 A great scientist takes a wrong turning, 2007-08-12
I first encountered Blackmore when, after searching long and hard for a scientific explanation of out-of-body experiences, I came across her book Beyond the Body. It was astonishingly well researched and offered a rational, convincing explanation for phenomena that were usually neglected by the scientific community. I became an instant fan and have followed her work ever since. But now, alas, she has aligned herself with the Dawkins/Dennett axis of drivel, and my loyalty to her is badly shaken. In this book (a shorter version of her Consciousness: An Introduction) she follows Dennett by denying the existence of consciousness and then indulging in much speculation about the properties and evolutionary history of this non-existent entity. Consciousness, she maintains, is an 'illusion', which she defines as something that exists but does not have the properties it appears to have. She then proceeds to discuss it as if it does not in fact exist, and slips into calling it a 'delusion', which she apparently regards as a synonymous term. So far, so Dennett. She follows Dawkins by labeling just about everything a 'meme' (as Poe might have said 'All that we see or seem is but a meme within a meme'), unless she happens not to approve of it, in which case it is 'a virus of the mind'. As an example, she indulges in a quite intemperate and completely irrelevant rant against religion, in which Roman Catholicism is described as a parasitic infection. Like Dennett and Dawkins, she leaves no axe unground.
So why do I give the book 5 stars if I disagree with so much of it? Well, I guess you can't keep a good scientist down, and Blackmore is still a great scientist. She brings considerable knowledge and erudition to the subject, presents fair summaries of opposing views, and gives excellent descriptions of odd phenomena like Libet's Delay and the Cutaneous Rabbit. And her style is as readable as ever. I was suspicious when I saw that her son Jolyon had contributed many of the illustrations - it smacked of nepotism - but I have to say his drawings are really charming and add greatly to the text. The other illustrations are useful too - with the possible exception of a photograph of the author opening a fridge door - which isn't always the case with this series. The book ends with a very useful Further Reading list. It's thus an excellent introduction to the subject (although I think John Searle's The Mystery of Consciousness is still the best place to start).
So, I shall keep the faith and continue to read everything Susan Blackmore publishes. I just hope that one day, just as she once abandoned a belief in the paranormal, she sees the light and abandons the axis of drivel.
Perfect introduction to a complex and profound subject, 2008-07-06
The relationship between mind and body, and the tremendous difficulty of explaining that relationship, has been a central theme in modern philosophy since Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum'. In the subsequent centuries the entire heavy artillary of analytical philosophy has been brought to bear, categorical mistakes have been claimed, behavourist theories championed, yet the awkard I stubbornly remains, peering out at the world. A bundle of neurons and synapses themselves composed of randomly spinning atoms and electrons, somehow able to ask questions 'why am I? who am I? What am I?'.
Recently however, the problem of mind has taken on a new academic guise - the study of consciousness. The ancient riddle has been reframed into a seemingly narrower and more fundamental question - the problem of how physical matter be self-aware, how can the brain think and feel? The central question may have become more focused, yet suddenly it is not just the philosophers who are discussing it. The study of consciousness is now truly a multi-disciplinary subject, drawing in experts in psychology and neuro-science amonst others. Suddenly a subject so old and profound appears to be one of the most exciting fields in academia. One that might even be on the verge of providing answers that would transform our very sense of self and identity.
Susan Blackmore does a remarkably good job here of introducing such a complex and wideranging subject. You really do get a sense of what the question is and just why it is so challenging. Not only that but you should get a feel of why the subject is particularly exciting at the moment and for those versed in the 'traditional' formulations of the philosophy of mind, this book stands as testamant to the fact that the study of consciousness is really a subject in its own right now.
Having said all that, this book (and others by Susan Blackmore) really should come with a government health warning. I've read David Hume's reflections on the illusory nature of the self, as well as some of those of Eastern Philosophy. Like Hume, I feel largely able to set aside such considerations as soon as I attend to other matters. Reading Blackmore, I really do feel a little shaken. I can give up the idea of a concrete self lurking behind my eyes controlling my fingers as I type this review, but when plausible argument after plausible argument chips away at the belief in consciousness itself, or at least our faith that there is a stream of consciousness, then the effect is rather more disturbing and profound.
Blackmore introduces all the main theories relating to consciousness here, in a very readable and succinct manner. You are fully made aware of her own viewpoint, but that is not a bad thing, as they are clearly put in contrast with the others and in a way that helps you come to your own conclusion, though as I just said, it may leave you a little unsettled.
Though the stream of consciousness mayby some kind of 'grand illusion' as Blackmore and of course Daniel Dennet quite persuasively argue for, its not clear that the problem of explaining consciousness is in anyway diminished. No matter how many insignificant little pieces you try to break conscious awareness into, the fundamental problem still remains : how does physical matter achieve any consciousness at all?
A must read introduction for those interested in the study of consciousness and the philosophy of mind. I'd also fully recomend her longer introduction (as a follow up) which has student exercises and chapter summaries etc. Just take care!
A great little primer on the subject, 2007-10-18
A terrific little book that should only have taken me a few hours to read, but instead took a week because I frequently stopped to ponder the philosophically challenging examples she uses. I thought I already knew the subject reasonably well, but there's plenty in this small volume I found new and challenging.
Well worth reading her other book too: Conversations on Consciousness in which she talks to several leading figures in the field, and where her own biases on the subject rub up against theirs.
Very easy to read, with illustrations and no jargon. Heartily recommended!
 "The subjective experience is only a fleeting event that gives rise to a delusion.", 2007-09-25
And what's worse, "If you go on believing you are always conscious, and construct metaphors about streams and theatres, then you only dig yourself deeper and deeper into confusion."
