to others. And then I thought, “why would they want to see it?” I usually only write or draw when I’m in just the right emotive state, when ideas become as clear to me as watching a film, with every frame and the pictures and information they carry evolving and generating a new level of perception over time. How can I expect other people to understand what is such a personal state of mind? So I began to think that maybe art does have a purpose but only for the artist. It is a way of them expressing and coming to understand their own ideas about the world, about life. However, artists shouldn’t impose their work on others as they cannot possibly understand.

Can they?

I’ve just finished reading a small article entitled “Art for Art’s Sake”, written in an Oxford University periodical, Exposition. In it, the author describes the critical response to William Wordsworth’s Poems, in Two Volumes. It should be mentioned that in these poems, Wordsworth attempts to express the sort of “sensibilities”, that is a person’s “receptivity to external stimuli”, that one can have for even the most simplest of objects or events in nature. In doing so, Wordsworth hoped that, by reading his own elaborate description of his own sensibilities, the reader would become more receptive to such stimuli themself. Wordsworth was using his poetry to try and reach out to others, to enhance their sensibilities, probably with the goal of a more sensitive society. As such, Wordsworth felt his own art had purpose - a moral purpose for society. However, the underlying theme of the critiques was that Wordsworth’s descriptions of his own sensibilities acted more as metaphors and similes for his own emotions and thus none of this poetry was transferable, or useful, to other readers.

The article goes on to say how Wordsworth’s style changed towards the end of his life, how his works became less egocentric and more sympathetic to the possible states of mind of his readers. So, if an artist goes about work in this fashion, with a hope of reaching others for the good of society, can art be said to have purpose?

I think that the critiques of Wordsworth resonates even in this case as the artist is restricted to only his or her sensibility of the sensibilities of those to whom the art is presented. Therefore, art can never be said to have any objective value to society.

However, the critics have ignored one crucial thing: some people are quite alike. Perhaps not in their entirety but enough so that they might get some subjective value, however slight, from the artwork. A large number of subjective opinions can, in many cases, appear objective and provide sufficient motivation for objective progress to be made - take the case of Gandhi’s work in India: his subjective ideal of human equality and non-violent resistance, multiplied by his many followers, resulted in the object liberation of these people from British rule.

I find that there is a lot of art I don’t understand. I expect this is the case with the majority of people. I’m sure that, if I had studied an arts subject, I would be more sensitive to it. I have come to realise that my original claim that art has no use was simply a product of feeling pressured into understanding art that I simply could not understand. Why I felt this pressure I’m not sure - perhaps a desire to feel more cultural or to learn something new yet consistently not being able to find it in other people’s art. Now I would say that, thanks to my own involvement in it, there is indeed a use for art. It helps to focus ideas and cultivate understanding, at the very least for the artist but perhaps even for others who share similar views of the world. And if art can help increase the sensibility of just one person such that they are more receptive (and thus hopefully more responsive) to the society and nature around them then it can only be a good, useful thing.

“The logic of biological regulatory systems abides not by Hegelian

laws but, like the workings of computers, by the propositional alge-

bra of George Boole.” (Francois Jacob & Jacques Monod)

I have just finished reading this article, Bacterial Computing, written by Martyn Amos of Manchester Metropolitan University. The idea that we might harness the rules of nature to perform logical computations in living systems has fascinated me for a couple of years now but I’ve never properly come across any description of it taking place. I was pretty stoked when I found this article.

To give you a gist, Martyn describes how bacteria can be used for such boolean algebra. They can be made to do this by exploiting the many signaling mechanisms that are used in genetic regulatory networks. That is, if you draw a flow diagram of how expression of one gene manipulates the expression of another via signaling and protein building then, for certain genes, signaling mechanisms and proteins, you end up drawing a circuit, much like an electronic one. The behaviour of this circuit can be very complex and Martyn doesn’t fail to exhibit some fascinating examples of how these circuits can be designed to perform distinct functions such as producing an oscillating fluorescence, taking photographs and targeting tumor cells.

