The Inner Light Theory of Consciousness

The Inner Light Theory of Consciousness

ii

About the Front CoverThe front cover illustrates the image detected by your right

eye as you stand a few feet from the Mona Lisa. The grayfilaments are regions where you are totally blind, a result ofblood vessels in the retina blocking the detection of light.Likewise, the large rectangular region is where the optic nerveconnects with the retina, where humans are also sightless. Thisis called the blind spot, and is really quite large, about the sizeof an apple at arm’s length. As long as your eye remains fixedon the center of the painting, these gray regions are totallyblocked from your gaze; you perceive nothing about the imagein these areas.

When you first looked at the cover, you probably wonderedwhat the gray spider-like pattern represented. It probably struckyou as quite odd, like something out of a bad science fictionmovie. It was totally unfamiliar and foreign to your consciousexperience. But how could this possibly be? This pattern hasbeen superimposed on your visual field since you first openedyour eyes as an infant. Even as you read this paragraph thepattern is present. It should be more familiar to you thananything you have ever seen. How is it possible that ourconscious experience knows nothing of these blind areas?

The Inner Light Theory of Consciousness

by

Steven W. Smith

California Technical PublishingSan Diego, California

iv

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,without written permission of the publisher.

The Inner Light Theoryof Consciousness

bySteven W. Smith

copyright © 2001 by California Technical Publishing

California Technical PublishingP.O. Box 502407San Diego, CA 92150-2407

To contact the author or publisher through the internet,please visit our website at: www.InnerLightTheory.com

ISBN: 0-9660176-1-7

Printed in the United States of America

v

Table of Contents

Section I. Defining the Problem

1. The Ancient Riddle of Consciousness . . . . . . . . 1The problem at hand 1Organization of this book 4The strangeness of modern science 5

2. Reduction and Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Introduction 7The method of reduction 7The transmitted hourglass 12Fuzziness of the endpoint 14Consistent and chaotic realities 16Emergence 17Where does consciousness fit in? 21

3. The Third-Person View of the Mind . . . . . . . . . . . 23Introduction 23A brief tour of the brain 23Damage to the association areas 34The evidence 39Brain activity and Information 41

4. The First-Person View of the Mind . . . . . . . . . . . 45Introduction 45How we discuss consciousness 45Qualia 47Mental unity 50Semantic thought 50Present tense 52Free-will 53One or more Elements-of-reality 56

vi

5. Defining the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Introduction 57Simple ignorance versus paradox 57The one and only problem 62Previous attempts at solving the problem 67Quantum Mechanics 72Moving forward 79

Section II. The Information-Limited Subreality

6. Information-Limited Subrealities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81What this chapter is about, and not about 81The observer 81Descartes’ evil genius 83The brain in the vat 87The Information-Limited Subreality 91Episode 125: The Inner Light 94The Principle of Relative Reduction 96

7. The Subreality Machine in the Brain . . . . . . . . . . 99A most remarkable claim 99The lesson from dreams 99The realness of dreams 102The basic premise of the Inner Light Theory 105What we see and don’t see 106Evidence from the three realities 112

8. The Function of the Subreality Machine . . . . . . 115Introduction 115Why is the sun yellow? 116The sensory analysis problem 122Filtering versus matching 126The subreality machine in operation 132The capacity of our brains 136Why do we dream? 138

vii

Be sure to visit our web site:www.InnerLightTheory.comT References and suggested reading T Links to other consciousness sites T Contacting the author or publisherT Information about the author T Comments and complaints!T Ordering information

Section III. Consciousness as a Limitation

9. Consciousness as a Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141Introduction to the third section 141Where we are 141From the building to the bricks 145What’s so special about a special child? 148The fully-aware being 150How the traditional view is mistaken 151Seeing the forest between the trees 154The Tale of Big Head Bill 155

10. The Tale of Big Head Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157The alien drug 157Decisions, thoughts, and emotions 158Bulging eyes and big head 160The cup of tea 160Intelligence and memories 162My senses 163Full-awareness 164

11. Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165The disturbing part 165

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

viii

Preface

My Search to Understand ConsciousnessThe problem of consciousness has gnawed at me for

twenty-five years. It started when I was an undergraduate incollege, leading me to study three diverse areas, Physics,Psychology, and Philosophy (the three “P”s, as I called them).While each of these gave me a different perspective on thehuman mind, they did not provide an acceptable answer to thefundamental question: what is this strange thing we callconsciousness, and how is related to modern science?

This dilemma fell to the back of my mind when I enteredmy doctoral program in Electrical Engineering. For the nexttwo decades I put this mystery on hold, turning my attention tosuch things as medical imaging and digital signal processing.But as I became increasingly comfortable with computers andthe methods of science, I became less comfortable with thenature of the mind. It seemed that the more I learned, the moreintractable the problem of consciousness became. Of course, Iwasn’t alone in this distress; scientists and philosophers havelong pondered this mystery without relief.

In the 1990s, the study of the brain rapidly expanded,primarily due to the arrival of three new medical imagingtechniques, fMRI, PET and MEG. These devices are capable ofmonitoring the activity of the living brain, greatly expanding theability of science to study this complex organ. Many began tofeel that the time was right to finally solve the age-old mystery

ix

of consciousness. Dozens of books on the topic were publishedin the popular press. Some described the latest scientific workon the operation of the brain. Others presented philosophicalarguments claiming that science alone cannot account forconsciousness. Still others speculated on a “magic ingredient”in consciousness, such as Quantum Mechanics, emergentproperties, and pseudoscientific explanations. But these effortsfell short of the goal; the problem of consciousness remainedand became even more elusive than before.

It was in this environment that I renewed my study ofconsciousness in 1999. Fittingly, many of the ideas in this bookcame together over the New Year’s Day holiday, the dawn of anew millennium.

I am convinced that the Inner Light Theory is the solutionto the problem of consciousness. The ideas presented in thisbook help me understand the world. They might help you.They might even be true.

Science versus ReligionI am frequently asked how the Inner Light Theory relates to

the human soul. The answer is, I don’t know; I don’t have thevaguest idea. This is a book of science, and science knowsnothing of the metaphysical concepts taught by religion. TheInner Light Theory is to the human soul, as evolution is to thebiblical story of Genesis. If evolution offends you, then theideas in this book will probably offend you as well. If evolutionis compatible with your religious views, then a scientific theoryof consciousness will probably also be acceptable. In the end,the compatibility of science and religion is an issue that must bedecided by religion, not science. And I certainly can’t tell youwhat your religious beliefs are. Acknowledgments

A special thanks to the reviewers who provided commentsand suggestions on this book, Dan Reinecke, Eric Duff, Andy

x

Berg, Jenny Smith, Cory Sinclair, and other reviewers who wishto remain anonymous. Their generous donation of time andskill has made this a better work. Of course, none of theopinions expressed in this book necessarily reflect those of thereviewers.

Now the book is in the hands of the final reviewer, you thereader. Please take the time to give me your comments, be theyideas, complements or complaints. All it takes is a two minutee-mail from the book’s web site, www.InnerLightTheory.com.Thanks for your time; I hope you enjoy the ideas, and find themas enlightening and satisfying as I have.

Steve SmithOctober, 2001

1

1 The Ancient Riddle ofConsciousness

The Problem at HandScience has been very successful at explaining the world

around us. Only a few hundred years ago our daily lives werefull of mysteries: Where do the stars reside? How does lifecontinue from generation to generation? What makes waterdifferent from fire? One by one these questions and countlessothers have been answered in the most explicit detail. Themysteries of our everyday existence are virtually gone. Scienceis now concerned with problems that are extremely obscure andfar beyond our normal experience, such things as the curvatureof space-time and the composition of subatomic particles. Forinstance, suppose that Galileo Galilei, the great 17th centuryscientist, had written down a list of his 100 top questions aboutthe world. It is likely that all 100 questions could be answeredtoday, at least to Galileo’s ability to understand.

Well, almost. There is one question in our everyday livesthat has seemed defiant of a satisfactory explanation, being asmuch a mystery at the beginning of this new millennium as itwas in the day of Galileo. It is a question that has been arguedby philosophers and scientists since the dawn of man. And thatquestion is this: What is consciousness?

We have all had the experience of waking from a deepdreamless sleep. In the first few seconds we realize that some-thing new has been brought into the universe, something thatdid not exist the moment before. A conscious mind has comeinto being. It is our thoughts and feelings. It is what allows usto perceive the world around us, and move our bodies to interactin the world. It is the embodiment of our free-will, the ability

2 The Inner Light Theory of Consciousness

1. The Computational Brain, Patricia S. Churchland, 1994, MITpress, 560 pages. Neuroscience view of the brain.

to think and act in the way that we choose. It is who we are atthe most personal and private level, the thing we identify asourselves. This is how we see consciousness from the inside,the way we perceive our own minds by introspection.

The problem is, science can see none of these things.Neurosurgeons have opened the skulls of living humans fordecades, and in every case they have found a brain, notthoughts, feelings, free-will, or anything of the like. While wedo not fully understand how the brain operates, it is nowabundantly clear that it is a computational machine, one that iscapable of producing the behaviors we see in humans. From theview of science, it is the brain that allows us to recognize ourgrandmother’s face, cry out in pain, and kiss a young child’shand. As seen from the outside, consciousness and the mind arenothing more than the machine-like activity of the neural tissueswithin our skulls.

But how can this be? How is it possible that the mindappears as one kind of thing from the inside, but a totallydifferent kind of thing from the outside? This discrepancy isknown in philosophy as the mind-body problem. It is a classicparadox, two points of view that should agree, couldn’t disagreemore. And when scientists and philosophers have tried to forcethem together in some way, the results are unsatisfying, andoften in conflict with established knowledge. Something seemsto be missing, a fact, an explanation, a property, or somethingelse that provides understanding and unification. This dilemmais presented to us each second of our waking lives. We see theredness of a rose, smell its fragrance, and appreciate its beauty.We contemplate the meaning of life, and freely decide how tothink and act. How can these things be nothing but electro-chemical activity in nerve cells? As put by the AmericanPhilosopher Patricia Churchland,1 “How do you get awarenessout of meat?”

3Chapter 1: The Ancient Riddle of Consciousness

Surprisingly, not all scientists agree that there is a problemhere. For much of the 20th century the topic of consciousnesswas virtually banned from the scientific arena, and much of thissentiment can still be seen today. Young college professors arecounseled to find other specializations, medical textbooks havelittle or no mention of the topic, and government funds are notgranted for research. Since consciousness is something that canonly be subjectively observed, many feel it has no place in theobjective world of science.

Nevertheless, the scientific attitude toward consciousnesshas changed significantly in the last two decades. The primaryreason is that new brain scanners have been developed that canobserve the neural activity in the living human brain. These goby such technical names as: Functional Magnetic ResonanceImaging (fMRI), Positron Emission Tomography (PET), andMagneto-Encephalography (MEG). Human subjects are placedin these machines and brought into specific conscious states.For instance, a subject might be asked to perform mathematicalcalculations, recognize faces, listen to a symphony, or someother task. The brain scanner then identifies the regions of thebrain that are active, the precise neural tissues associated withthe mental state of the subject.

This is immensely important work, and will eventually leadto a full and detailed understanding of the human brain. It willalso tell us something very interesting about the mind-bodyproblem, what brain researchers call the neural correlates ofconsciousness. This is the brain activity that is necessary andsufficient for a person to be conscious. For instance, imaginebeing strapped into a brain scanner one day in the distancefuture. After a few moments, the operator will tell you whatyou are thinking and feeling. He may say that you are decidingwhat to have for lunch, enduring the pain of a toothache, orfeeling proud of your children. And he will be right; he willknow the contents of your consciousness by looking at theneural patterns in your brain. Although a little frightening,


there is every reason to believe that science may one day havethis type of capability.

However, does knowing everything about the structure andfunction of the brain also mean that we know everything aboutconsciousness? Many claim that the answer is no; there is stillsomething missing. How can the blueness of blue or the terriblefeeling of pain be reduced to mere neural activity? How canhuman free-will or the meaning of our thoughts be created bysomething so dissimilar as brain tissue? In short, it is a commonbelief that “mind stuff” is different from “brain stuff,” and onecannot be used to explain the other. It is said that consciousnessmust entail something above and beyond the operation of thebrain. But if these assertions are true, we are left with an evenbigger mystery, why is there not the slightest scientific evidencethat this “mind stuff” really exists?

Organization of this BookThe goal of this book is extremely ambitious, nothing less

than providing a scientific explanation of consciousness, asolution to the mind-body problem. This intention is not to betaken lightly, or without due reverence for the work that hasgone before. The journey to grasp the mind has been long androcky, enduring centuries with little or no progress. First andforemost, this is a book of science, adhering to the rigorousmethodology and skepticism that have brought us our currentknowledge of the universe. As such, it invites and welcomesthe most critical scrutiny. Even more, it demands it.

This book is organized into three sections. In the first,Defining the Problem, we examine the foundations of theconsciousness paradox, examining in detail why the mind-bodyproblem is such a mystery. Our task is to precisely identify theproblem, and just as important, outline what would count as asolution. The findings of this section are absolutely critical tothe overall theory. Properly defining the question takes us morethan halfway to the answer.

5Chapter 1: The Ancient Riddle of Consciousness

The second section is entitled The Information-LimitedSubreality. This refers to a strange situation that could exist inour universe, where an observer is trapped within an artificialworld. We explore this idea by using the theory’s namesake,The Inner Light, an episode from the popular television seriesStar Trek: The Next Generation. This leads us to a key propertyof how we observe and understand reality, what we will namethe Principle of Relative Reduction. It is within this principlethat we find the solution to the mind-body problem, as wedefined it in section one. But there are consequences to thissolution, requiring us to change the way we view reality andourselves. The scientific evidence for these startling assertionsis examined, from the origin and function of the human brain,to the strange world of our dreams.

In the third section, Consciousness as a Limitation, wefocus on how the mind is connected to the physical universe.Why does consciousness seem so disconnected from thematerial things around us? Could a computer ever becomeconscious? Is there any way to bridge the gap between thehuman mind and the physical world? In short, we are searchingfor the place that consciousness holds in the universe, andwhere the human mind sits in relation.

The Strangeness of Modern ScienceMany readers will find the ideas in this book bizarre,

something more akin to science fiction than science. Butscience itself has become increasingly strange during the lastone hundred years. In the early part of the 20th century, AlbertEinstein and his colleagues developed two new fields ofphysics, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Thefirst of these, Quantum Mechanics, deals with the very small,such as the physical laws that hold atoms together. In contrast,General Relativity deals with the very large, such as thestructure of the entire universe. Neither of these can beunderstood from the events we experience in our daily lives. In


fact, they grossly violate our everyday beliefs of how thingsshould behave. For instance, Quantum Mechanics tells us thatwaves can collapse into particles, while General Relativitydescribes space and time being distorted by gravity. These lawsof nature are more than unexpected; they defy commonsense.And there is no question that they are true; they have beenverified in the finest detail. We will look at a few of thesestrange results in later sections of this book.

The point is, something is not false just because we find itbizarre or in disagreement with our everyday experience.Indeed, the Inner Light Theory is tame compared to other areasof modern science that are accepted as fact. In the end, sciencehas little use for our desires and expectations; the only thingthat matters is the evidence and where it leads. Science is aboutkeeping the method and procedures pure, and then acceptingwhatever consequences result. What we end up believing is notimportant; our justification for believing it is everything. Thisis the way of science.

And on this note we begin the development of the InnerLight Theory, starting with the foundation and working upward.Brick by brick we will construct the answer to the ancientquestion: What is consciousness?

7

2 Reduction andEmergence

IntroductionThe first step in understanding consciousness is to examine

how we understand other things in the world. Reduction andemergence are the two main principles that we use to learnabout the reality around us. Reduction is a top-down approach,breaking our complicated existence into more basic elements.Emergence is much the opposite, seeking to comprehend howcomplex entities arise from the interaction of fundamentalcomponents.

The Method of ReductionThe human mind inherently tries to understand complex

things by breaking them into simpler components. This is abasic strategy we have all used since childhood; it is afundamental part of the way we think. Analyzing problems inthis way is called reduction, since it reduces something that iscomplex into something that is more elementary. It is the singlemost important method used by both scientists and everydaypeople to understand the world around them.

Let's look closer at how reduction works and the kind ofknowledge that it leads to. As an example, suppose that weencounter a grandfather clock for the first time and want tounderstand it in the greatest possible detail. Figure 2-1illustrates the method we will use. We start by dismantling theclock piece-by-piece, taking great care to record how theindividual components fit together. This disassembly leaves uswith a few hundred parts spread out on our work table, plus a


notebook full of sketches and descriptions that indicate how theparts can be assembled into the original object.

At this point we ask the question: "What is a grandfatherclock?" Our answer is simply: "A grandfather clock is theseveral hundred parts resting on the table in front of us,assembled in the way indicated by the notes we have taken." Inother words, we have reduced the original object to two things:(1) a set of smaller objects, and (2) the assembly instructions.

Being good scientists, we want to continue this analysis toits fullest conclusion. This means we need to consider each ofthe individual parts one-by-one, trying to reduce each to evenmore basic components. For instance, we might find that theface of the clock is a steel plate with a white background andblack numbers. Accordingly, we stop thinking of the clock faceas a single thing. Rather, we begin to view it as a sheet of metaland two kinds of paint, assembled in a specific way that wewrite down in our notebook.

As we continue this process we eventually encounterobjects that are composed of a single material, for instance, theglass window that the clock face is viewed through. We can nolonger reduce this type of object by simple mechanicaldisassembly; the chemistry of the materials must be examined.For this particular example, a chemist may tell us that the glassis composed of atoms of silicon and oxygen, combined in acertain molecular and physical way. To fully reduce the objectwe must specify the type and exact location of each and everyatom that forms the object. In addition, we also need to specifythe state of each of these atoms, such as how they are bonded toneighboring atoms to form molecules, as well as similarproperties that chemists and physicists know about.

While this level of reduction is possible in principle, it is farbeyond our present technology to actually carry it out. First,atoms are extremely small, making them very difficult toobserve and measure. Second, the sheer number of atoms isenormous, far too large even for the most powerful computers

9Chapter 2: Reduction and Emergence

FIGURE 2-1 Objects to atoms. The method of reduction breaks objects intoelementary components through a systematic series of steps. Inthis example, a grandfather clock is reduced to its componentparts; each of the parts is reduced to its component molecules;and each of the molecules is reduced to its component atoms.


FIGURE 2-2Manipulation of individual atoms. In the early 1990s, scientists atIBM demonstrated that the scanning tunneling microscope could beused to move atoms into various formations, in addition to creatingimages of them. This sequence shows individual iron atoms, resting ona sheet of copper, being moved into a circle 5000 times smaller thana human hair. [“Confinement of electrons to quantum corrals on ametal surface,” M.F. Crommie et al., Science 262, pp218-220, 1993].

of today. For instance, there are about a million million millionatoms in a single spec of dust. Will this level of reduction everbe feasible? Maybe, but certainly not in the next few decades;maybe not even in the next few centuries. However, the generalidea is not as far fetched as you might think. As shown in Fig.2-2, the detection and manipulation of individual atoms issomething that can be done today.


The important concept is that the principle of reductionallows us to understanding the world by breaking it into smallerand smaller components. But where does this end? At whatpoint can reduction no longer be carried out? A simple answercan be given to these questions. The method of reduction endswhen the things being considered can no longer be brokenapart; that is, when we have reached things that are irreducible. Identifying these irreducible things is one of the primarygoals of science. If you open an introductory textbook onphysics you will find many irreducible things discussed. Thisincludes particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons, thecomponents that form atoms. It also includes forces, such asmagnetism and gravity. Even stranger, we must include thedimensions that we exist in, namely, distance and time.

Since these things cannot be analyzed by reduction, there isan inherent barrier to knowing exactly what they are. We caneasily measure their characteristics and how they relate to eachother, but why they have these characteristics and behaviors ismuch more mysterious. For instance, it is well known inscience that an electron moving through a magnetic field willtravel in a curved path. The amount of curvature can becalculated from the details of the problem, such as the speed ofthe electron and the strength of the magnetic field. However,this tells us nothing of what an electron is, or what a magneticfield is, or why the interaction takes place. In short, we canaccumulate knowledge about how these irreducible thingsbehave, but not about what they are.

Day-after-day we exist in something we call reality. It iswhat we perceive with our five senses: vision, hearing, touch,taste, and smell. It is what we measure with our instruments,such as thermometers, rulers and clocks. Reality is as familiaras anything can be. But what is it? The method of reduction isan attempt to answer this question by separating reality into twocategories: (1) those things that are irreducible, which we willcall the Elements-of-reality, and (2) the assembly instructions,


which are Information. Figure 2-3 illustrates this extremelyimportant concept.

These two categories have very different characteristics.The Elements-of-reality are tangible; they can be measured withour instruments; they seem to have a real existence independentof our paying attention to them. And of course, they areirreducible, by definition. On the other hand, the assemblyinstructions are a type of Information. Information exists onlywhen stored in some kind of physical medium, such as writingin a notebook, electronic signals in a computer, chemicalchanges in a brain, or the energy fluctuations in a radio wave.It can also be transferred from one storage medium to anotherwithout changing its content in the slightest. However,Information is lost forever when its storage is interrupted foreven the shortest instant of time. One way to capture theseelusive characteristics is to define Information as the thing thatcan be passed over a communications channel. Let's look at anexample to see how this works. The Transmitted Hourglass

Suppose in the future we make contact with an extra-terrestrial civilization by radio signal. We find that the aliensare rather like us, having bodies that operate on similarchemistry and biology, and minds that think much the way wedo. This is fortunate, because it allows us to create a commonlanguage for exchanging ideas. We go about this in much thesame way that a child learns to speak. At first we transmitpictures of common objects, along with the nouns we use todescribe them. Next, we transmit pictures of actions, alongwith the associated verbs. This leads to the generation ofsentences, a dictionary, and the ability to express abstractconcepts. Our communication with the aliens may not beperfect, but language never is, even between humans. Thepoint is, there is no reason to think that our differentbackgrounds would stop us from communicating altogether.


FIGURE 2-3The endpoint of reduction. The method of reduction systematicallybreaks reality into two categories, the Elements-of-reality, which areirreducible, and Information, consisting of the assembly instructions.

Since the aliens exist in the same universe as we do, they willhave the same Elements-of-reality, thereby providing commonground to build upon.

After a few initial exchanges, the aliens send a messageindicating they want to build one of our historical artifacts, sothat they can better appreciate our technology and culture. Thedevice they select is an hourglass, and they ask us how theyshould go about the fabrication. Our response is the mostcomplete description possible, starting with how the individualelectrons, protons, and neutrons are combined to form therequired atoms. Next, we describe the position of each andevery atom that is needed to form the hourglass, and how theyare interconnected with each other. The size of the transmitteddescription is enormous, and we can't imagine that it is lackingin any way. We also provide instructions for calibrating thedevice, since we know that the alien planet will probably nothave the same gravitational field as the earth. This tells thealiens how to change the distance across the neck of thehourglass so that the sand will drain in the correct amount oftime.


Some time later we receive a reply from the aliens thankingus for our help. They inform us that they were able to build anhourglass using electrons, protons, and neutrons from theirhome world, assembled according to the instructions weprovided. They also tell us that the calibration procedureworked just as we indicated it would. The aliens' success is nosurprise to us since they had access to everything they needed:Elements-of-reality, which they had locally, plus the assemblyinstructions we transmitted over the communications channel.Is there anything that the aliens could not reconstruct by usingthis procedure? According to the method of reduction, no.Taken to an extreme, the aliens could even create a duplicate ofthe entire earth with all its inhabitants. All they would need isenough raw materials and the assembly instructions.

Now suppose that a few years later we are contacted byanother extraterrestrial being, one that is unlike anything weknow. This alien does not even reside within our universe, butin another dimension. The radio signal has somehow managedto cross the boundary between the two realms. For the sake ofargument, we will assume that we can establish a commonlanguage for communicating with this being. Based on ourprevious success, we send the Information about the hourglassto the strange creature, and suggest that he build one to betterunderstand our species and civilization. Much to our surprise,the alien replies: "Thanks for the Information and I will try, butthere are a few things that I will need. Please send electrons,protons, neutrons, distance, time, and gravitational field." Toour astonishment, we realize that we are communicating with abeing that does not have the same Elements-of-reality that wedo. The alien has the instructions for constructing the hour-glass, but none of the raw materials.

Fuzziness of the EndpointWhile the method of reduction is a powerful tool for

understanding the world around us, it does have limitations. Aprimary problem is that our knowledge of the Elements-of-


reality is quite fuzzy and not well defined. This is becausescience keeps getting better at breaking things into more basiccomponents. For instance, in the 5th century BC the Greekphilosopher Empedocles believed that everything could bereduced to just four basic elements, air, fire, earth, and water.Scientists in the 1800s began to suspect that atoms were thebasic element of all matter, a belief that Albert Einstein turnedinto accepted science in 1905. But this was short lived; by the1930s it was known that atoms are formed from three morebasic particles: electrons, protons and neutrons. By the 1960sthese were further reduced into components called quarks.Today, research is attempting to express the world as even morefundamental entities known as strings.

The point is, science has not yet discovered the ultimateElements-of-reality. The "best guess" has changed many timesin the past, and will undoubtedly change many times in thefuture. Science inherently progresses by incremental steps. Weare in the middle of this process, not at the end.

However, we are fortunate in one important respect; we liveat a time when the search for the Elements-of-reality no longerinvolves the things in our day-to-day lives. As little as a fewhundred years ago we could not answer the most basic questionsof our everyday existence: Why does the sun feel warm?Where does water go when it evaporates? How does a poisonkill us? Today we understand these things in great detailthrough the method of reduction. While the reduction processhas not yet produced its final answers, the fuzzy edges havebeen pushed to very extreme realms, such as the nature ofquarks, and how the big bang created the universe. Thesefrontiers of knowledge are now so specialized and complex thatthey cannot be understood by the everyday person, or even theeveryday scientist. Only scientists that have spent yearsstudying these problems can grasp what they are really about.In the twentieth century the method of reduction moved fromthe realm of everyday experience to the realm of pure science


and mathematics. This is clearly one of the most momentouslandmarks in all of human development.

This also sets a milestone in the study of consciousness,since it defines where the human brain fits into the scheme ofthings. Research during the last century has clearly shown thatthe brain operates by biology and chemistry, both of which arisefrom the interactions of atoms. Things smaller than atoms, suchas quarks and strings, do not directly affect the operation of thebrain, any more than they affect the operation of grandfatherclocks and hourglasses. In other words, the fuzziness of theendpoint of reduction is almost certainly no longer relevant toour understanding of brain activity.

Consistent and Chaotic RealitiesWhy does the method of reduction work in the first place?

To answer this question, imagine living in a reality of chaos,one that is ever changing and unpredictable. For instance, wemight try to analyze our grandfather clock by the method ofreduction on five successive days, Monday through Friday. OnMonday we find it is composed of atoms in some particulararrangement. On Tuesday we find it is irreducible, and must betaken as an Element-of-reality in itself. The analysis onWednesday reduces it to only two Elements-of-reality, simplyplaced side by side. Thursday's reduction shows the same twoElements-of-reality, but this time one inside the other. OnFriday, we find it is rapidly oscillating between being composedof atoms and being a single irreducible object. Can we makesense of this changing reality? Does the method of reductionhave any meaning or use under these circumstances? How dowe go about understanding what we observe?

Fortunately, science does not have to answer any of thesequestions, because we live in a universe that is well behavedand consistent. As far as we can tell, what was found yesterdayis what will be found today and again tomorrow. The physicallaws that apply on the earth also apply across the galaxy andacross the universe. That is, our ability to make observations


and use reduction does not change with time or distance.Science, as we know it, is critically dependent on this kind ofconsistency. Even Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity,strange as they may be, are very consistent.

Why does the method of reduction work? The answer issimply because it does. It is an observed fact, a characteristic ofreality as we know it. However, as we will discuss in laterchapters, this does not preclude the possibility of privaterealities (such as dreams) that are poorly behaved and full ofchaos.

EmergenceThe term Gestalt is used in psychology and elsewhere to

mean, "the whole is more than the sum of the parts." Forinstance, the Gestalt view of a grandfather clock is that it hascharacteristics of its own, over and above the metal, wood andglass components that it is made from. After all, a grandfatherclock tells the time, controls the storage and release of energy,inspires a sense of beauty and tranquility, and so on. None ofthe individual components have these characteristics; theyemerge only when the parts are combined into the completeobject.

Even better examples of emergence arise when thecomponents are combined in nonlinear ways. This is a fancyway of saying that the parts are not just added together, butmerged in a more complex manner. Nonlinear combination isinteresting because it can result in totally unexpected behaviorsand characteristics. For example, suppose you had never seenfire, and one day you happen to encounter an unlit candle. Evenin your wildest imagination you could not anticipate that thissimple combination of parts could produce something asexquisite and complex as a candle flame. Again we find a casewhere the assembly appears to have something that is notcontained in the components.

