“First, as far as consciousness is concerned, there is nothing, and then suddenly, magically, at just the right moment . . . something. However minimal that initial something is, experience apparently ignites in the inanimate world, materializing out of the darkness.”
Annaka Harris, Conscious
How do you know if something is real?
It may seem like a silly question, an academic game for philosophers. But when you contend with the question more rigorously, the intuitive answers quickly evaporate leaving you wondering what is real and important in life.
We know that we do not see the world as it truly is because the fundamental constituents of matter are subatomic particles—quarks and electrons from which our macroscopic world emerges.
But is our view of the world even an accurate estimate of reality? It might be, but there’s no guarantee. Reality could even be an advanced computer simulation. According to Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, there is in fact a high probability that we are in a simulation.
If that’s the case, then your consciousness—every aspect of your life—emerges from the computer processing of ones and zeros.1 The experience of mourning someone’s death, falling in love, or biting into a delicious piece of fruit would be emerging from the complex computer code of such a simulation. But we can’t yet prove this one way or the other.
The fact is that it’s hard to prove the reality of anything. But there is one thing in this universe that you can know to be real, no matter its true nature or where it exists in space: your consciousness.
“Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion.”
Sam harris, The mystery of consciousness
Your consciousness could be code running on some advanced human (or perhaps alien) hard drive. Or it could be, as most modern neuroscientists would assert, some mysterious result of the complex information processing of your neurons. After all, humans have roughly 100 billion neurons that each make thousands of connections—there are up to a trillion synapses in an adult human brain.
But even if reality is a simulation, it wouldn’t affect the reality of your consciousness. This is because, by definition, consciousness is the first-person subjective experience of being you. No matter how consciousness is ultimately grounded in reality, your having an experience is the definition of consciousness. And it is also the basis for caring about anything in this life.
Consciousness
Like so many words today, the word “conscious” has a variety of meanings and can be easily misunderstood. And as we will see later, our intuitions towards it are not to be trusted either. Consciousness is not synonymous with wakefulness, alertness, or the ability to self-reflect. And it does not require complex thought—we can agree that a dog is conscious but probably does not reflect deeply on the nature of its experience.
As a base definition, consciousness is simply experience. This experience, no matter how simple, just needs to exist. This definition, famously given by the philosopher Thomas Nagel is his essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”, is the most encompassing and sensical one:
“An organism is conscious if there is something that it is like to be that organism.”
thomas nagel
If we have experience at this moment, then we are conscious—this we can know for sure. There are some theories, such as solipsism, which posit that you could be the only mind that exists. But there are better reasons to assume that other creatures with similar neural arrangements are also conscious.
And following that logic, we also have little reason to suspect that your kitchen table has consciousness. It does not have the same complexity as a brain and therefore probably does not have subjective experience. But in all cases except ourselves, we cannot know for sure.
Yes, consciousness does provide outward signs of its existence. People and animals show emotions while tables do not. And we can scientifically correlate damage to the brain with outward changes in consciousness. But from the outside, this is still not proof that someone or something else has consciousness.2
“The problem is that both conscious and nonconscious states seem to be compatible with any behavior, even those associated with emotion, so a behavior itself doesn’t necessarily signal the presence of consciousness.”
annaka harris, CONSCIOUS
An advanced robot could give every outward sign of consciousness—words, facial expressions, intense emotion—without actually having an inner experience. The complex programming of such a robot could mirror every detail of being a human, but the lights of consciousness could still be off. The philosopher David Chalmers calls this a “philosophical zombie”.3
But you know that you’re not a zombie. Even if everything else in your reality is not what it seems, you still have your subjective experience.
This definition of consciousness may seem vague, and it may seem to be lifting itself up by its own bootstraps. But experience is the most solid reference point for defining consciousness, and our confusion towards it merely reflects how mysterious this topic is. We simply do not know how an experiencing mind emerges out of the wetware of biology. But if you’re having an experience of reading this sentence, then you know it happened at least once.
