# The Intricacies of Consciousness: Reconciling Science and Self
Written on
Understanding Consciousness in Evolutionary Context
It appears unlikely that we will ever arrive at a conclusive evolutionary explanation for consciousness. While there are many unknowns, a materialist viewpoint—predominant in contemporary science—suggests that all brain activity can be understood through objective processes. Occasionally, you may encounter claims that science has pinpointed the regions of the brain responsible for consciousness, but such assertions can be quite misleading. Consciousness, in itself, can only be recognized by its own capacity for self-observation. Therefore, beginning with an objective standpoint leads inevitably back to the objective.
At this point, we encounter philosopher David Chalmers' concept of the "hard problem" of consciousness. If we can theoretically map all brain functions and their operations, what is the actual role of consciousness? How does it exist? Could we not conceive of a hypothetical "zombie" that can think and act without being conscious? Is consciousness merely an addition to physical laws and causality, a phenomenon that is fully experienced yet somehow detached from the brain's operational chain? Is it merely an illusion rising from the fray?
To better understand this, we must broaden our view to consider evolution. This presents two significant challenges if we wish to explain consciousness from this standpoint: 1. How can a series of quantitative changes result in a qualitative transformation? and 2. How can consciousness itself be a product of evolution unless it is a fundamental characteristic of something toward which evolution is directed, such as biological complexity or information density? Moreover, if consciousness lacks causal properties, how can it evolve?
In essence, evolution is a mechanism understood through genetic mutations and environmental selection. To claim that evolution gave rise to consciousness implies that something about consciousness must be subject to selection. However, similar to the difficulty of locating consciousness within an individual brain, if it is an emergent rather than a causal property, how could it be selected?
This brings us to the core of our dilemma concerning self-awareness and free will. If consciousness cannot cause anything without being objective, it becomes merely an epiphenomenon of the objective. Conversely, if it can induce causation without being objective, then it involves phenomena that evade scientific mapping, as their properties transcend temporal, sequential, or objective frameworks. Although this latter proposition may seem scientifically untenable, it resonates with our experience of consciousness. We are undoubtedly objective beings, shaped by genetics, environments, experiences, and the geographic distributions of culture and religion—what some term the "postcode lottery."
Yet we also possess self-awareness. In this instant, our ability to reflect on ourselves seems to elevate us, even if just temporarily. We perceive a form of free will, even though it doesn't fit neatly into an objective worldview, making it nearly impossible to act as if anyone lacks free will. Even staunch materialists must behave as if their capacity to consciously assess their thoughts or beliefs as true or false contradicts reductionism or determinism. Just as with the evolutionary conundrum, how could an objective sequence governed by causal laws generate a thought that recognizes itself as "true"? Unless "truth," as we comprehend it, can cause effects non-objectively, it exists only as an illusion.
Philosophy and science have largely struggled to devise a coherent model of consciousness. One such attempt, known as Integrated Information Theory (IIT), posits that any system can exhibit consciousness based on its intricate structure. John Horgan succinctly summarizes this by stating, “consciousness arises in any system whose components exchange information in a specific mathematically defined manner.”
However, the flaw in this theory lies in its untestability; it detaches consciousness from selfhood and deprives it of its essential non-objective quality. In effect, IIT offers a convoluted way of saying nothing substantial about consciousness without circling back to the original problem. Other theories, like Attention Schema Theory, attempt to define consciousness as a function of attention, merely conflating consciousness with processing and essentially sidestepping the issue. This leads to the viewpoint espoused by Daniel Dennett, who asserts that what we perceive as the hard problem is simply an illusion. We remain no closer to unraveling the essence of consciousness.
The Consciousness-Time Nexus
Interestingly, the conundrum of consciousness intertwines with issues of time and ontology. An objective scientific model of reality comprises two characteristics: it presumes a linear logic or causation and regards being as a priori. Since conscious experience does not play a role in an objective causal framework, even if materialism holds true and the brain "produces" consciousness, it cannot cause anything back into an objective system without itself being a non-objective cause. Hence, we face the evolutionary dilemma of consciousness: if all temporal causes of consciousness culminate in consciousness, how can natural selection favor it?
This creates a peculiar issue. Is conscious experience, for a materialist, the only phenomenon with temporal properties that does not exist within the causal sequence we refer to as time? Consider this again: if the brain generates conscious experience—meaning that experience arises from a brain functioning entirely through causal processes—then that experience cannot possess a causal role in time unless it maintains an objective temporal correlation. The question then arises: how can such an experience be caused within time if it does not actually participate in that causal sequence? Is consciousness, therefore, an atemporal phenomenon?
Examining various religious perspectives historically reveals their intrinsic link to our understanding of consciousness. The concepts of the soul or self in many traditions often maintain a connection to a divine entity—examples include the imago dei in Judaism and the Atman/Brahman duality in Upanishadic Hinduism. Modern Western spirituality often interprets this relationship through the lens of non-duality, a somewhat convoluted philosophy that diverges sharply from materialism, asserting that consciousness is the sole reality. This reinterpretation of Advaita Vedanta, which posits that liberation from the entanglements of the human condition comes from realizing the unity of Atman and Brahman, often finds its way into contemporary thought through figures like Eckhart Tolle and Rupert Spira. They propose that individuals are not their thoughts but rather the underlying consciousness that is everything and ever-present.
This notion of awareness is profound and has been practically applied in the concept of mindfulness. The practice of focusing on each moment and liberating oneself from the incessant "monkey mind" can lead to a sense of acceptance and tranquility. However, the challenge in reducing such an observation to a universal philosophy lies in the fact that, while consciousness can indeed be a source of enduring peace, the journey to such awareness is fundamentally a mental process. The statement "I am not my thoughts" is, ironically, a thought in itself. Although these individuals may claim enlightenment, such a state could easily be stripped away by a head injury or dementia. Any philosophical account of consciousness must acknowledge the objective world as much as it recognizes the subjective.
Ultimately, consciousness seems to be inherently embodied, characterized by the quality of self-awareness. It reflects the ability to perceive a world and an "I" that observes itself. Perhaps the inquiry into consciousness should also encompass the question of what this self is—or more simply, who am I? Upon contemplation, it appears there is a connection to the mindfulness-consciousness of spirituality while remaining grounded in the temporal world. There’s a poignant moment in "The Lord of the Rings" where Frodo and his companions arrive at Tom Bombadil's home. Frodo, curious about Tom's vast knowledge, asks, "Who are you, Master?" Tom responds, “Don’t you know my name yet? That’s the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?”
Carl Jung, the Swiss psychologist, posited that the psyche is "not entirely confined to space and time." In a 1959 BBC interview, he remarked, “You can have dreams or visions of the future; you can see around corners. Only the ignorant deny these facts; it is evident that they exist and have always existed. These facts demonstrate that part of the psyche is not bound by these limitations, and then what?” Although many modern scientists may dismiss his views, they reflect a profound mystery at the core of selfhood. To experience consciousness is to exist both within and beyond time, possessing a quality of reality that transcends the objective sequence of events while remaining deeply involved in it. To find oneself in those fleeting moments of intense self-awareness is to grasp, as philosopher Roger Scruton suggests, that “individuality and identity are the outward forms taken by a single inner fire, and that this fire is also you.” Perhaps science can take us no further than the symbols of religious language, which house the truth we seek most earnestly. For now, we must acknowledge the dual nature of existence: material and spiritual, temporal and eternal, form and essence. In the words of T.S. Eliot:
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always —
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flames are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.