At first glance, one might think that emergence iscontradictory to the method of reduction. After all, how can a


thing be reduced to its parts, if it is more than the sum of itsparts? As we will see, reduction and emergence coexist withoutconflict, and are both important in science.

To understand how this works, suppose that our alienfriends become tired of constructing hourglasses and want toexperiment with something more interesting. We learn that theatmosphere of their planet does not contain oxygen, andtherefore they have never seen fire. We suggest that the bestway for them to learn about this new concept is to construct aburning candle. Accordingly, we transmit to them the positionand state of each of the atoms in a lit candle, including those inthe flame and surrounding air. Will the aliens be able toreconstruct the burning candle? Of course they will; they haveeverything that they need. The ability to "be a candle flame"is inherently contained in the properties of the Elements-of-reality, plus the assembly instructions. Nothing else is required.In the jargon of mathematics, these things are both necessaryand sufficient to produce the object.

However, even though the aliens can construct a burningcandle, they will not necessarily be able to understand it. Forinstance, consider what a human scientist would need to knowto understand a candle flame. Being given the position and stateof each and every atom would not be enough, simply becausehumans cannot analyze this type of raw data. The scientistwould want to know something about the chemical reactionsgoing on, the spectrum of the light being emitted, the patternsof air currents being generated, and so forth. While theElements-of-reality plus the assembly instructions alreadycontain all of this, it is not in a form that humans (or our alienfriends) can directly understand. These ideas are illustrated inFig. 2-4.

When we say, "the whole is more than the sum of the parts,"we are referring to human understanding, not to what actuallyexists in nature. A super intelligent being may look at a candleflame and proclaim: "I understand it fully from the Elements-


FIGURE 2-4Reduction versus emergence. Reduction guarantees that an aliencould reconstruct a burning candle on his home world, given onlythe assembly instructions to do so. However, this does not meanthat the alien would be able to understand it. Emergence is theprocess whereby humans (and presumably aliens) rearrange rawInformation to create an explanation.

of-reality and the assembly instructions, and I need nothingmore." Unfortunately, humans are not this smart; they requirethe Information to be rearranged and molded into a form theycan more easily grasp. Just as a goldsmith shapes raw metalinto fine jewelry, the scientist is an Information-smith, shapingraw Information into explanations.

It is human nature to think of a candle flame as being morethan a mere assembly of components, a thing in itself, an entityexisting on its own. And there is nothing wrong with this; it isan important tool for understanding the world. Just don't makethe mistake of believing that these “mental entities” are morethan they really are. They are a way of thinking about things,not residents of the external world.

In short, reduction is pure physics, an attempt to understandthe nature of reality in its most basic form. In comparison,


Major Teaching #1:How we Understand Reality

We understand reality through the methods of reductionand emergence. These methods divide reality into twocategories: (1) Elements-of-reality, those things that areirreducible; and (2) Information, those things that can betransmitted over a communications channel.

emergence deals with how humans choose to understand thatreality, blending physics with bits of philosophy, psychology,historical context, personal preferences, and so on. Whileemergence does not have the purity of reduction, it is a key partof science as well as our everyday lives, and humans would beable to understand very little without it.

The important point is that emergence deals only withInformation, not Elements-of-reality. In other words, there isnothing that emergence can create that reduction cannot breakapart. This means that reduction and emergence can be easilymerged into a single framework for viewing the world. Asshown in Fig. 2-5, this is done by adding another category nextto the assembly instructions, something we call EmergentProperties. This is a broad and poorly defined depository forwhatever explanations we need to understand the world. Ofcourse, everything in this new category is redundant with whatis already contained in the Elements-of-reality and the assemblyinstructions.

In the end, reduction plus emergence breaks the world intothe same two types of things as reduction alone, (1) Elements-of-reality, and (2) Information. This brings us to the first majorteaching of the Inner Light Theory:


FIGURE 2-5The endpoint of reduction plus emergence. Even when emergenceis added to reduction, reality is still broken into the same twocategories, Elements-of-reality, and Information.

Where Does Consciousness Fit In?Science and our everyday commonsense are based on the

methods of reduction and emergence. In turn, these methodstell us that everything that exists in reality can be divided intotwo categories, Elements-of-reality and Information. Theobvious question is, into which of these two categories do weplace consciousness?

As introduced in the last chapter, we can look at the mindfrom two different perspectives or positions. The first of theseis from the outside, the objective world of science, what is oftencalled the third-person viewpoint. As shown in the nextchapter, the third-person view sees the mind as nothing but theoperation of the brain, meaning that consciousness is pureInformation.

The other way we can observe the mind is by introspection,where an individual turns his thoughts and scrutiny inward forself-examination. This is a view of the mind from the inside, aperspective referred to as the first-person. It is the personaland private way that we each see ourselves, the unique accesswe have to our own mental world. As we will discuss in


FIGURE 2-6The mind-body paradox. The first-person perspective sees themind as one or more Elements-of-reality, but to the third-personviewpoint it appears as pure Information.

Chapter 4, the first-person perspective sees the human mind asa unified entity, a thing in itself, something that cannot bebroken into components. In other words, it is irreducible, andtherefore consists of one or more Elements-of-reality.

This deep conflict is the heart of the mind-body problem, asillustrated in Fig. 2-6. From the third-person perspective themind is Information, while from the first-person view it is oneor more Elements-of-reality. Not only do the two viewpointsdisagree, they disagree in the worst possible way. In the nextthree chapters we will look at these issues in detail.

23

3 The Third-PersonView of the Mind

IntroductionThe third-person view of the mind is from the outside, the

objective world of science and medicine. It is how we areobserved by those around us. The disturbing part is that ourcolleagues tell us, "Sorry old chap, but your mind is nothingbut electrochemical activity in three pounds of meat." This ishow science sees consciousness, nothing but the operation ofthe human brain. To make this even worse, the method ofreduction tells us that brain activity is pure Information,something so abstract that it can be transmitted over acommunications channel or stored in a computer memory. Thegoal of this chapter is to present the evidence for these starkconclusions.

A Brief Tour of the BrainMedicine has a good understanding of the functions carried

out by the body’s various organs. For instance, the heart pumpsblood, the lungs deliver oxygen, and the kidneys extract waste.But what about the brain, what does medical science view as itsfunction? The answer is that the brain is needed for movement.This is one of the fundamental differences between plants andanimals. Since plants do not move, they do not need brains.Animals are different; their very survival depends on bodymovement to capture food, escape enemies, and find mates.This requires animals to have three specialized systems. First,they need muscles to actually move their bodies. Second, theyneed sensory organs, such as the eyes and ears, to examine theirenvironment. Third, they need a way of tying the sensory


organs and the muscles together. This is where the brain comesin. Its function is to receive information about the environmentfrom the senses, decide how to move the body to achievesurvival and reproduction, and control the muscles to carry outthe planned action. Figure 3-1 illustrates this role of the brainas the link between the senses and muscles.

Incredible as it may seem, all of these functions are carriedout by a single type of building block, the nerve cell or neuron.Neurons come in a variety of shapes and sizes depending onwhere in the nervous system they are located. However, allneurons have the same general structure and operate in the samebasic way. As shown in Fig. 3-2, each neuron has a cell bodycontaining a nucleus and other components needed to keep thecell alive. Two kinds of projections extend from the cell body,the dendrites, where the signals enter the neuron, and the axon,where the signals exit. To allow the signals to jump from oneneuron to the next, the end of each axon is positioned next tothe dendrites of its neighbor, forming a connection called asynapse.

The neuron has a unique property that allows it to transportand process information. In the jargon of biology, neurons canfire. It works like this. The membrane around the neuron iscapable of moving charged particles (ions) into and out of thecell. This pumping action results in the cell becoming a tinybattery, with the inside of the cell negative and the outside ofthe cell positive. The neuron remains in this condition untilsomething stimulates one of the dendrites. For example,neurons in the eye are sensitive to light, and neurons in the earare sensitive to sound. Neurons in the brain and spinal cord areonly sensitive to the firing of neighboring nerve cells. Whenthe dendrites receive sufficient stimulation, the cell membranebriefly flips its electrical polarity. For about one-thousandth ofa second, the inside of the cell becomes positive and the outsidenegative, and then the cell returns to its normal condition. Thisbrief polarity flip is called an action potential. Once the action

25Chapter 3: The Third-Person View of the Mind

FIGURE 3-1 The function of the brain. Animalsmust move in their environment tosurvive and reproduce. This requiressenses to provide information aboutwhere to move, and muscles to carryout the movement. The function ofthe brain is to connect these two.


potential is started at the dendrites it cannot be stopped; itquickly spreads through the cell body and down the axon. Inless scientific terms, tickling a dendrite causes the nerve cell topop, sending a short electrical pulse from one end to the other.

Although the action potential only lasts about one-thousandth of a second at any particular location in a cell, it cantake much longer to move down a long axon. For instance,some of the axons in the legs and spinal cord are several feet inlength, and it would normally take nearly a second for the actionpotential to move from one end to the other. To overcome thistime delay, most neurons have their axons covered with a fattysubstance called myelin. As shown in Fig. 3-2, the myelinsheath is interrupted at regular intervals by small breaks calledthe nodes of Ranvier. An action potential moves along amyelinated axon very quickly because it jumps from node-to-node, rather than traveling in the normal way. This reduces thetransit time by a factor of about one-hundred. For instance, youhave probably stubbed your toe and thought to yourself, "that'sgoing to hurt." Several seconds later the pain begins. This isbecause the neurons in your toe that detect pressure send theirsignals to the brain by fast myelinated axons. However,sensations of pain are conducted along unmyelinated axons,requiring several seconds to move from your toe to your head.As another example, you may be familiar with a person strickenwith Multiple Sclerosis, a disease where the myelin degenerates.The resulting disruption of the neural transmission causes avariety of problems in sensation and movement.

Now let’s take a closer look at the synapse, the connectionbetween neurons. This is the most interesting location in theentire nervous system; it’s where the important things happen.Except in rare cases, the action potential from one neuroncannot directly cause the next neuron to fire. This is becausethere is an extremely thin space between the axon and dendritecalled the synaptic gap. Instead, the end of each axon containssmall containers of chemicals called synaptic vesicles. Whenan action potential reaches the end of an axon, it stimulates


FIGURE 3-2 The neuron. The nerve cell, also called the neuron, is the basicbuilding block of the brain and other nervous pathways.Stimulation of the dendrites cause the neuron to fire, sending abrief electrical pulse from the dendrites, through the cell body,and down the axon. This electrical pulse is called an actionpotential, and can be transferred from one neuron to the nextthrough a connection called the synapse.


FIGURE 3-3 Neurotransmitter release. Action potentials do not jump directlyfrom one neuron to the next. Instead, when an action potentialreaches the end of the axon, chemicals called neurotransmittersare released into the synaptic gap. These chemicals then initiateaction potentials in the neighboring neurons.

the synaptic vesicles causing them to release their chemicalsinto the synaptic gap. These chemicals move across the gap andaffect the neighboring dendrite in some way, depending on theparticular chemical released. Some encourage the next cell tofire, while other act to discourage firing. These chemicalsreleased into the synaptic gap are called neurotransmitters. Afew of the most common ones are called: acetylcholine,epinephrine, norepinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, and GABA.Figure 3-3 illustrates this process of an action potential travelingdown an axon, resulting in the release of the neurotransmitterinto the synaptic gap.


To understand how these neural connections account forhuman behavior, consider what happens when we greet a friend.First, light is reflected from our friend's face into our eyes.After entering our pupils, it is focused onto the back surface ofeach eyeball. This is the location of the retina, a layer ofneurons that fire when exposed to light. As an example, aneuron in the retina might fire 200 times each second whenexposed to bright light, and only five times each second whenin darkness. The axons of about ten-thousand of these neuronsleave the back of each eye to form the optic nerve, carrying thesignals that represent patterns of lightness, darkness, and colorinto the brain. The other senses operate in a similar way;neurons in the ears fire when stimulated by sound, those in theskin by pressure and temperature, and those in the nose andmouth by chemical reactions. All of this information is carriedinto the brain by action potentials traveling down axons.

After a few seconds, we recognize our friend and respondby extending our hand to be shaken. This movement iscontrolled by neural pathways that start in the brain, lead downthe spinal cord, and terminate in the muscles of the chest andarms. The force of the muscle contraction is determined by howfast these nerve cells fire, allowing the brain to control themovement in a smooth and well-coordinated manner. Most ofthe muscles in the body are controlled this way, except a fewthat need to operate on their own, such as the heart anddigestive tract. The muscles that produce speech are alsosupervised by the brain. When we utter, “Hi Bob, it’s good tosee you,” the muscles in the diaphragm, vocal cords, tongue andlips, are simply responding to action potentials traveling downneurons from the brain.

Here is the important point: the only things that go into andout of the brain are firing patterns of neurons. But this bringsus to the difficult part, to say the least. How does the braindetermine what output to generate in response to a given input?For instance, how do we recognize the face of our friend, knowwhat muscles to contract to extend our hand, or how to vocalize


a greeting? Keep in mind that the brain must accomplish thesetasks by using nothing more than cells that fire at different rates.At first glance, this problem of changing the sensory input intothe muscle output seems overwhelmingly complicated. Andwhen you look at it longer, it becomes even worse.

How does the brain do it? First, there are an incrediblenumber of neurons in the brain, roughly 100 billion. Second,each neuron is connected to a multitude of other neurons (notjust a single one as illustrated in Fig. 3-2). In round numbers,each neuron in the brain influences about 1,000 of its neighbors,resulting in an extraordinary 100 trillion synapses. Scientistscall this maze of interconnected nerve cells a neural network.

Third, the pathways in the brain do not just go from theinput to the output, but bend back on themselves to form loopsin the neural network. Figure 3-4 illustrates this operation.Information from the senses is conducted to the brain where itjoins the already circulating patterns of neural activity.Likewise, portions of this circulating neural activity break offand pass to the muscles for body control. Of course, thisdiagram is trivial compared to the enormous complexity of thehuman brain. For instance, imagine that you tried to count allof the brain's connections by looking through a high-powermicroscope. At a rate of one synapse every second, it wouldtake more than 100,000 lifetimes to tally the entire brain.

Lastly, there is a fourth general feature of the brain, it ishighly adaptable. Each time a person learns something, be it amathematical equation or the face of a new friend, the brainmust change in some way to incorporate this knowledge. Inadults, the primary change in the brain is a modification of theso-called synaptic weights. As previously described, when aneuron fires it affects its neighbors through the release of aneurotransmitter into the synaptic gap. The more neuro-transmitter is released, the greater the effect on the neighboringcells, to either encourage or discourage them from firing. Theterm synaptic weight refers to how much one neuron’s firingaffects it neighbors.


FIGURE 3-4 Circulation of neural activity. Patterns of action potentials aresent from the senses to the brain where they enter the alreadycirculating patterns of neural activity. Portions of this neuralactivity exit the circulation to control the muscles.

Long term memory is accomplished in the brain bymodifying synaptic weights in response to experience. Supposeyou meet a person for the first time and your brain tries toremember what their face looks like. The signals pass from theeyes to the brain along the optic nerve, setting up a pattern ofneural activity in the brain that corresponds to the person’sface. This activity changes the synaptic weights between theaffected neurons, such as by increasing or decreasing the levelof the neurotransmitter that is released when each nerve cell


fires. When you see the person’s face at a later time, it causesa similar pattern of neural activity. However, this time themodified neural weights already match the pattern of activity,a condition that the brain interprets as recognition. Present dayscience has a general grasp of how this can occur in neuralnetworks, but a poor understanding of the details. For instance,little is known about how the synaptic weights are modified,and even where in the brain memories are stored. These are thechallenges of twenty-first century brain research.

Now let’s turn our attention to the actual human brain, asshown in Figs. 3-5 and 3-6. Different areas of the brain areresponsible for different tasks; however, the tissue in each ofthese areas is of the same construction, an intricate maze ofinterconnected neurons. The outside of the brain is called thecerebral cortex, or gray matter from its appearance. This isthe site of the most sophisticated activity in the brain, thedensest part of the neural network interconnections. Thecomplexity of the cerebral cortex is the single most importantdifference between the brains of humans and lower animals.Inside the cerebral cortex is white matter, which is used totransport neural activity from one part of the brain to another.It appears lighter than the gray matter because its axons arecovered with the fatty myelin sheath, reducing the time foraction potentials to move between locations. An important partof the white matter is the corpus callosum, a huge pathway thatconnects the left and right halves of the brain. More about thislater.

Since the brain’s function is to connect the senses with themuscles, it is not surprising that each location on the cerebralcortex has one of three general duties: (1) sensory, the analysisof signals from the five senses, (2) motor, the preparation ofsignals that go to the muscles, and (3) association, theprocessing needed to connect the first two. For instance, therearmost portion of the brain, the occipital lobe or visual cortex,processes sensory information from the eyes. Likewise, touchand pain are processed in the sensory cortex, a narrow vertical


FIGURE 3-5 The human brain. The outer layer of the human brain, the cerebralcortex, is where the most complex processing occurs. It is dividedinto many different regions, each performing a specific task.

strip on the sides of the brain. Interestingly, sensory cortex isarranged as an upside-down body. That is, sensations from thefeet are processed at the top of the strip, sensations from thehead at the bottom, and the rest of the body at correspondinglocations in between. Motor cortex, which is the initiator ofmost body movement, is contained in another narrow verticalstrip positioned alongside the sensory cortex. It has the same


upside-down organization; feet are controlled at the top and thehead at the bottom. Other examples of sensory and motorregions are also labeled in Fig. 3-5. These include: Heschl’sgyri where hearing is processed, Broca’s area that controls themuscles of speech, and the Cerebellum, a large section at therear of the brain that makes movement smooth and wellcoordinated instead of jerky and erratic.

Damage to the Association AreasBrain damage to the sensory and motor regions results in

problems such as blindness and being paralyzed. However,these deficits do not directly alter the mind; the person stillthinks, feels, and remembers the same as before the injury. Butdamage to the association areas is different; it affects the mindat its very core. The essence of what we are is changed. Wewill briefly describe six examples of this.

Our first example is one of the most famous accidents inmedical history. Phineas Gage was a railroad constructionforeman in 1848 Vermont. One of his duties was to prepareblasting charges by pushing dynamite down a hole drilled intothe rock. This was done with the aid of a tamping iron, a heavymetal rod about 3½ feet long and 1¼ inches in diameter. OnSeptember 13, Gage was preparing such a blasting hole whenthe dynamite accidentally exploded, driving the tamping barcompletely through his head. It entered under his left cheekbone, passed behind his left eye, exited through the top of hishead, and landed about 25 to 30 yards away.

Incredibly, Phineas Gage survived the accident and lived foranother 13 years, although much of the front part of his brainhad been destroyed. The injury did not affect his sensory ormotor abilities; he could see, hear, and move his body normally.It also did not affect his memory or intelligence. What changedwas his personality, the way he thought about things and howhe interacted with the world. Before the accident, Gage wasregarded as well-balanced, cooperative and friendly. He was acapable supervisor and shrewd businessman. Afterwards he


FIGURE 3-6 Cross-section of the human brain. Interesting regions include:ventricles, fluid filled holes in the brain; pineal gland, incorrectlybelieved to be the seat of consciousness by Descartes (Chapter 7);thalamus, a relay station for passing signals between areas; andsubstantia nigra, which is destroyed in Parkinson’s disease.


was impatient and obstinate. He seemed to care little aboutthose around him and was grossly profane. He was indecisive,seemingly unable to settle on any of the plans he devised for thefuture. According to his friends, he was no longer Gage.Modern patients with frontal brain damage exhibit similarproblems.

The second example is also from an unfortunate affliction,a patient identified in the medical literature only as H.M. In1953, at the age of 27, H.M. underwent a brain operation in anattempt to control severe epileptic seizures. This procedureremoved a region called the hippocampus, located deep withinthe brain (see Fig. 3-6). Although the operation was successfulfor his problem with epilepsy, it left H.M. with a bizarre mentalcondition. If you met and spoke with H.M., you would probablynot notice anything out of the ordinary. However, if you thenleft the room and returned five minutes later, H.M. would haveabsolutely no recollection of having met you. His brain istotally incapable of transferring current thoughts into long-termmemory. He can remember events before the operation, butvirtually nothing since. H.M. is alive today, nearly 50 yearsafter the procedure, but his mind is trapped forever in 1953.

Example three is also a result of surgery to manageepilepsy, resulting in what are called split-brain patients. Theleft and right halves of the brain are virtually identical instructure, but are different in their function. For instance, theleft half of the brain controls the right side of the body, and viceversa. Also, the left half of the brain only sees the right half ofthe image from each eye, while the right half of the brain onlysees what is left of center. There are also other specializations,such as language being a left brain function, while spatialthinking and music perception are handled on the right side.Usually this segmentation of brain function isn’t apparent in ourbehavior because the left and right sides of the brain are inconstant communication with each other. This occurs over thelarge tract of nerve fibers that runs between the left and righthalves of the brain, the corpus callosum (see Fig. 3-6).


Starting in the 1950's, brain surgeons began cutting thecorpus callosum in epileptic patients. This was done in anattempt to keep the storm-like neural activity of the seizure fromspreading from one side of the brain to the other. Surprisingly,these patients seem relatively normal after the procedure, just aslong as you don’t look too closely. Clever experiments allowthe researcher to communicate with only one-half of the brainat a time. For instance, if you display an object to the left ofwhere the subject is looking, or have the subject press a buttonwith his left hand, you are in communication with the right halfof the brain. Likewise, when the subject writes a message withhis right hand, or when he speaks, the left half of the brain is incharge. These tricks can be used to see what each half of thebrain is thinking, feeling, remembering, desiring, and so on.

These experiments provide strong evidence that split brainpatients have two separate minds. For instance, the two halvesof the brain can have different knowledge. If a familiar objectis placed in the left hand, the right brain will recognize it, butthe left brain won’t. They can also have different opinions.When asked about their own self worth, the right side mightrespond “good,” while the left side “inadequate.” The two sidescan also have different goals. For example, the two halves ofthe brain can be given opposing tasks, resulting in the handsfighting each other. The compelling conclusion is that splittingthe brain also splits the mind.

Our fourth example is aphasia, the difficulty in under-standing and producing speech due to brain damage, such asfrom strokes. Two regions of the brain are involved, Broca’sarea and Wernicke’s area, named after researchers in the mid1800s who studied them. Both these areas are shown in Fig. 3-5, and are only on the left side of the brain in most people.Broca’s area controls the muscles used in speaking. Patientswith damage in this region speak slowly and with poor flow;however, they know what they want to say and can comprehendthe speech of others. In short, their mind is intact; they justhave difficulty in getting out the sounds and syntax.


1. “Do you see what they see?”, Brad Lemley, Discover, 20, Dec.1999, pp 80-87. Also, search the web for many on-line references.

Damage to Wernicke’s area is far more interesting for thestudy of consciousness. These patients can no longer associatewords with their meaning. Even though they may hearnormally, they cannot understand spoken language. They havelost their dictionary; the language they have used sincechildhood is suddenly foreign and incomprehensible. Theirspeech is even stranger. While it is grammatically correct andformed into complete sentences, it is gibberish and has nomeaning. This is exactly the opposite of Broca’s aphasia.Wernicke’s aphasia patients have no difficulty producing thesounds and syntax, but their minds can no longer produce verbalmeaning.

The fifth example is the effect of psychoactive drugs.These are drugs that affect mental activity in some way, such asour moods, perceptions of events, and patterns of thinking.Most psychoactive drugs act by altering the neurotransmittersin the synaptic gaps, usually because the two moleculesresemble each other. This allows the drug to change thepatterns of neural activity by encouraging or discouraging thefiring of individual neurons. For instance, alcohol producesrelaxation, reduces inhibitions, and impairs judgement.Barbiturates and diazepam (Valium) calm people and reduceanxiety. Amphetamines and cocaine produce alertness andeuphoria. Hallucinogens, such as LSD, mescaline and PCP,alter perception and thinking patterns. Nitrous oxide, and otherdrugs, change the way we perceive pain; it still hurts, but wedon’t care. Still other drugs are successful at treating suchpsychological disorders as schizophrenia, depression, andmanic-depression.

Our sixth and last example is a strange condition calledsynesthesia,1 from the Greek words for “combined sensation.”About one person in every several thousand has their sensescross-linked in some unusual way. In the most common case,


the person perceives a color whenever shown a letter or number.For example, the letter “g” might always be seen as red, theletter “h” as blue, the digit “7” as yellow, and so on. Thesecolors can be extremely vivid, and are often seen as atransparent glow around the figure. Slightly less common,colors can be evoked by sounds, odors, tastes, and pain. Muchless frequently there are cross-links between the other senses,such as sound causing odor, or vision causing taste. It mostcases, people with synesthesia are normal in all other ways.

What causes synesthesia? The exact details are not known,but it is clearly related to neural activity in one area of the brainleaking into another area where it doesn’t belong. Imagine thatwe open a person’s skull and graft a nerve tract from onelocation in the brain to another. Since each location handles adifferent function, we would expect to see two types of brainactivity, that are normally separate, becoming joined. Onetheory is that we are all born with synesthesia, a result ofundeveloped neural pathways crisscrossing the newly formedbrain. Most of these pathways die during the first few years oflife, leaving the highly segmented brain we find in adults.Synesthesia might be caused by some of these pathwaysrefusing to die, leaving a “neural leak” from one area to another.

Synesthesia may seem strange at first encounter, but it iseasily explained in terms of brain structure. In fact, all six ofthe previous examples provide this same lesson: The structureand function of the mind are totally dependent on the structureand function of the brain. All of these examples seem bizarreand unexplainable if the mind is taken to be an entity in itself.But when the mind is viewed as the operation of the brain,everything falls naturally into place, and the explanationsbecome straightforward and simple. The Evidence

By definition, the third-person view of the mind is from theoutside, what is seen by an external observer. And what thisexternal observer sees is brain activity, incredibly complex


patterns of action potentials moving through a neural network.The following are undisputed scientific facts, and any theory ofthe mind must be able to account for each: First, there is an unbroken path of nerve cells running

from the senses, through the neural network of the brain,and to the muscles. For instance, suppose a person seesan object and proclaims: “This is an apple.” Brainscanners and scientific instruments can monitor theresulting neural activity from its beginning to its end.Action potentials are generated by the eyes, pass throughthe sensory, association, and motor areas of the brain,and end up at the muscles that control speech. There is no“hidden area” in the middle; it is an unbroken chain ofevents.

Second, neural networks do have the capability ofchanging various patterns of input into various patternsof output. This includes all the general things that scienceobserves the brain to be doing, such as muscle controlpattern recognition, short and long term memory,forming relationships between abstract concepts, and soon. This knowledge comes primarily from the study ofartificial neural networks, computer programs that mimicthe activity of the squishy things inside the brain. Whilethis work has partly been motivated by brain research, itis largely directed at the development of better computersystems. We know that neural networks can carry outthese general types of tasks because engineers use themon a daily basis. Present day artificial neural networkscannot match the performance of the human brain, butthey clearly can perform the same kinds of functions.

Third, altering the brain results in fundamentalchanges to the mind. Psychoactive drugs affect ouremotions, patterns of thinking, how we interpret pain,and so on. Aberrant connections in the brain can causeus to “see sounds” and “smell colors” (synesthesia).


Brain damage is even more dramatic, being able toliterally rip the mind apart. For instance, it can obliteratejudgement and foresight (Phineas Gage), prevent storageof new long term memories (H.M.), create two mindsfrom one (split-brain patients), and prevent theassociation of words with meaning (Wernicke’s aphasia).

This evidence overwhelmingly points to only oneexplanation: the mind is the activity of the brain. There is noreason for an external observer to believe that anything more isgoing on, because this explanation accounts for everything thatcan be seen from outside the mind. All of the things that weassociate with consciousness, such as thinking, perception,emotion, and short term memory, arise from the neural activitycirculating in the neural network loops. From the third-personperspective, this circulating neural activity is the mind; there isnothing more.

Brain Activity and InformationOur next step is to apply the method of reduction to this

third-person view of the mind. As with everything in ourreality, we find that the brain is composed of only two things,Elements-of-reality and Information. In other words, the brainis formed from ordinary materials assembled in an exquisitelycomplex way. But the mind is not the brain; the mind is theactivity of the brain. Does this make the mind an Element-of-reality, or Information, or both? This question can be answeredin two different ways, by looking at brain structure and brainfunction.

To understand the importance of brain structure, considerthe difference between a brain and a rock. Using reduction, wefind that both objects are composed of the same Elements-of-reality, that is, the electrons, protons, and neutrons that form allordinary matter. The difference between a brain and a rock isin how this raw material is assembled. The brain has anincredibly intricate biological and chemical structure, while the


rock is relatively random and unorganized. It is this differencein structure that allows a brain to support a mind, while the rockis a mindless lump. From the third-person view, the mind arisesfrom the structure of the brain, not the raw materials.Therefore, the mind is Information, and not an Element-of-reality.