A problem is that when you insert these genetic networks into living cells so that they can operate, the results, that is, the ability of the cells to perform a desired task, are disappointingly unreliable due to the inherent noisyness of cellular processes. Martyn describes how some scientists get around this problem by deliberately mutating the cells. In most cases, the mutation gives even worse results but, occasionally, the mutation increases the performance of the cells. By keeping those cells that perform better and discarding those that perform worse, the scientists create an artificial evolutionary process over short time scales by which the cells are selected (in a survival of the fittest manner) to perform the desired task reliably. How cool is that!

So I was thinking - can this be achieved not just in electrical circuits, not just in genetic regulatory networks but in social, behavioural networks as well? Given a large number of behaving organisms (so as to smooth out noise) which can communicate between each other (say, via pheromones) and that will react to certain environmental pressures, you could indeed create a logical behavioural circuit. One could actually harness the predictability of collective behaviour (for example, swarming in locusts) such that, given a change in the environment, any predictable change in behaviour would report, to the experimenter, that very change in the environment with a certain degree of reliability.

Anyway, so far this has not been achieved and so we are left with free will remaining in the realms of mysticism and faith. I have so far managed to avoid going into my beliefs of fundamental reality and truth but cannot avoid doing so here. My description of it will be (relatively) quick so no doubt people will find fault with it. Either for a better understanding of what I am about to describe or simply for your own intellectual benefit, I highly encourage you to read The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. It is truly an outstanding book and is outstandingly written. So this is my truth: all things that exist are manifestations of one thing. To call it “one” thing is misleading as this is comparable to other numbers and other things, suggesting that it can’t be just one thing. By “one”, I mean that it is all encompassing - it is existence itself, it is the God in Christianity, the Tao in Chinese Philosophy, the Brahman in Hinduism, the Allah in Islam. Because it is everything, there is nothing from which to distinguish it - it is as much nothing as it is everything. However, I am pretty sure that, rather than being nothing, it is everything, otherwise I wouldn’t be writing this. I struggle to call it anything for to categorize it is to diminish its all permeatingness. However, we are stuck with language in one form or another as our means to communicate and so I call it ‘ism’. It just……is. And all things are manifestations of ism, all one and the same as they come from and indeed are the same existence. For me, quantum mechanics, the ability to describe anything as a function of probability which extends all space and time, is one of the cornerstones of my belief. If you can understand what I mean by ism, then you will understand this: the concept of free will is such that the thing being free must be free from something else. However, if there is only one, the ism, then there is nothing from which to be free. The question of free will only applies when we do not invoke the premise of ism. If you do believe the premise, then the question of free will is irrelevant. One might say that it doesn’t exist since, by definition, it cannot exist in ism. Regardless of this, its importance is not even worth that clarification. It is irrelevant.

This being said, it seem that consciousness, a tool which helps remove us from the mechanistic determinism of the world, arises mechanistically itself as this emergent property of evolution! Knowing this, what help is there for us?!

Adding to our sense of consciousness

In the previous post, I claimed that, consciousness being a natural and vital component of our behaviour, we should seek out experiences to enhance our perception of being conscious. Now, this is where I realised that these ideas don’t quite add up. In fact, their not adding up led me to an even more fundamental understanding, as I will describe.

It is natural, as a consequence of this emergent meme, consciousness, for us to seek new experiences. However, for us to follow the natural laws of nature - to form a society, create hierarchies, find a partner with whom we may procreate, teach those with fewer experiences than our own, form religions, search for food, earn a living etc. - is to be mechanistic in our behaviour. These are things we expect ourselves to do.

This can’t add much to our experience of being conscious, these behaviours being evolutionary advantageous for us to survive as a species. It seems that evolution has come up with a solution to this as well: our conscious behaviour has evolved such that we seek unnatural behaviours, by which I mean indulging in the arts, playing sport etc. which have no direct influence on survival and seem to be there just for the sake of it. Sure, these behaviours may have arose from refining societal interactions or training competitively for physical endeavours that would increase chances for survival (e.g. it is thought that javelin arose from hunting with spears to catch food/ward of predators) but that isn’t the case nowadays. These activities are simply for our pleasure.