Intuitions
Similar to many other scientific pursuits, our intuitions largely fail us when studying consciousness. These intuitions—shaped by natural selection— are fast and effective, and we need them to survive. We often experience them as a gut feeling, and they allow us to decide things without a complete understanding. For example, we often assess danger based on information that our brain acquires and processes subconsciously. These intuitions are life-saving, and it would be foolish to abandon them.
But we must also realize their limitations. Natural selection could not have anticipated the modern human philosophizing about the nature of mind. In certain domains, we have to let go of intuitions in order to think more flexibly.
In her book Conscious, Annaka Harris asks us to test our intuitions with the following proposition:
“People are conscious; plants are not conscious.”
It seems safe to say that this is a true statement, right? It certainly feels true. But upon deeper reflection, even this statement gets complicated.
We assume that people are conscious because they have a brain and a central nervous system, and plants do not. But as we said already, this is technically not evidence of consciousness. Still, our intuitions don’t really come from this scientific fact anyways—they come more from observing the behavior of an organism, such as its ability to react and communicate with other things in its environment.
But there are examples that challenge this. Locked-in syndrome is a terrifying condition in which everything except a person’s eyes becomes paralyzed, yet they still have full conscious awareness. Sometimes even the eyes are paralyzed. French journalist Jean-Dominique Bauby suffered from this and was able to tell his story through blinking only his left eye.
Imagine if his left eye had also been paralyzed—to the outside observer he would appear to be in a coma, even though he would be having a fully conscious experience on the inside.
There is a similar example, perhaps even more terrifying, known as “anesthesia awareness”. This is a complication with the general anesthesia given before surgery in which a patient fails to lose consciousness. Their body could still be paralyzed while some amount of awareness remains. Imagine being awake and feeling every aspect of surgery without being able to communicate anything.
The point with both of these examples is that consciousness can exist on the inside without any signs of it showing on the outside.
And on the plant side of things, there are behaviors that challenge our intuitions as well. There are examples of plants reacting to their environment, communicating with other plants, and even sharing resources with each other.
Do plants have memories? According to plant geneticist Daniel Chamovitz, plants such as the Venus Fly Trap definitely have a form of memory:
“Plants definitely have several different forms of memory, just like people do. They have short term memory, immune memory and even transgenerational memory! I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some people, but if memory entails forming the memory (encoding information), retaining the memory (storing information), and recalling the memory (retrieving information), then plants definitely remember.”
Daniel Chamovitz, Do plants think?
And the ecologist Suzanne Simard, in studying forest ecology, has shown that trees have complex communication networks. In a 2016 TED talk, she described how two tree species use underground networks of fungi to communicate and share resources.
On top of this, Simard showed that mother trees were able to recognize their own kin. They provided more resources to their kin and curbed their own root growth in order to leave more room for the younger trees.
Does this mean that plants are conscious? It would be a far stretch to say that it does, but it’s less of a crazy idea after learning about their complexity. And it does challenge our intuitions about why we grant consciousness to some things and not to others.
Somewhere along the spectrum of increasing complexity (rocks, bacteria, plants, insects, snakes, mammals, etc.), there has to be a moment when the lights go on—when there is suddenly something that it is like to be that thing.
I don’t know where that moment is, and maybe it’s nowhere close to plants. Or maybe the premise is wrong. But the point of these examples is that we must be wary about trusting our intuitions on this matter so that we give the problem its due diligence.
Mind-Body Problem
To be a proper scientist, one must subscribe to the materialist perspective. This is the perspective of physicalism, meaning the universe is made up of matter which follows the laws of physics. This is the objective perspective of the universe. It’s extremely powerful, and it serves as the foundation for scientific advancement.
But studying consciousness objectively—mapping neurons and brain structures—will always miss something. Even if we learn next to everything about how the brain works, there would still be a gap between those facts and the first-person subjective experience. Seeing the color blue is not just a particular firing of neurons—there is also your experience of seeing the color blue. And you can’t reduce that experience to outside observations. This tension is known as the mind-body problem.
