000278452

Dr. Guillermo Barron

Phil 323A
November 18th, 2011

Unravelling Consciousness
in a New Light
A grossly unpleasant aspect to argumentation and debate occurs when it is not possible to
have a winner between the two or more opposing sides. Emotions become more and more
involved in the argument and the constant dead ends and infinitely circular paths the argument
takes drives some people absolutely insane. While it is foolhardy to suggest that these arguments
need not take place (they remain informative and helpful), they should not be taken so seriously.
In the case of the always elusive consciousness, when it comes to the very essence of the
controversy, neither side of the debate is correct. That being said, there are still substantial
amounts of evidence, concepts, ideas and information that must be considered and known in
order to move forward and continue to solve this baffling mystery. Between monism and
dualism, which theory currently has the most promise and evidence supporting it? What evidence
supports it? What is the validity of this evidence? Is this the best way to clarify these
discrepancies? All these questions and many more must be considered, deliberated and
potentially answered when solving consciousness, if solving it is even possible. However, after
all is said and done, humanity cannot forget the most important thing about consciousness, the
one thing that makes consciousness worthwhile and its one characteristic that makes it achieve
something. Without humanity remembering this crucial and paramount characteristic, I fear none
of it is even worth it. The arguments, the studies, the theories, the triumphs, the defeats, the
memories and the sheer existence of it all may all be in vain. Throughout the course of this essay

I hope to educate the reader about the evidence supporting one side of the debate and hopefully
to also project what it means to be conscious and how to fully respect its bounty.

The hard problem of consciousness is explaining how mentality can allow people to
experience things in subjective terms (Blackmore 15). A harder problem of consciousness is for
people to accept the negative and possibly devastating conclusions that arise when consciousness
after death is considered. As is to be expected, humanity tends to shy away from thoughts that
entail their own demise which is to say, thoughts that suggest an absolute and utter mortality for
people contrary to a second life after the first. Yet, these thoughts seem to be inadequately
compelling and slightly ignorant in a sense. Is it not possible that consciousness is much less
complicated then we presume it to be? Is it not possible that consciousness is merely a
combination of different feelings, perceptions and representations that the brain processes and
understands. Is it not possible for subjective experience to plainly be caused by physical
processes in the brain telling our body that something feels painful or pleasant? These and many
other questions can be answered scientifically and conclusively given enough experimentation
and research whereas any theory of dualism involving a spirit, mind or a soul is far too fantasybased to ever prove until the advent of ones death. In this context, there is no doubt that the
easiest and most sensible way to explain consciousness is to expel any thoughts about a
supernatural life after ones natural life. Hypothetically, but still quite likely, the main reason
people flock towards dualism is because it gives them a source of comfort knowing there may be
more to this life than this simple humanity. Is there any doubt that humans feel pleasant in
knowing that there is more to life than what is currently being carried out? However, no matter
how hard one theorizes about dualism, there is no possible way of proving it; it is a fantasized

dream that humans procure to bring joy to their own consciousness, something all humanity is
hard-wired to do. Like the God concept, there is no way to prove it or disprove it and so it
remains a valid theory even though it truly seems to be as make-belief as the tooth-fairy or the
Easter bunny. As Rupert Read suggests, what philosophers have traditionally thought of as
argumentation hereabouts, by contrast, misfires and tend, as [he has] argued (!), to worsen and
not to improve our state of understanding consciousness by any means (84). Quite plainly, just
talking about possible explanations for a glaring problem for all of humanity tends to only help
slightly at first and continuing to only talk about problems does not get any closer to solving
them. All the answers to consciousness lie within our brain, a complicated and mysterious organ
that we have not made much progress in understanding, but which remains capable of solving the
hard problem of consciousness strictly scientifically given enough time. Colin McGinn, another
expert in this field, disagrees with Read in saying that the question of the relation between mind
and body is a perfectly meaningful question, however hard it may be to answer, which frankly
just sounds like false hope in a dying study with no reasoning behind the assertion (McGinn
209). Conversely, McGinn also states that, science asks meaningful questions with answers we
can in principle discover, but philosophy (it is said) indulges in meaningless pseudo-questions
that cannot be rationally answered because their accompanying proofs are too abstract and
contain too much supposition (McGinn, 208). If humanity operates under the premise that
consciousness is simply a by-product of biology and that our brains are made to seek pleasure, to
survive and to find a greater good for themselves, we may all get closer to finding the truth about
our consciousness and being able to explain it in purely objective terms; yet, in any theory that
has a mind or a detached supernatural being involved, this will not be possible. Consciousness