Examples of unnaturally natural behaviour

For example, the creation of national parks and organisations concerned with conservation seems unnatural in a way. One might think that it is natural for a species to proliferate, feeding off the land until resources become so exhausted that the species begins to die off until there is plenty of resources for the reduced population again, which then proliferates and so the cycle continues. However, we have sanctioned large areas of land to stop this from happening. Well, I suppose that stabilising one’s environment, thus increasing the predictability of its behaviour over time, just seems like an intelligent thing to do.

I quite like this next example though: I once saw a news report about the action conservationists were taking to bring a turtle that had strayed far from its natural habitat back to its home. Is this really what nature had intended? Hasn’t evolution hinged on the migration of animals to new parts of the globe where the environmental pressures have given rise to changes in that animal’s anatomy and behaviour over many generations? Yet here were these conservationists, supposedly fighting for nature, yet going against it! I admit that that turtle may not have survived the passing tankers and boats, predation from new species or simply the changes in temperature. But it may have. Another example is of the lioness who adopted a gazelle fawn, an animal that is usually its dinner, on two occasions (the second as a result of the first being eaten by the alpha male!). This was shown on an episode of Big Cat Diary on the BBC.

There seems to be a natural tendency for animal behaviours to go against the grain of nature. Now this certainly would add to the sense of consciousness. It gives a sense of making up your own rules. Yet, as I have said, this is still a naturally occurring, emergent property of nature.

The self destructive nature of nature

So, we have a naturally occurring behaviour which is designed to go against nature! All in aid of increasing this sense of consciousness.

It is natural to go against nature. This recursively destructive statement holds within it a simple truth. Can one say that it is a natural law to have no natural laws? If there are no natural laws then how can there be a law stating it so? This strikes accord with Godel’s incompleteness theorem. In fact, the most simple, fundamental of truths that I have come across are all self destructive. In their absoluteness, there is nothing. In the case of natural laws, “it is a natural law to have no natural laws” leaves no room for any sense of the term “natural law”. What, then, is left? A world without law. Free will. From where this free will arises, I cannot say. Suffice it to say that it must exist.

The nature of truths

It is quite a bold thing to claim a common denominator to truth. I am a philospher in the sense that I love the search for wisdom but admit that I have no formal training in philosophy, other than through my education in science. All I can say is that there are things that cannot be refuted by any argument simply because the argument refutes itself. Yet the argument holds a necessary clause from which necessity is banished. To me, these statements hold the purest truths I have come across. They are different ways of expressing a more fundamental truth. Yet I think the holding of this truth in one’s mind is dependent on one’s perception of its meaning. And this meaning will have varying importance to those who understand it.

Let me give a few examples of what these truths I talk of:

• There is only one thing that we can know and that is that we cannot know anything - does that mean that we cannot know that we can’t know anything? If so then we can indeed know it! And so the cycle continues. What does this mean? Well, to me, it means that knowledge is something that exists - it is the truth. Afterall, one cannot know something that is not the truth. It is held within existence, there to be accessed briefly, in some reduced form, by a portion of that existence which may be our brain. And the workings of our brain are a part of that truth. One thing cannot know another in the sense that that knowledge holds within it the knowing thing.
• The one natural law is that there are no natural laws - I have already spoken about this. The same commentary as that for knowledge applies. It gives rise to the absence of restraints on nature as a necessity. Ironic, as necessity is a form of restraint. I think one of the problems here is the restraining use of language. This is why I tend to refer to existence. As Descartes pointed out, the one thing we can be aware of is existence.
• Existence is everything and, in its encompassing all things, it is as much as nothing - this is my own take on the most fundamental truth. It is a reflection of the Tao (a way) or, as I call it, ism: the being of everything. As there is nothing outside of the ism, its being everything, there is nothing to which it can be compared and, as such, using the definitions of our language, is no one thing - it is nothing as there is nothing from which it can be distinguished.
• Good things are only put into proportion with respect to bad things - for me, this truth has helped me through hard times. The nature of comparison of things manifest within ism is the only way one can describe nature. It is the only way one can come to know truths. One cannot state the fundamental truth simply because the truth encompasses everything, including that statement! I have tried to come as close as possible to describing it above but that statement doesn’t even come close to my understanding of it and my part as a manifestation within the truth of ism. This comparison, or balance between opposites, is one of the keys to Taoism. They describe it as the Yin and Yang, the soft and hard, the cold and hot, the good and bad, the rough and smooth, the joy and misery etc. of life/reality/truth/tao.

