Introduced by: Austin Caffrey
Moderated by: Steve Palmquist
Austin began his introduction by suggesting that we narrow the announced topic, which merely assumes that consciousness exists and that it emerges, by investigating how the conception of consciousness emerged. (See Austin's handout for a more detailed summary.) As a philosophical theory, consciousness did not fully emerge until the 17th Century, in the philosophy of Descartes. Aristotle and other ancient Greek philosophers obviously developed theories relating to issues of consciousness, but did not develop the concept itself in any detailed way. And as Julian Jaynes argues, there was virtually no mention of such a concept before the 6th Century B.C. Actually, Descartes' main emphasis was not consciousness as such, but the material world. His famous "cogito ergo sum" argument arose as a step on the way to his attempt to demonstrate that our knowledge of the physical world is reliable. His rational defense of the mind (consciousness) and body (matter) as two separate realities sparked off the scientific revolution, which led in turn to a reductionist approach to science. Austin emphasized at this point that he is not comfortable with the extreme view that identifies conscious thought with nothing but neurons firing in the brain. In support of a more open-minded view of the nature and origin of consciousness, Austin drew attention to the Buddhist view of mind and body as two aspects of one and the same experience, to Davidson's arguments against there being any strict laws that determine necessary connections between mental events and brain states, and to Dennett's attempt to make clearer distinctions between different forms of consciousness. Referring to a quote from Helen Keller, Austin concluded that we need to expand our view of what consciousness includes, so that a legitimate role is also given to the subconscious. He ended by proposing an array of questions regarding where emotions come from, how three-dimensional images are produced, and how Kant's "thing in itself" might fit in to all of this.
Timothy responded first to Steve's call for questions of clarification, by asking Austin to explain Helen Keller's claim that language has a distorting role in our awareness of the world. The point, Austin replied, is that the words we use prejudice the interpretations and explanations we give of things, even of what consciousness itself is. Not having a clear concept of consciousness, for example, must have made a big difference in the way people experienced the world prior to the 17th Century. Timothy noted that the concept of "sexuality" has a similarly modern origin and application, though people have always experience the thing to which the concept refers. Jeff objected that thousands of years ago people did talk about issues relating to consciousness, but using other terms. He drew attention to the Buddhist view of the world being all in a person's mind. Someone else later added that some Buddhist philosophies have mapped out as many as 51 levels of consciousness! But Austin pointed out that the term "mind" is not identical to the term "consciousness", so such earlier discussions do not disprove his point.
Simon asked why nothing was said about concept formation. Austin defended his omission of anything relating to this topic on the grounds that his introduction was already complicated enough. But Ted expressed a preference for the original question, opining that Austin's emphasis on the history of the concept of consciousness only splinters the issue into new difficulties. Surely consciousness is something that has an eternal or timeless dimension, even though it has only recently been recognized and named. Relating our understanding of consciousness to the understanding of hysteria in the 19th Century, Austin defended his approach, claiming that our concept in fact seems inaccurate or imprecise in many respects. The term does not appear to refer to only one thing.
Joern agreed with those who portrayed consciousness as a very old concept. He reminded us that in ancient Greece Plato had already postulated his theory of ideas, according to which consciousness links us with reality itself. Socrates' "daimon", for example, spoke to him within himself, telling him what was right and real. Joern also agreed with Austin's observations about the dangers of philosophy and science splitting apart as a result of an inadequate view of the mind-body relationship, but stressed that in the 20th Century science reached a higher plane, from which there is hope that the two can be reunited. Austin responded that, while Plato and Aristotle did use certain terms relating to what we call consciousness, neither of them clearly differentiated it from other aspects of human life the way we do. Along these lines Magnis pointed out that the biblical story of the Fall is often interpreted in terms of the emergence of consciousness.
Steve then called attention to the fact that we had said very little so far about what consciousness actually is. He suggested that, as we divide up into small groups at this point, some groups might wish to begin by considering this issue. After just under an hour of small group discussion, Steve reconvened the open discussion, suggesting that we begin by hearing from anyone whose group came up with any interesting answers to this question.
Simon replied that consciousness is a faculty of perceiving what exists, differentiating between different existents through the use of concepts, and integrating our conceptual knowledge in the form of higher concepts. Austin pointed out that this defines what consciousness does, not what it is. Steve agreed that Simon's definition is functional in its emphasis. Jeff suggested distinguishing between active and passive types of definition.
Steve mentioned that his small group had shared some interesting insights on the crucial role of "reflection" in making consciousness what it is and asked Joern to relate some of the group's other ideas. Joern said the group discussed not so much what consciousness is, as what consciousness consists of. He reminded us that consciousness develops; it is not there in human beings from the beginning, except as a capacity. Thus, a young child's perception begins as if it were an undifferentiated part of its own self-created world. Consciousness starts to emerge when the child begins to differentiate between itself and the world. From that point, discourse with other (conscious) human beings becomes the key. So, consciousness emerges as a direct result of a person's relationships to other people and the world. Steve added that important evidence for the necessary role of discourse in the emergence of consciousness comes from the experiences of people who have been deprived of such human interaction and as a result, remained virtually unconscious, sometimes for years; yet once they were exposed to human discourse, consciousness began to emerge.