This same conclusion is reached by looking at brainfunction. To an external observer, the function of the brain is togenerate an appropriate neural output in response to a givenneural input. This means that the brain is manipulatingInformation, not Elements-of-reality. To illustrate this, imaginethat your hand is stroking the soft face of a young child.Suddenly, this sensation is replaced by intense pain when thechild bits your fingers. This unpleasant event will clearlychange the activity of your brain and nervous system. A newpattern of action potentials will pass from your fingers, throughyour brain, and to your muscles. The final result will be yourscreaming and attempting to escape the child’s hold. However,the raw material that makes up your body will not be changedin the slightest. The same electrons, protons, and neutrons willbe present after the event as before. In short, the activity of thebrain involves only Information, not Elements-of-reality. Againwe find that the mind is pure Information.

While both these lines of reasoning reach the sameconclusion, there is an important distinction between the two.The analysis using brain structure is based solely on the methodof reduction. Here we are concerned with the identification ofirreducible entities and how they are assembled. This is sciencein its most pristine form. In comparison, the analysis usingbrain function is based on emergence. This is an attempt tointegrate our observations with existing human knowledge. Wewant to know more than what the physical structure is; we wantan explanation of how and why the brain behaves as it does.

The important result is that reduction and emergence, thetwo primary methods of science, lead to the same conclusion:the third-person perspective sees the mind as Information. An


interesting consequence of this is that the mind will thereforeact as all Information does. For instance, the mind can betransmitted over a communications channel or stored in theelectronic memory of a computer. Using reduction, this wouldbe accomplished by recording the exact location and state ofeach electron, proton, and neuron that forms a person’s brain.Duplicate copies of the brain could then be constructed by usingother electrons, protons, and neutrons. Since the mind is theactivity of the brain, this would also create duplicate minds.

An even more interesting case of “mind duplication” isprovided by emergence and the functional view of the brain. Tocreate a duplicate mind, we do not necessarily need to create anexact duplicate of the brain. Rather, we only need to constructa device that duplicates the function of the brain. For instance,suppose we start by creating an artificial neuron, a manmadedevice that exactly matches what a real nerve cell does. Howthis device is constructed is of no importance; it may be a fewtransistors wired together, a tiny digital computer, or some othertechnology developed in the future. The important feature is thelogical relationship between its input and output. When theartificial neuron is presented with the same input as a realneuron, it must generate exactly the same output as the realneuron. Now suppose that we use this device to treat braindeterioration in an elderly patient. As each neuron in theirbrain dies, we replace it with an artificial neuron, allowing theperson to retain their full mental capabilities.

But where does this process end? Eventually, all of the realnerve cells will have died and only artificial neurons will be left.This means that our patient's mind will have been transferredfrom their brain to a manmade computer. This line of reasoningis called functionalism and is one of the most strikingconclusions resulting from the third-person view. In short,brains create minds by carrying out certain computationalactivities. Likewise, any machine that carries out these samecomputational activities will also create a mind.


To summarize, science sees the mind as being synonymouswith brain activity; they are one and the same. Taking this astep further, reduction and emergence tell us that brain activityis nothing but Information, and not an Element-of-reality. Inshort, the third-person viewpoint sees consciousness as pureInformation. These conclusions are based on overwhelmingscientific evidence, and there is not the slightest objectivereason to suspect that they are not true. But now we need tolook at the other side of the coin, a viewpoint that makesscience cringe, the subjective view of the mind.

45

4 The First-PersonView of the Mind

IntroductionThe first-person viewpoint is based on introspection, where

the individual turns his attention inward to examine his ownmind. This is the ultimate personal experience: What am Ithinking and feeling? Why do I enjoy the taste of an apple?How do I recognize the face of a friend? And the mostimportant question we ask ourselves: What am I? It is the selfexamination of one’s experiences, feelings, and thoughts. It isthe mind perceiving itself. In this chapter we focus on five ofthe most striking aspects of the mind as seen by introspection:qualia, mental unity, semantic thought, present tense, and free-will. These and similar characteristics are the heart of the first-person view of the mind. Most important, all of these things areirreducible; they cannot be broken into components. Therefore,as seen from the first-person viewpoint, the mind is one or moreElements-of-reality.

How We Discuss ConsciousnessThe first-person view of the mind is private; the individual

alone has access to his innermost thoughts and experiences. Noone can enter the consciousness of another. This is a formidableobstacle to our study of the mind. How can we communicateabout things that are known only in this personal and privateway? To answer this question, imagine you are thrust into aforeign land with those around you speaking an unfamiliarlanguage. How do you convey your thoughts? The answer is,you point. If you want to eat, you point at food and then yourmouth. If you want to leave, you point at yourself and then the


door. Pointing allows us to indicate what object we are referringto without having to describe the object in more detail.

This is the same way that we discuss our introspectiveexperience. It would be easier if we could physically point atthese things with our finger, but in most cases this isn’tpossible. Our introspective pointing is primarily done withlanguage. For instance, consider the phrase: the redness of red.These words point to a particular thing seen from the first-person viewpoint. Most of us know what this refers to, becausewe have directly experienced it. Likewise, we expect others tounderstand it in the same way, from their personal experience.No one can tell another what the redness of red is. You eitherknow about it from direct experience, or you know nothingabout it at all. Either way, the words redness of red do notdefine the thing; they only point to something that we may ormay not already be aware of.

Communicating in this way has obvious limitations. First,it requires that both parties already know the thing beingpointed at. For instance, you cannot discuss the beauty of asunset with one who is blind, or the pleasure of a child’s laughwith one who is deaf. Second, language itself is an imperfecttool. As an example of this, imagine asking several people todescribe a physical object, such as a book. Even though theyare referring to the same thing, there will be a considerabledifference in the language they use. This problem becomesworse when the thing being described is nonphysical, such as a“political party,” or a “computer program.” Trying to describewhat is seen from the first-person perspective is perhaps theworst of all. Even if two people had an identical introspectiveexperience, they would probably describe it differently.

This brings up the third and most perplexing problem incommunicating about our first-person knowledge. How do weknow that others are having the same introspective experiencethat we are? Suppose you and a friend look at a clear sky andsimultaneously proclaim, “what a wonderful shade of blue.”You are both experiencing something, and have agreed to call

47Chapter 4: The First-Person View of the Mind

your respective experiences by the same name. This seemsreasonable, since both of your experiences correspond to thesame physical object. But this does not guarantee that you arehaving the same experience. Suppose that your friend hadsurgery at birth to switch the blue and green neural pathwaysbetween his eyes and brain. When he now looks at the sky, heexperiences what you would call “green.” However, he calls it“blue” simply because that is the name he has been taught.

Taking this example a step further, now imagine thateveryone has their visual system altered in this way. Forinstance, the blue, green, and red neural pathways might berandomly connected as a natural part of the brain’s developmentin the womb. Even so, we would not be able to tell thisdifference by speaking with each other. We would all still gazeat the sky and remark about its blueness, even though it wouldbe a different experience for each of us. There is no way to tellif one person is having the same experience as another. Ourability to communicate about these things is just too limited.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to show that the first-person viewpoint sees the mind as one or more Elements-ofreality. To do this, we will discuss five fundamental aspects ofconsciousness that are seen by introspection: qualia, mentalunity, semantic thought, present tense, and free-will. Of course,we cannot define what any of these are; all we can do is usewords to point to them. Your task is to look inside yourself byintrospection and try to understand what is being referred to.The existence and nature of these things cannot be shown bywords, but only by our individual and personal ability toexperience them. Qualia

We experience a wide variety of sensations in our day-to-day lives. For instance, vision allows us to perceive brightness,color and shape. Likewise, from hearing we experienceloudness, pitch, and timber. The senses of touch, taste, andsmell provide similar sensations that are equally unique. We


are also aware of how it feels to have emotions, to think, to bein pain, and even to exist. All of these sensations are different;we can recognize one from another, and remember our previousencounters with each of them. Philosophers call these rawsensations qualia, after the idea that each has its owncharacteristics or qualities associated with it.

We will use color as an example of qualia, beginning withthe simple question: What is it about red that is different fromblue? From the first-person perspective these two colors areclearly not the same. They are different in a basic characteristic;red has the property of redness, while blue has the property ofblueness. Those with normal vision understand this conceptvery clearly; our words are sufficient to point to something thatmost people already know by direct experience. This allows usto communicate about the property, but only with the severelimitations previously described. For instance, a color blindperson would think that the phrases redness of red and bluenessof blue are gibberish.

To examine this further, suppose we ask several scientistsand medical researchers what makes red different from blue. Aphysicist might say that the two colors are different wavelengthsof light. An ophthalmologist will have a slightly differentanswer, telling us that red and blue arise from the activation ofdifferent sensory cells in the retina of the eye. Lastly, aneurologist might describe the difference as being the neuralactivity in different parts of the cerebral cortex. Thesedescriptions are accepted by science as a complete explanationfor what is observed from the third-person viewpoint.

But what about the first-person perception of color? Dothese scientific accounts tell us why we consciously experiencered and blue in the particular way that we do? Most peoplewould say no; there is something about color that cannot beexpressed in terms of wavelength or neural activity. Simply put,red looks red and blue looks blue. For instance, a color-blindphysicist knows how science and medicine understand color,but nothing about how it feels to see a red apple or a blue sky.


The reverse is also true; a person with normal vision knowsabout color from direct experience, but might be totally ignorantof the scientific explanation. In other words, the first-personviewpoint of color is one thing; the third-person viewpoint ofcolor is another thing; and having a knowledge of one provideslittle or no knowledge of the other. Or so it would seem on theface of it.

In this same manner, the ears detect vibration in the air; thenose and tongue detect chemicals in the air and saliva; andspecialized neurons in the skin detect pressure, temperature andirritation. In the end, all of these result in neural activity invarious parts of the brain. This is how the world of science seesraw sensations, the machinery of the physical world interactingwith the machinery of our nervous system.

But all these things appear drastically different from insideof our minds, the first-person perspective. We see an apple asred and smell it as fruity. We hear it crunch as we take a bite.We taste its sweetness, and savor the pleasure it brings to us.We feel the pain as we scrape our lip on the stem. Many find itinconceivable that these raw sensations, these qualia, arise fromthe machine-like activity of the brain. Even stranger, it is noteven possible for one person to describe these things to another.All we can do is experience them for ourselves, and point atthem for vague and incomplete communication.

Why do qualia seem so elusive and hard to describe? Theanswer is very simple and straightforward. It is because qualiaare irreducible; they cannot be broken apart by the method ofreduction. For instance, if we could separate the redness of redinto more basic components our task would be done. "It issimple," we would say, "our perception of red is A plus B plusC, assembled according to the instructions in D." But, ofcourse, this is not possible. The redness of red, the terriblefeeling of pain, the fragrance of a rose, and all of the otherqualia, are irreducible; they are Elements-of-reality of the first-person viewpoint.


Mental UnityWhen we look inside ourselves by introspection, we see a

mind that is unified, a single cognitive agent, one and only oneconsciousness. Our many emotions, thoughts, and sensationsare inherently part of the whole; they do not exist independentlyon their own. The mind perceives itself as a single thing, not amixture of individual components. From the first-person viewwe see exactly one mind, no more and no less.

This mental unity is perplexing because it does not fit wellwith what we know from science. As briefly outlined in the lastchapter, different areas of the human brain handle differentmental tasks. For instance, speech is recognized in one area,bodily movements are controlled in another, and abstractreasoning takes place in yet another. Further, we mustremember that the human brain is composed of about 100billion individual neurons, each capable of producing nothingbut individual action potentials. How is it possible that theneural activity in these many separate regions, and this vastnumber of individual components, can give rise to a consciousexperience that is unified?

Brain researchers call this the binding problem. In spite ofbeing given a separate name, this issue it is no different fromother aspects of the mind-body problem. The third-person viewsees a multitude of individual action potentials passing througha neural network (i.e., Information), while the first-person viewsees an irreducible unified mind (that is, an Element-of reality).

Semantic thought In order to think, one must be able to form relationships

between abstract concepts. This is obvious from both the first-person and the third-person viewpoints. For instance, if youmentally say to yourself: “I am afraid of pain,” you can easilyrecognize the individual concepts (I and pain), and therelationship between them (“am afraid of”). In spite of this,introspection tells us that there is more to our thoughts thanformal definitions and logic. From the first-person perspective,


thoughts are semantic, that is, they have meaning. Each has aunique and personal message; they matter to us in a way that theindividual components do not. The thought of “being afraid ofpain“ is more than just words and syntax.

To put this into context, we can compare it with a computerprogram designed to interact with humans by voice command.A good example is the telephone routing systems used by manycompanies. When you dial their telephone number, a computergenerated voice answers and identifies the company. It maythen give you several options, depending on such things aswhether the business is open or closed, and which employeesare available to take calls. As you proceed through the menus,you might be thanked for your selection, be informed of errors,told to wait, given more options, and so on. In other words, thecomputer program is selecting words and phrases from itsmemory, and combining them in various combinationsaccording to predetermined rules. Of course, no one wouldsuggest that these computers understand what they are saying.These are simply automated responses; it is unthinkable thatthese devices derive any type of introspective “meaning” fromtheir activity.

But now let’s take this a step further by making thecomputer program more sophisticated. We will increase thevocabulary of available words and phrases, improve thealgorithms that control the sentence syntax, and enhance thelogic that determines what to say in particular situations. If ourprogrammers are clever enough, it may be difficult orimpossible to tell that we are speaking with a machine insteadof another person. However, even with this ability to fool us,there still isn’t any apparent way that the computer could beexperiencing an introspective ”meaning” of its thoughts orspeech. But if this is true, how is it possible that a machinesuch as the brain can generate “meaning?” In short, we havebumped into yet another example of the mind-body problem.The third-person viewpoint sees definitions, syntax, and logic;


all of which are Information. However, from the first-personview we see irreducible “meaning,” an Element-of-reality.

Present tenseOne of the most peculiar things about the first-person

viewpoint is our perception of time. We are conscious only ofthe present. It can never be yesterday or tomorrow; it is alwaysnow. We can recall the past and anticipate the future, but onlyby doing so at the current moment. Our minds are trapped atthe sharp dividing line between what was, and what will be.Language reflects this by categorizing events into threetemporal divisions, what we call the past, present, and futuretenses. For example: He ran; He is running; He will run. Butwe can experience only one of these divisions of time byintrospection; consciousness exists only in the present tense.

To understand why this is so strange, we need to look athow science views the nature of time. From the third-person,time is an Element-of-reality, a thing in itself, something thatcannot be broken into more fundamental elements. It existsalongside the three dimensions of distance to form theframework of our universe. While it is difficult or impossibleto say exactly what it is, we can certainly describe many of itscharacteristics. For instance, we know that time is a continuousdimension that can be labeled with a numbering system, such asdone by clocks and calendars. We also know that the laws ofthermodynamics define one end as the past, and the other endas the future. For instance, it would be easy to place severalphotographs of a bomb explosion in sequential order. Firstcomes the unexploded bomb, then a small cloud of expandinggas, then a large cloud, and so on. Many unusual aspects oftime were discovered by Albert Einstein, such as time slowingdown near the speed of light, or in the presence of intensegravitational fields.

But what does science have to say about the present tense?The astonishing answer is that science knows nothing of it. Theconcept of “now” is something that cannot be observed from the


third-person perspective. For instance, stop and look at the timeon your watch. Why is it this particular time instead of someother? Why is it not yesterday, or one minute from now, or tenmillion years in the future? Why are you now an adult readingthis book, instead of a newborn baby seeing your mother’s facefor the first time? For that matter, why do we not experience alltimes at once? Science has no answer to these questions. Inthe scientific view, time is something that stretches unbrokenfrom the past to the future, from the big bang to the end of theuniverse. Other than the two ends, there are no locations thatare unique or special; every point on this continuum is the sameas every other point.

But introspection tells us that the scientific view of time isincomplete; a unique point on the time line does exist. Theinstant of time that we call now is vastly different from allothers. It defines our reality; it is a fundamental part of what weare. While we cannot describe exactly what it is, it is as real asanything we know; it is a self-evident truth of our existence.The present tense is an irreducible thing that can be observedonly by introspection. It is an Element-of-reality of the first-person viewpoint.

Free-willIntrospection tells us that we are free to think and act in

whatever way we choose. We perceive that our minds arecontinually presented with decisions to be made, and that wemake them one-by-one of our own accord, without beingcontrolled by an outside influence. While we can be coerced bythe promise of reward or the threat of punishment, nothing canforce us to think or act in a way against what our mind chooses.We are free agents; our thoughts and actions are determined byus and us alone.

This is more than just a petty philosophical issue; it is oneof the founding principles that free societies are built upon. Itwould be meaningless for a government to provide freedom forits citizens, if those citizens could not think and act freely within


their own minds. Even more important, society claims the rightto punish its citizens for misdeeds, based on the premise thatoffending individuals freely choose to perform the prohibitedacts. The nature of free-will is probably the single mostimportant and far-reaching issue surrounding the mind-bodyproblem. Our governments and laws are inherently based onthe first-person perception of free-will.

At the risk of toppling society, let’s look at how the third-person perspective sees the issue of free-will. Between the 17th

and 19th centuries, scientists such as Galileo, Newton, andMaxwell developed our understanding of what is now calledclassical physics. This involves many different areas, such asmotion, heat, energy, electrical and magnetic phenomena, andsimilar topics. An interesting aspect of classical physics is thatit is deterministic. This means it is completely predictable; ifyou have a complete enough understanding about something atone moment in time, you can correctly determine what willhappen in the future.

Consider, for example, the start of the famous poem: ”I shotan arrow into the air, it fell to earth I knew not where.” Withdue regards to Longfellow, this archer is obviously not aphysicist. If he were, he would know exactly where the arrowlanded. From the arrow’s initial speed and direction, the lawsof classical physics exactly determine the trajectory taken andthe point of impact. If a more accurate solution is needed, thescientist could take into account less important factors, such asair resistance and the rotation of the earth. However, these arealso governed by the laws of classical physics. In short,classical physics tells us that nothing is free to behave as itwishes. Everything in our universe, be it an arrow or a brain, itconstrained to follow a predetermined path, dictated solely bythe initial conditions and the laws of nature.

This deterministic view of nature radically changed in theearly 20th century with the discovery of Quantum Mechanics.This is the study of how very small things behave, such aselectrons, protons, and neutrons inside of atoms. Quantum


Mechanics is absolutely bizarre; it is nothing like the world ofour day-to-day lives. For instance, things of this small sizeinteract as if they were waves, but suddenly collapse intoparticles when we try to measure them. Further, this collapseis random; it is not possible to know where the particle will endup being located until the collapse actually occurs. We willdiscuss Quantum Mechanics in the next chapter, when we lookat approaches that have been tried to solve the mind-bodyproblem. For now, the important point is that QuantumMechanics is not deterministic. While we can predict the pathsof arrows to an exceedingly high degree, much of the activity inthe subatomic realm is fundamentally unpredictable.

The brain operates by biology and chemistry, which do notinvolve the interaction of things smaller than atoms. Therefore,conventional wisdom tells us that the randomness of QuantumMechanics does not affect brain function. On the other hand,there are still many mysteries regarding how neurons operate,particularly in regards to synaptic activity. It wouldn’t be anearth-shattering event if it were discovered that QuantumMechanical principles played some role in the process.

But even allowing for this possibility, nothing in the third-person view of the mind can account for our introspectiveperception of free-will. Suppose you are faced with a decision,such as to continue reading this book or to put it aside. Classicalphysics tells us that this decision is predetermined; the outcomeis fixed even before you thought about the issue. On the otherhand, if Quantum Mechanical principles are involved, thedecision will have some truly random component to it, muchlike flipping a coin. The problem is, neither of these conditions,either alone or in combination, correspond to our first-personexperience of free-will. Introspection tells us that the decisionis ours to make; it is not predetermined, and it is not random.And just as with the other aspects of our introspective world,free-will cannot be broken apart or reduced; it is an Element-of-reality as seen from the first-person perspective.


One or More Elements-of-RealityIn this chapter we have discussed five specific aspects of the

mind as seen from the first-person perspective: present tense,qualia, mental unity, semantic thought, and free-will. Ourability to list and discuss these as individual items can beinterpreted in two different ways. On one hand, it could meanthat the mind is not just one thing, but can be divided intoseveral components. On the other hand, we could claim thatthese listed items are just different facets of a single unifiedmind. It is difficult or impossible to say which of these iscorrect, since introspection is such an inexact technique;different people will give you different answers. However, theimportant point is that all of these things, whether they areindividual components or a unified whole, are irreducible. It isnot possible to break apart such things as the present moment,the redness of red, the oneness of mental activity, the meaningof an idea, and the freedom to think and act. In other words, thefirst-person views the mind as one or more Elements-of-reality.

57

5 Defining the Problem

IntroductionThis chapter is a milestone in our study of the mind-body

problem. Previous chapters have prepared the way for the twocritical tasks that are undertaken here, (1) defining what themind-body problem is, and (2) describing what would count asa solution to this problem. There is nothing more important inour quest to solve this mystery. Understanding the nature of theproblem takes us more than halfway toward its solution.

Simple Ignorance versus ParadoxIn Chapter 2 we saw that the method of reduction breaks

reality into two different categories, Elements-of-reality andInformation. By definition, the Elements-of-reality are thingsthat are irreducible, such as elementary particles, time anddistance. In comparison, Information is what can be transmittedover a communications channel. This way of thinking is thebasis of modern science, as well as our everyday common-sense. However, when we try to analyze the mind with thisstrategy we come to an obvious discrepancy. This situationarises because we can examine the mind from two differentperspectives, the first-person and the third-person viewpoints.As presented in Chapter 3, when we look at the mind from thethird-person view we see pure Information. In comparison, inChapter 4 we found that the first-person perspective sees themind as one or more Elements-of-reality.

Now, the problem in all of this could not be more obvious;how is it possible that one perceives their mind to be the exact


opposite of what science contends it to be? This apparentcontradiction is the mind-body problem in its most basic form;it is the thing that we seek to understand. Figure 5-1 illustratesthis deep discrepancy; observers that should agree, couldn’tdisagree more.

Of course, there are other mysteries about the brain’soperation that are not included in the mind-body problem. Forinstance, science does not yet understand how learning andmemories come about from synaptic changes. However, this isa completely different category of problem; it is a mysterytotally contained in the third-person perspective. In otherwords, it is a matter of simple ignorance; we observesomething and cannot immediately understand how toconsolidate what we see with our previous knowledge. Incomparison, in the mind-body problem we seem to understandwhat we are observing, but those observations are inherentlycontradictory. In other words, the mind-body problem is aparadox, something that is far more serious.

To illustrate this difference between simple ignorance anda paradox, let’s look at two famous scientific problems thatwere solved in the last century. The first problem is how lifecontinues from one generation to the next. For thousands ofyears, the common belief was that life involved some sort ofmystical substance, often referred to as the vital force. Eventhough it could not be directly observed, it seemed clear thatliving things had it, and nonliving things did not. Life was seenas continuing from generation to generation by passing the vitalforce from parents to children. This was accepted as areasonable explanation that accounted for the observations. Ofcourse, this view was shattered in the 1950s with the discoverythat the molecular structure of DNA held the instructions forcreating new life, and that the vital force was nothing more thana myth.

The important point is that this is a case of simpleignorance; scientists look at something from the third-person

59Chapter 5: Defining the Problem

FIGURE 5-1The mind-body problem. From the first-person viewpoint themind appears as one or more Elements-of-reality, but to thethird-person viewpoint it appears as pure Information.

perspective and don’t understand it, or even worse, theymisunderstand it. Science isn’t perfect; it doesn’t have acomplete knowledge about the world and is bound to makemistakes. This is an inherent part of the scientific method.


1. Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Albert Einstein,Reprinted 1995, Crown Publishers, 188 pages. Read the master’sown words! Mathematical, but written for a general audience.

This can be compared to the twin paradox, one of the mostconfusing aspects of Special Relativity1 discovered by AlbertEinstein in 1905. As typical in Einstein’s work (see Fig. 5-2),this is based on a thought experiment. Suppose that we take apair of identical twins, keep one on earth, and send the other toa distant star in a spaceship. Since stars are incredibly far apart,the spaceship will need to travel very fast, almost at the speedof light. One of the basic principles of special relativity is thatmotion is relative. That is, the twin on earth sees his brothermoving away rapidly, while he remains stationary. On the otherhand, the twin in the spaceship sees himself as stationary, whilehis brother and the earth are moving away.

Next, we bring in a second basic principle of specialrelativity, that is, time moves slower at high speeds. This meansthat the twin on earth sees his brother aging very slowly becauseof the spaceship’s rapid motion. However, the twin in thespaceship thinks his time is passing normally, while he sees hisbrother, and everyone else on earth, aging more slowly. Thiscomes to a head when the spaceship completes its mission andreturns to the earth. When the brothers meet, each expects tosee the other as much younger than himself. Of course, theycan’t both be younger than the other. This discrepancy is moresevere than simply not being able to understanding ourobservations. A paradox has arisen; two sets of observationsthat should both be correct, are contradictory to each other.

The point is, the modern study of the mind involves twodifferent types of problems. The first problem is understandingthe structure and function of the brain, which is a matter ofsimple ignorance. The second problem is the mind-bodyproblem, which is a paradox. The purpose of this book is topresent a solution to the second problem, to resolve thediscrepancy between the first and third person views. But even


FIGURE 5-2Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Einstein was a German-Americanphysicist, best know for his discoveries of Special and GeneralRelativity. Perhaps his greatest talent was being able to visualizeproblems in simple terms, and then analyze the consequenceswith rigorous mathematics. For instance, he wondered what itwould be like to ride on a beam of light, or be trapped inside amoving elevator in space. These simple questions lead him to amathematical description of curved space-time, the fundamentalstructure of the entire universe. Einstein struggled through hisearly school years, with his teachers believing he would neveramount to much. Fifty years after his death, Einstein is widelyregarded as one of the two greatest scientists of all time (theother being Isaac Newton)

if successful, the problems involving simple ignorance will stillremain. Understanding the structure and function of the brainwill likely require many decades of research.

By the way, which twin is right? In 1915, Einsteinpublished a far more extensive theory called General Relativity,which shows that the passage of time is also slowed bygravitational fields and acceleration. Since the twin in thespaceship is the one who underwent the acceleration duringtakeoff and landing, he is the one who ages more slowly. Wewill hear more from Einstein in the next chapter.


The One and Only ProblemA variety of well-crafted examples have been presented

over the years to illustrate the mind-body problem. These haveproven very useful in shaping our understanding of the issues athand. However, a key teaching of the Inner Light theory is thatevery one of these examples, every description of the mind-body problem ever written, can be reduced to a single issue.And this issue is what we have spent the last four chaptersdeveloping: the third-person sees the mind as Information,while the first-person sees the mind one or more Elements-of-reality. This is the root of the mind-body problem; everythingelse is just window dressing.

To illustrate this, Fig. 5-3 shows two lists. The “A” listcontains words and phrases of how the mind is seen from theperspective of the third-person. As such, all of these items areInformation. In other words, each of the entries on the “A” listcould be reconstructed by a distant alien civilization, providedthat we give them the assembly instructions and they havelocally available Elements-of-reality. On the other hand, the“B” list contains words and phrases of how the mind is seenfrom the first-person viewpoint. These are all Elements-of-reality, things that are irreducible, entities that cannot betransmitted over a communications channel.

Now suppose that we want to develop a new argumentillustrating the mind-body problem. We pick an entry from the“A” list and hold it up in our right hand, and pick an entry fromthe “B” list and hold it up in our left hand. We then proclaim:“See, they are not the same; they have different characteristics;one cannot explain the other.”

Let’s look at several examples from the philosophicalliterature to see how this strategy is used. To start, we will lookat the catchy phrase from Patricia Churchland:


2. “What is it like to be a bat?,” Thomas Nagel, The PhilosophicalReview LXXXIII, 4, Oct. 1974, pp 435-450. Widely cited articlestressing the first-person view of the mind. Look for it on the web.

FIGURE 5-3A recipe for creating examples. Examples of the mind-bodyproblem can be created by picking an entry from the “A” list(Information as viewed from the third person), picking an entryfrom the “B” list (Elements-of-reality as seen by the first-person),and then discussing why the two items are not the same.

This gets right to the point; we have an item from the “A” list,an item from the “B” list, and an insinuation that they are notthe same thing. In this same way, we can question thepossibility of manmade machines becoming conscious:

Likewise, American philosopher and law professor ThomasNagel invites us to imagine consciousness in lower animals:2


3. “What Mary didn’t know,” Frank Jackson, The Journal ofPhilosophy LXXXIII, 5, May 1986, pp 291-295. Search the web. 4. “Minds, brains, and programs,” John R. Searle, Behavioral andBrain Sciences 3: pp 417-424. See ref. 5 for updated version.5. The Mystery of Consciousness, John R. Searle, 1997, New YorkReview of books, 224 pages. Excellent review of the present statusof the mind-body problem, covering modern approaches from purescience to philosophy. At the top of the recommended reading list.