A meme (pronounced /miːm/) comprises a unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices; such units or elements transmit from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimemafor mimic.^[1] Memes act as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.^[2]

Richard Dawkins coined the word “meme” as a neologism in his book The Selfish Gene (1976) to describe how one might extend evolutionaryprinciples to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief, clothing/fashion, and the technology of building arches).^[3]

Meme, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

In light of this, I would like to replace my use of the term “evolutionary emotion” in the original with meme. Not only does this describe what I mean more accurately but “emotion” can be misleading. An emotion gives rise to a distinct physiological response and as such has a definate physical presence, unlike what I was trying to describe for consciousness. Of course, one could argue that emotions are learnt and are thus encapsulated by the term “meme”.

This post looks at another idea bound within the “what” of consciousness, that is, the “why”, rather than the “how”.

So, why do we have the feeling of consciousness? With consciousness, one must at least assume that we experience consciousness, whatever it is: we assign the term consciousness to a particular feeling (”conscious comes from the Latin, conscius, which means “knowing” or “aware”).

It might prove most fruitful to ask what it would be like if someone proved that we are not conscious but are, instead, a product of deterministic responses to an array of integrated stimuli (it is a bit non-sensical to ask what it will feel like as to have any feeling would imply that we were indeed conscious: so bare with me!). If we knew that our lives were dictated by something other than our own free will, I would expect that most people, if not everybody, would feel the most intense apathy. What would be the point in trying to do anything? What is our purpose in life? Is there a purpose? Why should you bother procreating? Why do we have laws - if you are sinner, you were destined to be a sinner. I guarantee that if everybody had this notion of life then there would be a major shift in the dynamics of society! Clearly, we must have some form of conscious experience as we have formed a highly structured society and, as claimed in the last post, it at least feels as if we are conscious.

Without consciousness, an apathetic species would die out very quickly! We appear to most definitely have conscious experiences. But why? Do they simply arise out of complexity - the integration of many forms of memory of many different experiences?It seems so. Then, why are we of such a complexity? Why are chimps of another complexity? One easily explains this by invoking the idea of evolution. It seems that the physical, emotional and social complexity of any organism scales with that organism’s distance down the line of evolution.

Is consciousness simply an evolutionary emotion? Well, it seems that if we somehow “knew” we weren’t conscious then we would surely die out as a species. So perhaps consciousness is an emotion that evolved along with the complexity of the organism to induce survival instincts, thus maintaining the survival of the species as a whole. We feel that we are making choices and have responsibilities, that we want to go travelling, see the world, find a partner who understands us, whom we love, who loves us, that we want to be happy and free, that we want children and that we want to bring them up with our ideals. Why?! Well, with regards to procreation, it is the only way to maintain species survival. But what about the other feelings?

The more we experience, the more we feel we are conscious. Within this complicated emotion of consciousness, we seek new experiences such that our notion of being conscious is compounded, thus increasing our drive for survival. This works for individual members of a species as well as for the species itself. If we strive to live longer, we will gain more experiences and have a stronger sense of being conscious, thus driving to strive to live longer!

Now for the confusing bit! I am not claiming that our consciousness isn’t determined. Evidence seems to strongly point towards our conscious experiences depending on the functionality of our brains. The integration of memories, themselves wired into the structure and activity of the brain, then conscious arises from very mechanistic behaviour. However, it takes form in such a way as to give the feeling of free will such that we feel like we are seeking new experiences to enrich our lives and the lives of others.

From the preceding discussion, we have seen that consciousness is something we feel. It could therefore be classed as an emotion. It seems to be a very sophisticated, self maintaining, mechanistic property of all organisms, with varying degrees of complexity suited to the behavioural complexity and needs of the organism. Its complexity has interspecies and even intraspecies variation - not surprising if it varies in complexity and affective power with the variation in experience between individual organisms.

