Manjir Samanta-Laughton

A Beginner's Guide to Consciousness

The Final Frontier.

All your life you have been performing a feat that baffles the scientific community: you have been having an inner experience. Those daily thoughts, memories, ideas and dreams cause some of the biggest controversies seen in science today. What exactly is the inner experience? Science is able to theorise about many subjects in the universe, but can't explain how we are able to theorise in the first place.

This article explores one of the most contentious and exciting

areas of scientific research - the science of consciousness - a

topic which has divided the scientific community like the gulf between

Galileo and the Catholic Church. We shall look at the problem of

defining consciousness, and how researchers are attempting to resolve

them.

THE HARD PROBLEM

Consciousness research used to be easy - it simply did not exist.

Those were the 'good old days' when the universe could be reduced

to a machine of moving parts. We seemed to know where we were then;

humans were insignificant clockwork machines underneath the vast,

cold and empty heavens. This reductionist viewpoint has been so

successful and seductive that many still cling to it, hoping that

it will eventually reveal the answers to all of life's mysteries.

But then a number of scientists, including Roger Penrose, pointed

out that a truly complete scientific view of the universe must address

the phenomenon of consciousness and why exactly it is that we have

an inner experience. The philosopher David Chalmers, in his 1996

book The Conscious Mind: in search of a fundamental theory,

clarified the problem by identifying two main issues - the relatively

'soft' problem of consciousness, which is the process of physically

examining the brain itself, and what he called the 'hard problem',

the much more mysterious question of how the brain, with all its

constituent nerve cells (neurons), gives rise to the inner experience

which allows us to think, dream and remember. What makes a machine

of moving parts become something altogether very different: the

experience of an inner life?

Today, scientists no longer ignore consciousness, in fact some

call it the final frontier. This is such a growing area that we

now have three main types of study, aimed at solving the hard problem.

We shall look at each of these in turn and examine their pros and

cons.

1 - THE NEURONE HAS IT

The first approach to consciousness is the one that is adopted

most often by researchers. It sells blockbuster books, wins public

accolades for people, and is presented on television. This is the

neuroscience approach which says that consciousness is purely a

function of the brain, and we don't need any new laws to explain

it.

Figure 1 - A Pet Scan. Modern brain imaging allows us to visualise thought processes.

This area of research has been greatly aided by the advancing techniques

in brain imaging. We can now see the brain light up when a person

thinks about something, leading researchers to suggest that the

issue of consciousness has been solved - the neuron has it. This

means that the brain is responsible for creating consciousness.

According to some, all that we have to do now, is to map the functions

of the brain in greater detail.

This approach appeals to many, as there is something nice and solid

about it. Consciousness can be described according to reductionist

classical laws and there is no need to bring something weird like

quantum mechanics into it, or worse still, 'mystical life forces'

in order explain the inner experience. It is all there in the hard

wiring.

Useful though this picture is, it still leaves us with some philosophical

problems. How do neurons give rise to the inner experience by passing

electrochemical messages to each other? Words such as 'emergence'

and 'epiphenomena' have been used to explain this. The idea is that

the rich conscious experience somehow magically arises from the

complex workings of neuronal cells. But this has led some researchers

to become dissatisfied with the 'neuron has it' concept as

a comprehensive explanation of consciousness.

Indeed, some liken it to the mobile phone situation. Just because

the mobile phone emanates a voice and its parts light up when the

voice is heard, does not mean that the voice originates in the mobile

phone. Similarly, it is argued that just because parts of the brain

light up when people are having thoughts does not mean that thoughts

originate in the brain. Added to this argument is the fact that

researchers can use external electrical stimulation to reproduce

artificially some of the effects seen in the brain normally created

by thoughts. What is this elusive agent, which causes the effects

that we can see? It is a dilemma that has produced some interesting

responses which we shall now explore.

2 - THE QUANTUM MIND

Another approach to consciousness research looks at bringing modern

physics into the workings of the brain. One of its proponents is

Dr Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona. His work with anaesthetics

led him to discover that cellular structures called microtubules,

present in neurons as well as most cells, show some interesting

patterns of behaviour. During states of anaesthesia these structures

show less activity than when someone is awake. Hameroff postulated

that these microtubules are centres of activity for consciousness

and thus stimulated this area of research.

Figure 2- Dr. Stuart Hameroff put Arizona on the map of consciousness research.

He teamed up with the mathematician Roger Penrose, and they began

to apply quantum mechanics to the brain, suggesting that the microtubules

in neurons are a sort of mediator between the quantum world and

the classical world of the rest of the brain. Quantum behaviour,

as opposed to the classical behaviour displayed by the objects we

see around us, allows for all sorts of new realities. At a quantum

level (which usually means very, very small) objects can be in a

few states at once (superposition), they can connect over great

distances, orperhaps not even exist at all !