Other interesting examples of the mind-body problem arein the form of short stories or scenarios. For instance, Australianphilosopher Frank Jackson poses the story of Mary,3 a brilliantscientist who is forced to investigate the world from a black andwhite room via a black and white television monitor. In spite ofher situation, Mary learns all that there is to know about thephysical aspects of color, such as the wavelength of light, thedifferent sensory cells in the eyes, and the neurophysiology ofthe brain. Then one day Mary is released into the world and hasher first experience of actually seeing color. This is somethingnew to her, something she has never known. Therefore herknowledge of the physical aspects of color (a member of List“A”) is not the same as her experience of color (a member ofList “B”).

Perhaps the most well known example of the mind-bodyproblem is called The Chinese Box,4,5 developed by theAmerican philosopher John Searle. Imagine being locked in asmall room with nothing but a rule book, a pencil, and paper.Through a slot in the door you are passed Chinese writing,which you find incomprehensible since you do not understandthis language. Nevertheless, you blindly look up each symbolin the rule book, which tells you the appropriate symbols towrite down on a sheet of paper. When the rule book indicatesyou are done, you obediently pass the paper back out of the slot.

On the outside of the room, a native Chinese speaker ishaving a delightful exchange. He writes down questions inChinese, passes them into the slot, and receives an answer backin Chinese. In other words, your activity in the room, in


combination with the rule book, is sufficient to carry on awritten conversation in this foreign language.

Now imagine that we replace you and the rule book with acomputer that carries out exactly the same actions. That is, wegive it Chinese writing, and it gives us back a reply in Chinese,all according to some predetermined computer program. Thequestion Searle asks is this: Does the computer understand whatit is doing? According to Searle, the answer is clearly no; if theman in the room doesn’t understand Chinese, then it is notpossible that the computer understands it either. In short,syntax (the logical operations carried out by the computerprogram) is not the same as semantics (i.e., the kind ofunderstanding or meaning that occurs in actual minds). Againwe see the same pattern; an entry from the “A” list (syntax) iscompared with an entry from the “B” list (semantics), with adiscussion of why they are not the same.

This brief overview certainly does not do these examplesjustice; they are thought provoking and full of twists and turns.The point is, all of these rest on the foundation of the sameproblem, and it is this foundation that we must identify andattack. It does little or no good to compare individual itemsfrom the “A” and “B” lists. What is needed is an explanation ofwhy everything on the “A” list is different from everything onthe “B” list. Anything less will be insufficient, and anythingmore will be superfluous.

To understand this better, imagine that we want to provethat a magnetic field and an electronic document (such ascreated by a word processor) are not the same thing. As ourprimary argument, we will use the method of reduction, andstate:

Primary argumentA magnetic field is an Element-of-Reality;An electronic document is Information;Therefore, a magnetic field is not an electronic document.


Major Teaching #2:Definition of the Mind-body Problem

There is one and only one issue in the mind-bodyproblem: How can the mind be seen as Informationfrom the third-person perspective, but as one or moreElements-of-reality from the first-person viewpoint?This is the question we are seeking to answer, the heartof what puzzles us about consciousness. Furthermore, this also specifies what is required of asolution to this puzzle. Solving the mind-body problemis the same as explaining the discrepancy between thefirst and third-person observations. No more is required,and no less will suffice.

We can also use a secondary argument, based on showingthat the characteristics of the two things are not the same:

Secondary argumentA magnetic field has characteristics: P, Q, R, S, T.An electronic document has characteristics: U, V, W, X, Y.Therefore, a magnetic field is not an electronic document.

The point is, if the primary argument is valid, the secondaryargument is unneeded and contributes nothing. If one thing isan Element-of-reality, and another thing is Information, we haveproven that the two things are different to the full extent of ourknowledge. In other words, the method of reduction has takenthe issue to its ultimate conclusion, and we can learn nothingmore by examining the details.

This leads us to the second of the major teachings of theInner Light Theory:


6. Consciousness Explained, Daniel Dennett, 1992, Little, Brown& Company, 511 pages. Popular, written for general audiences.Uses scientific and philosophical arguments to convince us that ourintrospective world is an illusion. This idea has offended many.

Previous Attempts at Solving the ProblemIn this section we briefly look at previous approaches that

have been tried to solve the mind-body problem. These methodsfail for a variety of reasons. But in their failure we can learn agreat deal about the nature of the problem, and how a potentialsolution must be evaluated. We will start by examining threetraditional approaches, materialism, idealism, and dualism.These have been around for hundreds or thousands of years inthe philosophical literature. Next, we examine three methodsfrom modern day philosophy and science, epiphenomenalism,emergence, and quantum mechanics.

Since the mind-body problem is a conflict between twopoints of view, an obvious approach to solving the dilemma isto assert that one of the points of view is wrong. This is theapproach taken by materialism,6 which maintains that thethird-person view of the mind is correct, and what is seen fromthe first-person perspective is in error. This means that theworld of science is the only thing that we can believe, and whatwe learn by introspection is flawed and not reliable. Asevidence, materialists point out that much of what introspectiontells us is obviously mistaken. For instance, when we look atoptical illusions we see something that is different from how theworld really is. As even stronger evidence of our introspectivefallibility, each of us spends several hours a day living in aworld that clearly does not exist, something that we calldreaming. If we are mistaken about these kinds of things fromthe first-person perspective, isn’t it possible that we aremistaken about all of our introspective experiences?

The flip side of this is called idealism, claiming that thefirst-person view is correct, and the third-person view ismistaken. This means that scientific observation is an illusion;


there is no universe that exists independently of our thinkingabout it. The only thing that has a real existence is our mind,with its thoughts and ideas (hence the name, idealism).Interestingly, dreams can also be cited as evidence for theidealist position. If we can create our own private universewhen we are dreaming, how do we know that we aren’t creatingour waking universe in the same manner? This book in front ofyou seems real, something that exists independently of yourmind. The problem is, tonight when you dream about this bookit will seem just as real, just as independent of your thoughts.Of course, it won’t be. Idealists claim that the only thing weknow for certain is that our minds exist; all else is just baselesssupposition.

Materialism and idealism assert that one of the twoperspectives is flawed. The problem is, most people thinkingabout the problem don’t buy it; both of the views seeminherently correct. Nothing seems more obvious to us than thejoint existence of the external world of science and the innerworld of our own mind. There is a saying in science,popularized by the American astronomer Carl Sagan (1935-1996): “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”The claims made by materialism and idealism are certainlyextraordinary; they contradict our common sense understandingof reality at a fundamental level. Of course, this is not proofthat they are false. However, the evidence in support of thesepositions is not compelling; in fact, it is almost nonexistent.While both realism and idealism are logically possible, little ornothing is given to make us believe that they are correct.

This leads us to dualism, which contends that bothviewpoints can be taken at face value; the universe seen fromthe third-person perspective exists, as does the world of ourinner thoughts. The first and third-person viewpoints disagreeabout the nature of the mind simply because they are looking attwo different things. The third-person sees mindless neuralactivity in the brain, while the first-person is in direct contactwith some sort of elusive mental reality, something that is


7. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory, DavidJ. Chalmers, 1997, Oxford University Press, 414 pages. Usesphilosophical arguments to emphasize just how difficult the mind-body problem really is. Very popular; good technical philosophy.Very questionable suggestion that epiphenomenalism is useful.

beyond our physical world. Dualism is a straightforwardinterpretation of what our senses tell us. We see an externalworld; we see an internal world; they both seem to be real; andthey are not the same. In other words, the evidence for dualismis our personal observation that the mind and body are separatethings. Given this, it is not surprising that dualism is the oldestand most widespread belief about the nature of the mind. Mostreligions are inherently based on the belief that humans have asoul or spirit that can exist independently of their bodies, suchas after death.

Even though dualism is logically possible, it is deeplyinconsistent with the scientific evidence. For instance, if themind and brain are separate entities, why does damage to thebrain result in damage to the mind? Even more troubling, if aperson’s actions are controlled by an independent mind, whydoes science observe the brain to be in control? While theseand similar arguments are not absolute proof, the scientificevidence against dualism is more than compelling. As discussedin Chapter 3, science sees a mind that is embodied in theactivity of the brain, and not a separate mental world.

In short, all three of the classical solutions are logicallypossible, but are starved for evidence that they are true. Add tothis that realism and idealism conflict with our personalobservations, and that dualism is at odds with the scientificevidence. Now let’s turn our attention to the three modern dayapproaches to the mind-body problem and see if they are anymore convincing.

Epiphenomenalism7 is an attempt to modify dualism suchthat it does not conflict with the scientific evidence. In thissolution, the brain controls all body activity, just as described in


medical textbooks. However, it is claimed that brain activityalone cannot account for our first-person experiences; theremust be a separate “mind” to do this. The distinguishing featureof epiphenomenalism is that the “mind” is an observer only, itcannot affect the brain or body in any way. As you go aboutyour daily activities, your brain is in control of analyzing datafrom your senses, making decisions, moving your body,controlling your speech, and so on. In contrast, all your mindcan do is watch these events unfold, without having power tochange them in the slightest. Simply put, your mind isconnected to your eyes and ears, but not your arms, legs, ortongue. In the jargon of the field, the mind is only an epi-phenomenon, meaning it exists upon or beside the main event.

Epiphenomenalism is important because of how it fails.While the three traditional methods are “possible but lacking inevidence,” epiphenomenalism does not provide a logicallypossible solution. The fundamental principle in this approachis that the “mind” cannot affect behavior in any way; all of ourthoughts and actions are determined solely by the machine-likeactivity of the brain. In fact, even if our minds did not exist, ourbrains would carry out exactly the same day-to-day activities,and the entire history of mankind would be unchanged.

Herein lies the problem. If epiphenomenalism is true, thenall of our words and writings about consciousness have nothingmeaningful to say about the issue. After all, every book andarticle on consciousness would be exactly the same whether themind did or did not exist, and any characteristics that the mindmay or may not have. In short, accepting this as a solution tothe mind-body problem leads us to the conclusion that wecannot think, speak or write about the problem in the first place.This is the logical quagmire of epiphenomenalism; it says ofitself: ”I am meaningless.” Of course, our introspectiveexperience tells us that this entire line of reasoning is flawed.If we know anything at all, we know that we can think, speak,and write about the nature of our minds.


8. Stairway to the Mind, Alywn Scott, 1995, Copernicus Books, 229pages. Emergence from the viewpoint of a mathematician. 9. The Race for Consciousness, John G. Taylor, 1999, MIT press, 380pages. From the view of a physicist and neural network expert.10. The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick, 1994, Touchstone,317 pages. Crick received the Nobel Prize in 1962 for discoveringthe structure of DNA. Seeks consciousness through brain research.11. A Universe of Consciousness, Gerald M. Edelman, 2000, Basicbooks, 288 pages. Edelman received the Nobel Prize in 1972 for workon the chemistry of antibodies. A neuroscience viewpoint.

As previously discussed in Chapter 2, emergence 8-11 is oneof the basic strategies we use to understanding the world aroundus. It works from the bottom-up, with complex entities beingcreated from more simple structures. Just as a candle flamearises from the wick, wax and air, the human mind is viewed asarising from the neural activity of the brain. Emergent entities,such as candle flames and minds, are claimed to be more thanjust the sum of their components; they have an existence of theirown. Emergence is very attractive to those studying neuralnetworks and artificial intelligence. In short, it contends that ifwe look hard enough at brain activity, we will eventually findthe recipe that accounts for the first-person experience.

Emergence is a powerful technique, and its importance inunderstanding the mind and brain should not be underestimated.In fact, it is the primary way that we will solve the mysteriesregarding the structure and function of the brain, those problemsthat involve simple ignorance. But that is not the task at hand;our concern here is to resolve the paradox of the mind-bodyproblem. And to do this we must find an explanation of why thethird-person viewpoint sees the mind as Information, while thefirst-person perspective sees Elements-of-reality.

Can emergence provide such an explanation? The answeris no, it cannot. Emergence is a manipulation of Information,placing it in a form that humans can more readily understandand accept. But regardless of how Information is rearranged orpackaged, it is still just Information; emergence does not have


the power to create an Element-of-reality. This is inherent inhow the methods of emergence and reduction operate, asdiscussed in Chapter 2. In short, emergence fails as an approachto the mind-body problem because is it powerless to explainwhat must be explained.

Our last approach is Quantum Mechanics, a topic sointriguing that we will give it its own section.

Quantum Mechanics Quantum Mechanics deals with the world of the very small.

Scientists began investigating this area during the first fewdecades of the 20th century (see Fig. 5-4). They found that atomsare composed of three smaller entities, the electron, proton, andneutron. Other residents of this subatomic world were alsodiscovered, and given names such as the photon, muon,neutrinos, and quarks, to name just a few. But just whatexactly are these things? Conventional science knows abouttwo types of phenomena. First, there are waves, includingsound waves, radio waves, waves on the surface of water, andso on. Second, there are particles, which are just chunks ofmatter, such as specks of dust, cannon balls, planets, andraindrops. Scientific commonsense tells us that the inhabitantsof the subatomic world will also fall into these two categories;they must be either waves or particles.

Fortunately, waves and particles have very differentcharacteristics and simple experiments can tell them apart. Tostart, we need a source of the subatomic entity that we want totest. For instance, this might be a radioactive material that emitsneutrons, a light bulb that produces photons, or a glowing hotwire that gives off electrons. In this example we will arbitrarilyassume that we are using electrons, just to give us a name torefer to. However, other subatomic particles would produce thesame result.

Figure 5-5 shows the apparatus we will use. We will forcethe electrons being emitted from the source to pass through a


FIGURE 5-4Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) and Niels Bohr (1885-1962).[Left and right, respectively]. Pioneers in Quantum Mechanics.

small aperture, such as a hole in a thin plate of metal. Theelectrons that exit the aperture are then detected by a sheet ofphotographic film, which is sensitive to electrons in the sameway that it is sensitive to light.

If electrons are particles, as illustrated in Fig. 5-5a, they willtravel in a straight line from the aperture to the photographicfilm. The developed negative will therefore show a group ofdots in a circle about the same size as the aperture, with eachdot corresponding to a single electron being detected.

In contrast, Fig. 5-5b shows what will happen if electronsare waves. After passing through the aperture, the waves willexpand many times in size before striking the photographicfilm. Also, they will form into a series of smooth concentriccircles, a pattern referred to as an “Airy disk” (named afterGeorge Biddell Airy, a British astronomer who first explainedthe pattern in 1835). By “smooth” we mean that there is agradual change between the dark and light regions in thepattern, without sharp edges or discontinuities. This behaviorof waves is well known in science and completely understood.


FIGURE 5-5Particle and wave behavior. As shown in (a), particles move ina straight line and interact as individual events. In contrast, (b)shows that waves expand as they travel, and interact as a seriesof smooth concentric rings, a pattern called an Airy disk. Thesebehaviors are well known in science and fully understood.

Now we come to the moment of truth; we turn on theelectrons, run the experiment for a short time, develop the film,and look at the photograph. Do we see a large Airy disk withsmooth rings, or a small circle of dots?


FIGURE 5-6Quantum behavior. Quantum entities move as a wave, but thenabruptly collapse into a particle when they are measured. Thelocation that the particle comes into existence is random andtotally unpredictable (except in a probabilistic sense). If youdon’t understand how this could happen, don’t worry; nobodyunderstands how this could happen.

Much to our surprise, we find a mixture of these two results.As shown in Fig. 5-6, the photographic film records an Airy diskthat is formed from individual dots.

To understand just how strange this is, pick an individualdot in one of the rings and try to analyze how it could have beenproduced. In order for the photographic film to be exposed atthis location, the electron must have moved as a wave betweenthe aperture and the film. However, the individual dot meansthat the electron interacted with the film as a particle. In short,the electron behaves as a wave, but then suddenly turns into aparticle when it is measured. This strange transformation isreferred to as the “collapse of the wave function.” Aspreviously mentioned, this wave-particle duality is seen in allentities of the subatomic world, not just electrons.


12. Quantum Reality, Nick Herbert, 1985, Doubleday, 255 pages.What Quantum Mechanics says about the nature of our reality. For ageneral technical audience. Well written; highly recommended.

This aspect of Quantum Mechanics bewilders scientists tothis day. Consider this passage from one of the founders ofQuantum Mechanics, Werner Heisenberg (Fig. 5-4):

“I remember discussions with Bohr which went throughmany hours till very late at night and ended almost indespair, and when at the end of the discussion I went alonefor a walk in the neighboring park I repeated to myselfagain and again the question: “Can nature possibly be asabsurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?”

Quantum Mechanics has now been around for nearly acentury, has been experimentally verified beyond all doubt, andis mathematically expressed in fine detail. Even so, the natureof the wave collapse is still as mysterious and puzzling todayas it was to Heisenberg and his colleagues. What is the natureof the wave before it is measured? What causes the wave tocollapse? Where exactly does the transition from wave toparticle occur? These questions strike at the very heart of ourability to understand the reality we exist in. And the more onelooks at these questions, the stranger they become.12

Einstein was a great skeptic of Quantum Mechanics, in spiteof making many contributions to its success. For decades hepresented Niels Bohr with thought experiments designed toshow that Quantum Mechanics was incorrect, or at the veryleast, incomplete. In his heart, Einstein continued to believethat the quantum world must consist of ordinary waves andparticles. Bohr closed Einstein’s loopholes one by one, but inthe minds of these two giants the issue was never settled. Onthe day that he died, Bohr had a drawing of one of Einstein’sthought experiments on his blackboard. This great intellectualexchange is now referred to as the Bohr-Einstein debates.


FIGURE 5-7John Von Neumann (1903-1957).Hungarian-American John VonNeumann is often considered tobe the greatest mathematician ofthe 20th century. If it was new andexciting, Von Neumann was thereto lend a hand! His concept of astored program is the foundationof modern computers. He is alsoknown for his work on the atomicbomb and his development of theformalized mathematics used inQuantum Mechanics.

What does this have to do with consciousness? At the mostbasic level, Quantum Mechanics and consciousness are bothfrustrating mysteries. The question is, are these two mysteriesconnected in some way? Many renowned scientists believe thatsuch a connection does exist. Unfortunately, their reasons arehighly speculative and poorly defined, to say the least.

For instance, John Von Neumann (Fig. 5-7) worked out theformal mathematics of Quantum Mechanics in 1932. As part ofthis, he tried to determine where the wave collapse occurs.Finding no special location, he concluded that it must be at theone place he did not understand, the interface between the mindand the body. The logic of the situation forced him toreluctantly accept the idealist view that reality is created by ourminds. It must be remembered that Von Neumann is oftenregarded as the greatest mathematician of the 20th century. If heconcluded that something was true, you had better think twicebefore disagreeing!

Von Neumann’s reasoning is simple:

Since Quantum Mechanics cannot be understood byitself, something like consciousness must be involved.


13. Shadows of the Mind, Roger Penrose, 1996, Oxford UniversityPress, 457 pages. Very difficult reading. Penrose is a prominentmathematical physicist, well know for his work on black holes. 14. “Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for anemergent consciousness?” S.R. Hameroff, 1994, Journal ofConsciousness Studies 1:91-118. Search the web for current work.

Now we want to look at the flip side of this, a view that isexpressed in the work of Roger Penrose.13 Penrose enters thisdebate with the claim that humans are capable of solving certainmathematical problems that cannot be solved by computers. Forinstance, consider the statement: “This sentence is unprovable.”After a considerable amount of thought, a human will judge thisstatement to be true. The reason is, judging that the statementis false results in a logical contradiction. However, Penroseclaims that this conclusion cannot be reached by computationalmeans; something more is required. In other words, the humanmind has mathematical abilities above and beyond what can beexplained by neural activity. To account for this extra ability,Penrose suggests that quantum effects may be at work. Simplyput:

Since consciousness cannot be understood by itself,something like Quantum Mechanics must be involved.

In conjunction with Stuart Hameroff,14 Penrose speculatesthat the underpinnings of consciousness arise in microtubules,tiny tube-like structures contained within nerve cells. Quantumeffects in the microtubules influence synaptic activity, therebylinking the operation of the brain with the quantum world. Aparticularly interesting part of this view is that the wavefunction collapses because of a natural process, a new physicalprinciple called quantum-gravity. In the Penrose-Hameroffmodel, quantum effects cause consciousness, not the other wayaround as seen by Von Neumann.

In summary, theories about quantum-consciousness comein two general varieties: (1) consciousness causes the wave


function to collapse, and (2) the wave function collapse causesconsciousness. Taken separately or together, these possibilitieslead to a variety of different scenarios about the nature of themind and its relationship to reality.

While a connection between consciousness and QuantumMechanics is intriguing, there is little evidence that it is true.Experts are very skeptical of the arguments presented by VonNeumann and Penrose. Even if they are true, there is anenormous gap between seeing a few dots on a photographic filmand explaining introspective experiences such as qualia, free-will and semantic thought. If there is a connection betweenQuantum Mechanics and consciousness, it must be shown byhard evidence, not just the possibility that an answer is hidingin the unknown. To date, this evidence is not there, not in theslightest.

In addition, there is a colossal reason to believe thatQuantum Mechanics and consciousness are not related.Quantum effects generally occur at very small distances, farsmaller than nerve cells and synapses. This makes it verydifficult to believe that neural activity is affected by thequantum world. It is much like trying to imagine how birdsand insects could affect the path of a hurricane. The vastmajority of scientists dismiss the possibility that QuantumMechanics is related to brain activity. And if it doesn’t affectbrain activity, it is difficult to understand how it could berelated to consciousness.

Whether consciousness is involved or not, the mysteries ofQuantum Mechanics will continue to intrigue scientists andphilosophers alike. This is one of the great puzzles of our time. Moving Forward

These brief descriptions of the previous approaches onlycapture their flavor, not their full substance. There are manyvariations and subtle issues that we have ignored altogether.Nevertheless, this short presentation demonstrates the widevariety of approaches that have been used, and the equally wide


variety of ways that they have failed. But from these failureswe can learn what is required of an acceptable solution to themind-body problem:

# It must be logically possible and not self contradictory. (unlike epiphenomenalism)

# It must be able to explain what must be explained. (unlike emergence)

# It must not merely invoke a mystery to explain a mystery. (unlike Quantum Mechanics)

# It must be consistent with our scientific knowledge. (unlike dualism)

# It must be consistent with our introspective knowledge, or convincingly explain why. (unlike materialism and idealism)

# It must be more than just possible; there needs to be compelling evidence that it is true. (unlike most of the previous approaches)

In the last five chapters we have outlined the problem weare trying to solve. We have also defined what would count asan acceptable solution to this problem. Now it is time to moveforward, to start the actual construction of the Inner LightTheory of Consciousness. In the next three chapters we discussa strange situation that could arise in our universe, somethingwe will call an Information-Limited Subreality. As we will see,this holds the solution to the mind-body problem, as we have socarefully defined it in the previous chapters.

81

6 Information-LimitedSubrealities

What This Chapter is About, and Not AboutPrevious chapters have laid out the problem: observations

from the first and third-person perspectives disagree about thenature of the mind. The solution to this paradox will becomeapparent in this chapter. But first, a word of caution: thischapter is not about consciousness; it is about physics. It isabout the way that the universe operates, and how we canobserve and understand that operation.

The central topic of this chapter, the Information-LimitedSubreality, is an objective and physical phenomenon, somethingthat we can scientifically define and describe the properties of.Its relevance to the mind-body problem will be discussed inupcoming chapters. For now, our task is one of physics, notphilosophy or psychology. This is important because we willuse the concept of the Information-Limited Subreality to definewhat consciousness is. Therefore, we must take care not toexplain the Information-Limited Subreality in terms ofconsciousness, thus leading to a circular definition.

The ObserverIn the last chapter we introduced Special Relativity, a

strange area of physics developed by Albert Einstein in 1905.A key topic in this work is the concept of the observer. Forinstance, in the last chapter we saw that a person on earth willsee the universe differently than his twin brother in a speedingspaceship. In short, Einstein showed that how you view theworld depends on your condition, such as your velocity,


acceleration, and even the gravitational field you are in. Forinstance, consider a group of scientists on the earth, a singleastronaut in route to a distant star, and a sophisticated roboticprobe exploring the intense gravitational field of a black hole.Since each of these entities is in a different condition withrespect to how they observe the universe, we refer to them asthree different “observers.” The important point is that being an“observer” refers to your condition, not to what you are. As inthis example, an “observer” may be a group of people, a singleindividual, or even a nonconscious computer.

For instance, look at how Einstein used the concept ofdifferent observers to explain the equivalence of accelerationand gravity, a key part of the General Theory of Relativity:

“We imagine a large portion of empty space, ... farremoved from stars and other appreciable masses, ... letus imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with anobserver inside who is equipped with apparatus.Gravitation naturally does not exist for this observer. Hemust fasten himself with strings to the floor, otherwisethe slightest impact against the floor will cause him torise slowly towards the ceiling.

To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixedexternally a hook with rope attached, and now a “being”(what kind of being is immaterial to us) begins pulling atthis with a constant force. The chest together with theobserver then begins to move “upwards” with a uniformaccelerated motion ... But how does the man in the chestregard this process? The acceleration of the chest will betransmitted to him by the reaction of the floor of thechest. He must therefore take up this pressure by meansof his legs if he does not wish to be laid out full lengthon the floor. He is then standing in the chest in exactlythe same way as anyone stands in a room of a house onearth. ... and he consequently comes to the conclusion

83Chapter 6: Information-Limited Subrealities

that the chest is suspended at rest in a gravitationalfield.”

“On the other hand, an observer who is poised freelyin space will interpret the condition of things thus: Therope must perforce take part in the accelerated motion ofthe chest, and it transmits this motion to the bodyattached to it. The tension of the rope is just largeenough to effect the acceleration of the body.”

In short, the observer inside of the chest sees a gravitationalfield, while the observer outside the chest sees acceleration.While there is only a single phenomenon, it can be viewed fromtwo different observational conditions.

Descartes’ Evil GeniusThe basic idea of the “Information-Limited Subreality” is

very old. The first systematic account was provided by RenéDescartes in 1641 (See Fig. 6-1). Descartes was troubled thatphilosophy was very subjective and controversial, especiallywhen compared to the certainties of mathematics. Of principalconcern was the possibility that we may hold false beliefs, suchas being deceived by others, ourselves, or the natural world.For instance, he notes the delusions of the insane:

“...certain persons, devoid of sense, whose cerebella areso troubled and clouded by the violent vapors of blackbile, that they constantly assure us that they think theyare kings when they are really quite poor, or that they areclothed in purple when they are really without covering,or who imagine that they have an earthenware head orare nothing but pumpkins or are made of glass.”

While Descartes dismisses these ramblings of madmen, he hasa more difficult time with dreaming, where normal peopleencounter gross deceptions about their existence. Of thisproblem he writes:


“How often has it happened to me that in the night Idreamt that I found myself in this particular place, that Iwas dressed and seated near the fire, whilst in reality Iwas lying undressed in bed! ... I see so manifestly thatthere are no certain indications by which we may clearlydistinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost inastonishment. And my astonishment is such that it isalmost capable of persuading me that I now dream.”

This potential for deception prompted Descartes toundertake a philosophical method designed to avoid error at allcosts, a search for those things that could be known withabsolute certainty. In doing so, Descartes intended to elevatephilosophy to the same high stature as mathematics. He doesthis by considering a worse-case scenario, that an all-powerfulbeing is intentionally trying to deceive him about the nature ofhis existence. He first considers that this deceiver may be God;however, he soon rejects the idea that a supremely good beingwould perpetrate this type of deception. This leads him to theidea of an evil genius, powerful enough to deceive him as Godcould, and malicious enough to do so:

“I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremelygood and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius notless powerful than deceitful, has employed his wholeenergies in deceiving me;...”

The problem now facing Descartes is to determine whatthings this evil genius could deceive him about, and what thingshe could not deceive him about. Certainly, an all-powerfuldeceiver is capable of making us dream, as well as driving usmad. Therefore, anything we can potentially experience ineither of these two states is something that we can be deceivedabout. As Descartes notes, the evil genius could even deceiveus about the very nature of our existence:


FIGURE 6-1René Descartes (1596-1650). RenéDescartes, a French physiologistmathematician and philosopher, isbest known for founding analyticgeometry, and defining the mind-body problem. The quotes in thischapter are taken from his mostinfluential work, the Meditations,first published in Latin in 1641.Descartes was one of the greatestthinkers of the 17th century, and thestarting point for all discussions onthe nature of consciousness.

“... I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colors,figures, sounds, and all external things are nought but theillusions and dreams of which this genius has availedhimself in order to lay traps for my credulity; I shallconsider myself as having no flesh, no blood, nor anysenses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all thesethings.”

Given that the evil genius has such great power ofdeception, is there anything that we can be sure of, or iseverything that we believe under a cloud of doubt? Descartescomes to the logical conclusion that there is something that hecould not be fooled about, no matter how powerful the evilgenius. And that something is that his mind exists. As Descartesreasoned, even an all-powerful being could not fool him intobelieving that his mind was real, if there were no such thing ashis mind. The simple mental act of thinking that you exist iscompletely sufficient to guarantee that you do exist. Aseloquently put in his famous passage:

“I think, therefore I am.”


