The mystery of consciousness actually isn't so mysterious

The history of science shows us that many inexplicable phenomena, which often were considered to have supernatural causes (Thor makes thunder!) actually have natural causes. 

I strongly suspect that the same will prove to be true of consciousness. While most scientists view consciousness to be a product of the brain, some, especially those with a philosophical bent, have a dualistic perspective where mind and body are separate entities.

This, of course, was how Descartes saw things way back in the 1600s, believing that the mind was nonphysical. Most religions share that opinion, though soul sometimes is substituted for mind, or added to it as another nonphysical entity.

I think it'd be great if the mind or soul was nonphysical, as that'd markedly increase the odds that when we die, we're not dead and gone forever. Our body is, but we'd live on. (Hopefully in a more pleasant state of existence, though that's not guaranteed by religions.)

Today I came across an interesting story on Neurosciencenews, "Rethinking the mystery of consciousness." Here's the summary that starts the story off.

Summary: A new study challenges traditional views on consciousness, arguing that our perceptions of mind-body separation are influenced by psychological biases.

The researchers used experiments involving the well-known thought exercise “Mary and the Zombie” to illustrate how our intuitions about consciousness are shaped by innate dualism. Participants’ responses suggest that while we often view consciousness as a mystical, separate entity, it significantly registers in physical brain activities.

Findings contend these biases mislead us into perceiving consciousness as more mysterious than it truly is, advocating for a reevaluation of its roots in simple brain functions.

Key Facts:

(1) Berent’s experiments reveal that people’s perceptions of consciousness can dramatically shift, suggesting that consciousness may not be the ethereal phenomenon we often consider it to be.

(2) She argues that evolutionary psychology and inherent dualistic tendencies shape our views on consciousness, making us believe it exists beyond the physical.

(3) The study highlights that even profound experiences, like Mary seeing color for the first time, have tangible effects on brain activity, reinforcing the physical nature of consciousness.

Source: Northeastern University

Now, to be clear, "Mary" and "Zombies" are actually two separate thought exercises. I find the case of Mary discussed in the story to be more interesting, but here's my take on Zombies.

These are (obviously) hypothetical creatures who outwardly are indistinguishable from humans. They talk like us, they act like us, they behave like us. In other words they're a lot like a highly advanced Artificial Intelligence in a human body. The only difference between them and us is that they lack consciousness. 

So some philosophers take this to mean that consciousness must be nonphysical, since it is an add-on that really isn't needed to do everything we conscious humans do. To my mind the main argument against this view is pretty damn simple: Zombies don't exist!

The Rationally Speaking blogger, a philosophy professor, expresses that sentiment more expansively in a post, "I just don't get it. More on Mary and the Zombies."

None of the above should be construed as a dismissal of thought experiments (which, incidentally, have a place also in science), but rather as a clarification of what thought experiments are about. Hypothetical scenarios simply do not have the power to discover new facts about the world. If that were the case, then we wouldn’t need empirical science, or at the very least the role of empirical science would be greatly diminished in comparison with what it actually is (I’m looking at you, string theorists...).

Rather, thought experiments are helpful to bring to the fore our assumptions about certain matters, as well as to unpack the logical entailments of those assumptions. When well done, they represent good philosophy (or good science, depending on the experiment). But when one uses them beyond their scope to reach grand conclusions about what practitioners of another field can and cannot do, one ends up just looking silly.

Regarding Mary, she's a neuroscientist who knows everything how we humans perceive color. However, she's colorblind, so Mary has never actually seen the color red. She just understands how red is seen. Then one day Mary is able to see a rose in all its vibrant redness. This makes some people believe that the consciousness of red lies outside physical explanation. 

The experimenter named in the summary is psychology professor Iris Berent. The story says:

Influential philosopher David Chalmers famously won a bet in 2023 for claiming consciousness exists beyond the merely physical, Berent says.

But she says the question of where consciousness exists is a false one—and she has a new paper that presents her position.