may not be all it is made to be. There may only be a single and specific explanation for it that
humanity has missed because they have excessively blown it out of proportion.

In introspect, it only makes sense that a monist approach to consciousness is the best
explanation. It explains that a brain, identified as I or the self specifically to each one, can
give rise to subjective experience through simple processes such as sight, smell and touch. In
essence, we can make the assumption that things as rudimentary as neurons, electrical impulses
and neurotransmitters carrying out their purposes are what makes up consciousness in itself (a
reductionists theory) . In the case of artificial intelligence, which can be seen as a way to prove
this monist theory if it is ever created perfectly, we can safely assume that the mind and the brain
are not separate at all and that there is no supernatural aspect to the brain. In the words of John
Searle, all that a digital computer has, by definition, is the instantiation of a formal computer
program, in other words, there is no such thing as the free thoughts of a computer (Blakemore
213). Moreover, if all a computer has is the representation of whatever program it runs, then a
human body can be seen as only representing whatever brain it inhabits and whatever processes
it carries out. Take the Turing Test for example: It was designed by Alan Turing to test whether
a computer or other system had the same cognitive abilities as humans and in effect, the test is
whether or not an expert would be able to distinguish the machines performance from that of a
human if not, the machine has the same cognitive abilities as the human (Blakemore 213).
Many years ago, the machine could not successfully imitate human cognition, but nowadays, the
machine is able to pass this test locally, which is to say in limited aspects. If artificial intelligence
continues to follow this path, then there is no doubt it will pass the Turing Test globally at some

point. According to Richard Gregory, the strong claim is that any physical system that is
capable of carrying out the necessary processes can be meaningfully intelligent even if it is
made out of old beer cans, as John Searle puts it (Blakemore 237). Undebatably, when looking
at the origin of consciousness, there must be a form of physical process to procure it. As far as
we know, consciousness must stem from material: It cannot exist purely on its own and there is
no way of testing a supernatural theory of consciousness that doesnt involve ones own death.
Regardless of where one looks, supernatural theories of consciousness end in total uncertainty.
Theoretically then, consciousness can arise from any substance, synthetic or organic, as there is
no proof suggesting that it can only originate from a humans nervous system. Additionally, one
of John Searles many arguments against artificial intelligence is that it is still not able to
completely understand whatever it computes, therefore making its consciousness illegitimate
(Blakemore 213). Logically, this argument is too premature when looking at the progress of
science in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. There has been a steady increase in
progress towards these scientific milestones over the recent years and to simply assume that there
is no definite way a computer will be able to understand as humans do is too rash of a decision.
In light of the fact that there is no real way of discussing consciousness to a point of finality, the
only suppositions that can be made are ones with internal logical consistency that show solid
promise of being genuine arguments in the future.

Consciousness achieves nothing in the sense of an afterlife. Yet, there is a silver lining in
every black cloud; consciousness is the joy and bane of life, as McGinn states; it perplexes us,
but it allows us to do so much (xi). Granted, this particular theory of consciousness ends in
blackness and total unconsciousness, consciousness has achieved so much for humanity, even if