Descartes extended this line of reasoning to identify thebasic nature of the mind-body problem. That is, the mind is thething that thinks and is guaranteed to exist, while the body is aseparate thing that we perceive with our senses and we might bedeceived about. Further, Descartes had some recognition ofhow the method of reduction further separates these two things:

“... we cannot conceive of body excepting in so far as itis divisible, while the mind cannot be conceived ofexcepting as indivisible. For we are not able to conceiveof the half of the mind as we can do of the smallest of allbodies; so that we see that not only are their naturesdifferent but even in some respects contrary to oneanother.”

Or as we phrased it more precisely in the last chapter, thethird-person view sees the mind as Information, while the first-person perspective sees it as one or more Elements-of-reality.

Descartes’ solution to the mind-body problem was dualism,that the mortal body is a separate and distinct thing from theimmortal soul. He even speculated on the exact site within thebrain where the interaction between the physical body and theimmaterial mind occurs, the pineal gland. This is a small organlocated deep within the brain (see Fig. 3-6). It is about the sizeand shape of a pine nut, after which it is named. Descartesidentified this as the seat of consciousness for two reasons, (1)the pineal gland is the only body in the brain that does not havea duplicate in the left and right halves, and (2) it is found onlyin humans, not animals. Both of these are now known to beincorrect. To this day, some spiritual groups identify the pinealgland as the gateway to the soul. Of course, medical sciencedoesn’t hold this view. The pineal gland is known to release thehormone melatonin in response to environmental lightness anddarkness changes, part of the subject’s biological clock.

While questions about the relationship between the mindand body have been around since man began to think, Descartes


was the first to place these issues into a systematic framework.This has made Descartes widely regarded as the father of themind-body problem. As far as the Inner Light Theory goes, wewant to focus on one very specific aspect of Descartes’ work:everything that we perceive might be an illusion, somethingcompletely different than the true physical world.

The Brain in the VatIn the mid 1900s this same idea reentered philosophy in a

scenario known as The Brain in the Vat. In the 300 years sinceDescartes, medical science had learned the basic operation ofthe brain. In particular, it became known that the brain can onlyexperience what enters its neural inputs, and can onlycommunicate and instigate body motion by means of its neuraloutputs. This paves the way for Descartes' evil genius,something that no one really believes to exist, to be replacedwith something even more terrifying, technology.

Imagine the following scenario. One night while you aredeep asleep, a scientist enters your bedroom, surgically removesyour brain from your body, and carries it back to his laboratory.He plops it into a vat of nutrient solution to keep it alive, andthen goes to work attaching electrodes to the ten-million or soneurons that enter and exit your brain. In the morning you wakeup and start your daily activities, completely unaware that allof your perceptions now originate from an electronic computer.Everything that you see, hear, feel, touch, and taste is not real;they are nothing but computer algorithms generating theappropriate neural signals into your brain. Even though youbelieve you are walking, talking, and otherwise moving yourbody, it is nothing but an illusion. The neural output from yourbrain is being monitored by the scientist's computer, which thengenerates the appropriate signals back to your brain. Thecomputer signals make you believe that you "see" the scenerychange, "feel" your body parts move, and "hear" the sound ofyour footsteps. And the most amazing part, you can’t tell that


anything has changed in the night; everything seems the sameas the day before. This strange story is illustrated in Fig. 6-2.

But what if the scientist doesn't want you living the samelife you had? By typing a few commands on his computerkeyboard, he can change everything that you perceive. Onemoment you are sitting at your kitchen table enjoying yourmorning breakfast, and the next you are an astronaut exploringthe surface of a distant planet, or a ballerina dancing across astage. In the next instant, you have no physical substance at all;you are a disembodied spirit floating effortlessly through theair, able to move yourself and objects around you by merethought. You are at the scientist’s mercy; he can give youpleasures beyond imagination, or pain and horror exceedingyour worst fear.

Even stranger, the physical laws in this inner reality are upto the scientist’s whims; gravity may cause objects to fallupward, matches may burn before they are struck, and ourbodies might be able to move through solid objects. Even morebizarre, this inner reality may be composed of a differentdimensional structure, say, four dimensions of distance, twodimensions of time, and one dimension of phase-shift(something that is completely alien and unknown to us). Theinner reality does not even need to be consistent; itscharacteristics might abruptly change for no apparent reason.Indeed, the nature of this inner reality could be virtuallyanything.

Of course, this is the same scenario that troubled Descartes.The difference is that we now have a detailed understanding ofhow this strange situation could come about. Descartes’ vague“evil genius” has been replaced by physical structures and well-defined operations. This allows us to analyze the phenomenonby using rigorous scientific methods. As mentioned in theintroduction, our concern here is physics, not philosophy orpsychology.


FIGURE 6-2The Brain in the Vat. The human brain can only interact withthe external world by means of neural inputs and outputs. If thisneural activity were provided by an advanced computer system,a disembodied brain could experience any conceivable reality.

Since this is a book of science, our starting point must bethat the scientific view of our reality is correct. That is, there isa physical universe that exists independently of our minds. Itconsists of three dimensions of distance, one dimension of time,and obeys consistent physical laws, such as described bybiology, chemistry and physics. Our minds arise from theoperation of this universe, not the other way around.

While it is possible that we are brains in a vat or victims ofDescartes’ evil genius, there is not the slightest reason for us to


believe that this is true. Indeed, giving credence to such ideasis meaningless and counterproductive. For instance, imaginehearing a strange sound as you lie in bed one night. What couldit possibly be? The list is endless! It could be a small asteroiddestroying the house next door, or a dinosaur eating your tulips.It could be mole-men digging tunnels under your bedroom, oran alien spaceship carrying away your home. Do you give anyof these scenarios a second thought? Certainly not; it would bea waste of your time.

While every observer must acknowledge the possibility thattheir reality is not genuine, they will reject this as a meaninglessthought. Our scientific observations tell us that our minds arisefrom the activity of our brains, and that our brains are but a verysmall piece of an immense universe. Lacking credible evidenceto the contrary, this is the only reasonable thing for us tobelieve.

But now we want to turn our attention to something thatcould exist in our universe, a brain in a vat. This is somethingthat humans or other intelligent creatures could conceivablyconstruct. It is a physical apparatus, and as such, it can beanalyzed in the finest detail, even down to the level ofindividual atoms. The problem is, if we regard the world on theoutside of the vat as the true reality, how are we to understandand classify the reality experienced by this disembodied brain?

First of all, the brain in the vat may or may not know of itstrue condition. That is, the brain may know that its experiencesare being generated by a computer and that nothing in itsperceived reality is genuine. For instance, the sadistic scientistmay place a video camera over the vat and send the electronicsignal into the visual cortex of the captive brain. “See, you arenothing but a disembodied brain in a vat, and I am your God!”the scientist might taunt.

On the other hand, the scientist could completely withholdall information about the outside world. Lacking any reason tobelieve otherwise, the captive brain would believe that its


experiences originate from the external physical universe thatit perceives. It would even call its reality the “true reality.”While the brain must acknowledge the possibility that it isnothing but a “brain in a vat,” it would have no reason tosuspect that this is true. In other words, the brain in the vatwould understand and perceive its reality in exactly the sameway that you and I perceive our reality. But, of course, wewould know that it is mistaken. We are in a privileged positionto know with certainty that the captive brain’s reality is anillusion; it is not a true representation of the external physicaluniverse. This is the situation that we want to understand andexplore, and where we will focus our attention.

The Information-Limited SubrealityUsing the “brain in the vat” as a guide, our task is to now

define the physical phenomenon called an Information-LimitedSubreality. Two observers, which we will call the outerobserver and the inner observer, exist in a physical universe.The outer observer has the ability to perceive this universedirectly, without distortion or misrepresentation. This meansthat the reality perceived by the outer observer is genuine; itoriginates from and represents exactly what it seems to, anexternal physical universe.

In comparison, the inner observer is in a much morecomplex condition, being totally unable to observe the physicaluniverse. This handicap results from the information accessibleto the inner observer being systematically distorted by someprocess. Moreover, this distortion is not random, but has twokey characteristics. First, it blocks all knowledge of thephysical universe to the inner observer. Second, the distortedinformation is completely consistent with another physicaluniverse, one that could exist, but doesn’t. Of course, the innerobserver does not know that what he perceives is an illusion; itis as real to him as real can be. It is the only reality that heknows. But the outer observer can see this situation as it truly


is, a false reality that is generated by manipulating information.For this reason, the outer observer would refer to theexperiences of the inner observer as an Information-LimitedSubreality. Since this is such a long name, we will call it aninner reality for short. Likewise, we will refer to the realityexperienced by the outer observer as the outer reality. Ofcourse, the inner observer would not use any of these terms; tohim there is only reality.

This definition encompasses Descartes’ evil genius, thebrain in the vat, and a variety of other important situations.Perhaps the most important way that this definition broadensour understanding is that we are now using the term observer.As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, referring to an“observer” is a way of specifying a condition under whichobservations are made. By definition, who or what is doing theobserving is irrelevant; only the nature of what is observed isimportant. For instance, there is absolutely no requirement foran observer to be conscious. As an example, imagine we builta sophisticated robotic probe, designed to explore the surface ofa distant planet with minimal human guidance. We perform afinal test by stimulating its sensors with computer generatedsignals designed to simulate what the probe will encounter onits mission. For instance, the probe might observe that it is ina methane atmosphere, with a temperature of 132 degrees, andtotal darkness. Of course, this is an illusion; the probe is reallyin our well-lit and comfortable laboratory. In short, we haveplaced this nonconscious observer in an Information-LimitedSubreality, according to the definitions we have laid out.

Both the inner and outer observers will regard their realityas genuine. While each knows that it is logically possible thatthey exist in an Information-Limited Subreality, they have noreason to believe this is true. Each will make the claim: “Myreality derives from an external physical universe.” For theouter observer, this statement is true; for the inner observer, itis false. But what is most important, the truth or falsity of this


FIGURE 6-3Kurt Godel (1906-1978). Godelwas an interesting man. He is oftenregarded as the greatest logician(one who studies logic) to haveever lived. Godel spent time withAlbert Einstein and published workon the mathematics of time andtime travel. He is also known forhis interest in psychic phenomenaand his effort to develop a logicalproof for the existence of God.Godel starved himself to death atage 72, believing that his doctorswere trying to poison him.

statement cannot be proven from within the reality that thestatement is made.

This touches on one of the most important mathematicaldiscoveries of the twentieth century. In 1931, the Austrian-American mathematician Kurt Godel shook the foundations ofthe mathematics world by proving what are now known as theGodel Incompleteness Theorems. In nontechnical terms, Godel(Fig. 6-3) showed that within any system of rules there arestatements that are true, but cannot be proven to be true withinthe system of rules. This could not be more disturbing tomathematicians, since mathematics itself is a system of rules. Inshort, Godel showed that there are mathematical statements thatare true, but can never be proven to be true, regardless of howclever mathematicians are or how long they work on them.

As a pertinent example, suppose our inner observer uttersthe words, “I exist in an Information-Limited Subreality.” Thisis a true statement, but the ability to prove that it is true does notexist within the Information-Limited Subreality. Its truth canonly be proven by examining the situation from “outside of thesystem of rules.” That is, by looking at things from theperspective of the outer observer.


The Information-Limited Subreality is a phenomenon thatcould logically exist in the physical universe as we know it. Assuch, it is something that we can examine, classify, anddetermine the properties of. This brings us to The Inner Light,a story that allows us to understand the most extraordinaryproperty of the Information-Limited Subreality, the propertythat is the root of consciousness.

Episode 125: The Inner LightThe Star Trek movies and television episodes have become

an icon of popular culture. Their contribution has reached farbeyond mere entertainment, they have provided uniquecommentary on social issues and helped to shape our vision ofthe future. The Inner Light, Episode 125 of Star Trek: The NextGeneration, is one of the most highly acclaimed stories in thesecollective works, and it holds a special place in our search forthe nature of consciousness.

The story begins with the starship Enterprise passingthrough an unknown region of space. Its commander, CaptainJean-Luc Picard, stands diligently on the bridge, surrounded byhis first officer and bridge crew. The ship’s sensors detect analien probe of unknown design, and they approach it withcaution. Without warning, the probe begins to emit a narrownucleonic beam (a 24th century term) which engulfs the Captain,causing him to fall to the floor. His first officer kneels overhim to give care. As Picard looks up from the deck he sees hisworld change; the face of his first officer fades away and isreplaced by that of a young woman, obviously relieved to seehim regaining awareness. Picard looks around and finds he isno longer on the bridge of the Enterprise, but in the living areaof an unfamiliar residence, wearing unfamiliar clothing. As iscommon in his century, Picard believes he has been abductedfrom the Enterprise by a teleportation beam. “What is thisplace?” Picard demands. The woman seems genuinely confusedby the question, as she tenderly responds, “This is your home,


of course.” She pleads with him to remain calm, explaining thathe has been feverish for over a week. He ignores her advice,and leaves the residence in search of answers.

Picard finds that he is in the small community of Ressic, onthe planet Kataan. The residents know him as their longtimefriend Kamin. The woman he awoke to is Eline, his wife ofthree years. Those around him dismiss his claims of being astarship captain as delusions of the fever, stealing the memoriesof his true life. Over the next days, weeks, and years, Picardstruggles to find the reason he has been taken from theEnterprise, and to find where in the universe he is being held.But all is in vain; he can find no evidence to support hismemories. All that he encounters tells him that he is Kamin, anironweaver in the community of Ressic, husband to Eline.

Even after five years we find that Picard is still strugglingwith the memories of his former life. But absent any evidence,and in deference to the wife he has grown to love, Picard putsthese memories aside and accepts his new existence. Hebecomes Kamin, and silences the inner voices that know him asJean-Luc. Over the next 30 years, Kamin lives a happy life withEline. He has children and grandchildren, becomes a memberof the community’s governing council, and spends his days inscientific pursuits and exploring the countryside. He alsoexperiences the human tragedies of life, the death of friends andfamily, unfulfilled dreams for those he cares about, andstruggling against hopeless situations.

In one particularly poignant scene, Kamin tells Eline howrealistic his memories still seem, even after many years. Helooks at her and the village around him, and softly utters, “Itwas real– it was as real as this is.” Now, the viewer knowsthat this is a very strange statement, since Picard hasn’t goneanywhere; he is still laying on the deck of the bridge of theEnterprise. The nucleonic beam is controlling his brain, makinghim perceive that he is a mere ironweaver from Ressic. Picard’smind is trapped in an Information-Limited Subreality. His


lifetime of experience as Kamin is being played out in only afew minutes, as the Enterprise’s medical staff furiously labor toend the attack.

The other details of this story are not important to ourinvestigation of consciousness, so we won’t give the away theending. Suffice it to say that it is haunting and memorable. In1993, The Inner Light won a well-deserved Hugo Award forbest dramatic science fiction presentation.

At first glance, one might think that this story adds little toour understanding of Information-Limited Subrealities. Picardtrapped as Kamin seems well within the principles laid out byDescartes’ evil genius and the brain in the vat. Indeed, whenthis episode first aired there was no special importance given toit by philosophers or physicists. The reasons that make TheInner Light relevant are subtle, yet of great importance.

First, a lesser point, the issue of believability. It is easy forus to make the statement: “The brain in the vat experiences areality just like ours.” Further, we can verbally explain why thisstatement is true and what consequences it has. This is anintellectually sufficient description. However, humans are morethan intellectual creatures; we have emotions, attitudes, andknowledge that are difficult or impossible to communicate toothers. Learning about the aurora borealis in a physics class isone thing, having seen it with your own eyes in quite another.The Inner Light allows us to understand the Information-Limited Subreality in a personal way. We empathize with thecharacters and relate their experiences to those in our ownlives. We gain an intimate knowledge that the inner reality isindistinguishable from our own. We come to deeply understandthat what happened to Picard could happen to us.

The Principle of Relative Reduction Now we come to the most important lesson from The Inner

Light, what will become a central concept in our understandingof consciousness. While Picard is a starship commander, he is


also a trained scientist. Not surprising, he carries his scientificmethods and attitudes into his life as Kamin. During his 30years on Kataan, Kamin engages in a wide variety of scientificresearch, such as microbiology, astronomy, and climatology, toname just a few. He carries out these activities as he would inhis former reality, and the results are just as consistent and wellbehaved. Kamin has as much ability to be a scientist as Jean-Luc Picard.

The primary tool used by science is the method ofreduction, which Kamin instinctively uses to understand hisreality. Just as in his former life, he finds that everything heobserves can be divided into two categories, Information andElements-of-reality. While the Information he finds is notespecially interesting to us, the Elements-of-reality are criticallyimportant. When Kamin examines his world he finds suchthings as elementary particles, electric and magnetic fields, andthe dimensions of time and distance. He observes these thingsto be irreducible, and therefore by definition, Elements-of-reality. Of course, none of this seems strange or unusual toKamin; it is the same as he has always known.

But now we must look at this from the perspective of themedical team working to free Picard from the nucleonic beam.They can also use the method of reduction to examine thesituation. If they are clever enough, they may even be able totell what Picard is thinking, feeling, perceiving, and so on. Butfrom their vantage point, they will only observe Information,nothing but the activity in the nucleonic beam and Picard’sbrain. Everything that Picard observes to be an Element-of-reality, the medical team observes to be pure Information. Andthe reason for this is simple, the medical team sees the situationas it truly is, while Picard’s observations are compromised bythe Information-Limited Subreality.

This example leads us to an inescapable conclusion: themethod of reduction is relative. By this we mean that aphenomenon can appear as Information to one observer, but as


Major Teaching #3:The Principle of Relative Reduction

The inner observer of an Information-Limited Sub-reality will perceive Elements-of-Reality, while theouter observer will see these same things as nothing butInformation. This is a purely physical phenomenon,something that we can examine and understand in thefinest detail.

an Element-of-reality to another observer. Further, each ofthese observers is fully justified in their belief, having reachedtheir conclusion through the most stringent rules of thescientific method, as well as basic common sense. We mustagain emphasize that this result does not rely on any of theobservers being conscious. This same answer would be found,for example, if the two observers were mindless computers,programmed to observe their environment and classify entitiesas Information or Elements-of-reality.

We will call this crucial finding the “Principle of RelativeReduction,” and it is one of our major teachings:

Now, the applicability of this to the mind-body problemcould not be more striking. In the first half of this book wepainstakingly showed that the mind-body problem was aparadox; the first-person perspective sees the mind as one ormore Elements-of-reality, while from the third-person vantagethe mind is pure Information. The Principle of RelativeReduction describes in explicit scientific terms how this couldcome about. This is the heart of The Inner Light Theory ofConsciousness.

99

7 The Subreality Machine in the Brain

A Most Remarkable ClaimIn the last chapter we introduced a strange situation that

could arise in our universe, the Information-Limited Subreality.But just because something is possible does not mean that itreally exists. Descartes' evil genius, the brain in the vat, and theStar Trek episode are just fictional stories, scenarios that havenever actually occurred. Now we want to turn our attention tosomething that does exist in our universe. The Inner LightTheory makes a most remarkable claim, each of our minds istrapped within an Information-Limited Subreality. Everythingthat we perceive and experience has been created for us bymanipulating information. And the perpetrator of this act isnone other than our own brain.

This chapter examines three pieces of evidence for thisextraordinary assertion. First, we look at dreaming, our strangeability to enter another reality as we sleep. Second, we discussa phenomenon called change blindness, and what it teaches usabout our waking consciousness. Third, we compare the threerealities that humans deal with, the physical universe, the dreamstate, and our waking consciousness. Looking ahead, in thenext chapter we will examine how and why the brain createsthis Information-Limited Subreality, outlining the evolutionaryadvantage of such neural activity.

The Lesson from DreamsLook around and concentrate on what you experience.

Perhaps it is a warm summer day and you are sitting on anoutdoor patio. You see a deep blue sky and smell the fragrance


of the flowers in bloom. Wind blowing through the branches ofa nearby tree provides a soothing melody. You feel the textureof this book in your hands, and can still taste the last sip of yourbeverage. Of course, your experience will be different; youmay be in a university library, at your desk at work, or relaxingon the couch in your home. You may be smelling the fragranceof flowers, the sweetness of newly baked cookies, or thelingering odor of disinfectant. You undoubtedly will beexperiencing many things from your five senses, plus anintrospective view of your mind's operation. These are thethings you perceive, and are therefore the things that defineyour reality.

But now imagine that you suddenly awake and realize itwas only a dream. The things you had been experiencing cannow be seen from an enlightened perspective. Before youawoke, you justifiably believed that the sights and sounds youexperienced were genuine, originating in an external physicaluniverse. The tree, book, and patio seemed more that just yourperception of them; they were real objects with an independentexistence. Or so you thought. But now that you are awake youhave gained a greater knowledge, the knowledge that yourprevious reality was not genuine. The things that you had beenperceiving exist only in your mind, and nowhere else.

The lesson here is extraordinary; the world of our dreamsis an Information-Limited Subreality. By far, this is the singlemost important clue we have to unravel the nature of the mind.In previous chapters we have discussed three other examples ofInformation-Limited Subrealities, Descartes' evil genius, thebrain in the vat, and The Inner Light episode. However, none ofthese three really exist; they are simply thought experimentsused to explore what may be possible. But dreams are different;they do exist, and are a part of our daily lives.

To expand on this further, we will divide the functioning ofthe brain into two general parts, the conscious and theunconscious. The conscious portion is formed by those mentalactivities that we are aware of, such as our thoughts, feelings,

101Chapter 7: The Subreality Machine in the Brain

decisions, and control of our body movements. It is what weperceive by introspection on a moment-by-moment basis. Incomparison, the unconscious portion consists of informationprocessing that we are not aware of, but must be occurringsomewhere within our brain. Of course, this is a very simplisticway of dividing up our mental activity. Nevertheless, it doesmatch the general way we see ourselves from both introspectionand the world of science, and is sufficient for our presentdiscussion.

As an example, consider what happens when you encountera picture of George Washington. Your conscious perception isone of immediate recognition. There seems to be no effortinvolved; the knowledge that "this is George Washington"simply enters your mind. But this is very deceptive; massiveunconscious activity has taken place to carry out this task. Forinstance, the visual image from each eye must be segmentedinto regions of similar brightness, color, and texture. Thesesegments must then be identified as facial parts, then as a face,and then as the face of the first American president. Of course,nearly all of these individual steps are hidden from yourconscious examination; the end result simply appears in yourconscious mind without apparent effort or action.

In our day-to-day lives we take this unconscious mentalactivity for granted. It is something we generally ignore unlesswe have a reason to examine it more closely. For instance, wemight want to design a computer system that mimics itsoperation, or develop a medical treatment to prevent its loss todisease or injury. It is upon this closer examination that wefind out just how complex and extensive this unconsciousprocessing is. The unconscious is no less than the foundationof our minds; it is what consciousness is built upon.

The point is, dreams teach us an immensely importantlesson about the interaction between the conscious andunconscious portions of our mind. So important, it becomes ourfourth major teaching:


1. Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, Stephen LaBerge andHoward Rheingold, 1991, Ballantine Books, 335 pages. Excellentoverview of the topic, including tips for having lucid dreams.

Major Teaching #4:The Subreality Machine in the Brain

Our unconscious mental activity has the capability ofplacing our conscious mental activity in an Information-Limited Subreality. We know this for a fact; it is clearlydemonstrated to us each night as we dream. It isundeniable that the machinery to accomplish this feat ispresent in each and every human brain. The nature andextent of this “subreality machine” remains for us todetermine; but one fact is indisputable, it is there.

The Realness of DreamsOur next step is to examine how realistic dreams seem to

be, so that we can better understand the subreality machinecreating them. Are dreams a vivid and detailed reality, or justa pale imitation of our wakening experience? Normal adultsdream several times each night; however, very few of theepisodes are remembered upon waking. It seems ironic thatmost of us know so little about something that occupies almostone-tenth of our entire lives. Do we dream in color? Can we feelpain in our dreams? Can a dream really fool you into thinkingthat you are awake?

Definitive answers to these questions come from LucidDreams.1 This is the name given to dreams where the dreamerrealizes that he is dreaming. This may have happened to you.For instance, you might witness something very strange orimpossible, such as being able to breathe under water, or havingQueen Victoria steal your clothes. You mumble to yourself,this is weird, am I dreaming? Suddenly you realize that you aredreaming, and that the reality you are experiencing is coming


from within yourself, not from an external physical world. Assuch, you are no longer bound by the physical laws of theuniverse, nor the dictates of social and moral responsibility.You might flap your arms and fly, run naked down main street,or gun down your enemies without mercy. And none of itmatters in the least, because you know that it is only a dream.You experience a level of freedom that simply cannot occur inthe waking world.

Lucid dreaming is a skill that can be learned, and someexperienced individuals can invoke them almost every night.This makes lucid dreams a unique scientific tool forunderstanding the nature of our minds. The dreamer can carryout experiments within the dream, and report back hissubjective observations when awake. For instance, the luciddreamer might concentrate on distinguishing colors, recallingmemorized facts, performing tasks such as mathematicalcalculations and reading, controlling the unfolding of events inthe dream, and so on. This provides us with highly reliable dataconcerning the differences and similarities between our dreamand waking states.

Researchers have even developed a way for lucid dreamersto communicate with the external world from within a dream.When a lucid dreamer rapidly moves his eyes back and forth ina dream, his physical eyes also move in this same manner. Thisprovides a way for the dreamer to signal those in the wakingworld. For instance, it might be prearranged that the dreamerwill use this signal when he begins some specified activity inthe dream, such as reading or listening to music. When thescientists monitoring the dreamer detects this signal, they canstudy the corresponding neural activity occurring in thedreamer's brain.

In one classic experiment, it was prearranged for thedreamer to move his eyes back and forth once each secondwhen he realized that he was dreaming. In the laboratory, thescientists watched the subject's physical eyes to see how fastthey moved. This was to test the possibility that dreams occur


at an accelerated rate, where hours or days in the dream worldmight only require a few seconds or minutes in real life. Theresult? The subject's physical eyes moved back and forth onceeach second, showing that dream time occurs at the same rate asin the wakening world.

Lucid dreams have provided science with a goodunderstanding of what we experience in the dream world. It isclear that our mental capabilities are limited in some waysduring dreaming. For instance, the ability to use writtenlanguage is very impaired, as is the transfer of information fromshort-term to long-term memory. It seems that some areas ofthe brain really are asleep during our dreams. But what is mostimportant, dreams are as real to the dreamer as real life is tothose who are awake. The subreality machine inside our brainscreates a world that is nearly indistinguishable from our wakingreality.

Let's look at an example to make this more concrete, thesimple act of eating an apple for lunch. You see its bright redcolor and feel its smoothness against your fingers. It smellsfruity; it crunches as you take a bite. The taste is sweet. Youenjoy the sensations; they bring you pleasure and fill you withanticipation for the next bite. You think to yourself, "This is agood apple."

After you finish your snack, you go about your day'sactivities, and eventually fall asleep for the night. You begin todream, and within this inner reality you encounter an apple. Yousee its bright red color and feel its smoothness against yourfingers. It smells fruity; it crunches as you take a bite. The tasteis sweet. You enjoy the sensations; they bring you pleasure andfill you with anticipation for the next bite. You think toyourself, "This is a good apple."

The point being, the introspective experience of the appleis the same in the dream world as it is when we are awake.However, in one case the experience is being generated by theunconscious activity of the brain, while in the other case it isderived from an external physical object. Of course, this kind


of deception is possible in our universe, as shown by the brainin the vat and other thought experiments. But just becausesomething is possible does not explain why is should actuallyexist. Why should our brains have the capability to make usperceive an apple, when we are really in bed fast asleep? Whatpossible purpose could this serve? Furthermore, how can theapple of our dreams be such a precise match to the apple of ourwaking world?

The Basic Premise of the Inner Light TheoryAs we have shown, dreams are an Information-Limited

Subreality created by the unconscious mental activity of ourbrains. This "subreality machine" is activated several timeseach night, providing a conscious experience that is identical toour waking world. The Inner Light theory takes this a stepfarther, asserting that this "subreality machine" is also activatedduring our waking hours, just as during our dreams. Theunconscious processes that create our dream reality, also createour waking reality.

This is not to suggest that the external physical world is anillusion. On the contrary, when we are awake and perceive anapple, we have every reason to believe that the universecontains such an object. However, we do not, and cannot,experience the physical apple directly. The best we can do is tocapture clues about the object's nature. These clues come in theform of light photons, sound waves, molecules of variouschemicals, and mechanical interactions. These are the physicalprinciples that underlie our five senses, resulting in neuralsignals being sent to the brain. These indirect clues are all weknow about the physical universe, and the only things we canknow about it.

But of course, our conscious perception of an apple isnothing like photons, sound waves, or neural activity. We seean apple as red, feel it as smooth, and taste it as sweet. This isour introspective experience, because this is the representationthat the subreality machine has created for us. Our unconscious


mental processes fused the multitude of sensory data into thething we recognize as an apple. Everything that we areconscious of has been created in this way. Our consciousnessexists in this inner reality, not the physical world. When we areawake, the inner reality is constructed to mimic our externalsurroundings. When we dream, the inner reality exists on itsown, without regard for anything outside of our brains. Buteither way, all we can consciously experience is the subrealitycreated for us by our unconscious mental activity. The applein our dreams seems the same as the apple in our waking world.And the reason why, it is the same, exactly the same.