Joern then continued by asking whether we are conscious when we dream. The answer his group arrived at was "yes", at least on some level. Moreover, the brain's dreaming mechanism continues to operate even while we are awake, though it usually goes unnoticed. This "dormant consciousness" may play an integral part in making human consciousness what it is. He also noted that the group discussed various aspects of animal consciousness, and the Buddhist/Christian views on the world as one continuous stream of which each conscious individual is only one small part. In light of this rather mystical perspective, our habit of naming things seems rather arrogant. This raises the question whether some aspects of our consciousness might be usurping a role that belongs properly to God alone.
Ted confessed that his small group's discussion was somewhat fragmented, but expressed appreciation for the insights shared by an artist in the group, relating to consciousness as a working expression of a person's creativity. Angela added that consciousness in this sense has much to do with self-awareness. Ted further observed that consciousness sometimes seems to be a characteristic of groups, such as when flocks of birds act together with unity of intention. Some discussion of this rather provocative idea, and how it might relate to the notions of a "collective consciousness" or to Jung's theory of the "collective unconscious", followed.
Jeff and Angela both suggested that consciousness cannot arise without language, which we learn through group interactions. Joern proposed that such collective consciousness might be related to our DNA, citing as an example the fact that rats that tend to be more afraid will breed rats that also tend to be more afraid. Angela wondered whether consciousness makes collective consciousness, and perhaps also the collective unconscious, possible. Steve supported this as a potentially profound insight worth exploring further, but Simon stated that collective consciousness simply does not exist. Steve replied that the unity of action displayed by flocks of birds could be regarded as empirical evidence that something exists, and "collective consciousness" is simply a name some people give to this something. Austin asked whether this example proves that anything exists or whether it might all be in the perceiver's imagination.
Magnis expressed reservations about an over-individualistic approach to issues such as consciousness. Simon replied that we do build concepts as individuals, and that individuals are always responsible for integrating such concepts into higher and higher concepts, which is a characteristic of human consciousness. There simply is no collective element present in this process. Without Einstein, for example, we simply would not have the theory of relativity.
Steve argued that evidence of a collective consciousness is present throughout human history, by the fact that on many occasions two or more people (often living in vastly different regions and without any direct contact between them) have come up with the same or very similar ideas at almost the same time. It is as if the collective development of the human race erupts in the form of such creative syntheses. If Einstein had not existed, then someone else would have come up with essentially the same theory, because human consciousness was ready for it at a collective level. Ted noted that patent lawyers would agree, being frequently surprised by how many times the same invention has been created almost simultaneously by different people having no direct contact with each other. Graham claimed that the notion of a shared consciousness is unscientific. Magnis disagreed, arguing that by the standards set by quantum mechanics, such a notion can be very scientific.
Jame pointed out that people groups are not, in fact, totally isolated from each other down through history. People have been crossing the globe for millennia. It is possible that many of the historical examples of simultaneous discovery of new ideas actually happened as a result of trade-driven links that we no longer know about. Edmond and Tom both expressed the view that what some people call "collective consciousness" might just be a feature of the way knowledge works, without indicating any mysterious underlying consciousness. Jeff related an instance of monkeys living on different islands and yet developing identical behavioural traits without any possibility of direct connection. But Jame claimed that human observers may well have "fudged" when studying and/or reporting on such cases.
Graham maintained that consciousness is like everything else on earth: it is a result of evolution, emerging through ever-increasing levels of complexity. Jeff mentioned that his group also related consciousness to our survival instinct. And Ted joked that humanity can in this sense be regarded as "the strongest weed on earth". Steve agreed that this line of reasoning could be productive, but warned that the theory of evolution ("survival of the fittest", etc.) is properly regarded as an "explanatory hypothesis". As such, it is no more or less a "fact" of empirical "science" (in the sense of having an undeniable empirical starting-point) than is the hypotheses of a collective consciousness or a collective unconscious. This claim aroused considerable controversy, but Steve suggested deferring any further explanation of his claim until a later meeting.
In conclusion, Austin expressed his pleasure at the rousing discussion, defended his decision to change the question on the grounds that a narrower question is easier to deal with in a short period of time, and recommended that Chaos Theory might have a great deal to contribute to further discussion of the emergence of consciousness. The latter in particular, with its emphasis on "strange attractors", might be able to shed light on how "collective consciousness" (if any) operates. He encouraged people not merely to dismiss ideas that we don't like, though this is a natural tendency. He believes the subconscious is really in control of our lives to larger extent than most of us realize, and in this sense the best view of the nature of consciousness itself might be that it is a "uniting illusion".
++++
Steve announced that the topic of the March meeting will be "Insight vs. Rigour", and will be introduced in the form of a debate between himself and Roy Butler, organiser of HKPC's Fringe Branch. The precise details will be announced later. Suggested topics for the April meeting were:
- dreams
- evolution
- hope
This page was placed on this web site on 27 February 2001.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.