this does not accomplish anything in the sense of the big picture. Consciousness is merely what it
is like to be human, no more and no less, just like winged and furry is what it is like to be a bat
(Blackmore, 19). It seems as if people tend to get too wrapped up in the thought that there must
be something more to this life than only this life. While it is true that we do not know the
absolute and objective definition about consciousness quite yet; science is behind
neurobiologically and the arts have been trying to explain and prove the same theories for over
2000 years. But does this mean we should not enjoy it? One could argue all day for monism or
for dualism but as of now, while there are no solid facts to base any genuine theories off of, it is
all pointless. We do not know the real explanation for consciousness; therefore, at this point, any
explanation is valid. As with God, there are arguments for his existence and against it, but it is
impossible to prove it or disprove it. Undeniably, the philosophy of mind right now is just a
bunch of ways scientists and humanitarians are stabbing at the problem of consciousness; so far,
unsuccessfully. Is it useful? Absolutely. Is it informative? Undoubtedly. Is it conclusive?
Completely and utterly not. Henceforth, instead of wasting time arguing pointlessly about a
problem with no solution, use the very thing that is being deliberated to bring joy to ones life.
Perhaps for now, the best way to go about this timeless debate is to operate under the premise
that there is currently no right or wrong point of view and in turn, let up on the ferocity of the
argumentation. Use possibly the only life we are given, as far as we know, to be more optimistic
about consciousness and use it for its main purpose: To live. Do not throw it all away for
something that may not be worth your while; see life simply as the life we have and live it as it is
given to us, to the best of our ability and as well as we possibly can.

Works Cited:
Blackmore, Susan. Consciousness: An Introduction. 2nd Ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2012. Print. This source attempts to give a generalized view with many
opinions and varying views regarding thoughts on consciousness. It facilitates in
accumulating all the current and opposing views on consciousness in the subject to help
choose a view point and understand arguments and counter arguments for said view
point.

Blakemore, Colin and Susan Greenfield. Mindwaves: Thoughts on Intelligence, Identity &
Consciousness. Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA: B. Blackwell, 1987. Print. This
source attempts to discuss the many sub-problems inherit within the hard problem of
consciousness such as artificial intelligence, free will and more. It appeals to everyone as
it covers a wide array of various topics and presents many opinions and views on all of
them. The lead author, Colin Blakemore, Ph.D, FRS, FmedSci, HonFSB and HonFRCP,
teaches neuroscience at Oxford University and the University of Warwick and completed
his doctorate in philosophy in physiological optics. Granted, this source is fairly outdated;
however, the ideas expressed in it tends to be relatively timeless and applies to topics
regardless of the era. This source will aid in offering an opposing view in this paper.
Henceforth, this source is reliable and useful.

McGinn, Colin. The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World, 1st edition. New
York: Basic Books, 1999. Print. This source talks mainly about the debate between
science and philosophy and the explanation of consciousness in relation to our progress

in understanding it. This source tends to be quite general and appeals to everyone with an
interest in the subject. The author, Colin McGinn, is a professor of philosophy at Rutgers
University, is the author of several books on philosophy (including Mental Content) and
contributes to scientific magazines such as The New Republic. This source helps this
paper due to the fact that it helps promote the idea that philosophy is too abstract to
answer any problems it asks. All in all this source is credible and does a great job in
explaining the key problems in philosophy and the debate between it and science.

Read, Rupert. Theory, Culture & Society, 25, no. 2: The Hard problem of consciousness is
continually reproduced & made harder by all attempts to solve it. Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE Publications, 2008. Print. In this article, the main point the author tries
to convey is that the closer we get to finding ways to the answer to the hard problem of
consciousness the farther we push it away. It poses quite an interesting view on how we
go about finding the answer to consciousness. The author is a reader in philosophy at the
University of East Anglia and graduated from Balliol College, Oxford and received his
doctorate in philosophy, politics and economics from Princeton and Rutgers University.
Moreover, this article will facilitate in proving that philosophy is still too abstract to ever
figure out the answer while still alive so this article helps overall and remains credible.

Searle, John. The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1992. Print.
This source argues for the point that there is no real dualist concept to the mind-body
problem. Using artificial intelligence as his argument, John Searle demonstrates how the
mind is simply a constituent part of the brain. Searle graduated from Oxford University

and teaches philosophy at the University of Berkeley, California. The source is slightly
old but the concepts and views expressed in it can still be valid and useful to the nature of
this paper. Therefore, this source is legitimate and worthwhile.