Neuroscience - Perspective On Consciousness

[Guest guest]

A common misconception among people who have a bit of a scientific background

is that neuroscience can somehow explain Consciousness. Since science has

explained so many things of the universe, it can also explain Consciousness -

so goes the reasoning.

 

Neuroscience has not only not explained Consciousness, it has centered on it as

being amongst the most important unsolved problems in science.

 

I've been reading the book "Phantoms in the Brain" by Prof. V.S.Ramachandran,

one of the foremost neuroscientists of today, and he explains why Consciousness

poses the greatest problem in the field.

 

The problem here is the reconciliation of the First-Person vs. Third-Person

viewpoints in perception. For example, this is one statement of the problem:

 

When a person ("patient") is shown a red rose in front of him, he perceives it

as a red rose. The redness of the rose is not perceived by the eye, as the eye

can be perfectly fine yet the patient will not see the red rose if his optic

nerve (the nerve from the eye to the brain) is cut. Therefore, the redness of

the rose is perceived not by the eye, but by the brain (or so it is believed by

neuroscientists). Somewhere in the brain, there arises the idea that a red rose

is being perceived.

 

The neuroscientist observes the brain of the patient and records his

observations. But most unfortunately for the neuroscientist, no observation of

the brain will reveal a red rose inside the brain.

 

Third-Person (Neuroscientist's) Viewpoint: "There is a material entity (brain)

with billions of grey neurons that are excited by electrical impulses, and

affected by chemical substances such as drugs and proteins."

 

First-Person (Patient's) Viewpoint: "I see a RED ROSE."

 

The problem is - how and why is the sight of a RED ROSE appearing out of grey

neurons constituting the brain? If a scientist peers into the brain, he will

never observe how the perception of the red rose arises out of the grey

neurons. So far as the neuroscientist is concerned, perception of the red rose

is a phantom in the brain - i.e. it doesn't exist in the brain. But it is

common sense that perception of the red rose does happen - if not in the brain,

where else can it happen?

 

It appears that the brain is not only an object ("Grey Matter"), but also a

subject ("Seeing of Red"). But how exactly the brain can be an object as well

as a subject of perception is far from being explained by science.

 

Here is Prof. Ramachandran's exposition (Page 229):

 

---

"The central mystery of the cosmos, as far as I'm concerned,

is the following: Why are there always two parallel

descriptions of the universe - the first-person account

("I see red") and the third-person account ("He says that

he sees red when certain pathways in his brain encounter a

wavelength of six hundred nonometers?")? How can these two

accounts be so utterly different yet complementary? Why

isn't there only a third-person account, for according to

the objective worldview of the physicist and neuroscientist,

that's the only one that really exists? (Scientists who hold

this view are called behaviorists.) Indeed, in their scheme

of "objective science," the need for a first-person

account doesn't even arise - implying that consciousness

simply doesn't exist. But we all know perfectly well that

can't be right. I'm reminded of the old quip about the

behaviorist who, just having made passionate love, looks

at his lover and says, "Obviously that was good for you,

dear, but was it good for me?" This need to reconcile the

first-person and third-person accounts of the universe

(the "I" view versus the "he" or "it" view) is the single

most important unsolved problem in science. Dissolve this

barrier, say the Indian mystics and sages, and you will

see that the separation between self and nonself is an

illusion - that you are really One with the cosmos."

---

 

"It is the mind which creates the body, the brain in it and also ascertains

that the brain is its seat."

-"Talks" with Ramana Maharshi, 17th January, 1937.

 

--------------------------

Work for the Employer with the best benefits! Work for God!

 

 

 

 

 

for Good - Make a difference this year.

http://brand./cybergivingweek2005/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Jayanarayanan-ji.

 

Thanks for your very informative post on the neuroscientific

conundrum.

 

An Advaitin might like to simplify the whole issue as follows:

 

MIND IS.

BRAIN IS.

BODY IS.

REDNESS IS.

ROSE IS.

I AM THE 'IS' IN ALL. WITHOUT 'IS', ALL CANNOT BE.

'IS' IS IN ALL. YET, 'IS' IS NOT MIND, BRAIN, REDNESS, ROSE. 'IS' I

AM. TAT SAT.

 

By the way, in advaitic consideration, there always is only

the 'first person view'.

 

Thus, 'HE SEES A ROSE' BECOMES THE OBJECT IN 'I KNOW THAT HE SEES A

ROSE'. 'IS' is now "I KNOW". 'SAT' is 'CHIT' here.

 

To extend it further: "I KNOW SHRI JAYANARAYANJI'S POST AND THE

CONTENTS THEREOF." The 'IS' I AM and I KNOW has thus pervaded this

beautiful morning here, your words appearing on the monitor screen,

the neuroscientist, the patient, the redness of his rose and the very

rose itself - why everything there is - in an all-encompassing

embrace. The ahaMsphuraNa is thus an 'everywhereness' not

restricted to a 'deep within'. It is "FULLNESS" - ANANDA. Life is

beautiful. Let us all be advaitins.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

advaitin, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana>

quoted:

....... This need to reconcile the

> first-person and third-person accounts of the universe

> (the "I" view versus the "he" or "it" view) is the single

> most important unsolved problem in science. Dissolve this

> barrier, say the Indian mystics and sages, and you will

> see that the separation between self and nonself is an

> illusion - that you are really One with the cosmos."

> ---

>

> "It is the mind which creates the body, the brain in it and also

ascertains

> that the brain is its seat."

> -"Talks" with Ramana Maharshi, 17th January, 1937.