With the ever-growing population of scientists and researchers, many of them still cannot decide on a single, true definition of consciousness - I believe this is where the debate begins and thrives. What is consciousness? Is it cognitive alertness? Is it the ability to formulate thoughts and opinions? And does that include being able to express and communicate those thoughts and opinions? My definition of consciousness is a state of cognitive functioning that allows the physical brain to identify "self-awareness, emotion, perception, and reasoning" (Hazen 95). Based on this definition, consciousness is much more than the physical neurological data that we can analyze - which is why I choose to believe that the study of consciousness is not scientific. At least, not yet.
For a concept such as consciousness to be scientific, there must be a clear question and a process in which to find an answer. The study of consciousness as a science has yet to meet those qualifications; groups of researchers cannot define consciousness, so is the main question “what is consciousness?” or something deeper? Now, let’s say that there is a central definition of consciousness – the next step would be to research and create experiments, collect data, make observations, and come to some type of conclusion. Many scientists are arguing that this will happen one day, but I am very skeptical. Consciousness is so abstract and such a unique human quality that I believe we are decades, maybe even centuries, away from being able to classify consciousness as a science. So if consciousness is not scientific, what is it? Many argue that the key to understanding consciousness is understanding neuroscience.
Although the knowledge of neuroscience adds an intriguing realm to consciousness, I do not believe that it is the “key” to the mystery of consciousness. I feel we keep trying to answer a scientific question that is completely unscientific. Understanding cognitive functions will not help us understand consciousness, although neuroscience does paint an interesting picture and aids in our understanding of the human brain. John Searle argues exactly the opposite – Searle believes that not only is consciousness scientific, but he clearly lays out instruction for how to study it. I am not arguing that neuroscience is irrelevant to consciousness because there is physical evidence of cognitive alertness - “Perhaps we are wrong to think that neurons and synapses are the right anatomical units to account for consciousness, but we do know that some elements of brain anatomy must be the right level of description for answering our question. We know this because we know that brains do cause consciousness in a way that elbows, livers, television sets, cars and commercial computers do not, and therefore, we know that the special features of brains, features that they do not have in common with elbows, livers, etc., must be essential to the casual explanation of consciousness” (Searles, 1935). I would be naïve to believe that the brain does not aid in consciousness because our brains and consciousness sets us apart from inanimate objects. Simply, I believe that although neuroscience is central to understanding consciousness, it is not a sole explanation to the idea of consciousness.
Alright, so consciousness is not scientific and it cannot be explained by neuroscience. So you’re probably thinking – what is it?! Well, I do not have an answer. Consciousness is the way the sun feels on your skin after you’ve been in a chilly room, it is knowing when to comfort a friend, it is being able to make small talk and jokes with a stranger on a train. I know that these are only examples but for consciousness to be scientific, we must be able to explain WHY humans are able to do these specific things and others like them. E. Roy John proposes a theory for consciousness that I have come to adopt as my own belief, “The key to consciousness lies in understanding how meaningful perceptions are generated in the brain from discrete discharges in huge populations of neurons” (John, 244). John is saying that the brain generates messages of meaningful perceptions – so there is a neurological component of consciousness but the real mystery of it is that the perceptions of consciousness are meaningful. What causes those messages from the brain to be meaningful and important? This is the main question in which we may never find an answer.
I believe we are trying to answer a question that is not specific enough to yield the type of answer that we want. We are offering only black and white options when consciousness may be a grey area. Before we can start analyzing consciousness and testing it in experiments, we must find a common definition and agree about the creation/origin of consciousness. I feel we are still way beyond our years in coming to a conclusion about the concept of consciousness but I am excited to be a part of the continuing research and academia.
Works Cited
Hazen, Robert M. “The Great Unknown.” Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River
John, E. Roy . "A Theory of Consciousness." Current Directions in Psychological Science Dec. 2003: 244-250. JSTOR. Web. 14 Sep. 2010.
Searle, John R. "How to Study Consciousness Scientifically." Philosophical Transcations: Biological Sciences 29 Nov. 1998: 1935-1942. JSTOR. Web. 14 Sep. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment