Clear as Glass (part 2)

In the previous essay, I discussed the possibility that the brain is necessary to consciousness, but that it is not sufficient. In other words, there seems to be something needed beyond just material structures. We explored these ideas by considering the metaphor of a stained glass window, illustrating the possibility that we need to continue looking beyond strictly material solutions.

However, history shows that science has often been challenged with such paradigm shifts. Thus, it may be helpful to use non-science tools to explore these ideas while science is still far from conclusive answers. For example, sometimes metaphors can help us see beyond biases and preconceptions. As an example, in this essay we’ll consider the stained glass picture some more, and develop a picture that may illustrate why consciousness is so unique and why it’s too early to start closing off options for explaining it.

Imagine standing inside a church that is full of stained glass windows. These windows have a strikingly beautiful appearance, largely due to their glowing nature. If we were naive about their construction, we might wonder how they came to have such a striking appearance. Where does the extra light come from?

One possibility might be that the windows are constructed using fiber optic light pipes such that light is gathered from elsewhere in the room and re-emitted in the windows. They appear brighter, but only because of this special construction that makes light that exists elsewhere in the room emerge from the windows.

This is a way to picture materialism, the standard idea that there is nothing beyond the material. The material things we see, the construction of the room, is all there is. Thus, any explanation of the extra light must come from some arrangement of the room itself; the room is sufficient to produce the effect.

Another possibility might be that everything with which the room is constructed glows slightly, but at such low levels that it is imperceptible. The windows happen to be constructed in such a way that the glowing nature is concentrated and made obvious.

This is a way to picture panpsychism, in which all matter is supposed to have consciousness, but it is only apparent when matter is arranged in a certain manner, such as with a human brain. Again, the room is sufficient to produce the effect.

Another possibility might be that there is a source of light outside the room that illuminates the windows above and beyond that provided by the light in the room itself. In addition to being a second source of light, it is shining through the window rather than reflecting off of it, and the result is a striking appearance.

This is a way to picture consciousness being the result of a metaphysical domain (outside or beyond our standard materialism) acting in addition to the standard material domain. This illustrates how both are necessary and neither is sufficient.

In all these pictures, the special nature of consciousness is represented by the unique appearance of a stained glass window. That’s useful, but I think it misses a key part of the question being explored. While the window does look special, it’s also still the type of thing we see all around us – an illuminated object of some sort. It’s illuminated differently, and perhaps the colors are more vibrant and saturated, but these are matters of degree; they are still the same type of thing we see around us.

Instead, imagine standing there, looking at the windows, wondering about the play of light, the intensity of colors, and so on, and trying to use them to explain the smell of freshly baked bread that you keep noticing. No matter how clever we are with the use of light and color, there’s something fundamentally different about smell.

This is the challenge of trying to explain consciousness with strictly material things. Consciousness seems fundamentally different from any other material thing so that trying to explain it with strict materialism is like trying to explain smell with light and color.

One approach that some people take is to suggest that consciousness is an “emergent” phenomenon, which is a somewhat technical way of saying that a new property emerges from the complex behavior of the underlying elements. This is reasonable when the emergent property is of the same type as the elements, such as when a new physical property results from a complex collection of physical items. But it’s much less clear how a whole new type of behavior can result. As a result, this common statement is often rejected by other researchers.

We won’t stretch the metaphor any further in an attempt to picture emergence, but hopefully this simple use helps illustrate how completely different consciousness is from other physical characteristics.

I think this is why it’s so important to remain open to all options, even (religious | metaphysical) ones that may otherwise seem unimportant. Given the great level of uncertainty in science and metaphysics, it’s not a good idea to limit the options since history shows that it’s sometimes the unexpected approaches that end up being right.