King 1

Marissa King

Mrs. Layton

English 1010

25 April 2018

Debates on Consciousness

Introduction

One of the most distinctive qualities that sets humans apart from other species is their

endless curiosity regarding consciousness and sense of self. Throughout history, there has been a

tireless endeavor to answer a set of fundamental questions regarding existence. What makes us

who we are? Is a lumpy organ inside of the skull the totality of a person? What influences the

choices we make? Neuroscientists, philosophers, and the rest of humanity have been

contemplating these concepts for interminable amounts of time. These discussions fall under the

broad category of “The Theories of Consciousness.”

The concept of consciousness is so abstract that many have deemed it impossible to come

up with a general definition. It seems that generally, people believe it to be an awareness of the

external world and the self. By this definition, the fact that humans can take in and respond to

information regarding their surroundings and also maintain a colorful inner world means that

humans are “conscious.” David Chalmers, a prominent cognitive scientist and philosopher, took

a broader approach, describing consciousness as “the subjective quality of experience.”

Experience, according to his definition, can be interpreted as a number of sensory inputs that he

believes make us truly alive. Essentially, consciousness can be loosely defined, but there is no

agreement yet on why humans are capable of such an introspective and sentient experience.
 King 2

There is no way to pinpoint when the first queries of consciousness first came into being,

but a fundamental shift in the way it was understood took place in 1637 when a French

philosopher called Rene Descartes introduced new ideas about the mind. There had been many

people before him that were on the right track, but he revolutionized the idea of identity and

sense of self. He proposed the idea “Cogito ergo sum,” which roughly translates to, “I think,

therefore I am.” Descarte believed that because he was capable of thinking, he must exist.

Though he didn’t completely define consciousness, he laid important groundwork that many

built their ideas upon in later years. In fact, this concept is present in both of the current

definitions mentioned above. A rich inner life is one accepted prerequisite to being conscious.

Another important philosophical influence was William James. In the late 1800’s, he

published several books about philosophy. In one, he analyzed human thought, and organized it

into five main categories. The second and third category influenced many other philosophers at

the time. It read, “​All thought, as experienced by human consciousness, is constantly in flux and

never static; nevertheless, there is an ongoing continuity of thought for every thinker, as it moves

from one object to another, constantly comprising shifting foci” (Pomerleau). In saying this,

James further attempted to investigate consciousness through analyzing human thought. He was

also credited with being the father of introspection, a research aid used by many psychologists

and neuroscientists today.

By building on the ideas of those before him, Bernard Baars, a neurobiologist, developed

a more complete model for human consciousness. This concept is the “Global Workspace

Theory.” It was introduced in 1982, but has been modified and updated many times since then.

Baars’ model proposes that “Consciousness is accomplished by a distributed society of

 King 3

specialists that is equipped with a working memory, called a global workspace, whose contents

can be broadcast to the system as a whole” (Baars). Essentially, what we are conscious of is

shown to unconscious processes, and it is there that those messages garner a reaction. This model

was well-received by some, but rejected overall. Some have critiqued the unrealistic quality of

his model, saying, “He does not mention any anatomical part of the brain as a representative of

this specialist action in the brain. His specialist is not anatomical but computational.” (Prakash).

Those who wish to identify consciousness as an anatomical process tend to disagree with Baars.

There is one present-day theory that stands out from the rest. It is the “Integrated

Information Theory” presented by Giulio Tononi. It was introduced in 2004, and has been

accepted by many as a reliable way to model consciousness. This theory claims that

“consciousness is identical to a certain kind of information, the realization of which requires

physical, not merely functional, integration, and which can be measured mathematically

according to the ​phi​ metric” (Fallon). T​his model expounded on Descartes philosophy, and

identified a way of quantifying and qualifying individual experience, something that brings the

scientific community much closer to identifying consciousness.

In essence, there has been an extensive history to building a working theory of

consciousness. There are currently several proposed models of consciousness, and by examining

those in depth, the concept of human awareness can be better understood. This paper will

examine opposing viewpoints, criticisms, and major debates pertaining to this topic.

Major Debates and Commentary

For as long as humans have existed, they have pondered the meaning of why they are

aware and capable of thinking, observing, and drawing conclusions about the universe. Countless
 King 4

scientists and philosophers have added their own valuable insight to the search for answers. A

handful of people have developed their own theories to describe sentience and the mechanism of

consciousness, but each one has been met with a fair amount of criticism. There hasn’t yet been a

theory that has been unanimously accepted as fact. Even so, each proposed theory has

contributed to the discussion over the years, moving humankind closer to understanding more

about why we are capable of conscious thought.

Even with all of the progress that has been made, there are still several major debates

relating to the topic of consciousness, like the concept of dualism versus monism as it relates to

the brain and body, whether consciousness can ever realistically be pinpointed to a specific

location or process of the brain, and even whether or not discovering the origins of consciousness

matters. There are many different voices contributing to this discussion, each with their own

opinions and proposed solutions. This essay will examine all sides of these main issues in depth.