What should we do with this idea of consciousness? It would be very easy to say that, despite its purpose in eluding us to a feeling of self and purpose so as to maintain our survival, it is mechanistic nonetheless and, as such, why should we bother? This would be the apathetic catastrophe resulting in nullification of our species. I would imagine that this would be an impossible way to live, on the whole, as this emotion of consciousness is ingrained into our very being. We would, bizarrely, be “choosing” to live deterministically!

Should we, therefore, humour ourselves with the feeling of consciousness and go about our lives as if blissfully unaware of the nature of our being? In fact, my answer would be yes…..in part! I am a great believer in evolution finding the most successful means for life. Although it seems that some species have gone wrong somewhere along the evolutionary line, this is usually advantageous to a greater or lesser degree to other species in its vicinity. Looking at the world’s ecosystem as a whole, it seems that mother nature has got it spot on! I would therefore say that it would probably be a very good idea to take this idea of consciousness, if you “choose” to accept it, and seek as many experiences as you can so as to compound your feeling consciousness. It will make your life feel better because that is how it is intended - that is how we evolved.

We seek many answers without really knowing what we’re asking. What
is the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything? If we find the
answer to be 42 then did our question really ask of what we wanted to
know? Hell, what is it to know something?!

Some scientists look for neural correlates of consciousness i.e.
activity patterns in the brain that are temporally correlated with what
we would call a conscious experience. Yet, what is a conscious
experience?! Is it simply the firing of neurons in particular areas of
the brain that bring about certain sensations. Is it beyond physicality
as in Descartes’s dualism?

Others theorise that consciousness arises out of quantum phenomena.
Some say that it is spin mediated, others that a conscious event is the
objective reduction of superimposing wavefunctions in microtubules.

Still, others prefer to look at perception and the psychophysics thereof.

The problem underlying why so many approaches are being
investigated is that people haven’t been pernickety enough with the
question of “what is consciousness” and have drawn conclusions too
early in their line of thought. Perhaps I will be doing the same here.
This is at least the stage of my thoughts on the concept of
consciousness at the current point in time. What follows is the
sequence of questions I asked myself in trying to deduce what is going
on when I think I’m conscious of something.

I know that, at least, I have the sensation of conscious experience
even though I don’t know what is causing it. So perhaps a more
revealing question might be “what is the feeling of consciousness”?

Firstly, how can we tell that we’re conscious? Most people
tend to say “because I can feel it” or “this experience means something
to me” and some say that the fact they have, or appear to have, free
will implies their own consciousness and that no one else can tap into
it i.e. it is subjective. Subjectivism is fatal when trying to tackle
consciousness because one can always argue that one only has their own
experiences and that, as far as one can be 100% sure, everyone and
everything else is an illusion, a fabricated perception, as a result of
absolute skepticism. This is the subject of solipsism which people
generally try to avoid when talking about pretty much anything in order
to get anywhere! I will talk about solipsism in another blog.

You have all probably experienced a very tedious, monotonous time
when you have been, for example, sitting in the passenger seat of a car
on the motorway, or even the driver’s seat, then suddenly realise that
you cannot remember anything that has happened in the last ten minutes.
You know you were taking things in because your eyes were open. You
know that you could hear the engine of the car and radio. You know that
you’ve managed to not crash the car! But you cannot remember anything
specific and as such cannot recount anything that happened to you in
those ten minutes. Were you actually conscious of that experience or
were you a zombie, letting your bodily functions go about their
business like a robot? To emphasise the point, there are many events in
our past that we can’t remember. How can we be sure that we were
conscious of them if we can’t remember them? Were we conscious as a
newborn or were we driven by built in instincts in order to maintain
our survival?  Perhaps you definitely remember being conscious at a
particular time - you were definitely at a party but you cannot
recollect any specifics about the party. In fact, you are only
inferring that you were at the party as it doesn’t make sense to have
been anywhere else. You remember going there and drinking beer, making
polite, generic conversation. Then you wake up in your bed with a very
bad headache! You could try and argue that you were conscious during
those times you can’t remember but who’s to say that you weren’t just a
zombie reacting to the various stimuli around you? Alcohol causes
conformational changes in the brain that allows for the increased
conductance of inhibitory chemicals called GABA. By inhibitory, I mean
that these chemicals act to reduce the activity of the brain such that
your brain’s responsiveness to stimuli decreases in a very mechanistic
manner as more alcohol is consumed. Your “consciousness” also appears
to decrease as a result of this.

