All sentient people possess the same intuitive awareness of their own existence. We refer to this cognizance as the "self," and though it is one of the most fundamental human experiences, it is also one of the most mysterious. I have asked people on very many occasions to answer the question "who are you?" without using their name, profession or character traits. Most are stumped and find themselves surprised to have never really considered the question before. Who indeed are we? It seems to me that the answer to this query is fairly binary -- either our self-awareness is a function of the mechanistic forces of the brain and its structure or our consciousness exists in time but not in space and is rooted in a plane of reality that is beyond (but interacts with) our own. All we need concern ourselves with is -- what is the simplest solution to what Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett has referred to as the "problem of consciousness?" As I have in the past, I draw much of my inspiration on this topic from my friend Moshe Averick and his compelling book "Nonsense of a High Order."
In this discussion, many modern scientific thinkers have taken position that consciousness is an illusory faculty created by our neuronal activity. According to this position, our subjective self-awareness is wholly imagined fantasy that has no objective existence:
"Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not; some deep entity inside the brain that corresponds to the "self", some kernel of awareness that runs the show ... after more than a century of looking for it brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn't exist." (Journalist Michael Leminick, Time Magazine)
"We feel, most of the time, like we are riding around inside our bodies, as though we are an inner subject that can utilize the body as a kind of object. This last representation is an illusion ... " (Atheist author Sam Harris)
"The intuitive feeling that we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in the control room of our brain ... is an illusion." (Dr. Steven Pinker)
These thinkers all readily acknowledge that our actual experience of reality seems to fly in the face of their description of it -- hence Professor Dennett's "problem of consciousness." One would think that in order to draw conclusions about the true nature of this problem they would rely on carefully researched evidence and hard facts before informing us that every experience that we have (or will ever have) -- from love and morality to the appreciation of beauty and free will -- are fictitious. Here are some examples of what the world of science does actually offer on this topic:
"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious." (Dr. Jerry Fodor, Professor of philosophy and cognitive science)
"The problem of consciousness tends to embarrass biologists. Taking it to be an aspect of living things, they feel they should know about it and be able to tell physicists about it, whereas they have nothing relevant to say." (Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winning biologist)
"Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all." (Dr. Nick Herbert, Physicist)
Based on these honest assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on this topic one might think that these thinkers -- who have a priori drawn conclusions on a subject for which they seem to have little to no evidence -- would speak in far more humble and guarded tones. No one seriously suggests that protons, quarks or chemical compounds possess innate awareness. Why then do they suggest that the products of these foundational materials will suddenly leap into self-cognizance? Is this a truly rational position to hold? Exactly how many electrons does it take for them to become "aware" of themselves? Cells do not wonder about themselves, molecules have no identity and a machine -- no matter how sophisticated -- is imbecilic (without its programmer).
If our decision-making faculty was indeed an illusion of the brain it should be impossible to physically affect the brain through our own willful decisions and yet research has demonstrated that the "I" can and does alter brain activity through the agency of free will as described by Canadian neuroscientist Dr. Mario Beauregard:
"Jeffrey Schwartz ... a UCLA neuropsychiatrist, treats obsessive-compulsive disorder -- by getting patients to reprogram their brains. Evidence of the mind's control over the brain is actually captured in these studies. There is such a thing as mind over matter. We do have will power, consciousness, and emotions, and combined with a sense of purpose and meaning, we can effect change."
Why then should we not consider the possibility -- the one that satisfies our deepest, most powerful and intuitive sense -- that the "I" that we all experience is the human soul? And that the reason that science has not discovered its whereabouts is not that it doesn't exist, but rather that it is not part of physical reality as we know it and as such is undetectable and unmeasurable by material means. It is certainly understandable that for those who believe that material reality is the only reality this would be an unwelcome notion. Nonetheless, I submit that in absence of any compelling alternative and with the obviousness of the reality of our self-awareness so manifestly apparent -- it is the rational conclusion to draw.
Follow Rabbi Adam Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiAdamJacobs
It is no accident that the higher one looks on the food chain, the more developed brains one finds. The sense of individual identity is an evolutionary advantage because it allows individuals to form groups, and the group is an extremely efficient form of hunting. The wolf pack cooperatively brings down the elk because individuals have competed within a hierarchal structure to establish an alpha male who leads the pack - it is individual identity which provides the single wolf a means of relating to other wolves which allows the group to form and become a functional unit for survival.
We're at the top of the chain because our highly developed sense of individual identity makes us better at forming groups than any other predator.
Unfortunately, it may also be our over-specialization of that evolutionary talent that causes us to someday remove ourselves from the chain altogether.
Sitting and asserting things about what "consciousness" is, when we don't even know how to define it, or if it really exists as we seem to imagine it.
The fact that it is so hard to define and evidence for it seems non-existent, it seems more likely that it is an illusion and we are making much ado about nothing.
As neuroscience continues, we will understand more about the human experience, and I speculate that it won't be anything special. Nothing beyond complex neurological (chemical) computation.
No magic pixie dust, sorry if you don't like that.
And if you have an idea of so called "consciousness" that explains it, like "soul", or "spirit". Well, "magic pixie dust" works just as well and is equal to your "soul" or "spirit", so you haven't explained anything!
Our consciousness is the one, and only, thing we can be 100% certain is not an illusion. The physical world - as perceived through our consciousness - could theoretically be an illusion (like the Matrix). But what's beyond dispute is that there is an awareness going on - of something (whatever it actually is).
The subtle differences in definition make is a slippery concept to even talk about.
If you want to talk about "awareness", then use that term and define it.