What We See and Don’t SeeDreams are overwhelming evidence that our unconscious

mental activity can hold our conscious minds in an Information-Limited Subreality. But is there evidence that this subrealitymachine is also active when we are awake? The answer is yes;experiments show that the world we are conscious of is far morethan can be explained by what enters our senses.

For instance, suppose you stand a few feet from the MonaLisa, close your left eye, and stare at a fixed point in the centerof the painting. Figure 7-1 illustrates the image that is detectedby your right eye, and sent along the optic nerve to your brain.The gray filaments are regions where you are totally blind, aresult of blood vessels in the retina blocking the detection oflight. Likewise, the large rectangular region is where the opticnerve connects with the retina, where humans are also sightless.This is called the blind spot, and is really quite large, about thesize of an apple at arm’s length. As long as your eye remainsfixed on the center of the painting, these gray regions are totallyblocked from your gaze; you perceive nothing about the imagein these areas.

When you first looked at Fig. 7-1, you probably wonderedwhat the gray spider-like pattern represented. It probably struckyou as quite odd and perhaps even a little creepy, likesomething out of a bad science fiction movie. It was totally


FIGURE 7-1 Blind areas of the eye. This represents what is seen by the righteye when standing a few feet from the Mona Lisa. The grayareas are where the eye is totally blind, a result of blood vesselsand the optic nerve displaced sensory cells in the retina. The lefteye has a similar patten, flipped left-for-right. How is it possiblethat humans are unfamiliar with these blind regions?

unfamiliar and foreign to your conscious experience. But howcould this possibly be? This pattern has been superimposed onyour visual field since you first opened your eyes as an infant.Even as you read this book the pattern is present. It should bemore familiar to you than anything you have ever seen. How isit possible that our conscious experience knows nothing of these


blind areas? How can we perceive a complete and unbrokenimage when large portions of our visual field are blocked?

Experiments show that these blind areas are “filled in” bythe brain to match their surroundings. For instance, Fig. 7-2provides an experiment to demonstrate the blind spots in yourown eyes. As indicated in the caption, when you gaze at thecross with your right eye, the circle seems to disappear.Likewise, when you look at the circle with your left eye, thecross cannot be seen. In both cases, the missing object seems tobe replaced with the background grid pattern.

In other words, the image that we are conscious of seeing iscomposed of two sections, (1) areas that our eyes can directlyobserve, and (2) areas that have been filled in from neighboringregions. When we look at the world we believe that we areseeing a complete scene. It seems like a photograph, capturingall that is within our visual field. However, the “filling in” ofthe blind spot shows that at least some of what we see is beingcreated by our brain. Further, studies of a phenomenon knownas change blindness demonstrate that this is just the tip of theiceberg. As strange as it may seem, there is compelling evidencethat much of what we seem to see is being generated fromwithin ourselves, and is not a representation of the physicalworld.

In a typical change blindness experiment, a subject is askedto look at an everyday picture displayed on a computer monitor.For instance, it might show people eating in a restaurant, asports activity, or several boats on a lake. After a few secondsthe display is changed to a second picture, which is nearlyidentical to the first. The difference between the two picturesmight be as subtle as changing the color of a chair or moving avase, or as extensive as removing an entire mountain range inthe background. The goal of the experiment is to have thesubject identify what parts of the picture have been changed.The basic idea is that the subject will be able to detect changesin the things he or she is conscious of. Likewise, if the subjectcannot discern when a particular thing is changed, we can infer


FIGURE 7-2 Demonstration of the blind spot. Hold the above illustration at normalreading distance and stare at the cross. As you close your left eye, thecircle will be within the blind spot of your right eye and disappearfrom view. You may need to move the figure a few inches closer orfarther than your normal reading distance to see this effect. The blindspot in your left eye can be demonstrated by staring at the circle andclosing your right eye, making the cross disappear.

that they are not conscious of that particular thing. In mostexperiments, the two pictures are alternately displayed for a fewseconds each, until the subject can identify the changing item.

Actual change blindness experiments are slightly morecomplicated than this explanation because the human visualsystem is extremely sensitive to transients. This is the technicalname given to the temporary disruption caused when somethingis changed. For instance, imagine throwing a rock into a lake.The surface of the water is smooth before penetration, and isalso smooth a short time after. However, the actual event ismarked by waves and turbulence that takes a few seconds tosubside. A similar process occurs in our visual systems whensomething is changed within our field of view. We have all hadthe experience of looking in one direction when suddenly wedetect that something has changed off to the side. We don’tknow what it is, only that something is different from it was theinstant before. In other words, we are not aware of the objectitself, only the disruption caused by its insertion or removal.


FIGURE 7-3a Change blindness images. The images in (a) and (b) are alternatelydisplayed on a computer monitor for three seconds each. To maskthe visual transients, a white screen is displayed between the twoimages for one-tenth of a second. Subjects typically require fiveexchanges before realizing that the background is changing.

Since our goal is to determine what we are consciouslyaware of, change blindness experiments must include a way toeliminate the ability of the visual system to detect transients.Fortunately, this is quite simple. In one technique, the picturesare changed when the subjects blink their eyes, or when theymove their eyes from one location to another. In anothermethod, a brief flash of light is inserted between the twopictures. Either way, the transient caused by the changingpicture is hidden by a disruption of the entire visual field.

Figures 7-3a&b show typical pictures from a changeblindness experiment. This is quite an extreme case, where


FIGURE 7-3b

almost one-quarter of the total image is changed between thetwo pictures. During testing, each of these images is alternatelydisplayed on a computer monitor for three seconds, with a purewhite image displayed between them for one-tenth of a second.The images are full color, good quality, and displayed on a largemonitor. The question is, how long does it take subjects torealize that the background of the picture is changing?

Our subjective impression is that vision provides us anaccurate and full representation of the physical world. Webelieve that there is a rigid one-to-one correspondence betweenwhat we see and what really exists. Accordingly, it seems thatwe would immediately notice such large changes as in thesepictures. But this is not the case. It typically takes subjects fiveexchanges before they realize that the background of the pictureis changing. For an average of fifteen seconds, the subjects


look at the alternating pictures and perceive a single scene.When finally found, the changes seem obvious, and the subjectsare dismayed that it took them so long.

The results of change blindness experiments are surprising,to say the least. While it is easy to detect changes in the keyelements of a picture, it is very difficult to detect whensecondary aspects are changed. For instance, suppose thepicture is of a couple eating lunch in a restaurant. The keyelements are the man, woman, table, and perhaps the plates offood. These are the objects that define what the scene is about,the central features of the picture’s meaning to us. As we wouldexpect, subjects can immediately notice when these mainportions of the picture are changed. However, secondaryaspects of the picture, such as the paintings on the walls and theother diners in the background, can be dramatically changedwithout the subject noticing. Even if these secondary aspectsare quite obvious in the image, subjects can require minutes ofobservation to detect when they are being changed.

When we are awake and looking around, our attentiondirects us to a few key elements in the visual field. However,we are also conscious of seeing secondary features in the visualfield, a background that is of lessor importance. As disturbingas it may seem, these perceived secondary features have little orno connection to the external physical world; they are beinggenerated from within ourselves.

Evidence from the Three RealitiesIn short, the argument is laid out like this. We know that

our brains contain the machinery required to place ourconscious activity in an Information-Limited Subreality. Thisis proven by our ability to dream. The assertion being made isthat this same machinery is also activated when we are awake,and that we can be conscious of nothing but this inner reality.As evidence, experiments show that much of what wesubjectively experience when we are awake does not come fromthe external world. For instance, we “see” regions in the visual


field where our eyes are completely blind, and make upsecondary features in visual scenes. This is strong evidence thatat least some aspects of the “subreality machine” are activewhen we are awake.

But there is a far more compelling argument that thesubreality machine is fully switched on whenever we areconscious. This can be shown by examining the structure of thethree different realities that humans deal with.

The first of these realities is the physical universe. Thisconsists of all the things that scientists study, such as forcefields, particles, distance, time, plus all the entities that can becreated by combining them. This is the unfeeling and uncaringworld that activates our sense organs, such things as lightphotons, sound waves, molecules of various chemicals, andmechanical interactions.

The second reality we must consider is that of our dreams.As we know, this reality is constructed by the unconsciousactivity of the brain, and has little or no correspondence to thestructure of the physical universe. In fact, its characteristics arenothing like those of the physical universe. Rather, itsElements-of-reality are the entities that we discussed in Chapter4, such as qualia, mental unity, semantic thought, present tense,and free-will. This is the reality where we see an apple as redand taste it as sweet, we feel love and anger, and experience ourthoughts as having meaning.

The third reality to be examined is that of our normalwaking consciousness, the reality you are experiencing at thisvery moment. The question is, where is this third reality comingfrom? Is it being generated by the subreality machine, or doesit correspond to the external physical universe? The answer tothis could not be more clear. The reality of our wakingconsciousness is virtually identical to the reality of our dreams,but is totally dissimilar to that of the physical world. In otherwords, reality three is the same as reality two, but completelydifferent from reality one. The conclusion seems inescapable;


Major Teaching #5:The Origin of our Conscious Experience

All of our conscious experience is created by thesubreality machine contained within our brains. Whenwe are awake, this inner reality is constructed to mimicour external surroundings. When we dream, this innerreality exists on its own, without regard for anythingoutside of ourselves.

the subreality machine within us creates not only our dreams,but all of our conscious reality. This is our fifth major teaching:

To be perfectly correct, we should say a few words aboutthe statement: “our consciousness exists within an Information-Limited Subreality.” In Chapter 6 we carefully defined thecharacteristics of the Information-Limited Subreality. One ofthese characteristics is that the inner observer is completelyisolated from the external world, with no knowledge of itwhatsoever. This is simply the definition we have chosen to use.

However, it is obvious that our conscious minds do knowsomething of the external physical universe. When we areawake, our inner reality mimics the external world, allowing usto move our bodies in a productive manner. Even when wedream, our inner reality is structured in rough accordance to theexternal world, based on past waking experiences. For thesereasons we cannot rigorously say that our consciousness existswithin an “Information-Limited Subreality.” A certain amountof information about the physical world leaks through to theinside. Accordingly, it might be more correct to say thatconsciousness exists within a “Leaky” Information-LimitedSubreality,” or some similar qualifier. However, we won’t goto this extreme, and will continue to use the shorter phrase,opting for simplicity over strict formality.

115

8 The Function of theSubreality Machine

IntroductionIn the last chapter we showed that our unconscious mental

activity places our conscious mental activity in an Information-Limited Subreality. A “subreality machine” exists in each ofour brains, creating everything that we consciously experience.This is a general description of what is going on. In this chapterwe turn our attention to the question of why the brain operatesin this way. Science understands the human body as acollection of individual parts, with each part carrying out aspecific function for the benefit of the whole. For us tounderstand why the brain contains a subreality machine, weneed to understand the function being performed by this mentalarchitecture.

We will look at this issue in two different ways. In the first,we examine the basic components of the subreality machine, theinformation processing upon which it is based. Human colorperception provides the platform for us to conduct thisexamination. In our second approach, we investigate thespecific function carried out by the subreality machine in thehuman brain. How can the creation of an inner reality facilitateour finding food, attracting mates, or escaping enemies? Justwhat problem did evolution overcome by endowing humanswith a subreality machine? And of all the different informationprocessing architectures that could have developed in the brain,why do humans have one that generates a seemingly detailedand elaborate inner reality? As we will show, the answers tothese questions come from a single starting point: it is difficultto analyze sensory data.


Why is the Sun Yellow?Science has known for over 100 years that light is a wave

of electric and magnetic fields. We are all familiar with wavesmoving on the surface of water, where the distance from onecrest to the next might be as small as a few inches, or as large ashundreds of feet. This distance is called the “wavelength,” andis the most important parameter associated with a wave. Thewavelength of light is very short, between about 400 and 800nanometers (billionths of a meter). To scientists, the “color” oflight is exactly the same as the “wavelength.”

Now we want to explore how humans perceive color. Theretina in the eye contains four different types of cells that aresensitive to incoming light. One of these four, called the rods,is used only in night vision and cannot distinguish color. Thisis why the world looks black and white in dim light. The otherthree receptor cells are called the blue, green, and red cones.Each cone contains a different pigment, causing it to besensitive to a different wavelength of light. In particular, bluecones respond best to light at a wavelength of about 450nanometers, green cones at about 550 nanometers, and redcones at about 580 nanometers. Of course, this is verysimplified explanation of a complex topic.

The important point is that light in the physical universe canhave any wavelength between about 400 and 800 nanometers.However, the eye separates this continuous range into only threechannels. For instance, if we shine a light at 450 nanometersinto a subject's eyes, the blue receptors will be mainly activated,resulting in action potentials passing along the blue neuralpathway into the brain. Likewise, light at 550 and 580nanometers causes the same events in the green and red nervepathways, respectively. When a mixture of wavelengths enterthe eye, as is the normal case, these three channels activate invarying amounts.

In short, the only thing that the human brain knows aboutcolor is what can be contained in these three channels. If neuralsignals are present on the blue channel, the subject will

117Chapter 8: The Function of the Subreality Machine

experience the color blue. Likewise, if the green or red channelis activated, the subject will report seeing green or red,respectively. Since blue, green, and red are the only “pure”colors that the human visual system can detect, we call these thephysiological primary colors. All other colors that humans canexperience are nothing more than a mixture of these three.

A good demonstration of this is provided by colortelevisions and computer monitors. If you look closely at thescreen with a magnifying glass, you will see that the display iscomposed of a large number of small dots, each being eitherred, green or blue. By varying the relative intensity of thesethree basic colors, it is possible to generate all possible colorsthat the human visual system can perceive. However, it cannotgenerate all the possible combinations of wavelengths that existin the physical universe.

Now we come to the interesting part, what the brain doeswith the color information that it receives. Suppose we conductan experiment by displaying three different colored circles ona computer monitor. To start, we will make the three circles theprimary colors, one red, one green, and one blue. We then tella test subject the name of a color, and ask him to point to it onthe display. Of course, he has no trouble doing this; any personwith normal vision can easily recognize red, green, and blue.

But now we change the colors being displayed so that eachis a combination of two primary colors. That is, one circle isblue and green, one is blue and red, and one is red and green.This is illustrated in Fig. 8-1. We then ask our subject to pointto "blue-green." After looking for a few seconds, he points tothe circle where the blue and green channels are simultaneouslyilluminated. When told that scientists call this color cyan, heshrugs his shoulders and says that blue-green is moredescriptive. We find a similar result when we ask him to showus “blue-red,” a color also called magenta. Without difficulty,he points to the correct circle.

But now we find something very strange. When we ask thesubject to indicate red-green he hesitates. After a few moments


of thought he tells us that there is no such thing as “red-green”;it is something that he is totally unfamiliar with. When we showhim the circle with the red and green channels illuminated, heprotests that the color is yellow, and there is not the slightestthing about it that he perceives as red-green. He explains thatred and green remind him of apples on a tree or Christmasdecorations. "That's what red and green are," he insists. "Thecolor you are pointing to makes me think of the sun andbananas."

This phenomenon is well known in science and medicine.While there are only three physiological primary colors (red,green and blue), there are four psychological primary colors(red, green, blue, and yellow). In other words, our brainstransform a mixture of red and green into something that is nota mixture of anything. Yellow is perceived as a pure color, nota composite. Yellow is as different from red, green and blue, asred, green, and blue are different from each other.

To appreciate just how strong this effect is, consider thecolors used in traffic lights. There are three conditions thatmust be indicated, stop, go, and caution. The colors we chooseto represent these three conditions should be as different aspossible, making it easy for drivers to distinguish between them.Given this, an obvious choice might be to use the three primarycolors, red, green and blue. We can also identify an infinitenumber of bad choices. For instance, using forest green, limegreen, and pea green would be a disaster, since they are sosimilar.

But now let's look at the colors that are universally acceptedfor this purpose, red for stop and green for go. So far so good;these two colors are as different as possible. But the color usedfor caution is yellow, which is a mixture of red and greenentering the eye. If we consider physiology alone, this is theabsolutely worst choice that could have been made. Thecaution light should catch our attention; it should alert us thatthe situation is different than it was before. But the sequence ofcolors: green to green/red to red, would seem to do the opposite


FIGURE 8-1 Color perception experiment. Humans view the combination ofblue and green as a combination of blue and green. Likewise, acombination of blue and red is seen as a combination of blue andred. However, a combination of red and green is seen as yellow,a primary color that cannot be separated into components.

of this, minimizing the abruptness of the transitions. But, ofcourse, it doesn't. Humans do not perceive the combination ofred and green to be a combination of red and green. Rather,they perceive the combination of red and green to be yellow, aprimary color in itself, something that has no relation to eitherred or green.

For engineers and computer scientists this is all quiteuninteresting, because its explanation is so simple. As anexample, suppose we asked an engineering team to create anelectronic device that mimics this phenomenon. We might start


with a color video camera that produces signals for red, greenand blue, just as the human eye. However, the video recorderwe want to use might be designed to store color from fourchannels, red, green, blue and yellow. The question is, howdoes the engineering team go about changing the datarepresented in three channels into data represented in fourchannels?

The answer is that they build a converter, a device that hasthree channels entering, and four channels exiting. The bluechannel simply passes through without being altered. The otheroutput channels (red, green, and yellow) are calculated from theother input channels (red, and green) by simple arithmeticoperations, such as addition, subtraction, and comparison.Figure 8-2 shows a computer algorithm for this conversion, ifyou are familiar with such things. The important point is thatthis converter could be implemented by analog or digitalelectronics, computer software, a biological neural network, orany similar information processing technology. Constructingthis kind of converter is extremely simple, almost trivial, to anelectronic designer or computer programmer.

Now suppose we ask a scientist to examine the videorecording without providing him the background on how it wasmade. After due inspection, the scientist proclaims that itrepresents a world containing four primary colors, red, green,blue and yellow. By this he means that each of these four colorsis irreducible, and that none of these colors can be created bycombining the other three. In other words, the knowledge thatyellow was created from red and green is not contained withinthe recording. Based on the recorded video alone, yellow is asseparate and distinct from red and green, as blue is from red andgreen.

Of course, this is exactly the situation occurring in thehuman visual system. Humans perceive red, green and blue asElements-of-reality. That is, they are irreducible, they cannotbe broken into more basic entities. In comparison, the colors ofcyan and magenta are Information, since we perceive that they


FIGURE 8.2 Color converter. This algorithm shows how three primarycolors (blue, green, and red), can be converted into fourprimary colors (BLUE, GREEN, RED, and YELLOW).

are composed of blue and green, and blue and red, respectively.This is just another way of saying that red, green and blue areprimary colors, while cyan and magenta are not. And none ofthis is surprising, given that the eye inherently detects three andonly three channels of color, red, green and blue.

But what about yellow? As the color signals move betweenthe eyes and the brain, yellow is nothing more than a mixture ofred and green. This means that it is Information, exactly thesame as cyan and magenta. However, when yellow is perceivedby our conscious mind, it is irreducible; it is an Element-of-reality of our introspective world. But as we know, nothingmore than elementary operations are required to make thischange, the kind of operations that are fundamental to allinformation processing systems. This lesson here is momentous;the most basic operations used in information processing havethe ability to change Information into Elements-of-reality.

A critical point to understand is that changing Informationinto an Element-of-reality does not require that something beadded, it requires that something be taken away. It isaccomplished by presenting a thing, but at the same time hiding


how the thing can be reduced to more fundamental components.Humans look at the color yellow and proclaim that it isirreducible, a thing in itself, an Element-of-reality. But this is ahandicap, not a capability. It is a fundamental limitation onunderstand the thing in question. If we could look at the coloryellow and perceive that it was red-green, we would be moreinformed, not less.

In Chapter 6 we showed that the Information-LimitedSubreality has this same property, allowing the inner observerto see Elements-of-reality, while the outer observer sees onlyInformation. We called this property the "Principle of relativereduction." This is information manipulation on a large scale,sufficient to manufacture an entire reality for a human or otherobserver. In contrast, our example of the color yellow is on asmall scale, using the most basic information processingoperations. In more poetic words, we have now examined thebuilding and also looked at the individual bricks.

The Sensory Analysis Problem Now we want to examine why the brain contains a

subreality machine. As discussed in Chapter 3, the function ofthe brain is to enable movement, allowing the animal to locatefood, escape enemies and find mates. This requires the animalto have sense organs to examine its environment, and musclesto actually move its body. The brain is the link between thesetwo, analyzing sensory information, deciding where to move,and controlling the muscles to carry out this action. We willfocus on the first of these tasks, understanding how the innerreality facilitates the analysis of sensory information. While itis possible that the inner reality is also used in determining andcontrolling movement, this is much more speculative and wewill not pursue it here.

To start, look at the photograph in Fig. 8-3 for a fewmoments. When done, speak a sentence or two on what thispicture is about, such as if you were briefly describing it to afriend.


FIGURE 8.3 An old photograph. This is easily recognized as a man anda woman standing in a laboratory, taken around 1900.

Your response is probably something such as: “This is anold photograph of a middle-aged man and woman standing ina laboratory, probably taken about 1900.” You might haveeven recognized it as a photograph of the great scientists Pierreand Marie Curie, famous for their work on radioactivity. Youwere able to extract this key information with only a fewseconds of examination. It wasn’t even difficult; this is a taskthat can be quickly carried out by any normal adult.


Now suppose that we want to build a computer to performthis same action. That is, we want to show it a picture that ithas never seen before, and have it provide a short description ofwhat the picture is about. We gather together a team ofengineers and scientists that are experienced in this area, suchas connecting video cameras to computers, developing softwareto recognize shapes in digitized images, and creating databasesof stored information. We describe the goal of the project toour technical team, and ask them to give us an estimate of howlong it will take, and how much it will cost. In other words, wewant to get a general idea of how difficult this task really is.From a technical standpoint, is this something that is relativelyeasy, or is it something that is relatively hard?

After hearing our goals, most of our technical group gets upand walks out of the room, mumbling that we have wasted theirtime. The few that remain are kind enough to explain. One ofthem offers, “I rate the difficulty of new projects on a scale of1 to 10, and this one is about 100." Another tells us, “Assumingour current rate of technological learning, this is the kind ofproject we might tackle 50 to 100 years from now.” Still a thirdcomments, “We have all the basic tools, but the overallcomplexity is just too great; it reminds me of a man holding abrick, looking up at the great pyramids.”

The point is, the analysis of sensory data is extremelydifficult, far exceeding the capabilities of present day computertechnology. We perceive it as effortless only because this brainactivity is blocked from our conscious examination.

The primary reason that sensory analysis is difficult restswith the data itself. The information provided by our senses isvery poor quality; it is incomplete, ambiguous, contaminatedwith interference, and degraded in a variety of other ways. Asan example, when you looked at Fig. 8-3 you probably didn’tnotice anything unusual. But Fig. 8-4 points out a variety ofaspects of this picture that are difficult to reconcile with thephysical world. For instance, some of the objects mergetogether without a distinct boundary between them, such as


Pierre’s foot and the floor. Other objects have an incompleterelationship with their surroundings, such as the dark rectanglefloating in mid air. A scratch in the photograph shows up as ahorizontal line, with no relation at all to the viewed scene.Severe problems are created by representing the three-dimensional setting as only a two-dimensional image. Thisproduces missing elements, such as Marie’s legs, Pierre’s hand,and the back side of all the objects. It also makes whole bodies

FIGURE 8-4Image discrepancies. Vision and the other senses provide apoor representation of the physical world.


appear as discontinuous, such as the elbow being separated fromthe remainder of the arm. Further, the resulting geometricdistortion changes the shape of objects, such as the rectangulartable top appearing as a parallelogram.

Your first impression might be that the comments in Fig.8-4 are trivial and unimportant. No so; these are problems thatpresent day computer scientists struggle with on a day-to-daybasis. But the human brain has already solved these problems;it is capable of finding the relevant data in the exceedingly poorinformation provided by our eyes, ears, and other sense organs.The question is, how does the brain do it so well, and what doesthis have to do with an inner reality?

Filtering versus Matching To answer this question, let’s look at two techniques

engineers have developed to analyze poor quality data. As anexample, imagine that we want to receive a radio signal from anorbiting satellite, as illustrated in Fig. 8-5. The signal beingtransmitted is very simple, nothing but a sine wave at a constantamplitude and frequency. This is very familiar to those whowork with electronics. If you don’t have such a background,just look at the pictures to get an idea of what is going on. Theimportant point is that the signal sent by the satellite is verysmooth and regular.

In an ideal situation, the signal received on the groundwould be identical to the one being transmitted by the satellite.Unfortunately, this is never the case when dealing with signalsthat have passed through the environment. As illustrated in thisfigure, the received signal is very degraded; it generallyresembles the transmitted signal, but it is very jagged andirregular. This is the result of many different problems. Forinstance, the height of the peaks may fluctuate because thesatellite is in motion, or from atmospheric turbulence. Inextreme cases, this can result in sections of the received signalbeing completely missing. Another problem is interference; forinstance, our receiver might inadvertency pick up the radio


FIGURE 8-5 Passing signals through the environment. The received signal isa poor replica of the original transmitted signal, due to noise,interference, and similar problems.

transmission from an aircraft flying overhead. This becomespart of the received signal, degrading our ability to detect whatis coming from the satellite. Still another problem in acquiredsignals is random noise, a term scientists and engineers use todescribe a wide variety of fluctuations. This results in suchthings as “snow” in television pictures and static in radiobroadcasts. Random noise can arise from many differentsources, including the mere motion of atoms and electrons. Inour example of Fig. 8-5, this type of noise shows up as a“roughness” in the received signal.

The key point is that the signal we receive on the ground isa poor quality replica of the signal transmitted by the satellite.It is distorted, missing sections, and contaminated with randomnoise and interference. The question is, what do we do about


it? How can we change the received signal to more resemblethe original?

Figure 8-6a shows our first approach to this problem, whatengineers call filtering. There are many different ways to carrythis out, and we will only give a general description leaving outthe technical details. The basic idea is to pass the signalthrough an electronic circuit or computer routine that changesthe signal’s characteristics in some desirable way. For instance,if we know that the signal being transmitted from the satellite isrelatively smooth, our filter might remove the roughness in thereceived signal, as illustrated in this figure. If you don’t havea background in electronics, think of this as performing thesame function as the suspension on an automobile, providing asmooth ride even over a bumpy road. Filters are very commonin electronic circuits, and can be very simple to extremelycomplex. But even the most advanced filters have limitationson how well they can work with highly degraded data. As inthis example, when interference and random noise dominate thereceived signal, the output of the filter still looks likeinterference and random noise.

Now we want to turn our attention to an alternativetechnique, called the phase lock loop. This is far less commonin electronics, being used in only a few specialty applications.Just as before, we will only give a general description thatleaves out the technical details. As shown in Fig. 8-6b, thephase lock loop is composed of two parts, a comparing circuitand a sine wave generator. The sine wave generator does justthat; it produces a pure sine wave, without distortion,interference or noise. The function of the comparing circuit isto continually compare this created signal with the signalreceived from the satellite. If a difference is found between thetwo, the comparing circuit generates a “correction signal” thatis fed into the sine wave generator. This, in turn, causes the sinewave generator to alter its output in an appropriate way to makea better match. The overall effect is that the phase lock loopgenerates a perfect sine wave that is the best possible match


FIGURE 8-6 Filtering and PLL operation. As illustrated in (a), filteringattempts to “clean up” a contaminated signal. In comparison, (b)shows how a phase lock loop generates an entirely new signal.

to the received signal. Even if the satellite stops transmitting,the phase lock loop will still produce a pure sine wave output,its best match to the remaining random noise and interference.

The phase lock loop has one tremendous advantage and onetremendous disadvantage compared to filtering. The advantageis that it can operate with extremely high levels of interferenceand random noise, while still producing a near ideal output.Filtering can’t come close to matching the phase lock loop inthis respect. The disadvantage is that the phase lock loop onlyknows how to detect one very specific thing, a pure sine wave.


For instance, if the satellite started to transmit a waveform ofsome other shape, the phase lock loop would respond in thesame old way, producing a sine wave output. In short, thephase lock loop works well with degraded data, because it isonly looking for a single thing.

It is a commonplace belief that our minds directly perceivethe physical universe. As an engineer would put it, the objectsaround us result in signals being passing into the brain, wherethey are somehow perceived by our conscious minds. Variousfiltering operations may be applied to these signals by ourneural circuits, but what we end up experiencing still has a one-to-one correspondence with the external world. However, thisview is simply not true. The brain does not “filter” the signals;it generates new signals that it believes are the best matches tothe nearby environment. In other words, it operates like a phaselock loop, not an electronic filter.

As we move about the world in our day-to-day activities,our brains must continually keep track of what is around us.The brain is also responsible for identifying other aspects of thelocal environment, such as its sounds, smells, and tastes. Thisinformation about the surroundings comes to the brain throughthe senses, usually in a highly degraded form.