Have you ever tried to quote someone from a talk but not been able
to remember exactly what they said? Were you actually conscious at that
time? You know what the gist of it was, according to how you formulated
the meaning in your brain and so you recall those formulations instead,
those memories of what the quote meant rather than the actual words.
Then you suddenly remember the exact words and can ascertain that yes,
indeed, you were conscious when hearing the quote!

How can we tell that others are conscious? Do they have to be
able to communicate their thoughts to us somehow before we can
ascertain that they are conscious? Stephen Hawking, without the aid of
his computer, would fall into this category. With his aid, however, we
know that he definitely is conscious. Before the technology and medical
advances we are fortunate enough to have today existed, it would have
been assumed that people with symptoms similar to that of Stephen
Hawking were “brain dead”.

Are you conscious when you’re asleep? Mostly we would say no
because we can’t remember anything when asleep. Except for dreams. So
we’re asleep but we still form new memories and can recount our dreams
when we wake up, even though we calculate that they did not happen in
real life.

It seems that consciousness is very heavily dependent on our remembering things.
We can only be sure that we are conscious of something when we can
integrate suitable memories together to recreate a suitable perception
or feeling corresponding to that of which we are conscious.

The previous questions suggest that animals, too, are conscious.
They cannot express it very well to us, though some can better than
others, but this cannot be a requirement of consciousness as was
exemplified earlier with Stephen Hawking.

Is consciousness restricted to anything that has a memory?

What is a memory? A popular school of thought on memory and
the formation of memories in the brain is as follows: a memory is
characterised by a specific pattern of activity in specific areas of
the brain. This specific set of activity is a result of a specific
structure in the brain, i.e. the synaptic connectivity between neurons
in the brain. Many memories may be supported by this structure (there
are approx. 100 billion neurons in the brain, each making approx. 10
thousand connections with other neurons, i.e. there are approx. a
million billion individual connections in the brain which contribute to
its computation). In order to form new memories, our brain undergoes
conformational changes by a process called long term potentiation
(LTP), i.e. there are physical changes to the structure of connectivity
in the brain due to new activity patterns (that represent newly forming
memories) that must be accommodated. Long term depression (LTD)  acts
to prune some of the connections (due to there being less activity in
those areas) such that the connectivity map doesn’t get over
complicated (which would result in a decrease in computing power).

In computers, a memory is stored as the change in the physical state
of the hard disk - small magnetic polarisations each record a bit of
information. Several bits are called upon and integrated by the
computer’s software (the functionality of which is also stored in this
way on the hard disk) to produce a response to a task request.
Sometimes, due to the degradation of the hardware, some bits of
information are lost and the task request cannot be completed,
analogous to us not being able to remember some things.

In general terms, a memory is a change in state of a system.
Any system! It is the effect brought about by a cause. As described in
chaos theory, after many effects are produced, the clarity of a single
effect may become diffuse. The specific memory it contained is lost.
Yet this memory has acted as a cause (or at least a contribution) to,
perhaps, many other effects. In this way, the memory is maintained but
has changed state.

The flow of air around a butterfly’s wings is a change in state of
the air at that location (if the state parameter is velocity, for
example) and is a memory of the flapping of the butterfly’s wings. The
hurricane produced on the other side of the world is not the same
memory but has nonetheless been created with a contribution from the
change in state of flow because of the butterfly’s wings.

So, does a rock have consciousness? If it is split in half, it
remains split in half. Its state has changed, therefore there is a new
memory in the universe, therefore it contributes to consciousness. Does
the rock contain this consciousness? Yes and no. The rock, as a closed
system, will be conscious of its being split because there exists a
memory in the form of the change of state of the rock. If the rock is
within another system then that system is conscious of the change in
state of the rock, albeit a smaller contribution to the overall state
of consciousness of that larger system.