My point is we cannot assert this as an ill defined "soul" without more information, it is just assertion with no evidence to back it up.
The only thing we do know is how the beginnings of how the brain works, and more research needs to be done....to my knowledge, there is no evidence that a so called "soul" exists anywhere....until there is...its bunk to assert otherwise.
S. Gautama: "If you insist, but must you carry on about it so?"
Gimme a minute to find it...
(rummages in desk drawers, without result)
Hmm... coulda sworn I saw it just the other day...
(looks in a couple of boxes- no luck)
Might be in the file cabinet- where the heck is the key...?
I don't have a very good sense of what people actually mean when they say "soul". I get the general idea they mean it's some sort of animating spirit that's temporarily inhabiting a material, biological body.
I really don't know if I have one of those or not. The question might belong in the existence-of-god category.
What I have is consciousness, which I've come to think of as an emergent property of complexity. It's a chaotic thing, in the original sense of being formlessness which brings forth form. It's dynamic, adaptive, and fluid, and it's relationship to the physical brain is about the same as that of a rainbow to the sky in which it appears.
I'm reminded at this point of a Buddhist teaching, that the self is only that which we've learned to be, and it is this illusion of self that prevents us from recognizing our identity with the Infinite.
I may have that wrong. I'm not a very good Buddhist.
Anyway, that's all I have. I apologize for its insufficiency.
Absence of alternative to a theory does not make the theory right when there is no rational way to demonstrate it... And here there are alternative, you are just not prepared to consider them...
How is that evidence for anything, for any argument, let alone an argument for a higher plane of existence? It is a statement about lack of knowledge in a particular area. Does Jacobs believe that not understanding something in a materialist scientific sense today is somehow proof that such an understanding will not exist in the future? Before Newton, before Dirac... but today!
Premise: I can't imagine how our sense of self could be generated by the brain.
Conclusion: A magic entity is responsible.
I should also point out that Rabbi Jacobs is not, despite his name dropping, familiar with the relevant philosophical literature on the topic, and he misinteprets just about every quote he cites. People don't pontificate about brain surgery without doing the necessary research. I wonder why Rabbi Jacobs feels he can pontificate about the mind/body problem without becoming familiar with the current state of philosophy and neuroscience regarding the issue.
Is she "conscious?" There are few if any typical signs associated with "consciousness." No apparent signs of self-awareness. Little receptive language and often no expressive language. Little evidence of mental recursion. Learning is barely present. Little if any awareness of the "other."
One could ask similar questions about a person with dementia or Alzheimer disease.
Is "consciousness" equal to "the soul?" How about "personality" or "individuality"? Are all those words synonyms or do they have slightly different meanings?
While it may be true that "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious." It can also be asserted that nobody has the slightest idea how a non-material thing (soul) can interact with a physical entity, and produce "consciousness."
A poorly warmed over version of R. Descartes questions. -- Perhaps the good rabbi is putting de cart before de horse.
Awhile later the bartender comes over and asks, "have another?"
Rene replies, "I think not." and pffft, he disappears.
So you get one of my little stickers. I am not sure if these little stickers remind me of the kids' sticker books or the PSP3 "Little Big Planet". Whatever!
BTW -- since I am off topic anyway -- re your micro-bio (Read a banned book today!): I was raised in the RCC. And the first time I realized there was "something wrong with the picture" was when I committed my first "real" mortal sin. (NO; get your head out of the gutter!!)
I was about fourteen and had just finished reading V. Hugo's Les Miserables, preceded by E. Zola's Germinal. My parish priest informed me one Sunday morning after I had served Mass that those books were on the INDEX of FORBIDDEN BOOKS and were an automatic mortal sin and perhaps even ex-communication. WOWSERS!!! Made me go looking for more -- haven't stopped yet!!
oh yea why is it always the ones with the catholic background who read a lot of "banned" books believe they have the monopoly on counter culture thought patterns? thank God I read whatever I pleased about whatever I pleased whenever I pleased and thank God you realized at a young age you could to. Peace
i'm afraid this is not how logic or science work. at best, you might say that the existence of a soul has not been ruled out by science and that there are no other theories supported by evidence. nor does appealing to 'our deepest, most powerful and intuitive sense' that the soul exists lend any more credibility to your claim.
pinker, harris, et al make the claim that there is nothing supernatural about the mind and that consciousness arises due to the chemical and electrical structure of our brain 1) because modifying the structure of the brain does, in fact, change the person and 2) because there is not one shred of proof for anything supernatural in this world and fewer and fewer need to invoke the supernatural with each passing day.
Thus is rationality betrayed as nothing more than bitter cynicism.
I want to thank you for this article, from the bottom of my heart. I am a young, openminded individual who is a Christian of her own free choice. I have experienced so much disheartening talk about our minds being simply a byproduct of our brains, our souls a trick of biology. I have heard so much of this that it has brought a crippling doubt into my heart. . . removing from me the peace of an eternal soul, and instilling in me a deep fear of death. Your article gave me hope among the sea of doubt. Thank you!
I mean, consciousness arose from something. I don't see how it matters what specifically it arose from. Our minds are grounded in biology and matter. So what? That doesn't mean you have any less a mind. It just answers how the mind came about, that's all.
Also, you seem to assume first person experience can't be accessed third person. That is true at the moment. I see no reason why in principle that must be true in the future. Why you can't use a device to read off the brain's thoughts for example. I see that it would be difficult and some methods would be intrusive and unethical. But no reason why in principle one can't find any way, in particular any ethical way, to do so.
http://www.peterrussell.com/SCG/anomaly.php