In an article published in the Neuroscience of Consciousness, she argues that the debate stems from the delusional—albeit natural—biases in the way humans think about the separation, or lack thereof, between body and mind.

“One of the biases is dualism, intuitive dualism—the fact that we perceive minds as separate from our bodies.”

“The extent to which we look at consciousness and think that it is this really mysterious thing could very well arise from how we see it rather from what consciousness really is,” Berent says.

“Consciousness isn’t hard. Psychology is,” she says.

Berent found that when people are asked to think about how Mary is able to see color for the first time, they realize that some physical changes must have occurred in her brain. Neuronal wiring must have shifted so that whereas before she just saw in black and white, now she can see in color. 

Not mysterious at all. At least, the mystery of how Mary could come to see red is purely physical.

Berent says she decided to challenge these conclusions with two additional questions.

“The first question is kind of a reality check question, which is do they think Mary’s case is significant? Is it transformative? And everybody said, ‘Sure, it’s super transformative,'” Berent says.

“We also asked how likely is it that this experience will actually show up in her brain? If we scan her brain, will it light up? And it turns out that that’s exactly what people said. It will significantly register in the brain.”

“The point being, in the condition of the zombie people say, ‘no,’ (consciousness) is not physical,” Berent says. “And in Mary’s condition, people say it’s physical.”

“If people change their mind in this way, it can’t possibly be that in reality consciousness has changed. It must be that there is something within the human psyche that colors how we see consciousness.”

“For me, this means that we need to be really careful before we assume that there is any real mystery going on.”

One theory about what that something within the human psyche is, apart from wishful thinking that our mind or soul will live on after we die, and the sensation we have that our consciousness feels ethereal while our body feels physical, is that evolution favored the survival of creatures who could understand that other creatures have intentions just like they do, leading to the capacity of a "theory of mind" where we not only can observe what another creature is doing, but can grasp with a decent amount of accuracy what is on their mind, and so the foundation of future action. This fosters mind-body dualism.

Which leads to the final sentence in the story.

Consciousness likely comes down to electrochemical functions in the brain, she says. “It’s hard for psychological reasons.”

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

That's a name, and a blog, I've not seen before. I enjoyed reading Prof. Massimo Pigliucci's short post, and have bookmarked the page so I can check out some more of what he's got going there, later when I've time. Thanks for the post and the link, Brian.

Yep, to take p-zombies as an argument for consciousness existing separately from the body, is jaw-droppingly stupid. After all, there's absolutely no reason why a regular zombie --- whether Count Dracula, or Jesus Christ, or that hot girl played by Kirsten Stewart in the Twilight movies --- should lack consciousness. No reason why a zombie shouldn't be just as conscious as any regular human being. ...The p-zombie is DEFINED as lacking in consciousness, so that to follow that argument and circle back to then claiming that this somehow proves that consciousness is beyond the physical is ...just jaw-droppingly stupid.

[Ron E.]

This article " . . .challenges traditional views on consciousness, arguing that our perceptions of mind-body separation are influenced by psychological biases." and points out that: " . . .our intuitions about consciousness are shaped by innate dualism."

Well, sounds reasonable, although I don't think it is a new revelation. Dualism has been pointed out as the basis of the mind/body/consciousness issue for quite a while (eons ago through some of the Buddhist thinking).

Personally, I see the confusion around the 'what is the mind' concept as stemming from the reluctance to see it (the mind) simply as information, information derived from experiences accrued in the brain's networking and simply as an aid for survival. To that end I'd say that many other creatures have (or display) minds according to their environmental situations contributing to their survival needs.

Working along with this idea, the body (brain and senses) produce the mind and the mind's data when recalled and acted up (whether just in thought or physical action) gives the impression of consciousness - or awareness - awareness of the contents of mind and/or awareness of the physical organism and its environment.

To this end, I would reckon that mind and consciousness (although never finding the conceptual 'seat' of consciousness), can be easily understood. Awareness though, is another matter!