The brain’s task is to extract relevant information from thisjumble of interference and noise, allowing it to plan and executemovements. To do this, it takes advantage of the fact thatnearly everything it encounters is familiar. Our daily lives arecomposed of objects and situations that we have experiencedmany times before. This means that the brain does not need toidentify every possible pattern and scenario that could everexist. On the contrary, during most of our conscious lives ourbrain only needs to recognize those things that it has recognizedin the past. Just as the phase lock loop only looks for a singlewaveform, the brain only needs to look for a limited number ofpatterns. That is, at least most of the time.

As a demonstration of this, look at the “ambiguous” figuresshown in Fig. 8-7. These are illustrations that can be interpreted


FIGURE 8-7 Ambiguous figures. On the left is “Rubin’s vase,” named afterDanish psychologist Edgar Rubin who first presented it in 1921.This figure can be alternately seen as a black vase, or as two whitefaces in profile. The illustration on the right is often referred to asthe “Boring figure,” after psychologist E.G. Boring who exploredthe psychology of it in the 1930s. This figure can be seen as eithera young woman or an old woman. It dates to at least the 1890s,when the Anchor Buggy company used it in an advertisement withthe caption: “You see my wife, but where is my mother-in-law?”

in more than one way. In (a), the image can be seen as either ablack vase or two white faces. In (b), either a young woman oran old woman can be seen. However, you cannot “see” bothinterpretations at the same time; your mind is always lockedonto one or the other. At any particular instant the figures arenot ambiguous; they are a consistent representation of what youbelieve you are seeing. You see the vase or two faces; you seea young woman or an old woman. Even though the dataentering your brain is ambiguous, your instantaneous consciousexperience of the image is not ambiguous. Your brain hasscoured the incoming data for a match. When found, you areconscious only of the consistent features of the match, not theinconsistent features of the raw data.


Let’s look at an example to show just how powerful theapproach of “matching” is. The images in Fig. 8-8 were createdby degrading pictures of three common scenes, all of which youwould immediately recognize. The resulting image quality is sopoor that they hardly look like pictures at all; they seem morelike random ink blots. Suppose we conduct an experimentwhere we show these three degraded figures to a group of 100people and asked them to identify the pictures. How manycorrect responses would we expect? Of course, the answer iszero; these images are so poor that it would be impossible foranyone to do much better than guessing.

But now suppose that we redo the experiment with onesignificant change; we make it a multiple choice test. We startby telling our subjects that the three original images were (1)Abraham Lincoln, (2) a sunset, and (3) the Eiffel tower, in noparticular order. We again ask them to identify each picture,using this additional information. After looking for a fewmoments, all 100 of our subjects come up with the correctanswers. In other words, by narrowing the choices we haveenormously improved the ability to identify patterns inambiguous, incomplete, and noisy data. As in this example, wehave changed a task that was virtually impossible, into one thatcan be carried out with perfect reliability.

The Subreality Machine in OperationHow does this relate to an inner reality? When we move

around in the world, our brains are flooded with rawinformation from the senses. This data stream is so large, andsuch poor quality, that it would be impossible for the brain toanalyze it for every possible pattern. The brain is simply notpowerful enough to do this. For instance, suppose you walk intoan office building for the first time. Your brain is suddenlyinundated with information from your eyes and ears about thenew environment. It responds by searching these data for whatit expects to find, desks, chairs, people, computers, telephones,carpeting, and so on. When a match is found, the brain labels


FIGURE 8-8Degraded images. These imagescannot be recognized as they are.However, it is a simple task tomatch them with the originalphotographs from which theywere derived: The Eiffel tower,Abraham Lincoln, and a sunset(clockwise from top-left).

it, and then moves onto portions of the raw data that have notbeen recognized. This continues until the brain believes itunderstands the surroundings well enough to carry out itsplaned activities. And none of this is surprising; it is not muchmore than the common sense view of how our minds work.

But now let’s reexamine this process using an additionalassumption. We have already discussed how the analysis ofsensory information is enormously difficult. Of course, this isa relative statement; it is “enormously difficult” compared to


what? The assumption we will make is that sensory analysis isdifficult according to two criteria, the brain’s computationalpower and its memory capabilities.

To understand the first of these, imagine you see a chairwhen you walk into the new office. How long does it take youto recognize it as a chair? Of course, this happens very quickly,perhaps a tenth of a second. But how long would it take you torecognize it as one very specific chair, say, one that was part ofyour family’s furniture when you were growing up? Since thisis a more difficult task, it will take much longer, perhaps a fewseconds. This is important because we live in a world wherecritical movements need to be made in a fraction of a second.If it took you a few seconds to identify a nearby alligator, youwould be his lunch! The point is, the time it takes to completea mental task depends on the difficulty of the task and thecomputational power of the brain. When we say that “sensoryanalysis is enormously difficult compared to the brain’scomputational power,” we are commenting on the types ofmental tasks that can be carried out within a fraction of asecond. Specifically, within this key time constraint, we cansort objects into general categories, but not recognize specificentities, or search for particular characteristics.

After you enter the office and identify the chair, the nexttask for your brain is to take an appropriate action concerningthis object. This is where the criteria concerning memorycapabilities comes in. How do you know what this object isfor, what its characteristics are, how it is used, its potentialdangers, and so on? There are two obvious ways that you canobtain this information. First, your brain could search thesensory data it is receiving to answer these questions. Second,you could rely on your past experiences with this type of object.That is, you could retrieve your accumulated knowledgeconcerning “chairs” and assume that this particular chair has thesame characteristics. Our assumption that “sensory analysis isenormously difficult compared to the brain’s memorycapabilities” means that the second option is faster that the first.


That is, it is faster for the brain to retrieve known informationabout objects in general, than it is for the brain to deduce thisinformation each time it encounters the object.

Since the brain is a product of natural selection, it should behighly adapted to its function and environment. If sensoryanalysis is extremely difficult compared to the brain’scomputational power and its memory capabilities, this shouldshape the way that our mental processes are carried out. Giventhese assumptions, we now ask, how would we expect the brainto operate?

Again we will use the example of walking into a strangeoffice. In this new situation the brain must quickly identifythose things in the environment that are critical to its survival.It must do the most that it can in the first fraction of a second,the timescale that critical events happen in our world. And thebest it can do is to categorize the key elements of the scene, themain features that will dictate the appropriate movements thatmust be made. From the sensory data, it recognizes the area asa typical office, containing a desk, chair, table, and a man.However, it determines little or nothing about the particularcharacteristics of these things; it only knows that they aretypical members of their categories. This is all the brain canknow in the first fraction of a second; its computational powersare not sufficient to extract anything else from the sensory data.

But the brain needs to have detailed information about theseobjects in order to move our bodies among them in a productiveway. The quickest way for it to attain this information is fromits own memory, what it has previously learned about objects inthese particular categories. While these stored generalizationsmay not be accurate, they are the best that the brain can do,given the time constraint it is working under.

Keep in mind that the function of the brain can be dividedinto three parts, (1) analyze the sensory data to understand theenvironment, (2) decide where to move, and (3) coordinate themovement. Accordingly, step one must produce a “description”of the local environment that can be used by steps two and


Major Teaching #6:The Function of the Subreality Machine

The subreality machine in the brain provides efficientsensory analysis. It achieves this by inspecting the poorquality data from the senses, and constructing an innerreality that is an estimate of the actual environment.This inner reality provides the consistent and noise-freeinformation needed to plan and execute movements.

three. Given the assumptions that we have made, we wouldexpect that this “description” would be composed of two parts,coarse information about a few key elements in the nearbyenvironment, with the remaining details filled in from storedmemories.

In short, the brain creates an inner reality that is (1) basedloosely on the surroundings, (2) consistent with previousmemories, and (3) free from noise, interference and ambiguity.This important concept is the sixth major teaching of the InnerLight theory:

The Capacity of our BrainsIn order for this scenario to work, the brain must have

stored information about a vast number of categories of objects.This leads us to ask, is it really possible that the brain couldcategorize all of the familiar things that it knows? After all, weare familiar with everything from the whiskers on a cat, to thesound of a locomotive, to the taste of peanut butter. Aren’tthere just to many things that we are familiar with to make thispossible?

To answer this question, we can make a rough estimate ofjust how many “things” a human knows. Of course, we can dono better than a general approximation, since we haven’t


defined exactly what a “thing” is. For instance, a “thing” mightbe the cat’s whiskers, or the whole cat, or all mammals ingeneral. Nevertheless, it is still useful to go through thecalculations to get a general idea of the size of the library storedin each of our heads.

The key to making this estimate is a very simple principle:we cannot know something unless we have learned it sometimein our past. This is important, because we know very accuratelyhow long each of us has been learning things. For instance, atypical adult has been alive for 30 years, which is the same as10,950 days. This means they have been awake for about175,000 hours, 10 million minutes, or 600 million seconds. Thequestion is, on the average, how often do we learn a new thing?Is it every second? Every minute? Every hour?

To answer this, think about a motion picture that you sawfive to ten years ago. Now suppose that you are shown a onesecond segment from this movie, along with a one secondsegment that was shot for the movie but not included in the finalrelease. Could you reliably pick the one you had seen before?Of course not, indicating that we do not learn new things on asecond-to-second time scale. But if the segments are madelonger, say ten minutes, your recognition would become muchmore accurate. Making the segments an hour long would makeyour recognition nearly perfect. Using this line of reasoning,we can estimate that we learn one new “thing” about every tenminutes or so. This corresponds to about six new things perhour, 100 new things per day, 36,500 new things per year, andabout one million new things in an entire lifetime. Keep in mindthat this only pertains to long-term memory, those things thatcan affect our mental capabilities years after they are learned.At this instant you can probably recall hundreds of things fromthe last one-hour of your life. However, nearly all these willfade away, and not become a permanent part of who you are.

In short, our brains have a mental capacity of about onemillion “things.” For comparison, this is about the samenumber of sentences in an encyclopedia, giving us additional


reason to believe this estimate is reasonable. Of course, thisnumber may be off by a factor of ten or more either way,especially since we have not really defined what a “thing” is.The point is, our mental world consists of a finite number ofconcepts that can be manipulated. Further, this finite number isnot a trillion, or even a billion, but only in the neighborhood ofabout one million.

This is important because it allows us to compare ourmental capacity with the physical structure of the brain. Weknow that the brain is composed of about 100 billion neurons,making about 100 trillion synaptic connections. In other words,the brain contains about 100,000 neurons and 100 millionsynaptic connections for each concept that the mind can everprocess, seemingly more than sufficient to carry out the task.

Going back to our original question, is it possible that thebrain has the capacity to categorize all of the things that humansknow? While much of the brain’s operation remains a mystery,the answer to this question seems to be a clear yes.

On a more philosophical note, this estimate of our mentalcapacity is a bit unsettling, especially for scientists that areaccustom to dealing with very large numbers. For instance,there are about a trillion stars in our Milky Way Galaxy, and abillion trillion atoms in a single drop of water. Compared tothese enormous numbers, a brain capacity of one millionconcepts seems quite small and almost insignificant.

Why Do We Dream?The Inner Light Theory provides a very specific answer to

the question, What are dreams? Each of our minds contains asubreality machine to facilitate the analysis of sensory data.Dreams result when this machinery is operated without inputfrom the senses, resulting in an inner reality that does notcorrespond to the external world. Dreams are the subrealitymachine running amok.

This tells us what dreams are, but it does not tell us why weshould have them. Why should the subreality machine activate


periodically in the night without an apparent purpose? Whyisn’t it always shut-off during our sleep? The Inner LightTheory does not directly answer this question. However, themental architecture described in the previous chapters doesallow us to speculate on possible reasons.

To start, we will assume that nature has some reason fordisconnecting the senses from the brain at night. Perhaps thisis nothing more than preventing us from stumbling around inthe darkness and injuring ourselves. The question then becomes,why does the subreality machine periodically activate when thesensory input is removed?

When phrased in this way, any good electrical engineer willhave an immediate answer to what is going on. Manmadesignal processing systems, such as those based on electronicsand computers, often employ circuits to automatically adjusttheir sensitivity. As an example of this, consider the operationof a handheld video camera. When used to record a loud partyin bright sunlight, the sound and light levels are large enoughthat the device can easily operate. The camera detects this andautomatically reduces the sensitivity of its audio and videocircuits to avoid over-driving the recording.

But now suppose that you walk into a dim room where thepeople are quietly talking. The camera can no longer detect thelight and sound because they are below the current sensitivitylevel. Consequently, the recording will be nearly black andsilent. However, the camera reacts to this situation by graduallyincreasing the sensitivity of its video and audio circuits. Forinstance, the camera may slowly become ten times moresensitive to light and sound over the period of a few seconds.As soon as the camera is sensitive enough to operate properlyunder these low-light low-sound conditions, the sensitivity stopschanging and a usable recording can be made. Of course, whenyou walk outside the reverse process occurs; the sensitivity ofthe camera will gradually decrease over the first few secondsuntil it is appropriate for the bright and loud conditions. Inshort, the sensitivity of the device automatically adjusts itself to


match the level of the input signals, and requires a few secondsto react to changing conditions.

This is how the automatic adjustment is suppose to work,but engineers know that many things can go wrong. Forinstance, during the design of the video camera an engineer hadto balance the interaction of many different parameters. Thisincludes the maximum and minimum sensitivities, how fast thecamera adapts to new input levels, and the characteristics of theaudio and video signals themselves.

Suppose that during the initial product design theseparameters were not set properly, such as the maximumsensitivity being too high or the adaption being too quick. Whatwould happen? When the input signals are abruptly reduced,the sensitivity of the camera will increase as expected.However, the sensitivity will overshoot and become too great,causing the recording to be a jumble of distortion and highlyamplified noise. After a second or so, the camera will realizethat the sensitivity is far too high, and try to correct the situationby drastically reducing it. But just as before, it overreacts, andreduces the sensitivity to a value that is far too low. This makesthe recording black and completely silent. After a short time,the camera will detect this new situation and try to correct it bygreatly increasing the sensitivity, starting the whole cycle overagain. In the end, the recording will show brief segments ofnoise and distortion, separated by sections that are black andsilent.

The comparison here is obvious. Dreams are an activationof the subreality machine when the input signals are takenaway, with each episode occurring for about 5-10 minutes atperiodic intervals of 60-90 minutes. To an electrical engineer,this sounds like oscillation of a sensitivity adjustment circuit.

141

9 Consciousness as aLimitation

Introduction to the Third Section In the first section of this book, Chapters 1-5, we defined

the mind-body problem. The second section, Chapters 6-8,showed how this paradox arises from the operation of thesubreality machine in the brain. In our third and last section,Chapters 9-11, we explore a particular aspect of this mentalarchitecture, consciousness as a limitation.

By definition, computational machines process information.Further, this information being processed may include detailsabout the internal activity of the computer itself. In otherwords, computers can be self-aware. The question is, how doesthis type of computational self-awareness relate to the humanexperience of consciousness? Is self-awareness sufficient forconsciousness, or is something else required? And if somethingelse is required, what is the nature of this “extra thing?”

We begin this chapter with a brief review of the conceptsalready covered. This leads us to the main topic of this section,the idea that consciousness arises from limitations of our mentalcapabilities. Our next stop is an examination of the “traditional”view of the mind, and how it is based on a fundamentallyincorrect assumption. We end the chapter with a milestone inour quest, a formal definition of consciousness.

Where We Are We started our journey with an examination of the main

tool of science, the method of reduction. From this we learnedthat everything in our reality is composed of only two types ofentities, Information and Elements-of-reality. This is the basis


of modern science, as well as our everyday commonsense. Ithas allowed us to understand everything from the structure ofthe universe to the process of life.

The method of reduction has served us well, but when weuse it to examine consciousness we come to a disturbingcontradiction. This arises because we can observe the mindfrom two different perspectives, the third-person and the first-person. The third-person viewpoint sees the mind as pureInformation, nothing but the operation of the human brain. Incomparison, from the first-person the mind is seen to be one ormore Elements-of-reality, such things as qualia, free-will,semantic thought, and the present tense. This paradox is themind-body problem in its most concise form. It is the heart ofwhat we are seeking to understand, stripped of all that issuperfluous and inessential.

This is a milestone in understanding consciousness for tworeasons. First, it allows us to condense a wide range ofsubjective and poorly defined arguments into a single concisedefinition. Our investigation can then be directed at the root ofthe phenomenon, rather than its secondary effects. Second, itdefines what would count as a solution to the mind-bodyproblem. Since the problem is a paradox between two points ofview, the solution must explain how and why this paradoxarises. Further, this explanation must be compelling from bothperspectives; it must be formulated in rigorous scientific terms,while simultaneously satisfying our introspective judgements.This is the task at hand.

Our next step was to develop a concept called theInformation-Limited Subreality. This is something that couldlogically exist in our universe. We understand how it couldarise, what its characteristics would be, and how it relates to theknown laws of nature. It is based on the idea that reality isdefined by observations, such as what we see, hear and feel, aswell as what our scientific instruments tell us. For instance, ourscientific and everyday observations indicate that we exist in aphysical universe consisting of three dimensions of distance and

143Chapter 9: Consciousness as a Limitation

one dimension of time. This is what we observe; therefore, thisis our reality. Lacking evidence to the contrary, we are justifiedin believing that these observations do indeed arise from anexternal physical universe, just as they appear to. That is, weconclude that the reality we perceive is genuine.

However, it is clearly within the laws of nature to alterobservations by manipulating or distorting information. TheInformation-Limited Subreality takes this possibility to anextreme by creating a totally artificial reality for an observer.By definition, an observer trapped inside an Information-Limited Subreality has no knowledge of the external physicaluniverse. Rather, this inner observer’s reality is consistent withanother physical universe, one that could exist, but does not.While the inner observer will acknowledge the possibility thathe is trapped inside an Information-Limited Subreality, he willdismiss this as an unacceptable belief. Both the inner and theouter observers are justified and compelled to believe that theirreality is genuine. Of course, the outer observer knows that thephysical universe perceived by the inner observer does notreally exist.

Into this setting we bring The Inner Light, the story of ascientist who becomes trapped inside an Information-LimitedSubreality. As all good scientists do, he uses the method ofreduction to classify the entities in his reality as eitherInformation or Elements-of-reality. The problem is, everythingthat this inner observer classifies as Elements-of-reality will beseen as pure Information by the outer observer. In spite of this,each of these observers is complying with the most stringentrules of the scientific method, philosophical logic, and plaincommonsense. They have reached the correct conclusion fortheir respective realities. Further, this does not require theobservers to be conscious; it is a property of what is observed,not who is doing the observing. We call this disagreementbetween the inner and outer observers the Principle of RelativeReduction. But what is most important, the Principle of Relative


Reduction is something we fully understand; it may be strange,surprising, and even a little disturbing, but it is not mysterious.

Now we make the critical assertion: the Principle ofRelative Reduction is the solution to the mind-body problem.This means that the first-person and third-person perspectivesview the mind differently because there is an Information-Limited Subreality separating them. The first-person view isinherently from the inside of this Information-LimitedSubreality, while the third-person view is from the outside.Introspection is the inner observer, while the world of scienceis the outer observer.

On the face of it, this explanation has the general form toexplain what is needed to be explained. That is, it uses wellunderstood scientific principles to show how introspection cansee the mind as one or more Elements-of-reality, while sciencesees the mind as pure Information. In short, we have shown twothings, (1) that the mind-body problem is a certain type ofparadox, and (2) that the Information-Limited Subreality has theability to cause this type of paradox.

However, this explanation requires us to accept a mostextraordinary claim: human consciousness exists within anInformation-Limited Subreality. This is an unsettling notion,completely at odds with our everyday perception of how ourminds operate. We instinctively believe that the mind is anobserver of the physical world; we seem to be directly aware ofobjects and events external to ourselves. But the Inner Lighttheory tells us that this is not true; everything that weconsciously perceive is generated by a "subreality machine"within the brain. When we are awake, this inner reality isconstructed to coarsely represent the physical world. When wedream, the subreality machine is running amok, creating aninner reality that is disconnected from the outside universe.

This is where we are. Our next task is to take a broaderview of these ideas, searching for the general relationshipbetween information processing and this strange thing we callconsciousness.


From the Building to the BricksThe Inner Light Theory asserts that human consciousness

is based around an Information-Limited Subreality. This mentalarchitecture accounts for our perception of a detailed andelaborate inner world, our ability to dream, results from changeblindness experiments, and the very way that we experiencereality. Most important, the Information-Limited Subreality hasthe ability to make us see pure Information as Elements-of-reality, the key aspect of the mind-body problem.

But now we want to expand our investigation to be asgeneral as possible. We will do this by using a result from thelast chapter. As illustrated by our perception of the color yellow,the basic operations used in information processing also havethe ability to change Information into Elements-of-reality. Thisis an inevitable result of presenting a thing, but at the same timehiding how the thing can be reduced to more basic components.To use the metaphor from the last chapter, the Information-Limited Subreality is the building, while basic informationprocessing operations are the bricks. Taking this further, theability to change Information into Elements-of-reality resideswithin the bricks, not the architecture of the building.

To be more specific, there are some aspects of humanconsciousness that clearly arise from the structure of theInformation-Limited Subreality. This includes our perceptionof a complex inner world, one that is distinct and different fromthe external universe. However, there are other aspects of ourmind that can be adequately explained by much lower leveloperations. For instance, a full-fledged subreality is not neededto explain why we see yellow as a psychological primary color.

In developing a general theory of consciousness we wantour understanding and conclusions to be as broad as possible.In particular, we do not want to define consciousness solely interms of the mental architecture present in humans. That is, wewant to accept the possibility that nonhuman creatures might beconscious, even though their “bricks” may be arranged in adifferent way.


Accordingly, in the remainder of this book we will carry onthe discussion at the level of the “bricks,” providing as littlerestriction as possible on how they are assembled. In short, weare moving toward a definition of consciousness that rests uponlow-level information processing, and not the creation of adetailed inner reality. The rationale for this is simple; we wantto consider an entity “conscious” if it views itself to be anirreducible thing, regardless of the other properties that it mayor may not have.

A good starting point along this path is to revisit thestructure of the human brain. It is easy to lose sight of just howcomplex an organ the brain really is. For instance, one mighttake the mental architecture we have presented and try toidentify corresponding structures within our heads. Naively,we might expect to find a section of the brain that is theconscious observer, surrounded by brain tissue that creates thesubreality. But unfortunately this isn’t the case; science hasfound no singular areas of the brain that implement thesefunctions.

It could also be argued that this relatively simple mentalarchitecture is inadequate to explain key aspects of ourintrospective experience. If the human mind is an observertrapped within a subreality, this would explain how we seeInformation in the outside world as Elements-of-reality. Forinstance, this could account for qualia being irreducible.However, this doesn’t necessarily explain how the observercould see itself as irreducible, such as experiencing semanticthought or mental unity. As an analogy, imagine being trappedwith a translucent plastic bubble. Everything in the outsideworld will look distorted and unclear; however, everything onthe inside of the bubble will still look as it truly is.

Figure 9-1 depicts a more realistic picture of the brain’sexceedingly complex operation. It is clear from scientificstudies that the “observer” is broadly distributed over the brain.For instance, vision is processed and understood in one area,moral judgement in another, initiation of body movement in


FIGURE 9-1 Distributed consciousness. The “observer” is broadly distributedwithin the brain, with processed data passing along internalpathways. The Information-Limited Subreality does not surroundthis observer, but is inherently intertwined with the neural circuitsthat create the observer.

another, and so on. These various areas are linked together byinterconnecting pathways, passing summaries and high-levelconcepts among the fragmented and discontinuous regions. Wehave a poor understanding of how these individual regionsinteract; however, it is clear that there is no central place whereit “all comes together.” Many regions of the brain are involvedin this thing we call “consciousness.”

The point is, the Information-Limited Subreality within thebrain is not a single bubble around an observer. At the least, itis a large number of smaller bubbles dividing the observer intomany isolated regions. More likely, the information processingthat creates the subreality is inherently intertwined with theneural circuitry that creates the observer. It may not even bepossible in principle to say where one ends and the other begins.


In short, the human mind sees itself as irreducible becauseof limitations distributed within itself. These aspects of thebrain are an inherent part of what we are, not some externalstructure holding us prisoner.

This brings us to our next topic, a discussion of how thetraditional view of consciousness is mistaken. We will startwith two stories, the special child and the fully-aware being.

What’s so Special About a Special Child?Suppose that sometime in the future you have a most

unusual house guest, an alien exchange student from anotherplanet. Since the goal is to familiarize your guest with humansand their culture, you arrange for the alien to meet a variety ofpeople from different walks of life. One of the activities youarrange is a visit to a care center for mentally retarded children.Of course, political correctness suggests that we refer to thesedisadvantaged youths as "special" rather than "mentallyretarded." Accordingly, you tell the alien that he will have theopportunity to spend a few hours with several special children,without elaborating on what this means.

After the visit you ask the alien what he thinks. He tellsyou he enjoyed the experience, and was very impressed by justhow different and unique these children are. In an attempt tounderstand their nature better, he asks you to describe the"special" attribute that these children have. He has observedthat these children are different in some way that he can't quitedescribe. He wants your help in identifying and definingexactly what must be added to a normal adolescent to create aspecial child. His question is very basic and to the point: Justwhat is this "special thing" that these children have, that mostchildren do not?

When we hear this question we realize that the alien hasmade a fundamental mistake. The alien can clearly see thatspecial children are different from normal children. However,he has incorrectly assumed that this difference results fromsome "thing" that special children possess, but normal children


do not. But this is not true; a special child is created by takingaway abilities from a normal child, not by adding something.The behaviors and unique traits that the alien seeks to explainare a deficit, not an addition.

Why would the alien make this mistake? Perhaps theprimary reason is his lack of experience with normal children.He is trying to understand how a special child is different froma normal child, without having a good understanding of what anormal child is like. Given this, it is understandable that hemight make a mistake in interpreting the relationship.

In addition, we may have biased the alien by our comments.Our society refers to these children as “special” because theword is soft and without stigma, especially compared to theharshness of “retarded.” Unfortunately, this word is somewhatinconsistent with its meaning in other contexts. When we say“special children,” we mean that they have special needs.However, the term “special children” could be incorrectlyinterpreted to mean “exceptional” or “extraordinary,” somethingabove and beyond the normal child. Since this mistake has beenmade by many humans, it is not surprising that it would bemade by an alien unfamiliar with our culture.

Lastly, it is common for humans, and presumably aliens, tothink about things as a composite of parts. Further, these partsmay include voids or missing regions that are treated ascomponents in themselves. For instance, we speak of the "hole"in a doughnut, and an "unfilled" position in a company'spersonnel roster. Even though these are not actual things, wethink of them as such to simplify the description of the overallobject or concept. This might predispose the alien to thinkabout the difference between a normal and a special child as a“positive” entity, rather than a void or deficit.

Regardless of these reasons, the fact remains that the alienis wrong. He has made incorrect assumptions, and they haveled him to an incorrect conclusion. We will return to this storyshortly, but first we need to define an important new concept,the fully-aware being.


The Fully-Aware BeingAgain we will imagine a scenario occurring in the future.

In this case we envision a group of scientists constructing anartificial person, an android that mimics human thought andbehavior. They give their creation a body that appears veryhuman-like from the outside, even though it is made frommechanical and electrical components, not biological tissue.

The android's “brain” is an advanced computer, carrying outalgorithms, programs, neural networks, and other sophisticatedinformation processing techniques. The android can perceivethe world around him by means of his camera-eyes andmicrophone-ears. Further, he can understand what this sensorydata means, being able to recognize objects in the environmentand reconcile them with previously learned concepts. He canunderstand and generate speech, with the ability to carry onintelligent conversations. In short, the scientists design theircreation to interact in the world the same way as you and I.

But most important, the android is designed such that he canmonitor everything about his internal information processing.He knows the exact status of each and every digital bit andanalog signal. He can observe the raw information gathered byhis electronic senses, monitor its consolidation with previousmemories, and examine how it affects his current mental status.There is nothing about his internal computational activities thathe does not know. If you offer the android a cup of tea, he willsend it away with a wave of his hand, and then apologeticallytell you that he does not drink. But then he can discuss with youin the finest detail the billions of computer operations that wereneeded to carry out these actions. This is what we will refer toas a fully-aware being, a computational machine having acomplete and detailed knowledge of its internal states.

Of course, such a creation is far beyond our currenttechnology; however, it appears that this is a clear and directextension of our present capabilities. Those that work incomputer science expect that this will come about as computersbecome more sophisticated, and few knowledgeable people


would disagree. In addition, it is within the realm of possibilitythat a biological creature could be a fully-aware being. Forinstance, in the future we may encounter extraterrestrial alienswith the ability to monitor their inner mental operations to thelast detail. Even stranger, one day we may be able to modifythe human brain to be fully-aware. This premise is the topic ofthe next chapter.

For now, our concern is with the fully-aware android,something that science will be capable of developing at sometime in the future. The question we want to pose and examineis this: Is this android conscious?

How the Traditional View is MistakenThe “traditional view” of consciousness tells us no, there is

nothing contained within this android that could result in itbeing conscious. According to this view, consciousness issomething above and beyond computations and informationprocessing; it is something “extra” that must be added. Tocomplete their creation, the scientists must open the android'shead and pour in a quart of "consciousness stuff," so to speak.Without this extra ingredient the android is nothing but acollection of mindless gears and cogs.