The main voices at the forefront of this debate will be identified, along with their beliefs and

contributions to the field.

Firstly, a significant issue fueling this debate is the discrepancy of thought between those

who believe the brain is the source of consciousness, or is at least heavily involved, and those

who believe there are outside influences on what makes us aware. The majority of people

involved in this debate, whether they are neuroscientists or philosophers, tend to agree on the

idea that the brain is responsible in some way for sentient thinking and awareness. A small

subset of people believe consciousness can be traced back to one or two yet-unidentified

structures of the brain. Many others, including Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne, a pediatric neurologist,

disagree with this stance, saying that “​The idea that there is a localized module or limited
 King 5

capacity mechanism in the brain that subserves consciousness is wrong. Awareness is a product

of the activity of widely distributed neuronal assemblies that represent diverse aspects of

experience.” Essentially, Kinsbourne believes that crediting one structure or mechanism in the

brain for the entire process of consciousness is inaccurate. In contrast, the near-death experience,

though a concept with little scientific credibility, is often used to argue against the idea of the

brain’s ties with consciousness. Dr. Peter Fenwick, a prominent neuropsychologist, “has studied

the phenomenon of near-death experiences in his patients and documented people’s descriptions

of what is happening in the room after they have flatlined and been pronounced clinically dead.”

(Sarich). Although these patient accounts have no scientific basis, they can still be considered

important to take into consideration when studying the brain’s influence on being aware.

Secondly, there has long been an issue known as the “Mind-Body Problem.” This

problem asks the question “what is the relationship between the mind and the body between the

mental realm (the realm of thoughts, beliefs, pains, sensations, emotions) and the physical realm

(matter, atoms, neurons)” (The Mind-Body Problem). This is important to include in any

discussion of consciousness, because it can give insight into its potential origin and mechanisms.

This introduces another major debate, which is that of dualism and monism as it relates to the

theories of how the mind and body work to facilitate consciousness. Those who believe in

Dualism “emphasize the radical difference between mind and matter. They all deny that the mind

is the same as the brain, and some deny that the mind is wholly a product of the brain” (Calef).

Consequen​tly, the way dualists differentiate between the mind and brain affects the way they see

consciousness on a fundamental level when compared to those who believe in monism. Monism

is organized into two basic branches, Materialism and Phenomenalism. “Materialism is the belief
 King 6

that nothing exists apart from the material world (i.e. physical matter like the brain); materialist

psychologists generally agree that consciousness (the mind) is the function of the brain.”

(McLeod). Phenomenalism is the belief that “physical objects and events are reducible to mental

objects, properties, events. Ultimately, only mental objects (i.e. the mind) exist” (McLeod). In

essence, materialists see consciousness as a physical function of the brain, which is the opposite

of Dualism. Phenomenalists see everything as a construction of the mind, which leads to a much

different idea of where consciousness can originate from. Taking these three different

philosophies of mind into account is important when discussing human consciousness because

each belief affects the way the location of consciousness is seen.

As a result of these debates, there are many prominent voices speaking out about the

theories, mechanism, and origins of being sentient and aware. The most trusted opinions and

theories are those given by the experts in the field of neuroscience, biology, and philosophy. One

prominent voice in this debate is Australian cognitive scientist David John Chalmers. He

published a book in 1996 entitled “​The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.”

This book was extremely influential at the time it was published, as he opened discussion for any

person to think and contribute their own thoughts to the discussion of the human experience,

regardless of education level. He believes consciousness to be “the subjective quality of

experience.” His definition involves taking the numerous sensory inputs that are perceived from

the physical world around around a person and responding to them.

Another major voice is neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. He proposed the Integrated

Information Theory of consciousness in 2004, and it has been one of the most widely accepted

theories on consciousness so far. His theory defines consciousness as “​identical to a certain kind
 King 7

of information, the realization of which requires physical, not merely functional, integration, and

which can be measured mathematically according to the ​phi​ metric” (Fallon). His theory was a

major breakthrough because it suggested a way of quantifying individual experiences.

To summarize, the major debates and commentary involved in the discussion of human

consciousness are extensive. There are a few proposed models, but none can be considered

concrete and factual as of yet. To understand consciousness, one must consider the many sides to

the issue, as well as several problems that may present, such as the mind-body problem, dualism,

and monism. It is suggested that ​“A fusion of neurophysiological, philosophical, and

psychological concepts may lead to a closer understanding of consciousness (Young). By taking

the anatomical and physiological sides and mixing them with philosophical principles, it may be

possible to unravel the mystery of what makes us aware.

Areas for Further Inquiry

The debate of the origin and function of human consciousness is so expansive that it has

been deemed by many an unsolvable issue. Recent technologic and medical advancements have

made it easier to understand how the brain switches between wakefulness and unconsciousness,

but a single anatomical process or mechanism responsible for awareness has yet to be identified.

