Modus.Ponens wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 12:49 am
Yes. They think it's a side effect of brain activity. It's like with optical illusions. We can be genuinely tricked by an optical illusion but it doesn't mean that the illusion is reality. I personally do not think this is enough to explain consciousness but there is no reason yet for scientists to change their paradigm.
I've actually discussed this issue with scientists who have an interest in investigating consciousness, with tools such as functional MRI. Here are a couple of random articles for reference:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12658-9
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00688/full
They are, of course, aware that one of the most interesting puzzles is of whether or not consciousness is just an "emergent phenomenon" of the physical brain and body. However, designing an experiment to address that question is actually very difficult. As I said in response to the OP, this is is known in science as "The hard problem of consciousness".
To put this into context it is helpful to consider some phenomena that are considered to be "emergent". These include superconductivity and superfluidity. Many materials, when cooled to low temperature, become superconducting. There is absolutely no resistance. When the superconducting magnets in MRI machines and other devices are powered up, they retain the currents and magnetic fields indefinitely (often until there is a failure in the cooling system after a decade or so).
Superconductivity is "emergent" because it is not a property of the
individual metal atoms. It is a result of complex interactions of a macroscopic number of atoms and their electrons. However, one doesn't have to do any more than assemble that collection of atoms into a wire and cool it down. There is nothing "added" that causes the superconductivity, you just need the right conditions and it happens.
One might contrast this with the process of "doping" different regions of semiconductors such as silicon with small quantities of other atoms in order to manufacture diodes and transistors (or integrated chips). In those cases we don't get the transistor without doing the doping. We have to add something.
So the hard problem with consciousness is whether it "just happens" for a sufficiently complex nervous system (in which case it is emergent), or whether it is "something extra", that is added, like the doping of semiconductors.
All currently known examples of consciousness contain nervous systems as a key ingredient, and we can learn some things about consciousness by measuring and/or disrupting those nervous systems. But figuring out how to show whether the nervous system is "all there is", or whether there is "something added" is not going to be easy.
It might be worth considering what the Dhamma view of consciousness is. Though there is some talk of arupa realms in the suttas, when describing phenomena in the human realm, it is arguable that there is not really a Cartesian Dualism of mind and matter in descriptions such as the aggregates, in the sutta descriptions. Experience is described in terms of all five aggregates. So perhaps in Dhamma it is also an emergent phenomenon?
Mike