Quantum behaviour just might be weird enough to provide a complete

science of consciousness. It is worth stating at this point that

quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific models

we have ever had, and is responsible for much of our modern technological

world of PCs and mobile phones.

So is this what our laughs, loves and cravings for pizza come down

to: 'self-perturbations of space-time geometry' ? Maybe ! Other

theories have explored the observation that neurons seem to oscillate

in synchronous waves. Perhaps these waves are responsible for consciousness.

Another technology that arose from the quantum era is the laser,

which has allowed us to make things like compact discs and holograms.

Some researchers, like Karl Pibram, believe that the brain itself

works like a hologram, creating three-dimensional holographic pictures

that make up our inner experience.

Another advantage of introducing the quantum element is that it

allows consciousness to exist outside of the usual constraints of

space and time, possibly explaining strange phenomena such as 'blindsight',

where people who cannot see via the visual pathways, are nonetheless

able to report certain visual stimuli. It may even help to explain

why EEG researchers (see the link to Dean Radin's work below) find

that the brains of their subjects respond to visual images a few

seconds before the image is displayed.

Some biologists feel squeamish about mixing quantum physics with

neuroscience. They argue that the teeny world of quantum realities

has no place with real biological processes where classical reductionism

will do quite nicely, thank you. As for consciousness existing out

of space-time: many don't even consider that possibility!

So far, we haven't really found a clear answer for what gives rise

to the inner experience. We have seen some descriptions of consciousness

that are basically attempts to apply the rules governing our physical

world to something as ethereal as a thought. In the search for answers,

some scientists have gone even further and this is where things

become really weird. Those happy with the reductionist scientific

paradigm, please look away now: in fact step away from the screen!

Those still curious may read on.

3 - THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE

An unlikely bunch of consciousness researchers are actually physicists,

and their numbers are increasing. These physicists have not necessarily

teamed up with biologists at all. So what has physics got to do

with the brain and consciousness? Perhaps one could say that it

all started with Einstein's theory of relativity. Before the work

of Einstein, the world was seen as the clockwork picture painted

previously. But Einstein showed that, in fact, the universe is different

according to where you are in space-time; some would say according

to your perspective.

Figure 3 - Scientist or mystic ? Amit Goswami, Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon.

Next, we need to revisit quantum theory. One of the most enduring

interpretations of quantum physics is also one of the most startling.

Its earliest proponents included Danish physicist, Neils Bohr, and

so it is now referred to as the 'Copenhagen interpretation'.

At a quantum level particles can exist in many states at once.

What brings them out of this superposition is a matter of debate,

but according to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is the act of

observing a particle that determines what it is. Bohr went further

and said that there is no objective reality 'out there'. Things

only exist when we observe them, which implies that the whole universe

exists only in our consciousness. Although controversial, the Copenhagen

interpretation has stood the test of time with its bizarre philosophical

implications.

But the edges of what constitutes physics, and what is related

to life, are now beginning to blur. Some say that if the act of

observing determines reality, then consciousness is fundamental

to the universe. We have been looking at the universe the wrong

way up, trying to apply physical laws to what is beyond the physical.

The solid world we see around us, and even our brains, emanate from

a ground state that is consciousness. The universe is one big mind,

or a deep thought.

Wacky though this may sound, it is has emerged from within the

realms of science, and is espoused by bona fide scientists. It may

be the only approach that ultimately comes close to explaining the

inner experience, by saying in effect, that we exist inside one

giant mind, thus putting consciousness centre stage.

If this all sounds a bit mystical to you then you are not alone.

Many scientists decry this approach as hippy nonsense. However,

whereas some scientists find this hard to swallow, the public seem

to lap it up. The current film, 'What

the bleep do we know?' reviewed previously on the Naked Scientists website, explores some of the implications of this type of approach.

Its popularity is making cinema history.

YOUR INNER LIFE IN A NUTSHELL

So is your inner life the product of neuronal hard wiring or quantum

cellular processes or even a part of a universal mind? We simply

do not know. It seems that whatever approach you decide is the true

science of consciousness depends entirely on your perspective. Happy

thinking!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Manjir Samanta-Laughton (also known as Dr. Munchie) qualified

as an NHS GP before embarking on a career bringing the science of

consciousness to the public.

- December 2005

About the Author

Dr Manjir Samanta-Laughton (also known as Dr. Munchie) qualified as an NHS GP before embarking on a career bringing the science of consciousness to the public. She attended one of only two showings of 'What the bleep do we know?'.