Some believe the region of consciousness to lie somewhere outside of the brain, citing

near-death experiences to discredit the theory that the brain is the source of what makes us

aware. One specific concept in this debate, namely the comparison between medically-induced

consciousness and “regular” consciousness, has the potential to provide additional information

into the process of awareness, and therefore warrants further exploration.

 King 8

Firstly, it is important to understand the basis of unconsciousness that has been induced

pharmacologically. When medical surgery is being performed, patients are anesthetized in order

to prevent pain. They can be locally anesthetized, which results in a temporary loss of sensation

at a specific location, or they can be generally anesthetized, which effectively causes total

unconsciousness, aside from vital bodily functions such as heartbeat and breathing. What is

happening, if anything, in the “colorful, inner world” defined as consciousness while

anesthetized and unaware? Exploring the details of this unconscious state versus a normal, aware

state could possibly provide valuable insight into the supposed continuity of awareness.

Coincidentally, humans experience something a bit like anesthetized unconsciousness

every night during sleep. The two can be loosely compared, but are not identical. Michael T.

Alkire, a prominent anesthesiologist, says “​Although anesthesia is not the same as natural sleep,

brain arousal systems are similarly deactivated. The evidence from anesthesia and sleep states

converges to suggest that loss of consciousness is associated with a breakdown of cortical

connectivity and thus of integration, or with a collapse of the repertoire of cortical activity

patterns and thus of information.” This information perfectly lines up with the Information

Integration Theory proposed by Giulio Tononi discussed previously. Essentially, with a

lessening of cortical brain activity, there is a loss of integration and information, which explains

the complete lack of awareness in anesthetic unconsciousness.

Additionally, Dr. Emery Brown, a neuroscientist and anesthesiologist, stresses the

importance of differentiating between unconsciousness due to anesthesia and sleep, saying “​Even

the deepest sleep is not as deep as the lightest general anesthesia.” This emphasizes the extreme

depth of general anesthesia and its effects on the brain, which is important to note when studying
 King 9

these two separate tiers of unconsciousness. Essentially, sleep and anesthetic unconsciousness

can be considered similar when discussing the loss of integrated information, but the distinction

between the two becomes most apparent when the overall effects on the body are being

compared.

In conclusion, the debate over the origins and mechanisms of consciousness has a nearly

immeasurable amount of facets and unknown variables. There have been many proposed

theories, and each has brought with it progress and further understanding. Scientists and

philosophers have come closer to figuring out more about the phenomenon of being aware with

new theories and developments over the years, but much is still unknown. By taking what is

currently known about unconsciousness, whether medically-induced or naturally occuring, and

applying it to existing scientific principles, the mystery of human awareness and how it relates to

the mind could potentially become better understood.

 King 10

Works Cited

Alkire, Michael T., et al. “Consciousness and Anesthesia.” ​U.S. National Library of Medicine,​ 7

Nov. 2008, Web. 13 April 2018.

Baars, Bernard J. ​In the Theatre of Consciousness: Global Workspace Theory, a Rigorous

Scientific Theory of Consciousness​. 1997. Print. 13 March 2018.

Brown, Emery N. “General Anesthesia, Sleep, and Coma.” ​New England Journal of

Medicine​, 30 Dec. 2010, Web. 13 April 2018.

Calef, Scott. “Dualism and Mind.” ​Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​, N.d., Web. 6 April

2018.

Chalmers, David John. ​The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory​. Oxford

University Press, 1996. Print. 13 March 2018.

Fallon, Francis. “Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness.” ​Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy.​ N.d. Web. 13 March 2018.

Jorgensen, Larry M., "Seventeenth-Century Theories of Consciousness", ​The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ​2010. Web. 13 March 2018.

Kinsbourne, M. “Integrated Cortical Field Model of Consciousness.” ​U.S. National Library of

Medicine​, N.d., Web. 6 April 2018.

McLeod, Saul. “Mind Body Debate.” ​Simply Psychology​, 2007, Web. 6 April 2018.

Pomerleau, Wayne P. “William James: (1842-1910).” ​Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ​N.d.

Web. 13 March 2018.

Prakash, Ravi et al. “Global Workspace Model of Consciousness and Its Electromagnetic

Correlates.” ​Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology​, 2008.Web.

 King 11

14 Mar. 2018.

Sarich, Christina. “The Mind vs. Brain Debate (What Is Consciousness?).” ​The Cuyamungue

Institute, ​N.d., Web. 6 April 2018.

“The Mind-Body Problem.” ​The Mind-Body Problem​, N.d., Web. 6 April 2018.

Young, G. Bryan. “Neurobiological Basis of Consciousness.” ​Archives of Neurology​, American

Medical Association, 1 Feb. 1999. Web. 6 April 2018.