Do neural correlates of consciousness really answer the hard problem? The hard problem, as coined by philosopher David Chalmers, is that of the meaning of conscious states to us. For example, we might know that an apple is red, but how red
? Various attempts have been made and are ongoing to find activity
patterns in the brain that correlate with various forms of perception,
for example of people’s faces, attention, goal directed activity etc.

Can one really expect to find a neural correlate for every conscious
experience? Or is there a particular pattern of activity that
orchestrates the perception of raw stimuli in such a way that we place
meaning with it? The former seems too complex and fails to explain our
notion of conscious experience. The latter is too simplistic and no
anatomical structure of the brain has been found to be responsible for
this.

The scientific approach needed to address the form of
conscious takes two streams: experimental and theoretical. Experimental
approaches are riddled with extraneous variables, some which are known
and accounted for and some which people are not aware of yet.
Experimental approaches require correlating physical data as obtained
using, for example, fMRI, EEG, MEG, etc. with conscious experience, as
detailed by a conscious person. This seems very subjective and the very
nature of consciousness in the subject is likely to confound any useful
data with the problem of quantifying conscious experience.

However, if one is able to construct a coherent theory of
consciousness then build a machine that, governed by this theory,
displays conscious behaviour, then one might be able to say what
consciousness really is. For this, dualism must be thrown out of the
window as a higher state of mind, outside of physicality, would not
exist for a computer! On the other hand, if consciousness is simply an
elaborate sequence of cause and effect then such behaviour should be
reproducible, although it certainly would take many years from now to
make such a machine. Of course, one could argue that the machine has
simply been programmed to display very complex behaviour by a set of
axioms defined by an actually conscious person. Of course, this is what
one might be trying to say about consciousness in humans anyway! The
real evidence would lie in whether a human could distinguish an
artificial intelligence system from a human. If not, then perhaps
consciousness really is an emergent property of complexity.

Thus far I have been dwelling on what consciousness is and how to
think about this question. However, there remains an equally
interesting question: why we are conscious?

So as not to publish too daunting a blog, I will look at this in the next blog.

In the following discussion I address the role of quantum mechanics with regards to a deterministic universe set in the context of free will. The constraints placed on us by our current understanding of the universe set out the limits of what we can know about free will and indeed any other aspect of nature of this kind. These arguments are used as a basis for my own direction in pursuit of a truer understanding of the universe.

Reality and measurement

It seems that there can be a lack of distinction between the nature of measurement or observation and the nature of what is real (reality), amongst scientists and philosophers alike.

Our understanding of the universe is largely based on the construct of quantum mechanics and since its conception has revealed many surprising aspects about the laws of nature, but non as important to us as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Briefly put, HUP states that so called conjugate variables of a quantum system cannot be know simultaneously e.g. the momentum and position of an electron. By considering the universe as a collection of quantum mechanical systems, which we believe it to be, the HUP can be expanded to encompass all aspects of nature. There is nothing surprising about this. The universe is in a sense unknown to us, we can predict its behaviour with some probablility, but can never determine exactly how things will pan out. However, this is not to suggest that the universe itself plays out in a random fashion. The key to understanding this point is to grasp the meaning of what reality is, and how it may be different in its nature to the restrictions of measurement.

Quantum mechanics can be fun.

What we measure is of course different to reality, we know this to be a consequence of HUP, but this is not the point of the discussion. Because measurements of reality are limited by HUP, and turn out to be probabilistic, does not necessarily mean reality itself is probabilistic. It is important to draw the line between the nature of observation and that of reality

The HUP is a limitation on measurement and therefore we cannot claim that reality is indeed probabilistic. This distinction forms the premise of this argument.

What is reality?

The laws that govern our universe restrict the information we can obtain from any system and so we can only predict with uncertainty in any ‘billiard ball’ model how it will evolve. Reality could be different however, it can never be deterministic in the sense that we could predict it, but it may be internally deterministic. By this is meant that nature herself could ‘know’ precisely what reality is. This in turn destroys the notion of free will. On the other hand, nature may not know what reality is, and reality itself may be subject to constraints similar (or perhaps identical) to those of measurement (HUP).

Are we free?

