{"id":1049,"date":"2024-12-10T13:46:35","date_gmt":"2024-12-10T15:46:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/whoweare.elementor.cloud\/?p=1049"},"modified":"2025-01-10T12:37:25","modified_gmt":"2025-01-10T14:37:25","slug":"perception","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/whoweare.elementor.cloud\/en\/perception\/","title":{"rendered":"Consciousness"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Ecce est percipi<\/h3>\n\n

So, have we been flogging a dead horse? The idea that things only exist in our minds just doesn\u2019t feel right – it seems to question the solidity of the very ground beneath our feet. \u00a0 This same frustration is reflected by Samuel Johnson when he kicked the rock.<\/p>\n\n

Here\u2019s how his biographer, James Boswell, remembers the discussion with his friend as they were leaving church one Sunday way back in 1763 :\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

We stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, “I refute it <\/em>thus<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

What was being refuted by the pain shooting through his foot was Bishop Berkeley\u2019s principle of Immaterialism, namely that \u201cto be is to be perceived\u201d – or \u201cesse est percipi\u201d in Latin (because clever stuff is best stated in Latin).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Berkeley\u2019s claim that \u201canything imperceptible does not exist\u201d sounds like pure baloney – I mean when did black holes or atoms begin to exist?\u00a0 When their possible existence was first proposed?\u00a0 When we finally managed to take a photograph of one?\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Unfortunately Johnson\u2019s famous refutation fails.\u00a0 It has however been classified amongst well known logical fallacies as the \u201cappeal to the stone\u201d or \u201cargumentum ad lapidem\u201d – big up Samuel Johnson!<\/p>\n\n

Intellectual Honesty<\/h3>\n\n

Logical fallacies<\/a> are errors in reasoning that we often make because they seem solid, they appeal to our common sense.\u00a0 Our brains are naturally attracted to certain irrational ways of thinking.\u00a0 The most frequent examples include : the ad hominem fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy or the appeal to authority – all of which are examples of how the social sphere affects our ability to reason effectively.<\/p>\n\n

Kicking a rock doesn\u2019t actually counter the idea that perception and existence are somehow linked – seeing as my experience of the rock is what determines its apparent reality. \u00a0 Johnson\u2019s flawed point doesn\u2019t mean he\u2019s wrong though, just that the difference between something that doesn\u2019t exist and something that cannot be detected is still hazy.<\/p>\n\n

Kastrup<\/a> is also guilty of poor reasoning, or being slightly dishonest in his arguments against materialism.\u00a0 For example cherry picking scientific questions that support his case whilst neglecting those that challenge it.\u00a0 Like using a popular interpretation of the \u201cobserver principle\u201d in quantum physics, and ignoring the consensus model about brains and perception.<\/p>\n\n

\"\"\n
caution ahead<\/figcaption>\n<\/figure>\n\n

What the rock does highlight is the fact that it cannot be ignored – or that rocks are ignored at your peril.\u00a0 We must deal with what we see.\u00a0 Exploring hidden mysteries based purely on speculation, or armchair philosophy, can often be interesting and sometimes even useful, but it is circular and incomplete.\u00a0 Ideas come alive when they engage with the world.\u00a0 Do they produce accurate predictions?\u00a0 Do they lead to conflict or transformation?<\/p>\n\n

There may be as yet undetected teapots orbiting some alien planet.\u00a0 A few of these teapots may even contain tiny fire-breathing dragons, or the answers to all of life\u2019s mysteries, which would be fantastic.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Finding those particular teapots would certainly add to the sum of human understanding.\u00a0 So if you can imagine without leaving your armchair, why they might exist and where they are, we want to know.\u00a0 But until we do find them, living our lives based on what the teapot dragons want would be unwarranted.<\/p>\n\n

Hardcore idealists imagine that the yet undetected creative foundation of the universe is just like us.\u00a0 Our experience of the world is a mental state, so therefore that’s all there is to existence.\u00a0 But why?\u00a0 Why should my limits be the limits of the universe?\u00a0 Just because my experience of a tree is demonstrably subjective, limited and probably incorrect, in no way proves that trees don\u2019t exist.\u00a0 Or that no tree-like phenomenon can exist in my absence.<\/p>\n\n

The Hard vs the Real<\/h3>\n\n

The notion that mind is somehow at the basis of everything has become popular again thanks to the \u201chard problem of consciousness\u201d.\u00a0 This is a problem popularized by the philosopher David Chalmers.\u00a0 It’s all about how difficult it is for us to accept that mind could arise from matter.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

