| Summary: | “Are there any new facts in Neurosciences that would compel a reasonable fellow like Socrates to accept the theory which says that as the strings of the lyre produce the sounds of music, so does his brain produce his joy at the (defunct if he were to accept the theory) possibility of going, once again, after sunset, to join his god?” I am re-stating the question as it stands in the opening page of this symposium because I think that particular phrasing reflects some of the interesting problems associated with the theme of consciousness. I see at least two, and possibly three, separate questions within it: (1) are there any facts in Neuroscience that would support the view that the brain causes consciousness? (2) is it likely that Socrates will be convinced by them? (3) if he were convinced, would this affect his experience of joy? In complying with the request to remain within the scope of the question, I will only address the first two and leave the third for later, if at all. To save you the suspense however, the short answers are 'yes', 'probably not', and 'definitely not'. The reason I have slightly reformulated the question is because I suspect the view -on the relationship between brain and consciousness - has little to do with the 'brave new world of neuroscientific facts', or any other world of facts for that matter. It seems to me that one's position on the graded continuum of opinions about consciousness (as for other controversial and emotionally charged issues such as politics, euthanasia, environmental ethics, abortion, animal rights, etc) is not based on strictly rational arguments or proven facts, but rather stems from a set of beliefs that each one of us have, a set of beliefs which has evolved through nothing more specific than having lived a life, read certain books, conversed with certain people and a range of other factors, most of us would be hard-pressed to identify. The arguments exist of course, but they come later. This view that the brain generates consciousness (as already indicated in the introductory statement) has existed at least since Hippocrates and has been endorsed by varying and altogether probably small proportions of the general public. What's new in our time is that science in general, and neuroscience in particular, is in the position to provide further and stronger arguments to support that view. Science, because it increasingly takes for its legitimate topic of study, mysteries of nature that were previously considered approachable only by philosophy or religion. Neuroscience, because of the ever-increasing wealth of empirical findings on the amazing and wonderful things that brains, or even their isolated parts, are capable of. And also partly because of the emergence of new techniques of literally 'looking into' a living, working, human brain. A final (and hopefully unnecessary) clarifying point: Having such beliefs is more or less inevitable, is part of the human condition, and does by no means imply we can not engage in rational discourse, put our beliefs to the test, be scientific in our method of inquiry, or change our minds as new facts comes along. It does however mean that it is rather unlikely that someone will alter their set of beliefs on the basis of non-factual arguments, however convincing these may seem to the converted. The same 'evidence' will be corroborating for some and irrelevant to others. So to return to the theme of the Symposium, if the question we have been invited to debate is “are there any neuroscientific facts (the way that 'DNA -> RNA -> protein', or 'neurotransmitter binds to receptor and causes synaptic transmission' are facts) that would prove unequivocally that subjective experiences are caused by the brain”, the answer is easy and obvious: No. End of story. But since I do believe that this is most likely to be the case, let me tell you why. I will discuss the relevant arguments in 3 sections: those that are based on facts that neuroscience has taught us, those that are more general (some might call them philosophical), and those that are based on the history of science.
|
|---|