Epistemologically speaking, the mind-body problem highlights an impassable gap between the subjective and the objective. No matter how much we learn about neurons and brain networks, it still doesn’t explain how or why conscious awareness hovers above them.
This was the main takeaway from Nagel’s essay:
“If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view.”
Thomas nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”
The scientific method is designed to remove subjective bias. It is about shifting the perspective to be more objective—something is true no matter who is observing it. It assumes that the universe is made up of matter that follows rules, and if we follow the epistemology of science then we can slowly but surely uncover those rules.
So the scientific method can study consciousness, and neuroscience has in fact learned a lot about how the brain works. David Chalmers calls this mapping of the brain the easy problem of consciousness—not because it’s easy, but because its easier. But it still leaves us with the mind-body problem, what he calls the hard problem. Even if we completely map the brain, down to every last neuron, we still have not bridged the gap between objective and subjective.
“Unlike the “easy problems” of explaining animal behavior or understanding which processes in the brain give rise to which functions, the hard problem lies in understanding why some of these physical processes have an experience associated with them at all.”
ANNAKA HARRIS, CONSCIOUS
This explanatory gap is perplexing, and it’s no surprise that most religions have a different view of consciousness. Most of these are dualistic and involve some sense of a soul that is separate from the brain and survives the body. It might not be scientific, but reflecting on the mind-body problem does give one a greater understanding and compassion for the religious perspective.
But it doesn’t have to be one or the other. There are other theories that attempt to do away with this problem by approaching it in completely different ways.
Panpsychism and Other Theories
Plenty of alternative theories for consciousness are wild and unscientific, but some are more rigorous and plausible than they seem. And when you consider some of the wild ideas that are now accepted truths in physics, like quantum mechanics, keeping an open mind is essential.
We wondered earlier about where to draw a line for consciousness—how much complexity is required for consciousness to emerge? And if you can recognize the distinction between strong emergence and weak emergence, then you realize that having to draw such a line creates the hard problem of consciousness—why does one side of the line have experience while the other does not.4
Philosopher Joseph Levine coined the phrase “the explanatory gap” as a way to showcase strong emergence and the hard problem of consciousness:
“The explanatory gap argument doesn’t demonstrate a gap in nature, but a gap in our understanding of nature.”
Joseph Levine, “Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap”
But some theories, such as panpsychism, do away with having to draw such a line in the first place. Panpsychism is the hypothesis that all matter, even atoms, contain some amount of consciousness.
There are definitely unscientific versions of panpsychism, but in theory, the hypothesis is plausible. Imagine if consciousness were a fundamental force in the universe such as gravity. Science values simplicity, and making consciousness fundamental removes the complexity around how it emerges.
The British philosopher Galen Strawson would assert that panpsychism is actually the most plausible theory if one wants to be a strict physicalist/materialist/naturalist. Because even though science has not figured out the details of panpsychism, epistemologically it solves the explanatory gap, the hard problem.
And panpsychism doesn’t claim that atoms or rocks think like humans—complexity is still a factor. Just like the gravitational force is proportional to mass, the experience of consciousness could be proportional to the complexity of a system. The “lights of consciousness” could become brighter and brighter as complexity increases.
And if you want to go further down the rabbit hole of alternative theories, then you can check out the work of cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman. This TED talk introduces his user interface theory of consciousness—the idea that our sense of reality is merely an evolved interface. In addition, Sam and Annaka Harris did an extensive interview with him in this podcast conversation.
Consciousness Is Everything
For the layperson who just wants to live a good life, why does any of this matter? I personally find the philosophical details surrounding consciousness endlessly fascinating, but probably they are not all crucial.
What is crucial, though, is to understand that consciousness is experience. And the utility of meditation is relevant here. It allows one to sit down and nakedly experience consciousness—to fully experience “experience”.
And it is the experiencing of life—in yourself and others—that serves as the foundation for all of your concerns. It motivates your moral and ethical positions in this life. You could say that a good life mission is to maximize the well-being of consciousness, wherever we find it.