We can more or less grasp the idea that rocks and chairs are things that appear in our consciousness – in other words that matter is something we experience.\u00a0 But the idea that objects can be squished together in such a way as to produce thoughts and feelings just feels too weird.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Why should atoms, molecules and cells arranged in the form of brain matter suddenly produce hopes and dreams?<\/p>\n\n

So of course Chalmers is keen on idealism – if everything is made of consciousness, or if mind is somehow fundamental – the hard problem immediately disappears.<\/p>\n\n

Suddenly panpsychism doesn\u2019t seem so silly anymore – especially if we call it : Integrated Information Theory (IIT).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Consciousness can be viewed as a spectrum – we are able to identify degrees of consciousness eg. someone having a nap is less alert than someone playing badminton.\u00a0 IIT runs with that principle and says that a rock is also conscious.<\/p>\n\n

Rocks are conscious because the fact that they react to their environment eg. they fall to the ground when dropped, they erode over time – means that they are \u201cprocessing information\u201d.\u00a0 Under IIT, a rock\u2019s ability to \u201cprocess data\u201d in this way is an indication of some tiny tiny degree of \u201cawareness\u201d – some sort of proto-consciousness.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Time will tell if IIT can really become a fully fledged scientific theory, or whether it just toys with our worldview with clever word games.\u00a0 If IIT could explain how an unconscious leaf blowing in the wind differs from a conscious one, that would be a good start.<\/p>\n\n

\"\"\n
leaf minds<\/figcaption>\n<\/figure>\n\n

The \u201dhard problem\u201d may be more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. Many neurologists in the field aren’t particularly bothered by it.\u00a0 The neuroscientist Anil Seth for example, is more concerned with what he calls the \u201creal problem”.<\/p>\n\n

For Dr. Seth, our resistance towards mind being merely an emergent property of matter, is similar to earlier debates we used to have about life.\u00a0 Is life an independent, free-floating magical substance that enters the body, thus transforming it from innate matter to living being?\u00a0 Or is biology a phenomenon that emerges automatically from certain physical and chemical interactions?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Just as we used to struggle with the idea that life could arise from non-life (aka abiogenesis), we now struggle with the idea that mind can arise from matter.<\/p>\n\n

Meanwhile, Anil Seth and his colleagues are getting on with studying the measurable, rather than pondering the metaphysical.\u00a0 Let\u2019s have a quick look at what his book \u201cBeing you\u201d has to say on the subject :<\/p>\n\n

Being You<\/h3>\n\n

The main message of the book is that we do not perceive things as they are.\u00a0 We are what Dr. Seth calls \u201cprediction machines\u201d, estimating and hallucinating (his words) our world and our selves. \u00a0 These images of reality, or our experience of what\u2019s going on, are produced by the brain based on memory and the data it’s getting from the senses.<\/p>\n\n

It feels as if the world is a collection of objects \u201cout there\u201d, and that our senses are like transparent windows onto this world.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

It feels as if we are directly perceiving the world through these windows.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

We naively think that we are truth detecting organisms.\u00a0 For example, when we interact with a coffee cup, it seems like this subject\/object experience is an unavoidable, inherent result of circumstance.\u00a0 There\u2019s a coffee cup on the table, and me, the observer, looking at the cup. \u00a0 What is perceived appears to arise inevitably, necessarily, from the relationship between the actual entities present : me \u201cin here\u201d and the cup \u201cout there\u201d.<\/p>\n\n

This may well be true in the sense that I have no choice in the matter : it is inevitable that my particular neuronal activity will produce a particular experience.\u00a0 On the other hand it’s doubtful that all human brains will create the exact same experience, and if we consider the experience of spiders\u2026 all bets are off.<\/p>\n\n

So our brains, rather than the supposed objects being perceived, are the key.\u00a0 The grey matter in my head is what produces my whole adventure with the coffee cup.<\/p>\n\n

My brain produces the feeling of what it’s like to be me, and what it’s like to interact with all the other characters it has created.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

It decides what my world looks like by guessing – or if that sounds too flippant : based on probability.\u00a0 It makes the best prediction it can about what\u2019s happening – and thus what I should be seeing – based on all the information it’s receiving.\u00a0 This includes the data its getting from all the senses ie. ears, eyes, skin etc, and also from memory.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

The data is compared to similar events from the past to produce a neuronal image – Seth uses the term \u201cneuronal fantasy\u201d because the experience is not exclusively visual.\u00a0 And this image we take to be a direct relationship with the world, what we mistake for a transparent window onto truth.<\/p>\n\n