The rationale behind this view is very straightforward. Theworld of science sees the brain as a machine. In contrast,introspection sees a mind that cannot be reduced to machineoperations. In fact, the mind has aspects that cannot be reducedto anything; such things as qualia, mental unity, and semanticthought are irreducible. Therefore, according to the traditionalview, consciousness must be something in addition to themachine-like operation of the brain.

Of course, this is where the bottom falls out. The problemsassociated with this traditional view are severe and deep. Forinstance, if consciousness is something beyond informationprocessing, why is there not the slightest scientific evidence forthis “extra thing?” Worse yet, how can something that is notdetectable by science interact so easily with the human body?


And just as troubling, why should we have this "consciousnessstuff" at all? If information processing is sufficient to controlour behaviors for mating, escaping enemies, and finding food,why would evolution give us consciousness in the first place?The traditional view is filled with these types of seeminglyunsolvable problems. The more you try to grasp the thing, themore it slips through your fingers.

And here is the reason why. The traditional view ofconsciousness is based on a flawed assumption, the same errormade by the alien visiting the special children. Consciousnessis not some entity beyond full-awareness. Rather, it is alimitation, a deficit in one’s ability to perceive and understandoneself. Introspection sees the mind as being irreduciblebecause of these limitations, not because an extra entity ispresent. Consciousness is not created by adding something tofull awareness; it is created by taking something away.

As an example of this, our fully aware android perceives theworld through his camera-eyes and microphone-ears. Just as inhumans, this raw sensory information must be processed beforeit is meaningful. For instance, the visual field must be brokeninto regions of similar color and texture, these regions groupedtogether into objects, and the objects recognized. Lastly, therelevance of the objects must be evaluated. Is this a face?Whose face is it? Is this an enemy or a friend? Hearing and theother senses have a similar hierarchy of information processing.

The important point is that our fully-aware android canperceive and understand each and every step in this process. Hecan perceive it all, from the raw data, through the intermediatestages, to the final result. If we show him a picture of GeorgeWashington, he will not only recognize it, but can tell us in thefinest detail how he recognizes it. By definition, this is what itmeans for our android to be fully-aware.

But now we want to give our android a human-like mentalexperience. We do this by blocking his ability to perceive thelower stages of this information processing. We allow him toexperience the result of the process, but not the process itself.


To test our modifications we show him the picture of GeorgeWashington and ask him what he sees. As before he tells usthat the face is of the first president of the United States. Butwhen we ask him how he knows this, we receive a blankexpression. He does not know how he knows, only that he doesknow. The experience of seeing and recognizing the face hascome to him without explanation, support, or evidence; it justappears in his mental processes. The experience that “this isGeorge Washington” is now an irreducible part of his world.While our fully aware android saw the event as nothing butInformation, our “conscious” android experiences it as anElement-of reality. This is the Principle of Relative Reductionin its most basic form, a blockage of Information flow resultingin pure Information becoming an Element-of-reality.

The Inner Light Theory tells us that human consciousnessis something less than full-awareness, not something more. Ifwe were fully-aware beings, we would know each and everyoperation being carried out by our brains, from the firing ofindividual nerve cells in our sensory organs, to the large-scalepatterns of neural activity that represent our higher thoughts.There would be no mystery to our minds whatsoever;introspection would provide a complete and detailedunderstanding of exactly what we are.

But of course, this isn’t our nature. Our physiology does notallow us to be fully-aware; the information in our brains issegmented into local groups without global accessibility. Thelow-level workings of the brain cannot be examined by thehigh-level workings. We do not know how we recognize a face,experience pain, or develop a thought, only that we can do thesethings. Our internal mental world appears to us as resultswithout process, conclusions without justification, and thingsthat exist in themselves without a supporting structure.Therefore, all of these things appear to the first-personperspective as irreducible. However, this is not because theyare entities above and beyond the brain’s activities, but becauseof the brain’s limited ability to perceive its own operation.


Seeing the Forest Between the TreesWhy have we been mistaken about this for so long? Why

is it not obvious that consciousness is a limitation and not“something extra?” Perhaps for the same reasons that the alienmisunderstood the special children.

First, in order to see consciousness as a limitation, we mustcompare the human mind with a fully-aware being. Trying tocompare it with a lesser computational machine, such as abusiness computer, is meaningless. Unfortunately, no humanhas ever had direct contact with a fully-aware being; we knowthem only through our imagination and thoughts. If fully-awarebeings lived among us, perhaps it would be obvious that ourminds are limited compared to their computational powers, notthe other way around. In other words, understanding the natureof the mind requires a reference point, and this reference pointis something we have little experience with.

Second, human nature itself predisposes us to think of themind as something beyond the neural machinery of the brain.As one example, consider how we cope with death. Humans aresocial creatures, forming their lives around closely wovencircles of family and friends. These relationships and bonds areoften viewed as the most important things in our lives. Butdeath rips this apart, attacking the survivors on a fundamentallevel. However, this extreme loss and pain can be minimizedby the simplest of acts, merely believing that the mind of thedeparted still survives in some manner. Nature literally torturessome people into believing that consciousness is somethingbeyond the physical body.

Third, as previously discussed, it is human nature to thinkof voids, missing regions, deficits, and limitations as positiveentities. For instance, a doughnut is thought of as a piece ofsweetened bread, plus a hole. And there is nothing wrong withthis; it simplifies our understanding of the world. The problemis, this predisposition to “positive entities” can bias our analysisof the world. An unexplained phenomenon is inherently viewed


Major Teaching #7:The Definition of Consciousness

Consciousness is the irreducible entity a computationalmachine perceives itself to be, as the result of (1) anability to observe its own high-level workings, and (2) aninability to observe its own low-level workings.

as a “thing,” rather than a “void.” We must overcome thisinherent prejudice to see limitations as they truly are.

But regardless of the reason, the traditional view ofconsciousness is mistaken. The first-person perspective seesthe mind as irreducible because of its limited observationalpower, not because additional entities are present. This pavesthe way for stating a formal definition of consciousness, ourseventh major teaching:

The Tale of Big Head BillThis concise definition accounts for consciousness from the

third-person view. That is, it provides purely physical reasonswhy humans claim to have inner experiences involvingElements-of-reality. But now our task is to examine thisexplanation from the first-person perspective. This places usface-to-face with the most difficult aspect of the mind,explaining the personal and private view we have of ourselves.In the end, each of us will look at the arguments presented andask the questions: Does this explain what I feel, what I perceive,what I experience? Does this unify my objective knowledge ofscience with my subjective knowledge from introspection? Andthe most basic question: Is this really what I am?

This leaves us with a difficult task, trying to touch one’sinnermost thoughts and feelings using a grossly inadequate tool,language. How can we explain the feeling of pain, or what it islike to see blue, or what it means to freely make a decision?


The arguments of science, rational as they may be, seemineffective at doing this. They simply do not connect with ourinner world in a way that makes us proclaim, Yes, this describeswhat I am. But if this can’t be done through the power ofrational arguments, how can it be done at all?

Fortunately, this is not as hopeless as it may sound; artistsand poets make their living by invoking and controlling ourintrospective experiences. And this is the same course we musttake to understand the mind from the first-person view. Wemust use words to invoke and control our introspective imagery,allowing us to experience the concepts, rather than just knowingthem by formal logic and rational thought. Such is the strategyof the next chapter, The Tale of Big Head Bill.

This is the story of a man being transformed from a normalhuman into a fully-aware being. In essence, this is a journeyacross the gap separating the first and third-person views of themind. Our title character starts with the same introspectiveexperiences as you and I, such indescribable things as free-will,mental unity, semantic thought and so on. But then an aliendrug changes his brain structure, allowing him to perceive themental processes that are blocked in normal humans. Step bystep he comes to know the true nature of his introspectiveworld, a hierarchy where thoughts, feelings, and judgements arebuilt upon basic computational processes. As he reaches full-awareness, he perceives and understands his mind in the sameway as one observing him from the outside. He has crossed thegap, unifying the first and third person views of the mind. Nowlet’s hear about the journey in his own words.

157

10 The Tale of Big Head Bill

The Alien DrugI once was like you, a mere human, common in every way.

My thoughts were filled with events of the day, dinner plans,my wife in her new red dress, the faces of my children. I wasa psychologist by trade. What a wonderful thing to happen toone who studies the mind. Even now it is hard for me to believethat the adventure only began a year ago, the day the alien probereached earth, the first day of my unimaginable new life. Myname is Bill, and I would like to tell you my story.

We still do not know what race of beings sent the probe, orwhy it only contained a single vial of pills. They must havemeant it as a gift. I certainly accept it as such, the mostincredible gift ever received by a human. My colleagues wereeventually able to analyze the drug, at least in part. They foundit to be similar to DNA, but far more complex, and probablycreated by engineering rather than evolution. Our own DNAcontains the blueprint to create a human brain in the developingfetus. As we soon found, the alien drug was capable of creatinga better brain. Many volunteered to take the drug, but I wasaccorded the honor and accepted it gladly.

The first changes were dramatic, but not necessarily outsidethe realm of common experience. I would describe it as agreatly heightened awareness, much like being under theinfluence of a strong stimulant. I was more awake that I haveever been in my life. It seemed I was conscious of everythingI saw, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched. I understood andscrutinized every word that was spoken to me. I continuallyperceived details that others soon ignored, such as the drip of a


leaky faucet or the smell of a stuffy room. My thoughts wereclear and open to introspection. I liked it; it seemed to be mynormal human mind operating at its fullest capacity.

But soon I realized that more was going on than merestimulation of my existing abilities; the boundaries of myawareness were expanding. I began to understand processes inmy mind that were previously unknown to me; portions of myunconscious were gradually becoming conscious. It was as if adense fog had always hidden the foundations of my mind. Day-by-day the mist dissipated, allowing me to perceive the vast andwondrous network that creates who I am.

Decisions, Thoughts, and Emotions During the first few weeks I came to fully understand my

thoughts and decision making. These are the most complex andabstract processes in my mental world, lying just outside of myoriginal awareness. For instance, news reporters frequently askme why I decided to take the alien drug. Before the changes Icould only give them vague answers. I knew beyond doubt thatit must be done, but how and why I came to this conclusionseemed unexplainable. My decisions came to me without basisor reason; they just appeared in my consciousness. But the aliendrug provided total clarity. I now can see that my mind hasbeen shaped by decades of human experience, from playingwith the toys in my crib, to struggling with calculus in college.My thoughts originate and are shaped by the totality of thisaccumulated knowledge, and my expanded mind can perceiveit all. I could now write a book on why I decided to take thedrug, outlining my reasons in the finest detail, citing theinfluence of every experience in my life. It became so obvious,once the cloud obscuring the workings of my mind was finallylifted.

Perhaps most enlightening of all, I learned that my emotionsare nothing more than decisions. Let me relate an example frommy life. I was walking home late one night in a rather bad partof the city, when a robber approached me and demanded

159Chapter 10: The Tale of Big Head Bill

money. My mind was overwhelmed with the threat, therobber’s gun, his large physical size, the threatened violence inhis voice. I knew in the next few moments I could be injured orkilled. The terrible injustice of the act also permeated mythoughts. I thought of the robber running free only to attack mywife or children on another day, and how I could rid society ofthis filth by overwhelming my enemy. Then my mind becamefilled with childhood memories of being beaten by theplayground bully, and the fear and shame that remains with meto this day. The flood of thoughts seemed uncontrollable, aninternal struggle between two courses of action, attack or flee,attack or flee, attack or flee. I decided to attack. And with thatdecision my mind and body prepared for the combat; adrenalinepoured, my heart raced, and I became angry, very very angry.My thoughts were singular, destroy the threat; nothing elsemattered.

I lunged at the robber and was shot in the arm. Searing painengulfed me, and my thoughts rushed in reevaluation. I wasgoing to die if I didn’t do something quickly. I realized that Icould not win; my death would be meaningless. My wife andchildren would be devastated. I did not want to die. And withthat realization my mental state changed to terror. All I couldthink of was getting away. Fear controlled me; it overwhelmedmy thoughts. Run; get away; don’t provoke; be submissive;escape at all costs.

Fortunately, the robber was even more afraid than I, and ranquickly from the scene. The whole episode took only a fewseconds. Any normal person, such as myself before the change,would have shown the same anger and fear that I experienced.But a normal person would have experienced them blindly, notunderstanding the logic or reasoning behind the emotions. Theywould not understand that the threat demanded a decision forsurvival, and that the decision had only two answers, fight orflight. The decision to fight resulting in the body and mindbeing prepared for combat, the mind set to overcome theobstacle by force or violence, the essence of anger. The


decision for flight being manifest as fear, the overwhelmingurge to escape or flee.

But I am no longer a normal person. My experience ofemotion is not limited to the result of the decision; I canexamine the decision process itself. Emotions such as fear,anger, sadness and love had always puzzled me before thechange. They seemed mysterious and unexplainable, as familiaras anything can be, yet seemingly defiant of scientificdescription. But the alien drug has allowed me to see that thismystery is one of concealment. The boundaries of myawareness have now expanded beyond the obscuring veil, andI perceive emotions no differently than conscious decisions.

Bulging Eyes and Big HeadThe physical changes began a few months after I took the

drug. My rapidly expanding consciousness was made possibleby tremendous growth of my brain and other nervous systemtissues. The simplest description is that all of my neuralpathways doubled, forming two separate networks with eachbeing able to monitor the other. As I was soon to experience,this allowed my mind to become aware of each and everyoperation being carried out by within my brain. Eventually thisduplication extended to all parts of my nervous system, frommy brain, through my spinal cord, to the very sensory cells inmy skin. My eyes bulged from the duplication of the nervecells in my retinas; my skin and tongue swelled to twice theirnormal size. Most disfiguring of all was the increased size ofmy head, needed to accommodate the doubling of my brain.Soon the press had given me a new name, fitting of myappearance and mental abilities. I became Big Head Bill.

The Cup of TeaDay-by-day my awareness grew, expanding downward

through the hierarchy of my mental functions. First came anunderstanding of the highest operations, as I have alreadydescribed, such things as decision making, thoughts and


emotions. But then I became aware of something even moreincredible, the vast and complex network upon which thesehigher functions are built. As I gaze out over my mind Ibecome breathless with astonishment, perceiving billions uponbillions of neurons interconnected by trillions upon trillions ofdata paths. Over the weeks and months I gradually came toknow that this was my mind, from the raw information passingthrough my spinal cord, to the subtlest thought in my cerebralcortex.

Of course, you cannot know these things as I do; your mindis still within the fog. But let me try to explain what I havelearned, what I now know from direct experience. As anexample, this morning at breakfast I observed a tea cup restingon a table. Before I tell you how I perceived this situation,consider how you or any normal human would have reacted.Your immediate conscious impression would be one ofrecognizing the object and its environment. Within a secondyou would say to yourself, “Ah ha, this is a tea cup resting ona table.” This knowledge enters your thoughts withoutexplanation; it seems to just appear.

But that is your experience, not mine. My consciousnessoperates on a time scale of milliseconds, the interval requiredfor individual nerve cells to fire. I am fully aware of themillions of operations taking place to develop the finalconclusion, all compressed into the first second of observation.I perceive my eyes detecting light from the scene, and the imagedata passing along my optic nerves to my brain. I witness theextraction of features by my neural processing, the legs on thetable, the handle of the cup, the smell of the tea. I then see it allcome together, the neural activity combining and intertwiningto provide me with the final conclusion, this is a tea cup restingon a table. There is nothing magical or sudden about the finalrecognition I perceive; I am conscious of each step, decision,and criterion upon which it is based.


Intelligence and MemorySurprisingly, these magnificent changes to my brain and

consciousness have not made me smarter, not even in theslightest. I play chess with my teenage son, and usually lose,just as a few years ago. Don’t bother asking me about politics,mathematics, or God; I don’t know anything more than you.What I do know in fine detail is the inner operation of my mind,from the firing of individual neurons in my toes, to myappreciation of the beauty of an ocean sunset.

You may question how I can be aware of everything withinmy mind but not be any smarter than a normal person. Forinstance, how can I be conscious of every action needed torecognize the face of my child, but not be an expert in thescience of facial identification? The answer lies in the neuralnetwork of my brain, the structure creating my mind. Iperceive the raw neural signals passing from my senses to mybrain, where they enter a network of billions of nerve cells. Iwatch the patterns unfold and congeal as the signals pass fromlayer to layer. I can focus my attention on each operation, fromthe firing of individual nerve cells, to the massive coordinatedactivity of my cerebral cortex. I can see it all, unfolding step bystep, neuron by neuron, layer by layer.

But this is far from a complete description of the process;a key ingredient is missing, the synaptic weights. As youprobably know, this refers to the strength of the connectionsbetween neurons, the fundamental way that the brain remembersits experiences. I am fully aware of these weighting factors andcan observe their effect on my mental operations. I can alsoperceive how each new experience slightly changes the synapticweights, incorporating the new data into my accumulatedknowledge. However, I have no idea whatsoever of why theweights that exist in my brain are as they are. They appearalmost random to my inspection. Thus you see, I am aware ofeverything that occurs in my brain as it exists today. But sinceI don’t know how my synaptic weights came to be as they are,I can tell you little about the science of information processing.


My Senses When I was a normal human my awareness was bounded,

limited to the short distance I could see through the fog thatfilled my mind. And as you know from your own experience,this boundary is not sharp, but a gradual transition from whatone is aware of, to what one is not aware of. The boundary isan obscuring haze, not a rigid wall. You might say that normalconsciousness has fuzzy edges. This was the nature of my minda year ago, and your mind today.

I tell you this so that you might better appreciate what Ihave become. Day by day the alien drug expanded theboundaries of my awareness, gradually encompassing more andmore of the underpinnings of my mind. This process eventuallybecame complete, and I gained an awareness of each and everyevent occurring within my brain and other nervous tissues.Today my awareness is also bounded, but the enclosed arena isimmensely larger than anything your limited mind can imagine.The boundaries of my awareness now corresponding to eachand every nerve cell in my body, no more and no less.

Let me try to tell you what this is like. Imagine that you andI are on a tropical island, surrounded by palm trees and sandybeaches. We both sense exactly the same things, the sound ofthe surf, the warmth of the sun, the smell of bananas and theocean. Your eyes and ears and other senses receive the sameinformation as mine; we are equal in our ability to gatherknowledge about our environment. Further, we process this datain exactly the same way, and come to the same conclusion, weare on a tropical island surrounded by palm trees and sandybeaches. This is what we know, based on the informationgathered by our five senses.

But here is where you and I differ; you know nothing butthis conclusion; you have no awareness of how it wasdeveloped. The image of the palm tree and the sound of the surfsimply appear in your mind without any apparent steps,procedures, or effort. You are astonished that objects from theexternal physical world can somehow exist within your mental


reality. Of course, I have no such limitation; I can trace thecontent of my mind back to its very origin, the firing ofindividual nerve cells in my sensory organs.

You see the sun as yellow, a single color that is inseparableand irreducible. I see the sun as simultaneously red and green,starting at the individual cones in the retinas of my eyes. Youperceive the nearby trees as objects from the outside world, withbeautiful green leaves and the distinctive smell of ripe oranges.I have these same perceptions, down to the last detail. But I canalso see these things for what they truly are, constructs createdby my mind, formed from the coordinated activity of billions ofneurons. The greenness of the leaves and the smell of theoranges originate from within myself, not the outside world. Ican trace their emergence through the sea of my neural activity,back to their birth at my senses.

Full-AwarenessMake no mistake, I have not lost anything in the

transformation; I have only gained. I can still appreciate thebeauty of a sunset, just as you. My anger flares in the face ofinjustice, and I love my wife even more than before. I stillknow what it is like to have ordinary consciousness, the way Ionce was; all I have to do is close my mind to the knowledgegiven me. But why would I want to? I am a blind man that hasbeen given sight. Today I am aware of everything in my brain,down to the firing of each individual nerve cell. I can direct myattention to the raw signals coming from my eyes and ears, orexamine the root of my emotions. I watch with awe as neuralpatterns emerge to recognize the face of my grandmother, thesmell of popcorn, or the gentle pressure of my child’s touch.Each decision I make can be analyzed in the fullest detail, be itthe primitive act of emotion, or the kind of food to eat fordinner. I understand it all, and can explain it to you in whateverdetail you like; it is no mystery whatsoever. I am Big HeadBill, a fully-aware being.

165

11 Epilogue

The Disturbing PartWe ended Chapter 1 with the fundamental question: What

is consciousness? Step by step we have developed the answerto this ancient riddle, as formalized in Chapter 9:

Consciousness is the irreducible entity a computationalmachine perceives itself to be, as the result of (1) anability to observe its own high level workings, and (2) aninability to observe its own low level workings.

This is a far-reaching idea, capable of merging the manyfacets of the mystery into a unified framework. It defines whatconsciousness is from the third-person view, including how toclassify nonhuman computational machines that we mayencounter in the future. At the same time it describes the natureof the first-person experience, where we each see our own mindas a "thing" rather than mere computational activity. And mostimportant, the Inner Light theory tells us why there should be amind-body problem in the first place, why this paradox is anunavoidable result of the evolutionary process and the way thatreality is experienced.

However, this step forward also has a dark side, an aspectthat many will find distasteful and disturbing. Man has alwaysbelieved that he holds a special place in the universe. Sciencehas often had the unpleasant task of showing that this belief ismistaken, thereby demoting us to a lower status in the schemeof things. For instance, 500 years ago Copernicus showed thatthe earth revolved around the sun, thereby displacing man from


the center of the cosmos. Only 150 years ago, Darwindiscovered that humans have a common origin with the otherlife forms on earth, thereby denying our claim of special birth.In the last century, science has shown that the universe is ahundred billion trillion miles across, and 10 billion years old.The shear size of these numbers seems to reduce mankind to aninsignificant speck.

But through these disappointments we have been able tocling to a reassuring fact, we are conscious. While the universeis vast and ancient, it is unfeeling and unaware. This means thatour minds entail something that is rare and remarkable,something that we do not see in the largest galaxy or the mostbrilliant supernova. We are conscious, and that makes usspecial.

Now, the Inner Light theory does not deny that we areconscious. On the contrary, it provides a scientific explanationof the inner world that we each experience, showing how it ispart of our physical universe. Likewise, the Inner Light theorydoes not question that consciousness is extraordinary; presentday computer scientists are awestruck by the technical abilitiesof the human mind.

But make no mistake, the Inner Light theory does dispatchmany of our long held beliefs. Specifically, consciousness isnot some mystical entity above and beyond the machine-likeoperations of the brain. Likewise, it does not require physicalstructures or properties that are unknown or unreachable byscience, be they from Quantum Mechanics or an unseen spiritworld. But perhaps most disconcerting, the Inner Light Theorytells us that many revered aspects of our mind are limitations,not positive attributes. Such things as semantic thought, mentalunity, and free-will arise from systematic inaccuracies in ourobservations. It is ironic that the things we have come tocherish the most are, in fact, the inherent deficits of our mind.

Herein lies the rub. If human consciousness is based onlimitations, then we can imagine something greater thanourselves, a self-awareness that does not have these limitations.

167Chapter 11: Epilogue

Even further, we have every reason to believe that manmadecomputers will one day achieve this superior status, as mayextraterrestrial beings, or altered humans. Consciousness canno longer be viewed as a pinnacle or crowning achievement, butmust be accepted as merely one level in an infinite progressionof computational complexity.

As with the work of Copernicus and Darwin in centuriespast, the Inner Light theory displaces man from yet anotherspecial place in the universe. Science is often a cruel master,forcing us to accept that which we disdain. But the universe iswhat it is, and no amount of cursing at the round earth willcause it to become flat.


Index

Action potential, 24-30, 42Airy disk, 73-75Ambiguous figures, 130-131Aphasia, 37-38Assembly instructions (defined), 7-12

Blind spot in eye, 106-109Bohr, Niels, 73, 76Boring figure, 131Brain in the vat, 87-91, 96, 99, 100, 105Broca’s area (brain), 33-34, 37

Candle flame example, 18-19, 71Cerebellum (brain), 33-34Cerebral cortex (brain), 32-34Chalmers, David J., 69Change blindness, 108-112Chinese box, 64-65Churchland, Patricia, 2, 62-63Classical physics, 54Collapse of the wave function, 75-79Color perception, 115-122, 164Communications channel, 12-14, 23, 57Corpus callosum, 32, 35-37 Crick, Francis, 71

Death, 154Dennett, Daniel, 67Descartes, René, 35, 83-88

Deterministic, 54Dreams, 1, 17, 68, 99-105, 112-114, 138-140Drugs, 38, 40Dualism, 67, 68-69, 80, 86

Edelman, Gerald M., 71Einstein, Albert, 15, 52, 60-61, 76, 81-83Elements-of-reality (defined), 11 Emergence, 7, 17-20, 42, 67, 71-72, 80 Emotions, 38, 40, 158-160Empedocles, 15Epileptic seizures, 36, 37Epiphenomenalism, 67, 69-70, 80Evil genius (Descartes’), 83-85, 88, 96, 99, 100Evolution, 115, 166-167

Filtering (sensory analysis), 126-129First-person (defined), 21, 45Free-will, 2, 45, 53-55, 56, 59, 63Frontal cortex (brain), 33-36Fully-aware being, 150-151, 153-154, 156, 164Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), 3Functionalism, 43

Gage, Phineas, 34-36, 41Galileo Galilei, 1, 54

169

Gestalt, 17Godel, Kurt, 93Godel Incompleteness Theorems, 93Grandfather clock example, 7-8, 16-17Gravity, 11, 82-83Gray matter (brain), 32, 35

Hameroff, Stuart, 78Herbert, Nick, 76Heisenberg, Werner, 73, 76H.M. (medical case), 36, 41Heschl’s gyri (brain), 33-34Hippocampus (brain), 35-36Hourglass example, 12-14

Idealism, 67-68, 77, 80Information (defined), 11-14Information-Limited Subreality (defined), 91-94Inner Light episode, 5, 94-97, 99, 100Inner observer (defined), 91-92Inner reality (defined), 92Interference (sensory analysis), 126, 129Introspection, 2, 21Irreducible (defined), 11, 45

Jackson, Frank, 64

LaBerge, Stephen, 102Language, 36, 37-38, 104Life, the problem of, 58Lucid dreams, 102-104

Magneto-Encephalography, 3Major Teachings #1. How We Understand Reality, 20 #2. Definition of the Mind-body problem, 66 #3. The Principle of Relative Reduction, 98

#4. The Subreality Machine in the Brain, 102 #5. The Origin of our Conscious Experience, 114 #6. The Function of the Subreality Machine, 136 #7. Definition of Consciousness, 155Mary, color blind scientist, 64Matching (sensory analysis), 126-133Materialism, 67, 80Memory, 31-32, 40, 41, 104, 134-135, 136-138Mental unity, 45, 50, 59, 63, 146Mind-body problem (defined), 2, 62Mona Lisa, 106-107Motor cortex (brain), 32-33Multiple sclerosis, 26Myelin, 26, 32

Nagel, Thomas, 63Neural correlates of consciousness, 3Neural network, 30, 32, 40, 71, 162Nerve cells (neurons), 24-30 Neurotransmitter, 28, 38Nodes of Ranvier, 26Noise, 127, 129

Observer (defined), 81-83, 92, 146-147Occipital lobe (brain), 33, 35Outer observer (defined), 91-92Outer reality (defined), 92

Paradox vs. simple ignorance, 57-58Parkinson’s disease, 35Penrose, Roger, 78, 79Phase lock loop, 128-130Pineal gland (brain), 35, 86Present tense, 45, 52-53, 56, 59


Principle of Relative Reduction, 5, 96-98, 153Positron Emission Tomography (PET), 3Principle of Relative Reduction, 96-98, 143-144

Quantum-gravity, 78Quantum Mechanics, 5-6, 17, 54-55, 67, 72-79, 80Quarks, 15Qualia, 45, 47-49, 56, 59, 63, 146

Reality (defined), 11Reduction, 7-22, 42 Relativity, 5-6, 17, 60-61, 81-83Religion, 69Rubin’s vase, 131

Sagan, Carl, 68Scott, Alywn, 71Searle, John R., 64-65Self-awareness, 141Semantic thought, 45, 50-52, 56, 59, 63, 65, 146Sensory cortex (brain), 32-33

Special child, 148-149, 154Split-brain patients, 36, 37, 41Star Trek, 5, 94-97, 99, 100Strings, 15Subreality machine, 102, 105-106Substantia nigra (brain), 35Synapse, 24, 26-32Synaptic weights, 30-32, 162Synesthesia, 38-40

Taylor, John G., 71Thalamus, 35Third-person (defined), 21, 23Time, 11, 52-53, 88Twin paradox, 60-61

Unconscious, 100-101, 105

Ventricles (brain), 35Vital force (of life), 58Von Neumann, John, 77, 78

Wave function, 75Wernicke’s area (brain), 33, 37-38, 41White matter (brain), 32, 35

Documents

The Inner Light Theory of Consciousness