Theory of consciousness - Part 1 - Sensual Universe: Deductions from reductionism

Richard Feynman said:

If, in some cataclysm, all scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms — little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence you will see an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.


Let us then apply a little imagination and thinking to that one area of biology that has eluded any explanation (not even a wrong explanation!) so far - that of consciousness. By consciousness, I mean that quality which distinguishes the conceivably most advanced robot from a human. Thus, consciousness has got nothing to do with reproduction ... we can design robots that make other robots. Nor does it have to do with memory - robots can be designed to never forget.


Let us consider that part of consciousness that deals with vision. Going back to the definition of consciousness, Vision Consciousness is quality of vision that distinguishes the conceivably most advance robot's vision from a human's vision. A human's vision can be thought of as the ability to sense some spectral information about outside world, recognize patterns therein, and either match them to known objects in memory, or add a new entry into the memory. A robot with a sensitive camera can also accomplish the same feat. Yet, we do not say that the "Robot can see just like we do", because we sense that there is some additional quality to our vision that the robot is lacking. If we could somehow define, understand and get a grip on this "difference", then we could understand consciousness so much more better.


For the purposes of this essay, let us define the difference between Robotic Vision and Human Vision as Conscious-Vision. Both human eye and robotic camera are capable of recognizing the "red" color of rose ... as in the light reflected from the rose had a wavelength in the neighborhood of 400 nm; yet, only human eye can sense redness while robotic camera merely records the wavelength. This ability to see, sense, feel and experience the chromatic beauty of rose is the essence of Conscious-Vision.


Which parts of the body are the essential for Conscious-Vision? By process of accidental elimination of body parts, we can postulate that the fingers, the toes, the nails, the legs, the stomach, the heart, the kidney and other parts below neck are not necessary for Conscious-Vision. Within the head region, we can similarly eliminate the tongue, the ears, the nose, the external skin, the hair, the mustache and the beard as being unnecessary to experience Conscious-Vision. Thus we are left with the relatively small parts of the body - "the eye and the brain" - as essential body parts for Conscious-Vision.


That the eye and the brain are necessary for Conscious-Vision was perhaps expected. Before we proceed further in our investigations, let us pause for a moment and indulge in a minor tangential, albeit very interesting, question - Can A Blind Man Dream In Colors? By definition, the blind man cannot "see" when he is awake. However, it is conceivable that he still might be able to "see" dreams.


Medically, the answer seems to be - "it depends" - it in fact depends on whether the blindness was at the time of birth or only recently. If the blindness was congential, then there is no notion of "sight". However, if the blindness was recent, then the blind man does have vivid colorful dreams.


Returning now to our original quest ... we had so far concluded that the eye and the brain were essential for Conscious-Vision. With the added benefit of dream-ability of a blind man, we can further postulate that the "eyes" themselves are not essential for continued Conscious-Vision. Thus, we are left with "just the brain". We can congratulate ourselves on our achievement - we started with the statement - "Man has Conscious-Vision" and ended with "Brain has Conscious-Vision". If Man were considered to be sum of all the parts, then we elimiated all but one part!


Can we repeat this same feat? Brain, after all, can be thought of as sum of all of its parts - namely all the cells that constitute it. So, can a cubic millimeter region of the brain be idenitfied as the site of Conscious-Vision? With today's scientific knowledge, we can not answer this question. However, there is no reason to suspect that this question does not admit a positive answer. Let us then suppose that at some future date, a cubic millimeter region of the brain was shown to be sufficient to experience Conscious-Vision.


Would our intellectual curiosity about the site of Conscious-Vision be satisfied with the identification of a one cubic millimeter patch? No! We would demand application of the process of narrowing down one more time! We would demand that the cubic-millimeter patch of the brain be considered as a sum total of all its parts - namely the hundreds of neurons and the glia that form the patch - and we narrow down the site of Conscious-Vision to one single cell.


Would our intellectual curiosity about the site of Conscious-Vision be satisfied with the identification of one single cell? No! We would demand application of the process of narrowing down one more time! We would demand that the single cell be considered as a sum total of all its parts - namely the thousands of proteins, the DNA, the RNA, the lipids, the sugars and other simple ions and complex molecules that form the cell - and we narrow down the site of Conscious-Vision to one single molecule.


Finally, Would our intellectual curiosity about the site of Conscious-Vision be satisfied with the identification of one single molecule? No! We would demand to apply the process of narrowing down one more time! We would demand that the single molecule be considered as a sum total of all its parts - namely the hundreds of quarks that form the molecule - and we narrow down the site of Conscious-Vision to one single quark. Only with the identification of a quark as a site of Conscious-Vision will our intellectual curiosity about the subject be finally satisfied!


The very act of asking the question - what is the site of conscious vision - narrowed the possibilities of answers to just one, namely - that the quarks must be the site of conscious vision. This kind of reasoning is called deduction. Let us then re-examine the elements of our deduction.

1. We started with the fact that we can "see" while the robots cannot "see".
2. We also started with the fact that reductionism is a valid logical tool.
3. We applied the tool of reductionism to the issue of "site of conscious vision".
4. We ASSUMED that the atomic hypothesis is correct - namely everything is made of fundamental things that themselves can't be further broken down (now thought to be as quarks).
5. We CONCLUDED that site of conscious vision must reside in the fundamental particles, namely the quarks.



The postulation of quarks having capacity for Conscious Vision immediately gives rise to the following absurdity: If everything in the Universe is made of these fundamental particles - then, everything in the Universe is capable of Conscious Vision! The stone can see, the chalk can see, the hand can see, the nose can see! But none of them do!


Posing the conundrum in terms of the very definition of Conscious Vision ...

A: Conscious Vision is defined as the difference between Human vision and Robotic vision.
B: The capability for Conscious Vision resides in the fundamental particles of Nature, namely quarks.
C: By Atomic Hypothesis, everything in the Universe, including the Human and the Robot, are made of the fundamental particles, i.e. quarks.
D: From B&C, both Humans and Robots have capacity for Conscious Vision.

How does one explain the Robot having the capacity for Conscious Vision but Not in fact having Conscious Vision?

The answer to this question is similar to the answer to another question - What is the difference between a man who is dead and the same man, who, a couple seconds ago, was still alive? This will be taken up in the next essay ...