This image is constantly being refined.\u00a0 The brain is repeatedly readjusting what we see as new data arrives – usually by safeguarding the continuity of our reality.\u00a0 For instance, if we take a white piece of paper outside, it will continue to look the same as it did when we saw it inside.\u00a0 Despite the fact that the information being provided by our eyes has changed – the lighting has changed, our eyes have adjusted to the changing light – the paper\u2019s appearance remains the same to us.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Check out the figure below.\u00a0 It’s a mosaic of 6 photos I took of a white sheet of paper in different locations, starting in my office at top left, to my shady balcony, to a sunny spot in the garden bottom right.<\/p>\n\n

\"\"\n
white?<\/figcaption>\n<\/figure>\n\n

If we can trust my camera (or if you carry out the experiment yourself), we have to admit that the hue or color of the sheet of paper was being altered as it moved through its environment.\u00a0 So the constant appearance of whiteness that I was getting cannot be due to the quality of the object \u201cout there\u201d.\u00a0 It always looked white to me, but my perception of whiteness was not an exact reflection of some independent phenomenon.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

When we agree on some objective truth about the world – like the qualities of a piece of paper – we are merely assuming a shared appreciation.\u00a0 Which is probably correct, seeing as we all share very similar environments and synapses.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Redness, or whiteness is a subjective phenomenological experience of how light reflects off objects. \u00a0 Colour is how we perceive light as it interacts with its environment.\u00a0 This is what experience means : how it feels to be us in the world – not how the world is.\u00a0 Colour, form, solidity, texture, temperature etc.. are neurological projections.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Thus what we call \u201cobjective reality\u201d can be defined as a \u201cshared hallucination\u201d ie. a consensus about what we perceive.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

There is another important implication of this process where my brain is constantly refining its predictive projection of the world based on sense data and memory.\u00a0 It’s that we hardly ever discover anything completely new or original.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

The fact that the neurological images being produced are predictions based on prior experience, inevitably means I am at best always recognising some sort of reinterpretation of the past.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Take for example the first time I ever saw a Gorilla, or came across the concept of a Gorilla.\u00a0 Even that first Gorilla was not something totally new to me.\u00a0 I immediately recognised it as a slightly different example of something familiar : a huge furry monkey maybe, a guy in a giant Yeti costume, a monster from the devil realms come to swallow my soul etc..<\/p>\n\n

Whatever, the point is my experience of reality is very much dependent on familiarity.<\/p>\n\n

Familiarity breeds Plausibility<\/h3>\n\n

Neurologists are telling us that our brain is sitting in a dark, secure box (aka the skull), and must infer hidden causes of the data it’s getting from the senses.\u00a0 It makes predictions about these sensory inputs, received in the form of electrical impulses, and creates a sensual picture that feels absolutely authentic and irrefutable.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Neuroscience has developed this model of perception by examining the observable and the measurable.\u00a0 We ask people what they see, we play around with various wavelengths, measure electrical activity in the brain etc\u2026\u00a0 And construct a model that best fits the data.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

This is what Anil Seth calls the \u201creal problem\u201d of consciousness : producing the most accurate models possible of what is actually happening, according to the available evidence.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

The \u201chard problem\u201d is an expression of how weird the consensus model of consciousness appears to us.\u00a0 Weird because it contradicts familiar feelings and beliefs.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Stuff that is commonplace seems normal, so we don\u2019t tend to question our everyday assumptions.\u00a0 I feel quite secure in my understanding of chairs and rocks. \u00a0 My religious beliefs feel completely legit and reasonable, but yours seem completely outrageous and silly.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

The idea that electro-chemical processes can generate conscious experiences contradicts my worldview, it sounds unreasonable, difficult to believe or comprehend. \u00a0 So I voice my difficulty : Why would the activity of my central nervous system produce hopes and dreams?\u00a0 How does this work exactly?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Hard questions that might one day provoke some useful answers.\u00a0 But I\u2019m reminded that I don\u2019t really know why rocks fall to the ground, or how my chair is supporting my weight.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Rocks fall because the mass of the Earth has created a gravity well in spacetime.\u00a0 I can repeat the scientific explanation I\u2019m familiar with, but I don\u2019t really know how or why mass creates a well in spacetime.\u00a0 The chair holds me up due to dancing electrons apparently.\u00a0 The thing is, I\u2019m not confused by these everyday enigmas.\u00a0 I\u2019m quite content to live with these mundane mysteries.<\/p>\n\n

4 responses to “Consciousness”<\/h2>
  1. \n
    \n
    UteS Avatar<\/div><\/div>\n\n
    UteS<\/div>\n