This question has been of great interest to many great philosophers throughout history. There is a huge desire as an intelligent species to provide a solid answer to this conundrum. But how could we ever know if the universe affords us free will? Unfortunately with our current understanding of the universe, and in particular that of quantum mechanics, we can not know anything of this sort, and so in philosophy it shall remain.

Remarking on our understanding

Quantum mechanics undermines determinism, however, it is not an argument for free will. Since free will, if we believe it to exist, must form part of reality which we can never know with complete certainty.

Scientific direction

What has been said up to now is completely factual and is based on our current understanding of the universe. My own opinion is the following. I believe free will does exist, it is something I can only believe in, I suppose it is a faith. Quantum mechanics (along with evolution) is one of the most proven scientific theories in existence and for this reason I believe also in the HUP. So I have three options, either to accept reality to be internally deterministic, indeterministic or that it has some other nature I have not explored yet. Any way, if I knew which one it was, I would form an argument in favour of my belief in free will. Being as I have no choice but to remain ignorant of reality, I see no point in forming arguments of this kind.

This way

It is my view that questions concerning free will, the existence of god and our very own conscious existence (cogito ergo sum) can be futile endeavours if not tackled from the correct angles. In particular, the quest for a better understanding of consciousness. Although philosophy can be a rewarding and worthwhile exercise, I believe it will fall short in providing a true understanding of consciousness. One flaw with using philosophically grounded arguments for proofs concerning consciousness is that it uses consciousness to unravel the very mystery of consciousness (Prof. Robert Winston). Perhaps for this reason it is bounded by limitations we are unable to address as possibly conscious beings. I believe this aspect of human endeavour will be fruitful if explored in a scientific context based on theory and experiment. We may never arrive at a full understanding, but it may bring us a little closer.

Matthew Broome 21^st October 2008

Links

Chris Crawford - Free Will & Determinism

Christian Neuroscience Society - Quantum Mechanics & Free Will

Many would argue that science will eventually reveal all of nature’s hidden gems and answer all of its fundamental questions. Of course they would have a challenge to fight off religion which already has answered some of these philosophical questions based on scripture and in many cases a divine belief. If faith and scripture are the basis of religious argument, can science ever hope to combat this rigid and strict reasoning?

The real question I would like to address is this: Do science and faith need to be consistent in their content to be consistent not only in their objectives but also the fruits of the respective human endeavors, these being finding the answers to fundamental questions of life, the universe and everything? My immediate and only answer is no. If science and religion ask the same question but arrive at different answers is either of them wrong? And can we justify such poignant questions with just one answer? Indeed, is there only one answer? If so, one of them must be wrong, right?

Quantum mechanics reveals to us that the one gauge we have on reality, measurement, is not certain, and the answers to questions we pose reality are probabilistic in nature. This is a fundamental premise to quantum mechanics and is known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. With this in mind, not forgetting its scientific origins, we can not expect simply, on a measurement front, to achieve one answer to any fundamental and important question about reality or existence.

In brief, science by its own limitations can not achieve in any case, one hundred percent accurate, definitive and single, answers to many questions of life, the universe and everything. Religion could claim to already have done so. In some religious frameworks for example, the notion that we are here on this planet in transit to the afterlife, during which we shall experience heaven, is one answer religion has given for our existence.

However, there is an overriding theme which needs reflection in the context of science and faith. One solid conclusion can be drawn from the fact that there is an inherent uncertainty of measurement in science as well as in the notion of an afterlife claimed by some belief systems. The objective in both major aspects of human thought and endeavor, to arrive at the answer to life, the universe and everything, is capped by the uncertainty of reality.

Returning to the title question, it would appear that although methodology of achieving the answers in science and faith may differ in many respects, the difficulties they face are common. As a concluding thought; if it is impossible to reach the answer in its fullest form, is there any need to get closer to it?

Matthew Broome 15^th September 2008

As part of our quest for a better understanding of ‘mind and matter’ and that of a conscious being, indeed what consciousness itself really is, we are opening the doors to new ideas. It is our hope that we shall first come to the right questions needed as scientists to investigate this area. After which who knows what nature will throw at us.

This space will be used as an arena for philosophical debate. And in the spirit of such everyone is invited to contact us to share their opinions and comments which we will share with the community through this very space.