First we're introduced to the influence of specific brain regions on consciousness. So the temporal cortex is responsible for our changing perceptions, whilst the visual cortex simply processes retinal input which is interpreted later. All this might suggest the temporal cortex is more `subjective', but as Blackmore points out, "correlations alone do not solve the mystery... how can some cells give rise to subjective experience and some not?"
Delving deeper into the brain only confuses the issue though. It turns out that much of what we think we're conscious of is in fact illusion. Chapters 3 & 4 concentrate on these illusions. Libet's `neuronal adequacy for consciousness', the cutaneous rabbit experiment, daydreaming and such are all pulled in to break up William James' good old-fashioned stream-of-consciousness theory. Some visual games emphasise how much of our sensory world is constructed; inattentional blindness and Ramachandran's `filling-in' are the main culprits.
With all these thrown at our sense of the world, Blackmore then proceeds towards our concept of the self. Most religions and common sense generally perceive a continuous I, a self, in relation to the world; this is ego-theory. Against this is Buddhism and the 18th century Scot, David Hume, who said that the self is more like a "bundle of sensations" threaded together by memory and relationships. The self then becomes a "centre of narrative gravity", "a useful fiction" for relating experiences to each other. But though Bundle theory is useful in relation to some strange neurophysiological effects, it soes remain deeply counter-intuitive.
Finally, even our sense of free-will is preceded by electrical stimuli, shown in Libet's `consciousness-timing' experiments, leading psychologists to produce true-order diagrams for thought processes along the lines of, 1) the brain begins planning an action, 2) the brain activity leads to thought about the action, 3) we assume the thoughts caused the action. She concedes by the end that Dennett's `multiple draft' theory may be the closest have to understanding all of what we don't know; the brain plays out parallel translations of the world of its own accord and not until it's asked to account for its experience does it bother at all with consciousness. In this way maintaining consciousness becomes (for Blackmore at least) a matter of application, of repeating Zen koan-style questions, like `Am I conscious now?', or `Who am I?', etc.
Overall, this is a good read. The visual games (like those of the VSI to the Brain) are a good, cheap laugh, and the sheer number of theories sketched show just how confused consciousness studies is at the moment. The only gripe is that the theories are spread about between the chapters rather than coherently stated and contrasted. Blackmore's priority is the brain and the faculties of consciousness it attends to, only sprinkling along the way parts of related theories which by the end became, for me, confused and nebulous. Anyway, good for prodding your bonce. Definitely recommended.
Understanding consciousness: A brief review, 2007-08-29
What is consciousness? How do a set of electrical responses of millions of brain cells produce private, subjective conscious experience? Several theories have been proposed, and they include, grand unifying theories, quantum mechanical theories, biophysical/neurochemical mechanisms, philosophical, and spiritual theories. None of these completely explain the relationship between mind and brain (body), or subjective and objective thoughts. That is, the way things seem to me as opposed to how they should be objectively; in other words, the theory has to explain how subjective experience arises from objective brains? How billions of interconnections of neurons produce perception, learning, memory, reasoning, language, and finally consciousness. Different areas of brain perform different functions, such as, vision, hearing, speech, body image, motor control, and many other tasks. They are linked to each other but not into one control processor to produce consciousness. For example, pain is visible to a certain extent, but one can not fully comprehend another person's pain unless one experience that pain oneself.
Throughout history, philosophers and scientists proposed some form of dualism that mind and brain are different, however, some scientists prefer monism; the mind and body are one and the same, but this does not explain a consistent physical world. A third form preferred by physicists is materialism, which makes matter most fundamental. This also does not explain how a physical brain (matter) can give rise conscious experience. It is also unclear if consciousness is a power (energy) or a force but the laws physics relate each other.
Could consciousness lags behind the events of the world? The experimental results of Benjamin Libet are discussed (chapter 3) in light of dualist theories, quantum mechanics, Higher order of thought (HOT) theory, and Global workplace theory. Each theory offers explanation for certain aspect of consciousness, but eludes from addressing the subjectivity experience. In chapter 4, there is a brief discussion of weather consciousness is a grand illusion: Much of this concept depends on individual visual awareness. In chapter 5, the spirit, self and souls are discussed in light of many theories. The Upanishads, the sacred scriptures of Hindus, and Buddhist philosophy propose self is as an independent entity, but modern philosophers such as David Hume claim that self is a bundle of sensations. The experimental results of psychologists Roger Perry, Michael Gazzaniga, and Earnest Hilgard have been discussed. Most theories equate self with a particular brain process, but fail to explain the relationship of self with consciousness. Chapter 6 discusses the origin of free will that makes the decision or expresses willingness, is that inner self or due to power of consciousness? Since all events in the universe are deterministic, i.e. all events are determined by prior events. It follows that everything happens in future is inevitable; hence no room for free will! However some philosophers argue that deterministic process is chaotic and outcomes are complex, which may not be predictable. Therefore both determinism and free will could coexist independently. Many psychologists believe that free will is an illusion. In chapter 7, altered states of consciousness, due to sleep and dream, psychoactive drugs, stimulants, out of body experiences, and meditation are discussed in relation to mind and consciousness. The last chapter presents an interesting discussion about the evolution of consciousness and examines if animals have consciousness. The author presents arguments in favor of lack of consciousness in animals because they do not have language skills. It is proposed that language and mathematical skills coupled with deep thoughts help humans to communicate about past, present and future that may confer consciousness. This argument is unclear since the term consciousness itself needs to be defined. This book is well written and it is recommended.
|