The Big Question Mark of Consciousness

Consciousness, qualia, sensation, experience. Whatever you want to call it, it's really mind-boggling when you think about it. In the way that a cluster of electric cells creates a mind to be boggled at all, and to be able to think of itself as boggled, realising that it has boggled itself in its own mystery - cue further boggling.

I would like to try and untangle it, and when it is laid out I really think there is a fundamental magic to the conscious experience, that many of us, each day, overlook. And, most of what I will reference is neurology.

First of all, so far as all evidence suggests, the brain is that which creates our experience of the world. Where processes occur which are directly linked to reason, emotion, drives, perceptions, imaginations and so on. We know this because of countless studies in Neurology that look at how when we suffer a head trauma, stroke, or some other anomaly that shorts out a portion of the brain, it has a direct connection to our consciousness. I encourage people to watch any videos, and read material, by Oliver Sacks and V.S. Ramachandran if you are interested in looking into more examples. The basic premise here is common knowledge, but it's a really interesting field of study.

One example - more because of how fascinating it is - is a syndrome called hemineglect, wherein someone who suffers a stroke loses the concept of the left-hand side. they are not blind to the left, so far as eyesight. But still, they will shave the right-hand side of their face, eat the right-hand side of the food on their plate, dress the right-hand side of their body, unaware that the left exists, and , even stranger, are unaware that it had ever existed at all.

These sorts of studies, of which there are countless, and along with fMRI scanning, have allowed us a great map of the brain. And it is here that we get the closest correlation: take out a certain area, and you lose a particular portion of your experience. It seems rather water tight. And certainly is further evidence to the brain being the necessary component to the majority of our conscious experience, if not all.

The problem when it comes to the science of the brain is that it is rather incomplete when it comes to explaining what consciousness is. All evidence points toward it being what causes consciousness. Yet can we in anyway equate them? And if not, what then is consciousness?

To explain this I will touch on the basic components of the brain, as compared to the basic components of the conscious experience. I am sure most of you reading this are aware of the neurone, so far as it is a brain cell, and communicates to other neurones in networks, clusters and loci which altogether communicate with other regions. These regions which are specialised to different aspects of experience.

The problem occurs at this level, as the neurone - at its fundamental level of amino acids, nucleotides, lipids and a handful of elements, is near enough the same as every other neurone in basic composition, though their shape, function and even some abilities differ. But it is certain that the chemicals that make up a brown neurone, from a blue neurone, from a line neurone, from bitterness neurone are minimal at best, and there is most certainly not one significantly different neurone for each possible sensation. Herein lies an interesting correlation. Upon breaking down consciousness we end up getting a vast array of difference: each basic emotion - joy, guilt, anger, sadness, to name a few - hot, cold, soft, light, dark, each colour, sound, taste, smell. And to go even further each point on the spectrums they create: every point between light and dark, how much or little colour, how loud or quiet, how hot or cold. Yet, when we break down the brain we get electricity over neurones. Especially when we take into account that an inert neurone does not create any consciousness. Truly it is the electricity which is key, however this is even more simple, as it is one energy, using only 4 ions through all the brain which has to account for the plurality of sensation.

One more problem is the way in which we experience consciousness. The brain is mostly linear, with parallel linear pathways firing all the time, but there is no region of the brain which integrates the many simultaneous linear pathways. Yet in conscious experience we are experiencing a combination of many different processes as a unity. For example, this very moment of reading your brain is perceiving light, dark, their contrast, three colours which are sent to be combined by grammar, syntax and the decoding of strings of symbols which create concepts and imaginations derived from the unconscious which are then tested against an existing background of knowledge for interest, and if so, verity, conflict or affirmation of our beliefs and identity. Possibly disagreeing, agreeing, or aware of some glaring philosophical error I am hitherto unaware of. To you, it is just reading.

So how does it all combine into one thing when there is no neural centre which integrates them?

And, again, how does just one repeating basic chemical template and one form of electromagnetism cross into a vast intricate series of things which are, in and of themselves, completely distinct and not interchangeable? So close they seem to be directly causing each other, but one being vastly inadequate to explain it, and yet we have nowhere to go.

Herein lies the magic.

No one has any idea. And it is not my prerogative to tell you what it is, for one very solid reason.

I don't think it is important.

I really believe that so much identity, ego and self is invested in the idea of how we conceptualise consciousness: the ardent scientists hate to admit it might be something more than the brain, while esoteric spiritualists think it has untold reach power and ability to effect the physical world far beyond the scope of realistic science. And I am not hear to lend credence or take away from each. But the most important thing from this whole argument, for me, is its mystery. Its magic. It is an illusion which is created by, what could be logical means, if we had the ability to understand it and dissect it. But we don't. We cannot leave consciousness to pick it apart and see what it is. We can't see up the magicians sleeve, and for our short glance at the show, we probably never will.

But think about it for a second, we are a cloud of space dust, which 4.5 billion years ago started spinning and getting really hot, and this fireball eventually cooled and slowed; its movements, reactions and momentum slowly but surely billions of year later has resulted after billions and billions of permutations of amino acids in you...

You...just sitting there...

A salty lump of flesh jelly with trillions of cells all linked up to it, like an entire global network under your skin, on a laptop. Probably on a vast network of radio waves and countless processes a second to bring you just-eat and cat gifs. With a fridge, the perception of green, carpet, itchy toes, thinking about the universe. Just a tangle of coagulated space dust rearranged so that it can, inexplicably, perceive itself as rainbows and stories; banter and funk music; stinging nettles and fatigue.

And I think it is through this lens that everything becomes beautiful and the purpose of our existence becomes merely existence itself: to be the universe's eyes and ears, however brief that might be. To be able to look at the cosmos and see it as kin. To be an unfathomable miracle, a twinkle in lucks eye. To be human at all.

We focus our energy on exclamation marks; so many ways to assert our opinion (as that is all it can ever truly be). But I like the question mark, because - if we are honest with ourselves - it's the bit we can all agree on.