Consciousness
is pretty interesting, no? I decided to study neuroscience at least in part so
I could understand how a person could arise from chemical interactions. Four
years later, I learned a lot of interesting things and just managed to retain
enough that at parties I can look up from my excuse to not interact with
strangers (books, pets, medicine cabinets) and excitedly interject in
conversations “Oh, we learned about that in neuroscience!” before realizing I don’t remember
the names of any of the structures or reactions. I then mumble something about
the weather, and return to checking out the host’s medicine cabinet in shame. But I have not come very far with understanding consciousness.
Some
people, such as Douglas Hofstadter (most famous for Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, but I only got
through I am a Strange Loop. It’s very, very meta http://xkcd.com/917/) believe that a neuroscience-based explanation of consciousness isn’t satisfactory, because consciousness operates
at a completely different level than neurons. He understands consciousness as a
strange loop, an entry that can twist around to see itself like two mirrors
reflecting each other to infinity (read the subtext of http://xkcd.com/555/). As Hofstader illustrates, this
strange loop cannot be explained by the firing of neurons any more than then
World War II can be explained with physics, although physics, of course, is the
ultimate cause of everything that happened.
Maybe that’s
the easiest answer, but I think that Steven Pinker’s theory makes the most
sense. Though I understand that the brain does refer to itself in a loop, I
fail to see how this would lead to consciousness. This is most likely due to my
failure to understand as opposed to Hofstader’s failure to explain, but still. Instead,
I believe that understanding consciousness is just beyond a human brain’s
ability, like say communicating via hypersonic waves (elephants are amazing).
No comments:
Post a Comment