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?'.